Evolution: Darwinism, Creationism, Intelligent Design

[Raymond]

Posted today on Yahoo.. It's worth the consideration.
Raymond

WASHINGTON — 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 hearing last week 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 Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .

``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.''

[Raymond]

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Darwin Debated: Religion vs. Evolution

by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life
February 4, 2009
PrintEmailShare
From: To:

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has recently grown in both size and intensity. In the last five years alone, for example, debates over how evolution should be taught in public schools have been heard in school boards, town councils and legislatures in more than half the states.

Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Protestants) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin's theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state's schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)

But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.

Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution -- notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is "a theory, not a fact [and] ... should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.

Recent public opinion polls indicate that challenges to Darwinian evolution have substantial support among the American people. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection. A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.

This view is not shared by the nation's scientists, most of whom contend that evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution.) These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline.) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life -- a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change - goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups' Views on Evolution.) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin's ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive ("survival of the fittest") has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution's broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life's origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation's culture wars, manifest most recently in the 2008 presidential campaign, particularly in the attention paid to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's statements in favor of public schools teaching creation science or intelligent design along with evolution. And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.

Go to pewforum.org for the full package on evolution and religion including:

* The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate
* Darwin and His Theory of Evolution
* Religious Groups' Views on Evolution
* Graphic: Religious Differences on Evolution
* Fighting Over Darwin, State by State
* Evolution: A Timeline

Go to the resource page on evolution

[John]

For many, the Darwinian view of life -- a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change - goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation.

For many, that is, who have never read the Bible. I see no conflict here.

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return." ~ Genesis I