January 3, 2008

National Academy Answers Creationist Challenge

Professors who have been blindsided by students who support intelligent design can look to the National Academy of Sciences for help. The academy and its sister Institute of Medicine today published a book, called Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that offers clear explanations about evolution and why creationism is not science. The book, which has answers to frequently asked questions in the back, is available on the academy’s Web site. The site will also present a live audio Webcast, on Friday at 11 a.m. Eastern time, to discuss the book. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. I do not understand why both Evolution and Creationism cannot be taught in school systems with an objective attitude. Both are widely believed in and students have a right to be fully educated. Creationism is based on ancient near eastern religions and is quite interesting when studied.

   — Curtis    Jan 3, 06:33 PM    #

2. Per comment #1, the two can and sometimes are taught. However, creationism is not taught as SCIENCE for the simple and obvious reason that it is not even remotely scientific.

   And it is clearly no measure of an idea’s cognitive legitimacy that it is widely believed. What counts are the reasons for that belief.

   — Gary L. Herstein    Jan 3, 07:28 PM    #

3. To #1:

   When people still believed the earth was flat but science had proven that it was round, should schools have taught both?

   — CU Alum    Jan 3, 10:44 PM    #

4. Until anti-IDers can rely on an argument other than “This is not science because scientists say so,” then various questions regarding origins should be entertained as legitimate areas of inquiry. They should not be rejected simply because they might imply causal factors that atheists and some agnostics find repulsive.

   Something tells me that whatever it is, that’s not how “science” should work.

   — IDGuy    Jan 4, 01:05 AM    #

5. As someone who is certain beyond any doubt that evolution is an established fact, I am also going to say that IDGuy has a partial point to which we should pay attention. Of course, most of the time scientists don’t just “say so” in their arguments, but point out that ID uses only the trappings of science and not its methods. (In particular, ID ignores Ockham’s razor: When you have two theories, a simple one with strong predictive value and a second that seems to require patching up and further explanation every time more evidence is discovered, then the simple one is most likely to be true.) However, scientists are at their worst when they point out that ID is not science because it has faith at its heart and cannot be disproven; don’t scientists realize that an argument that something cannot be disproven is unlikely to convince very many people of anything? The IDers are correct when they claim that scientists who say this are only making a technical argument that ID does not play by the scientists’ rules, and that most people don’t care about that but only care who is actually right. The better argument is not that ID cannot technically be disproven, but that there is so much overwhelming proof of evolution by any logical standard, whether one accepts scientists’ more abstract ground rules or not; that is what needs to be stressed. Also, scientists are on far more uncomfortable ground when some try to say that the evidence they see disproves religion. There are many folks in almost all religions who see their religion as co-existing comfortably with the idea of evolution, and the implications (or flat-out statements) by many scientists that “You’re either an atheist or an idiot” are what often turn off folks who otherwise might look harder at the evidence for evolution surrounding them at every turn and then see how that can fit in with their belief system. Much of the time their own spiritual leaders can help them with that.

   — Bob M.    Jan 4, 07:07 AM    #

6. There is nothing at all wrong with examining ideas on their merits in academic settings. In fact, the critical examination of evidence is one of the goals of education. I have no problem with spending some time, in some courses, learning about what those who argue for “intelligent design” or “creation science” write and say. This is not to say that ID merits a very large place in most science courses. It simply does not stand up under examination. Now, I went to schools that did not permit any significant discussion or examination of evolution. It did not take very long when I got into science courses in colleges and universities that actually taught scientific method and were open to critical examination of a full spectrum of evidence, for me to see how wrong young earth creationism was. While I am no longer a “believer” in God, I am not a crusader for atheism. I simply do not define myself in terms of religion. I do advocate learning, progress in gathering and testing knowledge, science as a reliable epistemological process, and I view ignorance (along with intolerance of diversity) as an enemy. There are plenty of people who are not stupid who are astonishingly ignorant of the evidence that natural selection is a powerful process that produces evolutionary change. And I’m pretty sure that many of the people who teach evolution as fact are not fully aware of the most current and convincing evidence. I’m all for open examination of evidence, but ID is such a small concept that it does not warrant much time or consideration in most science classes. This does not mean that people should remain ignorant of its assertions, and strengths and weaknesses. Strengths? Actually, there are some, at least in some cases. For example, rejection, by most ID-ers, of “young earth” creationism. At least that is ONE step in the right direction.

