This article appeared originally in the December 2008 Skeptical Briefs newsletter and is used by permission of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Following is a concise, authoritative, and warped timeline that more or less accurately presents the history and “facts” behind the development of creationism, creation science, Intelligent Design, and more importantly, scientific illiteracy. For an alternative, but parallel, perspective of the “other theory,” purchase the 27th Edition of Darwin’s final publication, “The Human Evolution Colouring Book.”

Days 1 through 6 In the beginning, God creates night and day, firmaments, heaven, fruit trees, poison ivy, seeds, marijuana, every living creature–including a male and female, beasts, fowl, creepy-crawly things, and killer bees–the concept of multiplication, and then, unfortunately, pulls a groin muscle.

Day 7 through the 16th century Most of Europe buys into the facts about creation as laid out in the Bible. Without the oppressive burden of science and reason, Europeans are quite religious and thankful for the deity’s blessings, such as the murderous Crusades, the Black Death, the Inquisition, witch hunts, and brand-new Christian torture devices, including the rack, thumbscrews, the head crusher, and the saw, to name a few. Toward the end of the 16th century, the first YMCA is built.

16th century to 1858 Although creationists don’t yet exist, they begin getting somewhat nervous because naturalists discover different fossils in different rock strata, suggesting that different animals may have existed in different eras, and that Earth may be older than the biblical contention of 6,000 years, especially after the discovery of a 35,000-year-old fossilized enlarged prostrate.

1859 Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which he later modifies to increase sales by shortening it to Harry Potter and the Origin of Species. His book suggests that humans evolved through a system of natural selection, which “creationists” immediately attack as laughable and absurd and offer the more reasoned scientific version that humans were made in God’s image from clay, mud, and a rib.

1910 By now, the theory of evolution is widely accepted by most scientists, but there is a clear undercurrent of hostility and opposition from certain religious groups since the best-selling bumper sticker of the year reads “Darwin’s A Dodo!”

1918 A number of anti-Darwinists voice their concern that teaching evolution as a fact in schools will undermine the creation story, overshadow the moral lessons of Christianity, and negatively impact Christian fundamentalist student’s self-esteem.

1922 William Jennings Bryan initiates a campaign to convince state lawmakers to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools and promises students an alternate textbook with plenty of pictures of a naked Eve and Adam cavorting in the Garden of Eden.

1925 After Tennessee passes a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state-funded schools, substitute school teacher John Scopes stands trial and is found guilty for teaching Darwin’s theory. After several appeals, the charges are eventually dismissed on the technicality that, while in the jury box, the jurors should not have been allowed to derisively dress in monkey costumes.

For the next half century or so, the anti-evolution proponents prevail and the teaching of evolution practically disappears from public-school texts, with the notable exception of the Fun with Dick and Jane and the Leakeys reader.

1957 When the Soviets launch the first satellite, Sputnik, into outer space, the U.S. government has a cold-war anxiety attack and passes the National Defense Education Act for the purpose of emphasizing science education in public schools, which includes the teaching of evolution and the physics of the Wham-o Frisbee.

1959 The one-hundredth anniversary of Darwin’s famous book “sparks” a renewed interest in evolutionary biology. Readers from all over the country rush to the bookstores to purchase the bestseller ‘Twixt Twelve and Twenty by singer Pat Boone.

1961 Henry Morris and John Whitcomb publish The Genesis Flood, which advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible, meaning the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, a global flood once covered the earth as described in Genesis, and the Noah family is kept awake for 40 days and 40 nights by the relentless and vicious fighting between the Brachiosauruses and Tyrannosaurus Rexes, as well as the nonstop barking of two extremely nervous poodles.

1963 A Christian creation organization, the Creation Research Society, is formed to disprove all scientific theories of evolution, while at the same time use science to prove the Genesis account of creation. The first meeting ends in chaos and arguments when one of the members forgets to bring the necessary scientific equipment for testing their hypothesis: a slide rule, a copy of the Old Testament, a Ouija board, and a Magic 8-Ball.

1968 The U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson vs. Arkansas rules that the 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional because it’s “…contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and was written on the side of a brown grocery bag.”

1972 Henry Morris forms the Institute for Creation Research to promote research and the teaching of “creation science,” a novel approach that uses the “scientific” method to prove the Genesis account of the Bible by offering scientific answers to questions like: What was God sitting on when he created the universe out of nothing? The ICR is still active today as a leading advocate for creation science and shows its dedication to the Bible by soliciting donations in shekels only.

1981 The Louisiana legislature passes the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act,” which requires that if schools are going to teach evolution, they must also teach creation science, and if they are going to teach foreign languages, they must also teach speaking in tongues.

1987 After two lower courts rule against Louisiana’s 1981Creation Act–another attempt to introduce religious doctrine in public schools–the state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v Aguillard). The majority rule that the Act is unconstitutional, a decision reached by nine judicial coin flips: seven heads and two tails. The two “dissenting” Justices, conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist, write that the ruling is “obviously a sign from Satan.”

1989 A newly published textbook, Of Pandas and People, attacks the theory of evolution and, without mentioning a supernatural god, offers evidence that living forms, as well as the universe, were designed by some intelligent force, or intelligent designer, who also spontaneously wrote, published, and designed Of Pandas and People from landfill waste.

1991 Philip Johnson, considered the “father of Intelligent Design,” publishes Darwin on Trial, in which he exhaustively challenges most of the evidence for evolution by natural selection using classical argument techniques, such as logic, facts, and asking God what he should think.

1993 A revised edition of Of Pandas and People is intelligently redesigned.

1996 Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box is published, in which he sets out to prove that “irreducibly complex” biological systems could not have randomly evolved from simpler and disparate biological parts and therefore must have been “designed” by an undefined intelligent designer or “Lone Arranger.” Behe’s examples of “irreducible complexity” include the perfectly structured human eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the U.S. Tax Code.

1996 Pope John Paul II shocks the Christian world by declaring his belief that the Catholic religion and evolution are compatible; however, he assures his flock that God is responsible for the human soul, which first appears about 550 million years ago in the Cambrian fossil record.

2005 In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a handful of parents, supported by atheist-like organizations, bring a lawsuit in federal court against the Dover Area School District, which is trying to introduce its public-school students to Intelligence Design as a possible alternative theory to evolution. Judge Jones decides in favor of the plaintiffs, writing: “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory, and I’d like to thank you goddamn atheists for blowing my chances at a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy under the Bush administration!”

