EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 11:1, 124–125 (2009) DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00309.x

BOOK REVIEW

Postcards from The Wedge: review and commentary on Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism by Steven C. Meyer et al.

Brian D. Metscher Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Correspondence (email: [email protected])

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo- creationist conclusions. The point–counterpoint organization Darwinism by Steven C. Meyer et al. 2007. Hill House is used to give the appearance of a comprehensive treatment, Publishers, Melbourne & London. ISBN 0-947352-48-6. but the substance is thin, fragmented, and demonstrably bi- ased. Every talking point in the book has been dealt with The latest out of the Discovery Institute is 159 glossy pages of already (see Isaak 2006; Flank 2008), and none is a legitimate color-illustrated creationist nostalgia published by Hill House scientific issue. Most of the sections end with a statement that Publishers, best known for lavish butterfly books by their the ‘‘debate’’ is continuing, offering students the impression founder, antievolution lepidopterist Bernard d’Abrera. All the that these contrived conflicts are both real and scientific. old favorites are hereFfossils saying no, all the Icons, flight- The ‘‘neo-Darwinism’’ in the book’s subtitle is key to its less Ubx flies, irreducible flagella, even that irritating homo- efforts to show that ‘‘there are, indeed, important scientific logy-is-circular thing. There are no new arguments, no controversies about the key claims of evolutionary theory and improved understanding of evolution, just a remastered about the arguments that are used to support them.’’ More or scrapbook of the old ideas patched together in a high-gloss less everything we call ‘‘evo-devo’’ is meant to augment evo- package pre-adapted to survive the post-Dover legal environ- lutionary theory to include factors other than the coding ment. The whole effort would be merely pathetic if it did not genome, and so these authors cite evo-devo works by real actually represent a serious and insidious threat to education. scientists as ‘‘critiques’’ of ‘‘neo-Darwinism.’’ The authors Everything about this book is designed to avoid the legal repeatedly conflate ‘‘neo-Darwinism’’ with the scientific idea obstacles that have impeded previous anti-evolution efforts. that goes by a similar name. More important, this allows them Foremost is the meticulous omission of all red-flag words and to cite the same names on both ‘‘sides’’ of their ‘‘debates.’’ any direct statements of the nonscientific conclusions it All of the topics are treated in a manner much more proffers. And it is surely no coincidence that this book came appropriate to discussions of theological contentions or po- out just as a number of states began passing legislation al- litical positions rather than to scientific discourse. The authors lowing supplemental materials for teaching the ‘‘strengths and appeal to students to take on the role of jurors: weighing weaknesses’’ of evolutionary science. evidence and deciding which view is right. Apart from the fact The book comprises eight little modules, each presenting a that this is very much not how scientific inquiry works, this ‘‘Case For,’’ a ‘‘Reply,’’ and ‘‘Further Debate’’ on a topic book has the same advocates arguing both sides of each case. chosen to contribute ‘‘Arguments For and Against’’ one of ‘‘In science, it is ultimately the evidenceFand all of the three headings: Universal Common Descent, The Creative evidenceFthat should tell us which theory offers the best Power of Natural Selection, and Molecular Machines (‘‘A explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence’’ New Challenge’’). This organization forms the basis for the (p. 10, italics original.) No, it won’t: they never give actual ‘‘inquiry-based approach’’ of the book, a term which has been alternative ‘‘theories’’ (because one of them would be uncon- cunningly co-opted as an excuse for leaving out all mention of stitutional in public schools), and the ‘‘evidence’’ given in this

