Oct. 18, 2005

Another Attack on Evolution

In the battles over evolution, it’s usually the critics of evolution who are accused of crossing church/state lines.

Looking for a job?

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,466
Administrative: 1,661
Executive: 159
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But last week, some of those critics filed suit in federal court against the University of California at Berkeley, charging that its views on evolution are leading it to violate the separation of church and state. Berkeley was sued for maintaining a Web site, Understanding Evolution, to help schoolteachers. The site contains a links section that notes the many religious organizations that have stated that faith is not incompatible with evolution, and these links violate the First Amendment, according to the suit.

While much of the debate over evolution is taking place in public schools, not colleges, the lawsuit is the latest example of how these discussions can spill into higher education — even when there is a wide and strongly held consensus among scientists backing evolution. In fact, this is the second lawsuit this year in which anti-evolution groups have gone after the University of California. The university system was sued in August over its refusal to certify high school courses on creationism and “intelligent design” as meeting the entry requirements for admission.

“These suits are attempts to bully academic institutions into compromising the science education that they provide, and I hope universities continue to stand up and not take it,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said that efforts to oppose evolution have already moved from elementary and secondary schools to theme parks and science museums “so it’s not surprising to see this directed at institutions of higher education.”

One irony of the Berkeley lawsuit is that science organizations have been calling on universities to sponsor projects that reach out to public schools to explain evolution. “Berkeley is doing exactly what it ought to be doing,” Leshner said.

The lawsuit charges otherwise. It was brought by Jeanne Caldwell, a California parent whose husband, Larry, is a lawyer, an anti-evolution activist, and the founder of a group called Quality Science Education for All. In an interview, Larry Caldwell, said he was not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which is leading much of the campaign against evolution, but within an hour of Caldwell talking to Inside Higher Ed, the Discovery Institute sent — unsolicited — material denouncing the Berkeley Web site.

Caldwell said that by linking to religious groups’ statements in favor of religion, Berkeley was “taking a position on evolution and attempting to persuade minor students to accept that position.” He said it was the “height of hypocrisy for this to be coming from people who claim that they are trying to keep religious instruction out of science class.” The suit was also filed against the National Science Foundation, which is providing some financial support for the Web site.

Asked if the links did not represent straightforward facts (that various religious groups do back evolution), Caldwell said that links should have been included to religious groups offering non-evolution views. He also objected to suggestions to teachers about how they can talk with students about views they have heard opposing evolution, and how teachers may need to respect religious sensibilities in some parts of the country and watch what they say.

Caldwell declined to discuss his views on the origins of life, but said, “I don’t think evolution provides a scientific explanation for the origin of life.” He said that he wasn’t trying to impose religious views. “I’m talking about fossil record,” he said. “I just don’t think the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong at all.”

The professors who run the Web site have been asked by Berkeley officials not to discuss the legal issues related to the suit. But Roy L. Caldwell, one of those professors, did agree to offer his thoughts on why the Web site and the legal battle over it are important. Caldwell, who is not related to Larry Caldwell, is a professor of integrative biology and director of the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley.

“I am a scientist, and I understand what science is. It is fact-based. It involves hypothesis testing. It is not faith-based,” he said. The Web site was designed to help teachers — especially those who may feel pressure because of the current attacks on evolution — better explain the science. The information about religious views was included on the Web site not out of a desire to change anyone’s religious beliefs, Roy Caldwell said, but because many teachers ask for advice on how to deal with this issue, since their students ask them about it.

The information about religious groups is strictly factual, he said. “The fact is that there are many people who recognize that religious faith and science are not necessarily incompatible,” he said.

While the focus of the lawsuit is about evolution, Roy Caldwell said that critics of evolution have a larger agenda. “I think this is a much broader attack on scientific principles in general,” he said.

Michael R. Smith, assistant chancellor for legal affairs at Berkeley, said that the university would defend the lawsuit “with vigor and enthusiasm.”

He said that the argument that Berkeley was violating the First Amendment with regard to church/state separation was “highly questionable,” and that “it’s the university’s job to share scientific and other information with the public.”

In addition, he said that the lawsuit was seeking to attack Berkeley’s exercise of another part of the First Amendment by trying to censor a Web site. “The university has rights of free speech,” Smith said.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Let the Games Begin

This evolution situation will continue to be controversial because neither party wants to listen.

It seems like nobody wants to strike a middle ground and come to some kind of resolution. If we stop and listen to each other for a short while we can learn something.

Some scientists say that Evolution’s proven by science, others say that it’s not. In addition, Creation or Intelligent Design should not be compared to Evolution because they are used to explain the origins of life.

The fact that Evolution does not explain the origins of life is enough for a good argument against it.

Nonetheless, as long as some scientific portions of Evolution are only used to explain the adaptation of life forms over time, it’s alright.

Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, “If the Door is Cracked, the Door is Open”

Donnell, Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology, at 7:34 am EDT on October 18, 2005

Evolution is a fact. It’s the mechanisms behind evolution that are in question.

Peter, at 8:24 am EDT on October 18, 2005

O_o

Well, this story goes some way toward explaining why there have been record numbers of graduate students coming to study in Canada in the last few years.

Rochelle, Instructional Technology Liaison Librarian at University of Toronto at Mississauga, at 8:24 am EDT on October 18, 2005

Revolting.

