Category: creationism

Musings on Why Evolution is True (the book)

July 19, 2024 • 11:00 am

I had a couple hours to read last night, but didn’t want to start a fat novel as I’m leaving the country soon and wouldn’t want to schlep it. I thus picked up an old copy of God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens, which is a pretty quick read.  After two nights I’m almost half done with it, but am a bit disappointed because a lot of the science is wrong or outmoded (the latter is, of course, not Hitchens’s fault), and the arguments seem pretty repetitive.

On the other hand, I realize that these arguments were badly needed at the time and made a big impact on nonbelievers and believers alike. It’s one of the books that kick-started the “New Atheism,” and the “New” bit, as I always say, was the use of scientific arguments to rebut religions faith claims.  These arguments are amply in view in Hitchens’s book, and most of them are correct. And, of course, Hitch was a wonderful writer.

One of Hitchens’s arguments against creationism and its gussied-up cousin Intelligent Design is its invocation of vestigial organs like our vestigial tail, the appendix, wisdom teeth, and so on—all as evidence for evolution.  There were also examples of features that were jury-rigged by evolution so that they’re not perfectly adapted to their function: things like the backwards placement of the retina in the human eye, our “blind spot” where the optic nerve comes in, and—my favorite—the placement of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

When I pondered those examples, I realized that IDers and creationists argue that all of these features are really adaptive.  The appendix, they say (correctly) contains a small number of cells that have immune functions, and the “backwards” retina of our camera eye is said by creationists to confer protection against an overload of short-wavelength light.  But of course whether the immune function of the appendix outweighs the fact that it may become infected and kill you is pure speculation, as is the postulated “useful” function of the backwards retina.

And I haven’t yet heard of an adaptive explanation for nipples in human males, our wisdom teeth, the developmental sequence of our kidney, or our transitory coat of hair in utero (the “lanugo”), but I’m sure that if you look hard enough on the Internet, you’ll find IDers and creationists showing how these aren’t really “senseless signs of history”, but are actually adaptive. And if they’re adaptive, then they reflect God’s plan.

In the end, I realized that the true purveyors of the “adaptationist program” aren’t evolutionary psychologists, but creationists, who aren’t willing to admit that the vagaries of evolution has vouchsafed us with featurs that, if there was a god or a Designer, could have been designed better. Further, they don’t often realize that if a “vestigial” structure is useful in some way, that doesn’t disprove that it had an evolutionary origin. The “halteres”—balance organs of some insects—is one example. They are used for keeping a guided flight, but we know that they are the vestigial remnants of wings, derived from two of the four wings that flying insects used to have. And they’re useful!

I won’t dwell on this, as these things are discussed in detail in my book Why Evolution is True, and you can also see many examples of vestigial organs supporting evolution at Douglas Theobald’s great site, “29+ evidences for macroevolution” (there are multiple pages; vestigial organs, atavisms, and other features testifying to evolution are here).

Finally, I have never seen creationists even try to refute the biogeographical evidence for evolution, like the absence of endemic mammals, fish, and amphibians on oceanic islands (islands that rose, bereft of life, from the sea bed) as opposed to continental islands that were once connected to continents. Biogeography is the true Achilles Heel of both creationism and ID.

I’m often asked if I’ve though about rewriting or updating my first trade book,  Why Evolution is True. My answer is always “no”—mainly because there’s enough evidence in that book to convince any rational person of its title’s assertion. But I suppose that if I did revise it, I would update it with more evidence for evolution, especially from fossils and molecular biology.  I do present plenty of fossil evidence for evolution in the book, and also some molecular evidence. The latter includes the presence of “dead genes” (genes that were functional in our ancestors and in some of our relatives, but have been rendered nonfunctional in us by degrading mutations). Examples are our many dead “olfactory receptor genes, active in dogs but totally inactive in whales, or a dead gene that is key in synthesizizing Vitamin C in other mammals. That gene is defunct, an ex-gene that sings with the Choir Invisible, but its death doesn’t harm because we get the vitamin from our diet.  I see no way that creationists or IDers can explain the fact that our DNA is largely junk, and much of that junk consists of dead genes. Loading our DNA with genes that don’t do anything, but still have to be copied during cell division and meiosis, is a lousy way to design a genome.

