Creationism v Evolution

BHA Science and Creationism

2010-02-09T08:15:00.001Z

In future I will be blogging mostly about Creationism v Evolution on the BHA Science blog or HASSERS blog.

Evolution Education Flyer - from The Brights

2009-11-03T12:00:00.002Z

reposted from: http://the-brights.net/action/activities/resources.html

Evolution Education Flyer
2-sided sheet (or 2 pages)

This educational flyer summarizes the facts about the scientific theory for a general nonscientific audience and recommends suitable and accessible explanatory resources. It is a product of collaboration by 22 members of the Brights' Action Forum (2009).

Download the flyer
- A4 Full Page Print
- Letter Full Page Print

Teach both evolution and creationism in science lessons say 54% of Britons

2009-10-27T22:24:00.002Z

British Council poll finds UK adults overtake Americans in wanting science teaching in schools to include intelligent designJessica Shepherd

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 October 2009 15.50 GMT
Article history

More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schoolscience lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.

About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."

In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.

Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement.

It was found that Britons were almost three times more likely than Egyptians to want creationism and intelligent design to be included in the teaching of evolution.

Creationism holds that the origins of humanity and the Earth are recent and divine, as related in the book of Genesis. Strict creationists believe Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity and that God created the Earth in six days. Advocates of intelligent design argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence.

The UK government has been quick to denounce creationism and intelligent design as unrecognised scientific theory that did not meet the requirements of the national curriculum, but it has said that young people can "discuss creationism as part of their religious education classes".

Neither the primary nor secondary school science curriculums mention creationism or intelligent design.

Prominent scientists and teaching unions have expressed shock at the poll's findings.

Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor of biology at University College London (UCL), who is vice-president of the British Humanist Association, said: "I am appalled. It shows how ignorant the public is. Intelligent design and creationism have no connection with science and are purely religious concepts. There is no evidence for them at all. They must be kept out of science lessons."

Steve Jones, professor of genetics at UCL, said: "This shows the danger of religions being allowed to buy schools, hijack lessons and pretend that they have anything useful to say about science – which, by definition, they do not. The figure seems much too high, although no doubt there is a substantial minority that does think this."

Christine Blower, acting general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "It would be wholly wrong to include creationism in the science curriculum. An overwhelming body of evidence, not assertion, supports the concept of evolution and therefore evolution must form the basis of the science curriculum. Consideration of creationism might not be out of place in religious education."

Teachers were not expressing concern that they were under pressure to teach creationism and intelligent design, teaching unions said.

The National Secular Society said schools should "ban religious explanations in science lessons", adding that the creationist movement was becoming "more vocal".

But Alison Ryan, policy adviser of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers Union, said that if a "good teacher handled the lesson", presenting creationism and intelligent design need not be problematic. "Science teachers could introduce creationism as a theory that some people hold, but that is not based on evidence."

Speaking in a personal capacity, Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at Leeds University, said: "There is room for any scientific position which isn't necessarily from an evolutionary base. We need to follow where the evidence leads and we shouldn't presuppose that the evidence will necessary lead to a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. We must be open to the possibility that information can come from a higher intelligence, but we mustn't assume that."

Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council's Darwin Now programme, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday this year, said the poll raised a debate about how effectively evolutionary science was communicated both inside and outside the classroom.

She said: "Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process."

• This article was amended on 27 October 2009. The original omitted to make clear that Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds University was speaking in a personal capacity.

Evolution v Creation - EvC - a huge resource on the internet

2008-04-21T07:35:00.000+01:00

I found this site via a link in New Scientist article on Evolution.

