The Edge of Evolution, by Michael J. Behe
The Free Press, 2007
336 pages
Amazon.com link
More than a decade ago, in 1996, Michael Behe published Darwin’s Black Box. In it, Behe argued that Darwinian evolution is impossible: random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the intricate, irreducibly complex systems that make life possible. These systems–such as the way blood clots in mammals–are essential to life, and are made up of dozens–even hundreds–of parts. If even one part is missing, the system is useless and the creature dies. Behe argued that it is impossible for random mutations to build these irreducibly complex systems up piece by piece, step by step.
In 1996, Behe could offer no actual evidence for the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. All he offered was the idea of irreducible complexity. In the decade since Darwin’s Black Box, studies of mutation rates have furnished Behe with real-world data to support his earlier conclusions. In a new book published earlier this year, The Edge of Evolution, Behe uses scientific data to reveal what Darwinism can and cannot accomplish.
Definition of terms
Behe begins The Edge of Evolution by defining some terms. The word Darwinism encompasses three distinct ideas:
- common descent
- natural selection
- random mutation
Common descent is the idea that all living creatures have similar features that were inherited from a common ancestor. For example, dolphins and whales are descended from a common ancestor, as are dogs and cats, and even elephants and mice. “Common descent is what most people think of when they hear the word ‘evolution,’” says Behe. But common descent is not the full story.
Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It merely says that certain shared features [e.g., complex cells with nuclei] were there from the beginning–the ancestor had them. But all by itself, it doesn’t try to explain how either the features or the ancestor got there in the first place, or why the descendants differ.
This brings us to Darwin. Darwin’s theory is that small random mutations, coupled with the mechanism of natural selection, can account for all the forms of life on earth. Natural selection means simply survival of the fittest: the creatures that have some natural advantage will produce more offspring, and thus pass on their natural advantages. Random mutations introduce small changes; natural selection weeds out the useless and harmful mutations; the beneficial mutations survive. Eventually, a lot of small changes add up to big changes–and thus life evolves into different forms and species.
So Darwinism means common descent by means of random mutation and natural selection. If Darwinism is true, all three ideas must be true, and they must be sufficient to account for all the different forms of life on Earth. Behe considers the DNA evidence in support of common descent to be overwhelming, and he does not dispute its truth. Random mutation and natural selection have been studied, and they “can modify life in important ways.” But not in ways sufficient to account for the origin of species, Behe concludes. For proof, he turns to some real-world studies of mutation rates in the malaria parasite.
Malaria
Throughout human history, malaria has remained a deadly killer. Even today, malaria kills approximately one million people each year. The epic battle between man and malaria offers us insight into evolution in action. We invent drugs which work for a time, and the malaria parasite develops immunities to the drugs. Curiously, malaria develops resistance to some kinds of drugs faster than to others. Some drugs are effective only a few years before malaria evolves a defense. Others, like chloroquine, were effective against malaria for many years until the inevitable resistant strains appeared. Inevitable resistance? Perhaps not. There is one mechanism against which malaria has evolved no resistance, even after thousands of years: sickle cell disease.
Sickle cell is a human genetic mutation that causes human hemoglobin to be subtly deformed. It is normally detrimental to one’s health, so one would expect sickle cell to eventually die out. But it provides one great benefit: the malaria parasite cannot effectively infect the blood cells of a person with sickle hemoglobin. This mutation arose somewhere in Africa, thousands of years ago. In all those years, random mutation has not provided malaria with a defense against sickle cell. Why? Why can malaria develop resistance against drugs like chloroquine, but not against sickle hemoglobin?
Single and double mutations
The answer lies in DNA. Malaria develops resistance to most drugs by a single mutation. One copying error in the DNA results in a single, isolated point mutation. If the single mutation happens to give the malaria parasite an immunity to a drug, then the mutated parasite proliferates. But what if there is no single mutation that can confer resistance to the drug? What if resistance requires two simultaneous mutations, each of which is fatal on its own? Resistance to the drug would require the highly unlikely occurrence of just the right two mutations happening at the same time. In the case of chloroquine resistance, that’s exactly what it takes: chloroquine-resistant malaria has two mutated gene nucleotides. That’s why it took so long for chloroquine resistance to develop, compared to other drugs that required only a single point mutation to be rendered ineffective.
