"The evolution wars" in Time [Time Magazine's cover story]

National Center for Science Education ^ | 11 August 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.

With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:

• A photomontage -- available only in the print edition -- on p. 26 and half of p. 27, with the elderly Darwin at the center, orbited by images of Pepper Hamilton's Eric Rothschild (a lead litigator in Kitzmiller v. Dover) brandishing a copy of Of Pandas and People, students in a biology classroom in Kansas, President Bush, the Cobb County disclaimer, and so forth.

• A comment from Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, on President Bush's remarks on "intelligent design": "It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue ... If I were China, I'd be happy."

• A map, compiled from data provided by NCSE, showing antievolution proposals considered by state legislatures and boards of education since 2001 and antievolution proposals considered by local schools or panels in 2005. As members of NCSE and regular visitors to its website will have guessed, the map is crowded.

• A pair of definitions from Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine's Biology textbook on the one hand and Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon's Of Pandas and People on the other hand. According to the latter, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."

• A brief history of the development of creationist tactics from the Scopes era to the post-Edwards era, under the heading "A subtler assault," which quotes NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott as quipping, "You have to hand it to the creationists. They have evolved."

• A paragraph explaining the significance of state science standards as a new venue for creationists. NCSE's Glenn Branch told Time, "The decision-making bodies involved in approving state science standards tend to be small, not particularly knowledgeable and, above all, elected, so it's a good opportunity for political pressure to be applied."

• A recognition of the disparity between President Bush's seeming endorsement of teaching "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute's recent distancing of itself from such proposals, with Connie Morris (a conservative Republican on the Kansas state board of education), and Senator Rick Santorum seeming "to be reading from the same script."

• A section in which scientists -- primarily the Oxford zoologist and popular expositor Richard Dawkins, as well as the Harvard mathematician and evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak -- castigate "intelligent design" as resting on misconceptions and mischaracterizations of bology.

• A pithy diagnosis of the "teach the controversy" strategy by David Thomas, the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason: "The intelligent-design people are trying to mislead people into thinking that the reference to science as an ongoing critical inquiry permits them to teach I.D. crap in the schools."

• A sidebar asking four prominent figures -- the National Human Genome Research Institute's Francis Collins, Harvard's Steven Pinker, the Discovery Institute's Michael Behe, and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Albert Mohler -- "Can you believe in God and evolution?"

While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And to think the better part of evolutionism doesn't entail the least bit of direct observation, yet you consider it to be "science."

Nobody has directly observed an atom either. Atomic theory is not science? You have been told time and time gain that much of science is indirect observation, yet you are so drunk from your incessant chugging that you refuse to let that fact sink in. Will the thousandth time it is explained to you make any difference?

You ARE good for some laughs though. Thanks! :)

[general_re]

I don't like ideas that proclaim themselves as truthful when they are incapable of expressing the basis upon which they are formed.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You are willfully blind to that which you claim to seek, and yet you persist in ascribing that blindness to someone else's inability to turn on the lights. The lights are on, Chester - you just refuse to open your eyes.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I was hoping for a more substantive response, perhaps an answer to my question: How much do I have to "understand" death to know I do not like it?

It is clear to me you see the light according to your assumptions and you believe the propositions that come at your reason and senses according to your own judgments. I am happy to let you live and die with that light. But you go against common sense in attributing your existence and the existence of the universe to something other than intelligent design. Regardless, in these regards you stand no more firmly on scientific ground than do I.

[RadioAstronomer]

Before Darwin? Like Melbourne or Sydney?

Oooo your good! ROFL!

[RadioAstronomer]

If it's bothering you enough that you know you need it done, it's worth it.

I know. Just been too busy. LOL!

[RadioAstronomer]

Whatever awaits you in regard to physical matters, my hope and prayer is that it is only the best for you

Thank you. :-)

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are willfully blind to that which you claim to seek . . .