But now we have more such evidence, Here’s Ken Miller lecturing on some of the molecular/chromosomal evidence for evolution in humans and other primates from the structure of our chromosome 2.

I don’t mention this in my book, but it’s a convincing bit of evidence that we’re related to other primates.

There’s a lot of stuff like this, but I won’t belabor it now.  The short take is that I don’t think WEIT (the book) needs to be revised because it would just pile additional evidence for evolution on the Everest of evidence that already exists.  The fact is that evidence from a variety of different disciplines—paleontology, developmental biology, morphology (vestigial organs), biogeography, and molecular biology—all cohere to attest to the truth of evolution. IDers will admit of some microevolution, and even some macroevolution, but the more weaselly ones simply play a “god of the gaps” game, saying that there are adaptations that simply could not have evolved via a step-by-step Darwinian process of accumulating helpful mutations.  (The bacterial flagellum used to be one, but has fallen in light of later research.)

Asserting that our ignorance proves the existence of a Designer has never been a good strategy for researchers. It is simply a “science stopper”, implicitly saying, “You don’t need to do any more research; I already know that this phenomenon is inexplicable by materialistic processes and therefore is evidence for supernatural design.”  How many assertions like that have been debunked by later evidence? The answer is TONS OF THEM.

And I need hardly add that unless we have independent evidence for such a designer, we can simply ignore arguments that depend on its existence.

Bret Weinstein embarrasses himself again, disses modern evolutionary biology for not understanding everything, osculates Intelligent Design

June 24, 2024 • 9:30 am

I’m tired of Bret Weinstein pushing conspiracy theories, and just as tired of him making proclamations about evolutionary biology that are misleading or flat wrong.  I’m especially peeved today because, in the video below, he claims that both Richard Dawkins and I have said that “evolution biology is settled” because I, at least, claimed that the big advances at the beginning of the field, involving people like Darwin, Fisher, Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ernst Mayr, established the foundations of the field, and we don’t see such big advances any more.  Where are today’s Darwins? (This was a question posed to me by Dick Lewontin when I interviewed him some years ago.) And yes, I probably said that and do believe it. But that doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is “settled”. It’s that our approach to understanding evolution in nature has been somewhat asymptotic, with a big leap at the beginning and then incremental progress since the 1940s.  Indeed, I think that advances such as the “modern synthesis” of the 1930s and 1940s, showing that Darwinian natural selection was compatible with modern genetics, was a huge synthesis that hasn’t been equaled. And, of course, science of any sort never reaches an asymptote, for that would be “complete understanding: the ultimate truth,” which is unattainable.

In the video below, Weinstein and Heying argue that Dawkins and I think that evolutionary biology is “settled,” and that our view impedes progress in the field, allows evolutionary biology to stagnate, and, most important, impedes people’s failure to take Intelligent Design theory seriously for raising serious problems with neo-Darwinism.  Further, he says that we’ve discouraged graduate students from entering the field and have not produced, as mentors, our “replacements.” He’s dead wrong here, at least for me: I’d put my graduate students (and their graduate students) up against anybody’s as having made substantial progress in evolutionary genetics.

Yes, we have nobody around today who’s made advances as big as those of Darwin or Fisher. But that doesn’t mean at all, as Weinstein and Heather Heying assert in the video below, that we think evolutionary biology is “settled.”  Far from it! First of all, neutral theory was a big step forward in evolutionary genetics, and that was introduced in 1968 and is still being developed.  We still don’t understand exactly why organisms reproduce sexually; we don’t understand how often speciation occurs without geographic isolation; we don’t understand what females, during sexual selection, are looking for when they choose a mate. I could list tons of other questions, but these are three that I’ve written about and are mentioned by Weinstein.