If chloroquine requires a double mutation, sickle hemoglobin might require three, four, or even more simultaneous mutations to result in a resistant organism. It’s clear, from the experimental data, that such a mutation is wildly improbable. In fact, no mutation of such complexity has ever been discovered in any organism that science has studied. Sickle hemoglobin is an obstacle for malaria; an obstacle that random mutation cannot be expected to solve.
But what does this have to do with Darwinism? What can we learn from this data concerning malaria mutation rates? To answer that question, we must consider time.
Time has always figured prominently in Darwinian explanations. Although few changes can be noticed in our own age, Darwinists say, over vast stretches of geological time imperceptible modifications of life can add up to profound ones. It’s no wonder that we don’t see much coherent variation going on in the biology of our everyday world–evolutionary processes are so slow that a human lifetime is like a moment.
…
Time is actually not the chief factor in evolution–population numbers are. In calculating how quickly a beneficial mutation might appear, evolutionary biologists multiply the mutation rate times the population size.
[Emphasis mine]
Malaria and mammals
The population size of malaria is enormous. Each year, approximately 1020 malaria cells live and die. Humans have been studying malaria for over fifty years. By way of comparison, there have been more malaria cells in the past fifty years than the number of all the mammals that have ever existed on the earth–going back hundreds of millions of years. Since the population sizes are equal, our fifty-year study of malaria gives us a good idea of what kinds of random mutations should naturally appear in the entire evolutionary history of mammals. And judging by what we see in malaria, the answer is clear: random mutation is not sufficient to account for the development and proliferation of mammal species on earth.
Behe goes into some detail about precisely why the malaria evidence shows that random mutation is insufficient. All the beneficial malaria mutations are destructive mutations. They are actually destructive–in other words, all of the beneficial mutations work by breaking some natural process in the malaria microbe–a process that a drug (chloroquine, atovaquone, etc.) uses to kill the microbe. So yes, it’s a beneficial mutation, but the microbe is not really gaining any new abilities. It’s just losing a natural ability, but an ability that the drug was targeting. Behe compares it to burning bridge to protect a city from an invading army. Malaria has never developed any new systems, new abilities, or anything novel. Behe sums it up: “despite huge population numbers and intense selective pressure, … malaria [microbes] yield … minor, evolutionary responses. … We have genetic studies over thousands upon thousands of generations, of trillions upon trillions of organisms, and little of biochemical significance to show for it.” Malaria burns bridges, but builds nothing new.
If malaria has not produced even one novel mutation–one new ability, one new protein binding site–in the last fifty years, we must make the obvious conclusion. Based on population sizes, we cannot expect any changes of equal significance to have randomly occurred in the entire history of mammals. It is beyond the edge of evolution.
Evo-devo
But mammals are here nonetheless. In vast numbers and myriad forms. Behe is not the only one to have noticed this problem. A whole new field of science called evolutionary development biology (evo-devo) has arisen to deal with the thorny issue that Darwinism simply doesn’t explain how evolution happens. Evo-devo scientists seek answers to explain the mechanisms of Darwinism, but Behe points out that their efforts “do more to undermine Darwin than to save his theory.” For, consciously or not, evo-devo scientists admit that Darwinism does not answer the “profound, fundamental evolutionary questions.”
While evo-devo is looking for ways to explain the unexplainable, Behe says we should accept the evidence: random mutation cannot account for life on Earth. That raises the question: if not random mutation, then what? Behe explores a number of possible answers, but the best answer is that evolution is driven by nonrandom mutations. That’s where an unnamed, unknown Intelligent Designer comes into play. The Designer arranges for those nonrandom mutations to occur. Behe, as a Catholic, believes God is that Designer. But the identify of the Designer is beyond the realm of science, and Behe admits as much.
