The Evolution Debate

Washington Post staff writer Michael Powell was online Wednesday, Oct. 5, at noon ET to discuss the ongoing debate over teaching evolutionary theory versus "intelligent design."

From The Post:

Intimidation Alleged On 'Intelligent Design' (Post, Sept. 28)

Pa. Case Is Newest Round in Evolution Debate (Post, Sept. 27)

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory (Post, Sept. 26)

More Coverage: The Evolution Debate

A transcript follows.

____________________

Michael Powell: Hello. I'm the New York bureau chief for the Washington Post and, in that capacity, I've written a number of pieces on the Intelligent Design battles in Dover, Pennsylvania. I've also written a longish profile of Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor who is one of the founding fathers of Intelligent Design.

What I am not is a theologian or a biologist, so let me freely acknowledge my ignorance as well. I am, however, fascinated by the topic and looking forward to the chat.

Germantown, Md.: Many people of faith have no problem reconciling their beliefs with the scientific evidence for evolution. Why should mainstream science and society yield to the fundamentalist beliefs of a small segment of society?

_______________________

Michael Powell: It's not altogether clear that a majority of Americans reconcile their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence for Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution. In fact, the polling suggests to the contrary that a plurality of Americans believe in something like a literal reading of biblical creation.

Having just typed that, I'd add that the polling is often maddening in the superficiality of the questions.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: The Dover School board case is likely to reach the Supreme Court no matter how the judge rules. Is Harriet Miers a creationist?

Michael Powell: Both sides have indicated a willingness, even eagerness, to pursue this case on appeal to the Supreme Court. There is a danger there for supporters of Intelligent Design, in that a Supreme Court ruling against the Dover School Board--which favors mention of ID--could result in its theory (or proposition, or whatever) being branded "religion" ...

_______________________

Mt. Rainier, Md.: 1. Is there a hidden prior question here about (some) scientists' philosophical materialism? 2. Is the issue muddled by people confusing the God of Judeo-Christian religions with the less religion-bound notion of a Prime Mover/First Intellect?

Michael Powell: Ha!

This is a conversation that could take us late into the evening. Suffice to say, the scientific and philosophical positions span a very broad range here. Even within the ID movement, some accept much of Darwinian theory, while others see common descent as highly unlikely.

Moving further afield, there are many scientists who wrestle with these questions

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: The trial in Dover, Pa., doesn't seem to be getting much play. The occasional reference in a WP or NYT piece. That's about it.

Al Franken and Terri Gross had Richard Dawkins on but you'd be hard pressed to find any "news" paper interview snippets with him. Probably covering the Mick Jaggar Old Folks Tour or something.

My local paper The Pittsburgh Post Gazette should have a daily log from the trial online and in the front pages but it doesn't. Talk about missed history!

What's an informed reader to do?

Thanks much.

Michael Powell: You raise a good point. We've written a few pieces, and we'll return there in another week as the school board presents its case. It is a curious case, however, as the ID side, in particular, is not out in fully body armor. Only one of the prominent advocates of Intelligent Design--Professor Michael Behe of Lehigh--is going to testify.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Haven't the ID people won simply by getting people to view this as a "debate"? The entire premise of any discussion on this subject is that there's a debate, implying at least some merit to the opposing points of view.

Are there other subjects after evolution that you think are going to become the subject of such debates over their merits? I'd offer plate tectonics, but that sounds facetious. (Though, who knows?) Any other well-settled things that will soon be compared to competing religious ideas, for the purpose of exposing students to other points of view? Thanks.

Michael Powell: Well, to an extent this is true. To the extent that the NYT and the Washington Post and the LA Times, and the news magazines and NPR, are writing of this, the Intelligent Design side is getting its views out there.

On the other hand, as I noted, there is a real legal risk for Intelligent Design here. And, I should add, that while much of evolutionary theory is very broadly accepted, there are significant scientific dissenters for aspects of that theory, albeit most of them are not in the Intelligent Design camp.

