Strengths and weaknesses of evolution

Last updated

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.

Contents

— The Cons of Creationism, editorial from The New York Times [1]

"Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is a controversial phrase that has been proposed for (and in Texas introduced into) public school science curricula. Those proposing the phrase, such as the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), Don McLeroy, purport that there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution and in the evidence that life has evolved that should be taught for a balanced treatment of the subject of evolution. The scientific community rejects that any substantive weaknesses exist in the scientific theory, or in the data that it explains, and views the examples that have been given in support of the phrasing as being without merit and long refuted. [2] [3]

This has led scientists and journalists to conclude that the phrase is a creationist tactic to introduce religion into science courses. [4] The phrase was introduced by the SBOE in the late 1980s. Since then it has been promoted in California and Missouri. In late 2008, it became a highly publicized issue as the Texas SBOE held public hearings on whether this language should be removed from the curriculum. According to the National Center for Science Education, the phrase, like 'Teach the controversy' and 'Critical Analysis of Evolution', is an attempt in a series of legal and political tactics adopted by intelligent design advocates to encourage educators to teach fallacious information — that a controversy exists among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. [5]

History

Texas SBOE

The "strengths and weaknesses" language was included in the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the SBOE first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. [2]

In 2003, the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the standards was employed by members of the board in an unsuccessful attempt to dilute the treatment of evolution in the biology textbooks they were considering. [6]

In September 2008 the 21st Century Science Coalition released a petition to remove the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" from the public school guidelines for science classrooms in Texas. As of November 2008, 588 scientists at Texas universities and 777 other scientists across the state have signed the petition. [7]

In the summer of 2008/2009 the Texas SBOE is determining the curriculum for the next decade, including deciding whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught. While this language was described by The New York Times as a "benign-sounding phrase", they mention that critics state that it is a new strategy to undermine the teaching of evolution, and for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse. The then SBOE Chairman, Don McLeroy, a Young Earth creationist dentist from Central Texas, denied that the language "is subterfuge for bringing in creationism." McLeroy views the debate as being between "two systems of science" — "a creationist system and a naturalist system". These views have alarmed Texas educators, including former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Dan Foster, who stated that "[s]erious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward". [2]

In December 2008, the San Antonio Express-News stated in an editorial that the Texas SBOE has a "long history of trying to water down the science curriculum with criticisms of evolution that lack scientific credibility." [8]

The lesson we draw from these shenanigans is that scientifically illiterate boards of education should leave the curriculum to educators and scientists who know what constitutes a sound education.

— Texas Two-Step, editorial from The New York Times condemning the amendments [9]

In January 2009, the Texas SBOE voted to remove the 'Strengths and Weaknesses" language, but its conservative faction, led by Don McLeroy, managed to pass several amendments to the science curriculum that opponents describe as opening the door to teaching objections to evolution that might lead students to reject it. These included one amendment that compels science teachers to teach about aspects of the fossil record that do not neatly fit with gradualism, but rather show the relatively sudden appearance of some species while others seem to remain unchanged for millions of years. Prominent University of Texas biology professor David Hillis described the amendments as "mak[ing] no sense to me ... It's a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn’t understand the science." [10] Board member Ken Mercer of San Antonio, who voted to keep "strengths and weaknesses" described his support for the language in explicitly religious terms: "It's an issue of freedom of religion." [11] This view was contradicted by fellow social conservative board member Barbara Cargill, who stated "[t]his isn’t about religion." [12]

On March 13, 2009 a bill (HB 4224) was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives that would require the Texas SBOE to restore the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the state science standards. [13]

California

In 2003 and 2004, creationist lawyer Larry Caldwell sought to persuade the Roseville Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees to adopt a policy which included teaching "the scientific strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. When this was rejected, he filed a complaint in federal court against the district, alleging that his civil rights were violated during the controversy, resulting in a summary judgment against him in September 2007. [14] [15]

Discovery Institute

In February 2008 the Discovery Institute created an Academic Freedom petition that stated "Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory."[ citation needed ]

Missouri

In February 2009, House Bill 656, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives, proposed that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of theories of biological and chemical evolution." [16] This bill died when the Missouri legislative session ended on May 15, 2009. [17]

Tennessee

On February 9, 2011, Tennessee House of Representatives member Bill Dunn introduced House Bill 368, [18] which states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." [19] On February 16, 2011, Tennessee State Senator Bo Watson introduced an identical bill, Senate Bill 893. [20] The House Bill was passed by the House Education Committee on March 29, 2011, and referred to the House Calendar and Rules Committee. [21] Alan I. Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Executive Publisher of the journal Science, wrote to the House of Representatives opposing the Bill, stating "There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution. Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them." [22]

