Letter To Congress On Evolution
I got two evolution-related newsletters this week that I thought many of you would be interested in. I’ll post them in two different entries so you can discuss each one if you would like to.
This first one is regarding the encroachment of religion into science education in the name of Intelligent Design. Remember the book, Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement? It is compilation of articles from 16 leading scientists regarding the fallacy of Intelligent Design. Those same scientists wrote and signed a letter, which they sent along with a copy of the book, to each and every member of Congress.
Here is the letter:
June 16, 2006
To Members of Congress:
We, the authors and editor of Intelligent Thought, are sending you a copy of the book in hopes that you will consider its message. The book is largely about Intelligent Design (ID), the latest incarnation of creationism. ID is a movement that threatens American science education and with it American economic predominance and credibility.
The recent federal court decision in Dover, Pennsylvania found that ID was not a scientific theory, but a form of religion in disguise. Judge John Jones III, a churchgoing Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that teaching this doctrine in the public schools represents both bad education and an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. President Bush’s science advisor, John H. Marburger, has affirmed that ‘evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology’ and ‘intelligent design is not a scientific concept.’ And Newt Gingrich has stated that ID has nothing to do with science and shouldn’t be taught in science courses.’
Reason and law triumphed in Dover. But ID and its spinoffs continue to threaten American education by ignoring the massive evidence for evolution-the central principle that unites all the biological sciences- and by substituting adherence to religious dogma for the scientific method.
Our country cannot afford substandard science teaching. Indeed, a national science test just administered by the Department of Education showed a decade-long erosion of scientific proficiency among American high school seniors. We won’t cure this problem by questioning scientifically established facts (evolution) and theories (natural selection) and replacing them with unsupported conjectures based on faith.
The controversy over ID vs. evolution is not a scientific controversy. Every scientific body in the US has opposed ID and affirmed the reality of evolution. The “controversy” is about whether sectarian religious views should be taught in the science classroom. Most theologians readily accept evolution, finding it compatible with their faith. In 1996, Pope John Paul II officially endorsed evolution, and even with a recent change in Vatican leadership, the Catholic Church’s position has remained unchanged.
As the world grows more complex, and we face scientific challenges such as addressing global warming, developing sustainable energy sources, and preventing the spread of pandemics, it is critical that America remain in the forefront of science. And the key to our preeminence is education. The study of evolution has practical benefits: it is the basis for breeding food crops, choosing animal models that can be used to treat human disorders, conserving species and their habitats, predicting which vaccines should be made to prepare for epidemics like avian flu, and manufacturing those vaccines. Science education that incorporates unscientific issues like ID is a sure path to America’s failure against competing countries. Conversely, given its importance for biology and for science in general, evolution deserves to be properly taught in American classrooms.
I love this letter! I thought they did a phenomenal job with it. One thing that stood out to me, and surprised me, was the statement that Evolution is a fact and that Natural Selection is the theory. I don’t recall seeing scientists state it that way. I know they regard it as fact, as it is the basis of so much of our medical success. But it is quite different to make it a public statement.
Has anyone ordered and received their book yet? I admit, I keep forgetting to get online and order it. It’s on my list of things to do this weekend.
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
June 24th, 2006 @ 4:24 am
As they say at Talk.Origins,
May I recommend the site, particularly the FAQs, for anyone with questions about what evolution actually is? Very often my first response to evolution criticism is “Wow. If [fill in the blank, for instance "two mosquitos, a mudhole, and then suddenly people"] was what evolution said, I wouldn’t accept it either.”
Talk.Origins FAQ
June 24th, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Karen, thanks for the quote on that. That makes perfect sense. Not that I, personally, doubted it as fact; I was just surprised to hear it stated. But the way your quote specifies it, I see now why there should be no qualms about calling it such.
June 25th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Sounds like a great book - I will add it to my B&N wish list!
June 25th, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
Interestingly, I have an earlier incarnation of the same thing:
Science and Creationsim, a collection of essays edited by Ashley Montagu back in 1984:
Have you ever seen or read this book? I read it years ago, but I remember it as being very insightful and interesting.
I should probably get a copy of this newer book you mention to see all of the latest developments on this question.
This is a huge issue for me, particularly in terms of the short-sightedness of eroding US science education.
June 26th, 2006 @ 6:39 am
Chanson-No, I haven’t read that book. I was anti-evolution until (believe it or not) I went to BYU and they taught us that evolution was compatible with the Bible creation story.
Even still, I had the wacky idea until I left the church that hominids evolved into the human species until 30,000 years ago, and at some time around then God put the pre-earth spirits of Adam and Eve into bodies of the human species. They were the first to have actual spirits. I figured that was the time that humans began doing intelligent things.