As for plate tectonics, well, who knows? This is the argument made by many scientists, and it's not without merit. To whit: There is a broad fundamentalist or Creationist community that could exploit cracks in evolutionary theory to raise issues that are, quite simply, religious rather than scientific.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I find the poll data revealed in Scott Keeter's recent article shocking and depressing, in what they say about the state of science education in the country. Creationism and even Intelligent Design is so easily debunked by straightforward explanations, if only the teachers are well-versed in the subject.

Take for example the "what about all the missing intermediate species?" canard. The analogy I try to use with people is to imagine a movie-strip of each current species from the beginning of time. But the strip has been cut up into individual frames, with the snapshots sprinkled over space and time in various layers of the earth. Most of the celluloid squares have deteriorated beyond recognition forever. The small, jumpy fraction that we have found intact are the fossil evidence. Science is full of interpolations between available data - I wonder how many of the evolution deniers are aware of this?

Likewise, Intelligent Design implies that a Wise One thought it would be funny to give us an appendix (or cute to give Africans the dual-edged sword of the sickle-cell trait, which has the positive survival value against malaria). I suppose you can make up creative stories to rationalize this, but you can always do that to justify something you need to believe in.

washingtonpost.com: What's Not Evolving Is Public Opinion (Post, Oct. 2)

Michael Powell: It is quite amazing to read the polling data on Americans' view of creation. To this extent, as I've written a few weeks back, ID AND Evolution both take a backseat to old fashioned Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the world was created approximately 6000 years ago and that the biblical flood formed much of the known world.

That said, there are useful questions/criticisms to be raised about evolutionary theory, and many raging debates within the field (which is NOT to suggest that most of the debators are anything but evolutionists).

And, many Intelligent Design proponents take very different views of the identity of the intelligent designer. And there is, too, the question of how active is the hand of this designer.

For instance, one could imagine--if you will--a designer that simply sets it all in motion, encoding certain changes in DNA. Or one could imagine a designer that takes a hand, here and there, nudging evolution along, if you will.

You will find all of these perspectives, and more, in what's broadly called the ID camp.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi, Michael. As someone who was raised Old-World Catholic, I'm of the mindset that creationist vs. evolutionist can be determined by one's outlook on life. If one believes that life is pre-destined, then creationism is a natural follow. If one believes in free will, then evolution is a natural follow. But I do believe that you can believe in both systems: if a superior being created us and then just let us go wherever, then evolution would be the natural result. BTW -- this is meant to be a light posting, food for thought.

Michael Powell: Well now I'm about to dive into a subject that I'm not fully conversant with but I'll give it a shot

One could, as easily, argue that some evolutionary biologists--Dawkins and Will Provine of Cornell, for instance-are the ones opposed to the notion of free will. To the extent that we are seen as the product of our genes and our animal appetites, free will is illusory, a human construct by which we rationalize our world.

Likewise, if one is a believer, one could argue for the view that God "sets man in motion" and that our measure is drawn from the "free choices" that we make.

But, this I'll wager: We won't settle this question here!

_______________________

Daventry. U.K.: In response to a previous question you said that a decision of your Supreme Court might result in ID being branded a 'religion.' Can you explain how ID could ever not be (part of) a religion? I assume that the presumed Intelligent Designer is assumed to be a god?

Michael Powell: As I've noted, the ID camp argues that this designer need not be God. Some have even suggested that it could be a super intelligent alien, an explanation that could be seen as disingenuous.

But more to the point, the ID camp argues that their theory works only insofar as it can be subjected to scientific standards of evidence, and that to this extent the identity of the intelligence is neither here nor there.

_______________________

Carbondale, Pa.: We don't teach religion in public schools and we don't teach science in church/temple/mosque. Seems to me that's the way it should be. Although if we did have creationism, every kid who takes a science class test could put "God did it" or "Because of God" for every answer and it would be correct. I mean, really ... how could you dispute it, if that's what you're teaching?

