COMMENTS RELATED WITH THE TEACHING
OF GOD´S CREATION IN SCHOOLS:
Let's start with an observation:
A letter by Behe in Science (281:348, 17 Jul.
1998) and other related articles:
Embryology
and Evolution
M.
K. Richardson et al., the authors of a study (1) demonstrating fraud
(E. Pennisi, Research News, 5 Sept. 1997, p. 1435) by 19th-century embryologist
Ernst Haeckel have objected (Letters, 15 May, p. 983) that their work was
"used in a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and
to suggest that evolution cannot explain embryology." As the debate
participant who discussed Haeckel, I believe their objections are unwarranted.
Richardson et
al. write that "[d]ata from embryology are fully consistent with
Darwinian evolution." Unfortunately, that is a negligible standard. The
distinguished authors of a prominent textbook have strongly argued (2) that the
early stages of embryogenesis should be highly conserved as Haeckel pictured
them. That
idea, however, has now been shown to be incorrect (1). But if Darwinian theory
is "fully consistent" with either conserved or variable
embryogenesis, then it is consistent with virtually any scenario and makes no
predictions concerning it. Contrary to Richardson et al's statement
that "Haeckel was right to show increasing difference between species as
they develop," the earliest stages of development are actually quite
different across vertebrate species, and become increasingly similar toward the
phylotypic stage (3). The "hourglass" pattern of development is a
conundrum that is not predicted by Darwinism.
I did not say
during the debate, as Richardson et al. write, that "evolution
cannot explain embryology." Rather, I said, in effect, that for a
century, Darwinism easily embraced a false description of a fundamental process
and that the problem of development within evolution remains unsolved.
Michael J. Behe
Department of Biological Sciences,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA,
E-mail: mjbl@lehigh.edu
References:
1.
M.
K. Richardson et al., Anat. Embryol. 196, 91
(1997).
2.
B. Alberts et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell
(Garland, New York, ed. 3, 1994), pp. 32-33.
3.
R.
Raff, The Shape of Life (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996),
pp. 192-197.
DEVELOPMENTAL
BIOLOGY: Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud
Rediscovered, Science, (5 Sept, 1997) 277:1435.
Elizabeth Pennisi
Generations of
biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos
published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel (Fig. 1). They show
vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through identical
stages of development. But the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is
wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital
Medical School in London. He hopes once and for all to discredit Haeckel's
work, first found to be flawed more than a century ago.
Richardson had long
held doubts about Haeckel's drawings because they didn't square with his
understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop
their distinctive features. So he and his colleagues did their own comparative
study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species
and age with those Haeckel drew (Fig. 2). Lo and behold, the embryos
"often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy
and Embryology.
One striking
deviation from reality, Richardson says, appears in Haeckel's drawings of embryos in the "tail bud"
stage, which he depicted as identical for different species. While real embryos do share many features at
this stage, such as a tail and identifiable body segments, they also have key
differences. Human embryos, for example, have tiny protrusions called limb
buds, says Richardson, particularly if they have developed to the point of
having as many body segments as Haeckel gives them. But Haeckel did not include
limb buds. And in his drawings, the chick embryo eye is blackened, like a
mammal's, "but it wouldn't be pigmented this early," Richardson says.
He adds that Haeckel has given the bird embryo a curl in the tail that
resembles a human's.
Not
only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged
the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were
10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species
in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of
animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely
related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in
their appearance and developmental pathway. "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most
famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.
This news might not
have been so shocking to Haeckel's peers in Germany a century ago: They got
Haeckel to admit that he relied on memory and used artistic license in
preparing his drawings, says Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist at
Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. But Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings
were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin
and reproduced widely in English-language biology texts.
The
flaws in Haeckel's work have resurfaced now in part because recent discoveries
showing that many species share developmental genes have renewed interest in
comparative developmental biology. And while some researchers--following
Haeckel's lead--like to emphasize the similarities among species, Richardson
thinks studying the contrasts may be more
interesting. Gilbert agrees: "There is
more variation [in vertebrate embryos] than had been
assumed." For that reason, he adds, “the
Richardson paper does a great service to developmental biology.”
Fig. 1. Haeckel's 1874 version of vertebrate embryonic development. The
top row shows an early stage common to all groups, the second row shows a
middle stage of development, and the bottom row shows a late stage embryo.
Groups from left to right are: fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow,
rabbit, and human. (Adapted from Gilbert, 1997.) (Taken from: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html)
Fig. 2.
Vertebrate embryos (not to scale) at three arbitrary stages of development (from
up to down and from left to right): 1) Early (tailbud stage), 2) Intermediate
(late embryo/early larva), 3) Late (adult form visible). No evolutionary
sequence is implied in the way the specimens are arranged. Details of secimens
are available from M.K.R. Early human embryo photographs courtesy of R.
O'Rahilly (A: lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), B: dogfish (Squatus
acanthias), C: gar (Lepisosteus osseus), D: salmon (Salmo salar),
E: lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri), F: axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum),
G: hellbender (Cryptobranchus allegheniensis), H: snake (Natrix
natrix), I: chicken (Gallus gallus), J: possum (Trichosurus
vulpecula), K: cat (felis catus), L: bat (Rhynchonycteris naso),
M: human (Homo sapiens)). (Taken from: Science, 15 May 1998,
280:983-984).
Fragments
from the article Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution, Richardson et al., Science, 280:983-984,
in which they explain that they disagree with the TV program that showed their
work as a proof against evolution (2):
“…Haeckel's famous drawings (Fig. 1) are a Creationist cause célèbre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth)… It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4).
