Oct. 25, 2005

Engaging the Public

A copy of Rolling Stone sat on the driver’s seat of a car parked in front of Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago Saturday. On top of the cover were bold red letters advertising an article about the Pennsylvania trial where parents have sued a school board to keep “intelligent design” out of the classroom: “Science vs. Faith: Evolution on Trial.”

Looking for a job?

See all 212 new postings

Browse all job listings:

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

Inside Ida Noyes, scientists from around the country were gathered for a conference on the “developmental basis of evolutionary change.” Douglas Schemske, a plant biologist at Michigan State University, put up a Power Point slide that identified the “controversies that remain”: “adaptation: few or many genes?” and “speciation: what are the principle isolating factors? What is the role of ecology?” Of course, these are controversies within evolutionary studies, but not about whether evolution is valid.

For the vast majority of scientists at the conference, the “intelligent design” hullabaloo is not nearly at the top of their list of controversies, and most seem to regard it as a particularly American oddity that has had little or no effect on their own activities. Some, however, have heeded what they see as a call to arms.

Sean Carroll, a genetics professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said he has “had a pulpit” because of his popular book about evolution – Endless Forms Most Beautiful — that was published in April. And, unlike some scientists, he has chosen to use it. Carroll said that “K-12 teachers feel challenged” now when they teach evolution. “They need to hear that the National Academy of Sciences and university scientists back them up.” Carroll has visited some school teachers and has gained a reputation for closing his talks with a video montage of recent magazine headlines, pictures from the Scopes era, and images and headlines that recall some of the “150 years of human achievement that the body of work on evolution represents,” he said. All played to the tune of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.”

Carroll, who has also been on National Public Radio, wonders whether it is time for scientists to start nudging their colleagues to become more active. But the problem, he said, is that scientists are “wired to shade statements in terms of how confident we are that it’s true…. Politics is the art of outright, data-free bullshit. We are uncomfortable with that,” he said.

Media coverage of the “intelligent design” debate is problematic, Carroll said, because it often presents a balanced scale of opinions, when “it’s really 10,000 to one.” Still, he does not think NPR or CNN changes many minds, but that they could better equip people with useful information. The minds that the media storm may be affecting, Carroll said, are those of foreign students. “In biological sciences, we are the country people come to get training. We draw the world’s talent, and some of the world is really concerned.” Carroll said he has heard that some students are a little more reluctant to come to American universities because of the politics surrounding stem cells, global warming, and evolution.

Some geneticists have had no choice but to consider how to talk about alternative theories to evolution by natural selections. Ian Dworkin, a postdoctoral fellow in genetics at North Carolina State University, has taught some adult education courses on the human genome. He said that, among his colleagues, the subject of “intelligent design” almost never comes up, but he said some of the adults he has taught “have strong religious views” and questions about creation arise. “I make it a data-driven discussion,” Dworkin said. “I state as best I can the observations, and that within [an evolutionary] framework we have these predictions and these tests, and in science we can’t have a supernatural point of view.” Dworkin said he knows “a lot of strongly theistic scientists,” and said that his adult students’ religious beliefs do not mean they cannot learn about evolution, but that religion is simply beyond the relevant realm. “In science, any supernatural explanation is also a trivial one,” he said. “It won’t help us make better medicine.”

Many scientists have actively remained passive. Matthew Rockman, a visiting research fellow at Princeton University’s Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, said he thinks the topic of “intelligent design” is “just not germane,” and that getting drawn into a polarized debate is not useful, and may even lend credence to the controversy. Rockman added that, as a teaching assistant, he has never had to address “intelligent design,” but has heard that T.A.’s at another research institution have discussed “how to deal with students” should the topic arise.

Like Carroll, Rockman said part of the controversy he has noticed has been through the surprise of foreign colleagues. He recalled a July New York Timesopinion piece by Archbishop Christopher Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal of Vienna. Archbishop Schönborn wrote that Pope John Paul II’s comment in 1996 that evolution is “more than just a hypothesis,” had been misinterpreted, and that the Catholic Church “will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.” The article wended its way through the world’s scientific community, and manifested in the form “all the European people” on an e-mail list serve for people who study evolution “posting: ‘What the hell’s going on?’” Rockman said. “It was clear they had never dealt with this.”