Michael Powell: Well, this is precisely the argument made by the vast majority in the scientific community. That intelligent design, ultimately, is not "falsifiable", meaning that one cannot prove the absence of a supernatural hand.

This, they would argue, is to venture into the land of faith rather than science.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I am a professional biologist (Ph.D.), but not a professor. I am distraught that this public controversy goes on and on. The data supporting evolution just piles up. Perhaps the opponents of evolution are unaware how important knowledge of this science is to modern medical and agricultural research, particularly genomics, which is the basis for the new drugs coming out. When they try to teach alternatives to evolution, they are going to deny children access to well-paying jobs in the biotech sector.

Michael Powell: Now, what's sometimes curious--to me anyway--is that there are in fact Young Earth Creationists who work in the bio-chemical and genetics field. They accept, if you will, the world as it is. In other words, that science responds to a known set of ground rules. But they argue that it was all set in motion by God.

One might argue that is their way of living with two incompatible world views while avoiding utter cognitive dissonance.

_______________________

Grass Valley, Calif.: I have great difficulty in viewing or hearing any commentary or viewpoints on God that might create God's image or in any manner would describe or define God.

Thereby, I react to all 'intelligent design' arguments as an evangelical strategem, void of facts which more logically explain some facets of reality.

I have held a lifelong belief in God and have lived my life best as I could in accordance with what I was taught are the teachings of Jesus.

Accordingly, I have no room for 'intelligent design.'

Sir, am I espousing beliefs that then are mere 'faith' based or which may hold some scientific reasonable basis?

Michael Powell: This is a good point, in that what's sometimes lost is that many Americans of faith accept a most distant view of the Creator's Hand.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: "Why should mainstream science and society yield to the fundamentalist beliefs of a small segment of society?"

America has a valued tradition of not allowing the majority to infringe upon the religious beliefs of minority religious groups.

Michael Powell: Ah, but that's just it. It's not a small segment of society. That said,we are a nation that recognizes a separation of church and state, and so even if the "creationist" viewpoint were a distinct majority, there's a strong constitutional wall against letting it leak into the public school classroom.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: As a child, I learned that evolution was a fact, and even in Sunday School, the wife of the pastor told us children that the fact of evolution couldn't be denied. Hence, it's a great surprise to me to see the subject being debated 35 years after I was told of its certainty.

However, I think that teaching school children about some of the missing parts or weaknesses of the theory isn't such a bad thing, such as the arguments on the Cambrian Explosion of species, the initial origin of life and the complexity of cells themselves.

I read recently that some researchers feel that science will be able to chemically produce life within the next 10 to 20 years. Until then there'll always be a bit of doubt.

Michael Powell: This is a fair point, to my mind. There are, in fact, many great mysteries in evolution, and the Cambrian Explosion continues to generate a lot of debate. Now, to be fair, most of this debate is within the evolutionary community, and most argue that the so called holes are by products of the fact that this took place not last week but, oh, about 55 million years ago.

That said, one need only read the works of Stephen Jay Gould--who speculated about sudden and grand evolutionary mutations--and the ferocious response to him from other biologists to realize that many of the large questions remain unanswered.

There are, too, some very respected biologists such as Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge, who argue for theories of evolution that lend themselves to a teleologicial explanation--that is, theories that are suggestive of a grand architecture to the universe and to life.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: I know this isn't exactly the same issue, but I have to wonder about the implications of cases like this for the provision of the No Child Left Behind Act that allows vouchers to be used in religious schools.

Are any school systems attempting to essentially downsize themselves with the aim of allowing their students to attend religious schools instead, with the local government acting as essentially voucher middleman?

Michael Powell: The question of what happens to the teaching of science--in particular of evolution--if vouchers become national policy is a very good one. As a product of public school, I must say I see a great value in hashing out these questions in a public sphere.

