DOCSLIB.ORG

What Biology Textbooks Never Told You About Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Biology Textbooks Never Told You About Evolution Book Reviews What biology textbooks never told you about evolution atmosphere could have produced the A review of chemical building blocks of life. Icons of Evolution: Science The hypothesis remained untested or Myth? Why much of until 1953, when University of Chi- what we teach about evolu- cago graduate student Stanley Miller tion is wrong reported an experiment in which meth- by Jonathan Wells ane, ammonia, hydrogen and water Regnery Publishing, Inc., (thought to be the components of the Washington, 2000. ‘primitive’ atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated Royal Truman past a high-voltage electric spark to Oxygen, deliberately removed from simulate lightning. This provided the Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino ac- energy to break the chemical bonds of ids. But geological evidence indicates Why do many believe evolution- the compounds present, and the result- oxygen was always present on earth.1–7 ary theory is true? One is bombarded ing free radicals combined to form a It is produced by photolysis of water constantly with claims that all scientists mixture of simple organic compounds, vapour in the atmosphere, where hy- believe in evolution; that science has including trace quantities of some drogen escapes gravitation and oxygen demonstrated it; that evolution is based amino acids. thereby increases in concentration. on empirical science. Many might re- Crucial to the success of the ex- Currently, the most probable early member ‘proofs’, which Dr Wells calls periment was Miller’s water trap in atmosphere is deemed by evolution- ‘Icons of Evolution’, learned in school which the amino acids generated could ists to have consisted of water, carbon or from popular science articles. The dissolve and thus be protected from dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very ten most common ‘icons’ used to back subsequent destructive contact with different composition than used by up evolution are reviewed and showed the spark. But on the hypothesized Miller. Hydrogen would have been to be either fraudulent or irrelevant as primordial Earth with no oxygen present in small concentrations at evolutionary evidence. Amazingly, (and therefore no ozone), the prod- most, because it could escape Earth’s Wells documents that even some lead- ucts would have been exposed to gravity; ammonia and methane would ing biology professors were unaware destructive ultraviolet rays. This is have been destroyed by ultraviolet they were teaching nonsense. Had so even if they reached the oceans, light. In 1983, Miller reported that if these false ‘icons’ never existed, per- because UV radiation can penetrate carbon monoxide is added to the more haps evolutionary doctrine would not tens of metres of water. realistic mixture, plus a large propor- have taken such a hold. Per se, this experiment does not tion of free hydrogen, then only gly- Wells is a man with indisputable pose difficulties to the creationist. cine, the simplest amino acid, could be intellectual gifts who does not bow to With the most astute intelligent guid- produced, and in trace amounts only. intimidation. Having been opposed to ance, such an experimental set-up, The experts know the experiments serving with the American armed forces which generates a multitude of inter- provide no support for an abiogenesis in Vietnam, he chose jail rather than fering organic acids and bases (plus model. But nevertheless, biology compromise his convictions. He then racemic and biologically useless textbooks and popular magazines like went on to earn a doctorate in theology amino acids) cannot produce a single National Geographic continue to mis- (Yale) and a second doctorate in mo- biologically relevant protein strand. lead the public into thinking that the lecular and cell biology (Berkeley). To claim this experiment as evidence Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for for evolution would be akin to allow- evolution.8 Wells concludes by citing Icon 1: The Miller-Urey experiment ing water to flow over a bed of coal, one chemist’s acknowledgement that and upon identifying a little ink-like such publications are teaching ‘my- Wells sets the scene for this chapter substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia thology rather than science’ (p. 27). by describing the 1920s Oparin/Hal- Britannica was produced by natural, dane idea that lightning in the primitive random processes. Icon 2: Darwin’s tree of life TJ 15(2) 2001 17 Book Reviews ized ancestors are allegedly hundreds of millions of years old, essentially identical to those alive, and yet many have left no fossil evidence during this supposed vast interval. The lack of evolutionary change, in spite of a constantly changing physical and eco- logical environment, is glaring. Phylogenic trees based on DNA comparison contradict those derived from rRNA analysis. Protein phy- logenies have merely added to the confusion. ‘A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses’ (p. 51). Examples of molecular sequences incompatible with evo- lutionary theories are well known to creationists and anti-Darwinists.10 For example, antigen receptor proteins of Schematic diagram of the Stanley Miller’s famous experiment where water vapour, methane, sharks and the llama/camel family ammonia and hydrogen gas was passed through a spark. The resultant chemicals were col- have the same unusual single chain lected and showed trace amounts of both left and right-handed amino acids. structure, so this must