Veronica Hinman, a postdoctoral fellow in biology at the California Institute of Technology, said she doesn’t think most people outside of science are even paying attention to all the news about “intelligent design.” Still, she said, it makes her a little “more conscious in explaining to the general public what it is we do, and why we do it.”

Marty Shankland, a professor in the University of Texas at Austin’s Section of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, said he thinks all the fuss has galvanized some scientists. He noted that, though scientists often steer clear of advocacy, Web-based petitions to keep “I.D.” out of the classroom have been flooded with signatures. One of the cheekier ones is the National Center for Science Education’s “Project Steve.” The list is in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, and in response to lists like the pro-I.D. Discovery Institute’s list of 100 scientists who doubt Darwinian evolution. Project Steve has, so far, gotten signatures from 649 scientists named “Steve” in support of evolution as a “vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences,” the petition statement reads.

Shankland said the I.D. controversy brought Texas scientists out in force in September 2003 for a public hearing, held every seven years, by the State Board of Education on which textbooks to use. Scientists came to address the question of whether to use textbooks that give “equal time” to alternative theories to evolution. Shankland said each scientist got three minutes to speak – with a bit more for Nobel Laureate and Texas physics professor Steven Weinberg — and the hearing went from 1 p.m. to 1 a.m. Shankland said he worries that some textbook companies have “softened things” to avoid criticism in a major textbook market like Texas. “I chose the textbook for introductory biology [at U.T.-Austin],” Shankland said. “Publishers would definitely have taken me out to dinner if I promised to use their book.”

Sitting in the foyer of Ida Noyes Hall before lunch, Carroll had science’s equivalent of a celebrity experience. “I’ve read your book,” said Sam Mogil, a high school sophomore from New York who came to the conference with his mother to meet potential research mentors. Carroll rattled off a list of books, from Gould, to an out of print biography of Darwin, for Mogil to read. He also told Mogil to check out the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Holiday Lectures on Science, which can be viewed via Webcast in high school classrooms in December. This year’s topic: evolution. Carroll said the topic was actually chosen before the I.D. issue erupted. “The timing just worked out great,” he said.

As he has become publicly visible, Carroll said he has started to tell people who study science “that you can have fulfilling careers in media and government. We need people there. If you don’t recognize that fishing with a net with certain size holes creates a certain population…we’re in [trouble].” He added that there are “plenty of people with collars,” referring to clergymen, “who fully accept evolution, but are not going or being put on camera.” For his part, Carroll seems energized to “equip” curious people with information about evolution. According to Mogil’s mom, “your book is three weeks overdue at the library,” she said. “I’m reading it too.”

— David Epstein

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

The Evolution of the Evolution Debate

I am enjoying the evolution of the Evolution Debate. Scientists have to vigorously defend science? Wow!

Keep science in the classroom! Isn’t this an interesting situation? Why are scientists so defensive?

If Evolution is science beyond a doubt they should be confident about it. If they are in such a heavy majority the very “small group” opposing them should not really matter?

The fact that there is a major controversy gives credence to the opposing views. There is nothing that can be done to stop it, even if they try!

A Phd does not mean that a scientist can tell people what to think! (smile) No one is intimidated by the initials after a name.

If Evolution is so foolproof most people would have agreed already! Natural Selection is good science so there is no big probem with that! If that’s what the argument is about, then the Evolutionists win.

However, the Origin of Life is not explained by Evolution! Oops! I look forward to your responses. (smile)

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 5:36 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Use some logic

Has anyone noticed that articles such as this one do not even explain the actual positions of “evolution” and “I.D."? From this article, it appears that I.D. completely rejects evolution and is equivalent to young-earth creationism. Also from this article, it appears that evolution completely remains in the realm of science and does not address the non-existence of God.

Both of these impressions are false. If we are going to have a debate or discussion on the topic, then at the very least define the terms or lay out the key positions. This is another poorly-written article on the subject, which doesn’t help advance understanding.

D Hill, at 6:39 am EDT on October 25, 2005

But if we define the terms. . .

. . . then ID proponents can’t use their favorite dodge, which is to say “Oh, well, that’s not what _I_ mean by intelligent design, therefore, that rebuttal from science is not applicable to _my_ intelligent design theory.”

Bottom line is that ID is a non-scientific argument dressed up in the language of science, just as “zero point energy” and other New Age scams try to cloak mysticism in scientific-sounding language.

