Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:50:51 -0800
Subject: E-SKEPTIC: EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM

E-SKEPTIC FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Copyright 2002 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net
---------------------------------
Greetings e-Skeptic readers. Sorry for my long absence. I was away on an around-the-world eco-tourism trip for which I was a lecturer (evolution,
Darwin, Wallace, etc.), an itinerary that included the Amazon, Galapagos islands,
Easter island, Samoa, Australia, New Guinea, Borneo, Nepal, Seyschelles islands, Tanzania, Canary islands, Washington D.C.

One interesting observation related to today's e-Skeptic: This was a fairly select group of travelers in that each paid close to $40,000. So they were
pretty well educated and very successful (lots of retired business execs, CEOs , etc.). Of the 82 people on the trip, at least a dozen approached me after
my lecture on evolution (ergo I figure there were probably a dozen or two more who didn't say anything), expressing their skepticism about the theory.
Their main argument is William Paley's design argument of the nonblind watchmaker. It seems to be difficult to conceive of how such complexity could
have arisen through natural means. That has always been a bugbear for people, a problem addressed and answered by countless scientists from Darwin to
Dawkins, and obviously one we will continue to experience because, in part, the human mind cannot grasp on a deep level deep time and what can be
accomplished through natural selectionentific
American columns on Intelligent Design creationism. Interestingly, I received more mail than all my other columns combined. In fact, what I'm doing now is
a content analysis of the letters, for which I'll write another column for a special issue of Scientific American on Intelligent Design creationism,
summarizing the vox populi opinion of evolution (at least, those who write in to the magazine in response to my column).
------------------------
EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM

This Sunday we have our next Caltech lecture event:

John George will be lecturing on extremism and terrorism, fringe groups and political radicalism. George is a social scientist who specializes in
tracking political fringe movements, and authored a book published by Prometheus Books entitled Nazis, Communists, Klansman, and Others on the
Fringe: Political Extremism in America. In light of recent events this should be one of the more informative lectures we've had.

Sunday, 2:00pm, Baxter lecture hall, California Institute of Technology (our usual time and place).

Directions: Off the 210 freeway, exit Lake Ave. south, left on Del Mar, right on Michigan. Park in Faculty parking lot. From L.A., 110 north to the end,
continue to Del Mar, right on Del Mar, follow past Lake Ave., follow above directions.
-------------------------
EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM

Christian Science Monitor
February 20, 2002 edition

Christian Science Monitor

One of America's longest-running dramas is being revived in Ohio. There, the state school board is wrestling with whether to give the theory of evolution
sole billing in its revised science curriculum, or to make room for an alternative theory called "intelligent design."

Inevitably, the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial springs to mind, along with "Inherit the Wind," the perennially popular play based on that trial. And,
don't forget, only three years ago Kansas had a major replay of the controversy when its education board removed evolution from the curriculum altogether, a
decision later reversed when voters installed a new board.

Ohio is following a somewhat different script. Intelligent design, depending on the commentator's perspective, is seen as either a reasonable explanation
of nature's more complex formations - or simply Bible-based "creationism" in a different costume.

Full text: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0220/p08s02-comv.html
------------------------------------
SKEPTIC COLUMN, FEBRUARY 2002

The Gradual Illumination of the Mind

The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism.

Michael Shermer

In one of the most starkly honest and existentially penetrating statements
ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we
observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom,
no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference."

Facing such a reality perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a
2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans agree with the
statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one
time within the last 10,000 years or so," 37 percent prefer a blended belief
that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process," and a paltry 12 percent accept
the standard scientific theory that "Human beings have developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in
this process."

In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the
"theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent
for evolution (10 percent said they were "unsure"). One explanation for these
findings can be seen in additional results showing that only 33 percent of
Americans think that the theory of evolution is "well supported by evidence,"
while slightly more (39 percent) believe that it is not well supported, and
that it is "just one of many theories." A quarter surveyed said they didn't
know enough to say and, shedding some light on the problem, only 34 percent
considered themselves to be "very informed"
about evolution.

Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined
democratically. It does not matter whether 99 percent or only one percent of
the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and
there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of
evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of
inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy,
genetics, biogeography, etc.) all independently point to the same
conclusion--evolution happened. The nineteenth century philosopher of
science, William Whewell, called this process of independent lines of inquiry
converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it
a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical
events are proven.

The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of
_evolution denial_ (the doppelganger of _Holocaust denial_, using the same
techniques of rhetoric and debate--see my book _Why People Believe Weird
Things_ for a comparison), is that a small but vocal minority of religious
fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their
deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their
response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that almost without
exception all of the evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God
did not personally intervene in the development of life on earth then they
have no basis for belief, morality, and the meaning of life. Clearly for some
much is at stake in the findings of science.

Since the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any particular
brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as
"creation-science," or, in its more recent incarnation, "Intelligent Design"
(ID), where ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where
science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular
phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it He
has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and
cellular life. Once these problems are mastered then ID will no doubt find
even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children
nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life
and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I
fail to see how this is science, or what it is, exactly, that IDers hope will
be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short
semester.

By contrast, a scientist would want to know _how_ ID did it. In eschewing all
attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena under
question, IDers have abandoned science altogether. Yet they want the
respectability that science brings in our culture, so they do theology and
call it science.

To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists we need to employ a
proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not
enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution
is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against
Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom
of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which
follows from the advance of science."