2008 A new documentary entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in This Movie ridicules the theory of evolution, strongly suggests that evolution inspired the Holocaust, portrays ID advocates as victims of discrimination, and supports the indisputable scientific fact that co-writer and star, Ben Stein, has serious structural problems in his brain’s frontal lobe. Ironically, the movie actually proves why the public needs MORE science in the classroom. It walks away with one Cannes Film Festival award: the Golden Dunce Cap.

—–

Skeptical satirist Paul DesOrmeaux teaches at Rochester Institute of Technology and Monroe Community College and writes humorous articles for a number of well-known skeptical magazines and newsletters. His goal is to introduce skepticism to a broader audience by combining reason and science with humor and satire to expose myths, pseudoscience, fraudulent claims, and general nonsense.

—–

Teaching Evolution to Middle Level Students

By Vince Sperrazza

August 2008

The 12 year old hand goes up at the first mention of the word evolution, “Is it true we came from monkeys?” It’s the first day of school, and I mention evolution in a list of topics for the year ahead in my 7th grade life science classes.

That’s the nature of middle school students. Impulsive, inquisitive, focused on their peers, yet they can still be excited about learning. As their brains try to catch up with their fast growing bodies, they are “hormones with feet,” as one adolescent psychologist characterized them many years ago.

I taught 7th grade science in a small rural public school district in upstate New York, about an hour’s drive from Syracuse, for 33 years before retiring in June 2006. (I did my undergrad work at SUNY Geneseo, biology major, class of ’73.) Right from the start, I taught evolution both as a separate unit and integrated as part of the total life science class. I have never succumbed to pressure to reduce or eliminate my emphasis on evolution. Richard Dawkins summed up the excitement best:

“I should love to have everybody taught about evolution from a fairly early age, because it is so important, so exciting. It answers so many questions and mysteries; it solves so many problems. Until you know about it, you’re wandering around on this Earth looking at trees and birds and flowers, not knowing why any of them is there. Evolution is the answer to that riddle, so you’re not really a whole person if you don’t know where you come from and why you exist. And it’s not difficult. It’s not like relativity, it’s not like quantum theory – it’s something teachable to fairly young children.”
Richard Dawkins: July 18, 2008

The students

Teaching middle school students any subject can be a challenge. During my teaching years, I mentored over a dozen student teachers, and have been interested in teacher preparation. Always, I stressed to student teachers that evolution is a vital part of the curriculum, to resist efforts to reduce or eliminate the teaching of evolution, and to consider religious beliefs totally outside both the realm of science and the science classroom.

Of course, a student teacher needs to first learn about 7th graders. And to some, it’s a surprise. Recently my friend John married, and his wife has 2 children, a girl in 5th grade and a boy in 7th grade.

So he asked me,

“How did you deal with those kids? Jimmy drives me crazy…he has the attention span of a gnats ass!”

“…normal” I said.

“He’s always trying to get out of work.”

“…normal.”

“He says lots of dumb things without thinking.”

“…normal.”

“He’s always teasing and bothering his sister.”

“…normal.”

Beginning teachers react just like my friend. How do you deal with this? How do you deal with the short attention span, the interest in the opposite sex, the rebellious behavior? Veteran middle school teachers say the average attention span of a 12 or 13 year old is about 10 minutes. Many teachers agree that it’s a good strategy to “change the activity” at least 3 times in a 40 minute class period. Effective middle school teachers learn to be honest with the students and earn their trust, yet provide a firm, consistent discipline, and to use humor to defuse problems and make the classroom a relaxing, comfortable place.

It doesn’t even matter if the jokes are good or not. “Is that a real (human) skeleton? Yes…it’s real plastic.” Or on the symbiotic organisms of fungi and algae . . . ”Livin’ on rock and lichen it.”

Once, a gentleman came up behind me at a local home improvement store and identified himself as a former student simply by reciting one of the more notable, and dumber, jokes: “What do you call a lizard crossing the desert?… Sandy Claws.” (Yes, it’s useful to help students remember some differences between amphibians and reptiles.)

Effective teachers, in teaching any subject at any grade level, often rely on these fundamental ideas:

* Communicate your passion for the subject. If the students sense you are excited about science, and teaching and learning about science, it’s catching. They will be excited about learning too.

* Tell good stories. Our brain seems to be programmed to learn through stories. The stories can be formal or informal, read out of a book or told off the top of your head. I’ve had many former students remark about remembering stories.

* Engage the students in their own learning. From 10 minute activities and games to thought provoking discussions and multi-period labs, get the students working. When I was a beginning teacher, a veteran teacher told me, “The one doing the work is the one who’s learning. If you’re standing up there talking, doing all the work, who’s learning? Get the kids involved, get them working. Then they are the ones learning.”

In science, as in all subjects, an engaging classroom environment is essential. I had a skull and skeleton collection, a shell collection, a fossil collection, a dried fungi collection, and many preserved animals. Many specimens, excluding those purchased in the typical “animal kingdom survey set” were brought in by students. Seventh graders love to share. Early one morning, a student came in and said he ran over a snake with his bike on the way to school. I asked him where it happened, and he said right on the sidewalk in front of the school.

“Did you leave it there?” I asked.

“Oh no.” he replied. “It’s right here.”

And he pulled the dead milk snake, all 88 cm of it, out of his backpack. We preserved it that morning.

The subject: Evolution

Back to the question, “Is it true…?” I usually respond by first asking “Do you want the long answer or the short answer?” Seventh graders generally want the short answer. So I answer “yes” and that we’re most closely related to chimpanzees, and that the best evidence (stressing evidence) leads to a common ancestor of both humans and modern African apes roughly 6 million years ago. And that we aren’t descended from modern apes because they are the result of 6 million years of their own separate evolution. Informing the students that we’ll study evolution in more depth later in the year ends the discussion as we need to continue with routine opening day tasks.

The start of the school year is the time for the teacher to set the tone (classroom management) for the entire year, and it’s also the time for the science teacher to engage the students in activities that stress the nature of science. Effective activities at the middle level often include work that ranges from “give an example of…” to “describe or explain…” as well as “compare and contrast…” and understanding the difference between observations and inference. (See student texts and ancillary materials.) A poster in my classroom, inspired by the National Academy of Science, sums up the nature of science. “Science requires careful description. Science is cumulative knowledge. Science explains the natural world.” The students saw the poster all year. It was posted on the door to the microscope cabinet, and referred to when necessary.

Dobzhansky’s well known quote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” may be a little deep for middle level students, but their teachers need to know how to apply this concept. In class, evolution surfaces throughout the life science curriculum. For example, when studying the Plant Kingdom, we looked at our local spore-forming vascular plants, the ferns and horsetails. I typically had a tray of live horsetails on the desk, and would talk about their place in the evolution of plants. (A good poster on earth history is essential.) Then, in story mode, I would invite students to join me on an imaginary time travel to the Carboniferous forests, complete with giant horsetails, huge dragonflies and more. With animals, we discuss and study amphibians as the first terrestrial vertebrates, as well as common ancestors to reptiles, birds, and mammals.