Dipping into EvC forums I found for instance Science forums, a sub forum on Big Bang and Cosmology and a post Before Big Bang: God or Singularity
with a Closing Assessment

about understanding science "...what this thread makes clear is that you can only explain something to someone who already believes it is true. If they believe it is false then they'll find every excuse and opportunity to avoid reaching an understanding. But this practice isn't unique to those approaching science from a spiritual perspective, it is also true of the reverse, as we often see when science minded folks ask Christians about the Trinity. So the problem becomes how do you explain something to someone who doesn't believe it and only wants to disprove it? We can argue that one doesn't have to accept it, just understand it, but this turns out not to be so easy to do, for anyone from either side of this debate. "

Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash

2008-01-09T02:03:00.000Z

reposted from: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070626-attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash.html?rel
via BHA Science Group

By John Timmer | Published: June 26, 2007 - 11:02AM CT

When societal resistance to the science behind evolution comes up for discussion, it's often an occasion for European readers to ask (with varying degrees of politeness) whether the US has lost its collective marbles. Any sense of superiority they derive from viewing the rejection of science as an American phenomenon, however, should have evaporated in recent years as creationist efforts have popped up throughout Europe, including within several governments. The situation has now reached the point where European governments have felt compelled to address the issue. More..

Creationism - how to respond?

2007-11-30T22:06:00.000Z

reposted from: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-how-to-respond.html

Check out the comments that follow the article.

Creationism - how to respond?

If you have ever had a conversation with a creationist of the "young earth" variety (who believe the entire universe is less than 10K years old, with all species created by God as described in Genesis), you'll know it is a frustrating experience.

Point to the fossil record, say, or light from distant stars, or carbon dating, or tectonic plate movement, etc. as evidence of a much older universe, and you will find they have prepared answers, supplied, for example, by the multi-million dollar funded Institute for Creation Research.

There are also innumerable creationist resources on the web, such as at www.christiananswers.net.

I'd like to discuss how best to respond to young earth creationists when you come across them (I've come across quite a few in British Schools, recently - including one teaching science in a leading public school).

Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

2007-11-17T17:42:00.000Z

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1876,n,n

by Clive Thompson

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.

Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that

scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.

So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge — particularly in areas like evolution or relativity — they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."

This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)

Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.

The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon,"

Quinn says.

What does she suggest?

For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.

Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot — an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease — we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?

Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.

At least, that's my theory.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And here are some of my favorite comments

3. Comment #88057 by Vinelectric on November 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Alternatively, educate the public about the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.

Evolutionary change lacks the overall uniformity and predictability that the effect of gravity has on accelerating masses. The word 'Law' thus sounds inappropriate.

4. Comment #88058 by Friend Giskard on November 14, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Ugh. "Law of evolution" sounds daft, and a bit dogmatic.

I suppose "model" is a rough equivalent to "theory" that has none of the connotations of half-assed guesswork. "The evolutionary model of life on earth." But if we replace one word with another, after a time it will inevitably become tarnished the in same way .

Richard has often compared the theory of evolution (the common descent part, at least) with the idea that the earth is round, in terms of the certainty with which it is held to be correct.

What word to we usually use for that?

5. Comment #88060 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.

I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).

In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:

Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.

Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.

The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.

The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).

So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"

Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.

Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!

6. Comment #88062 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm

But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory. One can then compare research between the two and see which has the stronger argument.
If they still don't get it, what can one do? They never will.

7. Comment #88064 by dazzjazz on November 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm

"The Law of Evolution" - I like it!

8. Comment #88065 by savroD on November 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

I tried to ask the question to RD a few months back, and I'm sure I mentioned it in some other postings. Where is the Law of Evolution? Certainly, the fields of genetics and molecular biology has enabled the fashioning of some law; however, it's somewhat of a mathmatical proposition, similar to the law of gravitation. Although I lack the scientific credentials, I would really like to see this in my lifetime!

10. Comment #88067 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Sounds like a concept way past its due. My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background? It looks as if we should already be calling it the Law of Evolution. If that's the case, is it just a poor choice of words in regards to the "Theory of Evolution", or is there a way to gather a consensus to change the title? I do believe this change of title would be significant if gone through the proper procedure (and media).

12. Comment #88069 by bradpitcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm

But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.

Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.

13. Comment #88070 by room101 on November 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I agree with the majority of the posts...people need to understand that there is a difference in the scientific community as to what 'theory' means.