All forms of ID boil down to some variant of this kernel: There is or was some “intelligent designer” active in the universe, whose presence is shown by the complexity of certain biological structures that, according to proponents, could not have arisen through evolutionary mechanisms.

In other words, the intelligent designer (notice the use of the word “intelligent,” implying purpose and reasoning) operates outside of science and is somehow capable of doing things that cannot be explained by natural laws.

Thus, whether you like your Creationism with a Young Earth flavor or not, ID does boil down to Creationism, as it posits a supernatural being whose actions explain life today. That is non-science and is a statement that only functions in the domain of faith because there are no scientific ways to investigate a supernatural being.

JMG, at 9:29 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Deeply Cracked

Donnell could use a few letters after his name before he tells us about either evolution or teaching. But education won’t stop him ...

C. Darwin, PhD, by golly, and in science, at 9:45 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Defining Terms — JMG

JMG — thanks for helping to define terms of I.D., which I wish the relevant articles would do. However, you are using an ad hominem response by arguing that because I.D. proponents believe some supernatural force is involved somewhere, we must reject 100% of their arguments. Why not honestly address IDEAS rather than 100% accept of reject a group of people based on your agreement?

Albert Einstein went to his grave not accepting quantum mechanics, which have been experimentally demonstrated time and again. Should we reject all of Einstein’s ideas?

D Hill, at 9:46 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Donnell, I hear you, dude! Scientific theories should be validated by popular vote, not by the opinion of a few elitist “scientists"! So what if 99.9% of those who claim to have seriously studied biology accept evolution as the best explaination for the diversity of life forms past and present on Earth? If it were put to a vote today in the U.S., I’m quite sure that evolution would be rejected by 75% of the populace!

I am struggling myself against narrow-mindedness and dogma in the field of mathematics. I can’t get a single peer-reviewed journal to publish my revolutionary concept of “Miraculous Mathematics". The fundamental idea of MM is this: whenever you’re trying to prove some theorem, and you get to a step that is obviously “irreducibly complex", you just say “and then a miracle happens!", and voila — the proof is complete. QED.

To illustrate how powerful MM is, in just a few hours I was able to come up with an MM proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which has baffled mathematicians ever since it was postulated well over a century ago. (I was also able to come up with an MM proof of the negation of the Riemann Hypothesis, but I think the positive proof will be more popular with the masses.)

Joe Bob, ID and MM, at 9:46 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Flat Earth

Donnell, evolution is clearly proven to a scientifically literate audience. To a scientifically illiterate audience, quasiphilosophical comments sound like science, and if they ‘happen’ to agree with blind faith, so much the better.

The reason most scientists don’t want to debate evolution is that same that geographers don’t hold debates with tribesmen who believe the earth is flat — one theory is clearly established and stands effectively unchallenged. ID doesn’t now and never has yet seriously challenged evolution on a scientific level. The tribesmen may be able to convince someone, even in our universities, with a partially-logical statement like “Wouldn’t people fall off the bottom?” or “Wouldn’t a spinning globe send us flying off into space?”

Scientists are trained to debate evidence — trying to refute people who rely on faith in the supernatural and rhetoric is neither their area of expertise nor an obligation.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 9:53 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Evolution is worth defending — good academics

And why shouldn’t scientists defend evolution? When there are periodic assaults on literature, English teachers defend Shakespeare. When there are periodic assaults on mathematics ("My kid will never need algebra! And you flunked him!"), mathematics teachers defend math.

Good academics, like the freedom of which it is the root, requires constant vigilance and defense.

Articles on the politics of ID don’t explain ID? They don’t explain evolution either, and perhaps more is the pity. However, I have a challenge out to all advocates of intelligent design: Tell us what it is, what it’s hypotheses are, and how it can be tested; if it’s science, show us at least one laboratory on Earth where it is practiced.

My challenge has gone unanswered for a decade.

Perhaps we should teach cold fusion instead of intelligent design. There is, after all, a hundred times more experimental support for cold fusion than there is for intelligent design.

That evolution has not been taught well is demonstrated repeatedly when ID advocates criticize evolution for not having explained the origins of life. That’s not part of evolution theory, of course — it’s like blaming evolution for having failed to explain exactly how an internal combustion engine works. Clearly, we need remedial evolution, too.

