Editorial

Evolution of a mistake

A Pa. Board of Education plan would open the gate for teaching creationism
as science.

On first read it seems reasonable. Under new standards proposed by the
state Board of Education, Pennsylvania's science teachers would get new ways to teach
evolution.

They would be required to discuss evidence supporting evolution - the
bedrock theory of biology - and also evidence that does "not support" it. They would have to
discuss how the theory of evolution is affected by "new scientific facts."

Fair enough. Isn't the best science teaching - in fact the best science --
about using the latest evidence to question existing beliefs?

But before applauding this progressive-seeming move, put it under a
microscope to see if it squirms.

In fact, the new standards are nothing more than a wedge designed to sneak
a gussied-up version of "creation science" into the state's public classrooms.

This latest gambit has an evolutionary history all its own.

In 1925, Tennessee teacher John Scopes was tried for telling his students
about evolution, which violated a state law against teaching anything that
challenged the "Divine Creation of man."

Evolution won, but the creationists didn't give up. They just evolved. By
the 1980s they were promoting "creationism" and "creation science" - a
pseudo-science claiming scientific evidence for the Biblical story of
creation.

But the U.S. Supreme Court soundly shot down state attempts requiring that
creationism be taught alongside evolution. The laws were held to be unconstitutional
violations of the principle of separation of church and state.

In classic Darwinian fashion, the creationists evolved again, adapting to
a hostile legal environment.

They regrouped under a theory called "intelligent design." Though it is
meant to appear secular, it promotes the same notion as creationism: Humans and other life
forms didn't evolve but appeared more or less spontaneously after being designed by a
supernatural force.

One problem with this theory is that it is backed by only a handful of
scientists. And rather than test it and research it in the standard
scientific way, they defend it merely by trying to punch holes in the
theory of evolution.

A lot of the old findings about evolution have indeed been discarded and
updated.

But using past errors to debunk the whole theory of evolution, as
"intelligent designers" attempt to do, would be like maintaining there is
no solar system because early astronomers missed some of the planets. It
would be like saying there is no gravity because the theory of gravity
hasn't been proven yet.

Which brings us to Pennsylvania.

Under the proposed new standards, the unscientific views of "intelligent
design" promoters would enter the classroom because science teachers would
be required to discuss theories that "do not support" evolution.

And the only theories that do not support evolution currently come from
the intelligent design folks and some evangelical Christians. (Many Christians and Jews
who revere the Book of Genesis see no conflict between Scripture and
evolution science.)

These standards are a slippery slope that could turn Pennsylvania into
another Kansas. That state earned national ridicule last year after
deleting most references to evolution from its curriculum. (An encouraging
postcript: The Kansas board of education members who pushed that move were
defeated in the next election.)

Science need not threaten faith. For most people of faith, the sheer
wonder of the universe - regardless of how science says it came to be - is
ample evidence of a master plan.

Faith need not threaten science. But it does when a minority religious
view begins to masquerade noisily as science and to elbow legitimate science off the
stage. Creationism indeed has a place - in churches, not public
classrooms.

Oryginal:
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/12/16/opinion/ONESAT16.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Philadelphia Inquirer"
Saturday, December 16, 2000

Letters

Challenging ideas against teaching of evolution

I am disappointed that you gave so much space to Jonathan Wells' familiar
polemic against the teaching of evolution (Inquirer, Dec. 11). (You
mention his degree in science and omit his later degree in "religious
studies.") His call for scientific examination of the evolution evidence
is, of course, a sophisticated propaganda ruse. And his invocation of
Stephen Jay Gould - one of America's foremost evolutionists - is shameful.
Wells' tactic is to find faults in the way Darwin is taught (easy enough
and legitimate) and use this as a basis for introducing divine and
miraculous alternatives - an error that Gould spent a whole book
disproving (Rocks of Ages). Wells is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute
in Seattle and, I am afraid, you have fallen prey to that organization's
well-financed campaign to introduce "Christian" ideas into public schools
and public policy.

Edmond H. Weiss
Cherry Hill

-------------------------------------

I have read your essay on evolution (Inquirer, Dec. 11) and am sorry to
inform you that I have given it a grade of F. If you take this class again
in the future, the following comments may help you attain a passing grade.

Evolution by natural selection and the origin of life are entirely
different subjects. (If you are interested in the questions of origin,
perhaps you should take Biology 503, "Biogenesis"). The validity of any
particular theory of biological origins (and there are several) has no
relevancy to the well-established validity of evolution by
natural selection.

Your analysis of the Cambrian explosion is quite strange. Surely, you
remember that prior to the Cambrian only microscopic and soft-bodied
organisms existed. Hence few if any fossils are expected to exist, and the
lack of such fossils hardly can be used as evidence for missing common ancestors.

Haeckel may or may not have "faked" his drawings of embryos, but the
conclusion that he reached - that all vertebrates develop in a pattern
that reflects evolutionary history - is fully confirmed by modern studies.
Apparently you missed the lecture on Hox genes.

DNA studies have, of course, confirmed the principles of evolution. They
have also added to the mechanisms of evolutionary change processes not
known to Darwin (who knew nothing about DNA or even of genes). We now know
that genetic change can occur not only by mutations, but, for example, by
exchange of DNA between different species (the subject of the article by
Professor Doolittle that you cite). It is very odd, I might add, that you
would attack a modern scientific concept because it was not fully
understood 150 years ago. Perhaps you should also consider signing up for
Philosophy 603, "Principles and Methods of Scientific Analysis."

I can only conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the
massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural
selection.

Your essay indicates that you have an interest in education. I hope that
you remember, should you find yourself in a classroom, that a teacher's
job is to provide a sound foundation in a subject. In science it is the
consensus of thousands of researchers and theorists, working for over 100
years, that evolution by natural selection is the foundation of all of
biology. You would do a disservice to your students to suggest otherwise.
While your goal of having students "examine the evidence and think
critically about it" is worthy, your essay suggests that you would be a
poor guide in this respect.

Richard Weisenberg
Professor of Biology
Temple University

Oryginal:
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/12/16/opinion/LEDE16.htm