"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.

[Drammach]

FYI, the Supreme Court recognized a small group of peyote worshippers as a religion.

As "A" religion...

Not A "Major" Religion..

Satanism and Wicca are recognized as religions, I doubt they will ever have that big a following..
Likewise with the peyote people..
By the way, I don't think they "worship" peyote, they just use it as part of their religious ceremony..

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm unfamiliar with the legal distinction between 'religion' and 'major religion'. Could you provide a reference?

[Old Landmarks]

Agreed.

I don't mind the blather and the arrogance from the Bible-rejecting mob, in fact I expect it. I just like to point out to these moral jacobins that they are following some very dubious examples.

[b_sharp]

"Hehe. You must be some kind of comedian. The 4.5 billion year idea is yours. The rocks don't look 4.5 billion years old to me.

You are hardly an expert. I doubt very much that you have some supernatural ability to discern the age of rock by looking at them. This sounds fairly arrogant on your part.

"Do you know whether radiometric dating pertains to the age of the rocks themselves, or the form they took at a certain time?

It depends on what kind of rock it is.

Radiometric dating is useless in determining the age of matter. Quantum physics is just beginning to figure out that matter is not as solid as it appears to the eye.

Quantum physics knew that 90 years ago. The relative space between particles in an atom has no bearing on the age of the universe or the earth. The collapse of the wave function has no bearing on the age of the earth.

[b_sharp]

""my noodly appendage is bigger than your noodly appendage" Placemarker

That's quite a stretch.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are hardly an expert.

It does not take an expert to recognize the difference between conjecture and certitude. Have you conducted tests yourself to ascertain the age of the earth, or do you simply believe what the books tell you?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Drammach]

I'm unfamiliar with the legal distinction between 'religion' and 'major religion'. Could you provide a reference?

Legal distinction? Not sure..

Recognized distinction?
Try the World Almanac.. Index.. Religion .. Major World..

[b_sharp]

I hate calamari. Tastes like rubber...Oops.

[b_sharp]

"It does not take an expert to recognize the difference between conjecture and certitude. Have you conducted tests yourself to ascertain the age of the earth, or do you simply believe what the books tell you?

You mean like you do?

No, not really. Whether or not I believe an author depends on his credibility and the review given him by other experts in the field, combined with my own reasoning, which in turn is based on years of reading and formal education. I generally need multiple sources of converging information before I take someone at their word.

Do you gather any information other than what you glean from Biblical sources or their related websites before coming to a conclusion, or are you only concerned with information that agrees with your Biblical mindset?

[Sloth]

This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen. You can only verify that something did happen.

Correct... except that the pro-ID people are the ones attempting to verify that something (intelligent intervention) DID happen. It is the anti-ID camp who want to assert the unprovable belief that intelligent intervention did NOT happen.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you gather any information other than what you glean from Biblical sources or their related websites before coming to a conclusion, or are you only concerned with information that agrees with your Biblical mindset?

I start with the biblical texts as having ultimate authority. Thereafter I try, albeit weakly, to judge other propositions and evidence in light of the same. WRT propositions like a 4.5 billion year old earth, I don't believe it just because a bunch of people and books say so, and I am not qualified at this point to do my own testing. Thus I'll leave it an open case unless or until I am convinced of evidence to the contrary.

You apparently believe the philosophy of evolutionism to be a closed case even though you have not done the testing and examination yourself. At this point I'd like to ask why you consider that to be "science."

[Right Wing Professor]

Legal distinction? Not sure..

Oh good. Then you no longer stand by the statement that 'The courts, ( and SCOTUS ) would not even consider anything else as deserving recognition as a major religion'. I agree: the courts would not make such a distinction. Teach one creation myth, and you need to teach them all.

[Condorman]

Been here awhile and still haven't seen a ToE, that stands the test of the Scientific Method.

Really? Would you mind posting some of the ones you HAVE seen?

[Drammach]

I hate calamari. Tastes like rubber...Oops.

Then it was overcooked..

[Drammach]

Like I said, the World Almanac recognizes/ lists as "Major World Religions", Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism..

That's it...
I really didn't go into a full-tilt search for the SCOTUS approved definition of Major World Religions, but I remember a few cases ( in a general manner ) that they have dealt with over the years..
I seriously doubt they would consider a case that demanded the creation myths of the Mandan Sioux be included in the creationist / ID alternative to Evolution in schools..
They "may" consider the Major World Religions I listed above..
Because, they have numbers... A sufficient following to make them a statistically viable religious group..
Under such a criteria, there might be a few other religions that could get recognition..
Baha'ai, (sp?) Taoism, Shinto, Zoroastranism, maybe Jainism, stuff like that..

Branch Davidians won't make the cut...

[b_sharp]

"You apparently believe the philosophy of evolutionism to be a closed case even though you have not done the testing and examination yourself. At this point I'd like to ask why you consider that to be "science.""

Everything in science is based on what has gone before. Current knowledge is based on not only the specific field under study but from many other contributory fields of study. What you are suggesting is that unless each and every scientist reproduce the prior experiments before getting to his own area of interest, they are not practicing science. This is unnecessary, counter productive and downright silly.

This requirement of reproducing all prior tests before accepting the results shows that your interest is not in defining what science is, but in creating a definition of science that would necessarily preclude evolution from being considered such. Instead of trying to twist the definition of science to enable you to outright dismiss evolution as a science, use the definition scientists actually use in every day work. Their definition does not demand direct observation exclusively but allows indirect observation to be used.

Just for information sake, do you consider the 2 slit experiment, direct or indirect observation?

If your definition of science with its artificial constraints enables you to feel comfortable with your religion, so be it. If however you insist on spreading your false definition as fact you are baldly prevaricating.

[b_sharp]

I was just continuing LS's and PH's noodle joke.
I'm not really much for any sea food.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What you are suggesting is that unless each and every scientist reproduce the prior experiments before getting to his own area of interest, they are not practicing science.

Not exactly. I am downright stating that it is unscientific to present a philosophy as closed case science when one has undertaken only cursory verification of the propositions he is given to believe.

[Right Wing Professor]

I am downright stating that it is unscientific to present a philosophy as closed case science when one has undertaken only cursory verification of the propositions he is given to believe.

So, Fester, I have done quite detailed and extensive checking of said propositions. That would mean that I can present evolution as closed case science, no?

And I have also offered to lead you through the process. That would mean that you too, could present it as closed case science, but are prevented from doing so only by laziness or indolence.

So your position seems to be nothing more than advocacy of biblical literalism on the grounds that exploration of a contrary philosophy would entail your getting off your couch.

Gee, that's really admirable.