In the context of the whole school year, many middle level teachers (and texts) prefer to study evolution after the genetics unit. This leaves the students with at least a sense of understanding when describing mutations and the inheritance of the best suited traits.

Before starting the actual unit on evolution, I have found it best to keep the administration informed. As I have worked with many principals over the years, I made it a practice to remind each one as to the New York State curriculum requirements on evolution. When one of the later principals started, I alerted her that she may get a call from a parent objecting to my refusal to “balance” evolution with creationism. A few days later, the principal told me she indeed did get that call. Her response? She told the parent that the New York State curriculum was explicit, that evolution only would be taught. The principal added that if the parent still objected, she could take her objections “to a higher power.” So the principal gave the parent a phone number for the State Education Department. As far as I know, New York State does not have an opt-out policy for its required curriculum.

I found it helpful to present evolution by starting out with a good story. I used to tell the classic story that puts all of earth’s history into a 24 hour clock, while some teachers prefer to start with the story of young Charles Darwin and the voyage of The HMS Beagle.

It is important to present a complex topic like evolution in a manner that is easy to understand for 12 year olds, but not over simplified. Beginning teachers might do well to simplify the unit into a few key points:

* Define evolution as “descent with modification.” Help students understand it is much more than change over time. People grow, trees loose their leaves. Evolution shows descent with modification through genetic inheritance, as well as common ancestry.

* Earth History – After using the 24 hour clock analogy, I found it helpful to have the students read and interpret a chart on earth history. Students may be asked to calculate the length of time of the Mesozoic Era, or to determine from the chart the period often called “The Age of Fishes.” This is also a good time to review the fossilization process.

* Charles Darwin – Some textbooks do a good job presenting the story of Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle, told in an interesting manner for middle school students, leading to the publication of The Origin of Species. (The book on your desk?…Yes) Working with social studies teachers, students can understand Darwin’s work in context of the time just before our Civil War. Students also need to see Darwin’s work as the first published explanation of the mechanism of evolution. It is also important to tell the story of Darwin and Wallace. In class, student activities on Origins are usually centered on textbook readings, including questions and discussion.

* Variation / mutation, inheritance, and selection – Many teachers center the discussion and activities around Darwin’s finches, leading to speciation. The textbook may have activities investigating natural variation. The mechanisms of mutation, as well as inheritance of the best adapted traits, need to be understood through a previous unit on genetics. This is also a good time to discuss the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

* Speciation – It is important for students to know that speciation is best shown as a branching model “tree of life” instead as a ladder model. This contrast is often illustrated with the fossil sequence of horses.

* Evidence for evolution – It is imperative that teachers help the students understand the presentation of radioactive dating, often confusing and oversimplified, in textbooks. Then on to convergent evidence including the fossil record, homologous structures, embryological evidence, and DNA evidences. Activities may include comparing fossils to modern species and listing various evidences for students to classify as to type of evidence. Coloring anatomical diagrams is an easy way to help students see homologous structures.

* Human evolution – I’ve found that students enjoy the story of finding the “Lucy” fossil and naming it. This is an excellent way to start a discussion of human evolution. Diagrams and posters are necessary to help students understand the branching model and the co-existence of multiple species of hominids. Video clips are important to give depth to the discussion. Photos of fossil skulls can help the students to understand the evidence for human evolution.

In addition, it’s helpful to have a good fossil collection, as well as a good collection of instructional graphics on evolution. As for texts, middle level science texts vary widely in their approach to evolution. In evaluating recently published texts, I looked at the contents and index first, then the chapters and ancillary materials. Some texts use the word “evolution” directly in their chapter titles, while some seem to fear the controversial “e-word.” This will show up in the index too. I found that some texts purposely omit any reference to human evolution, while others do a good job presenting human evolution in a way that the students can understand. There should be many age appropriate activities. As far as budgeting class time, my experience is that at least 2 weeks are needed to do the job.

Inevitably, the creation question arises in class. Some recommendations for a beginning teacher include discussing:

* “Theory” as used in science is much more than a “just a guess.”

* Creationism, in any guise, is religion, not science.

* Students are entitled to their religious beliefs, but religion is not science.

* The New York State Intermediate Level Science Curriculum Guide does not include creationism.

* Teaching religion does not belong in any science classroom.

Of course, 12 year olds most often repeat their parent’s opinions. However, to the 7th grade brain, peers count most, teachers are down the list, and parents inhabit the very bottom. Often, I find students understanding evolution, while their parents simply refuse. Yet, a teacher needs to be aware there may be vocal student opposition to evolution. A few years ago, one student rather vehemently wanted me to give creationism “equal time” with evolution. Her classmates were quick to respond. “Didn’t you listen?” they said, “Religion doesn’t belong in science class.”

But yet, some students insist on pushing their religious views, and want to avoid the evolution unit. However, in New York State there is no “opt out” for academic curriculum, so their options are limited. Sometimes, I’ve had students refuse to answer questions on tests or labs, saying something along the lines of “God did it.” My response was simply to deny credit, “Religion is not science.” Welcome to the real world.

Student questions

These are actual questions from 7th graders. I invite the reader to design answers suitable for 12 year olds.

1. Is it true we came from monkeys?

2. My father says evolution is as likely as wind blowing through a junkyard making a car.

3. Evolution is only a theory…

4. How can Earth really be 4 and a half billion years old?

5. How do you know dinosaurs and people never lived at the same time?

Answers? Assuming the above questions are asked by students at the end of the unit, during review, here are some samples answers.

1. Is it true we came from monkeys?
A. “Yes.” The evidence shows that we are descended from a common ancestor (an apelike creature) with the African apes about 6 million years ago. Remember that the African apes evolved over that same length of time, so we did not evolve from modern apes.

2. My father says evolution is as likely as wind blowing through a junkyard making a car.
A. Understand that evolution is a gradual process requiring vast amounts of time. (Reference an earth history poster, point out the time involved.) First cells here, soft bodied animals here, shelled animals here, dinosaurs here, first mammals here, etc.

3. Evolution is only a theory…
A. We talked all year about how some words may have one meaning in English class, and another meaning in a scientific context. Theory is such a word. It is no more “just a theory” than the gravitational theory, (drop a book) or the heliocentric theory or others such as the cell theory or germ theory.

4. How can Earth really be 4 and a half billion years old?
A. Radioactive decay gives scientists an accurate measure of the age of igneous rocks. There are rocks on earth dated at 3.5 billion years old. Scientists estimate that the earth formed about a billion years before that.