be explained away as ‘convergence’.11 primitive’ specimens: Nevertheless, a 1999 booklet pub- Darwin believed characteristics ‘already have the basic ordinal lished by the National Academy of acquired during an organism’s lifetime characteristics, and in no case is Sciences (USA) claims: could be passed on to offspring, a an approximately continuous se- ‘As the ability to sequence … DNA concept proposed by Jean de Lamarck. quence from one order to another has improved, it has also become Species would vary over vast periods known. In most cases the break is possible to use genes to recon- of time until the divergence became so sharp and the gap is so large that struct the evolutionary history of great enough to produce new species. the origin of the order is speculative organisms … . The evidence for 9 Separate phyla would eventually de- and much disputed.’ evolution from molecular biology velop from a common ancestor. Plenty of suitable sedimen- is overwhelming and is growing Wells points out a large number of tary deposits (i.e. in which organisms quickly.’12 inconsistencies between the Darwinian could have been preserved as fossils) Wells, however, shows such ‘tree of life’ and the fossil record. exist within the late Precambrian and claims are without foundation. Fossils from the Burgess Shale in Cambrian strata. One cannot argue the However, this chapter has a major Canada; the Sirious Passet in northern ancestors might have not possessed shortcoming. Not in what it says, Greenland; and the Chengjiang in preserved hard parts. In Africa and but in what is left unsaid. Wells is southern China, dated as geologically Australia, geologists have discovered content to show that the ‘Cambrian contemporary, display a bewildering sediments, dated by evolutionary con- explosion’ in the fossil record con- range of complex, fully developed ventions at over three billion years old, tradicts the Darwinian ‘tree of life’. organisms with no earlier ancestors. which contain fossilized single-celled Though he emphasizes that ‘paradox’ Uniformitarian dating places this Cam- organisms. The lack of intermediates repeatedly, Wells does not point out brian Explosion at around 530 million where these should have been found that the standard idea about the fossil years ago, and it lasted a maximum of lies in stark conflict with evolutionary record—i.e. that it is akin to a ‘tape- 5–10 million years. Furthermore, in predictions. recording’ of millions of years—needs all 32 mammal orders, even the ‘most Another difficulty is the existence to be re-evaluated. (In reality, the of ‘living fossils’. Some of the fossil- 18 TJ 15(2) 2001 Book Reviews fossil record is far better explained by from a common ancestor. As an ex- biologist, provided a series of drawings a global Flood and some of its after- ample, which conveniently demonstrated just effects which buried a world of plants ‘In salamanders, development of this. These pictures appear even today and animals, in a time sequence which the digits proceeds in the opposite in graduate-level biology textbooks, did not involve millions of years.) This direction, from head to tail. The such as American Academy of Science is a deficiency, and Wells’ apparent ac- difference is so striking that some president Bruce Alberts’ Molecular commodation of ‘millions of years’ is biologists have argued that the evo- Biology of the Cell, with no statement gleefully exploited by sceptics in their lutionary history of salamanders that this evidence is a well-established mocking reviews of Wells’ book.13 must have been different from all blatant fraud, a shameless fake. Even other vertebrates, including frogs’ Darwin, who called this his ‘strongest Icon 3: Homology in vertebrate (p. 72). single class of facts’, was duped. limbs De Beer adds, Photographs of the embryos Hae- ‘Because homology implies com- ckel selected demonstrate virtually no In this chapter, Wells exposes the munity of descent from … a com- resemblance with his drawings. Ad- circular reasoning error in textbooks mon ancestor it might be thought ditionally, Haeckel did not draw the which define homology as similarity that genetics would provide the key first stage of growth, where closest re- due to common ancestry, and then to the problem of homology. This semblance was predicted, but selected claim that homology is evidence for is where the worst shock of all is precisely the stages where five (out of common ancestry.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Critical Analysis of Evolution"; Innovative Lesson Plan Or
    THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION L10H23 “CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION”; INNOVATIVE LESSON PLAN OR STEALTHY ADVOCACY TOOL? Robert Day, The Ohio State University. Presented at the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference, San Francisco, CA. April 2006. Abstract: This paper will discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding a particular Ohio Department of Education tenth grade lesson plan titled “Critical Analysis of Evolution” (Ohio Department of Education identification L10H23). The lesson professes to encourage students to “critically examine” evidences for and against evolution and invites them to discuss definitions of some common evolutionary terms and concepts. Proponents insist that this lesson is a thought-provoking exercise in critical thinking and scientific objectively. Critics claim that the lesson is at best, unscientific and at worst, a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce creationist ideas into the classroom in accordance with the so-called “wedge” strategy of certain