124 & 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation & 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Metscher Book review 125 book is almost all in the form of inappropriate examples, a world full of information they need to be able to think inept analogies, unattributed intimations, and credibility- about. enhancing quotes from mostly nonrelevant scientific works So what are we to do? First, don’t ignore it; it won’t go (carefully referenced, in case you want to look up the context away. Find out what is happening to education in your state they’re being taken out of). (or countryFthe pestilence is no longer exclusively Ameri- A fine example of abusing actual scientific results and can). Write to a local or state education board, as a scientist, terms for anti-evolution purposes is a ‘‘polyphyletic view of parent, teacher, department, whatever you are, and tell them life,’’ which is slipped in as an alternative to universal com- what you think of the importance of keeping science in science mon ancestry. Artfully confounded with the known genetic education. This book is less likely than Pandas to be snagged code variants and the published hypotheses of multiple pro- by the Establishment Clause, but terrible pedagogy is a per- karyote origins, their ‘‘orchard’’ (as opposed to single tree) fectly legitimate reason to exclude materials from use in public depiction is offered as a microevolution-only model of phylo- schools. genetic history, with separate roots for multiple unlabeled Next, think of one really interesting current problem in trees. By omitting time scales and not mentioning that those evolution or evo-devo, and do something to make it more roots should precede the origin of eukaryotes, the authors public. Science is full of real and interesting problemsFit is leave it to the student to decide that these can represent cre- what science is made ofFandweneedtostartaddingthereal ated ‘‘kinds’’ within which microevolution is allowed, but be- thing to public information instead of leaving the evolution tween which no atheistic macroevolution has occurred. deniers to fill it up with their own bogus ‘‘weaknesses.’’ Con- Appended to the eight cases are two ‘‘Special Studies:’’ first tribute a column to a newspaper on some current research at an inane rehash of ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ as a tautology, your institution (they love local stuff). Give a public talk followed by a longer section on cardiac and pulmonary evo- about your research and what’s so interesting about it. Go on lution in the reptile–mammal and therapod–bird transitions a local TV show to talk about how important and useful (my words . . . I got tired of typing quotation marks). The gist science education is. Offer department or lab visits for teach- of the second ‘‘study’’ is that the modern avian flow-through ers or kids or both to learn what real scientists really do. ventilation system could not have evolved from a reptilian Secondary schools need the means to teach thinking skills. diaphragm system through a series of viable intermedi- This can and should be done in every subject, but evolution- atesFanother irreducible-eye example. ary biology is wonderfully suited to the task. For teachers in This is an interesting evolutionary (and developmental) your area, try conducting a workshop (half a day at first, problem, and, as such, appears in the current literature, all of maybe half a summer next year) on how we study evolution, which is meticulously not cited. Lack of proper citations is how to incorporate thinking exercises into science lessons (real grating to any of us accustomed to reality-based literature, inquiry- and problem-based learning), how to talk about the but its outright abuse is inexcusable. In setting up this little fundamentals of evolution as real science, without all the debate about the impossibility of bird lungs, the authors state baggage. Pick a topic in or related to evolution, and present it that ‘‘some evolutionary developmental biologists now think in a participatory lesson that starts with questions, gathers that systems like the four-chambered heart must have arisen information to refine the questions into hypotheses with al- as complete systems as the result of mutations that occurred ternatives, and then specifies how to discriminate among the early in the development of the organisms in question’’ (p. alternatives. The creationist-promoted science education stan- 131, italics original). This is supported by citing a single article dards and other legislation contain phrases like ‘‘critical anal- (Salazar-Ciudad 2006), which does not mention heart devel- ysis’’ and ‘‘critical thinking’’Fwe can make those directives opment, but does discuss developmental (non-neo-Darwin- mean something by offering lessons that actually do those ian) sources of evolutionary novelty. The next paragraph things. refers to it as a ‘‘critique of neo-Darwinism.’’ And this after giving an explicit warning against the logical fallacy of equiv- REFERENCES ocation (pp. 7–8). This book is part of a strategy (Matzke 2006) that resem- Flank, L. 2008. A look at the probable Louisiana ‘‘supplemental material’’ on evolution. Available from http://www.geocities.com/lflank/explore- bles not so much a Trojan horse as an email virus, or the evolution.htm. [retrieved 07 September 2008]. introduction of sterile males into an insect population. Its Isaak, M. 2006. The Talkorigins Archive: Index to Creationist Claims, 5 effect in schools will be to teach students that the process of Nov 2006. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. [retrieved 07 Sept 2008]. science consists of fatuous discussions using context-free Matzke, N. 2008. New Creationist Textbook On the Way (Again). Reports quotes and no cogent treatment of any clear questions. To- of the National Center for Science Education 26 (6): 28–30. Available gether with new state education bills allowing local groups to from http://ncseweb.org/rncse/26/6/new-creationist-textbook-way-again. [Retrieved 07 Sept 2008]. push this stuff into classrooms, it will help dilute and weaken Salazar-Ciudad, I. 2006. On the origins of morphological disparity and its the already thin preparation students receive for dealing with diverse developmental bases. BioEssays 28: 1112–1122.