What’s next, a lawsuit against an astronomy professor for failing to teach that the sun revolves around the earth?

Paul Gowder, at 9:29 am EDT on October 18, 2005

Another Attack

Why not an attack on arithmetic, for insisting that 3 = 3 and not 1?

Richard Hennessey, at 10:07 am EDT on October 18, 2005

Well, come on, anyone can file a lawsuit. It doesn’t mean it has merit. It doesn’t mean that graduate students are being scared out of the US into Canada because some Christians want their kids to grow up thinking of the world as a bunch of Sunday school stories. However, it is unfortunate that many scientists are hostile to the study of the philosophy of science, and therefore their arguments about what constitutes “science” are but conclusory assertions that something is or is not “good science.”

Larry, at 10:08 am EDT on October 18, 2005

Veritas vos Liberabit

There is no “middle ground” between proven scientific fact and fantasy.

What’s even more ridiculous is that evolution is so readily observable by anyone who looks. Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve every day because of survival of the fittest. Cockroaches become resistant to insecticides. Any so-called “scientist” (and the ID people produce them at regular intervals) who does not use the theory of evolution as an underlying assumption is either not a biologist or an incredibly lousy one.

Perhaps as my grandmother used to say, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Would He not be intelligent enough to use evolution? The Vatican and others say that He is.

But yay or nay, the issue is not a matter of science. We don’t discuss God i geometry class. One can only hope that universities, high schools, all teachers, have enough backbone to oppose the fantastical nonsense that the jury is still out.

J. Madison Davis, Professor at University of Oklahoma, at 10:33 am EDT on October 18, 2005

I actually agree with Larry.

Never thought it would happen, but I agree with Larry: “However, it is unfortunate that many scientists are hostile to the study of the philosophy of science, and therefore their arguments about what constitutes ’science’ are but conclusory assertions that something is or is not ‘good science.’”

Cicero, professor of english, at 12:17 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Most of the other comments miss the enire point of this lawsuit. Caldwell is not challenging the teaching of the science of evolution. He is challenging the explicit use of theology in order to buttress evolution. While the government certainly has an interest in making sure that students know about the science of evolution, what right does it have to try to persuade them what their religious beliefs about evolution should be? The Understanding Evolution site links to doctrinal statements from seventeen religious denominations giving their theological blessing to evolution (including one statement from the United Church of Christ that talks about how evolution comports with or “the revelation and presence of... God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit"). The website also defines the difference between science and religion as science dealing with the natural world and religion only dealing with things outside the natural world. Offering as fact a purported definition of religion as only dealing with things outside the natural world is a theological statement, not a scientific one. Finally, the website offers proposed classroom exercises by Eugenie Scott that are clearly designed to teach theology. In one proposed exercise, teachers are urged to use statements from theologians endorsing evolution in class to teach students that religion is perfectly OK with evolution (for this exercise teachers are ONLY supposed to share religious statements endorsing evolution, not any that oppose it). In another exercise teachers are supposed to send out their students to interview ministers about their beliefs about evolution! But they are warned not to do this exercise if they are in a “conservative Christian” community because then it would undermine the point of the exercise which is to show that “evolution is OK.” Again, what business does the government have trying to convince students that they should hold certain RELIGIOUS views about evolution? This website is the height of hypocrisy. If a “creationist” group used more than a half-million dollars to create a website to convince teachers and students that the correct religious view OPPOSES evolution (and encouraging teachers to use theological statements condemning evolution in class), evolutionist groups would rightly be up in arms. The real story here is the arrogance of some defenders of evolution, and their belief that they are above the rules that apply to everyone else.

John West, This lawsuit is about teaching religion, not science at Discovery Institute, at 2:46 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Well, numbers of foreign students are up in Canada and down in the US. I’m just sayin’.

Rochelle, at 2:47 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

What counts as good science

As a philosopher of science, it seems to me that scientific practice says *something* about what counts as good science, and the scientists would know more about this than most.

Unless, of course, you think philosophy of science is about sitting down and working out from first principles what *ought* to count as science. I’m not sure why scientists would have much interest in that sort of philosophy of science, though.

That said, how is it “bringing religion into it” to point out that not all religious sects have problems with the theory of evolution?

Janet, Professor of Philosophy, at 2:48 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Moral Decay

The more honest among the anti-evolutionary argue that, since the scientific consensus in biology (not to mention geology, archeology, etc.) is incompatible with their origin myths, science refutes their belief systems. Since these beliefs are assumed to be the basis of moral conduct, to teach science is to teach immorality.With this in mind, it is fascinating to see the depths of dishonesty and malice these same people will sink to. Note the Discovery Institute’s prompt answer to a communication received by an advocate who claims no affiliation with them.

Anyone who wishes to refute the moral claims of religion might point out that ID advocates don’t seem to be struck by lightning any more often than biologists.

John Coffin, Mr., at 2:55 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Theology and opinion aside...

Take a look at the site people...go to the evolution site...click the frequently asked questions link, and you will see that the link in qestion (according to the reporting in this story) is provided in answer to the faq: “What statements do different religious groups make on evolution?” There is a links a page put together by the National Center for Science Education. They, apparently, are being sued for providing a link to a page which compiles statements of various groups.

