finally it comes to Virginia: the lies of anti-evolutionists

[acroyear]

A biology prof @ Northern Virgiinia Community College lectured a biology 101 class that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science.

I know the son of one of the owners of the college.  He's gonna hear abou this one.

The article, as usual, is full of he-said-she-said's rather than being a proper expose of the lies of this woman.  Criticism is being assembled by several.

Comments

[theshaggyfreak.livejournal.com]

I started to read the article, but eventually started getting angry. I just can't believe that this sorta crap happens in todays soceity.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Thanks to pointing me to an interesting article. I admit that I often am leary about following engaging in your posts on this subject because I know it is a "hot button" issue for you and we do not always see ey-to-eye, but I'll give it a go this time. Two points I'd like to make:

First, the smaller point:

The article, as usual, is full of he-said-she-said's rather than being a proper expose of the lies of this woman.

As an example of journalism, my professional (and personal) opinion is that this was an excellent article. The article was not written to be an intellectual expose', but to inform about the differing viewpoints of those engaged in this debate. It used one of the most effective styles of writing to do so -- compare and contrast. And the focus was not the theories being disputed but the people disputing and why they feel and believe the way they do. Both sides were generally presented in a good light and as having valid points and concerns that differ sharply from the other side's.

It was the writer's choice to begin with the ID professor's viewpoint. The article also could have been written with the opening section being from the viewpoint of the main stream scientific community, particulary Dawkins, and then bringing in the contrasting opinions. Journalistically, I think the "right call" was made: the purpose is to get people to read the story. Another "Scientist/College Professor says Intelligent Design Wrong" story would elicit a big yawn from most readers (dog bites man is not news), but "Biology Professor Disputes Darwin" is a good news hook. Hopefully, that means more people read the story (which is the overriding goal of every article). If they did, they perhaps were exposed to more ideas and viewpoints than they knew about. I know I learned a new things and saw that there was more going on in these debates than the "black and white" issues that are usually reported.

Second, hopefully more pertinent to the basic issue, point

Here are two quotes from members of the scientific community quoted from the story:

1) "For all I know, there was an intelligent designer, but science can't answer the question." -- Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

2) "Anyone who chooses not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane." Richard Dawkins, professor of public understanding of science at Oxford University

Which view do you think gets expressed more often in the evolution debate about intelligent design (or creationism or "there is a God")? It sure is *not* number one, but it ought to be.

By the very nature of the theory, the existance of a creator or designer *cannot* be proved or disproved. How the heck can you even test it? Therefore the issue is not one that can properly be addressed by science. So why not just say so up front and then get on with teaching what science has available? Instead of acknowledging that non-evolutionary "theories" do not fall in the capabilities of science to answer -- "science cannot answer the question" -- and leaving it at that, the scientific community insists that evolution is the *only* truth about creation and people who don't see that are "ignorant, stupid or insane." Scientists do not and cannot know *everything* and there are still questions science cannot deal with.

If ID or whatever isn't going to be in the science classroom (where it doesn't belong) and there is a good, well-rounded nonscience class that *can* teach it -- let 'em teach it! And go ahead and refer the students that are interested to that class. "Science can't answer the question of an intelligent design, and therefore this class does not address it. Please consider Phil. 203 (or whatever) which addresses that topic." No label misleading about the importance of evolution; no huge fight and calling other people stupid. Just a simple clarification to the students about the different scope of the classes and why. More of Leshner's statement and less of Dwarkin's would do a lot to defuse the situation and deprive the IDers of emotional and logical ammo.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

If the point was "promoting the idea of intelligent design", that would be one thing. I don't care of someone says "I don't think it happened the way that mainstream science says it happened, i personally feel there was something more going on."

That is not what this lady was doing. She was actively telling her biology students flat-out lies about biology. She was running the anti-evolution playbook straight out of Wells's "Icons of Evolution".

Shall we run through the list?

Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer.

The current "list" of "scientists" runs about 400, with very few of them (maybe less than 40) being biologists or biochemists. But numbers don't mean anything, only evidence, and ID has none.