   — Joe Erwin    Jan 4, 07:47 AM    #

7. Faith and science aren’t opposed, and they never have been. Sure, at times, there have been disagreements. But no true believer, at least in Christianity (the only perspective I can faithfully represent) would ever ultimately fear science. Fr. John Zahm, C.S.C., was an excellent scientist (audiology, naturalist) at the turn of the 20th century at Notre Dame. In 1896 he published a book entitled “Evolution and Dogma,” which brought the best of science to bear on Christian dogma. Though the Catholic church was skeptical at first, they ultimately acquiesced. Zahm himself argued that because faith is true, and because science is also true, the two can’t be opposed. I think we would be well-served to follow Zahm’s example of the best in scientific rigor, enlightened by a faith that we’re not alone, and that evolution, while certainly a scientific fact, didn’t just happen by chance. It actually takes much more faith to think that all the world just happened by chance. Just ask Stephen Hawking (who, last I checked, is smarter than any of us!)

   — Profet    Jan 4, 08:40 AM    #

8. Where is the evidence for the existence of the creationists’ superbeing?

   All we need is one reproducible scientific experiment that shows that there is a superbeing in this univrse. One simple experiment. That is all that science asks for. Thus far, the religions have failed to come up with any scientific evidence for the existence of a creator superbeing. Until they do, the creationist hypothesis will remain just that, a hypothesis.

   — skeptic    Jan 4, 09:01 AM    #

9. So Curtis and ID Guy- get a flu shot this year? Take antibiotics when you get sick? If you do, you’re hypocrites; it’s the mutation/evolution of the influenza virus that necessitates new shots every year, after all, and if you don’t, then most likely you and those like you will be weeded out of the general population by natural selection and evolution will win its own argument.it’s not a billion year process after all; happens every day. Since only the fittest survive, intelligent designers are destined to end up in the dustheap of history. Have a nice day.

   — RM    Jan 4, 09:03 AM    #

10. Profet says that “Zahm himself argued that because faith is true, and because science is also true, the two can’t be opposed. “

    Faith is true? All faiths? Mormons, scientologists, muslims, Mayans, Australian aboriginals, and the ancient greeks are ALL correct! Really!

    I find that hard to believe Profet.

    Notice that there are over 200 thousands faiths in the world, but only one science.

    — skeptic    Jan 4, 09:07 AM    #

11. Like that example, RM! Thanks.

    — Comm Prof    Jan 4, 09:33 AM    #

12. Are the academic theories of evolution and origins so scientific or different from theistic/intelligent design arguments? Can one observe any of these hypotheses and how they work in the material realm — produce your origins, please! It seems that all of these systems are based on axioms that one must take on faith … whether of a scientific or theological kind.

    — amcoy    Jan 4, 09:42 AM    #

13. Do the ID supporters really want it in the classroom? If so, are they prepared to have it dissected and dismantled? The creationist stories on which ID depends compared and contrasted with similar and different non-Christian tales? It seems they only want an uncritical presentation of ID (because that is the only way it can attempt to stand).

    The worse thing about ID as a pseudo-science, in my estimation, is that it short-circuits discovery. As soon as we have to impose “and then a miracle occurred” as a causal explanation, we cease searching for what that cause might actually be.

    That all said, religion is an important part of the human experience. Ideas about creation and how they affect meaning for ourselves are a major part of those religious views. I would actually like to see ID and other creationist views (along with rationalist views) explored more openly in schools— but not as part of a science class. Unfortunately, such critical comparison and discussion could never occur in this country under the current climate.

    — JR-C    Jan 4, 09:56 AM    #

14. “How did life evolve on Earth?”

    Evolve! This is how the National Academy of Sciences starts their book, which as they say, was written by… organisations!
    I didn’t read further; it’s not a scientific book, it’s a policy issued to professors who are “blindsided” and need help. Poor National professors!

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jan 4, 10:01 AM    #

15. Mr. Pyshnov: What?

    — Comm Prof    Jan 4, 10:08 AM    #

16. More than 170 years ago, in his History of the Inductive Sciences, William Whewell parted company with the functionalist school of natural theology and essentially founded the idealist school (the distinction is Neal C. Gillespie’s) by saying, in effect, there must be something—an intelligence or a being—to account for all of this. That is a comforting belief, but it cannot be proven experimentally (compare weighing people just before and just after death in the attempt to calculate the weight of the soul), and it lacks instrumentality (the ability to predict as yet unobtained outcomes).