Weinstein and Heying’s claim in the video is that there are huge advances, on the scale of Darwin’s and Fisher’s, to be made, perhaps by people who are working in intelligent design. (Weinstein implies that he has a theory that may be on this scale as well.) To be sure, they note that the IDers like Stephen Meyer and his “high-quality colleagues”, are motivated by religion, but Weinstein sees them still asking important and serious questions that evolutionists haven’t answered, thus motivating evolutionists to better understand nature.  Nope. ID adocates have wasted the time of evolutionists in refuting IDer’s specious arguments. Why do they do this? To let the credulous public, much of which buys ID, know that science can answer those criticisms.  That’s why there were so many critiques of Michael Behe’s books by reputable scientists.

Three questions that evolutionists have supposedly set aside and neglected are these: “What caused the Cambrian explosion?”, “Why are there gaps in the fossil record?” and “How can we get complex working proteins when their existence is so improbable?”

The answer to the first question is “We don’t know, but there are theories and some of them are being tested.”

The second question has a spate of possible answers (lack of sediment deposition, rapid evolution in relatively short evolutionary times, and so on). But one thing we know is that Gould’s explanation—the theory of punctuated equilibrium—is not likely to be the answer, as the theory doesn’t work. (People don’t often realize that punctuated equilibrium, as advanced by Gould and Eldredge, is more than just a jerky pattern in the fossil record: it’s also a theory about why the pattern is supposedly ubiquitous. The ubiquity of the pattern in fact is still being argued, but we know that it’s not ubiquitous.) But in the end, Gould’s explanation—the really novel and non-Darwinian part punctuated equilibrium—was simply wrong.

As for the third question, the claim that the origin of complex proteins is improbable is not one taken seriously by molecular evolutionists, simply because we have no indication that it really is a problem. The idea that it is a problem comes from specious claims of IDers that such proteins assemble themselves randomly rather than by selection, or that mutation is too unlikely to fuel the process (there are other fuels, of course, like gene duplication and insertions of DNA).

At 2:56, in the video below, Weinstein asserts that evolutionary biologists have simply left the Big Questions “on the table”, questions like “where did all the species come from?” and “why do females put males in so many species to challenges that then cause them to burden their male offspring with elaborate displays that are not helpful?”

Weinstein is apparently unaware that I wrote a comprehensive and scholarly book on speciation in 2004 and outlined a lot of unanswered questions, so no, Dr. Weinstein, I did NOT think that the question “wasn’t worthy of my time”. And yes, we do have considerably more understanding these days about how species form. That’s also described in the book.

He’s also apparently unaware that many biologists have been working on sexual selection, which is simply a hard problem to test in nature. And he doesn’t understand that elaborate displays by males are helpful: they help males get mates. Peacocks with more “eyes” in their tails, for example, get more offspring. Widowbirds whose tails are artificially elongated by gluing on extra feather get more mates, too.  Weinstein is ignorant about how sexual selection works, and how theories about it have been tested.

At any rate, I no longer take Weinstein seriously as a biologist, or even as an intellectual. He may have been a good teacher at Evergreen State, but he’s not on the rails when it comes to evolutionary biology (his last peer-reviewed paper was in 2005, and Researchgate lists 4 total publications). He’s also advanced specious theories about ivermectin being both a good preventive and cure for Covid, he’s suggested that AIDS was caused by party drugs and not a virus, and he’s suggested that the death of Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis was suspicious, perhaps because Mullis has criticized Anthony Fauci (did Fauci order a hit? LOL!).  Weinstein’s even wrapped his cameras in aluminum foil because he suspected some sinister forces were impeding his transmission. He gave his cameras tinfoil hats!