However, I'm drawn to what the author is saying. Last night I watched the documentary 'judgment day' that chronicled the Dover, PA ID vs Evolution trial in 2004 on NOVA. Hopefully many of you did, as well. Although it was well done, I found some things quite disturbing.

Mainly, the 2 idiots who started the whole mess (Cunningham and Bonsall - as well as others) kept saying throughout the entire documentary that evolution is 'only a theory, so what's wrong with introducing a different theory?' Hell, even counsel for the defense (representing the ID'ers) used this in defense of their case. I've also noticed that the conservative media picked up on this. They say 'scientists have their views, so why can't alternative views be introduced? Why won't the scientific community and the courts allow this? Not allowing differing ideas in the classroom - isn't that fascism???' What nonsense...

And this to me is a disturbing trend. It's almost like science and truth aren't the important issues - it's language and spin that are important.

14. Comment #88071 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Since it is untestable, is Creationism even worthy of the status of hypothesis?

15. Comment #88072 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm

1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?
Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.

2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because

3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.

*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.

16. Comment #88073 by shaunfletcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I would LOVE to see a definitive on this from someone truly equipped to answer it (hint hint!), but its my impression that you cannot just start referring to something as a law because of the body of evidence for it.

I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.

Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.

Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'

No?

17. Comment #88077 by Monosilabbiq on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm

The pillars of creationism and ID are testable by science. The problem comes that if you prove scientifically that any of those pilars is false the prople who hold those "beliefs" change their mind and erect yet another set of pillars in slightly different words. Let us say one of the pillars of creationism was that the world came into existence less than 10,000 years ago - that can be examined by scientists. Those scientists findings can be peer reviewed. If they find that the "theory" has been disproved by the facts then the "theory" is discarded.

To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".

18. Comment #88079 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea

Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)

19. Comment #88081 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)

The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".

But you just did.

I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.

The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P

20. Comment #88086 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm

We need to see how the words of science are being used against it, and evolve literally and accordingly. I think Clive Thompson makes an EXCELLENT point here! What can the scientific community do to counteract these obviously misunderstood (intentionally or not) phrases we are using.

21. Comment #88087 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm

This is a battle of words, and most of them of ours!

22. Comment #88088 by Arcturus on November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I told you so :) ... don't use words like materialism, evangelical atheism well ... theory now. When speaking to the average Joe, one has to start from scratch, and not assume that Joe has some understanding about what you speak. You need to define all the terms in the conversation before going on to more evolved stuff.

Speaking of Creatonism ... they are fools, and that's a FACT! If the bible says something, who is Radiometric dating to contradict what God is saying. I can totally understand the deist way of thinking, but the Young Earth Creationist ... man, they are total wackos.

23. Comment #88091 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I don't think this guy's grasp of scientific concepts is that much better than that of the people he's criticising.

What exactly is he proposing should be enshrined as a law, anyway? "Evolution" covers a huge range of ideas - common descent, genetics, developmental processes, pathology, etc, etc. You can't just say all that's suitable for assertion as a law.

It has to be something short enough to print on a T-Shirt.

24. Comment #88093 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

What we have here is an absolute failure of communication. Let's fix it.

25. Comment #88095 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Excellent point made by robert s. Except, isn't evidence relating to each and every one of those fields enough to claim this as "law"?

26. Comment #88096 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I'm not arguing the strength of the evidence, I'm arguing my idea of what a scientific law is. It seems to me it should be at least:

1) Universally true
2) A single idea that can be expressed in one sentence or formula.

ie. Conservation of energy is a law, thermodynamics is a theory. Saying they're the same thing isn't helping matters.

I'd be keen to see suggestions for 'laws' of biology that meet those criteria, because this comes up a lot.

27. Comment #88100 by Mango on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm

It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.

30. Comment #88107 by Kakashi_monkey on November 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm

I definitely think scientists need to be more bold with their work. Common people will be more imressed by scientists' claims when "law" is used rather than "theory". Plus, christians certainly bang on about their stuff, so scientists should get their turn.