How asenine is this?

My personal preferences on the issue of evolution in k-12 are irrelevant, but my fear for the chilling of debate on an issue due to ridiculous law suits (by radicals or reactionaries) is causing me to react.

This lawsuit is going to do nothing but bring media attention to this nitwit (I am pissed at his tactics not his politics or beliefs...he has a right to them), and undermine efforts to promote his particular way of thinking.

Perhaps L Caldwell should compile a list of statements by the pro-evolution/anti-creationism religious groups he seems to be looking out for and send it to NCSE to balance their list. This would be a much better use of his time and resources.

I’m just as upset by the religious zealots that are suing the University for the opposite reason.

Dan, Librarian, at 3:18 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Welcome to America

We are still a ridiculously litigous society. Oh well.

And Rochelle, you can be “just sayin’” alll you want, but if you continue your use of post hoc fallacies in the classroom, your student success may well drop.

Since Mr. West has indicated that people should rightly be outraged should a group use money to oppose evolution on religious grounds (precisely what the Discovery Institute is doing, along with others). We should feel justified, according to Mr. West, in opposing the Discovery Institute and its mission. It is a bold position, indeed, but one I can back.

Andrew Purvis, at 3:19 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

We shouldn’t be teaching religion in science classes

For the record, Mr. Jaschik’s claim that, during his interview with me, I allegedly “said [I] was not affiliated with The Discovery Institute” is a total fabrication. Mr. Jaschik and I did not even discuss The Discovery Institute, nor my relationship with The Discovery Institute, during our interview. If he had asked me about my relationship with The Discovery Institute, I would have told him –proudly—that I know that The Discovery Institute shares my concerns about the “Understanding Evolution” website and endorses my client’s lawsuit, as evidenced by Dr. John West’s comments above, as well as by the Discovery Institute’s press release supporting the lawsuit.

This lawsuit isn’t about UC Berkeley’s academic freedom; this lawsuit is about whether federal funds can be used for on-line training of public school teachers on how to teach RELIGIOUS beliefs about evolution in science class.

Whatever happened to the National Center for Science Education/ACLU mantra that teaching about religious beliefs on evolution may be appropriate in a comparative religion class, but never in biology class? Come to think of it, aren’t the NCSE and ACLU currently using that very argument in their lawsuit against the Dover, Pennsylvania school district –that the mere mention of intelligent design in biology class purportedly violates the Establishment Clause (since NCSE/ACLU incorrectly deem intelligent design to be a religious belief, rather than a scientific theory)?

It turns out that the NCSE and its allies in the scientific and educational establishments don’t mind having religious beliefs discussed in science class, as long as those discussions are aimed at convincing students to convert to the religious beliefs favored by the NCSE. Their willingness to flagrantly violate students’ constitutionally protected religious freedoms in order to sell evolution to our children is the height of hypocrisy.

Larry Caldwell, President at Quality Science Education for All, at 4:04 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

This isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last time that a non-meritorious lawsuit was brought for publicity purposes. (Whether it is frivolous is a close call, so I won’t touch that one.) However, there isn’t anything ridiculous about admitting that a number of people feel really strongly that the teaching of science is an endorsement of some religion (or a critique of their own). While they probably misunderstand the methods employed in scientific inquiry, there isn’t anything improper about bringing such a grievance to the courts.

Larry, at 4:25 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Can someone clear up a factual matter?

It appears that these folks’ quarrel is with NCSE.

NCSE claims at http://www.ncseweb.org/disclaimer.htmto be an independent 501©(3) nonprofit corporation. So why is it UC Berkeley that’s getting sued?

The claim in the article above that the Berkeley site “contains” the NCSE site’s links page appears to be erroneous.

C, at 4:25 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

Thank you Larry Caldwell

Thanks Larry Caldwell for clearing this issue up. It’s not about whether or not Evolution is right or wrong.

It’s the fact that the convenient use of religion to support Evolution cannot be allowed.

“Scientists” are quick to condemn the use of religion to support ID. However, it seems as though it’s ok when the “religious” view supports Evolution which is the case with this Berkeley website.

Now it all makes sense! If religion agrees with Evolution then it’s ok to use it. That’s a real double standard! Let’s see them explain their way out of this one!

Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, “If the Door is Cracked, the Door is Open”

Donnell, Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology, at 5:06 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

I am really confused. Don’t the ID proponents want biology teachers in high schools to include intellegent design in their courses? If I were to teach ID in a biology course, isn’t this spending public funds to teach religion? Then too, if I am going to teach ID, don’t I need to balance this by teaching all alternatives that are “reasonable", such as, we didn’t evolve, but that life was placed on the earth by little green men? And that men and women are different species from different worlds, that have been forced to coexist? No, I can’t “test” any of these theories any more than I can test ID. Do you really want me teaching your kids about religion: that God made the racial groups (or didn’t), and that big/small or tall/short, or red/blond hair are due to the devil’s play. Perhaps this is ridicule, but then again, do you really want the gov’t to require teaching religion (even in the guise of biology). If it isn’t science it does not belong in the “required” science curriculum.