Response to Behe
The critical response to Behe has been almost universally negative. Those who disagreed with Darwin’s Black Box view The Edge of Evolution as a disingenuous retreat. Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity was shot down, they say, and so he’s regrouped with a new book that simply ignores the critics.
If the critics feel ignored or slighted, perhaps that explains their viciousness. Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a 1300 word review of The Edge of Evolution that maligns Behe’s character, ridicules his ideas, calls his intelligence into question, and fails to address any of the central arguments in Behe’s book. Good show, Dawkins. Jerry Coyne at Powell’s books examines Behe’s claims in more detail, but again fails to consider the import of Behe’s core arguments. Coyne dismisses Behe’s malaria evidence by saying “Evolutionary theory predicts only that parasites will adapt, not how they will adapt. … That is all evolution can do.” Perhaps Coyne does not realize what he is saying: that is indeed “all evolution can do.” Minor, insignificant changes. Not sweeping changes involving intricate new biochemical systems.
Credit to Darwin
In contrast to how Behe’s critics give him no credit, Behe is decent enough to give Darwin–whose theory he criticizes–a great deal of credit. If you’re looking for a complete rejection of evolution and Darwin, you won’t find it in The Edge of Evolution. Behe accepts common descent wholeheartedly. Yes, that means man and ape are cousins. He accepts that natural selection and random mutation can explain a great deal, and that modern science owes a debt to Darwin.
Charles Darwin deserves a lot of credit. Although it had been proposed before him, he championed the idea of common descent and gathered a lot of evidence to support it. Despite some puzzles, much evidence from sequencing projects and other work points very strongly to common ancestry. Darwin also proposed the concept of random variation/natural selection. Selection does explain a number of important details of life–including the development of sickle hemoglobin, drug and insecticide resistance, and cold tolerance in fish–where progress can come in tiny steps.But, although Darwin hoped otherwise, random variation doesn’t explain the most basic features of biology. It doesn’t explain the elegant, sophisticated molecular machinery that undergirds life. To account for that–and to account for the root and thick branches of common descent–multiple coherent genetic mutations are needed. Now that we know what sorts of mutations can happen to DNA, and what random changes can produce, we can begin to do the math to find the edge of evolution with some precision.
What we’ll discover is something quite basic, yet heresy to Darwinists: Most mutations that build the great structures of life must have been nonrandom.
I think Behe does some interesting work in a field that’s badly infected with group-think.
The biggest problem with ID is that Behe’s hypothesis rests on his assertion that naural, unguided processes cannot produce the kind of complexity we see in nature because
The plain and simple truth is that everything that Behe insists requires intervention of an intelligence is more than adequately explained by the action of unguided natural forces. Since a “creator” serves no scientific purpose, it clearly is added merely to provide personal psychological comfort. However, this moves his work from science to fantasy.
Without, at minimum, scientific evidence for the existence of a being with the requisite abilities (i.e., either “God” or an alien with advanced technology), neither Behe or intelligent design will ever be accepted by science.
Galapagos, Do you seriously believe that no intelligence is required to sustain a complex, balanced environment for life and that unguided natural forces are the adequate explanation? You have got to be kidding or naive? And you state that a Creator serves no scientific purpose. The Creator is the the one who formulated the natural and physical laws that govern all life and prevent the chaos that would result from naTure untethered. There is no such thing as natural or physical laws that are self formulated. There are only laws established by God to which nature is bound.
To state that ID will never be accepted by science comes under the category of wishful thinking and your brand of fantasy.
GalapagosPete, thanks for stopping by. I’m interested to read literature that points out the faults in Behe’s interpretation of the scientific data. If you know of any books or papers that respond to Behe’s latest book, could you tell me the titles so I can go read them?
I have read the various book reviews of The Edge of Evolution, but most of those are polemics that don’t get into any details. I’m looking for something a bit more scholarly and reasoned.