Crocker was about to establish a small beachhead for an insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin's view that humans and apes are distant cousins.

This is bad reporting here or at the least bad teaching if that's how it was mentioned in the class. It is today *hardly* "Darwin's view" anymore. The evidence for our descent from our primate ancestors is far more complete than anything Darwin could have imagined. The writing (at that point) tries to present this concept that Darwin's ideas have gone unchallenged in the last 150 years, which is untrue.

No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.

And no one ever will, but that is not what macroevolution (a term scientists generally never use in the first place) means. She is presenting an argument from incredulity by making a claim for evolution that scientists have never made, and then using it to sow the seeds of doubt into her students minds and that is utterly unethical.

The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.

This is not the "theory of intelligent design" except as this woman thinks of it and described it to the reporter. It is not a definition that either Behe or Dembski would agree with.

Crocker believes that biological systems cannot grow more complex on their own any more than a novel, through chance typographical errors, can turn into a different book, with a different story. How could anyone think that new books get written because of typos in old books?

An utterly inappropriate metaphore. Unless one is referring to the Bible which has a long, traceable, and generally fascinating history of typos and mistranslations being propogated from earlier sources.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Everything else she says comes straight out of Wells's "Icons of Evolution", which has been thoroughly discredited in the scientific community. To present anything from that book to biology students who don't have the experience to know to be skeptical of such claims is again, utterly unethical.

It was also intellectually dishonest to (continue to make) the incorrect association of abiogenesis and the Miller-Urey experiment with evolution, as well as lie about the relevance of the experiment to its subject matter and the work that has gone on into that field since.

(and then there's the whole Social Darwinism connection which again is not something scientifically supported and has nothing to do with biology or Darwin at all).

Saying that science doesn't and can't know everything is absolutely correct. Science recognizes its limitations. But one doesn't present the argument that faith and religion can complete the picture of the world by sowing doubt into the methods and knowledge from science. And one sure as hell doesn't do that in a science class, proclaiming oneself to be a science teacher. She abused her authority and her power over her students who are now far worse off than they should be, especially as she expressed that she has no intention of teaching what real supporting evidence for evolution there really is.

And the problem with "compare-contrast" is that it directly implies that the two sides are equal in validity and supporting evidence. Writing in that style equates the two and is exactly what the ID Creationsists want the media to do, to present the two as equal powers politically as if they were equally valid scientifically.

The reporter fell into exactly the trap that the ID movement wanted.

Part I

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I knew I was touching one of your hot buttons when I replied.

OK. Some of what I'm going to say will tick you off. Please be forewarned. I am not attempting to argue with you about whether the teacher was ethical, misleading, or about what ID and evolution do or do not say. I *do* want to make the point I was raising clear; but to do so I will have to say some things that will offend you and that you may disagree with vehemently.

First off: I don't give a rat's ass whether the IDers or the evolvers are correct; and I don't believe most other people do either. Most of us are too busy pursuing other goals and keeping our heads above water to really put a lot of effort into deciding whether we descended in an evolutionary manner, whether evolution was involved but guided, or whether we were created as are. We're here now as we are and have to deal with that. So for most people, I believe all this brouhaha is a blip on the radar; interesting but of no great concern in the large picture, beyond seeing that our children get a "good eduction" ("good education" being an even bigger and messier fight of which the evolution/ID debate is a rather miniscule subset).

My interest in this debate as I've followed it for the last 15 years or so is more a matter seeing how each side is playing this out. I would say that, despite some recent court victories, the IDers are ahead and the evolvers will be able to stalemate at best for another 15 years or will lose by then. Not necessarily lose in the classroom, but where it really counts -- with "We, the People"; the ones who will ultimately determine what we will teach the children. And it will happen for the reason I was trying to point out -- the evolvers are alienating the people they have to convince.