Educational and scientific value

While anti-evolution members of the Texas SBOE have claimed their "weaknesses" campaign has nothing to do with faith, that "We're not putting religion in books", scientists have rebutted that these weaknesses are simply falsehoods. Scientists testified at the state board hearing in November 2008 that evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis and thus does not have weaknesses. [23]

Some scientists, including Andrew Ellington, professor of biochemistry at the University of Texas, and Robert Dennison, Houston Independent School District's AP science lead teacher, are concerned that the mention of "weaknesses" in the curriculum standards has had a chilling effect on science teachers. [23]

In a survey commissioned by the Texas Freedom Network, "94% of Texas scientists indicated that claimed "weaknesses" are not valid scientific objections to evolution (with 87% saying that they “strongly disagree” that such weaknesses should be considered valid)." [24]

Specific weaknesses and their scientific rebuttals

Supporters of the 'strengths and weaknesses of evolution' language have proposed the following as weaknesses of evolution, and the scientific community has responded with the following rebuttals:

ArgumentScientific rebuttal
Evolution violates the first law of thermodynamics [25] Sunlight is the ultimate source of energy for life on Earth and provides the energy needed for organisms to live and reproduce. As the existence and evolution of life neither creates nor destroys this energy, it does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. [26]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics [25] The second law only applies to closed systems that do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings. Both the Earth and all living organisms are open systems. For further details see Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics and Entropy and life.
Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis [25] Pasteur's law only disproved the (then current) idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. It does not say that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. [27]
Evolution is unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion [2]
Alleged frauds and forgeries such as Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo drawings [28] Rebuttal of allegations that past evidence for evolution has been overturned
Evolution is not observable [29] [30] Observability of evolution
Evolution is only a theory and not a fact [29] [30] Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation science</span> Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative. Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts, theories and paradigms of geology, cosmology, biological evolution, archaeology, history, and linguistics using creation science. Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Center for Science Education</span> Nonprofit supporting the teaching of evolution and climate change.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit membership organization in the United States whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education. Based in Oakland, California, it claims 4,500 members that include scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens of varied religious and political affiliations. The Center opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools; it does this through initiatives such as Project Steve. The Center has been called the United States' "leading anti-creationist organization". The Center is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill that promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in US public schools. (It was proposed by Republican Rick Santorum In response, a coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill and arguing that evolution is regarded as fact in the scientific fields and that the amendment creates the misperception of evolution not being fully accepted in the scientific community and thus weakening science education. The words of the amendment survive in modified form in the bill's conference committee report but do not carry the weight of law. As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns it became a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "teach the controversy" campaign.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation and evolution in public education</span> Status of creation and evolution in public education

The status of creation and evolution in public education has been the subject of substantial debate and conflict in legal, political, and religious circles. Globally, there is a wide variety of views on the topic. Most western countries have legislation that mandates only evolutionary biology is to be taught in the appropriate scientific syllabuses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Science and Culture</span> Part of the Discovery Institute

The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank in the United States. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for Creation Research</span> Creationist organization

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a creationist apologetics institute in Dallas, Texas, that specializes in media promotion of pseudoscientific creation science and interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a historical event. The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview. It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief. The ICR was formed by Henry M. Morris in 1972 following an organizational split with the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC).

<i>Of Pandas and People</i> Creationist supplementary textbook by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins is a controversial 1989 school-level supplementary textbook written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, edited by Charles Thaxton and published by the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). The textbook endorses the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design – the argument that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God. The overview chapter was written by young Earth creationist Nancy Pearcey. They present various polemical arguments against the scientific theory of evolution. Before publication, early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.

The "teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

Wesley Royce Elsberry is a data scientist with an interdisciplinary background in marine biology, zoology, computer science, and wildlife and fisheries sciences. He also became notably involved in the defense of evolutionary science against creationist rejection of evolution.

The intelligent design movement has conducted an organized campaign largely in the United States that promotes a pseudoscientific, neo-creationist religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes centering on intelligent design.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of intelligent design</span> Outline of the topic

This timeline of intelligent design outlines the major events in the development of intelligent design as presented and promoted by the intelligent design movement.