A tweet from Michael Shermer, aimed at Weinstein, about Kary Mullis’s death:

In his Substack column below, Jesse Singal shows other conspiracy theories/dubious theories that Weinstein and Heying have advanced (Weinstein is more vociferous than Heying, so I give him most of the opprobrium). Click to read:

Here you can see Weinstein going after Dawkins and me by misrepresenting our views. Yes, I do think that understanding of evolution has slowed down since Darwin and since the 1940s, since most of these “founders” seem to have gotten the major parts of the modern synthesis right—except for neutral theory, which was a huge advance. But I surely do not believe (nor do I think that Dawkins believes) that we have pretty much completed our understanding of evolution. But I’ll let Dawkins speak for himself.

And of course the IDers love Weinstein and Heyer’s podcast, because they give so much credit to Intelligent Design in pinpointing the “neglected” Big Questions about evolution.It’s thus a pity that IDers, like Weinstein himself, hardly have any peer-reviewed papers in real scientific journals advancing their theories! Read below to see how much IDers love Weinstein.

 

Now I surely don’t think that Weinstein is stupid at all; he’s really quite smart. But I think that, in his desire to find a niche for himself, and garner a measure of public approbation, he’s deliberately embraced conspiracy theories, highly praised the gussied-up creationism of Intelligent Design, and, most annoying, almost willfully misunderstood evolutionary biology.

Kent Hovind, young earth creationist, ex-con, and overall ignoramus, is desperate for me to debate him

February 8, 2024 • 9:20 am

Yesterday I got an email from a factotum of young-Earth biblical creationist and ex-con Kent Hovind, a man apparently desperate to debate evolutionists. (He spent eight years in the can for tax evasion, despite the fact that he complains in the video below that evolution erodes morality!) Here’s what I got:

Dr. Coyne,

I’m writing to ask if you’d like to Debate Dr. Kent Hovind? He is willing to travel to your University or you can come down to his Theme park where we’ll put you up in a Cabin and provide meals, even pick you up from the airport if need be. Or it can be done over zoom if that would be better for you. If your interested call PHONE # REDACTED for Dr Hovind or ext 4 for tech support to schedule you in.
Check out the video
NAME OF FACTOTUM REDACTED
I replied simply, “No, thank you.” Note the superfluous question mark after the first sentence and the absence of the apostrophe in “your”.

I’ve debated a creationist exactly once, and it went fine (it was before the meeting of the Alaska Bar Association!). But since then I decided not to debate them any more, as such engagements give their views a scientific credibility it doesn’t deserve. It’s like debating a flat-earther.  At any rate, the video is below.

In this 51-minute comedy video, Hovind gives a running commentary on a filmed discussion about evolution I had with Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor for their “Freethought Matters” series at the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Hovind’s main point is that a). evolution is a religion, not science, and b). there’s no evidence for evolution.  I find the video vastly amusing, because Hovind keeps saying the same thing over and over again, including invoking young-earth creationism—including the existence of Noah’s flood. And only Ceiling Cat knows how many times he asserts his claim that evolution is a religion. Well, it surely isn’t in the sense of religion involving the supernatural, but I suppose he means that, to those of his ilk, evolution (like Hovind’s Christianity) is based not on evidence, but pure faith. Yet he doesn’t explain why evolutionists are so keen to accept a scientific fact that’s buttressed by no evidence at all. Are we all in some sort of anti-religious cabal?

Hovind’s mind dump includes claims like these:

The fossil record doesn’t exist, there are “just fossils.” Hovind advances the long-refuted claim that evolutionary change as seen in the fossil record is bogus because the fossils are dated by the sedimentary layers they’re in, and the layers are dated by the fossils they contain; ergo the fossil evidence for evolution begs the question. Apparently Hovind hasn’t heard about radiometric dating! In contrast, he believes that the fossil record itself constitute evidence for the Great Flood.  But, of course, the order that organisms appear in the fossil record isn’t consonant with their simultaneous extirpation by God’s Flood. (Why are fish some of the earliest vertebrates to be found? Shouldn’t they be up at the top, left as the waters recede?  And why are fish way lower down than whales? And so on.)