Unfortunately,
Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his
drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly.
He did not show significant differences between species, even though his
theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found variations in
embryonic size, external form, and segment number which he did not show
(1)…
Haeckel's
drawings are used in many modern textbooks, but not always as primary evidence for evolution. In Molecular
Biology of the Cell (6), the drawings are used mainly to support hypotheses about the stages
of development acted on by natural selection. It is only in this limited context
that we have reservations about the implications of the drawings. Thus, certain
"phylotypic" embryonic stages, which Haeckel showed as identical, may
in fact be significant targets for natural selection.
We are not the
first to question the drawings. Haeckel's past accusers included His (Leipzig
University), Rütimeyer (Basel University), and Brass (leader of the Keplerbund
group of Protestant scientists). However, these critics did not give persuasive
evidence in support of their arguments. We therefore show here a more accurate
representation of vertebrate embryos at three arbitrary stages, including the
approximate stage
(Fig. 2, row three), which Haeckel showed to be identical. We suggest that
Haeckel was right to show increasing difference between species as they develop
(5). He was also right to show strong similarities between his earliest embryos
of humans and other eutherian mammals (for example, the cat and the bat; Fig.
2, row three). However, he was wrong to imply that there is virtually no
evolutionary change in early embryos in the vertebrates (see variations, Fig. 2).
These
conclusions are supported in part by comparisons of developmental timing in
different vertebrates (7). This work indicates a strong correlation between
embryonic developmental sequences in humans and other eutherian mammals, but
weak correlation between humans and some "lower" vertebrates…”
References
and Notes:
1.
M.
K. Richardson et al., Anat. Embryol. 196, 91
(1997).
2.
"Firing
Line with William Buckley," Public Broadcasting System (USA) (13 December
1997).
3.
W.H.
Rusch, Creat. Res. Soc. Ann. 6, 27 (1969).
4.
J.
M. W. Slack, P. W. H. Holland, C. F. Graham, Nature 361,
490 (1993).
5.
R.
Raff, The Shape of Life (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996).
6. B. Alberts et
al., Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, New York,
ed. 3, 1994).
7.
M.
K. Richardson, Dev. Biol. 172, 412 (1995); and M.
Coates, in preparation.
F. Verbeek, J. Bluemink, J. Narraway, and other staff of the Netherlands Institute for Developmental Biology provided assistance. Supported by the Wellcome Trust.
"Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life"
"Limits in the Natural Biological Variability", page in spanish, references are given in english
The
next is a sequence of fragmentary declarations after the article published by
Scott in Science, and her own answer:
White,
S., W. Meier, et al. (2000). “Educators have hard choices; nationally,
not just in Kansas.” Science 289(5481): 869-71.
Editors'
Note: We
have received many dEbates responses (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813)
to Eugenie C. Scotts's Science and Society Essay on concerns regarding
evolution and creationism in science education ("Not (just) in Kansas
anymore," 5 May, p. 813). Here are highlights from a representative
sample. Dr. Scott's response appears both in this section and in dEbates
online.
Anthony
White, (12 May 2000), Salesman,
Lay
Science Reader, E-mail: whitered39@aol.com
Maybe evolution is in such a perceived crisis because evolutionists seem to
consistently employ the same tactics used by politicians. In many of the
debates, some of which I have witnessed, the anti-evolutionists were not
religious fundamentalists thumping the Bible, but scientists with just as many
degrees as their opponents. If a survey was taken of young, impressionable
minds, one might be surprised at how many felt anti-evolutionists presented a
much stronger case than evolutionists.
People are talking
about evolution and creationism because none of the other scientific issues is
as vulnerable. Gravity, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, or general
and special relativity are not constantly on the "hot seat." Maybe
the theory of evolution is flawed. It is no closer to being incontrovertibly
proven in the hearts and minds of the American public than when it was first
introduced. This speaks volumes.
Walt Meier,
(response to White, 16 May 2000), Research Scientist, Nat'l Oceanographic and Atmos. Admin, E-mail: wmeier@natice.noaa.gov
[T]he validity of a
scientific theory is not dependent on polls, but on facts...The fact that many
Americans do not accept evolution indicates that science education is sorely
lacking in America, not that evolution is an invalid scientific theory.
Frank
Lovell, (response to White, 24 May 2000), Manager GE Appliances, e-mail: FLovell1@aol.com
(A) scientific
theory is never properly regarded as "incontrovertibly proven," as
White suggests. If evolution is indeed a flawed scientific theory, it will take
scientists with evidence to undo it, not rhetoric waged by a public that
remains largely ignorant about the facts and theory of evolution.
Anthony
White (response to responses), (9 June 2000), Salesman,
Lay
Science Reader, e-mail: whitered39@aol.com
What arrogance to assume that the American public is unable to grasp a theory
that everyone has been instructed in since grade school. Doesn't the American
public consist of scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, and
mathematicians, all of whom are college graduates and educated people? I assure
you we are not as ignorant of Darwin's theory as you seem to suppose.
There are a host of
holes in the theory of evolution.