ID proponents like Behe don’t like to talk about who the designer is, but everyone knows the designer is god. Invoking god is the same as invoking magic. Magic is not science. Behe knows this and Behe knows his ideas are idiotic. Behe knows the entire scientific community laughs at his stupidity. Behe doesn’t care, because like the other thugs who work for the Discovery Institute, Behe is a professional liar. It’s likely he laughs at the gullible creationists who buy his books. Behe is making a good living spreading lies and he knows he’s too stupid to make that much money any other way.
BobC, you need to realize that you are doing your viewpoint a big disservice. Nobody cares about Behe himself. We might as well talk about how he is 3 feet tall and has purple polkadots all over. What we are discussing is his proposition. Since you choose not to argue with his ideas and instead choose to attack the messenger, your readers are going to lend more credibility to Behe’s arguments. The more I think about it, the more I realize that Evolution is just another lousy religion.
Ronald, Your religious preferences aside, natural unguided forces are all that are known to exist, so I would have to say that, yes, they seem to do the job.
As for ID, since its proponents choose to ignore scientific principles, to say that it will never be accepted by science is merely stating the obvious.
Jew, It’s true that the discussion gets a little heated at times. Since this is an issue of religion versus science, that is probably unavoidable.
However, no one is going to bother to publish a paper or a book refuting Behe’s book point by point, as it were. It would be as silly as refuting astrology point by point.
However, at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol27/5699_citethe_edge_of_evolutionc_12_30_1899.asp there is a good review that goes over Behe’s main points. Some of it a touch technical, but you have the option of simply accepting it or researching further on your own.
There are some very good basic “getting started” postings on www.talkorigins.org. You need to have grounding to be able to understand that there really is much more to understand than you might think.
Jew, I wrote a critique of Behes claims about HIV in ‘Edge’. After I was threatened and harassed by Dembskis tribe, and Behe let loose not one, but two sexist tirades against me, Behe finally admitted I was right on his Amazon blog.
My article:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
Of course, Behe said I was right, but that the evolution was still ‘pathetic’. He was also wrong about that:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-translation-for-laymen-ii.html
Behe should have been aware of all of this information as a PhD in biology. He was not. I dont see how this book will ever put out a second edition. It needs massive revisions.
As a biologist, Christiana and Creationist, I too have problems with Behe. On the positive side, he has kept the controversy alive but ID leaves many questions for the Creationist, “Big Bang”, miillions of years and a host of others. His only contribution to Creationism is the irrefutable evidence of design in so much of life. Irreducible complexity is also very valid. How can any rational person dispute that whether a mousetrap, hearing , vision or other complex physiological proceeses could originate piecemeal and still perform their specific functions without all components in place, is ludicrous. I agree with Behe that evolution remains pathetic and remains a shameful deceit perpetrated by shameless pseudoscientists, most of whom are academics whose paychecks rely on prolifrating the myth of evolution.
Gurr8, I think you are correct in your statement that evolution is just another religion. It was stated such by the Supreme Court, but you added the adjective “lousy” which is appropriate.
Ronald posted, “How can any rational person dispute that whether a mousetrap, hearing , vision or other complex physiological proceeses (sic) could originate piecemeal and still perform their specific functions without all components in place, is ludicrous.”
First of all, a mousetrap is not a complex physiological process. There is a difference between mechanical and biological systems. Somehow I’d expect a biologist to know that.
Second, a biologist ought to know that, in their most basic configuration, the function of a visual system is to detect light, and the function of an auditory system is to detect vibrations. A biologist would understand why any animal would find that having at least these systems in place performing at this basic level would be far superior to an animal with none at all.
Third, a biologist (or any scientist) wouldn’t use the phrase “perform their specific functions without all components in place” because it’s a phrase that has no meaning. What specific function? Sensing light? Black and white vision? Color vision? Distance vision? How far? At what focus? Same for hearing. There are different levels of hearing, from mere sensitivity to vibrations to the echo-location. There are animals living today who run the spectrum of these in sight and hearing.
Your claim to being a biologist simply doesn’t hold up. You may have some sort of basic degree, you may even have held a job or jobs in which the department you worked in or your job title had “biological” or “biology” in it, but unless you can provide details of your education and experience that allows to to claim to be a biologist, your claim is unbelievable. You’re simply another Christian creationist promoting ignorance because you consider evolution to be a threat to your god.