5. How do you know dinosaurs and people never lived at the same time?
A. We studied how humans and dinosaurs are separated by 65 million years of evolution. There are no credible fossils showing human and dinosaur fossils in the same rock layers.

Beginning teachers sometimes overlook the importance of summarizing a unit. I would end the evolution unit by pointing out to the students that we are all descendents of ancestors who survived, at least long enough to reproduce, the earth calamities. Pointing to the appropriate location on the ever-present earth history poster, I would say, “Think about what all of your ancestors survived. They survived…”

“large scale predation in the Devonian period.”

“the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period.”

“getting stomped by dinosaurs.”

“the great impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs.”

“the ice ages.”

“the Black Death and other plagues of the middle ages.”

“various world wars and more.”

I finished with “Just you? No…every living thing you see is the result of 4 and a half billion years of evolution.” If you time it right, you finish seconds before the bell rings. (Note to beginning teachers: Anything said after the bell is lost. It may as well be sent out to intergalactic space.)

Before students get to middle school, elementary teachers can help lay a foundation for student understanding of evolution whenever dinosaurs show up in their reading and lessons. Using a good earth history poster, they can dispel ideas of dinosaurs and humans living together, (i.e. Flintstone cartoons, cave man movies, creationist “museums” etc.) by showing that humans and dinosaurs never lived at the same time; that humans and dinosaurs are separated by more than 60 million years of earth history.

Engaging 7th graders in a unit on evolution can be challenging. However, in over 30 years of teaching, I’ve found students to be quite interested in both understanding the evolution of life on earth and the scientific evidence that explains it.

———-

Vince Sperrazza taught middle level science, including evolution, at the Mount Markham Central School District, located in Herkimer County, for 33 years before retiring in June 2006. During his years in the classroom, Vince mentored many student teachers. He authored the article “Evolution and Middle Level Education: Observations and Recommendations” which appeared in the January-April 2005 issue of the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education. The National Center for Science Education is a “not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education.” Contact him by email.

———-

Selected resources

Books
… essentials

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Signet Classic. 1859.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. 2008.

Scott, Eugenie C. and Branch, Glenn. Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press. 2006.

Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1998.

… notable

Allen, Katy et. al. Holt Life Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 2005.

Alters, Brian. Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Evolution/Creation Controversy. New York: Jones and Bartlett. 2001.

Biggs, Alton et. al. Life Science. Columbus, OH: Glenco/McGraw-Hill. 2005.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: Norton. 1996.

Dixon, Dougal. et.al. Atlas of Life on Earth. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. 2001.

Eldredge, Niles. The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism. New York: Neveraumont. 2001.

Flannery, Tim. The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Atlantic. 2001.

Gamlin, Linda. Eyewitness Books, Evolution. New York: DK Pub. 2000.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Living Stones of Marrakech: Penultimate Reflections in Natural History: New York. Harmony. 2000.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton. 1989.

Gridley, C. Robert. Openers for Biology Classes. Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch. 1990.

Haines, Tim D. Walking with Dinosaurs: A Natural History. New York: DK Pub, 2000.
Haines, Tim D. and Horley, Daren. Walking with Prehistoric Beasts: A Prehistoric Safari. New York: DK Pub. 2001.

Holtz, Thomas R. Jr Dr. Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. New York: Random House. 2007.

Humes, Edward. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Harper Collins. 2007.

Johnson, Kirk R. and Troll, Ray. Cruisin’ the Fossil Freeway: An Epoch Tale of a Scientist and an Artist on the Ultimate 5,000-Mile Paleo Road Trip. Boulder CO: Fulcrum Publishing.2007.

Judson, Olivia. Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex. New York: Holt. 2002.

Miller, Kenneth R. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Viking. 2008.

Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. New York: Greenwood Press. 2004.

Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York: Times Books. 2006.
Shubin, Neil. Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. New York: Pantheon. 2008.
Stein, Sara. The Evolution Book. New York: Workman Publishing. 1986.

Thompson, Ida. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Fossils. New York: Knopf. 1982.

Wallace, David Rains. Beasts of Eden: Walking Whales, Dawn Horses, and Other Enigmas of Mammal Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 2004.

Zimmer, Carl. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. New York: HarperCollins. 2001.

Internet resources
… essentials

Understanding Evolution – the best “one stop shopping for evolution education” – from The National Center for Science Education and the University of California, Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

National Center for Science Education – supports the teaching of evolution
http://www.natcenscied.org/

New York State Intermediate Level Science Curriculum Guide – from the New York State Education Department
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/scirg.html

… notable

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense – from Scientific American, 2002
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

24 Evolution Myths and Misconceptions – from New Scientist, April 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State – works to keep religion out of science classes
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

Becoming Human – from the Institute of Human Origins, “journey through the story of human evolution,” a Webby “Best Science Site,” includes a learning center
http://www.becominghuman.org/

Devonian Blues – a paleontological blues story set to music; “Your momma was a lobe finned fish”
http://www.trollart.com/sound/devonianblues/index.html

Evolution for Teachers – companion to PBS Evolution series – very valuable with lesson plans http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/

Evolution List-o-Links – from the blog “The Sensuous Curmudgeon.” An excellent, and very thorough list on evolution, “posted as a public service, so that each new evolution debate doesn’t have to start at ground zero.”
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/list-o-links/

Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley – all about fossils, geologic time periods, and more
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html

NatureServe Explorer – This online encyclopedia provides authoritative “information on more than 70,000 plants, animals, and ecosystems of the United States and Canada. Explorer includes particularly in-depth coverage for rare and endangered species.”
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Science Odyssey: You try it: human evolution – activities for students
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/

Talk Origins Archive – dedicated to the scientific study of human origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Teachers Under Fire – suggestions and more resources for science teachers from biologist / anthropologist Greg Laden
http://www.scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/teachers_under_fire.php

The Panda’s Thumb – a place to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement and defend the integrity of both science and science education
http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Imagine you’ve settled into a theater to see a 24 hour movie spectacular featuring the history of the earth.

You start at midnight, and for the first 18 hours, (think – day and a half) it’s not exciting. You have plenty of time for naps, food, and bathroom as the movie opens on an alien looking world, full of noxious clouds and meteorite strikes. The camera shows mostly microscopic views of tiny bacteria, while the sky slowly turns blue.

If you watch carefully, by about 7 PM you can see little soft bodied creatures among the bacteria. Shortly after 9, the seafloor is crawling with trilobites and waving crinoids. Nearly at 10, giant fish inhabit the water, while huge horsetails and ferns sprout up on land.