Even so, to discuss the implications of science in terms of our culture is a standard practice — translate as discuss “values". Of course good teachers discuss the implications of their subject matter with students, not only in the sciences, but in language courses, fine arts, humanities and social sciences. I’ll bet there are even a few janitors, advisors, and principals, that discuss life events and values, now and again, with students.

The implication that Caldwell leaves is that science should not deal with people or values (and that the ID theory should be taught). The issue is whether this is part of an ongoing attach on intelligence and truth (as perceived by may in the sciences) can be answered. In teaching science, teachers need to be able to discuss values, ethics, morals and religion, if there are issues hindering student learning. Then again, I suppose a good essay question on evolution could be structured in a way that anyone “confusing science with religion” got an F. In evolutionary theory, the small brained tend not to succeed, and will eventually be eliminated from the population (or at least from the better colleges).

Politically correct? No, but while I happen to believe God does answer prayers, and that life and death are the evolutionary tools God uses on an ongoing basis (i.e. ID), I don’t believe this is science, nor should it be taught — anywhere (it’s not relevant to the issues of science or religion). The ID material and discussions I’ve seen violate my sensibilities, and are offensive to me based on my religious beliefs.

R. Hirsch, at 7:32 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

...If The Door IS Cracked .. etc etc etc

If someone wants to be taken seriously in this discussion, using a false analogy is not the way to do it.

A cracked-open door is not the same at all as religious zealotry disguised as crackpot science.

Hans Laetz, at 7:33 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

It is astonishing to see the amount of energy and money that some will expend on this kind of thing. What a collosal distraction. Imagine if the resources wasted on lawsuits and hearings were instead focused on behalf of humankind on overcoming the very real threats presented by evolution itself: MRSA and mutating bird viruses. But these anti-evolutionists don’t want a better world, they just want justification for their distorted world view. Over here in the dear old secular UK this kind of... litigiousity... is subjected to the scorn and social stigmatisation that it deserves.

Stuart, at 8:07 pm EDT on October 18, 2005

I ain’t no sientist, but I got thru third grade. My third grade sience techer done tol me that it wern’t no fact unless it could be done with the same results time after time. I ain’t met no one seen man evolve even once, so I cant see how it is a fact man evolved.Sounds like one of dem theories. My sience teacher would fail dose stoopid PHDs calling it fact. Dey need to go back to third grade.

Mike, at 4:38 am EDT on October 19, 2005

“This evolution situation will continue to be controversial ~because neither party wants to listen~.”

Not true! I used to believe in evolution until I honestly looked at its claims.

Frank, at 4:39 am EDT on October 19, 2005

Caldwell is a lawyer

Caldwell is a lawyer and thinks like a lawyer. He shows no signs of any interest in education or biology. He’s found a loophole in the university’s presentation to attack, and he’s pretending that he is worried that the university is injecting religion into science. That’s not his real concern at all; what he wants is recognition of intelligent design.

This is just a harassing tactic. The courts can deal with the legal aspect, and everyone else should just laugh at Caldwell’s clown show.

John Emerson, at 7:39 am EDT on October 19, 2005

John, Once you resign yourself to the fact that this is a political debate, that will, from time to time, manifest itself in the court it is a heck of a lot clearer. Look, I am a lawyer, too. I think ID is a load of crap, because I know the people involved are trying a “plan B” to get Jesus and pals into public education after a frontal Jesus-assault failed. Since I know that there will be politically-motivated lawsuits that argue for a certain interpretation of the constitution (and some would argue that all lawsuits are political), I can understand why someone would do this. Now, whether he is right in his proposed interpretation of the constitution or not is a different story, but that is a question of law which, whether you like or not will be resolved by lawyers. Hopefully, scientists will be able to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, by explaining what “science” is (or what they think it is) and the current assumptions underlying their methodologies (rather than denying that they have assumptions) and in some court or other, these issues can be sorted out.

Larry, at 10:11 am EDT on October 19, 2005

The larger problem here is that a court would accept the filing of such a lawsuit. A hypertext link in a web page can be likened to a footnote citation in a printed page. It is merely an address pointng to the original source of the material being discussed. That someone or some entity can then be sued over citation of the sources it uses is incomprehensible. The religious nature of the subject matter is irrelevant, one has to cite sources if one is to avoid copyright infringement, not to mention academic dishonesty.

Michael Class, at 2:20 pm EDT on October 19, 2005

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Big deal.

Michael, there is no larger problem here. All that happened was someone filed the required number of copies with the clerk and served it. The clerk is required to take all properly filed complaints. The defendant can (and probably will) file a motion to dismiss. It is for a judge (and courts of appeal) to decide whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Larry, at 2:43 pm EDT on October 19, 2005

Wow. This lawsuit certainly seems to have merit, yet it is described as an “attack on evolution". How is it an “attack on evolution"? If you go to the website in question, you will find that, in answer to the question “What statements do different religious groups make on evolution?", it collects a huge list of statements from religious groups that support (the egregiously misnamed) National Centre for Science Education’s position on evolution. Not a single statement, as far as I can see, from those many religious groups that oppose their position. Obviously, not a very balanced collection when it comes to an objective unbiased answer to the question posed! Nor does it fit their description as “your one stop source for information on evolution".