(1) Many different
scientist's calculations demonstrate that the formation of life by accidental
processes is mathematically impossible. (a) Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the
probability to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. (b) Penrose calculated that, to
provide for a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics, the
precision required to set the universe on its highly ordered course was to an
accuracy of 1 in 10 to the 10(123)power. Do the math! That's more than all the
protons, neutrons, and every other particle in the known universe. Paul Davies
calculated that the matching of the explosive force of the big bang and gravity
was one in 10 to the 60 power. (c) When Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds
against the precise matching required to form a single carbon atom through the
triple alpha process, he said the answer dramatically disturbed his atheism. He
went on to say that the number calculated from the facts are so overwhelming as
to put the conclusion that a superintellect had monkeyed with the physics
almost beyond question.
(2) The Miller and
Urey line of experiments are laughable, yet it is still in the current college
text books as fact. (a) According to Hubert Yockey, in so far as chance plays a
role in the probability that even a very short protein, let alone a genome, could
emerge from a primeval soup, if ever it existed, even with the help of a
"deux ex machina" for 10 to the 9 power light years is so small that
it requires the "faith of Job" to believe it. He also called the
prebiotic soup a failed paradigm. (b) Fred Hoyle and Wickramasingh concluded
that life could not have appeared by Earth-bound random processes even if the
whole universe consisted of primeval soup.
(3) What was the
method of generating information content into inorganic matter? (a) The second
law of thermodynamics states that any spontaneous process in such a system will
result in an increase in disorder or entropy. (b) Time's arrow points in the
direction of equilibrium, demonstrating that in any spontaneous change the
amount of (free energy) decreases and randomness increases. The more time, the
greater the entropy . Therefore, life could not develop in such processes. (c)
Energy alone is not sufficient to support abiogenisis.
Many in the
scientific community are aware of these numbers but their ideological beliefs
prevent them from seeing the forest for the trees. It is normally accepted
within the scientific community that anything less than one in 10 to the 50
power is a mathematical impossibility. Stop being robots and "let
evolution stand on its own two feet."
Norman F.
Stanley,
(13 June 2000) Retired chemist, E-mail: nfs@midcoast.com
(T)o postulate a
director or designer at any stage of the theory is to postulate a miracle…
isn't it far better to leave unanswered questions provisionally unanswered and
continue investigating? This is aside from methodological flaws and factual
errors, and they are numerous, as pointed out in published critiques of such
theories.
Far from being
"laughable," the Miller-Urey experiments were seminal in
demonstrating the formation of amino acids under prebiotic conditions. They are
easily duplicated in the laboratory with simple apparatus. Prebiotic chemistry
has hardly stood still since their time. Syntheses of peptides, lipids, and
nucleotides have been demonstrated under conditions similar to those prevailing
in the abiotic era. These molecules have been shown to assemble into structures
suggestive of proto-cells. Research into self-replicating molecules has
developed rapidly during the past decade. Viruses and prions illustrate that
the distinction between life and nonlife is fuzzy. Whether viruses or other
simple organisms can be synthesized in the foreseeable future is uncertain, but
I am inclined to be optimistic.
Wes McCoy, (18 May 2000) high
school science chairman, North Cobb High School, Kennesaw, GA, E-mail: wesmccoy@cobbk12.org
My genetics students have passed Biology I. They should understand evolution
(particularly if I was their teacher). Here is why they usually don't: (i) What
they learn about evolution outside the classroom is fundamentally more powerful
than what they learn in it... (ii) By and large, students believe that
evolution can be equated with atheism. This view comes from the false duality
of an "evolution vs. creationism" debate. The most common default
position adopted by students is that evolution is “only a theory,” a thought
echoed by school boards throughout this country.
Mehmet Sen, (16 May 2000), Biochemist,
E-mail: senmehmet@hotmail.com
The debate about
evolution is meaningless because not everything about this subject can be
tested. I don't believe in the evolutionary process because I feel God in my
heart, and I know that he knows everything, like a leaf falling from a tree or
a insect wandering around its home. I will not discuss intermediate fossils or
mutations because I can say many things against these proposed ideas. Why
doesn't "Science" invite comment from people who are on the creation
side, like Kenneth B. Cumming, professor of biology, or Duane T. Gish,
professor of biochemistry?
All religions
coming from the Messenger of God (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) state that
we don't evolve.
If you try to find
reality, please think with your own mind.
Philip S.
Skell,
(27 July 2000), Member of the National
Academy of Science; Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. Chemistry, The
Pennsylvania State University, Univ.
Park, Penn., 16801, e-mail: tvk@psu.edu
Darwinist Enthusiasts, popularizers and
researchers alike, have insisted over the past 140 years that his Concepts are the
foundation of all biology, some maintaining it undergirds all modern
scholarship. Is this a useful perspective? Does it risk creating obstacles to
science funding? Evolution Theory is a broadly overarching historical theory
that pertains to the developmental history of living organisms over the past
3.5 billion years. It is reasonable to examine its credentials and determine
its current utility. Does it have a directive impact in the inductive, or
experimental, sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology? Despite
statements in the literature that make it out to be vitally important in modern
Microbiology, Neurobiology, Genetics, Plant Biology, Medicine, Surgery,
Pharmaceutics, etc., I believe this assignment to evolutionary theory cannot be
justified. Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick wrote: "It might be thought that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research,
but this is far from the case." I am mindful of the statement of a
professor at a prestigious medical school, that Darwin is not mentioned in the
four-year medical program. And, another from a researcher in the pharmaceutical
industry, that his company does not have a Division of Darwinian Concepts to
help in making more effective their choices for future research. Over A half
century ago, during WW II, I was personally associated with an antibiotics
research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms
which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the
antibiotics they produced. Since then there has been astounding sophisticated
advances in instrumentations and methodologies, but nonetheless persons engaged
in current activities make no more use of Darwinian Concepts than in those
earlier days; those Concepts do not, and did not, have a determinative impact
on the conception and prosecution of the projects. Genomics is currently in the
news headlines with the remarkable achievements in detailing the human genome.