Galapagos,Your response is, as I would have predicted, a big smokescreen of the issue and, as is, of course, your omniscience in determining whether I am a biologist. Denials and denigration are still a shameful tool in your repertoire of deceit. You are simply another evol promoting stupidity because you consider Creation to be a threat to your fantasy. As long as you can question my veracity, please share with us what extensive qualifications you have.
For me to provide you with details of my education and experience (which, by the way are considerable), would only embarass you by “putting up” but I will not do so because your aptitude at denial would avail nothing. Your calloused brain is preprogrammed to not confusing you with the facts that would upset your preconceived notions.
You need to return to Galapagos for another intensified dose of evolution. By the way, when you go, please note that, with environmental factors now returned to normal, the finch populations are as they were and, guess what? some have larger beaks than others. They are still finches and none have evolved into reptiles, whales ,moose or other CREATures.
ERV wrote: “Jew, I wrote a critique of Behes claims about HIV in ‘Edge’.”
I took some time to read through your critique. The first thing I noticed is that you seem to be defining “significant” differently than Behe. (I’m just a layman, but that’s pretty obvious even to me.) As Behe said in his response, “I’m concentrating on the biochemical machinery of the virus, while Smith is more concerned with epidemiological factors.” As for the facts of the matter, I’ll have to take some more time to read and study before I can form an opinion.
Ronald Cote said: “[Behe’s] only contribution to Creationism is the irrefutable evidence of design in so much of life.”
Yeah, that’s because Behe is not a Creationist. He’s a proponent of a particular brand of Intelligent Design. The hardcore Creationists won’t have anything to do with Behe because they consider him a heretic.
GalapagosPete said: “no one is going to bother to publish a paper or a book refuting Behe’s book point by point, as it were. It would be as silly as refuting astrology point by point.”
That’s what I was afraid of. It’s too bad, too, because it smacks of trying to win by default. Those who object to ID claim they don’t have to respond to it because it isn’t science. Maybe that’s the right strategy; maybe Behe and ID will just fade away. But if not, then eventually somebody is going to have to respond.
Jew– I read ‘Edge’. I gave Behe exactly what he asked for in ‘Edge’, which he admitted on his Amazon blog.
THEN he said it was ‘pathetic’.
Thats why Creationism is unfalsifiable.
ERV, are you equating creationism with Behe? I’m not sure they are the same thing. Also, do you assume God and science can not both exist–that a credible scientist could not also be a religious person? (I’m not referring to Behe or any particular scientist, I’m just asking the general question.)
Jew, thanks for the review in spite of the fact that it has taken me a week to read it with all the Christmas festivities going on. It is an interesting topic and I doubt we’ve heard the end of the matter.
I do wonder why many scientists seem to feel they must reject God and religion outright. I do see plenty of reasons why humankind rejects Christianity, yet I have a hard time understanding why people (and logical scientists in particular) reject the general idea of a supreme being. Biology aside for the moment and turn to physics; where did matter/energy come from in the first place? Did it not logically start somewhere? Is it beyond possible that that somewhere is a supreme being?
Thainamu said: “ERV, are you equating creationism with Behe? I’m not sure they are the same thing.”
I won’t speak for ERV, but many people consider Intelligent Design (ID) to be nothing more than Creationism in a Clown Suit, and refuse to draw a distinction between the two. I can see that point of view. Both ideas refer to some form of power higher than the natural workings of the world.
On the other hand, Behe’s ID is so repugnant to most Creationists that they won’t have anything to do with him. So there is a difference. It’s a subtle difference, and for someone who utterly rejects ID and Creationism, it’s a distinction that probably isn’t meaningful.
The difference, as I understand it, is this: Creationism starts with the biblical account and seeks to reconcile the scientific data with a literal interpretation of Bible. Intelligent Design starts with the scientific data, and notices that there are gaps in our understanding which (according to ID) can only be explained by the presence of an unknown Designer. The difference between ID and Creationism is the starting point: ID starts with science and infers a Designer; Creationism starts with the Bible and interprets science in light of the Bible.