I don’t know how I came up with that idea. I doubt it was from my biology class! It makes you wonder where I thought all the other humans without spirits went?
It’s funny to think about all the ways we try to justify our religion with reality.
June 26th, 2006 @ 6:41 am
Chanson-I got off subject. What I meant to say was that I didn’t concern myself with evolution (because it was evil) until around 1992, and then I really didn’t take an interest in it and start really learning about it until I left the church 4 years ago. So everything I’ve read about it is pretty current.
June 26th, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Actually, I think this idea that evolution occurred up to apes (or perhaps hominids) yet Adam and Eve were the first to have spirits is not that unusual among Mormons. That’s basically what I believed as well until I left the LDS church.
They don’t clarify anything these days, so any rationalization that works for you to keep the faith seems to be the order of the day…
June 26th, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Making out evolution to be theory is how IDers and supernaturalist counter it. In the first place, they do not know the difference between a speculation, a hypothesis and a theory. To get to the theory stage requires substantial evidence. In the second place, evolution is not a theory, but like gravity, is an obvious fact, the theory of which is currently be worked out.
June 26th, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Hey, any room for a Deist on this blog?
June 26th, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Sorry, that’s Bishop Rick to you
June 26th, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Absolutely, especially a Deist from Utah (I checked out your blog). Were you ever a Mormon?
I would like to think I reach out to non-religious deists as well as nontheists, but I do speak from an atheist point of view. Feel free to speak up on issues from a deist point of view anytime!
June 27th, 2006 @ 10:25 am
Noell,
I am actually active LDS, but obviously, I don’t believe the doctrine. I stay active to promote a healthy marriage. My wife knows how I feel about the church but has made it clear where she stands, and if I want to continue in the family, I need to at least pretend.
I’m sure this is familiar to alot of folks on this blog.
Regarding Deism…I think deism is really for closet agnostics that are not willing to completely let go.
It allows for the possibility of life after death, or some type of supreme purpose, without dictating what it is. Deism is based on the belief that something created the universe, but whatever it is, does not interfere. That something could be a God, or just another universal force if you will. It is up to the individual how to interpret life, death, and everything in between. So, I guess in a way, we are all Deists.
June 28th, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Not so fast, Bishop Rick. There are some of us who are not deists in any form. I for one, view the Universe as something that simply is and required no beginning. It is, was and always will be. No need for any starter that someone might question who started the starter ad infinitum. I further have no expectations of any form of an afterlife. When I die, the consciouness referred to as “I” will no longer exist FOR ALL TIME. I like this perspective and feel it makes me appreciate the life I have just that much more and prevents me from making the mistake of putting any stock in any highly questionable concept cooked up by any religion.
June 29th, 2006 @ 1:31 am
Gregg100,
I think I would consider Deism as more of a philosophy than a religion. Most deists do not believe in an afterlife, but many do. Personally I am still on the fence. I probably lean more towards there not being one, but still hoping. (not easy to give up old habits).
I’m not so sure about the Universe having always existed though. Science now has a theory that actually gets past the singularity and replaces string theory and relativity. This new theory is called M theory or Multiverse theory which actually allows us to get beyond the big bang, and also supports the big bang theory simply as a result of colliding universes (thus producing the big bang). If this theory is true, then our universe would most certainly have had a beginning.
I’m not sure we will ever escape the questions of “where/when/how did it all begin” but I think we need to put more credence to everything has a beginning and everything has an end, even beyond our earthly realm. The possibility certainly exists, and science is backing this up, not faith.
June 29th, 2006 @ 1:43 am
Let me throw this one on the table (not necesarily what I believe).
The universe is made up of matter, dark matter, and dark energy. The latter 2 being undetectable but can be predicted mathmatically (this part I believe and is supported by science).
(This part I am making up)
Now, just suppose that what makes us a conscience being, and makes us different from each other, is really just dark energy in the form of a spirit. When we die, this dark energy is not destroyed, but re-enters another body at the time of consciousness in some sort of reincarnation.
Allows for an afterlife of sorts without the need for a creator. Just something to think about.
June 29th, 2006 @ 6:58 am
Being a Christian evolutionist (as far as I can understand evolution without a ’science’ background) what I’ve always struggled with is the whole issue of ‘the soul’. Where did religion originate and why? Why did people start burying their dead? Start painting on rock faces? Start decorating thier bodies? I’m not necessarily arguing for a soul (although I do believe one exists) but rather am wondering aloud where, or rather, why the shift occurred from beings that acted on instinct and beings that started doing things that weren’t necessarily vital for survival (like the examples mentioned above). Any ideas?