Ed Darrell, at 10:09 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Because nonsense in nonsense

D Hill: I don’t reject 100% of what creationists say just because they are creationists. I just reject what they have to say on the subject of science, because there is no more point in discussing science with a creationist than there is in playing poker with a five-year-old who insists on having the right, when necessary, to declare new wild cards after the hand is dealt.

[As an aside, *that’s* probably some ad hominem argument, but there was no AH argument in the prior post.]

As for Einstein and being wrong, the answer is yes — scientists had to reject Einstein’s error in refusing to accept quantum mechanics. They didn’t reject him as a person, or think that his refusal to accept the quantized nature of reality made his other theories and contributions wrong — but neither were they able to say, “Well, if Einstein doesn’t buy it, I can’t either.” In science, the argument from authority is a far more serious error than ad hominem criticisms which do not, after all, address the merits of the arguments.

Like Darwin, Einstein had a profound — although not flawless — understanding of nature. As a result, he developed testable _theories_ that offered rich opportunities for prediction and verification.

ID, on the other hand, offers exactly 0.00 testable predictions and relies on exactly 0.00 data. The whole of “ID” is simply a recycled and gussied-up attack on evolution through natural selection of the sort that Dawkins refuted years ago in “The Blind Watchmaker” etc.

JMG, at 10:13 am EDT on October 25, 2005

Donnell, again

It is obvious that Donnell doesn’t spend much time or thought in spelling out his objections, showing even the casual reader how senseless they are. Sadly, it is people like Donnell who are creating a nefarious epiphany of scandalous proportions for students, leading them into a new intellectual dark age where religion replaces reason, faith strangles fact, and theology trumpets over tried, tested theorems. Donnell’s understanding of science, and of evolution, is extraordinarily limited, which makes me wonder if he is, indeed, a graduate student in engineering, as even engineering sciences have evolved from the embryonic Archimedes screw to complete hydraulics and hydrostatics innovations. Yet, it seems, Donnell wishes everyone to return to yesteryear and the paucity of progress and practice. Evolution is a scientific theory thoroughly discussed, while Intelligent Design is nothing more than the tepid theology of Creation written in various scriptures of various people who had neither education but were led blindly by a few self-anointed priests (Babylonia, Canaanite, etc).

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 11:07 am EDT on October 25, 2005

ID

It is an interesting characteristic tha those who are busy defending a narrow version of evolution adamantly refuse to discuss the possibility of error. Daniel Dennett accidentally disposed of the arguments of such as Stephen Gould, who unwittingly introduce extra-natural explanations. And thus does Mr. Dawkins have a “Blind Watchmaker". What does a Watchmaker make? What is a watch? Why only Blind? By Dawkins’ theory the Watchmaker shound have none of the five senses. How then does he see / hear / feel / what he is making? Why is he making a Watch? What is the purpose of the Watch? Might this be ID? No, no, this is all poetry and bad poetry at that. Evolution works within a species. Any plant or animal breeder can tell you that. Indeed, much of Darwin’s “great haystacks of data” came from pigeon breeders. Nothing wrong with that if pigeons are your thing. But there has been [and likely will not be] an explanation moving from one species to another. Interesting are the accounts of the loss of faith by those who so vehemently defend the narrow theory of evolution. {Mother Nature, whoever she is, selecting who survives and who not, is a rather simplistic 19th Century notion, represented by Erda, the blind torso in the Ring of the Nibelungen]. Science is not merely the physical sciences, which are the least difficult of the sciences, depending on simple measurement. Science is any organized body of knowledge. Theology is a science, and a difficult one at that; far more difficult than any natural science. [I am bemused to hear that Einstein was wrong in not accepting the theory of quantum mechanics. One should go carefully before saying that so good a physicist as Einstein was wrong in so difficult a matter. Does anyone truly grasp quantum mechanics? [PS One should attempt to avoid ad hominem attacks. They only weaken the discussion]. Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austoin, at 11:35 am EDT on October 25, 2005

JMG

Just for the record, I am not a proponent of ID as it has been advanced.

My point is that the way in which we discuss these topics is very unproductive. When ID proponents argue that 100% of evolution is invalid — we get nowhere. When evolution proponents argue that 100% of ID is invalid — we get nowhere.

Note that in your argument all ID proponents are 100% invalid — no valid arguments even available to test and refute. I think this type of debate is advancing no form of knowledge.