Now, properly understood, ID doesn’t speculate as to the nature of the Designer. But many people go ahead and do that anyway–and end up with the God of the Bible. So ID generally ends up at the same place where Creationism starts–except that ID takes a non-literal interpretation of the Bible whereas Creationism takes a literal interpretation.
Intelligent Design is Creationism with a new name. Please Google ‘cdesign proponentsists’, ‘The Wedge Strategy’, or find the Dover trial transcripts for more information.
Behe is the one IDC proponent that concedes to common descent and a last common ancestor. However, all other major ID figures (Wells, Dembski, etc) believe in Special Creation. I recently read their new textbook, ‘Design of Life’, and found numerous YEC claims from 1985. (as well as attempts to cover up copyright infringement, but thats a different story)
‘Oh ID isnt Creationism!!’ claim is used to try to convince normal people who accept theistic evolution that IDC is also acceptable.
As to evolution and acceptance of deities, my evo professors in college were theists, and Christians. They were heavily involved with their churches and on campus groups AND wonderful professors and mentors. I wouldnt ask why scientists reject gods– thats a personal choice and different for every individual. I would ask why virtually all Christian (and Muslim, and Buddhist, and atheistic) scientists accept evolution, are productive in their labs, and are wonderful mentors for their students, while ID advocates cannot do any of those things.
ERV said: Intelligent Design is Creationism with a new name. Please Google ‘cdesign proponentsists’, ‘The Wedge Strategy’, or find the Dover trial transcripts for more information.
I see your point, but we must be careful not to conflate the terms with the ideas. The fact that some people use the terms incorrectly (and disingenuously) doesn’t mean that there aren’t two distinct ideas and schools of thought.
The search-and-replace incident with Of Pandas and People is unfortunate, and I believe the whole idea behind the book is misguided. I don’t want religion taught in schools even if it’s dressed up as science. Of Pandas and People, however, is not at all the same thing as Behe’s presentation of Intelligent Design. Of Pandas and People promotes novelty creationism (i.e., special creation) whereas Behe’s presentation of ID specifically denies that view of events.
Of Pandas and People featured significantly in the Dover trial, which is unfortunate because I believe it to be a flawed and just plain wrong presentation of Intelligent Design. If you use that book as your textbook for Intelligent Design, of course it’s going to be the same thing as Creationism.
Maybe it really comes down to one’s definition of terms. I guess you could define ID so as to make it synonymous with Creationism. That doesn’t change the fact that what Behe advocates is substantively different than a Creationist (i.e., literal interpretation of Genesis) model. So maybe I should refer to Behe-style ID, to distinguish it from other definitions.
Behe accepts common descent, he’s far closer to theistic evolution than creationism. I’ve thought of most I.D. people as akin to Deists.
I don’t necessarily mean deist in the classical sense of a non-intervening god - although I think some I.D. people are like that - but as some sort of just generic theist that doesn’t profess to know much about the intelligent designer (I should have used a different term).
Dear Jew and Jasen,as a biologist and Creationist , I do not subscribe to ID being synonimous with Creationism. The only relationship and agreement is to point to an obvious designer. ID remains miles apart from Creationism and only serves to render some support for keeping the controversy active. Creationism does not need ID, as, given honest scientific evidentiary scrutiny in a level playing field, it can, unlike evolution, pass the test of truth. And the truth shall set you free!
Let us be honest. Evolution is losing ground, it is becoming unravelled and weakened. It is desparate with all of its delusions of “new” trivial, mundane and nonsensical “discoveries”, tenaciously begging to have us accept it as “fact”, as if repeating the lie will cause more people to believe on face value, rather than evidence! The foolishness of stating that evolution is foundational is another weak attempt to beg the question. What modern product owes its existence to a belief in evolution? Answer-NONE!
Ronald,
The only reason evolution is ‘losing ground’ as an idea is because the education system is failing (in N. America at least, definitely not in the more enlightened Europe). This is worrying indeed for a 21st century military superpower. Europe is currently gaining ground against the US in terms of social equality, technology investment, environmental protection and the education of its citizens (especially in the sciences).