The evidence for evolution from embryology somehow “justifies abortion”.

Evolution can’t be true because “nobody’s ever seen a cow produce a non-cow.”  In other words, he thinks that evolutionists accept an instantaneous form of massive evolutionary change—a “macromutational” or “saltational” event. Nope, not true.

At points in Hovind’s tirade, he actually admits that evolution could have happened. For example, at about 15:38, he admits that all butterflies may have had a single common ancestor. Well, that’s an admission that all butterflies not only evolved from that ancestor, but that different species of butterflies evolved.  So evolutionary change as well as speciation happened, but of course Hovind would say that all the descendants of that common ancestor are “still butterflies”. In other words, he admits there is evolution, but that it has limits: one “kind” can’t evolve into another “kind.”  But no creationist has ever advanced a good reason what these limits are; there’s a whole sub-field of creationism (“baraminology“) that repeatedly tries and fails to discern the created “kinds.”

Hovind also admits that there is evolutionary change in bacteria as they become resistant to antibiotics, but dismisses that as  not real evolution because it represents a loss of information; and of course a resistant bacterium is still a bacterium. But Hovind is full of it: some antibiotic resistance involves appearance of new “pumps” that get rid of the antibiotic before it harms the bacterium, the appearance of new enzymes, and the ‘horizontal’ acquisition of genes for resistance from other bacteria or viruses. To claim that the evolution of bacterial resistance involves the inactivation of some enzyme or feature is to espouse ignorance.

Finally, he notes that by teaching evolution, I’ve destroyed the faith of “who knows how many students.” I doubt it, but if learning scientific truths dispels faith, that’s not the fault of science. Nor is dispelling faith my aim in teaching evolution.

I know that this post is giving Hovind the attention he so desperately craves, but it’s salutary for us to occasionally see the kind of willful ignorance that pervades the young-creationist movement.

But what’s truly scary is not Hovind, who’s amusing, but something I mention in my FFRF discussion: 40% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years, and another 33% think that humans evolved, but God guided the process. That makes 73% of Americans—nearly three out of four—accepting some form of divine intervention in the development of life.  Sadly, only 22% of Americans believe that “humans evolved but God had no part in the process.”

The results of the 2019 Gallup poll are shown below the video. Note that the question asked was only about humans, and some exceptionalists may think that while all other creatures evolved in a naturalistic way, humans were the one species created by God. Even granting that, it’s clear that the genus Homo is way, way older than 10,000 years!

 

A creationist writes in: repent your acceptance of evolution lest ye burn in hell

May 30, 2023 • 12:15 pm

News is slow today, and I’m not feeling great, as my insomnia has returned. Let’s look at a new reader’s comment, which was meant to be put up after the post below but of course was trashed by moi.  If you reply, though, I’ll alert the religious Paul Polster to your comments.

Read and weep. It’s Pascal’s wager!

Details: From one “Paul A Polster” in reply to Carlos on the post “Odious Ray Comfort movie (watch it below) to be distributed in public schools“:

Think about this, and pass it along to all your fellow atheists: if you are right, you die, it is all over, no harm, but if God does exist, and the Bible is true, when you die, you will appear at the great white throne as a lost soul. You will hear a list of sins that you have committed since you were aware of right and wrong, you will bow a knee to Jesus Christ, however, it will be too late to repent and you will be cast into Hell for eternity. You evolutionists are thinkers, think that one through in your quiet time and add this to it: have I lied? stolen?looked at the opposite sex with lust? Cheated on a test? Give some thought as to why these things happen as well as why good and evil exist. Evolution has no answer to these questions. One final thought: are you willing to risk possibly going to hell in order to hold to your faith in evolution? (it requires faith to believe it). Or are you willing to give true science ( discovery of the truth) a chance with an open mind? I hope you can ,your eternity depends on it.

