Survival of the Dimmest
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Polls consistently show that nearly half of Americans question the theory behind human evolution. This despite wide acceptance in the scientific community and an extensive fossil record.
Why the disconnect? It may be because of dodgy reporting like this story over the weekend in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Reporters Katherine Cromer Brock and Mark Agee wrote a pair of articles about efforts by creationists on the State of Board of Education to, um, monkey with how Texas schools teach evolution. Some board members want science teachers to discuss the so-called weaknesses of evolution. This is an old ploy.
But Brock and Agee play along, writing of a “scientific debate” where none exists. Adhering to strict “he said, she said” style, they treat creationism and evolution as scientific equals.
For instance, under the subhead “The Theories,” they write, “In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species ignited the debate about how life on Earth came to be. Here are the prevailing theories.” They then provide brief descriptions of evolution, creation science, and intelligent design.
Actually, there is one “prevailing theory” in the scientific community. The theory of adaptation and natural selection is a central tenet of natural science.
Later the reporters quote education board member Gail Lowe complaining about how science textbooks treat evolution. “They present evolution in the same terms as gravity,” she told the paper. “We can be honest that there are some weaknesses and that Darwinian evolution is still controversial in the science community.”
Brock and Agee let that remark go uncorrected. We’ll do it for them.
Darwinian evolution is by no means controversial in the science community. Nearly every serious natural scientist in the world subscribes to the theory of natural selection. A handful of rogue scholars have promoted intelligent design, but even they have conceded that natural selection took over after creation by an “intelligent designer.” And there aren’t weaknesses in the theory of evolution. There are things we don’t know yet, gaps in the fossil record, and mysteries we haven’t solved about our ancient origins. But the theory itself is accepted as fact. And yes, Ms. Lowe, it’s much like the theory of gravity.
Brock and Agee’s story leaves the impression that there is legitimate scientific debate about the veracity of human evolution. That simply isn’t true. To imply otherwise is dishonest journalism.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 am
Good job. Intelligent design is pure marketing and that’s all. If you doubt that, then just ask the Discovery Institute what they’ve actually accomplished these past 20 years, besides churning out an endless stream of videos and pamphlets.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
When will the public schools teach the controversies–dark matter, special relativity–when it comes to gravity? Is it because the TAKS test abhors a controversy? Or is it because Gail Lowe and her ilk on the religious right have been unduly influenced by Newtonian physics?
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
[…] a factual error about the legal history, and it has been skewered on more general grounds by The Texas Observer: According to the U.S. Supreme Court, creation science and intelligent design introduce religion […]
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
There’s also an error in their reporting of the legal situation. They say:
In fact, the Supreme Court has not ruled on “Intelligent Design.” The Dover judge was following precedents that Scalia would overturn and, with Roberts and Alito now on the Court, Scalia might have the majority he needs now to do that. Remember, also, that Scalia dissented from the decision against Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation Science” law. See
http://curricublog.org/2008/01/19/tx-fl-evolution/
While I’m here, let me reiterate my call at
http://curricublog.org/2008/01/12/icr-nclb/
urging that the Texas Higher Ed board be alerted to serious consequences that could be threatened if they approve a Creation Institute grad degree in “science education” as a program for certifying science teachers.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Dim, Dimmer and Just Plain Dumb!
Daring Designs for George W’s Library [sic]
Senator Larry Craig’s ultimate facilities would be snugly small.
Basically like a cozy restroom stall.
Dick$ter Cheney reflects favored cold devious fun.
Shaped like his blood staind smoking shotgun.
Rudy Giuliani has really versatilely impressed.
Contoured like huge breasts that double as another of his many love nests.
Mitt Romney’s plans must be really strange.
For the constantly change.
John McCain did modestly abstain.
Regarding one he does so personally disdain.
Ron Paul thinks it is all so much verbal smoke.
Since America will soon be financially broke.
Mike Huckabee’s steady course is to pray.
Like Fred Thompson and his hair - it’ll just go away.
Harvard joined Yale with a classic patterned after Roman Emperor Nero.
Just a great big zero.
Karl Rove is secretly certain.
Every design will be like George W - wholly owned by Halliburton.
Condi Rice’s chances are indeed slim.
She only has designs ON him?
Hubert Wilson