pro-creationist organizations. A complicating factor is that this lesson plan has been used as the subject of graduate level research on the effect of teaching “the evolution controversy” to Ohio students, and subsequently, this research has been used to support similar initiatives in state hearings outside of Ohio. We will present the findings from a series of surveys conducted with life-science high school teachers, college faculty, and graduate students intended to establish whether or not practicing scientists and science educators agree with the Ohio Board of Education’s assessment that “there is no ID [intelligent design] there”. We will look for trends in the opinions of different sub-populations, identify key differences of opinions between participants and Ohio Board of Education members and suggest possible reasons for any apparent conflicts of opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong/By Jonathan Wells
    ON SCIENCE OR MYTH? Whymuch of what we teach about evolution is wrong Icons ofEvolution About the Author Jonathan Wells is no stranger to controversy. After spending two years in the U.S. Ar my from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher. When the Army called him back from reser ve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to serve during the Vietnam War. He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth­ century Darwinian controversies. In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology. He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/ crsc) in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children, and mother. He still hopes to become a science teacher. Icons ofEvolution Science or Myth? Why Much oJWhat We TeachAbout Evolution Is Wrong JONATHAN WELLS ILLUSTRATED BY JODY F. SJOGREN IIIIDIDIREGNERY 11MPUBLISHING, INC. An EaglePublishing Company • Washington, IX Copyright © 2000 by Jonathan Wells All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including pho­ tocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Zombie Science
    Zombie Science More Icons of Evolution JONATHAN WELLS Seattle Discovery Institute Press 2017 Description In 2000, biologist Jonathan Wells took the science world by storm with Icons of Evolution, a book showing how biology textbooks routinely promote Darwinism using bogus evidence—icons of evolution like Ernst Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings and peppered moths glued to tree trunks. Critics of the book complained that Wells had merely gathered up a handful of innocent textbook errors and blown them out of proportion. Now, in Zombie Science, Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Science has enriched our lives and led to countless discoveries, but now, Wells argues, it’s being corrupted. Empirical science is devolving into zombie science, shuffling along unfazed by opposing evidence. Discredited icons of evolution rise from the dead while more icons—equally bogus—join their ranks. Like a B horror movie, they just keep coming! Zombies are make- believe, but zombie science is real—and it threatens not just science, but our whole culture. Is there a solution? Wells is sure of it, and points the way. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2017 by Discovery Institute. All Rights Reserved. Library Cataloging Data Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells Illustrations (unless otherwise noted) by Brian Gage and Anca Sandu 238 pages, 6 x 9 x 0.5 in. & 0.72 lb, 229 x 152 x 13 mm & x 325 g Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936551 SCI027000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Evolution SCI008000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Biology SCI075000 SCIENCE / Philosophy & Social Aspects ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-44-8 (paperback), 978-1-936599-46-2 (Kindle), 978-1-936599-45-5 (EPUB) Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Internet: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-Examining The
    www.ssoar.info Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence Rudge, David Wÿss Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Rudge, D. W. (2005). Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052890 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • Teach the Controversy” Slogan?
    What’s Wrong with the “Teach the Controversy” Slogan? WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? EUGENIE C. SCOTT National Center for Science Education ABSTRACT. Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the contro- versy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruc- tion in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators. EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? RÉSUMÉ. Les créationnistes encouragent souvent les professeurs à « enseigner la controverse ». Même si au premier abord de tels encouragements peuvent ressembler à la proposition d’une méthode de pensée critique, l’histoire du mouvement créationniste en Amérique du Nord dément cette affirmation. Plutôt que d’enseigner aux étudiants comment analyser et évaluer des con- troverses actuelles scientifiques, la finalité des exhortations à « enseigner la controverse » consiste à faire en sorte que les professeurs enseignent aux étudiants que l’évolution est une science faible ou non corroborée et que les étudiants ne devraient donc pas la prendre au sérieux. De telles directives quant à la présumée « preuve contre l’évolution » ou l’« analyse critique de l’évolution » contribueraient à sérieusement inculquer aux étudiants des con- naissances erronées, et les professeurs et les administrateurs doivent résister à ces directives.