I'm trying to figure out where it is I confessed that I claimed to be seeking something. It's all been laid on my lap to be observed and noted to some degree, but in no way does it suggest, and in no way am I seeking, the notion that I am here as a result of a 4.5 billion year concatenation of chemical reactions. Is there some way you can bring science to bear on this matter? No. Please stop pretending you can.

[Doctor Stochastic]

My good what?

[Vive ut Vivas]

Yeah, I never liked math. I also had a hard time with physics. Can that go too?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Nobody has directly observed an atom either. Atomic theory is not science?

IMO, atomic theory has far more veracity than evolutionsm, simply due to the fact that it works with ongoing phenomena upon which it is able to operate with further observation and testing. As such I do consider it to be science. Atomic theory, like the discipline of biology, is uncovering the grand design God placed into His creation and sustains to this very moment. In case you haven't noticed, 4.5 billion years is water over the dam. The farthest back written records of history go - our only hope for eyewitness testimony - is several millenia.

I also count many other disciplines as respectable sciences, apparently more than you do. I know where conjecture belongs and I know its limits. Evoltuionism, like a bull in a china shop, knows neither.

[RadioAstronomer]

My good what?

I love your humor. :-)

[general_re]

Is there some way you can bring science to bear on this matter?

Yes. But you refuse to see it. QED.

[iThinkBig]

"This includes evil. So is evil part of His design too?"

I like logic also but I do believe in a grand creator or the originator of a grand design. To answer your question, I would simply say that the design whether you believe in an originator or not, contains intelligent creatures that get to decide actions outside of animal instinct, like a cat for example.

Humans can decide actions that are harmful or what you are calling 'evil' to other portions of the design or they can decide to be helpful. So is being helpful 'good' and being harmful 'evil'? Part of what science cannot understand or explain at this point in time, are the reasons we are guided by moral principles of right or wrong. The bible and other spiritual beliefs offer theories as to why this is. I believe it is the genetic blueprint of DNA in our brain instilled by an originator that sends and receives electronic signal to make such decisions based on random variance of events, hitoric and speculative.

God is a faith issue. I believe it can and should be taught as part of American history or social studies. Why? America was founded as 'one nation under God' bearing a moral standard of being good by promoting freedoms. Freedoms which include which beliefs we choose and practice. Should it be taught as science? No. It is not a scientific argument. We know evolution happens so the evolution process should be taught as science.

However, neither party can truly quantify the originator of the design so filling in the blanks as opinion, speculation or a belief should be allowed by a teacher. Should it be written in on science textbooks? No. Should we all be able to mention God, Allah, Christ or whatever you believe at school? Sure! The whole issue of the removing God or an originator from the pledge of allegiance or court-rooms becomes a issue of what moral principles our country and justice system will fall back on.

[longshadow]

The definitive verdict on astrology:

"If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology."

-David Hilbert

[iThinkBig]

"Let's fall even further behind by clouding the teaching of science by mixing it with unprovable mythology."

You have good arguments and I agree, some of the posters here have not read about the facts of science, such as land creatures appearing a billion years ago for example. If you like to read, pick up the bible and read it from cover to cover about the facts and the fiction.

Moses received a full accounting of creation from God. Moses wrote this account down and the appearance of creatures that swam in the sea to present man is a direct mirror of what science teaches us. Moses was also instructed by God not to eat pigs as they were unclean. Of course, how could the people back then know about microbiology and Salmonella? They couldn't. They were given simple instructions from God for their time. The bible writers were told how the universe was started and what will become of man in the future. It does not teach doom and gloom or instant access into a heaven or hell by being good or bad. It talks about man's number of years to live on earth being decreased and controlled because of advancing scientifically too fast while making bad choices. The bible talks about living forever once again after the fall of man which due to science, we now know is more then plausible at some point and told of by God through many writers 2,000+ years ago. The rib of Adam turned into Eve by God would of course seemed like pure magic to people living less then 50 years ago. Now, we know that DNA can be extracted from bone marrow to create a clone or genetic mutation of the same.