    Whewell’s act of faith has in effect morphed into ID, and while there may be a legacy of natural theology in Darwin’s initial theorizing, which focuses not on the design of the creature or the design of the mechanism, as earlier iterations of natural theology had done, but rather on the design of the system, Darwin makes no attempt to infer or impute the existence of a designer. Sometimes a tree is only a tree, and a tangled bank is only a tangled bank, not a system too complex to have arisen randomly.

    — Stuart Peterfreund    Jan 4, 10:32 AM    #

17. One day, when our group culture has evolved, then science and ‘faith’ will be accepted as two independent areas of the human condition.

    Even skeptic’s view of ‘faith’ is a legitimate perspective.

    But science is NOT faith, nor is it ‘faith’ that leads people to believe in scientific findings like evolution.

    It is the latter discussion that is most critical, and it is sadly normally lost in these kind of debates.

    — Stephen    Jan 4, 10:33 AM    #

18. The main reason I can see for leaving Intelligent Design to the Philosophy or Religious Studies Classroom, is that it is a theory that prevents a person from doing science. My understanding of the average biology class is that it is a place where you learn how to do science. Creationism answers every scientific question “Because God made it that way.” While I agree God has a hand in all things, this is not a scientifically productive answer. Evolutionary theory, however, has been enormously productive. It gives the ground for designing and performing experiments that add to and enrich our knowledge of the natural world and how it works.

    Scientific reductionism is odious in the hands of extremists, but it is also the necessary background for some of the most interesting work being done now on higher levels of organization. As we understand the world more and more at its basic level, the better we will be able to understand the subtlety and wonder of how those basic parts interact.

    People of faith need to keep faith through the scary reductionist part, and militant atheists need to release their grip on reductionism, so we can let scientists get on with the business of doing science.

    — Bible Spice    Jan 4, 10:34 AM    #

19. 19. Remember, there is only one truth. Only time will revel it. Until then, we all claim that we got it.

    — Dawit    Jan 4, 10:35 AM    #

20. As one person points out, we once were taught that the world was flat until we discovered information to the contrary. I believe that both sides are correct, even with the Biblical information we have today. Seeing the creation of humans as creation of spirits in the likeness of God the Spirit, spirits that then inhabited the bodies of early man, built of earthly elements (dirt, clay of the earth), we can piece both parts of the story together without arguments. Why not find areas for concensus rather than more areas to separate us as the human family?

    — Sue    Jan 4, 10:55 AM    #

21. It’s curious to me that dialogues of this nature almost always focus on the evolution of life. Isn’t the evolution/appearance of the cosmos a more fundamental and greater issue?

    — Stargazer    Jan 4, 10:59 AM    #

22. Religion and science come into conflict when a religion makes claims that are verifiable/falsifiable. And that is exactly what biblical literalism does. Science can’t answer or address all questions — the capital T Truth question, among them — but those who make religious claims about facts make themselves vulnerable to disproof. It seems to be a risk that many of them cannot resist.

    — WB    Jan 4, 11:10 AM    #

23. The “antibiotic objection” completely misses the point. ID argues that evolution occurs but is guided (which is of course impossible to disprove). The objection that no reproducible experiment can prove ID of course applies also to Darwinian evolution unless and until scientists are going to recreate human life in a laboratory starting with non-biological molecules and can prove that God did not intervene. Huston Smith (Why Religion Matters) has an interesting discussion about how the scientific method, by definition, cannot deal with God who is more rather than less powerful than human beings – this does not imply that God is irrelevant to science but does change the rules of the game.

    — CDH    Jan 4, 11:27 AM    #

24. Regarding RM’s comment #9—I don’t think anyone would deny mutations within species. It’s the idea that species change into other species that presents the problem. I’d be curious to see step-by-step evidence for it in the fossil record. Thanks.

    — Curious    Jan 4, 11:46 AM    #

25. Faith is not science; science is not faith. I’m happy with that. But creationism is not science – as has been pointed out above – and therefore should only be presented as a belief set, not as science.