To describe concern over this kind of imbalance on a clearly factual matter as “an attack on evolution", well, it does not look that good.

cbo, at 5:57 pm EDT on October 19, 2005

Links entirely appropriate to the subject

Discussing a scientific idea’s impact on society is an important part of science education. Making science relavent to students’ lives is essential to the learning process as this motivates them to think critically about the subject. I most certainly discuss the societal and environmental impacts of nuclear power when I cover nuclear chemistry and physics. I do my best to remain objective and not to inject my own personal beliefs into such discussions, but to avoid those issues because they might be politically controversial would be a disservice to my students’ education.

The link the Berkeley page provides is part of a discussion on the history of the Theory of Evolution and how society has reacted to it in the past and in the present. As an institution of higher education, Berkeley doesn’t just have the right to carry on that discussion, it has a duty to do so.

I don’t teach biology, but physical science, so I am unlikely to end up leading any discussions about intelligent design versus evolution in my classes. However, I will be teaching the Big Bang theory, which is also argued against by creationists, though with less fervor and less political activity. If I were to teach evolution, I would have no problem discussing with students the topic of intelligent design. I am not one that feels that this topic should be somehow verboten in a science classroom. But that is not to say that it would be getting any kind of equal time in my class. Scientific theories must make testable predictions and are backed by many experiments that successfully tested previous predictions. They get modified or even discarded when repeatable experiments fail to support them. Intelligent design does not meet these standards. Evolution isn’t “The Truth", it is simply the only broad explanation for how different species have changed into new species over the course of earth’s history that has survived repeated observations, up to this point. Argue evolutions ‘flaws’ all you want, ID has yet to come even close to the kind of scientific success evolution has so far, and thus teaching it as a viable scientific alternative to evolution is factually incorrect.

Evolution is hardly the only theory in science to have the kinds of ‘problems’ anti-evolution activists point to. Modern physicists contintue to be challenged by reconciling Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both theories are extremely successful in describing and making predictions regarding the phenomena that they were intended for. In fact, both of these theories are much more successful at describing the natural world (in their respective arenas) than Newton’s Laws of Motion and Gravity. So where are the activists decrying the fact that Newton’s Laws are still being taught in our public schools? The simple fact is that the attacks on evolution occur because it challenges some people’s belief systems. The controversy over evolution is a false one that has little to do with science and everything to do with culture.

Jason D., at 9:35 pm EDT on October 20, 2005

Evolution

Donnell Duncan argues for Creationism, which has neither a foundation in fact nor in science. It is an absurdity at best, and those who teach this theology in a science classroom neglect science and should have their credentials rescinded. Those who wish to teach the mythology of creation should apply for positions in literature or theology. Creationism has no place in an academic scientific study or course.

When I consult with businesses involved in scientific and engineering pursuits, I encourage them to reject applicants who have course work in Intelligent Design, as I.D. is neither science not an engineering reality, and can only harm academics and businesses. The reality that students turn to I.D. shows only their own intellectual insecurity, and their quest for an absolute—but there are no absolutes in reality. All is subject to change, much in the same way that the gods have changed from many to one—then back to many, to one, and so forth. Even YHWH started as an agricultural god and consort to Asherah of the Canannites, and Eden was the mythological garden of ancient Babylonians. Let us leave these myths, along with the myth of Creation. Let us put science back in the science laboratories and classes.

Arthur Ide, PhD, MD, DA, Lima, Peru, at 11:18 am EDT on October 24, 2005

Evolution, General Theory or Macro — Not Science!

Why all the fuss about evolution? Isn’t evolution true? We need to define exactly what kind of “change” we are talking about. Please refer to Michael Denton’s book: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Dr. Denton (an agnostic scientist) points out that there is zero evidence for Macro (or General theory) evolution. Darwin admitted such, and over one hundred years later we still don’t have scientific evidence to conclusively prove — one cell generated out of nothing from a slimy pool, ended up mutating and mutating, and adding after adding information to it’s DNA, started crawling out to land, and then eventually formed a million different species all by mere chance. Dr. Denton points to the lack of scientific evidence (especially in the fossil record) in his book. And since he published his book, thousands of scientists have come out of the closet and admitted they are “hetero-evolutionists.” Hetero-evolutionist? Yes, someone who believes that micro (or special theory) evolution is scientific, but feels there is no concrete scientific evidence for macroevolution – it is just a theory — like Intelligent Design. So, there are two “different” types of evolution or change. Pun intended, but if we can separate these terms from one word into two, it will help us all to understand what is science and what is not. I believe in evolution – but only microevolution. I was at a lecture years back where the professor talked for days on micro evolution, and about on hour on macro evolution, and then stated that both were true – since one type of evolution means that it’s possible for the other, and we eventually will discover more fossils and more about the cell to prove macro evolution. “It’s possible” and “we should be discovering more information soon” does not give me science. You either have ironclad absolute unquestionable proof or you don’t. We have it for microevolution. Did my professor have any evidence for macroevolution? He had minutes worth (like what the UC Berkley site has), but it was not scientific, and could not hold up to questing and testing – the same type we apply toward microevolution. Again, please refer to Dr. Denton’s book for more on this, and if you feel that some concrete evidence has been found – please email Dr. Denton. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind publishing another book on what you have discovered.http://biochem.otago.ac.nz/staff/denton/mdenton.htm

John from Sacramento, at 6:13 pm EDT on October 24, 2005

evidence for evolution

“Undoubtedly, one of the major factors which contribute to the immense appeal of the Darwinian framework is that, with all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change.” Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (p355)

For all of Denton’s efforts to discredit macroevolution, we can see from his own statement the fundamental problem with intelligent design. By invoking a causal agency for change in species that is fundamentally outside the ability of science to describe (the supernatural ‘intelligent designer’), I.D. takes itself out of the realm of science and into the realms of philosphy and theology.