Science and the bible both talk about common ancestors with science saying that we all came from one female genetic blueprint. The bible talks about science being increased greatly in what is called the 'latter part of days'. This time period will be one of trouble for man, and it has been written about for thousands of years. But the trouble comes mostly from our own choices, not God's. He is just telling us what was and what will be. I happen to like that.

I do not encourage you to read the bible to make some convert, I encourage you to read the bible for a balanced perspective. Religion takes the bible and turns it mythology as you mentioned. Religion is afraid to say what science already can and that is that we don't have all the answers. The bible writers themselves do no do such a thing.

[RadioAstronomer]

Left out again I see. Crushed I tell ya CRUSHED! LOL!

[RobbyS]

Sorry, but do you know that Darwin's first cousin, a famous man in his own right, originated eugenics and Darwin's son was president of the eugenics society? The caution is that people may draw false inferences from true statements.

[Coyoteman]

Religion takes the bible and turns it mythology as you mentioned. Religion is afraid to say what science already can and that is that we don't have all the answers. The bible writers themselves do no do such a thing.

Is it me or is this gibberish?

For those who believe in Intelligent Design, a parting good night thought--you who espouse ID, well here it is. I think this is as valid as any other ID story. Do you disagree? Why?

I will check in the morning to see if anyone can disprove this version in favor of any other.

A Pawnee Emergence Myth:
Mother Corn Leads the First People to the Surface of the Earth

(From the ritual account given by the Pawnee Indian,
Four Rings, to Dr. Melvin Gilmore.)

Before the World was we were all within the Earth.

Mother Corn caused movement. She gave life.

Life being given we moved towards the surface:

We shall stand erect as men!

The being is become human! He is a person!

To personal form is added strength:

Form and intelligence united, we are ready to come forth

But Mother Corn warns us that the Earth is still in flood.

Now Mother Corn proclaims that the flood is gone, and the Earth--now green.

Mother Corn commands that the people ascend to the surface.

Mother Corn has gathered them together, they move half way to the surface;

Mother Corn leads them near to the surface of the Earth;

Mother Corn brings them to the surface. The first light appears!

Mother Corn leads them forth. They have emerged to the waist.

They step forth to the surface of the Earth.

Now all have come forth; and Mother Corn leads them from the East towards the West.

Mother Corn leads them to the place of their habitation. . . .

All is completed All is perfect!

H.B. Alexander, The World's Rim

[iThinkBig]

"The assertion that He is both Omniscient and Omnipotent means that the Universe cannot unfold in any manner inconsistent with His Omniscience. Thus all my choices were Foreseen and I cannot choose anything that was not pre-ordained. This is not freewill, it is pre-destination. This has always been obvious to me, even before I studied logic. It is a "mutually exclusive" condition."

I like to think of it like my business. I set-up a business with rules, regulations and goals. I unveil my process and then others replicate it making or losing me money. Some of those people I hire in the business make the right choices, some make the wrong choices. Ultimately though, I have the final say of what goes and comes.

God can be surprised at the choices we make. Read the bible for yourself. Most of the posters make claim to what their religion teaches them in respect to the bible. The bible says that God was surprised at men building out the tower of Babel, advancing too fast scientifically.

The bible seems to contain short term and long-term prophecies of future events. Some events are pre-destined to occur. For example, scientists can now can see asteroids that could potentially hit earth in the next
10-10,000 years. Based on physics God can easily know that an asteroid will hit earth at the same time of other future events, also based on physics. God may not know how you will specifically react to an asteroid heading toward your house, but knowing your genetic likelyhood of fear and running away, could accurately predict how you would react. Same with groups of people, it is very complex math of physics combined with statistical probibility.

Some very smart scientists are focused on what being concience is and what seperates us from the animals. They think that concience being is nothing more then your human brain having the ability to predict millions of future event scenerios based on past history, pre-programmed or learned in your brain. If God is one level higher then man, surely he must have a similar capacity, yet far more advanced. That to me is not pre-destiny of how you will live your life and make choices.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!