At around 10:30 it’s dinosaur time, and for about an hour, they dominate the landscape. A bit past 11:30, there’s a bright flash, then darkness. Soon the screen brightens and is filled with birds and mammals, both familiar and strange.

At about 20 seconds to midnight, you watch carefully to see early humans stalking the savannah. All of human recorded history fits within the last few seconds before midnight.

———————————————

Here are some places to start for more info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth_Clock_ENG.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale

It is estimated that 75% of all Americans will suffer from lower back pain (LBP) at some time. Treatment of this common ailment has been estimated to cost $24 billion every year. (Compare this to the annual cost for treating lung cancer of $4 billion.) Clearly, if inexpensive spinal manipulation (without drugs or surgery) could alleviate some of this suffering it would be most beneficial to the public and health care organizations.

In the United States there are more than 50,000 chiropractors, making them the third largest group of health practitioners after physicians and dentists. The chiropractic of today was popularized in the United States in 1896 by Daniel David Palmer living in Iowa.

Anti-Medical Ideologies

Many chiropractors today continue to follow some of the more controversial ideas of D. D. Palmer and his heirs such as opposition to the use of drugs, to vaccinations and immunizations1, 2 without which the current state of health in our society could not have been achieved.

A recent survey of attitudes by chiropractors 2 shows that 80% do not want children to be required to prove that they have been immunized before entering public schools, between 41% and 68% are ignorant of public health victories over many crippling diseases through immunization programs, and most chiropractors simply reject the scientific evidence.

These attitudes suggest a strong emotional commitment to an anti-medical ideology that has pervaded chiropractic philosophy and history. Subsequent letters responding to the survey give additional ample evidence of this anti-medical paranoia. 3,4,5,6 Student attitudes become increasingly anti-vaccination during their four years of training, and they report informal sources are most important (ignoring scientific evidence).7

Subluxation

In general, most “conventional” chiropractors begin by examining the spine for subluxations and “adjusting” them to relieve LBP and a host of other ailments. Critics argue that subluxations exist only in the minds of the chiropractor. For example, when one potential patient visited several chiropractors, each one found quite different subluxations on spinal x-rays.8

Some chiropractors are quick to claim that patients who have been adjusted often report improvements in such conditions as asthma, bed wetting (enuresis), mental illness, depression, premenstrual syndrome, diabetes, angina and heart disease, colds and flu, constipation, tension and anxiety as well as lower back pain. This last condition, LBP, is the primary reason most patients first consult a chiropractor. There is some research to support the efficacy of spinal manipulation for alleviating LBP.

A 1991 public opinion poll by the Gallup Organization found that “90% of chiropractic patients felt their treatment was effective and more than 80% were satisfied with that treatment.” While patient satisfaction is undoubtedly an important outcome, there are many reasons for differences in patient satisfaction which are not related to the efficacy of the proposed treatment.

Nutritional Advice

Up to 80% of chiropractors give nutritional advice and actually sell nutritional/vitamin supplements directly to their patients.9 Many of these supplements (including homeopathic remedies, Chinese products and glandular substances) appear to be therapeutically worthless, but provide a significant financial income (often more than $50,000 per year).

A survey of California chiropractors found they had received a median of 80 class hours of formal nutrition education and many reported being able to readily diagnose osteoporosis, arthritis and allergies.10 About 65% of all chiropractors are dispensing nutritional products every day.11 These chiropractors encourage patients to come back for monthly adjustments long after the original LBP is gone. Many even suggest regular maintenance adjustments for infants and children to “prevent future health problems” such as colon cancer.12

Applied Kinesiology

Applied Kinesiology is used by 40% of chiropractors.13 It involves testing muscle strength to diagnose “weakness” of bodily organs as well as to determine which remedies (often homeopathic or nutritional supplements) would be effective.

For example, the chiropractor may place a potential remedy upon the chest or the tongue of the patient and test the resistance of one arm to movement before and after placing the remedy. Or the chiropractor might place a potato, egg or other substance upon the chest and discover allergies that need treatment.

Considerable research (some of it found in the chiropractors’ own Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics) has demonstrated that there is no scientific basis to such muscle testing.14

Questionable Methodologies

More than 43% report giving homeopathic remedies. And significant numbers of chiropractors use pendulums (dowsing), and magnet therapy.15, 16 Clearly, the fact that so many chiropractors use these suspect and unproven methods casts serious doubt upon the whole profession.

Recently, one chiropractor noted this disturbing trend and pointed out that many current practices are devoid of rational thinking and, in fact, are dogmatically shamanistic.15

Claims To Legitimacy

The patients and the public are frequently told that “chiropractic works.” “Twenty-five million patients can’t be wrong.” Two thousand four hundred years of spinal manipulations testify to its validity. Since there are no drugs or surgery, it is much safer, milder and more effective than conventional medicine. And we need only look at who supports chiropractic to know that it is worthwhile.

Many famous people have sought out chiropractic treatment, such as: Presidents Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, as well as John Wayne and even several sports teams.17 But this is an example of faulty reasoning. Appeals to authority or a roll call or a majority vote of intellectuals or prominent people is not the appropriate way of deciding scientific truth. There is an old Chinese proverb that even if thousands of people say a foolish thing, it still remains foolish.

The “test of time” argument is also not valid or else we would also have to consider astrology and dowsing to have been proved by their longevity. Longevity also is a poor substitute for good scientific research.

The second claim is that “chiropractic works.” It has been commonly accepted that when left untreated 48% of LBP patients are better within one week, 75 to 85% of sufferers report recovery from LBP within one month and are able to return to work. And 92% recover within two months.

Chiropractic treatment often does provide immediate relief, but this could be temporary or illusory (not due to the treatment itself) and there is conflicting evidence of long-lasting relief.

So when we are told that chiropractic “works” we might often be dealing with a lack of understanding of the placebo effect (that suggestion or even no treatment at all are equally effective) and as Oliver Wendel Holmes (1842) argued:

“90% of those patients seen by a physician in daily practice would recover, sooner or later, with more or less difficulty, providing nothing is done to interfere seriously with the efforts of nature.”18

Whatever one thinks about chiropractic, we must agree that it has achieved great success as an industry. It is licensed in every state and is covered by many health insurance plans.

To what does chiropractic owe its success? First, chiropractic has been described as the “greatest tribute to applied public relations that the world has ever known.” Many chiropractors advertise widely in newspapers and other media and also make extensive use of “practice building seminars” where they learn how to attract patients and how to keep them coming back long after the original pain is gone.

In fact, many of the brochures distributed to patients make claims for chiropractic that are not currently justified by available scientific evidence.19

Second, the chiropractic profession has been claiming persecution by the scientists, physicians and an intellectual elite throughout its 100-year existence. The American public is well known for its sympathies for an underdog or the persecuted, regardless of the reasons for the rejection.