Well, we’re all going to hell, including Jimmy Carter, who has looked on women with lust.  He’s close to the end, and I bet he can feel the flames now. . .

A few comments:

  1. Why is “believing in evolution” a sin? Did God put the evidence for evolution everywhere to deceive us?  (And if you think it takes “faith” to believe in evolution, read my article dispelling that bit of stupidity.)
  2. Which moral dictates are we supposed to believe? If we’re Jews, we can’t mix meat and milk in one meal. If we’re Catholics, we have to go to confession. If we’re Muslims, we have to observe Ramadan. I presume that Mr. Polster somehow knows that the Christian god is the REAL god. But how does he know?
  3. What kind of God would send someone to hell who has lived a good life even if he didn’t accept the existence of God.’
  4. The absolute certainty of Polster—about the falsity of evolution, about God being the Christian god, and about liars and the lustful going to hell—is breathtaking.

The kind of God that Polster paints is the ruler, as Hitchens used to say, of a celestial North Korea. He’ll toss into the fire anybody who doesn’t accept Jesus Christ (even those who were faithful before the time of Jesus Christ), he burn anybody who accept the evidence for evolution that God supposedly put all around us, and he’s not in the least merciful.  Why did he design our bodies to lust after members of the opposite sex if you’re going to hell for it?

 

Creationism is back: a pro-ID bill passes the West Virginia Senate

February 27, 2023 • 11:00 am

CORRECTION:  This article mistakenly said the bill was in Wyoming. It’s really in West Virginia.

**************

It’s always been my fear, since the U.S. Supreme Court became hyperconservative, that they would rule to allow creationism to be taught in the public schools. It’s been effectively outlawed, but there’s one loophole to be closed: a Supreme Court ruling about whether Intelligent Design (“ID,” sometimes described as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”) can be taught in the schools along with evolution.

There are three relevant court cases, two of which involved the Supreme Court.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an Arkansas state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional, for it violated the First Amendment by advancing religion.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Another landmark case. This time the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (Scalia and Rehnquist dissented) that a Louisiana “equal time” law, requiring that creationism be taught whenever evolution was, was unconstitutional. The majority again cited First Amendment grounds: creationism promoted a particular religious view.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005). Many of us remember this one. A federal judge in Pennsylvania, the late John E. Jones III, ruled on a case in which 11 parents in the city of Dover objected to a Dover School District policy requiring that whenever evolution was taught, Intelligent Design must also be taught, and stipulated the odious textbook Of Pandas and People as the ID text. I wrote my first article for The New Republic about this case, ostensibly a review of the ID text but really a critique of ID. It’s nearly disappeared online but is archived here, and I’ll be glad to send anyone a lovely pdf of the original article.

At any rate, after a six-week bench trial in which scientists and philosophers like Ken Miller, Barbara Forrest, and Robert Pennock appeared, while ID advocates like Michael Behe crumpled on the stand, Jones (a George W Bush appointee) issued a 139-page ruling asserting that ID was “not science” and forbidding the district’s new proposal. Judge Jones also chastised the school district for wasting time and money on an unwinnable case (I believe the school district, which had to pay court costs and attorney’s fees for the plaintiffs, was out over a million dollars).  Two notable statements from Jones’s decision. The bolding is mine, but those four words were the headlines in many newspapers:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

. . . To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Since the Kitzmiller case, no state or school district has dared pass a “teach ID” law, knowing that it would likely be overturned and cost the state/school a lot of dosh.  But note that this federal case wasn’t appealed to the Supreme Court. Had it been at that time, Jones’s decision would have been affirmed. But times have changed now, and it’s possible that the new right-wing court could allow the teaching of ID on two grounds:

a. It could imply nullify Edwards v. Aguillard as it nullified Roe v. Wade, or

b. It could decide that ID is not creationism (or a form of religion) but actual science, and thus could be taught in schools.