June 29th, 2006 @ 10:45 am
I recomend you: Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett.
June 29th, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Bishop Rick
Based on what I’ve read, all Deists and Theists have at least one thing in common, a belief in some form of God. This is in direct opposition to an A-Theist who believes there is no such thing as the God of the Deists and Theists. I place myself squarely in the camp of the A-Thiests.
I am quite aware of the M-Theory (I enjoyed the development of the “P-brane”) as being developed by Dr. Lisa Randall and have attended two of her lectures on the subject. I see nothing in her work that is inconsistent with the concept of a permanent Cosmos. The interaction of parallel Universes to initiate our currently detectable Universe seems to support a concept of a permanent Cosmos. But we are talking about science, not faith.
If someone choses to assign the answers to many questions of why or what is the purpose of this or that to “God” or faith, that clearly is out of the realm of science and is a personal choice that I would not attempt to question. To me it would be equivalent to someone arguing with you when you say your favorite color is blue. Only an epistemological idiot would engage in such a conversation.
June 30th, 2006 @ 12:31 am
Gregg100,
Just so that we are both speaking to the same white board, let me comment on a few snippets from your last post:
Gregg100: “Based on what I’ve read, all Deists and Theists have at least one thing in common, a belief in some form of God.”
Bishop Rick: Some sort of supreme entity or God..Ok I’ll give you that one.
Gregg100: “This is in direct opposition to an A-Theist who believes there is no such thing as the God of the Deists and Theists. I place myself squarely in the camp of the A-Thiests.”
Bishop Rick: Fair enough.
Gregg100: “The interaction of parallel Universes to initiate our currently detectable Universe seems to support a concept of a permanent Cosmos.”
Bishop Rick: This is a totally different statement than what you originally made. On the concept of a permanent cosmos (as opposed to permanent universe) I must concede.
Gregg100: “If someone choses to assign the answers to many questions of why or what is the purpose of this or that to “God” or faith, that clearly is out of the realm of science…”
Bishop Rick: I never said that.
Gregg100: “Only an epistemological idiot would engage in such a conversation.”
Bishop Rick: Not sure how to take that one.
June 30th, 2006 @ 1:15 am
Cori,
You bring up some very interesting questions. Of course we cannot really know for sure unless we develop time travel, but let me offer a few possibilities.
Perhaps as homo sapiens began to develop deeper relationships with each other, they started burying their dead as a sign of respect, or to keep the wild animals from desecrating the body in the hope that they may come back to life.
Perhaps they started painting on rock faces as ceremonial rituals at the start of each hunt. Keep in mind that many of the cave drawings were done in a single area of the cave, and were often drawn over previous drawings. Though this is not proof, it does support the theory of a spiritual ceremony of some sort, in a sacred portion of the cave.
Perhaps they started decorating their bodies to do a couple of things. 1: Signify some sort of rite of passage, and 2: to identify themselves with their clan or tribe as a means of acceptance and protection.
Regarding the existence of a soul…Science has debunked many aspects of modern revealed religion, but one thing science has yet to do is disprove the possibility of the existense of a soul, or the existence of a supreme entity for that matter. (It makes no sense to have one without the other) It is this possibility that Deists base their belief system in. I hope that helps.
June 30th, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Bishop Rick: First let me say that I’m very pleased to have a Diest in this blog. The balance is important and I encourage your participation. Quite true that you never said anything about assigning the answers to why/when/where. My “epistemological idiot” comment (probably a bad choice of words) was intended to convey that I would be that epistemological idiot if I was to try to engage in a debate over someone expressing a preference for the color blue. It just would not make sense for me to do that and by analogy, it would make no sense for me to debate someone who has elected to invoke a deity for answers to why/when/where-type questions that are beyond science. It is a personal preference and in my opinion is completely immune from debate.
June 30th, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Gregg100,
I completely agree.
August 5th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
I want to comment on Noel’s statement and CL Hanson’s regarding what was learned at BYU and the statement that it “is not that unusual among Mormons” to believe that Adam and Eve were simply part of the evolutionary process. I would contend that it is unusual among active members. The Church does not teach now or ever has that after some form of progression among apes or hominids that Adam and Eve happen to appear along the evolutionary line. Simply stated, Church doctrine teaches that “they were placed here” as new life. Complete, whole … no changes from one species or class of animals to humans. That is what the Church teaches and what active members understand. If a member does not understand that then more studied is required on their part not more or better teaching from the Church!
Interesting blog though.