    — Al    Jan 4, 12:07 PM    #

26. I have no problem with evolution or Christianity. However, I find that the discussion of evolution vs. ID is quite shallow. Those arguing against ID argue in this way: ID is the same as creationism and creationism is demonstrably false, so there! The biggest problem with that simplistic argument is that ID is not the same as creationism. I doubt that one in a thousand critics of ID has read William Demski’s book The Design Inference and I doubt that one in a hundred of those who read it, really understood it. I have my disagreements with Demski, but I am dismayed that I have never found an intelligent critique of his book, on which ID is based. My suspicion is that nearly all scientists are arguing out of ignorance. It is easy to argue that evolution, as far as it goes, is true. But that is not to say that ID is false. If you are a scientist and that statement puzzles you, then I say, go read the book and give it some thought before criticizing the theory.

    — RK    Jan 4, 01:22 PM    #

27. To ID Guy in Comment #4: I am surprised to find you skeptical of the argument “This is not science because scientists say so,” since folks in your camp rely almost exclusively on arguments like “this is not true because my bible says so.”

    And, as for whether so-called intelligent-design should be taught in a course on science? Probably not, especially not in a manner that elevates misunderstandings, fantastic stories, and un-intelligence with knowledge.

    — Anon    Jan 4, 01:26 PM    #

28. To RK (#26): And if one does go back and read Demski, the main thesis reads that life’s too complex therefore there must be a designer. Is this is the way we want to approach science education? Seems that this is a ticket back to using mysiticism to “explain” natural phenomena. Demski’s protestations to the contrary, ID is all about assuming the conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it. ID fails to test the null hypothesis.

    I think the National Academy has it right raising concerns over what ID would do to our already faltering science education in this country.

    — JR-C    Jan 4, 02:08 PM    #

29. A couple things here. First we need to define terms. “Creationism” should just mean, “the belief that the universe was brought into being out of nothing i.e. created.” It has come to mean: “belief that God created the universe and everything in it in 6 days 6,000 or 10,000 years ago.”

    There is a great deal of evidence against the latter definition. E.g. it is obvious from the fossil record that at one time no birds were on the earth (or flying over it).

    Intelligent design, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the Bible. ID should be understood as, “The understanding, based on scientific evidence, that evolution happened in such an orderly way and such apparent purpose, that it cannot be sum of accidental mutations and there must be a Mind that organized it.” It does not explain by miraculous intervention. Rather it gives an order and over all perspective to the evidence.

    It is to be noted that a Darwinian philosophy that makes Chance the cause is no more scientific than saying a Mind is behind it. Neither philosophy can be proved scientifically because science is based on things we can measure, weigh and number. Neither Chance nor Mind can be submitted to such analysis. (Which re #8 is why there can be no “scientific” proof of the existence of God.)

    On the scientific side, Darwinian evolution says, “All changes from one species to another happened gradually. This doesn’t work. Scientifically.

    Species can better themselves in small ways through small chance mutations that are strengthened over time. (Read “Survival of the Sickest”.) The difference between species, however, is not a matter of a few genetic changes. To get from one species to another you have to change the number of chromosomes. And that cannot happen gradually. And that is what is hard to explain. Though I think that John Davison at the U of Vermont makes a good case in his “An Evolutionary Manifesto”.

    — becky    Jan 4, 03:17 PM    #

30. 1. For those who believe in Demski’s “irreducible complexity”, read Dawkin’s Climbing Mount Improbable,
    or go to http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/. A truly irreducible organism might exist, but, as these two scientists (and their cited references) show, step-by-step, Demski (and his acolytes) haven’t found one yet.
    2. As I high-school teacher, I have read extensively in/about the evolution/creationism debate. Now, pointing to the fossil or DNA record, or to a religious text is fine, but irrelevant. I have yet to see what I call the pragmatic, or class plan (which I must submit to my chairwoman) argument: exactly what would be “taught” if Creationism/I.D./Spaghetti Monster…… is taught? More specifically, exactly what experiments would show the truth/falsity of I.D.? Science classes revolve around students performing hands-on experiments – just go to any lab portion, or science fair and watch the kids’ hands (and minds) at work. So I seek, and have not yet found, a hands-on – replete with tubes, cells, maybe rats, possibly fruit flies, goggles, and lab aprons, and, most importantly, a predicted outcome – experiment that would verify (or deny) the I.D. theory: that an intelligent designer created certain complex organisms. Until I do, I just can’t design a relevant science class for I.D. or any theory dependent upon a self-aware entity.

    — retired teacher    Jan 4, 03:57 PM    #

31. > “...that evolution happened in such an orderly way and such apparent purpose, that it cannot be sum of accidental mutations and there must be a Mind that organized it.”