    [Show full text]
  • Peppered Moths
    Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education PEPPERED MOTHS HOW MANY MOTHS CAN DANCE ON THE TRUNK OF A TREE? THE STORY OF THE PEPPERED MOTH DISTRACTION BY IRRELEVANT DATA ndustrial melanism in peppered moths is ells disagrees with the results of the one of the most frequently used examples research on industrial melanism in Iof natural selection in action. This is large- Wthe peppered moth, and manipulates ly because of its pedagogical simplicity — it is the literature and the data to fit his views. He a straightforward example that is visual and points out that the “problem” of the peppered dynamic — and its copious documentation. moths is far from simple. His discussion cen- Industrial melanism refers to the darkening of ters on three points where he believes text- color that occurred in a number of species of books are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime insects following the Industrial Revolution. resting places of peppered moths invalidates This change appears to be related to the Kettlewell’s experimental results; (2) the pho- increase in pollutants in the environment. tos of the moths are “staged”; and (3) the Before the Industrial Revolution, individuals recovery patterns of populations dominated by of the moth species Biston betularia (com- light moths after the levels of pollution were monly called the “peppered moth”) were pre- reduced do not fit the “model,” although he is dominantly white with black speckles. By the unclear as to what the “model” is. All three of end of the 1800s, they were predominantly these objections are spurious.
    [Show full text]
  • A Deeper Look at the Origin of Life by Bob Davis
    A Deeper Look at the Origin of Life By Bob Davis Every major society from every age in history has had its own story about its origins. For instance, the Eskimos attributed their existence to a raven. The ancient Germanic peoples of Scandinavia believed their creator—Ymir—emerged from ice and fire, was nourished by a cow, and ultimately gave rise to the human race. Those are just two examples. But no matter the details, these origin stories always endeavor to answer people’s innate questions: Where did we come from? What is our destiny? What is our purpose? Two widely held theories in today’s world are abiogenesis and the Genesis story. The first states that life emerged through nature without any divine guidance; the second involves a supernatural Creator. Abiogenesis Abiogenesis is sometimes called “chemical evolution” because it seeks to explain how non-living (“abio”) substances gave rise to life (“genesis”). Abiogenesis was added to the list of origin stories over one hundred years ago when Charles Darwin first speculated that life could have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”1 Many summarize abiogenesis—coupled with its more famous twin, Darwinian macroevolution—in a somewhat disparaging but memorable way: “From the goo to you by way of the zoo!”2 Let’s use this phrase to help us understand what is meant by “abiogenesis.” The “goo” refers to the “primordial soup” or “warm little pond” where non-life is said to have given birth to life.
    [Show full text]
  • O:\Jones\Neiburg\Dover Area School District\Final Dover Opinion.Wpd
    Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 139 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. : Case No. 04cv2688 : Plaintiffs : Judge Jones : v. : : DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,: : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION December 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION: On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directors passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution: Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught. On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and 1 Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 139 eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fine Kettle of Moths: How Creationists Have Defiled an Icon of Evolution
    A Fine Kettle of Moths: How Creationists Have Defiled An Icon of Evolution Matt Young Department of Physics Colorado School of Mines Golden, Colorado 80304 www.mines.edu/~mmyoung The peppered moth (Biston betularia) Britain, mid-1800’s Air pollution, soot kill lichens, blacken trees Moths evolve black (melanic) form for camouflage 1950’s: Clean air acts Moths evolve back to light-colored (typica) form Bernard Kettlewell’s studies, mid-50’s 1. Release─recapture experiments in woods Compared Industrial with rural, or Polluted with unpolluted habitats Photo by Bruce Grant Procedure Marked and released both melanic, typica moths Recaptured some in wee hours of next morning Used both optical and pheromone traps Results Polluted woods ― more melanic Unpolluted woods ― more typica 2. Direct observation and filming Observed and filmed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees Controversial result at time 3. Camouflage Visually rated camouflage of moths on different backgrounds Compared effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates In aviary In field Good correlation between camouflage and predation Despite birds having ultraviolet vision Moths camouflaged in the ultraviolet as well (we now know) 4. Geographic distribution Distribution of melanic moths matched areas of industrialization Typica Melanic + insularia Industrial area (Kettlewell, 1959) Wells’s Icons of Evolution Moths do not “normally” rest on trunks 25 % of the time they do Birds hunt at all levels in canopy Photos of moths staged So are portraits Typica form reappeared before lichens reappeared Trees lightened as soot decreased Typica moths better camouflaged on clean trunks, branches, leaves than on sooty Bird predation not only factor So, nu? Charges of Fraud Of Moths and Men, 2002 Judith Hooper charges fraud: Sudden increase in recapture rate directly follows “threatening” letter from mentor But Moths released as they hatched from cocoons No control over hatching Letter to Kettlewell from E.B.
    [Show full text]