News: Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth

Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth
February 1st, 2009 in General Science / Biology


Two centuries after Charles Darwin's birth on Feb. 12, 1809, people still
argue passionately about his theory of evolution.

Was Darwin right? Should schoolchildren be exposed to contrary views in
science class? These two controversies continue to rage, partly because both
sides are evenly matched.

Most scientists and courts that have ruled on the matter say that
overwhelming evidence backs Darwin's explanation of the origin and evolution
of species, including humans, by natural selection.

Many people, especially religious and social conservatives, strongly
disagree.

Among them are "creationists," who take literally the Genesis story that God
created the world and mankind in six days no more than 10,000 years ago.
Others support "intelligent design," the idea that life is too complex to
have arisen without a supernatural "designer," presumably God.

Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply
divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June
2007, found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in
evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed
almost even for at least 25 years.

Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans
rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political
independents accepted it.

A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a
devil, hell and angels than in evolution.

The controversy is most acute in the public schools, where conservatives
want evolution banished from science classes or at least described as "a
theory, not a fact."

Darwin's supporters counter that to scientists a theory isn't just a guess
or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events
supported by the best available evidence.

At a recent hearing before Texas' State Board of Education, scientists and
social conservatives exchanged fiery arguments over a rule that requires
science textbooks to cover "the strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary
theory.

Darwin critics control seven of the 15 seats on the board and have the
support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The chairman of the board, Don
McLeroy, a dentist, is a creationist who believes that the Earth is only
thousands of years old, not billions as most scientists think. The board
will decide the issue in March.

Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted
guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use "supplemental materials" that
aren't in regular textbooks about "controversial" subjects such as evolution
and global warming.

Louisiana's new rules "ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the
scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution," according to
the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the headquarters of the intelligent
design movement.

"We fully expect to see the Discovery Institute's book, 'Explore Evolution,'
popping up in school districts across the state," Barbara Forrest, a Darwin
supporter in Hammond, La., told Science magazine.

The Louisiana school board also eliminated language that had banned the
teaching of creationism or intelligent design, saying that the ban is
unnecessary.

"The creationists got what they wanted," said Patsye Peebles, a retired
Louisiana science teacher.

The opposition to the Discovery Institute is led by the National Center for
Science Education, a pro-Darwin research center based in Oakland, Calif.

The center contends that intelligent design is a subtle way to introduce
religion into science education, which the courts consistently have declared
unconstitutional.

"The phrase 'strengths and weaknesses' has been spread nationally as a
slogan to bring creationism in through the back door," center executive
director Eugenie Scott told the Texas school board.

Similar proposals are pending or expected in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina, according to Glenn
Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.

"In a typical year, NCSE will be monitoring about 80 episodes of creationist
activity in the United States and abroad," Branch said.

"This issue isn't going away," John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, wrote in an e-mail to his allies last May. "Although Darwinists
are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions
about neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent
people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard
they try."

The theory of evolution itself is evolving. Since Darwin's day, researchers
have acquired powerful tools that revealed DNA's role in passing inheritance
from generation to generation, something Darwin knew nothing about.

Around the middle of the 20th century, this led to the "Modern Synthesis," a
major updating of evolutionary theory to accommodate new information. Many
biologists are suggesting still another revision, which some call "Modern
Synthesis 2.0."

For example, Darwin described evolution as the growth of a tree, the "Tree
of Life." The tree began with a single, original organism at the root, with
myriad species branching off from the trunk.

Biologists increasingly say that evolution resembles a web or a bush rather
than a tree. Microbes constantly swap DNA. Hybrid plants and animals cross
species lines, blurring sharp lines between species.

"We understand evolution pretty well," said W. Ford Doolittle, a Darwin
supporter and biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
"It's just that it's more complex than Darwin imagined."

___

ON THE WEB

Discovery Institute: http://discovery.org/csc
National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org

___

(c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
http://www.physorg.com/news152726503.html

Comment:
Evidence for all theories associated with evolution are not exhaustive, but
what is complete is the lack of evidence for any part of intelligent design
theory. No evidence whatsoever has been presented in favour of
creationism - it is 100% emotional in nature and as such should not be
allowed in science classrooms.

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


.

Relevant Pages