Modern evolutionary theory relies only causal agencies that be described and studied through our understanding of fundamental laws of nature (chemistry, physics, etc.). Our understanding of how these causal agencies actually work in relation to evolution still has a long way to go, but that does not detract from the fact that the process of science applies to them. The same cannot be said of intelligent design.

I’m not qualified to provide a review of Denton’s arguments, but there are plenty of reviews available online.

www.wasdarwinwrong.com provides what I felt was a good review of A Theory in Crisis and Denton’s later book, Nature’s Destiny, in which Denton actually reverses course somewhat. It also provides reviews to many other books from all perspectives on evolution. The author of the site, Gert Korthof, seems very objective to me in terms of his views on the current state of evolutionary theory.

Honest and scientific critical analysis of evolution is a good thing, and scientists are not always good at challenging whatever the current paradigm is for their field. Ideas and works such as Denton’s, and even Behe’s (the most notable intelligent design proponent), provide useful food for thought for serious biologists to consider as they study the origins of species and the diversity of life. However slowly science may work, if Darwinian evolution is not scientific fact, then data and observations will eventually point to a better solution. Intelligent design is no where near ready to make that claim yet, and thus does not merit a place as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.

Jason D, at 8:19 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Prior knowledge and misconceptions

I agree with you, John D.—In order to successfully teach scientific concepts, students’ misconceptions must be addressed, even if these misconceptions are a result of cultural influences. Because of what they have been taught in Sunday school about the evils of evolution, they come to class with some serious misconceptions as to what the theory of evolution actually states.

Students need to know the difference between scientific evidence and what they consider to be evidence based on faith. My students have made comments ranging from, “evolution is a bunch of crap” (yup, I live in the Bible Belt...)to “I don’t understand what the big deal is over evolution. It happened... accept it... move on.” Students have serious misconceptions as to what constitutes scientific evidence. To my middle-schoolers, if it is in writing, then it must be true... This includes all web pages, newspapers, and especially the Bible. When we discuss evolution, we discuss societal issues associated with the controversy. They want to know what the controversy is about. The terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” are defined (not discussed in detail or heavily debated...) so that the students can distinguish these from scientific evidence. With so many of my students having extremely strong religious convictions, I would be tuned out immediately if I did not acknowledge their existing belief system. I do not try to change their minds about their beliefs, but I think it is important for them to know why they believe what they believe.

This is the starting point... the preconceived notions they bring to class can significantly intefere with the learning process. If I am going to make progress, I have to start with the societal and cultural beliefs that may impede this progress.

Martha, at 4:37 am EDT on October 28, 2005

teaching facts vs. teaching beliefs

As I understand it (but I’m no lawyer), the first amendment provides against the “establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Teaching Intelligent design in classrooms is an explicit attempt to teach a system of beliefs that belong to a single religion, presenting these beliefs as fact. As such, it would be establishing that one religion in public curricula. The Berkeley web-site, on the other hand, refers to a variety of religions, and does not advocate teaching their beliefs as fact. It acknowledges that their viewpoints exist, but does not require that students accept any of these religious perspectives. The site also states explicitly that some religious beliefs contradict evolution. Isn’t that a fair representation?

This lawsuit is in no way equivalent to lawsuits seeking to remove Intelligent Design from science curricula. There is a major difference between presenting a series of facts about religious beliefs and presenting a series of religious beliefs as facts. I sure hope the constitution protects the former and not the latter.

Sophie, at 6:18 pm EST on November 2, 2005

Law of Irraducable Complexity disproves Evolution

Only a few years ago did anyone get so bold as to refer to Evolution as a scientific “fact". It is at best a theory and a weak one at that. Every creation on earth and in the heavens cry out that there is a creator, and that Creator has formed everything to work together so well that we as arrogant humans are the only ones confusing things. We as humans try to use anything we can come up with to explain away the simple facts. The (proven) Law of Irreducible Complexity coupled with Natural Selection makes it impossible for a single cell in the cesspool to evolve into any organism, well alone Human. Now you can try to confuse and baffle people by throwing Millions and Billions of years into the equation, but you cannot call a ridiculous theory fact just because it is written in a school book. If you want to know the facts, start thinking for yourself and stop taking for granted what the halls of “higher learning” are spewing out. This is not a religious debate, but a debate of fact versus fiction. The obvious conclusion only allows you to realize that you have been lied to all of your life. Don’t take my word for it, spend a little effort and find out for yourself!

Brian, Humble Human, at 5:35 am EST on November 6, 2005

The usual misconceptions

Brian, you’re displaying some of the usual misconceptions that show exactly why we can’t let this latest attack on science education succeed.