Among the scientific community, evolutionary theory has done nothing but gain ground and will continue to do so. Science after all is a progressive field, one that examines and tests its own outputs repeatedly. Darwin’s ideas are not about to go away, because we keep finding more and more evidence to back them up! Fact, not fiction.
The National Academy of Sciences released the following on January 3rd 2008 (i.e. 4 days ago). If you think you can challenge this institution, then you should perhaps consider nominating yourself for the Nobel prize!
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
Religious belief, in contrast, does nothing but stagnate in Iron Age dogma. And your ‘truth’ is just that, superstitious dogma.
Ironically, the Discovery Center issued a reply to the NAS report suggesting it was strong on assertion but weak on evidence. Funny, but I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever for a divine being that preordained human dominance in the universe.
This is more than merely a philosophical debate. This is an extremely important and worrying issue.
As I see it, we have a simple choice as a species.
1) We accept and actually embrace the evidence-based facts that reveal we are NOT at the center of the universe, and celebrate the fact that science has consistently provided the means of social progress and will continue to do so if supported (whether we’re talking about environmental pollution control, climate change, disease burden reduction or an improved understanding of our place in the natural world).
OR
2) We continue to erode the education system, regard science as a optional subject (with evidence-based facts for evolution remaining largely unknown by the majority), allow the rise - resurrection? - of primitive ideologies that have done nothing but hold us back as a species and revert back to barbarism (because ultimately, the three main Abrahamic faiths are mutually and aggressively exclusive, at a time when we have at our disposal weapons of mass destruction).
So, is evolution losing ground Ronald? Of course not, evolutionary processes will continue long after we’re extinct. However, clearly the education system in the US is losing ground and the religious movement is gaining ground…..sadly and worryingly.
There are other nations on this Earth that are ruled by religious doctrine, they include places like Iran and Pakistan. Do you really want to see America going down that road, towards Iron Age ignorance?
Again, I ask, who is it really that is losing here?
Right now, with the education system as it is, I fear that it is my daughter that is losing. I already fear for her generation and those that will follow.
CJW
Introduction to the latest report from the National Academy of Sciences:
“The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of
life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.
Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology. It has opened the door to entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease.
Regrettably, effective science education in our schools is being undermined by efforts to introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into science classrooms.”
“Evolution successfully explains the diversity of
life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.”
Exactly… why, just the other day my neighbor evolved into a completely new species. We see macro evolution all the time, come on people! Oh wait…
CJ, We should all be alarmed at the “Dumbing down” of science and your concern for your daughter is valid. To attribute the cause to the teaching of evolution is totally false. Evolution is losing ground and the failure of our educational system is not because we do or don’t teach it or creationism , it is because we do not teach science effectively. As a biologist of the old school, our credo was tthat science was the search for truth, that every source was examined and that conclusions and determinations were based on the best and weightiest available. This brought out the scientific method of basing conclusions on what was known at the time, and using intelligence to draw decisions. You seem to place your emphasis on the importance of evolution in the process. Having been a biologist who has had to apply science to the benefit of mankind, I can assure you that evolution plays no part in the equation. Tell me what useful product is the result of faith in evolution. Answer-NONE
You know the more I wander in looking at Evolution and the supposed debate with Creationism/Intelligent Design, I shouldn’t be surprised to find you here, Ronald. As usual you are spouting nonsense like “Tell me what useful product is the result of faith in evolution. Answer-NONE” How about medicine, how about crops that are disease resistant, how about cattle with specific characteristics. I know you keep calling yourself a scientist, but you must be a pretty poor one not to know any of this . .or one that typically denies the world around him.
Farmers and ranchers have been using evolutionary theory for decades, even though some I know resist using the word. Luckily the science works whether you choose to believe it or not!
Don’t worry Ronald, when I find you spreading ignorance and pretending to be a scientist, I’ll continue to correct the damage you are trying to do to education.
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com