_______________________

Cortez, Colo.: What needs to be done is as follows: teach students, and for that matter journalists, politicians and everyone else what the scientific method is. Teach everyone the actual workings of science. Only after this is done will people see that ID or Creationism is NOT science and does not belong in a scientific classroom. There is no testable hypothesis; no repeatable experiments or analyses - which there are within evolutionary studies.

Evolution is established fact. This whole business of saying that it is only a theory is hogwash. The theory of evolution tries to explain the mechanism(s) behind the fact of evolution; not whether or not organisms evolve. Organisms change over time. To say otherwise is sticking your head in the sand. This is very similar to gravitational theory. We know gravity exists, but are not quite sure what it is. Gravitational theory tries to explain the fact of gravity.

Is evolutionary theory complete - of course not, but it has come a long way since Darwin. That is also part of the problem. Everyone is still hung up on Darwin. His theory has been modified in the 146 years since Origin of Species was published. I don't understand why people are so hung up on this. It is another attempt by the radical right to try and turn this country into a theocracy. No small wonder we are falling far behind other countries in our scientific progress and innovations. --Professional Biologist

Michael Powell: Look, science education at the high school level is as often a depressing landscape. The fact is that many school systems mandate at most a few days or a few weeks on the entire subject of evolution.

I've long thought that raising the question of intelligent design (or Simon Conway Morris' theories or [substitute what you will], in an AP biology class might be a grand exercise. Let the students have at it under the hand of a truly knowledgeable teacher.

But I suppose that begs many questions of our national commitment to training and paying for biology teachers.

_______________________

Middle ground, Va.: My problem is that the two primary competing theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Personally, I happen to believe that God created everything, and in doing so created the processes that set what we call evolution in motion. So, in my mind, both sides are exactly right.

Michael Powell: Yes, that's a short, smart encapsulization of a view that reconciles science and faith

_______________________

Cambrian Explosion: It was more like 550 million years ago, not 55 million. Not to mention that it wasn't 5000 years ago.

Michael Powell: I'm sorry. Right you are. This is the danger of typing fast and thinking somewhat more slowly

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The person who described himself/herself as an "Old-World Catholic" brought back some childhood memories. I went to a Catholic school from 1st through 8th grade (I will admit it was on the liberal end of the spectrum). We had religion class 5 days a week along with math, English, etc. In 4th grade we spent the year in religion class learning that the old testament is mostly myth, just like the greek and roman tales and this class was taught by someone who is now a monk. My father was very interested in nature shows and natural science, so we absorbed a lot of that information as a family. I never saw faith and science in conflict (despite the Catholic church's history of science/religion conflict) It wasn't until I was in public high school that I met someone for the first time that had never heard of evolution. She exclaimed one day -- "Joe said humans are descended from monkeys!" I tried to explain that that wasn't quite true and explained about common ancestry, but was mostly shocked that she had never heard such a thing. I find all of this "debate" fascinating, although frustrating.

Michael Powell: Yes, my friends who attended catholic school in New York City--where I grew up--speak of having a rather rigorous and straightforward grounding in biology.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: Much of the support for intelligent design and creationism reminds me of the debate four centuries ago about whether the earth was the centre of the universe. Some biblical passages contradicted that notion, so some pretty high-powered intellects in the church decided that Gallileo's findings would end Christianity as they knew it. They attacked him with everything they had, and despite a paucity of data to back up their arguments, they managed to persuade many people that they were right and Gallileo's (and others') observations were wrong. Even as scientific data mounted to support our current understanding of the solar system, official doctrine remained unchanged, and it was not until a few years ago that the Roman Catholic church officially acknowledged its error. Such is the power of the human mind to ignore evidence that runs counter to our prejudices.

The problem, though, is not one of science, but of limited appreciation of such literary concepts as allegory. Although the Bible has parables, many people refuse to see it as anything other than the literal meaning of the word of God. (the Bible says it took six days to create the heavens and the earth, so that's what happened. It couldn't be either an allegory or a loose translation.) I suspect that stronger literature programs would do much to reduce people's insecurities when they read passages in the Bible that run counter to what is plainly observable in the natural world.