In addition, it has been suggested that precisely because of the AMA opposition, the chiropractic profession temporarily put aside its internal divisiveness to unite against an external hostile force.20

Third, chiropractic shares with other alternative approaches a dissatisfaction with and/or distrust of physicians who may prescribe expensive drugs or painful surgery. Often physicians either find nothing wrong with the patient or else tell them that time alone will cure the ailment.

The first (psychosomatic) suggestion may offend the patient and the second may frustrate the patient who wants a fast, easy “fix.” In contrast, the chiropractor may take more time to talk to the patient and readily agrees that the patient indeed has a problem–a serious problem.

It has even been suggested that it is quite appropriate to ensure patient satisfaction by providing simplistic (and often erroneous) explanations for the patient’s suffering.21 The positive and confident demeanor (of the chiropractor) has been found to result in greater patient satisfaction than the cautious, non-positive demeanor (of the physician).21

The chiropractor impresses upon the patient that he will help by direct, drugless, and essentially pain-free intervention to quickly alleviate the pain. This is followed by a physical ritual of a “laying on of hands.” The healing/therapeutic power of touch is well documented in both scientific research and in the Christian tradition.22

And finally, many chiropractors offer a simplistic explanation about health similar to other “holistic” approaches and reinforce a distrust of conventional medicine and science. Actually it is ironic that chiropractors claim to be holistic when, in reality, many are narrowly fixated upon the spine.

In summary, chiropractors have become excellent salesmen, psychologists and therapists. They have learned to appeal to the fears of the patients and how to offer comfort and relieve anxieties.

This success has been achieved although there is no solid scientific evidence for subluxations. In spite of, or unfortunately, perhaps because of, the use of pseudoscientific techniques such as applied kinesiology, homeopathy and others, and in spite of a vitalistic, occult philosophical tradition, chiropractic is now celebrating 100 years of success.

Distinguishing Good Chiropractic From The Bad

What is very sad is that there are many good, honest, dedicated and scientific chiropractors. These people reject all of the pseudoscience and they shun the unethical and deceptive practices of many chiropractors.

What is needed then, is some way to distinguish these scientifically-oriented practitioners from the poor chiropractors. In fact, suggestions have recently been offered to physicians who may be considering referring patients for chiropractic care.23

But perhaps the best guidelines are negative ones. That is, one should avoid chiropractors who engage in suspicious practices. Warning Signs

As one critic said, much of chiropractic is “the only legally recognized and licensed superstition in the United States today.”24

——

Mahlon Wagner, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of psychology at the State University of New York, Oswego. This article has appeared on the Senior Mag website and the “Confessions of a Quakerbuster” blog.

——

1. International Chiropractic Association. Policy Handbook & Code of Ethics. “Immunization and vaccination.” 1993; p. 28. Arlington, VA.

2.Colley F & Haas M. Attitudes on immunization: a survey of American chiropractors. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1994; 17 (9): 584-590.

3. Cashley MAP. Attitudes on immunization: a survey of American chiropractors (letter). J Manip Physiol Ther. 1995; 18 (6):420-421.

4. Colley F & Haas M. Reply to Cashley. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1995; 18 (6): 421.

5. Demetrious J. Attitudes on immunization: a survey of American chiropractors (letter). J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996; 19 (4): 280-281.

6. Colley F & Haas M. Reply to Demetrious. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1996; 19 (4): 281-282.

7. Busse JA, Kulkarni AV, Campbell JB & Injeyan HS. Attitudes toward vaccination: a survey ofCanadian chiropractic students. Canadian Medical Journal, 2002; (June) 166 (2): 1531-1534.

8. Jarvis W. Chiropractic: a skeptical view. Skep Inquirer. 1987; 12: 47-55.

9.Christensen MG & Morgan D. Job analysis of chiropractic, summary of the practice of chiropractic within the United States. 1993. Greeley, CO: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

10.Newman CF, Downes NJ, Tseng RY, McProud LM & Newman LK. Nutrition-related backgrounds and counseling practices of doctors of chiropractic. J Amer Dietetic Assoc. 1989; 89: 939-943.

11.Barrett S. Chiropractors and nutrition: the supplement underground. Nutr Forum. 1992; 9 (July/August): 25-28.

12. Peet P & Peet J. Chiropractic Pediatric & Prenatal Reference Manual. 1992; South Burlington, VT: Baby Adjustors, Inc.

13.Gemmell HA & Jacobson BH. Practice methods and procedures of chiropractic doctors in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Chiropr J. 1989; (Spring): 6-7.

14.Klinoski B & LeBoeuf C. A review of the research papers published by the International College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981-1987. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1990; 13: 190-194.

15.Hultgren GM & Jeffers JS. Shamanism, a religious paradigm: its intrusion into the practice of chiropractic. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1994; 17 (6): 404-410.

16.Hawk E, Byrd L, Jansen RD & Long CR. Use of complementary healthcare practices among chiropractors in the United States: a survey. Altern Ther. 1999; 5 (1): 56-62.

17.Wilk CA. Chiropractic Speaks Out. 1976; Park Ridge, IL: Wilk Publ Co.

18.Holmes OW. (1842) Homoeopathy and its kindred delusions. In Stalker D & Glymour C. (Eds.) Examining Holistic Medicine. 1985; Buffalo NY: Prometheus Press.

19. Grod, JP, Sikorski, D & Keating JC. Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from large state, provincial and national chiropractic associations and research agencies. JMPT, 2001; 24 (5): 4-9.

20.Kaptchuk TJ & Eisenberg DM Chiropractic: origins, controversies and contributions. Arch Intern Med. 1998;159 (Nov 9): 2215-2224.

21.Thomas KB. General practice consultations: is there any point in being positive? BMJ. 1987; 294: 1200-1202.

22.Firman GL & Goldstein MS. The future of chiropractic: a psychosocial view. NEJM. 1975; 293: 639-642.

23.Homola S. Finding a good chiropractor. Arch Fam Med. 1998; 7 (Jan/Feb): 20-23.

24.Weil A. Chapter 11. Some medical heresies: osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy. In: Healing and Health. 1983; Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 123-142.

Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is certainly the most dishonest movie I have ever seen, portraying Intelligent Design supporters as political martyrs to Big Science, academia as the equivalent to the USSR, and doing everything it can to link Charles Darwin and evolution directly to the Holocaust. It truly is despicable and intellectually insipid in a way I thought not possible until now. If you want all the gory details about how awful this film is factually, please visit the NCSE’s Expelled Exposed website and Scientific American.