This technological breakthrough would have occurred regardless of one's beliefs
on Darwinism. The question that must be addressed: Is the Theory mainly of
overarching historical importance with modest relevance to modern research?
Granted, those engaged in exhuming ancient artifacts, fossils, can claim the
Concepts are "Absolutely vital" in their field of natural history.
Paleontology may, with some justification claim that Evolutionary Theory
provides a useful framework. To clarify the discrepancy in perceptions, I
suggest that persons working in biological fields, and all other
science-oriented Darwinists, enlighten us by responding to: {In your research,
is design of new programs dependent upon Darwinian Concepts, in the sense that
if you did not agree with its major tenets, your program would be significantly
different?}. I have posed this question to 40 persons in scholarly activities,
two-thirds in scientific areas, the remainder broadly across other fields, and
thus far I have not had a yes response, with justification of a claim of
relevance in the modern context for the heuristic importance of Darwinian
Concepts. If I have not searched widely enough for relevance, there should be
ample opportunity for correction of my assessment: That those overarching
historical Concepts play a negligible role in most modern research programs.
Can the case be made that without the Concepts there would be no research
programs, no progress? To be convincing advocates must give their assessment
with reference to specific research programs. The global question, "Is
Darwinism important?" invites the arm-waving reply: "Absolutely,
vital!!". Vital to one's world view perhaps, but vital to particular
research programs? Science may be best served by maintaining a
wall-of-separation between its inductive/experimental activities and disputes
regarding world-views, a separation from the extremists of both varieties. It
is one thing for atheists to use science to support or lend respectability (as
Richard Dawkins has put it) to their views. It is another for atheists to
advance their views under the banner "Thus Speaks Science!".
Illustrative of the current relevance of this matter is the response of the
"Science Community" to the recent events in Kansas. Their Board
indicated they would not include in their state-wide final exams questions on
three subjects: 1. Origin of Life from a primordial soup, 2. Micro-evolution
entails Macro-evolution, and 3. Big Bang origin of the Universe. They made no
restriction on teaching these matters, nor any requirement or recommendation,
as often claimed, that Creationism be taught; the old standards, dating from
1995, had much less about evolution in them than the new standards. Each of
these subjects omitted from the state-wide exams is part of ancient natural
history, arguably of questionable relevance to the graduating high school
senior. One must wonder at the distorted perspectives that provoked the
"Science Community" to such disproportionate responses, including
remarks in some reputable publications, recommending that Kansas graduates be
denied admissions to colleges and universities. Why all this fuss in the
science community? Let us recognize that the debate between the extremes on
both sides has only marginal relevance to modern scientific activities, and if
the debate is continued in the current intemperate manner, they may be putting
at risk the future funding of vital activities. The Congress, a microcosm of
the "general public", holds the purse strings! While we are all
vastly indebted to the science community for the excellence of their scholarly
activities, this does not give members of our community the right to breach the
Wall-of-Separation and to use, as a pulpit, our public schools for
indoctrination with their religious or antireligious views. The political route
may be the only means by which the attention of the Enthusiasts can be gained,
to encourage them to desist from conflating their metaphysical world-views with
the science they do so capably. If that route is taken we will all suffer.
Robert
Niichel,
(1 June 2000) Student, Monticello
High School, E-mail: BobNiichel@yahoo.com
Without a God or a
higher being, truth becomes relative.
Deborah
Hernandez,
(31 May 2000) Chemist and Physicist, Christian, E-mail: mndb5@yahoo.com
What is to be taught to our future citizens?
At present they are taught much information, and science is explained as
"fact" when the ideas are constantly being revised. It has been said
that science should be taught as the history of science in order to leave it
open to changes. In history we clearly see that our nation is based on the
freedom to worship God, who made the world… order and life that man himself
cannot imitate. So which is easier to believe? Which makes more sense?
Ian Gordon,
(22 May 2000) librarian, Brock University, e-mail: igordon@spartan.ac.brocku.ca
We should give more
credit to students and their abilities to think through and debate matters of
social, scientific, religious, and philosophical origin than we currently
allow. To state that "Allowing creationism a voice within a public school
curriculum smacks of religious instruction" puts teachers, students and
parents at a disadvantage. It is equally unfair to paint all scientists who
believe in evolution with the label of "secular humanist." There is no
such thing as an unbiased opinion. We all have our own persepectives.
What we have is a
debate where Christians (and other beliefs) have felt that they have been
marginalized. In a true democratic environment we should allow for an open
debate within the classroom.
I am sure most
students and teachers are willing to move forward and debate these issues if
religious and civil liberties organizations would join the debate rather than
threatening a democratic process.
P.S. This text and
any opinions expressed are personal and do not reflect those of my present
employer.
Tyler F.
Creelan, (18 May 2000), undergraduate
student, Oregon State University, E-mail: ty.creelan@orst.edu
There is an old
saying: "There is no point in debating with someone who knows they are
right."… It is...unclear why a...suggested alternative to teaching
evolution, the avoidance of all lessons relating to this matter, is to be
preferred over current practice. I would rather learn about something I do not
wholly agree with than learn nothing at all.
