Category Archives: Evolution

The Dover Trial Merits Top Ten Consideration

Posted on by

Having now read several “top ten news stories of the decade” lists, such as this one from the Associated Press, I was disappointed to see that one of my top choices was nowhere to be found.

What is my choice? It’s the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District “evolution” trial of 2005. Without doubt, it is the most significant such trial in U.S. history, easily outdistancing even the Scopes trial.

At least for supporters of evolution, the Dover trial showcased the arguments and motives of both sides of this debate in the starkest and clearest of terms. Scientists were permitted to offer evidence for evolution with a detail and scope rarely if ever before seen in a legal forum. The deceptions and religious motives of the opposing side were made equally clear. This culminated in a judge’s ruling that was a more thorough indictment of “intelligent design” than anyone had predicted — or might have even hoped for.

With related stories, such as the voting out of office of all the Dover school board members who supported the intelligent design policy, this story combined melodrama with science. No wonder than that it has been the subject of numerous books (including my favorite, The Battle over the Meaning of Everything) and a superb Nova episode (Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial).

The evolution debate casts a wide shadow — far beyond this trial. While there is no debate among scientists, the issue continues to play a role in national politics, cropping up for example in the 2008 presidential election via Sarah Palin’s support for creationism.

The Dover trial did not put an end to the creationist/intelligent design movement. No trial could do that. But it has apparently resulted in a permanent shift in strategy. The movement has curtailed, if not entirely cut back, its attempts to force intelligent design into school curricula based on claims that ID is science — especially so if a court challenge seems likely. If for no other reason, this trial deserves serious consideration as one of the top news stories of the decade. It’s certainly on my list.

Nicholas Wade on Evolution: Strike Two

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. The review, written by Nicholas Wade, had a very troubling slant. In what I view as its most grievous error, Wade contended that Dawkins “doesn’t know what a theory is,” In saying this, Wade gave support to the discredited view that “evolution is only a theory” and thus easily dismissed. Frankly, I expected better from the New York Times.

This isn’t just my opinion. The Times initially posted two Letters to the Editor from eminent scientists, both critical of the review. Adding that they received an “unusually large number” of letters “from readers who identified themselves as scientists or philosophers,” the Times posted a further collection of letters — all critical.

Apparently, this was not enough to convince the Times to itself be a bit more critical in evaluating Mr. Wade’s writing. He was back again with a Week-in-Review column titled “The Evolution of the God Gene.” Here he makes at least three very questionable assertions.

First is the claim that the ubiquity of religion in human culture suggests that there may be a gene for religion, favored by natural selection. Hence the title of the column. A gene that directly codes for a belief in God is almost certainly a gross over-simplification of how genetics and evolution works — even if there were some overall truth to Wade’s assertion.

But it gets worse. Wade next asserts that the presumed presence of a God gene implies that religion has a “constructive role” in society and should thus be viewed “favorably.” This logic runs counter to a wealth of literature that correctly points out that just because something may be favored by natural selection does not mean that we should view it as “good.”

For example, there is research that suggests a genetic evolutionary basis for human infidelity and even rape. There is certainly not a consensus of agreement on this matter. But even among those who support the viewpoint, no one would argue that this means human societies should promote infidelity or rape. Nor does it mean that humans should not consciously work to override what, in our present society, is a negative evolutionary inheritance. More generally for any trait, even if it was useful in our evolutionary past, this does not mean it remains so today. This extends to any supposed “God gene” as well.

Finally, Wade’s assertions move from the distorted and incorrect to the truly absurd. He correctly notes that a supposed evolutionary basis for religion would “neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods.” The problem is that the rest of the article implies that this point is largely irrelevant. That is, he argues that, if religion has the “benefits” he proposes, we should support religion even if its most fundamental assertion is false.

I’m sorry. To travel from what is at best a questionable premise to a conclusion that we should all close our eyes and support a belief even if it has no more veracity than a fairy tale — borders on the ridiculous.

Once again, I am a bit mystified that the New York Times saw fit to publish this article, which now amounts to “strike two” for Wade. Maybe, one more and he’s out.

As for Wade himself, he has just published a book titled “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.” I’m guessing that the God Gene column amounts to a summary of and promotion for his book.

NPR flunks evolution

Posted on by

The following is a slightly edited copy of feedback I sent to NPR earlier this week. It’s probably a bit more harsh than they deserved. But I felt I needed to do some shaking here.

“I was truly disappointed in your coverage of the Florida evolution bill issue today. Even the title of your piece, ‘Bill in Fla. Lets Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives,’ is a distortion.