D Hill, at 12:10 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Do

D Hill, two things you have said lead me to beilieve that you don’t quite understand what science is all about.

1) You said “However, you are using an ad hominem response by arguing that because I.D. proponents believe some supernatural force is involved somewhere, we must reject 100% of their arguments.”

Wrong. It would be ad hominum to criticize someone’s opinion only because that person believes in supernatural forces. But if that person refers to the supernatural to explain natural phenomena, then that person has stepped outside the bounds of scientific discourse. Science is about finding natural explanations for natural phenomena.

(2) You said, “When ID proponents argue that 100% of evolution is invalid — we get nowhere. When evolution proponents argue that 100% of ID is invalid — we get nowhere.”

ID proponents have no valid _scientific_ argument against evolution because the Designer is supernatural. Evolution proponents are quite justified in saying that ID is invalid _science_.

Joe Bob, at 3:03 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Modern Anthropology

Is it just me, or are others recognizing that ID is being pushed in order to detract from the facts of modern anthropology, in that modern anthropology reveals the concept of race to be a socially constructed concept rather than scientific. Do we really think that proponents of ID want their kids or kids in their home states learning this little scientific fact on the fallacy of scientific race? If kids do learn the facts, well then we might as a people have to recgonize the African bloodlines we share as well as the fallacy of racism being built on physical differences (which was ironically taught through evolution in American and European higher education through 1830-1860).I mean is the debate over ID truly just science vs. spirituality — or are cultural/social factors influencing the issue. Sounds like we are right back to Providence vs. Physical Dominance, but providence is on the plate now as we stare down a war for oil. Physical Dominance stood perfectly well over Providence when European Americans (never mind the amount of racial mixing that went on in the South) needed a rationalization to deny African Americans rightful citizenship in the land of liberty. And now in the name of challenging science we have ID...I think not. There is more at stake here than the question of science and it most certainly has to do with the political, social, and economic goals of those pushing for ID.

Michelle Savarese, at 5:01 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Donnell, Try Logic

Scientists are not “so defensive.” They didn’t even bother showing up for some school board meetings in PA because it was not worth wasting their time. (strike one)

“If evolution is science beyond a doubt"? It is. There is not “if,” despite what the gleefully unscientific may believe. Small groups matter, however. The Pied Piper was a great deceiver, and he was certainly the minority.

The existence of a controversy give credence to the existence of a controversy. You would do well to avoid clear non sequiturs, Mr. Duncan. You claim to have an education, yet you violate logic in ways that remedial composition students learn to avoid.

A PhD means that the person has the authority to explain matters in a specific field. You have repeated this idea that PhDs are trying to make people “believe” things. They are not. And we have yet to hear what qualifications you have, short of hearing God talk to you on the radio, that make you even as qualified as those PhDs in science to assess the value of ID in the science classroom. I have brought up that issue before, however, and you have ignored or dodged it. Unlike you with your non sequitur, however, I will not assume you lack these qualifications. Likewise, I will not assume you possess them, either.

Most people who are in any position to judge evolutionary theory, agree with evolutionary theory. It is nice that you can concede that evolution, for what it covers, wins. Congratulations. Evolutionists have never even intimated that evolution explains the origins of life.

The problem here is that you appear to support the teaching of ID in the science classroom (that this the entire controversy, by the way) while failing to propose a scientific foundation for its inclusion. Engineers, I understand, learn to design structures that have foundations and support. Argumentation is much the same.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:02 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Joe Bob

Thanks for the comments — I welcome the discourse.

The difference of opinion may be explained by the common assumption you are making that the only IDEA that ID proponents have is supernatural. This is an caricature which is ridiculous if you spend any amount of time doing research on the topic. This is why I consider the previous post an ad hominem (check your spelling) argument — I do believe ID ideas are rejected because of caricatures of the people or group themselves.

Why is it that when ID proponents mention ‘purposeful design’ they must be rejected completely and ignored, yet when Richard Dawkins mentions the Blind Watchmaker (which specifically addresses theology), he cannot be criticized?

Look at your arguments in the posts above. Tell me that they are based on the issues involved rather than name-calling, caricatures, and ad homimen attacks.

I will state this simply — I.D. involves much more than supernatural explanations. There is much in their views that is based 100% naturalistic views on evolution.

D Hill, at 9:46 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

Errors

First, I don’t think it is necessary to resort to whining about the stupidity of ID proponents. It gets us nowhere.