First, I’ve never seen anyone suggest that Irreducible Complexity was a ‘Law’ of Nature that was proven. The concept of Irreducible Complexity (as advocated by Dr. Behe, a leading ID proponent) refers to structures such that they cannot serve any useful function if even one part is removed. ID proponents like Behe point to the human eye as an example very often. They suggest that natural selection couldn’t have led to something as complex as the human eye because waiting for a random mutation to produce one of it’s parts would mean having an organ that didn’t work. However, just looking at nature as it is, there is a whole spectrum of light-sensing organs that range from the collection of light-sensitive cells of a flatworm that can only determine whether it’s light or dark, to fully functioning eyes of higher organisms. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that just because taking away one part of a human eye would mean the inability to form a good image, that such a lesser eye wouldn’t still be useful to an organism’s survival.

Even more important than this misinterpreting of irreducible complexity, is how you seem to misunderstand what scientists mean when they talk about ‘facts’ and theories. You fall into the usual trap of talking about evolution as a theory as if that was inherently something dubious. A scientific theory is much more than the guess that is the common use of the term. A theory is a system of ideas or statements that form an explanation for observed natural phenomenon that has been WELL tested and supported by the available evidence. When scientists call something a theory, it has become thoroughly accepted as a convincing explanation. The evidence in support of evolution is as convincing as the evidence in support of atomic theory and gravitational theory. Yet evolution gets singled out for attack by fundamentalists.

Despite your statement that this is not a religious debate, it clearly is. Your own statements show your religious motivation to your opposition to evolution when you call out to a Creator to explain why evolution can’t be right. The real reason fundamentalist religous groups have been targetting evolution for 80 years now, is that they see purely naturalist science as a threat to the morality of society, and thus a threat to their belief system itself. If man was not specifically created in God’s image, but was simply the contingent result of undirected natural selection, doesn’t our purpose and the foundation of our morality disappear? I don’t believe it does, but apparently many ardent anti-evolutionists need to believe in the specific creation of man by God to believe in humanity’s purpose and morality.

Religion is not the enemy of science, and whether science conflicts with someone’s religious views should should not be a barrier to teaching proper science in a public school classroom. Evolution is the best explanation science has come up with to explain the observed facts of the history of life on this planet. There simply are no competing scientific theories at this time, and that’s what should be taught in public school classrooms. If we did a better job of explaining the scientific evidence to our children, then we wouldn’t have adults with such a poor understanding of how strong a theory evolution is.

Creationists of all stripes are simply using the political process to do what they can’t do with actual science — attack evolution. And they will weaken the already inadequate science education in this country in the process.

Jason D., at 3:54 am EST on November 9, 2005

Lets deal in FACTS not FICTION

Jason, “A theory is ...that has been WELL tested and supported by the available evidence.” SHOW ME ANY TESTS OF AN APE THAT TURNED INTO ANYTHING BUT AN OLD APE! “When scientists call something a theory, it has become thoroughly accepted as a convincing explanation.” ACCEPTED BY WHOM? WHOM HAS IT CONVINCED? “The evidence in support of evolution is as convincing as the evidence in support of atomic theory and gravitational theory.” ARE YOU SERIOUS? DO YOU BELIEVE THE STUFF THAT COMES FROM YOUR MOUTH? Jason, the funny thing is that you have studied a lot of books with a lot of theories that have not been proven. I point out that there IS another explenation to how we came about on this earth even if you and others would rather ignore it. Taking the “higher being” (God) out of the mix is one way for those like yourself to remove the need to answer for anything you would chose to do....now we are getting into relativity....I give you a compilation of some of the oldest writings on earth given to us through our Creators divine inspiration...the Bible. It explains the reasons evolution will never be proven and thus always be a THEORY. It makes simple the earth from start to finish, and has never been disproven...more than I can say for theories like evolution and the big bang. I guess you could say that this is a religious debate, but then you would be saying that there is a directed national attack on specific religions who believe in inteligent design....now we wouldn’t want to say that now would we....we would rather disguise that same intent by misquoting our forefathers and claiming “seporation of church and state” I must say that if you are closed minded enough to disclude the facts and believe theories instead, I prey that you start reading some more books/articles that are based on facts not fiction. I would start with 1. Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, 2.Web page: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/h...ols/Quotes/h_yockey_abiogenesis.asp), 3. Web page:(http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html)Think for yourself, and look at the obvious FACTS that make evolution an IMPOSSIBLE theory.

Brian, Humble Human, at 5:27 am EST on November 12, 2005

How sad, Brian, that you simply cannot “get” what Jason is saying when he offers a very conventional explanation of the meaning of the term “theory” within science. It’s really no more than an explanation of the scientific method. And typing in all capitals simply won’t eliminate the many successes of the scientific method. Who is it that is convinced by a scientific theory? Scientists—people who have themselves used science to prove things, produce things, explain things, etc.—people who understand what the scientific method is and where the term “theory” fits into it.

As for evolution meaning man was not made in the image of God—perhaps that really needs to be rethought. As another in this thread pointed out, Yahweh hasn’t always been a part of the human world, but rather has evolved from numerous other Pre-Yahweh concepts of God(s). And even establishing him didn’t end the story, as Christ came along to “revise” things (or to overturn the old law, if one prefers). Of course, one can look at the Old Testament itself as including a number of revisions by assorted personages, often with chapters named after them, too. At any rate, Christ’s revision hardly ended things, as you have Mohammed coming 6 centuries later, saying Christ and a buncha other people got some of it right, but that there are other revisions necessary. And yet later, one has Martin Luther revising the accepted interpretations of the Catholic Church, and John Calvin revising Martin Luther, and the Church of England, as well as nearly every Pope, revising Catholicism even as Protestantism splinters into multiple revisions. Islam, too, splinters, first Sunni/Shiite, then Shiis splinter into fivers, seveners, and twelvers.