…"Fighting
creationism," therefore, seems a useless action, equivalent to filling in
a hole in the sand that weather and time shall eventually fill in anyway. An
earnest seeker of the truth shall always come in time to learn of evolution,
and determine its falsehood or veracity independently…I think that the effort
and energy of the scientific community can be better placed in other, more
meaningful goals than fighting what will likely amount to a passing
socio-political trend.
Rudolf
Brun, (18 May 2000) developmental
biologist, faculty
TCU, e-mail: r.brun@tcu.edu
What do we as serious scientists contribute to this debate? I think the
dialogue between scientists and theologians needs to improve. By this I mean
that theology cannot be reduced to science and vice-versa. Rather, what science
learns about nature must become integrated into a world-view in which faith
finds its reasonable place. How could this be accomplished?… there is no
predeterminism, there is freedom! Freedom is also the prerequisite for
Christianity to make sense. This is because human beings must be free to either
accept or reject the loving relationship offered by the creator. How about
trying to overcome the adversarial positions between science and religion in
this way? Wouldn't it be great to energize the debate between creationists and
scientists from this point of departure? For an outline of such a dialog see
the following: http://geowww.geo.tcu.edu/brunbook/index.html
Robert Mac
West, (24 May 2000) paleontologist, Informal Learning
Experiences, Inc., E-mail: ile@informallearning.com
In a nation where
dollars produce political results--and this is a political discussion as much
as it is a scientific and religious one--it is little wonder that the voice of
science is not heard as well as the voice of creationism.
Ivan E.
Collier, (24 May 2000) molecular
biologist, Washington University School of Medicine, E-mail: collieri@medicine.wustl.edu
The skeptical
tradition in science means that all scientific explanation, no matter how well
tested, is theory. To present a scientific explanation, whether it be quantum
electrodynamics or evolution, without the context of skepticism invites
contempt and risks establishing scientific literalism.
Duane T.
Gish, (7 July 2000) Executive, Senior Vice President, Institute
for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021, Web
Page: http://www.icr.org
In her Essay, Scott
says "the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism and creation
'science' are unconstitutional." In a letter published in Nature (1) in
1987, after the Supreme Court decision on the Louisiana equal time legislation,
Scott said "the Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law
violates the constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say
that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individual
teachers do." These statements appear to be contradictory. Which one is
true? In an article published in 1987 in the New York Times Magazine (2),
Stephen Jay Gould says "Creationists claim their law broadened the freedom
of teachers by permitting the introduction of controversial material. But no
statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science'. It could
be taught before, and it can be taught now." Michael Zimmerman in
Bioscience in 1987 says "The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way,
outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite
simply it ruled that in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is
unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. 'Creation
science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and
administrators feel it is appropriate."
By Scott's own
words, the concurrence of Gould and Zimmerman, and a reading of the Supreme
Court's decision concerning the Louisiana law, it seems clear that the decision
did not declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in
public school classrooms is unconstitutional and thus prohibited. This false
notion is incessantly repeated by those who adamantly oppose such educational
activities. As Richard Lewontin has rightly stated, evolution and creationism
are irreconcilable worldviews. When each is stripped down to the bare bones,
each is intrinsically religious. Although they constitute inferences based on
circumstantial evidence, the evidence supporting each is by nature scientific
and should be made available to students in the tax-supported public schools of
our pluralistic democratic society.
References
1. E. Scott, Nature
329, 282 (1987).
2. S. J. Gould,
"The verdict on creationism," New York Times Mag. (19 July 1987), p.
34.
3. M. Zimmerman,
Bioscience 37 (no. 9), 635 (1987).
George N.
Prince,
(10 May 2000), Retired attorney/volunteer
mentor/tutor, E-mail:
happygeenp@aol.com
Certain
pitfalls in the contemporary teaching of evolution in public schools might be
avoided if school systems taught the history of science, rather than particular
"theories." The history of science shows a progression of theories
that seems to have no end. As time passes, a scientific theory is sometimes
disproved. But if a theory is a good one, it will more likely be viewed as
valid only within limits and replaced by a theory that explains more phenomena
or is simply more "elegant."
As a lay reader of
science-media, I have the sense that there is no theory in any branch of
science that is not subject to revision in light of new developments. It would
be well for schoolchildren to absorb this. The theory of evolution should not
be defended by trying to convert it into a dogma.
Thomas C.
Adler,
(12 May 2000) Electrochemist, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, E-mail: tomadler@aol.com
I entirely agree
that the claims of the “Young Earth” kind are false. I believe that we should still
be receptive to the possibility that there is a greater creative intelligence
participating in the evolution of the universe. Science has yet to explain
precisely how the universe originated, how life was created from inanimate
matter, and how conscious intelligence arose. These are not trivial issues. I
think that we should avoid taking a dogmatic posture in favor of strict
materialism in these cases. Albert Einstein, for example, kept the dialogue
going between religion and science through his personal contacts, letters, and
lectures. Rigid scientific dogmatism will merely antagonize potential
supporters, and we may win the battle but lose the war.
Henry M.
Paynter,
(15 May 2000) Emeritus Professor, MIT, E-mail: HankusP@aol.com
After reading
Scott's vigorous article, I went back to see what the National Science
Education Standards had to say about creationism (in any of its forms). The
answer was, simply nothing. This vital issue was ignored completely, at least
as best I could see. But, like angle trisection, circle squaring, and the flat
Earth, this question must be addressed directly and objectively and not simply
dismissed and ignored.
Three cheers to
Eugenie Scott and "Science" for providing just such a discussion.
William K.