    It’s precisely that last phrase that pushes ID outside of natural science and into the realm of the supernatural or spiritual. The basic premise is an untestable hypothesis.

    While evolution science may not explain the origin of all existence (it would be a misuse to do so), it is at its core a scientific enterprise that has yielded incredible results. ID remains a philosophical criticism that, as yet, fails to make novel predictions or provide explanations without resorting to the supernatural. As such, it fails as scientific theory to be included in our classes.

    Resorting to supernatural explanations for changes between species gets us nowhere; at least evolution science provides a pathway for testing and exploring the mechanisms.

    — JR-C    Jan 4, 03:58 PM    #

32. Evolution is a THEORY! In the academic world we should not be afraid to look carefully at multiple THEORIES including intelligent design. To date I do not believe that the scientific world has accounted for the theory of evolution’s failure to account for:

    1. The origin of life
    2. The origin of consciousness
    3. Morality – which depends whole upon free will

    Don’t let fear of analyzing fossil records, looking for the “missing link”, or proof of evolution from species to species stop you. Go ahead and demonstrate how the DNA changed from one species to the next if you can. Until then pursue knowledge and see where the path takes you and don’t let fear of an intelligent designer scare you into scoffing at an external brilliance other than your own!

    — KB    Jan 4, 04:55 PM    #

33. Of course it’s a theory. But at least it’s a testable theory.

    1. The origin of life— It’s not intended to be a theory of origin. That’s a different ball of wax.
    2. The origin of consciousness— Why is that any different from other biological processes? We might as well raise digestion to the same level of importance.
    3. Morality – which depends whole upon free will — and species and individual survival is certainly heightened with some level of reciprocity and care.

    Evolution theory has itself evolved as new evidence is found— science is indeed a process. My objection is not at denying alternative explanations per-se. My objection is to providing heightened visibility to a position that is based on untestable ideology and chooses to use the language of science without adhering to any of its processes yet be inserted into our science classes. Discuss and debate external brillance all you want— just don’t claim that it’s science! The supernatural, by definition, falls outside of the natural sciences. Study it in the realms within which it fits. It’s an important topic; but it’s not science. That’s what I’ve said through this thread and it’s one of the main points by the NAS report.

    As to the other point— Evolution theory and the science that has derived from it has proven very solid and useful. Is it perfect? No— but show me an area of science that is and we’ll be looking at something that is too mundane to be of interest. Demonstrating that there remain gaps in knowledge does little to negate evolution as a viable theory. Does ID explain the fossil record, intraspecies changes, etc., etc., better? I’ve yet to see physical, peer-reviewed evidence that suggests it does. Until such time, introducing it into classes would appear an exercise only to appease individuals with an agenda.

    — JR-C    Jan 4, 05:20 PM    #

34. Saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day—When religion ruled the world, they called it the dark ages.

    — D    Jan 4, 06:05 PM    #

35. As usual, nearly everyone is just arguing past each other. First of all, I am neither a Darwinist nor a theist. Darwin lived a long time ago. He and Alfred Russel Wallace proposed natural selection as a process by which evolutionary change had occurred, and could continue to do so. neither of them knew much about genetic inheritance and practically nothing about either population biology or molecular biology. We don’t (and let us make SURE we don’t) just accept and defend what Darwin & Wallace said without learning about and understanding the continually changing field of evolutionary biology. This notion that mutations are random is total BS. There are replication errors and they have causes that lie in the relative vulnerability to risk of various sites, and some active mobile elements within genomes that promote rather specific kinds of deletions, insertions, and translocations. Common, folks. We know of processes that result in multiplication of chromosomes, and there are wonderful examples of it happening in nature. And, bytheway, there are also plenty of examples of populations of similar animals with the same number of chromosomes that are reproductively isolated. There are so many known cases that falsify many arguments set forth here, I think it might be well for many of those who are commenting to have an open-minded look at the biological literature. These are exciting times in biology and other scientific fields, in part because so much is being learned about how reproduction, development, and evolution occur. And, it is marvelously complex and includes a kind of intelligence within the emergent functional “design.” But that in no way suggests that some “mind” DESIGNED it. It even more suggests that a remarkable PROCESS designed it. Functional systems survive. Thing that do not work well enough to survive do not. There is no implication of implicit intention, even though there is a certain inherent intelligence/functional organization.