31. Comment #88111 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I don't think science should sacrifice intellectual integrity and precision for the sake of PR.

"Theory" and "law" are two different things. The former is a coherent explanatory narrative which is a web of interlocking observed facts, interpretations of such facts, their explanations, laws, predictions of the theory and their verifications, etc; the latter consists of a single statement, usually rather precise and specific (e.g electromagnetic theory v.s Faraday's Law of induction; relativity theory v.s E=mc^2)

It's better to educate the public how to understand these terms properly.

32. Comment #88112 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Let the theist's get into the definitions of laws and theories, maybe they will learn something about science. I like using the term "Law of Evolution". Give them a dose of their own medicine. I'll concede to "theory" if they can demonstrate my scientific mistake.

33. Comment #88113 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I like using the term "Law of Evolution" Give them a dose of their own medicine

You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?

34. Comment #88115 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Like I was saying, it will be a science learning experience for them, looking up definitions, they need that. Am I correct?

35. Comment #88118 by eric.malitz on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm

evolution is a scientific fact. Natural selection, etc. is the theory part of it

36. Comment #88122 by Russell Blackford on November 14, 2007 at 6:51 pm

What Bonzai said.

I don't think there's an easy way out. We need to be doing the hard work of educating the public about such things as what "a theory" or "a body of theory" or "theoretical knowledge" actually is, in science. That's not necessariy easy, but changing the lingo at this stage of the game is not a substitute.

37. Comment #88123 by MihaiC on November 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I think this is an awful idea, especially because of linguistic reasons.

I think 'law' means 3 things:
(1) Civil Law - gets its authority from Constitutions, is the formal expression of the social contract and can be modified and replaced by those it applies to (citizens)
(2) Divine Law and derivatives - same scope as Civil Law, but claims to be 'revealed' and 'endorsed' by God(s).
(3) Some seemingly universal and profound phisics theorems which are traditionally named 'laws' because at the time of their discovery there were thought to be Divine Laws by which God 'commanded' the Universe to work as he intends.

Evolution doesn't fit any of these 3 definitions of 'law'. It's more like a mathematical result from more fundamental notions.

38. Comment #88126 by sent2null on November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm

actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.

39. Comment #88127 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I simply ignore creationists and creationism. Best solution.

40. Comment #88128 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Really, truth and honesty are the best policy. To be morally above religion is very important. It just gets frustrating sometimes. But you can't ignore ignorance for too long. "For ignorance and fanaticism are always busy, and need feeding." ("Inherit the Wind")

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | Print

Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

by Clive Thompson

Reposted from:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson

Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.

Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.

So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge — particularly in areas like evolution or relativity — they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."

This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)

Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.

The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon," Quinn says.

What does she suggest? For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.

Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot — an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease — we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?

Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.

At least, that's my theory.

Email clive@clivethompson.net.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |

1. Comment #88055 by Tania on November 14, 2007 at 12:21 pm

All we need is an additional sticker:
BUT IT'S LIGHT YEARS BETTER THAN CREATIONISM/ID, WHICH IS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE.

Other Comments by Tania

2. Comment #88056 by artemisa on November 14, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I like it, but the backward people are going to counter with " Now they're calling a theory a law"
Nevertheless I still like it.

Other Comments by artemisa

3. Comment #88057 by Vinelectric on November 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm

4. Comment #88058 by Friend Giskard on November 14, 2007 at 12:39 pm

5. Comment #88060 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.

6. Comment #88062 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm

7. Comment #88064 by dazzjazz on November 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm

"The Law of Evolution" - I like it!

Other Comments by dazzjazz

8. Comment #88065 by savroD on November 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

9. Comment #88066 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm

But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.

No Goldy! That's playing THEIR game! Explain the difference between theory and dogma darn it!

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

10. Comment #88067 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm

11. Comment #88068 by Harko on November 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Evolution is a THEORY. Yeah, just like gravity!

That would be catchy enough for a supplementary sticker?

Other Comments by Harko

12. Comment #88069 by bradpitcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm

But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.

Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.

Other Comments by bradpitcher

13. Comment #88070 by room101 on November 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm

14. Comment #88071 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Since it is untestable, is Creationism even worthy of the status of hypothesis?

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

15. Comment #88072 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm

16. Comment #88073 by shaunfletcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm

17. Comment #88077 by Monosilabbiq on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm

18. Comment #88079 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea

Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

19. Comment #88081 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)

The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".

20. Comment #88086 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm

21. Comment #88087 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm

This is a battle of words, and most of them of ours!

Other Comments by shemp333

22. Comment #88088 by Arcturus on November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm

23. Comment #88091 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 3:28 pm

24. Comment #88093 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

What we have here is an absolute failure of communication. Let's fix it.

Other Comments by shemp333

25. Comment #88095 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Excellent point made by robert s. Except, isn't evidence relating to each and every one of those fields enough to claim this as "law"?

Other Comments by shemp333

26. Comment #88096 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm

27. Comment #88100 by Mango on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm

It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.

Other Comments by Mango

28. Comment #88103 by HereticChick on November 14, 2007 at 5:27 pm

What I don't understand, is how can we allow SCHOOL BOARD members to decide what is right or wrong to teach our children? How can our gov't legislate science? 99.9% of these congressmen and reps know nothing about science or biology! I think we should allow our top scientists to decide what goes into a science text book. At least it'll be the "right stuff" :)

Other Comments by HereticChick

29. Comment #88106 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Bravo!! Mr. Thompson. "Law of Evolution", has a nice ring.

I saw this on a sign at Hooters: Gravity is not just a good idea, it's a law.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

30. Comment #88107 by Kakashi_monkey on November 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm

31. Comment #88111 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm

32. Comment #88112 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:51 pm

33. Comment #88113 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I like using the term "Law of Evolution" Give them a dose of their own medicine

You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #88115 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Like I was saying, it will be a science learning experience for them, looking up definitions, they need that. Am I correct?

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

35. Comment #88118 by eric.malitz on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm

evolution is a scientific fact. Natural selection, etc. is the theory part of it.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

36. Comment #88122 by Russell Blackford on November 14, 2007 at 6:51 pm

37. Comment #88123 by MihaiC on November 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm

38. Comment #88126 by sent2null on November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm

39. Comment #88127 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I simply ignore creationists and creationism. Best solution.

Other Comments by PeterK

40. Comment #88128 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm

41. Comment #88130 by will young on November 14, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Comment #88062
But aren't they ALL theories?

Creationism is mythology.

42. Comment #88131 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:15 pm

I agree with those posters who have said that we should not play the language game with the Creationists. It is difficult for the science community to combat the propaganda war the Creationists are playing when so few scientists speak publicly. Richard Dawkins is an excellent public educator when it comes to science, much like the late great Carl Sagan. Really the crux of the issue lies on education. If we changed evolution to a "law" the Creationists would focus on something else or exploit the obvious ploy. Also, by playing the semantic game we lose some integrity in the process and that is the real advantage science has over creationism. Again, it comes down to education and scientists and philosophers of science need to become more vocal. They need to dedicate a little bit of time outside of the lab in order to write and speak publicly about their findings. Peer-reviewed journals are great for having your work looked over, but not many members of the general public take a look at them. If scientists don't make their findings known through various venues, then what good are those findings to the rest of us? Some of us may argue that people need to take the time to research a bit and learn the information for themselves, but that doesn't happen often. Rather, the information should be thrown in their laps so that they have to contend with its truth value one way or another.

43. Comment #88132 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Just to add....

I think ignoring creationism and creationists is very foolish indeed. To some extent they have been ignored over the last couple of decades and now we are facing a very deadly problem. Yes, I wrote "deadly".

44. Comment #88133 by asupcb on November 14, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Evolution is a fact and the theory is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Most people just leave off the last part when in fact that is the part that is the theory aspect. Natural Selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution.