Second, to respond to an earlier post, the other difference to be pointed out between Einstein and quantum physics and ID and evolution is pivotal: Einstein believed that quantum mechantics contradicted his mathmatic work and tried to prove it wrong using math and proof — and died having not completed his work on the “unified field” that was to predict quantum behavior.

He may have turned out wrong — very well, his math may be off or his work incomplete. But he tried to use solid math and science to try to prove quantum physics wrong. He didn’t give a diatribe on disrespecting the supernatural world — “God doesn’t roll dice” was as close as he got. Nor did he use his immense popularity and respect in the popular community to try to supress quantum physics. He fielded a rationally derived, realistic, scientific theory that happened to be wrong.

Compare this with the IDers who no longer appeal to the scientific method at all and instead have resorted to browbeating people about open-mindedness rather than presenting proof. Nor have they come out with any experimental data to seriously contradict the myriad studies on evolutionary principles.

Dr. Purvis, many people who have PhDs are as ignorant as the people they speak down to, and many people without advanced degrees are quite well informed. There a quite a few quacks with numerous legitimately earned letters after their names and besides, one would be well advised to demonstrate superior arguements to convince people, rather than respond that they have challenged your credentials. Knowlage is supposed to lead you to obtaining credentials, not the other way around.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 9:46 pm EDT on October 25, 2005

From where I sit, Michelle has added the most valuable new material to the discussion, for the forces in support of removing as much science from the science classroom as possible do seem to support a range of other ideas and policies that exacerbate racial inequities. And certainly evolution has the capacity to confound racial arguments (though it also has the capacity to support them).

Gabriel seems confused and certainly is confusing. What does the following mean? “But there has been [and likely will not be] an explanation moving from one species to another.” If there has been such an explanation, one wonders what will remove it from existence. And yes, evolution most certainly addresses speciation, so indeed there has been and will be an explanation of speciation within evolution as long as evolution exists. Gabriel has also redefined science to suit himself("Science is any organized body of knowledge") and his own arguments—the rules of hopscotch and the Guinness Book of World Records are sciences by this definition, for example. Even accepting his definition, though, before he can declare theology a science, he must define “knowledge” to include untestable speculation (or acknowledge that when he declares theology a science, it is the collection of historical data concerning theological speculation that makes it a science, i.e. that history, not theology, is the “science” is he is speaking of), making his argument circular at base.

Donnell’s “A Ph.D. does not mean that a scientist can tell people what to think” may sound innocuous enough to him, but he seems to ignore just how much this is an argument about who _is_ allowed to tell children what to think about science. It seems logical to allow those with expertise, i.e. scientists, to direct the teaching of science.

As far as adults go, much of their thinking is already formed and little can be done to alter it. There are still right-wingers who insist that trickle-down will work if we just give rich people even more money, despite two recessions under Reagan, one under Bush I, and an unusually weak recovery under Bush II, all guided by trickle-down concepts, and only broken up by the longest economic expansion in US history under the non-trickle-down economics of Clinton.

Kids are different, though, and that’s important. If we can get a decent recognition of scientific method into kids, something that’s been disproven five times, like trickle-down, should no longer be able to be the dominant idea of economic policy (another $70 billion in tax cuts targetted to benefit the wealthy the most currently under discussion).

Do we really want the next generations—the ones who will guide the economy and (we hope) produce enough to take care of us in our old age—to grow up believing science is something useless, something one can just take or leave? If a lot of people who feel threatened by science weren’t deeply invested in teaching kids that that it is little more than a bunch of wild ideas by some rather strange, creepy, and ungodly people and didn’t think this would affect what those kids grow up to believe, the “Replace-science-with-non-science” argument would never have arisen.

My undergraduate degree in physics is from Georgia Tech, so blame Donnell’s undergraduate institution, not Tech, for the flaws in his thinking.

Thane Doss, Tokyo

Thane Doss, at 4:37 am EDT on October 26, 2005

ID is not science

D Hill,

The central thesis of ID is that biological systems are obviously “irreducibly complex” and that some “Intelligent Designer” must have created them. Now, either that agent is supernatural or it’s not.

If the Designer is supernatural, then ID is not science.