Hartmann, (7 July 2000), senior scientist, Planetary Science Institute, E-mail: hartmann@psi.edu
The complaint
against the fascinating evidence for a Big Bang event is particularly ironic
and illuminating. If any piece of modern astronomy could be welcomed by
creationists, it should be the Big Bang theory. The fact that it is under
attack is evidence, in my opinion, that fundamentalists are not interested in
content or ideas, but are simply against science and scientists.
Thus, much of the
current controversy could be reduced by teaching the history and (dare I say?)
evolution of the scientific ideas themselves, rather than merely presenting
them as "known facts" or even "established theory."
Dr. B.
Colbert,
(24 May 2000), Mathematican, E-mail: b.colbert@trl.oz.au
The big bang theory
was initially rejected (by the “scientific community”) because it was perceived
to be "religiously based" and theistic. This clearly demonstrates
that to claim to be against a religiously based view of the world does not mean
that one is objective and free from error.
What is more
important is how these theories are taught. Unfortunately, the latest theory,
be it evolutionary or creationist, is taught as absolute undeniable fact, in
the same way one might teach children that Caesar conquered Gaul or how to
whack a cricket ball. When the next year comes, the next theory is taught in
the same manner. Instead, the uncertainty and open questions surrounding both
theories should be presented.
Scott's essay seems
to have the same faults that Scott finds with "fundamentalists."
Scott cites several authors to dismiss views that she opposes. How is this
different from "fundamentalists" quoting the Bible?
As a postscript, I
do not share Scott's rather rosy view of a highly centralized education system.
Such centralization was brought into Europe by military dictators and tyrants.
It has resulted in the destruction of minority languages and cultures, such as
Langue d'Oc, Breton, Welsh, Irish, and many others. In some cases, it was a
criminal offense to speak these languages, and children were punished and
publicly humiliated in schools for doing so. "Scientific" reasons
justified this treatment of children.
William B.
Provine,
(15 May 2000) Professor, Cornell
University, E-mail: wbp2@cornell.edu
No
constitutional barrier, prevents students in biology classes from expressing
their views. Most evolutionists prefer to muzzle the free speech of
creationists. Since no one likes to be robbed of free speech, it is no wonder
creationists wish to influence school boards and teachers. As a long-time
teacher of evolutionary biology from grade school through graduate school, I
encourage the participation of all students and have always found them excited
by this approach. Evolutionists will not convince nonbelievers by preventing
them from speaking.
One sentence on
evolutionary biology appears in the last paragraph of Scott’s essay: “According
to the neutralist principle in biology, a mutation will eventually replace the
wild type unless it is opposed by natural selection.” What is this neutralist
principle? I am writing a history of the theories of neutral molecular evolution
but am unaware of any such principle.
Dennis
Hollenberg, (18
May 2000), designer, E-mail: d2@ncplus.com
Darwinian theory is
too vague and, therefore, too difficult to grasp (exacerbated by the inevitably
poor explication in all literature, examples of which I discuss below)… Richard
Dawkins describes God in the idealized mechanics of the largely imaginary
concept of the "selfish gene." But no such "gene" concept
exists; the molecular genome instead functions as an ecosystem in which
heterogeneous groups of molecules, largely proteins, accumulate to perform and
"control" the various operations using DNA information and subsequently
maintain the coding libraries. Less remote is Roger Penrose's ideas that QM
makes us think, but an idea that denigrates the vastly complex systems we call
brain cells. Life is the interaction of populations hierarchically arranged,
not a witless widget coming out of some academic gargoyle.
Benjamin
Jantzen,
(18 May 2000), Grad student/research
assistant, Cornell University,
E-mail:
bcj3@cornell.edu
Scott states that
one of the ideas "not already present in creation science ha[s] emerged
from IDC: biochemist Michael Behe's 'irreducible complexity'...." However,
this concept, essentially stating that certain complex natural systems could
not function "without a minimal number of interacting components" and
therefore could not have evolved from simpler configurations, is no different
from the 19th century argument of the eye. The argument I am referring to is
the well-worn creationist argument that an eye (vertebrate), in other than its
present form, could not possibly function as an eye. It's sheer complexity of
design and optimality of function demand that we acknowledge it's designer,
just as if, argued William Paley in 1802 ("Natural Theology"), one
were to stumble across a watch in the countryside…(Thomas) Huxley became
"Darwin's Bull Dog" long after Paley published his eloquent treatise,
he met immediately with the argument of irreducible complexity, the work-horse
example of which was the occular organ prized by Paley.
Donn M.
Stewart, M.D., (22
May 2000)
Clinical Fellow, Metabolism Branch, NCI, NIH, E-mail: dstew@helix.nih.gov
(T)he core idea of
evolution, that all living things are related by descent, contradicts the core
beliefs of historical Christianity. Can evolutionists accomodate the possibilty
of creation events in their world view? Scott mentions the Gallup poll in which
40% of scientists agree that evolution occured, but was guided by God… is
evolution the belief that common descent is the only possible explanation for
all biological phenomena? A strict insistence that no creation events have ever
occurred in the history of Earth is as dogmatic as the most severe creationist
position.
Peter M.