Michael Powell: You raise a very interesting point. There has been a long move away--within evangelical circles--from the view that the Bible is to be viewed as allegorical or metaphorical. If one casts back to William Jennings Bryan, who defended the creationist position in the first Scopes Trial, one finds that he accepted much of the evolution and took a non literal view of Genesis.

But in the 1960s, the view began to change, and the biblical literalists have come to have a much more powerful grip on views of creationism and evolution.

A stronger emphasis on literature strikes me as a grand proposal.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Has the Intelligent Design movement taken hold anywhere other than the United States?

Michael Powell: There is a fledging intelligent design movement in Turkey, and there are a number of European and Russian scientists and philosophers who are supportive of the ideas. Nowhere, however, are these issues being raised with such energy as in the United States.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Good Afternoon, Mr. Powell, The Washington Post published poll results last week indicating that 45 percent of Americans believe the universe to be less than 10,000 years old. That so many are so ignorant could explain much about our inability to elect intelligent leaders, but I am now curious as to whether Miers also holds this view. If so, she should be rejected as unfit. Period. Your thoughts on the age of the universe? Many thanks, Stunned by the ignorance in Alexandria

washingtonpost.com: What's Not Evolving Is Public Opinion (Post, Oct. 2)

Michael Powell: I just don't know the answer to this. She belongs to an evangelical church, but of course evangelicals are no more monolithic in their views on science and philosophy than the many other Americans. I would argue that it's a worthwhile topic of inquiry, though, as it does go to the heart of one's intellectual world view.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: If "Intelligent Design" is such a valid alternative to the theory of evolution, why is it that every major scientific organization supports the teaching of evolution and rejects "Intelligent Design"?

Michael Powell: This is precisely the question that most scientists raise about Intelligent Design, and why most are so insistent on not calling it a "theory" in the scientific definition of that word. The ID camp often argues they would not want to see the theory/proposition pushed into classrooms yet, that it's but a scientific baby and needs much more testing and work ...

_______________________

St. John's, NL: Michael -

Has ID been co-opted by Creationists, or is it more that Creationists 'created' ID as mainstream offensive against evolution?

Michael Powell: Creationists are of two minds on ID. Many clap quietly at the legal assault, figuring that this might ratchet open the doors to a more explicitly relgious questions in many aspects of education. At the same time, Creationists are not one and the same as Intelligent Design advocates. ID advocates open themselves to the world of science.

Young Earth Creationists quite explicitly say that when science and God conflict, God's word is the first and final answer. That is not science.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: If "Intelligent Design" makes it to the Supreme Court, do you think the new nominees will help this creationist movement?

Michael Powell: This is difficult to answer. Last time around, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt to teach old fashioned Creationism in the public schools. But it must be said that Antonin Scalia wrote a very vigorous dissent, and the conservative forces on the court are certainly stronger today.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: You can't have intelligent design without an intelligent designer.

1. Who do the ID people claim is the intelligent designer? 2. If they say they don't know, how would they respond to a school board deciding that it shall be taught that there are a number of possible intelligent designers, including Allah, Mithras, and the Great Spirit?

Michael Powell: Well, this is the argument from those who argue that ID is religion wearing the garb of science. They say the ID advocates are simply being disingenuous

_______________________

Rosslyn, Va.: I am saddened by those on BOTH sides of the debate that have reduced the discussion to issues of "either/or." Sorry for the digression, but that has also become the nature of political discussion in this country: "I am right, you are completely wrong, and there's zero chance of finding any common ground." To me, evolution is PROOF of Intelligent Design, and vice versa.

Michael Powell: What's fascinating about this topic is what a broad array of questions it encompasses, not least yours.

I appreciate the questions -- I'm sorry if my answers were somewhat hurried and, necessarily, incomplete.

Enjoyed it!

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.