If the Designer is _not_ supernatural, then the logic of ID breaks down. Wouldn’t a natural Designer have to be at least as “irreducibly complex” as the biological systems that it designed? If so, the Designer must have been designed by a super-Designer that is at least as “irreducibly complex", etc. Either you stop this regression at some point and say that some super-super-...-super-Designer is outside of nature, or you have an infinite regression.

As to who is arguing in good faith: your previous post presents no argument whatsoever. You pretend to read my mind; you miss the point that my caricature is of the logic of “irreducible complexity” and divine intervention in the context of science, not of the people that make them; and you stoop to pointing out spelling errors.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe in the supernatural as long as they don’t try to pass it off as _science_.

Joe Bob, at 6:02 am EDT on October 26, 2005

Credentials and quacks

Kevin, I do hope you are not suggesting that I am talking down to Mr. Duncan. He chose to present his material with (smile)s included, and I responded in kind. You are correct that there are many with PhDs who are ill-informed and many without who are well-informed. Sadly, that has no bearing on this discussion.

My issue with Mr. Duncan is that he takes a position (often without foundation), calls for responses, and proceeds to ignore those responses. This is, sadly, the response superior arguments receive all too often.

I am still waiting for one person who supports ID to comment about why it should be taught in the science classroom. Those last four words comprise the part consistently ignored in these comments. Thus, when someone attempts to shift the debate to oher issues, I comment both on the invalidity of those issues and on the necessity of addressing the one core issue.

As a quick side note, I appreciate the title, but I am not PhD. I hold an MA and teach at the community college level.

Andrew Purvis, at 7:27 am EDT on October 26, 2005

Race or class?

Michelle, Thane,

I agree with you that those who are politically and financially backing ID are doing so for some reason other than the pursuit of truth, but I think it has more to do with class than race.

After all, you can hardly accuse George W, the highest-profile political backer of of ID, of racism since he did appoint Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to very high posts in his administration. On the other hand you could very well accuse him of attacking the working class by promoting war, tax cuts for the rich, and the dismantling of social security. I know that there are proportionally more blacks than members of other “races” in the lower strata of American society, but the attacks are against everyone down there, not just blacks.

Promoting backwards ideas like ID helps to keep the masses ignorant, which makes them easier to manipulate.

Joe Bob, at 8:35 am EDT on October 26, 2005

Joe Bob and Kevin

Thank you. Both of your recent posts were completely on topic and useful. This is the kind of discourse that is needed, rather than the hyperbole of earlier posts.

Kevin, I agree with your contrast of the Einstein / Quantum issue against the ID / Evolution issue.

Joe Bob, I agree that I was ‘reading your mind’, but if you look back at earlier posts, you might see why I did so.

My last question — are there any legitimate criticisms of evolution theory that have been provided by I.D.? My answer is yes. Evolution proponents themselves can fail to separate provable science (evolution occurs) to pure conjecture (therefore there cannot be a purposeful designer). Like I.D., evolusionists should stick to science and avoid theology.

D Hill, at 8:35 am EDT on October 26, 2005

We finally agree!

D Hill,

I totally agree with you that “evolutionists should stick to science and avoid theology.”

The problem is that there are all these school boards in the U.S. that are trying force evolutionists to teach theology, in the form of ID, in biology classes!

Joe Bob, at 1:55 pm EDT on October 26, 2005

Please Continue

D Hill, you indicated that there are “legitimate criticisms of evolution theory [...] provided by I.D.” You then went on to cite none. You advanced one (quite valid) criticism of some supporters of evolutionary theory, and that criticism is sometimes made by those who support ID, but you did not provide any “legitimate criticisms of evolution theory [...] provided by I.D.”

I have no problems with the claim that evolution contains inconsistencies. This is true of gravity, the speed of light, and no shortage of other generally settled scientific matters. What I want to know is what criticisms does ID make that scientists studying evolution did not already have out there?

D Hill, at 2:59 pm EDT on October 26, 2005

From Our Prophet Donnell

“Every day is another step closer to the sudden trumpet blast that will signal the exodus of every person in Christ. It can be proven by the Word of God that these are definitely our last days on earth and the season for an unprecedented harvest of souls is upon us."—From Donnell’s Cracked Door website

(In case you wondered where he gets his authority to speak on evolution and education.)

C. Darwin, From the Beyond, at 7:55 pm EDT on October 26, 2005

Some Criticisms of Evolution

So, what legitimate criticisms of evolution have been proposed by ID proponents?