Unfortunately, the movie is almost certainly a success. In the US, most people know absolutely nothing about evolution, or any other form of science for that matter. They probably never heard anything about it in their schooling, from the media, or from the science establishment. If they know anything about it, it is probably something negative (and false) they heard from a creationist. It must also be remembered that most people in the US (and for that matter, around the world) rely on understanding their world through perceptions, feelings, and intuitions, not facts, logic, or evidence.

This film may very well be the only thing that many people ever hear about evolution, and while factually worthless, it is decent propaganda. I thought that the film would be hard to watch because Ben Stein wasn’t likable enough. I was wrong. Stein is human: funny or serious as the situation demands, with his characteristic dead-pan delivery and wit. Although the film sags in the middle when Stein takes his little trip to Hadamar and Dachau, and then on to Down House, it moves at a fairly brisk pace and effectively uses images, editing, and symbolism to get its point across (though Stein and the director are no Michael Moore).

The images used play more to a generally conservative, though not overtly evangelical/conservative, audience: evolutionists are associated with Stalin, communism, the Berlin wall, angry atheists, Planned Parenthood, eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion, while Stein and the ID supporters are juxtaposed with Reagan, American flags, the Washington monument, MLK Jr., the destruction of the Berlin wall, Mom, and apple pie.

The ID supporters are given ample time to present their vague and ill-documented claims, while the evolutionists get scant screen time and, for the most part, look bad (not necessarily their fault, probably due to editing). All of this makes for a compelling, if somewhat heavy-handed and overwrought, film. Most people who do not know anything about evolution or ID will probably be swayed by it. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. Contrary to the opinion of many prominent science bloggers, it is a really big deal for a documentary to be shown in thousands of theaters in the US (most documentaries will only be shown in a handful). It is a big deal for a documentary to take in $3 million dollars in its first weekend (most never take in hundreds of thousands). It is a big deal for a documentary to be supported by millions of dollars of PR and expensive TV and print advertising (most documentaries get none).

People can argue over whether Expelled will ever make enough money to cover its costs (I think it will through DVD sales), but it will influence a lot of people, and no debunking website (not matter how factually correct) will reach as many people. The only thing that would be effective would be another film to counter it, like Randy Olsen’s Flock of Dodos. But that isn’t likely in the cards. This is a bad day for the public understanding of science. Really bad.

——

David Harding is the vice-president of CNY Skeptics.

Originally published April 2008.

When the Ithaca Journal began its “Alternative Ithaca” series, I turned to it eagerly, hoping to find stories of local residents trying out innovative solutions to life. I expected perhaps to read of people whose homes depended only on solar power, or who practiced sustainable farming. Instead, disappointingly, the Journal has chosen to profile a collection of persons who advocate unproven methods of health care. Moreover, it has done so without subjecting their claims to scrutiny, reprinting their statements without question, as though they were factual.

This raises questions of journalistic responsibility. Should not readers be able to assume that statements presented in an article, if not clearly labelled as opinion, have been verified? It is especially important that young readers, whose only information about the wider world often comes from the newspaper on the kitchen table, not be confused about what is or is not known to be true.

The Journal must not allow concerns about community feelings to deter it from its responsibility in this regard. Alternative health care practitioners are not just adhering to private belief systems. They are making claims and undertaking actions that affect others. However positive their motivations, those who would take the health and happiness of fellow human beings into their hands have a special obligation to respect the truth, and they should be held to it.

Until the Journal does this, readers will have to take up the task. Accordingly, I offer the following as some assistance in sorting the wheat from the chaff in these matters.

10 CLUES THAT “ALTERNATIVE” MIGHT MEAN “INVALID”

1. Claims are grandiose and vague.

“Reiki works on animals, plants, and people,” Avery said. “It can be used to heal physically, spiritually, and emotionally.” Sounds great, means what exactly?

2. Escape clause included.

“Healing depends totally on the client… there is no guarantee that [they] will accept the energy or use it in the right way.” (Spears) Credit for success is taken, but blame for failure refused.

3. Reliance on anecdotes; avoidance of scientific testing.

Personal stories can be persuasive, but they are only the beginning, not the end, of serious inquiry. Spear’s claim to tune instruments without touching them could easily be verified or disproved by laboratory sound analysis. Why hasn’t it been?

4. Over-elaborate explanations.

Why not attribute the real health benefits of Tai Chi (which I practice myself) to the performance of disciplined physical exercise? Why drag Taoism into it?

5. Psuedo-scientific jargon.

“Harmonic induction” sounds impressive, but consult a scientific reference and you will find that it is meaningless.

6. Logical implications ignored.

Spears claims to send out harmonic energy to “tune” her clients. Yet waves of energy spread out and weaken over distance; think of the radio station fading out as you drive away. Shouldn’t it be difficult, if not impossible, for her to heal at a distance, rather than easy, as she claims?

7. Discredited ideas repackaged.

Reiki, chi, and prana are just foreign terms for the old “vital spark” (think Frankenstein). Homeopathy’s”like cures like” is nothing but sympathetic magic, the belief that things that closely resemble one another can affect one another. The same logic underlies voodoo dolls.

8. Focus on charismatic personalities.

“Her [Avery's] presence is just so soothing, calming, and relaxing.” A legitimate technique will work no matter who uses it. The laws of nature apply to us all. If the healer must charm the client, benefits are likely psychosomatic.

9. Unequal investment: much more is demanded of client than practitioner.

While many of us think that the prices charged by drug companies are excessive, at least they have legitimate expenses, including testing for efficacy. What is the profit margin of somebody who claims to cure you by thinking about it, or on a tiny vial of pure distilled water sold as a homeopathic remedy?

10. Claims flatly defy common sense.

Cures by e-mail? This falls in the category of not keeping your mind so open your brains fall out.

No one of these clues is enough to declare a practice invalid. But when you encounter several of them from the same source, it is wise to doubt that source’s reliability. Before you trust your health to another’s beliefs, it is legitimate to question whether those beliefs, however sincere, have any basis in reality. It is, after all, in the real, material world that suffering and illness occur. If it were really possible to think ourselves out of it, wouldn’t more of us do so?

——
Janet Factor, formerly of Ithaca, New York, now lives in Springfield, Illinois.

Originally published in 2003.

Interview with Eugenie Scott

By Bill Busher

Originally published April 2006

[This interview has also appeared in the Syracuse Post-Standard and on CSICOP's Intelligent Design Watch web site.]

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education , Inc., spoke on March 30, 2006, at Onondaga Community College’s Whitney Building. Scott’s lecture on evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design was presented by the Technology Alliance of Central New York (TACNY), and sponsored by a grant from National Grid. NCSE, based in Oakland, California, is a not for profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of science as a way of knowing. It opposes the advocacy of “scientific” creationism and other religiously-based views in science classes. She has held elective offices in the American Anthropological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Scott is the current president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Bill Busher: One criticism coming from the creationist side is that evolution is “only a theory.” How is a theory looked on, from a scientist’s perspective?

