<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>KIrkland on Intelligent Design: Trib 12/13</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: <EM>Daily News</EM>, 12-13-05</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment -->
<H2><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">COLUMN: Synergism between geology and
biology</FONT></H2><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times"><BR></FONT>
<ADDRESS><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">Mike Webster and Olle
Pellmyr</FONT></ADDRESS><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times"><BR>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. </FONT>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">For more on public misconceptions about
evolution and links to other Web sites on evolutionary biology, visit
www.wsu.edu/~mweb/evolution/. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman,Times">* 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. </FONT></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=msolomon@moscow.com href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">Mark Solomon</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=bstout@uidaho.edu
href="mailto:bstout@uidaho.edu">Robert Stout</A> ; <A title=dfrench@moscow.com
href="mailto:dfrench@moscow.com">Dianne French</A> ; <A
title=Helen.Harrington@idwr.idaho.gov
href="mailto:Helen.Harrington@idwr.idaho.gov">Harrington, Helen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> KIrkland on Intelligent Design: Trib 12/13</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=+4><B>Turnabout: Evolution lacks
support in facts<BR><BR></B></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=+2><I>Larry Kirkland<BR><BR></I> <BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=+2><BR> 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.<BR><BR> Merry
Christmas!<BR><BR> ------<BR><BR> Kirkland, of Moscow, is executive
secretary of the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee.</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date:
12/13/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>