In a general sense, a valid criticism is that the fossil record does not support gradual transitions between species, but in fact indicates sudden bursts in the existence of phyla. Likewise, there is a near complete lack of inter-species transitions in place right now. Further, how do we explain the stasis of known species who appeared suddenly in the fossil record, but have not changed in any significant way in millions of years (e.g. crocodiles)?

Is it possible that part of evolution is correct and verifiable, yet another part of evolution should be considered theory and not fact? I am not proposing throwing out evolution as a whole due to an open area of debate — I am proposing NOT treating evolution as an indivisible whole, and allowing true scientific inquiry and debate on the part that remains a theory.

There are other examples, but the common theme is that micro-evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly, but macro-evolution (at least defined as the appearance of a new species through gradual, naturalistic self-selection) has not been proven, and has significant data that does not fit the theory.

All of the above criticisms of evolution have nary a scent of supernatural explanation, and have been advanced by ID proponents. I do fully admit, that this approach is not taken by supporters of creation-science and by many in ID.

D Hill, at 4:40 pm EDT on October 27, 2005

Yes and No

I agree, D Hill, that the fossil record challenge is an interesting critique of evolution. I do not agree, however, that it comes from ID. Since those critiques pre-date ID by decades, they are not critiques raised specifically by the ID hypothesis.

I probably should have framed my question more clearly: What is it that ID brings to the table that is new in challenging evolution? In other words, why ID and not one of a dozen other hypotheses that use the same fossil record criticism?

We need to remember, though, that when a question remains open regarding a detail in a theory, it is not a flaw in the underlying idea, but merely a point for further exploration. If such a hole becomes serious enough, it has the potential for undermining, or at least foorcing the reformulation of, the larger theory. None of the challenges proposed here begins to appraoch the seriousness that would be necessary to pose a serious risk to evolutionary theory, yet scientists continue to test them. I still find myself wondering what ID brings to the table that can’t be expressed at least as well through other, scientifically sound, means.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:20 pm EDT on October 27, 2005

Good Point

You make two very good points. One is the question of whether ID has actually brought new critiques that are new. I have to admit that I do not know the answer to that and would have to do some cross research. This point actually gets to my biggest problem with ID — while the group of scientists involved may have valid contributions to make, their approach creates too much political noise at the expense of science.

The second is that you have properly used the language of theory. The whole point is that there are problems that need to be honestly investigated — I’m all for that, minus the vitriol that currently exists.

D Hill, at 6:56 am EDT on October 28, 2005

The source

Sadly, the nastiness surrounding this issue will not go away so long as the question remains open on even one college campus or in one school district. We will, I am convinced, see this issue before SCotUS before the end of 2006, so I suspect we will see a ruling on either the constitutionality of the problem or placement in the states’ rights spectrum.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:02 am EDT on October 29, 2005

Jobs Related to Engaging the Public

or search for jobs directly.

Adjunct Faculty, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science; Mathematics (Part-Time)
Bridgewater State College, MA

BSC is one of the largest and most exciting centers for higher education in the commonwealth. Here in our idyllic setting, ... see job

Associate Director
Western Carolina University

Working Title: Associate Director — Student Financial Aid

Posting Information: The purpose of the WCU ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor: Art Education
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job

Director, Research Evaluation and Instructional Development
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

Speech Communications Tenure Track Faculty
Metropolitan State College of Denver

Urban College with 21,000 students at the base of Rocky Mountain, in Colorado. see job

Residential Life Staff Interpreter
California State University, Northridge

The California State University, Northridge’s (CSUN) Residential Life Special Projects Coordinator seeks an Interpreter to ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor in C & I, Specialization in Generalist in EC-6th Grade, Content Area S
University of Texas, Brownsville

Position Number: FY 08-174 Reports to: Chairperson of Curriculum & Instruction Department Scope: Teach undergraduate and ... see job

Acting/Theater Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

This advertisement is a pool for adjunct faculty in the acting/theater area. The pool will be accessed when a need arises. ... see job

Assistant Professor — History
Western Carolina University

Assistant Professor of History/History Education and Social Science Education Coordinator. This tenure track position is ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor/Nutrition
Lebanese American University

School of Arts and Sciences Division: Natural Sciences Discipline: Nutrition Campus: Beirut /Byblos Vacancy date: February ... see job