The truth is that no bill is needed to allow teaching of alternatives to evolution. Schools are already allowed to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, just as they are allowed to do so for any other theory in science.

What they are not allowed to do is teach religion in the guise of science. That is what this law is really all about. It is the latest attempt by the proponents of creationism to shoehorn the teaching of creationism in science classes. The more neutral sounding language is simply designed to circumvent the latest legal rulings against such teaching. Your report never really makes this clear.

Instead, your report makes the issue sound more like a “he said, she said” debate between Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans on the side of academic freedom.

To describe this bill as advocating academic freedom, is like describing a bill that weakens anti-pollution regulations as a “Clean Skies Act.” It’s just double-speak. This is an anti-evolution bill, plain and simple.

Similarly, your report mentions the Discovery Institute as a source of support for the Florida legislation, but fails to mention that this same Institute was on the losing side of the Dover, PA trial that strongly ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Indeed, the Discovery Institute spokesman quoted in your report acknowledges that the wording of the Florida legislation was in part based on model language provided by the Institute.

Your report mentions Ben Stein’s new movie (Expelled), but fails to mention that it has received near unanimous condemnation for its promotion of knowingly false and inaccurate information. The New York Times, for example, called it “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” There is an entire Web site, Expelled Exposed, that exposes the many falsehoods in this movie.

While citing Ben Stein and his film, and quoting a person from the Discovery Institute, your report offered no statements from scientists or experts of any sort on the other side of this controversy.

In the end, your report comes off as a shameful example of ignoring the facts, and promoting the legitimacy of discredited views, apparently in a sheepish attempt to give yourself an appearance of neutrality.”

There is no middle ground in the God debate

Posted on by

I recently browsed through a book titled I Don’t Believe in Atheists. As I have not actually read the book cover-to-cover, I won’t attempt to review it here — or even give my opinion of it.

I will say that one of the general points seemingly made in the book is similar to one I have seen made many times before: Strong advocates of atheism (such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are characterized as every bit as much extremists as the religious fundamentalists on the other side of the fence. Indeed, atheism itself winds up being equated to just another “faith” — and therefore no more worthy of support than any other faith.

The argument that atheism itself is just another type of religion has been more than adequately rebutted elsewhere (although, as with creationist arguments, that won’t prevent it from going away). So I won’t bother with answering that here.

However, I do want to address the idea that atheists and fundamentalists represent the two extremes on a spectrum — with the implication that more reasonable minds should prefer to seek some more rational middle ground.

Normally, I am a strong advocate of the “middle ground.” Take almost any controversy — and you will almost certainly find that the most extreme advocates for either side have pushed the argument too far. A middle ground is a more sensible approach and, thankfully, often becomes the dominant view. For example, consider arguments over the concept of instinct. One side may say that there are no such things as instincts, that all behavior is learned. The other side may claim that all behavior ultimately emerges from innate patterns, that learning plays at best a minor role in behavior. The truth, almost assuredly, lies somewhere in between.

Still, there are “either-or” propositions for which there is no middle ground. Either the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. There is no compromise position here. Either O.J. killed his wife or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this matter. The only ambiguity comes from the public not knowing with 100% certainty what O.J. actually did, not with any ambiguity in his actions.

And so it is with God. Either God exists or he doesn’t. If God exists, the atheists are wrong. If God does not exist, all the theist religions of the world are wrong. There is no safe middle ground to be found. Trying to find some compromise here is simply a waste of time.

We can perhaps agree that, in the absence of 100% proof in either direction, some degree of tolerance should be maintained for both positions. But that’s about it.

However, understand that much of science is based on evidence for things we cannot see. No one has actually visited a black hole. Almost no one (maybe no one really) has seen an atom. We cannot actually view gravity. Yet most people (at least virtually all rational people) believe that these things exist. We don’t consider such beliefs to be based on faith — but rather the result of the preponderance of scientific evidence. Atheists simply ask that a belief in God be established in the same way. Given that no such preponderance of evidence exists, rejecting the idea of God makes more sense.

Or, to turn it around (and as I have said before in other postings), we don’t assume something is likely to be true simply because we can’t prove with 100% certainty that it’s not true. Otherwise, we would have to say that it is plausible that little green men live on Mars. And so it is with God. The fact that existence of God cannot be disproved with 100% certainty, does not make it likely that God exists.

In the end, atheists wind up discarding a belief in God following the same logic that leads science to discard a belief in men on Mars or support a belief in atomic theory. This is not an “extremist” position and there is no need to seek a middle ground for retreat.