    — Joe Erwin    Jan 4, 06:18 PM    #

36. To #3: the comparison of Intelligent Design to the world being flat is an incorrect analogy. In that case, science proved that the world was NOT flat. For your analogy to hold, science would have to prove not only that evolution has happened (which I’m fine with, by the way), but also that no Creator exists. Or, if you prefer, science would have to have proven that God does not exist. Last time I checked, no one had proven that. Claiming that Intelligent Design is not science because its fundamental tenet has not been proven is one thing; claiming that its fundamental tenet has been DISPROVEN is quite another. And false.

    — Ergum Soloff    Jan 4, 06:27 PM    #

37. To #36:

    You are quite wrong to believe that accepting evolution means rejecting God. Evolution says nothing about whether a creator exists. In fact, this is the whole point the NAS and IOM are making in their book.

    The lack of proof that a given proposition — in your case, the existence of God — is true is not the same thing as proof that it is false. Scientists understand this. It is only those who portray science as anti-religion who do not.

    It is possible (though there is no way to test the idea scientifically) that evolution occurs because a creator set the process in motion. Evolutionary theory — like any other scientific theory — strives only to explain what happens and does not try to address what role divine or supernatural forces may have played in making it so.

    — CU Alum    Jan 4, 06:49 PM    #

38. To #36 again:

    It seems I didn’t address a premise implicit in your post. You seem to believe that ID = evolution + God, but that is not so. ID does not merely say “evolution happens because God made it so”. Instead, it claims that evolution either didn’t happen at all or that it happened in a way that was intended to produce us. Both of these positions are untestable and are inconsistent with the evidence. People can still accept either position as a matter of faith, but they can’t claim that it is science.

    — CU Alum    Jan 4, 07:05 PM    #

39. IDGuy implies that scientists who say no to ID are all atheists or agnostics. The last poll I saw asserts that about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God. The overwhelming majority of them also say no to ID.

    On the other hand, the leading proponents and spokesmen for ID are all believers in the ‘Wedge Doctrine,’ the purpose of which is to banish ‘materialistic science’ from the classroom so that students may be introduced to Jesus Christ.

    IDers battle it out in classrooms and school boards because they have nothing to say to scientists in scientific journals. ID is and always has been a new name for
    Creationism, which is dependent on Genesis, a collection of myths to the non-believer or revealed doctrine to the believer. Neither the one nor the other has any place in the science classroom. Let the ID ‘researchers’ win their spurs in the laboratory and peer-reviewed journals before banging on the classroom door. Until they do, ID remains scientifically bankrupt.

    — arnold asrelsky    Jan 4, 09:02 PM    #

40. Here is how lying politics replace real knowledge and understanding of our history:
    Comment 34 refers to “dark ages”. It’s a standard reference to Dark Ages implying that religion made them “dark”. Nothing of the sort! Dark Ages were called so because the records of this time are sparce, little is known. But, it was really a prosperous time for humanity; the man was never before or after this, so creative and so free. Quotes from Sir Martin Conway (“The Van Eycks and their followers”):
    “Surely, in no age except in the great days of Greece was the output of humanity more wonderful, more splendid than in the Gothic period”.
    “There was then no discord between the religion and the dayly life of men…”

    People who judge times by their product (I do) see (and I see) the 7th – 13th centuries as highest point of human glory, both in the West and in the East. Christianity and Islam (the difference here was that records in the Islamic world were superb), in the same period, had “evolved” the intellectual product unsurpassed ever after that time; the Renaisssance was the beginning of the decline, a departure from sincerity.
    Anyone who blames religion for degrading or blinding humans is wrong, wrong, wrong.
    Just imagine the beauty of the time when “There was then no discord between the religion and the dayly life of men…” Man’s dayly life was free and his work was free.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jan 5, 12:49 AM    #

41. I think that these types of discussions are regrettably vapid because they proceed from false assumptions. Evolutionary theories and Intelligent Design theories are simply not science. Both lines of inquiry represent a branch of history called cosmogony and represent a best attempt at discerning origins. Such theories can be more or less scientific in their research methodologies, but they rely to a huge degree on interpretations of data that are highly influenced by perspective and always will be.

    It is generally accepted that Evolutionary theory is undergirded by a great deal of scientific research. The reality is that Intelligent Design theories have become increasingly scientific in approach as well. Evolutionists have been profoundly unscientific in their blindness to their own research biases for too long and have demonstrated an unattractive smugness towards dissenters. ID proponents have been cloistered, defensive and scientifically unprofessional in their lack of willingness to engage the scientific community. (Although, truth be told; the ID scientist who wants to “engage the scientific community” is reasonable not to do so when termination is the likely result.)