The hundreds of Old Testament Gods being worshipped around the world today, having all seemingly descended from some singular conception of A Yahweh in the past, is a perfect analog to evolution. Evolution IS God’s image.

Thane Doss, at 2:25 pm EST on December 8, 2005

bush appointee — beautiful irony

I enjoyed reading this debate, which I discovered on the same day as the US District Court decision stating in unassailable judicial and logical clarity the appropriate rendering of the Kitzmiller v. Dover “ID” case (www.pamd.uscourts.gov). Whether one can appreciate the mechanistic underpinnings of evolution or has been reared in doctrinaire fundamental Christianity/Islam, this decision should stand as a legal buttress for scientific education against further distraction.

It remains strange that this debate continues. Whether or not a Creator sparked life on this planet (and others?), only the most primal theocentricity can deny the conspicuous adaptation and radiation of new, competitively specialized organisms from their distant ancestors. The scientific alternative to biological evolution is well understood — it is extinction. The proposed educational alternative to teaching of evolution within the science curriculum has now been rendered legally (and previously logically) baseless.

The claim that water was miraculously converted to wine by the son of God has no place in a chemistry place, where it would apparently demonstrate that our knowledge of atomic structure was incorrect. However, it is an important allegory for Western religious teaching and a worthwhile topic for understanding tenets of particular faiths during discussions of religion and human civilizations.

As titled, I found satisfying irony in Judge Jones’ decision comprehensively nullifying the unfounded claim by his appointing president that both science and anti-science are appropriate views for our childrens’ science education.

dr tomm, at 5:04 pm EST on December 20, 2005

Blame the Republicans for this nonsense

This is just one example of what America is coming to when people stay ignorant and vote for Republicans. If you want to believe the lies from the Republican party and the Religious Reich, then you can only expect that silliness such as creationism will be taught as if it were scientific fact.

It is absolutely astounding to me to see how American society is regressing such as it is, and all thanks to fearmongering Bible-thumpers like James Dobson, Pat Robetson, Jerry Falwell, Tim La Haye, etc.

Never in my life did I expect to see children’s Sunday school stories being taught as fact in high school, and I especially did not expect to ever see American society on a fast track to such chosen ignorance, backwards thinking, anti-progressive values, hatred of minorities (such as gays), choosing so-called “faith” over fact, and having the populace (51% of them anyway) willingly vote for and vehemently defend proven liars who are evil and corrupt, simply because they hide behind the Bible and claim to be on the side of God side. It’s no wonder Europeans laugh at us.

Kevin Andersen, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 17, 2006

Why not give them a chance?

Alright, I’m not trying to be disrespectful to any of you, but you all seem to be bashing religion here! Let’s face it kids, there’s more facts pointing towards Creation then there is Evolution. No offense but you’re BLIND if you can’t see that! Just like we aren’t allowed to have God in schools, what if we don’t evolution in schools? Can’t we fight against that? So there’s one kid who doesn’t like God. Ok, so what about the other five kids down the hall that are forced to listen to supposed evolutionary “facts". Oh, and the whole separating church and state? You people take that WAY too far. Where is the freedom in religion? Didn’t we come here in the first place so we could be free to believe in what we thought was right, without being supressed?! My, my, my...what’s happened. People think, just cuz they’re a kid, they don’t have an opinion and it really doesn’t count. Well, HELLO, WE are the ones being TAUGHT all this stuff about Evolution. It should be OUR choice. Shouldn’t we, as free Americans, decide what we wish to believe in? =[

Anonymous = me., at 12:35 pm EDT on April 23, 2007

Jobs Related to Another Attack on Evolution

or search for jobs directly.

Postdoctoral Scholars, Chemistry
University of California, Irvine

School of Physical Sciences Department of Chemistry Position: Postdoctoral Scholars The Department of Chemistry, Professor ... see job

Physics/Earth & Space Science Instructor I
Florida Gulf Coast University

FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor
Mississippi State University

Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development Assistant/Associate Tenure-track, Instructional Technology PARF ... see job

Junior Specialist — Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
University of California, Irvine

College of Health Sciences Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences BioTherapeutics Engineering Laboratory Position: Junior ... see job

Vice President for Enrollment
University of Tampa

The University of Tampa (UT) seeks an exceptional Vice President for Enrollment. see job

Assistant Director for International Student Recruitment
George Fox University

George Fox University seeks a tri-lingual recruitment/admissions professional to assist with international student ... see job

Employer Relations Coordinator
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Adjunct Assistant Professor-CNA (Revised)
Johnson County Community College

A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job

Medical Assisting Instructor
Corinthian Colleges

Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Assistant Director for Academic & Career Enrichment Center
College of Notre Dame of Maryland

College of Notre Dame of Maryland is currently seeking an Assistant Director of the Academic and Enrichment Center. Located ... see job