Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive

New York Times ^ | August 21, 2005 | JODI WILGOREN

[Nicholas Conradin]

By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

[Texas_Conservative2]

actually neither side should be taught.

if you teach that a god created the universe... you are promoting promoting the religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism.

if you teach that nothing created the universe... you are promoting the religion of atheism.

[proxy_user]

I find this agreeable because it annoys the guys at the NYTimes. How and why life evolved is of some interest, but it is not really a political issue......until the liberal establishment made it one.

[longshadow]

who's got the links that show the Discovery Institute is funded by the Moonies?

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[podkane]

actually neither side should be taught. if you teach that a god created the universe... you are promoting promoting the religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism. if you teach that nothing created the universe... you are promoting the religion of atheism.

That's why you keep religion out of it, and stick with evidence. Why people insist on demoting Scripture to the level of ludicrous science text is beyond me...

[PatrickHenry]

who's got the links that show the Discovery Institute is funded by the Moonies?

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells, Moonie.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father [Rev. Sun Myung Moon] chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. Wells is a Senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Creationism by Stealth. Critique of Icons of Evolution.

[claptrap]

If evolution occurs why has it stopped why arent ants getting bigger or why arent more kinds of fish learning to fly come on hard hats why?

[claptrap]

What evidence? Where is any evidence? The iguanas on Galapogos mate and still they produce little iguanas.
There is no evidence you have pure speculative deductions from rocks which may or may not be as old as you might say they are!

[VadeRetro]

Very revealing. The more you know about these guys, the more you know it's all a crock.

[PatrickHenry]

The more you know about these guys, the more you know it's all a crock.

Yes, but it's a crock with a lot of followers who want to believe, and who aren't very good in the thinking department. And they vote.

[Timmy]

Rather like a liberal. Attack the person instead of his arguments. The most zealous proponents of Darwinism are committed atheists who don't care what the evidence for the theory is, it is true because there is simply no other way. OK, Wells may be religious. So what. Dawkins is an atheist. Now, let's get back to the debate on the issues.

Until you can tell me how Darwinism can be falsified (lack of fossil record and transitional creatures didn't seem to do it), I really don't see how you can make fun of ID that it isn't "science."

[Vive ut Vivas]

Do you know anything about biology and evolution? At all?

[bkepley]

and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive

Why should they be defensive if it's all as clear as E=MC^2? I read not too long ago in one of the science magazines that it might be theoretically possible for advanced beings to create mini-universes.

[VadeRetro]

Until you can tell me how Darwinism can be falsified (lack of fossil record and transitional creatures didn't seem to do it), I really don't see how you can make fun of ID that it isn't "science."

If lack of a fossil record and transitional creatures is a prediction of ID, then ID is falsified.

[PatrickHenry]

Until you can tell me how Darwinism can be falsified

The fossil record could falsify evolution, if it fails to show that species developed in the expected sequence. But this never happens. DNA could have falsified evolution, by showing no genetic relationship as expected from the fossil record. But DNA confirms evolution. Evolution passes every possible test that comes along. If you want to see a tiny bit of the evidence that exists:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Pure speculative deductions? Welcome to modern physics. We have carbon 14, uranium-thorium-lead, and potassium-argon. Far from being "pure speculative deductions".

[Timmy]

Ahhh. Vade. Back with your endless links of info which are a bore and waste of time. Let us use our own words, rather than constantly link to the rants of others. Please answer my question. What would falsify Darwinism? I once asked an evolutionist that question in a public debate. Her answer? "I suppose if I saw life, suddenly created before me from nothing, that would do it." This is science? Note that her answer doesn't even make sense as it would, perhaps, prove creation, but would do nothing to falsify Darwinism.

So, let's have your cut. If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, right?

[Redgirl]

if you teach that nothing created the universe... you are promoting the religion of atheism.
ToE doesn't address origin, just how matter evolved over time. It doesn't promote nor deny the existence of God.

[Vive ut Vivas]

But DNA confirms evolution.

This is the part that I see ID advocates forget all the time. They go on and on about the fossil record - which supports the theory - but even if it didn't, DNA is like a track-record of evolution.