Webster,
(31 May 2000), Physician, University
of Toronto, E-mail: peter.webster@utoronto.ca
As a scientist and
a Christian, I am embroiled in this debate regularly, and I believe there is an
important moral issue involved. Christian parents are seeing their children
taught promiscuity in the name of science, and, unable to demonstrate the
errors in the science, parents feel obligated to undermine its authority. The
foundation of sex education in our schools is Kinsey's travesty of science,
truly a polemic in the cloak of science. If the scientific community were
willing to disown Kinsey and the hierarchy of sex education in favor of scientific
information on reproductive behavior, bonding, and the hazardous nature of
promiscuity, one might have a chance of getting through to Christians of good
will.
I find it
personally distressing that what science has discovered of God's creative genius
answers one of the deepest mysteries of Christian doctrine -- free will and
sovereign power. The question "How can a just judge condemn a creature of
His own confection?" is answered by evolution and quantum mechanics. To
judge a creature, one needs an arm's length procedure, evolution, and a
mechanism guaranteeing freedom -- indeterminacy. If the scientific community
could see that science developed as an effort to understand the Creator by
studying His handywork and thrived in the culture of mutual trust inspired by
the concept that we are each and all made in His Image rather than taking each
new discovery as an excuse to deny God, we wouldn't be seeing such bizarre
behavior from people who feel strongly and intuitively that the universe is not
devoid of meaning.
Stephen
Congly,
(1 June 2000), Undergraduate student, University
of Regina, e-mail: scongly@softhome.net
Darwin's theory
cannot disprove creationism; however, scientists typically reject creationism
as a theory because it cannot be subject to the rigours of the scientific
method unlike the theory of creationism.
Larry
Berardinis, (1
June 2000),
Engineer/Technical writer, Penton Media, e-mail: lberardinis@penton.com
…I find it ironic that, in expressing her
frustration, Scott uses far more words than the surprisingly few verses in the
Bible (on creation) over which this whole tempest is about. In fact, the very
nature of the creation vs. evolution debate -- a dozen or so passages standing
alone against page after page, volume after volume, and course after course --
indicates that this is an unresolvable dilemma. It's like trying to catch an
atom with a butterfly net. Let it go. There are better things to chase.
Instead of arguing
over whose theory or philosophy is more worthy of being taught, perhaps our
public servants should put that aside and focus on teaching basic skills like
reading, math, writing, and applied science. If there's any time (and money)
left over, maybe we can also try to instill in our future generation such
things as self-worth and the value of life.
Bruce Simon, (5 July 2000) Ph.D., E-mail: bruce.simon@ebimed.com
The Hindus, Ancient
Greeks and Romans, Norse, American Indians, Polynesians, etc. all have their versions
of creation that differ significantly from that of the Old Testament. Should
they all be taught in a science class along with evolution as possible
alternative theories? Of course not… So, why don't we just change the
Constitution, make this officially a Christian country, and then the church can
determine what will and won't be taught in schools, and most of the population
will be happy.
Rudy
Bernard,
(7 July 2000), Professor, Michigan
State University, E-mail: bernard@psl.msu.edu
I think part of the problem arises from
thinking/teaching that science can explain eveything. Science is necessarily
materialist in its methodology and in the scope of what is studied (the natural
world). It does not necessarily follow that science encompasses all of reality
or that science can answer all the questions that humans have about the nature
of reality. Science has given us amazing knowledge about the universe, and I am
privileged to have spent my life in science, but there are many important
things that science is not equipped to deal with. Many writers have used
evolutionary theory as an argument against God and religion in general, but
this is to take science beyond its realm of competence. It is important not to
confuse science with philosophy or theology or to deny the valid role of these
areas of thought.
Rafael
Harpaz,
(13 July 2000), Medical Epidemiologist, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, E-mail: ejherman@juno.com
I, myself, have a
hard time fathoming how evolution could produce the nuanced, highly complex,
yet seemingly modestly adaptive features evident in the biological world,
particularly when viewed along side such glaring, highly maladaptive examples
in biology as the high maternal and infant mortality in pre-industrial human
societies. Although I certainly don't reject evolution on the basis of these
examples, as a scientist I recognize that my acceptance is, to a degree, based
on "faith," and must properly allow for Divine guidance, at least
until such time that I seek and obtain clarifying, scientifically derived
proof.
Marvin J.
Fritzler, (1 June 2000),
PhD MD,
cell biologist/university professor University of Calgary,
Faculty of Medicine E-mail Marvin J. Fritzler PhD MD: fritzler@ucalgary.ca
I agree with some
of the principles espoused by Scott over the past few months but disagree with
the rhetoric in her Essay. The innuendo in this Essay does little to advance
discussion, debate, or understanding. "Wild type" and "mutant"
metaphors are poorly considered in light of the history of the two lines of
thinking. Sweeping statements like "Biologists have rejected irreducible
complexity, and philosophers have been similarly unresponsive..." are
rhetorical distortions. By this statement and others in her Essay, Scott seems
to do science (of which she is a spokesperson) a disservice.
Exactly what are we
afraid of? How many biologists or philosophers have openly studied the concept
of intelligent design (Demski) or irreducible complexity (Behe)? Personally, I
find the concepts fascinating and congruent with my understanding and
observations. Indeed, Demski calls for research to prove or disprove the
concept of intelligent design. As a cell and molecular biologist, the notion that
interacting complex systems 'evolved' through mutation and natural selection
leaves me concerned that an overarching concept of evolution does not explain
what I see in the lab or in published scientific journals. For scientists that
believe there needs to be more political action to protect the higher ground.
Shouldn't we be reassured that 'natural selection' will (eventually) triumph? I
suppose that the failure to gain a more substantial foothold in the
nonscientific American community over the past century suggests that, despite
something that can be hardly considered a 'neutralist' approach, we should
reflect more deeply than merely calling for more political action and further
standardization of biology teaching materials.