    The reality is that both theories demand a specific world view in order to be deemed acceptable on an individual basis. Belief in Evolutionary theories requires an exclusive naturalistic perspective. Belief in Intelligent Design theories requires a naturalistic perspective infused with supernatural intervention. Evolution theories require a belief that life on Earth happened: Evolutionists do not really believe that it could have happened any other way. Intelligent Design theories require a belief that life was created, supernaturally: ID proponents do not really believe that it could have happened any other way. Both camps claim science as their validation, but nonetheless Evolution and ID are fundamentally belief systems – like religion. Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Did a god make the giraffe, ex nihilo? Did it evolve a long neck over a great span of time? Until someone can prove either point, neither point should be made in a science class. Historians struggle to make sense out of events, their chronology and their causation five hundred years ago, and yet Evolutionists and ID proponents want us to believe (although they sometimes will deny this) their claim that they know the chronology and causation of events from perhaps five million years ago, in the absence of eye-witnesses or written records? All the Evolutionist or ID proponent can produce are reasons for belief, not facts for knowing.

    Should ID be a topic of discussion in a high school? If it is presented as a cosmogony, yes – likewise with Evolution. Should belief in Evolution or ID be encouraged in High School? No, because belief in either requires acceptance of a world view that goes far beyond science and the schools charter. For the same reason it is good for high school students to study world religions – not for the sake of getting religion, but as means to understanding the world, politics and humanity. In terms of science though, the methodologies that underlie both theories are beyond and outside the scope of the high school curriculum and a focus on the foundational sciences (biology, chemistry, etc.) would be more sensible. That would be, if the intention is for high school students to actually understand the science behind either group of theories someday. Evolution and ID could be taught as modules in the science curriculum, but please let the science part of the science class be science. Allow students to learn the scientific method and scientific facts and principles first. It is not until students are in college that there can be any serious discussion of Evolution or ID.

    Because it is a subject that people do care about, I think a good heated discussion about both theories absolutely belong in high school – I see no better way to excite young minds to the ramifications of belief and the interrelationship and distinctions between knowing and believing. Although this little essay was probably self-serving in every respect, thank you for reading.

    A side note: There is something that I do find offensive in this whole situation and it regards the nature of textbooks at every cognitive level. Science texts constantly infuse Evolutionary perspectives into just about every paragraph and every page. “The giraffe’s long neck allows it to see across the African Savannah” just doesn’t seem to suffice for textbook authors. Instead, they write, “The giraffe’s long neck evolved to allow it to see across the African Savannah.” The fact and function of the giraffe’s long neck seems secondary to what the reader believes the causation of the long neck to be. This is what bothers ID proponents, non-evolutionists and simple scientist/philosophers, like me. It is sneaky and there is no justification for such an insidious institutional attempt to indoctrinate children into becoming evolutionists. It pits parents (that is parents who aren’t evolutionists) against their children’s schools unnecessarily. It also fosters distrust of institutions whose effectiveness relies on public trust and support. It is for this reason that this issue is playing out in the public arena rather than within the scientific community.

    — anonymous professor who want to remain employed at the institution he serves    Jan 5, 12:27 PM    #

42. The missed opportunity: If the 8-page brochure is representative of the full-length document, the National Academies have published a fair-minded, well-based case that will have little impact. A look at the list of authors suggests the reason—the absence of scientists from Catholic universities and conservative Christian institutions who accept evolution. They know how to talk to both sides and therefore can connect the arguments with their constituencies who are often skeptical of evolution.

    The last two sentences in Comment #41, whatever one thinks of the sentences preceding them, should embody concerns to all of us who work at educational institutions, public or private, at whatever level.

    Another Educator

    — J. E. Anderson    Jan 5, 02:37 PM    #

43. RK (#26) claims it is ‘simplistic’ to equate ID with Creationism. The recent suit against the Dover school board revealed that the ID text favored by the board, ‘Of Pandas and People’ published by the Discovery Institute, the leading purveyors of ID, took earlier versions of that text and substituted the words ‘Intelligent Design’ for every instance where the text referred to ‘Creationism.’ Perhaps RK needs to rethink his assertion.

    — arnoldl asrelsky    Jan 6, 11:45 AM    #

44. I goofed. ‘Of Pandas and People’ was not published by the Discovery Institute but by the Foouondation for Thought and Ethics.

