Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea

Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

[shuckmaster]

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.

[Thatcherite]

I have just received the following private mail from SmartCitizen, which I think should be shared with all:

"That you are a hateful bigot is noted. My refusal to answer you in no way gives any credit to your biased position."

I look forward to debating you in crevo threads in future.

[Stultis]

Pole-vaulting over mouse tirds now are we? I didn't mean "ALL" in the literal sense. I meant a review of the basic tenets of course. My central point remains. What are you, some sort of pedantic coxcomb?

Thanks for the clarification. I do often indulge in pedantry, but I hope you'll forgive me in this case. You did contribute to the confusion by capitalizing "ALL," which normally suggests something like, "I really, really mean what I'm saying with this word." I did consider it unlikely that you really meant that, except you responded to Ichneumon's quite explicit presentation on its absurdity without indicating in any way that you really meant "the basic tenets". All you said was:

They are not presented with all of the evidence for evolution now, so this is a poor argument.

Which at best was ambiguous, but could be easily taken as "they're not now, but they should be."

Ooops. Checking the thread before I post and noticed you've left in a huff. And just when were getting some issues clarified. Well, get over yourself and enjoy the weekend!

[Stultis]

I have never been called a blackguard before.

Just damn, SC, he's gonna be full of himself for weeks now and it's all your fault.

[Thatcherite]

I don't think God deniers and evolutionists have ever stopped to look up at the firmament on a clear dark night.

I am glad that you are aware and honest enough to consider God deniers and evolutionists to be distinct groups. However you are wrong when you say that we don't look into the sky on a clear night. This particular member of both of the above groups has spent a great deal of time looking at the sky at night. It is a passion of mine.

If they were to do so, they might rethink their arrogant beliefs on how the universe and life began.

And why is that? I doubt for example that you are any more awestruck and filled with wonder at the marvels of the cosmos than I am.

[Thatcherite]

Just damn, SC, he's gonna be full of himself for weeks now and it's all your fault.

And how exactly could SC be more full of himself?

[js1138]

That would lead us into scatology.

[Thatcherite]

ROFL. That was nasty, I have a cold and now you've given me a coughing fit.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A lack of evidence for a flood is evidence for the lack of a flood.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Could have been just noodling around with the universe.

[js1138]

I had this image of a snake eating it's tail, except instead of a snake, I saw a popular candy bar. It was an inspired vision, I think.

[js1138]

You are definitely the Anti-Pasta.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Good points. As an example, I once saw an interview with Shirley McClain on TV. She spent some time babbling about quantum mechanics. Then she discussed some of the methodology of acting. The acting discussion was quite well done but the QM was just junk. Her inability to know which is which makes her a kook (but a pretty kook who can act.)

[dread78645]

10 pounds in a 5 pound sack placemark.

[js1138]

Not very convincing as Japanese, however.

[Gumlegs]

You can twist and shout as you like. I was addressing one statement and one statement only. I will leave it to the others here to decide for themselves whether the flat statement you made in post 197 to this thread, "Read the first amendment -- only Congress can establish a national religion," betrays an understanding of the Constitution, or a new frontier in delusional thinking.

Just to clarify, what I was getting at should be clear to any sentient posters. Here's my original reply to you and Ichneumon in post 250 (Your remarks in italics):

Here is precisely what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng[sic] the free exercise thereof."

Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion?

Now that we've seen you interpret "Congress shall make no law" as meaning "Only Congress shall make a law," we're beginning to understand your other posts.

Notice, I wrote nothing about anyone else making a law or establishing a religion. Perhaps the opportunity to mock words I never said was too good to pass up. In any case, your replied in post 257 (this time, with my remarks in italics), thusly:

Now that we've seen you interpret "Congress shall make no law" as meaning "Only Congress shall make a law," we're beginning to understand your other posts.

That is the plain meaning of the amendment. And we know that judges nor the executive branch, nor teachers, nor school districts, nor anyone else, has the authority to make law in the United States of America. The legislative branch and ONLY the legislative branch has that authority. Care to argue further? YOu don't have a constiuttional leg to stand on.

This is the point at which you tried to smuggle in the "who else makes laws" red herring.

Nice try.

I'm done posting to you on this ridiculous argument.

[Stultis]

How do you date fossils? you say “we found this fossil in this layer so it is this many years old”. How do you know how old each layers is? Well do you not say, “we know this layer is this old because of the fossils in it?”

A number of misconceptions here. First they don't date rocks by fossils in "this many years old". Sedimentary layers are dated chronologically by non-fossil means, for instance by radioactive isotope dating of lavas that underlie, overlie or cross cut the sedimentary layers.

Apart from such means the strata are only dated relative to each other. This is first done by purely lithographic means, that it by looking at the rocks themselves. If one strata lies on top of another strata, and shows evidence of having been deposited in that conformity, then the upper strata must be younger than the lower. Note please that there are many, many ways to determine if layers have been turned over (for instance the "up" side of the layer may have fossil footprints, rain-spatters, mud-cracks, wormholes, etc) or if the stratum was deposited conformably (for instance the upper layer may incorporate eroded elements from the lower strata) or if there was overthrusting, and so on. Geologists DO NOT just "assume" these things.

Now fossils only enter the picture as a tool for (relative) dating after -- I repeat, AFTER -- a clear and unequivocal lithostratigrapy has been worked out for a locality where the geology is straightforward, IOW after the rocks have been used to (relatively) date themselves based on principles of superposition. Then -- and ONLY in such a circumstance -- you can work out a biostratigraphy for the location. THIS IS A PURELY EMPIRCAL PROCESS of simply determining which if any fossils or combinations of fossils are unique to which if any layers or sequence of layers. Then the process is extended to other localities to find more general consistencies in the temporal distribution of fossil assemblages.

Let me emphasize that this can be done without assuming anything at all about how the fossils came to be in the rocks, or even what they are, let alone anything about their evolutionary relationships. For instance if you could somehow magically replace all the fossils with small ceramic plates each bearing a different (but otherwise random) number corresponding to the distinct fossil species each replaced, the method would work just as well and just the same.

There is nothing "circular" about this, and it is certainly completely independent of evolution. The ultimate evidence is that the method was confirmed and first used in a commercial enterprise (the surveying and digging of canals in England, and the ultimate production of a geological map of the country) by a creationist decades before Darwin. See the following thread for more:

The Map that Changed the World [in 1815] ^

Posted by PatrickHenry On News/Activism ^ 10/07/2005 5:59:37 AM CDT · 28 replies · 1,069+ views University at Buffalo ^ | 04 October 2005 | Staff BUFFALO, N.Y. -- When University at Buffalo planetary volcanologist Tracy Gregg mentioned at a recent geology conference that the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library was this fall exhibiting an original edition of the world's first geologic map, audience members were captivated. "People were coming up to me afterward, asking when would be the best time to come to Buffalo to see the map and what hotel should they stay at," she said. "I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of geologists end up coming to Buffalo to see it." This original, signed edition of the first series of geologic maps...

[Stultis]

As like in the circular logic used by the evolutionist? Dating the fossils by the layer they are found in and dating the layers by the fossils they contain.

Again it's not circular. But it's also incorrect to associate the applicable methods with evolutionists. They were invented by and used by creationists many decades before Darwin published his ideas.

[Stultis]

And how exactly could SC be more full of himself?

No, you. So, you deign to talk to a non-"blackguard", Mr. I'm-so-special? ;>

[Stultis]

I have just received the following private mail from SmartCitizen

Maybe you should send him the link for ALS's forum. He might be needing it...

[js1138]

Hasn't everyone been banned from there by now for heresy?