Eugenie Scott: From the scientific perspective, a theory is an explanation. Theories are the goal of science. In the general public, a theory is a guess or a hunch or something that is not important, so there is a huge difference between how we use the term in science, and how we use the term in the general public. In the general public, ‘fact’ is very very important; in science, theories explain facts. So, theories trump facts and laws.

BB: Is there a point at which a theory becomes fact?

ES: No, theories explain facts. Facts are observations, and observations are a dime a dozen in science. We collect observations, but what is important is to use those observations to generate theories, which explain the facts and explain the other aspects of nature. Theories don’t become facts, theories explain facts.

BB: Even something as simple as say, the theory of gravity, which everyone assumes is a fact?

ES: What happens is that unsupported objects fall. That is not gravity. To explain why this pen didn’t fly around the room, when I stopped supporting it and why it fell, we use the theory of gravitation. The theory of gravitation is the mass of the pen and the mass of the table attract each other. That’s the theory – that’s an explanation. The observation, or fact, was that an unsupported object fell. So, gravitation is not a fact, gravitation is a theoretical explanation.

BB: With that definition of theory, would creationism qualify as a theory?

ES: In the simplest definition of theory, yes, because creationism is an inferential explanation for natural phenomena. The creationists would look at the diversity of living things and say “God created them as specially created kinds. ” And, theories don’t have to be correct. Lamarckism is an incorrect theory of heredity, but it’s still a scientific theory.

BB: Do you think that there is a place for creationism intelligent design in school?

ES: Because creationism intelligent design are inherently religious ideas, they have no place in the science classroom. I’m not sure that intelligent design is especially appropriate for a comparative religion class at the K-12 level, because it’s such a minimalist position. It makes so few actual claims, and they’re based on probability theory, molecular biology and information theory and things that you just don’t get into in the high school level. Certainly, I would say creationisms (plural) could be taught in a comparative sense, in a comparative religion class, but I’m not sure that because of the nature of intelligent design that it would ever be terribly successful in high school. But of course, the content of intelligent design is “evidence against evolution” – that’s all they’re really saying, and so why clutter up the student’s knowledge with misinformation?

BB: Doesn’t the complexity of evolution, involving biology, chemistry, earth sciences and so on, put at a distinct disadvantage proponents of evolution in debates?

ES: If I’m going to be discussing this issue publicly, generally speaking, it’s going to be ‘either or.’ I’m either talking about science, and then so are they, in which case I can criticize either the phylogeny of creation science or I can criticize the molecular biology of intelligent design. They will talk about peppered moths as inadequate science, or whatever. Or, we’ll talk about theological issues or possibly philosophy of science. In that case, we are sort of arguing on an equal playing field so to speak. In fact, what the creation science people and the ID people are extraordinarily concerned about, is that when they are in public debates that they’re not talking about religion. That said, it’s still the case that the audience that hears these exchanges and is evaluating the statements on both sides, probably is thinking in terms of religion, even when they are hearing the science. And so I think what you want to do is be very clear when you’re discussing creation and evolution; that you separate out your opponents religious views from the scientific claims, and let the audience know that you are criticizing the scientific views of your opponent, and allowing him freedom of religion. But. bad science cannot be excused because of somebody’s religious views.

BB: Have you heard any rationale from those who do participate in the structured debates, as to why they would do it?

ES: Well, there are fewer and fewer people doing this. What few people I’ve run into in the last three or four years who’ve gotten suckered into these debates did it out of ignorance. There are a couple of people around, like Michael Ruse and Ken Miller, who do take on the formal debate kind of thing from time to time, although I think even Ken has now kind of ‘hung up’ his debate shoes, so to speak, and he’s not really interested. I don’t quite understand why Mike Ruse keeps going out on the hustings. It pays well, I guess.

BB: The Kansas board of education is famous for having a zig-zag pattern when it comes to evolution and creationism, each time the makeup of the board changes. With that in mind, what do you see on the horizon for New York State?

ES: I have to plead ignorance on that; I’m not sure of the makeup of the school board.

BB: There is a bill pending that…

ES: That’s in the legislature, though.

BB: What do you think is the potential impact of the recent court decision in Philadelphia?

ES: It is definitely going to throw sand in the gears of the intelligent design movement, in the sense that school districts that are contemplating teaching ID, are going to be told by their legal retainers, “don’t do this, because it’s going to cost you a lot of money to go to court and lose.” It’s not going to stop the effort completely, but what it will do, is to encourage this sort of third wave of creationism, which is the “evidence against evolution” approach. Although the judge in Kitzmiller [vs. Dover] did address the gap/problems in evolution part of the policy, which is of course, the avatar of the “evidence” against evolution school, he spent a lot more time in the decision pounding intelligent design. I think the anti-evolutionists are going to try the “evidence against evolution” approach with a different fact base than the Dover case did. Obviously, what they have to do is come up with a smarter school board, that isn’t going to be making as many religious references as the Dover board did. And then, they may have a better chance of passing through the courts. The “evidence against evolution” approach has been struck down by the courts if the judge accepts the history of this issue, and shows the ultimate religious purpose for proposing these policies. But, you get a judge who doesn’t like the ‘purpose’ argument, which is one of the arguments used to interpret the establishment clause, then it’s going to be a whole more difficult to fight against the “evidence against evolution” school.

BB: We hear a lot about children in this country falling behind their counterparts in other countries. How does this controversy play into the overall educational picture?

ES: Certainly, if the United States is going to maintain its technological superiority, we have to have good science education. We don’t have as good science education as we’d like; it’s very patchy. Some schools do a wonderful job; others do a terrible job; many do a mediocre job. The systematic avoidance of the teaching of evolution is a real ‘canary in the coal mine’ for indicating the politicization of education. If we are choosing our science based on political considerations, we are under and miseducating our students. We will not maintain that international technological and scientific superiority.

BB: In a society where a large portion of the population believe in things like psychics, homeopathy, touch therapy, astrology, creationism and intelligent design, what do you see as our best hope?

ES: I’m a believer in education. I think we need to do a much better job helping science teachers understand the nature of science, understand how to think critically, and help them devise ways of passing this on to the student body more effectively than they are today (at obviously an age-appropriate level). So much of the acceptance of these paranormal and crackpot ideas really rests upon the inability to think critically about the data that are presented to support them.

——

Bill Busher is a past president of TACNY, and current editor of their monthly publication, The Technologist.