ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Yesterday was the 150 th anniversary of the reading of papers by  
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace to the Linean Society in London  
describing natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Was an oh  
hum moment for such momentous proposal. Today, however, evolution is  
the center of cultural wars, unfortunately. I've copied one note of  
this anniversary from the large numbers of notations of this  
anniversary. Makes good reading if only to reaffirm pro science ideas.


This is from the Opinion column of the Ann Arbor News and is an  
interesting reply a previous column.

Scientists may argue evolution’s mechanisms but not its reality by  
Richard Adler

Scott Nelson, in his June 13 Other Voices essay in The Ann Arbor News,  
interpreted an editorial from the Washington Post promoting the  
teaching of evolution in science classes as "illustrating a confusion  
in the definition of science." Let me first assert there is no  
confusion either in the role of evolution in the teaching of science,  
nor in the understanding of the evidence for the reality of evolution  
as a unifying factor in the subject of biology. Scientists may  
discuss, even argue, mechanisms of evolution - the primary  
contribution made by Charles Darwin in the 19th century - but there is  
no argument about its reality.

As is often the situation with those espousing a creationist  
viewpoint, Mr. Nelson repeats the myth that the only examples of  
evolution described by scientists are "simply within species  
variation." The argument, long addressed by scientists, implies that  
since we do not directly observe evolution from one species to another  
- more correctly stated as between classes such as mammals rather than  
among species - events which required hundreds of thousands if not  
millions of years, that there is no evidence this ever happened.  
Nelson is wrong.

In 1973 geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled a publication  
addressing the issue raised by creationists "Nothing in Biology Makes  
Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Dobzhansky's examples ranged  
from the diversity of life to the universality of the genetic code,  
the three-letter alphabet in the genetic material of DNA or RNA which  
determines the specific order of amino acids in proteins. What was  
asserted in 1973 is supported overwhelmingly today by every subsequent  
discovery in the field of biology. One could attempt to argue that  
discoveries in molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology and any  
other area of science unifying all forms of life under the umbrella of  
common ancestry are mere coincidences. To do so reduces science to a  
mere collection of disparate facts, bearing no relationship to each  
other.

Let me pose just a few examples, and request Mr. Nelson to explain  
them in a manner other than invoking evolution and common ancestry:

• The universality of the genetic code, 64 different sequences of code  
words which are the same in all plants, animals and bacteria;

• The near identity (>98 percent) of DNA, the genetic material, among  
ALL primates: apes, monkeys, humans, and the near identical alignment  
in the order of those genes;

• The identical mutations which result in pseudogenes, genetic  
information which is not expressed and therefore is essentially  
useless, in primate DNA;

• The overwhelming similarity in genetic information (70 percent)  
among all mammals.

  If anyone wishes examples from the fossil record, the idea of  
missing links being more myth than reality, he or she need travel no  
farther than our local Museum of Natural History, where fossils  
clearly demonstrate the evolution of land dwelling mammals into those  
in the oceans.

Nelson brings into his argument the "scientist" Ben Stein and the  
movie Stein has been hawking: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."  
Let's ignore the fact that Stein's sole credibility in science is his  
role in the commercial for an eye wash. "Expelled" purports that a  
scientific conspiracy exists to suppress the teaching of anything but  
evolution as an explanation for biological phenomena, and that any  
scientist or biologist who does otherwise is "expelled" from his  
position.

Nonsense. There is no question promotion and tenure in highly  
competitive university positions are predicated on quality teaching  
and/or research. Scientists frequently argue among themselves about  
the meaning or significance of their data; that is the wonder and joy  
of science as those in the field attempt to increase the body of  
knowledge and understanding. To my knowledge, however, nobody has been  
fired from a university position for the sole reason of supporting a  
creationist viewpoint. The true reason few if any scientific articles  
are published on the subject has nothing to do with dogma; the reason  
is the work contains minimal supporting data and is based upon  
experiments which are poorly designed and carried out. "Expelled"  
attempts to argue otherwise by repeatedly editing quotes or removing  
them from their context.

The other thesis of "Expelled" as well as in Nelson's article is that  
much of the evil in the world - the Holocaust of course being the  
epitome of that evil - is the result of "atheistic Darwinism." The  
reality is that as a Jew, I could argue my ancestors had more to fear  
from Christians than any atheists. I could further argue that the  
dumbing down of science to include religious viewpoints - and here we  
have the potential fight over exactly which viewpoints - provides no  
benefits to students who too often already have a deplorable  
understanding of the scientific method.

The study of evolution, and that includes Darwin's Theory, which  
attempts to explain its mechanism and NOT its existence, has nothing  
to do with religious beliefs except among those who take a literal  
view of the Bible. Nelson is correct in that "if I find one system of  
belief does not work for me, I can adopt another." Believe what you  
wish. But you are not entitled to your own set of facts.


____________________________________
Martin Weiss, PhD
Science Interpretation, Consultant
New York Hall of Science

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]