The people that scientists have to convince *isn't* the IDers: it's the general public. No one *ever* convinces their opponent in a debate that they are wrong. The reason for debate is to convince the *audience* that one's position is right. And here is what that debate sounds like right now:

IDer: blah blah blah (insert anything here: created by the Spaghetti God rolling a Meatball down the cosmic parmesan mountain or whatever. doesn't matter, except that the arguments presented are done so in a way the *sounds* calm and reasonable to the audience)

Evolutionist: *silence*
Announcer: We regret to inform you that the opposing side refused to attend the debate as it would dignify the ludicrous position presented by their opponent and in your ignorance you might consider their participation as evidence that the two sides are equal in validity and supporting evidence. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid, or insane."

IDer: [Uses the lack of participation to shape the debate and generate indignation and resentment among the audience].

Wow. They just lost the debate because they didn't engage in it, allowing their opponent to define the arguments and shape the questions. That's not just a forfeit; it's more like losing yardage in the big game because of the resentment that it engenders in the general public's mind. They end up being thought of as elitist and arrogant, and noone wants to listen to them.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

What needs to be done -- and this was my point -- is to engage in the debate but keep the question focused properly, remembering *who* it is that must be won over and what the pertinent issue is: ID does not belong in a science class (accepting arguendo that most people don't care how they got created). This is done by using Leshner's statement (ad nauseum if need be). It doesn't matter that scientists think these folks are nut cases who they could deem far beneath them (like the Steelers being challenged by a HS team). If you don't play, you forfeit.

So:

IDer: blah blah blah

Leshner Evo-guy: Those are interesting points, but not really relevent to the question. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. For all I know, there was an intelligent designer, but science can't answer the question. Since science cannot address it at all, it really doesn't belong in a science class but in a religion or philosophy class. Now, for the sake of addressing some of the points in re: evolution that my opponent raised, I'd like to note that blah, blah blah[charmingly points out the straw man arguments, red herrings, inaccurate evolutionary info, etc. of opponent.] Which is interesting, no doubt, but as I said, this really isn't the question. The question is whether ID should be taught in a science class. Since science is not equipped to examine the theory proposed, it would be a disservice to the children to try and make them learn this in a science class. Let science address what it can, and other subjects address topics that are proper to their sphere. ID does not belong in a science class.

Point to the scientists. They don't sound arrogant and elitist and they keep ID out of the classroom.

Every argument and debate about teach ID in science classes should be engaged in and vigourously; but avoid the trap of trying to prove evolution or disprove ID. That's not the question. Those debates and arguments can go on till the sun burns out in exactly the manner they do now (or don't do now), but debates about including ID in class need to be focused on only *that point*. Because most people don't care which is correct and likely suspect its somewhere in the middle if and when they do think about it at all. And they'll more readily accept that it doesn't belong in class if scientists quit trying to sound all-knowing and arrogant about how everything got here (if you don't agree you're ignorant, stupid, and insane), and explain publicly and frequently that they don't have anyway to test the theory and that is *why* it's not a science question. People can understand that: they don't hire an electrician for a landscaping question -- they're two different fields. You don't investigate religion in a science class, they are two different fields.

***

As for compare-contrast implying that two sides are equal, I respectfully and professionally disagree. I can write a compare/contrast article about any two people, things, or ideas and it can be clear from the point one that they are not equal (elephants and bacteria; freedom and summer vacation; mice and men; Al Gore and Alexander the Great). All it means is that the writer felt that comparing and contrasting the two would be of interest or value. In fact, the most common journalistic use of such analysis is to show why one subject is not equal to another (but not *always*).

I don't think the writer fell into any "trap" at all (however much influence and power to manipulate the press you think the IDers have). I stand by my previous assessment of the article. It was overall balanced, examined the views of different sides based on what those sides told the writer, and was interesting enough to keep the reader engaged to the end. If I learned some new things about this debate (after following it somewhat for 15+ years) others probably did, too. And the things I learned made me more sympathetic to the scietists, not the IDers (just fyi, I had already picked up on the false conclusions and straw man arguments of the biology teacher). It was a good article that met the purposes for which it written. That the purpose was not the same one you wanted does not make it less so.