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

[lfalen]

For more good reading on Evolution see the November issure of Natural History. The entire issue is devoted to the subject. About half  of the Nov/Dec issue of Skeptical Inquirer is is on Evolution and Interagent Design.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:41:47 -0800
To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] 12-13-05 Daily News:  Reply to Peters [Kirkland]

> 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
>