Michael J. Behe, (7 July 2000), Professor of Biological
Sciences, Lehigh University, E-mail: mjb1@lehigh.edu
[I]ntelligent
design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The
biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the
journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles
a machine designed by a human."...Exactly why is it a thought-crime to
make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively
correct?
Charles J.
Robinove, (16 May 2000) Geologist Retired, E-mail: robinove@rmi.net
The creationism
view is that of one religion, Christianity. Judaism, Buddhism, Islam,
Shintoism, Hinduism, and many other religions have no trouble reconciling
evolution with their religious teachings...The fervor of the creationists to
force their views on schools amounts to an attempt to establish a religion (or
a portion of it) in the governmental system of the United States. We as
scientists must, can, and will stand for the best of science and, as
individuals, profess our own religious tenets. But we can certainly use the
Constitution and the many legal precedents on freedom of religion stemming from
the Constitution as a means to fight against those who believe that their own
views of the world are the only views that should be held by anyone. Such legal
challenges should be tried when the opportunity arises in individual states and
school districts.
(Note: a
mistake in the previous declaration can be seen in the next Web pages as
examples in which members of the “Judaism” and the “Islam” are
presenting their tenets and their beliefs regarding the creation:
http://www.ascent.org.il/NewAscentOfSafed/Teachings/Introduction/science.htmlTorah and Science
David
Punshon-Smith, (7
September 2000),
Physicist, E-mail:
dsmith@corvis.com
The concept of laws
and experiment being supplanted by corroboration of historical narrative as the
new direction of science (Ernst Mayr, Sci. Am., July 2000) needs more
careful analysis before it is accepted. No one disputes the difficulty of
attempting to scientifically verify theories that apply to historical events
Abstract
of the original article that generated all of the declarations, by: Eugenie C.
Scott (Science, 5 May, p. 813):
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE
AND SOCIETY:
Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore
Antievolutionism in
many forms is afflicting science education in the United States today. The
particular settlement and religious history of America, respectively
characterized by local control and lack of hierarchy, is largely responsible.
Although conservative, fundamentalist Protestants are the core of
antievolutionists, the sentiment is growing among more moderate Christians,
largely through the efforts of the "intelligent design" creationists.
Teachers are pressed to introduce biblical creationism or creation "science,"
to teach "evidence against evolution" and/or to disclaim evolution as
"only a theory" (meaning guess or hunch). To avoid further decrease
in science literacy, scientists actively need to counteract the antievolution
threat.
Eugenie C. Scott is a coauthor of the National
Academy of Science's, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,
and has consulted with the NAS on the revision of its "Science and
Creationism" booklet. She is a physical anthropologist, is executive
director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., a not-for-profit
membership organization that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of
science as a way of knowing. It opposes the teaching of "scientific"
creationism and other religiously based views in science classes. NCSE, Inc.,
925 Kearney Street, El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810, USA. E-mail: scott@natcenscied.org
Response
by: Eugenie C. Scott to the many letters originated after her article:
White is correct to say that evolution is not "in the hearts and minds of
the public," but he errs in thinking that evolution is taught from grade
school up. A smattering of evolution is taught in high school biology, but by
then, as McCoy illustrates, students have already acquired a lot of misinformation.
The "big three" antievolution arguments students pick up (also
illustrated in these dEbates excerpts) are that (i) evolution is
scientifically weak--a "theory in crisis," (ii) evolution is
incompatible with religion, and (iii) it is "only fair" to teach
"both." These three arguments were also used by William Jennings
Bryan during the Scopes trial of 1925, so we haven't gotten very far in 75
years. Scientists and teachers need to counter each of the "big
three."
Ultimately,
existential issues fuel antievolutionism: people are told that if evolution
happened, they can't believe in God and their lives are meaningless. A high
percentage of the public believes this, which suggests that the faith community
has a major role to play in informing religious people of the many ways in
which religion is compatible with evolution (see www.natcenscied.org/voicont.htm
and www.natcenscied.org/continuum.htm). But scientists and science teachers
need to teach more evolution and teach it better, and "better"
includes keeping nonscientific ideas such as creation science, intelligent
design, and philosophical materialism out of the science class.
Behe claims that intelligent
design is empirically detectable, but gives as an example only a statement
asserting the similarity of a natural structure to a designed one. Indeed, a
structure that functions to get something done can be said to be "designed"
for that purpose, but this casual usage should not imply a designing agent,
much less an intelligent one, and still less a supernatural one. Natural
selection, a nonrandom but unintelligent mechanism, can also produce structures
that function for a purpose, and as a natural mechanism, for scientific
purposes, it is preferable over untestable supernatural ones.
I thank all those
who took time to comment, and apologize for not responding personally to all. Eugenie
C. Scott
Executive Director,
National Center for Science Education, Inc.,
925 Kearney Street,
El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810, USA.
E-mail: scott@natcenscied.org
The next link shows
just some of the sites dealing with God’s creation:
http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
Study Links:
Tasters of the Word (YouTube), videos recientes: "Astronomía y Nacimiento de Jesucristo: Once de Septiembre Año Tres A.C.", "Estudio sobre Sanidades" (en 20 episodios), "Jesus Christ, Son or God?" and "We’ve Got the Power to Heal!"
Tasters of the Word (the blog, with: "Astronomy and the Birth of Jesus Christ", and in writing, the same as in YouTube):