The March Of Moronism
A New York Times editorial takes the Cobb County, GA, and Dover, PA, school boards to task for pandering to the science-denying fundies:
The (Cobb County) school board, to its credit, had been trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens, the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts.
A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. A federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.
In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the United States to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence.
The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students.
School boards and citizens need to be aware that intelligent is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.
There ought to be some place in school where criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.
3.11
Gregg Sutter at January 26, 2005 2:44 PM
Farenheit 9/11.
Lena-doodle-doo at January 26, 2005 3:51 PM
I think I've successfully debunked every half-way legitimate (as if there was such a thing) argument for creationism, even the mother of all red herrings, intelligent design.
http://www.enlightenedcaveman.com/2005/01/evolution-versus-creationism.html
Of course, this changes nothing since the religious have a deep down need for their beliefs to be right.
EC
Chris Wilson at January 28, 2005 9:04 PM
PS - there are three different posts on evol v. creationism.
Chris Wilson at January 28, 2005 9:05 PM