[Vision2020] 12-13-05 Daily News: Reply to Peters [Kirkland]

[Art Deco]

KIrkland on Intelligent Design: Trib 12/13From:  Daily News, 12-13-05

 
COLUMN: Synergism between geology and biology


Mike Webster and Olle Pellmyr

Teaching evolution has been in the news quite a bit lately. At a national level, state school boards are waging battles over evolution in science classes, with politicians from President Bush on down weighing in on the issue. More locally, controversy arose recently when University of Idaho President Tim White announced evolution is "the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical science courses." As the instructors for two of the primary university level evolution courses here on the Palouse, we concur with President White. 
In a Nov. 26 Daily News column, E. Kirsten Peters added her voice to the local debate. We were happy that Peters introduced her readers to some of the important contributions of geology to our understanding of evolution. However, we also were very puzzled by her assertion biologists and geologists disagree on what evolution is. We are both biologists, but have numerous friends and colleagues in geology with whom we have co-taught courses on evolution, and one of us even has a geologist for a father - never have we had a fundamental disagreement with any of them over the nature or validity of evolutionary change. 

Rather, most scientists (biologists and geologists alike, along with those in other disciplines) agree on the central tenets of evolution: that living organisms today have descended with modification from common ancestral species, and that one key mechanism (but not the only mechanism) for evolutionary change is the process of natural selection. These tenets have survived a century and a half of rigorous scientific testing since they were first laid out by Darwin. Indeed, our understanding of evolution has been greatly strengthened over the years with insights gained from genetics, developmental biology, geology, and numerous other fields. 

To be sure, scientists disagree and argue with each other about many of the details of evolution. This is the nature of science: researchers develop competing hypotheses for how a process (like evolution) works, repeatedly test and retest these hypotheses, and eventually come to some agreement as failed hypotheses are discarded and others (those that survive the testing) are accepted. 

We were somewhat dismayed by Peters' article because it took an argument over the details of evolution - whether it occurs gradually or in fits-and-starts - and inflated that argument to imply that biologists and geologists disagree over the fundamental nature and validity of evolution. Peters further implied biologists do not teach the geological view of evolution. This came as a surprise to us, given we teach these topics (and other scientific controversies) in our own courses. And we are not alone; these topics are integral parts of all major textbooks on evolution. Moreover, the "disagreement" Peters highlights has grown far less controversial over time as data has been gathered. It is now clear that evolution often proceeds gradually and at other times in fits-and-start. The current frontier is to better understand what leads to these differences. 

Why do we care? Because the debate about the teaching of evolution is fueled by widespread misconceptions among the American public about evolution and the scientific support for it; articles that misrepresent valid scientific disagreements as fundamental disagreements about the basic nature of evolution only add to the public confusion. 

Science classes routinely cover competing hypotheses and, where appropriate, present evidence supporting or negating those hypotheses. This was the message behind President White's position on the teaching of evolution: competing ideas and hypotheses that have been repeatedly tested and supported belong in the science classroom. Those that have been tested and failed, or are not scientifically testable in the first place (such as religious ideas), do not belong there. Nonscientific explanations clearly can be taught in other courses, such as philosophy and comparative religions, but not in science classes where testability is key. 

Evolutionary biology, drawing from geology, biology and all other branches of natural science, is a strong and vibrant science, not least here on the Palouse (both UI and Washington State University have strengths in this area of science). As there is synergism between our universities, there is synergism between geology and biology in assembling knowledge about the physical world. And that is a good thing for modern society. 

For more on public misconceptions about evolution and links to other Web sites on evolutionary biology, visit www.wsu.edu/~mweb/evolution/. 

* Mike Webster is an associate professor at the Washington State University School of Biological Sciences and Olle Pellmyr is an associate professor at the University of Idaho Department of Biological Sciences. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Solomon 
  To: Robert Stout ; Dianne French ; Harrington, Helen 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:11 AM
  Subject: KIrkland on Intelligent Design: Trib 12/13


  Turnabout: Evolution lacks support in facts

  Larry Kirkland

   

   Jim Fisher in his vituperative Dec. 3 editorial, "Scoffer at science speaks for science on Palouse," supports one of the contentions in my letter to the Moscow-Pullman Daily News which he criticizes. He does not present a single piece of evidence to support the evolution hypothesis which he apparently espouses.

   Contrary to Jim's unsubstantiated statement, I have a very high regard for good science, which is logically sound and supports it conclusions with documented facts. Shouting and calling names will not fill in the major gaps in the hypothesis of evolution. Jim is free to quote any supporting evidence the National Academy of Science or any other party has produced documenting an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life, the transition of that life into the multiplicity of species we now see, and the reason(s) for death. He did not because there is a lack of factual evidence in support of the evolutionary hypothesis claiming to explain them.

   I admire Kirsten Peters, (Daily News, Nov. 26) "Biologists, geologists and the theory of evolution," for acknowledging that the "problem with the theory is that it doesn't square with the fossil record." A good scientist, as well as a good editor, will evaluate all the facts available honestly. I believe the No. 1 request of those scientists now being classified as intelligent design proponents is honesty by all parties in presenting and evaluating the facts.

   Most biologists, as well as many scientists in other fields, will admit that there is the appearance of design in their field of expertise. I am convinced that the reason so many scientists and others refuse to even consider the possibility of an intelligent designer or God is the implication it carries for ultimate freedom of choice. If there is an intelligent designer or God who created us and the universe, then we have a responsibility to learn his purpose for us and then carry it out.

   As a Christian and scientist, I get great joy in studying the substance water, and seeing the amazing properties the intelligent designer gave it. I also appreciate working with others to find the best solution to ensure a sustained, domestic water supply for the Palouse Basin. The geology of the basin is complex. It is important that we understand the facts correctly before we propose a solution which may cost millions of dollars.

   Several hypotheses and models have been discarded because new facts proved them wrong. At the same time if someone suggests an alternate solution to those currently being proposed, and has logic and/or facts to support it, I am eager to evaluate it.

   That is what many of us are asking the scientific community and the public to do concerning the origin, diversification and continuation of life. Evaluate the facts and the logic involved honestly. All parties agree microevolution or adaption to changing environments occurs. In the case of dogs, the breadth of this adaption potential is huge but the end product is still always a dog. It is not a cat or a new species.

   There is need for honest discussions of the facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts, no matter how vociferously the editor to the Trib and others may shout to the contrary. I believe those who are willing to honestly evaluate the facts, the historical evidence and the logic involved will conclude that it all points to an intelligent designer as the source or cause of the universe, of life, of the diversification of life and of death in all life forms.

   We have a perfect solar system perfectly located in the universe to support life. The simplest life is unimaginably complex yet designed with great flexibility to adapt to changing environments. The information stored in biocode or DNA is awesome. In living organisms we see superefficient micromotors and microfactories, metamorphosis, solar power and much more which all point to an intelligent designer as opposed to purposeless random chance and time as the cause.

   God wants us to see his glory and majesty in his creation, but far more important he wants us to recognize that he loves us and has a wonderful purpose for us. Christmas is God's gift to us. But we have to choose to receive his gift. The evidence is there; the choice is ours.

   Merry Christmas!

   ------

   Kirkland, of Moscow, is executive secretary of the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 12/13/2005
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051213/6c55e5f7/attachment.htm