    — Arnold Asrelsky    Jan 7, 10:23 AM    #

45. Thank you anonymous-professor-who wishes-to-keep-his-job (post#41). I think you hit the nail on the head.

    — becky    Jan 7, 01:27 PM    #

46. I quite agree that it would be a good idea for high school curriculum to include studies of diverse cultures and religions. Doesn’t it? Can’t it? If not, why not? Is it science, well, it can be social science or earth science. No harm in that. I see no problem with teaching ABOUT creationism—that it is believed by some people, and the range of ways it is believed. I wish the fundamentalist Christian high school and college I attended had PERMITTED (which it did not) teaching ABOUT what biologists believe about evolutionary processes. But no, it was not allowed and people who tried were FIRED. So much for true education and critical thought. I was denied access to information regarding evolution until I got into a public college and a methodist college, where open access to information and critical thinking were encouraged. Then I discovered what a crock of lies I had been taught.

    — Joe Erwin    Jan 7, 07:20 PM    #

47. In response to #43 & #44, I have read my share of creationist “literature,” provided to me by my creationist friends. They meant well, but their literature was decisive in turning me away from creationism. On the other hand, I have read The Design Inference, which is a very interesting, albeit difficult, book. It is quite different from the creationist literature. To date, I have heard or read only one responsible critique of The Design Inference, and that one was basically grasping at straws. Having said all that, I have to part company with Demski when he attempts to apply his filter to evolution. There is simply not enough known about evolution for the ID argument to be rigorous. The trouble is, the same applies to the evolutionists’ arguments. Evolution “explains” a number of things (if saying, “it happened by chance” serves as an explanation), but there are a number of things that it does not explain. At this point, the evolutionists insist that it will someday explain those things, too. This is the point at which they effectively declare evolution to be the Final Theory in biology. There shall be no extra-evolutionary theories whatsoever! Not exactly open-minded, is it?

    — RK    Jan 8, 10:51 AM    #

48. ID has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis. ID requires a belief that a conscious, supernatural being set the processes of evolution into motion. Science doesn’t work that way.

    You don’t start out with a belief. You start out with a hypothesis and then experiment to test that hypothesis. If you assume that your hypothesis is true or false before you begin testing it, you’ve already got a flawed experiment.

    I realize that there’s more to scientific methods of inquiry than this, but the above reason is the #1 argument against both creationism and ID.

    — ResLifeGuy    Jan 8, 11:24 AM    #

49. Maybe it is time for the people who are so quick to comment here to actually read, at least SOME of the NAS report on which they are commenting. For example, the notion that evolutionists claim that everything “happened by chance” is addressed. As I keep saying in my comments on this issue, genetic replication errors have causes. They are not random in terms of their causation. Nor are they random in terms of their consequences. The consequences of replication errors range from lethal to advantageous, and they are sometimes neutral. The book is available in full text on line. Free. The committee that prepared the book was chaired by the noted biologist, Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine, who has written widely on genetics, population and molecular biology, and the relation of these topics to religion.

    #48: It is okay to begin with a “belief,” just not some belief that is not subject to revision in accordance with evidence. The process begins with observation, and careful description or measurement. Observations naturally generate questions. Hypotheses are the guesses one makes about the answers to those questions. Next one does more observations, especially refined and systematic observations and measurements. Structuring those within experiments in which independent variables are deliberately manipulated and the effects on dependent variables are observed/measured. Etc.,
    over-and-over with added refinements.

    It does not matter what one believes in the beginning, as long as one is willing to alter one’s initial beliefs or ideas as more evidence is acquired.

    It is okay for you to believe in special creation if you choose to, and even that complexity and diversity are wonderful and remarkable creations that were designed by someone. One cannot prove or disprove those notions, and it is not the job of science or scientists to do so. The thing is, that you cannot rationally accept “young earth” creationism (or any other young earth explanation) in the face of the clear evidence that the earth is not young. I suggest to my friends who are able to believe, that they should not put God in a box. Don’t invent an omnipotent cause and then dictate the rules it must follow.

    And if you give yourself a chance to examine and try to understand complex systems, don’t throw away all but one explanation at the beginning. Just consider the issues and the evidence and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

    — Joe Erwin    Jan 9, 12:01 AM    #

Previous: The Journal 'Science' Rejoins JSTOR
Next: NCAA to Support Research on Diversity in College Sports