Of course any fool who has studied ID knows that it is gussied-up creationism. It has not permeated the biology community (despite their promises it would), and clearly grew from religious roots. But who knows that this Supreme Court will do?

And so we come to the latest nightmare: the passing of a pro-ID bill by the West Virginia Senate. The link in the previous sentence goes to our old friend The Sensuous Curmudgeon, but you can also read an account at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Here’s the bill that was proposed, which doesn’t require teachers to teach ID but allows them to do so if they wish (red rectangle is mine):

The bill passed by a vote of 27-6, which shows you how ignorant West Virginia lawmakers are (or, perhaps, savvy but disdainful of science). It hasn’t yet been

Here’s the NCSE’s take:

West Virginia’s Senate Bill 619 — which would, if enacted, allow “[t]eachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades Kindergarten through 12, [to] teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist” — passed the Senate on a 27 to 6 vote on February 25, 2023, according (PDF) to the legislature’s website.

Before the bill passed, Dale Lee, President of the West Virginia Education Association, described it as a “solution in search of a problem,” according to the Bluefield Daily Telegraph (February 25, 2023). He added, “We teach WV College and Career readiness standards” — which, like all state science standards across the country, include evolution but not creationism (including “intelligent design”).

A columnist in Charleston’s MetroNews (February 24, 2023) previously, if unsuccessfully, reminded the legislature about the case law establishing the unconstitutionality of teaching creationism in the public schools, including Kitzmiller v. Dover and Edwards v. Aguillard, explaining that the government is not allowed “to instruct school children on a faith-based creation story and pass it off as science.”

The bill still hasn’t passed the state House, and even then must be signed by the governor to become law. If it does, there should be an appeal to the federal courts, which could wind up in the Supreme Court. And that could become biology’s biggest setback since John Scopes was convicted in 1925.

h/t: Steve

Montana considers a bill that allows teaching of “scientific facts” but not “scientific theories”

February 9, 2023 • 12:10 pm

Reader Barry sent me a link to an article in BoingBoing reporting briefly that a freshman state Senator in Montana, Dan Emrich, has introduced a bill that would ban the teaching of “scientific theories” in secondary schools and allow only the teaching of “scientific fact”.  According to the article, the object of this bill is the “theory” of evolution, and since he doesn’t see evolution as a fact, then bye-bye Darwin. You can click below to see the short bill, and I’ve put the relevant bits of the bill below the screenshot (bolding is mine):

WHEREAS, the purpose of K-12 education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future and further education in their chosen field of study, and to that end children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory; and

WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a  theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach  a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

They later clarify: “As used in this section, ‘scientific fact’ means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Requirements for science instruction in schools.

(1) Science 18 instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

(2) The board of public education may not include in content area standards any standard 20 requiring curriculum or instruction in a scientific topic that is not scientific fact.

(3) The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any science curriculum guides 22 developed by the office of public instruction include only scientific fact.

(4) (a) The trustees of a school district shall ensure that science curriculum and instructional 24 materials, including textbooks, used in the district include only scientific fact.

Why are they doing this? Apparently  because Emrich is after the “theory” of evolution and this is his way of banning it from being taught. (This won’t fly, of course; it’s hopelessly confused.) And I can tell without looking that Emrich is a Republican. From BoingBoing:

Montana Public Radio reports that more than 20 people testified against the bill to voice their concern “that it could keep teachers from including gravitational theory, evolution and cell theory in curriculum.”

In his testimony, Emrich “If we operate on the assumption that a theory is fact, unfortunately, it leads us to asking questions that may be potentially based on false assumptions,” Emrich said.

We know what Emrich is up to. He wants to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution, which is a well-substantiated explanation based on a large body of factual evidence, not assumptions. His dangerous and misguided bill creates a false dichotomy between science and scientific theories, and undermines the principles of academic freedom and the separation of church and state.

This plays on the public confusion, promulgated decades ago by Ronald Reagan, who said this in 1980 (my emphasis):

I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it.”