John Donald "Don" McLeroy is a dentist in Bryan, Texas, and a Republican former member of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE). The SBOE establishes policy for the state public school system. McLeroy, who represented SBOE District 9, served on the board from 1998 until 2011. He was appointed in 2007 as SBOE chairman by Governor Rick Perry. The term ended in February 2009.

<i>Explore Evolution</i>

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a controversial biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" its evident purpose is to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit.

Christina Castillo Comer is the former Director of Science in the curriculum division of the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Comer spent nine years as the Director of Science until she resigned on November 7, 2007. Comer's resignation has sparked controversy about agency politics and the debate to teach evolution in public schools versus creationism or intelligent design.

A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom, supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's Louisiana Science Education Act, which was enacted in 2008.

The Louisiana Science Education Act, Act 473 (SB733) of 2008 is a controversial anti-evolution law passed by the Louisiana Legislature on June 11, 2008 and signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal on June 25. The act allows public school teachers to use supplemental materials in the science classroom which are critical of scientific theories such as evolution and global warming and to promote creationism as science. Louisiana was the first state to have passed a law of this type.

In American schools, the Genesis creation narrative was generally taught as the origin of the universe and of life until Darwin's scientific theories became widely accepted. While there was some immediate backlash, organized opposition did not get underway until the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy broke out following World War I; several states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution while others debated them but did not pass them. The Scopes Trial was the result of a challenge to the law in Tennessee. Scopes lost his case, and further U.S. states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution.

References

  1. ↑ The Cons of Creationism, Editorial, The New York Times, June 7, 2008
  2. 1 2 3 4 Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy, Laura Beil, New York Times, June 4, 2008
  3. ↑ See also, for example, List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design and Objections to evolution
  4. ↑ Those so concluding have included:
  5. ↑ What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?, National Center for Science Education, October 17th, 2008
  6. ↑ Concern mounting about Texas state science standards, National Center for Science Education, June 5th, 2008
  7. ↑ Professors debate creationism's place in public schools, Lauren Rausch and Rylee Nye, Texas Christian University Daily Skiff, 25 November 2008
  8. ↑ Don't water down science curriculum, San Antonio Express-News , 1 December 2008
  9. ↑ Texas Two-Step, Editorial, The New York Times, January 25, 2009
  10. ↑ Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution, James C. McKinley Jr., The New York Times, January 23, 2009
  11. ↑ Evolution teaching provision fails first test, Gary Scharrer, San Antonio Express-News, 23 January 2009
  12. ↑ [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6227807.html Scientists: Board proposals undermine evolution teaching, Gary Charrer, Houston Chronicle , January 23, 2009
  13. ↑ "Weaknesses" by the back door in Texas, National Center for Science Education, March 14th, 2009
  14. ↑ Over in Roseville, National Center for Science Education, September 11th, 2007
  15. ↑ What Happens When You Challenge A School's Science Curriculum Archived 2016-10-07 at the Wayback Machine , Larry Caldwell, Salvo magazine, Winter 2008
  16. ↑ http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills091/biltxt/intro/HB0656I.htm [ bare URL ]
  17. ↑ Antievolution bill dead in Missouri, May 15, 2009
  18. ↑ Antievolution legislation in Tennessee, National Center for Science Education
  19. ↑ House Bill 368
  20. ↑ http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/second-antievolution-bill-tennessee-006496 A second antievolution bill in Tennessee], National Center for Science Education
  21. ↑ Antievolution bills in Tennessee advance, National Center for Science Education
  22. ↑ Letter to Representatives DeBerry and Naismith Archived 2021-01-26 at the Wayback Machine , Alan I. Leshner, March 2, 2011
  23. 1 2 It's time for education to evolve, Lisa Falkenberg, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 24, 2008
  24. ↑ EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM & PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Surveying What Texas Scientists Think about Educating Our Kids in the 21st Century, Texas Freedom Network
  25. 1 2 3 Study evolution facts and judge for yourself, Scott Lane, president of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association, San Antonio Express-News, 12 December 2008
  26. ↑ Steven L. Morris (2005) Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics Reports of the National Center for Science Education Volume 25, issue 5-6 pp 31–32
  27. ↑ CB000: Law of Biogenesis, TalkOrigins Archive
  28. ↑ It’s right to ask questions about evolution, Ken Mercer, San Antonio Express-News, 14 December 2008
  29. 1 2 Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too, Wesley R. Elsberry, 20 Nov 2008
  30. 1 2 Look who’s determining science standards in Texas, Nick Matzke, Panda's Thumb (blog), November 21, 2008
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.