That’s all bullpucky, of course, especially the claim that evolution is becoming less accepted in the scientific community. My book Why Evolution is True dispels that claim, but it also shows that yes, evolution is a scientific theory, but it is also a scientific fact. Organisms evolved, they did so slowly rather than instantaneously (except for polyploid or hybrid species), lineages split over time, producing new species who evolved further, creating a branching evolutionary tree showing that any two living species have a common ancestor, and that the remarkable “adaptations” or organisms evolved via natural selection. (There are also other ways of evolving, like genetic drift, but they don’t produce adaptations). All five of these bits of evolutionary theory are also facts, supported by mountains of evidence.

I would reproduce my discussion of why evolution is both a fact and a theory from the book, but you can read it from pp. 14-19 and it’s too long to put here. (You do have the book, don’t you?)

Alternatively, you can read Steve Gould’s well known essay on this issue, “Evolution as fact and theory“, online for free.  Here’s the bit that most of us know, written with Gould’s characteristic flair:

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word “theory” to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that “scientific creationism” is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called “newspeak.”

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is “only” a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

This bill will not pass, not only because it would prohibit the teaching of atomic theory, germ theory, and the theory of gravity (what Emrich is saying, falsely, is that “theory” = “speculation”), but also because many “facts” of history itself are not established with 100% certainty. It’s best to regard all truths as provisional, but some, like evolution, are sufficiently established that you’d be safe betting your life savings on them.

I’ll finish here by letting you read once again part of Clarence Darrow’s stirring defense of evolution against ignoramuses like Emrich. This, which still applies to people like Emrich, is nearly a century old, and was thundered out by Darrow in 1925 during second day of the Scopes trial:

 If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lectures, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.

Ignorance and fanaticism are still at play, as you can see in this bill.

A crazed creationist tries to take down evolution because it’s atheistic

January 15, 2023 • 10:45 am

I’m not sure who John B. Andelin is, but he appears to be a pathologist in North Dakota. Certainly his 16-minute anti-evolution video below is pathological, for it simply takes quotes out of context, cherry-picks quotes, omits all the really good evidence for evolution, and mocks those Christians, like Ken Miller, who accept evolution. He also uses video clips of me to makes his points, but in the clip he shows (from the British Humanist meetings), I do note that the supernatural was once part of science, but was discarded. In other words, I contest the quote from Lewontin that Andelin uses to open this video.

Now I could go into detail refuting the stuff in the quotes or the data he cites, but why waste my time? I presume that most readers here have read Why Evolution is True, accept evolution, and are smart enough to realize that evolution doesn’t (as Lewontin implied) come from an a priori commitment to atheism. (Darwin, after all, began his studies as someone who accepted the Biblical view of life.) We don’t invoke God in evolutionary studies for two reasons: there is no empirical evidence for a creator God, and because we no longer need God to explain anything. The history of science is one of discarding one God-based explanation after another (e.g., lightning and infectious disease) as we discovered the true, naturalistic causes. Yet there could have been empirical evidence for God, and in Faith Versus Fact I give some evidence that would have convinced me that the Christian God existed. Needless to say, no such evidence has appeared.

The lighting is not good here, as it makes Andelin look somewhat Beelzebub-ish, and his angry demeanor doesn’t help. Oh, and, Dr. Andelin, the name of evolutionist Ernst Mayr is pronounced “Ernst MIRE”, not “Ernst MAYr” with a long “a”.

How many errors or deliberately misleading claims can you see in this 16-minute video? I disagree, however with John van Wyhe’s claim that Darwin’s Origin “didn’t have that much evidence” for evolution. It sure did: read the book for yourself!

To rebut this nonsense, I decided to just leave a comment on the YouTube video site, which I’ve put below (click to enlarge it).  I hope that Andelin is better at diagnosing diseases than he is at understanding scientific data.

h/t: Mark