45. Comment #88135 by jefft0 on November 14, 2007 at 10:17 pm

This "debate" will only move forward when scientists learn how to respond directly to the lies as lies. RD has started to do this by describing his opponent's "willful mendacity". Other scientists also need to quit playing nice.
We're not up against someone who is "exploring a different theory", we're up against someone who is figuring out ways to lie. We don't need words any fancier than that.

46. Comment #88137 by PsyPro on November 14, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Most of the comments here have focused on the issue of the title to the piece (``theory'' vs. ``law''). Yet, there is a more disturbing and more damaging terminology that the article raises that many of the scientific persuasion use, namely: I (we) believe that x...

As a scientist, I avoid the word ``believe'', as it has prosaic connotations that almost always undermine my (or any scientist's) intent. To the typical lay person (ok, my students, at any rate), it seems, the use of ``I believe that x'' is always offered in the context of NOT having evidence; it is used to ward off logical or empirical rebuttal, as in: ``I have no evidence, but I believe it, so it is inviolate: it is not nice (appropriate, politic, etc.) to attack another's beliefs''. In common parlance, it is rarely used to mean ``I have a solid evidentiary basis that x''---which, in contradistinction, is how scientists use the term ``believe''.

I always admonish my students that neither I nor any one else who reads their essays cares what they believe (their sense of the term), but only what they can defend. So, there is no point in in using ``I believe" as the prefix to any claim, especially as it is used almost always to advance claims in the absence of evidence (``I think'' is used similarly). Rather, say, ``It is the case that x, and here is the evidence...''. If you can't, then don't say it at all.

48. Comment #88141 by Diacanu on November 14, 2007 at 11:16 pm

jefft0-

We're not up against someone who is "exploring a different theory", we're up against someone who is figuring out ways to lie.

That's it exactly.

And given they're willing to lie, we're dealing with a group who wants to win at all costs regardless of if they deserve to.

49. Comment #88146 by ration on November 15, 2007 at 12:14 am

Evolution is a THEORY. Yeah, just like gravity!

This comparison always amuses me. My current understanding is that purely as scientific scientific theories gravity is much more incomplete than evolution if look past the "things tend towards the ground" observation.

50. Comment #88148 by clodhopper on November 15, 2007 at 12:28 am

Why should we play linguistic games on their terms? It's a recipe for a mess. So we say 'law' and they say 'ok, god made the law so he can suspend it whenever', and we than call it what? Where does it get us? Just demand the evidence neh?

51. Comment #88150 by hcholm on November 15, 2007 at 1:34 am

There's Mendel's laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance) and the "laws of physics", so for me, the "laws of evolution" seems OK. At least in the plural form, I'm not sure what the single "law of evolution" would be

52. Comment #88153 by Coel on November 15, 2007 at 1:54 am

My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background?

In asking this question you are buying into the ``theory = unproven'' idea, which is not how science uses the word. In science, ``law'' is used for something that can be stated in one sentence or one equation.

A ``theory'' is grander, it is a set of interlocking ideas and explanations, often encompassing several laws. Thus the theory of classical mechanics includes Newton's laws of motion, and the theory of thermodynamics includes four thermodynamical laws. Thus, theories are never upgraded to laws (though a ``hypothesis'' might be).

I do see the point people are making, that the popular usage is different, and helps the creationists. The problem is that there is no easy change here, since the proposal to call evolution a ``law'' would be a marked departure from what science means by ``law''.

53. Comment #88157 by quill on November 15, 2007 at 2:11 am

I usually just point out to the antievolutionists that evolution encompasses numerous laws, such as the laws of heredity or the law of natural selection.

54. Comment #88158 by Mike O'Risal on November 15, 2007 at 2:13 am

Evolutionary theory isn't a law... it's a number of laws clustered together into one coherent model. I think it would be more appropriate to make that already existent fact clear than it would be to start redefining language to suit colloquial usage. That is only going to lead to more problems.

For example, we can talk about laws of inheritance, laws of selection, laws of population growth. There are any number of mathematically quantifiable forces at work within the overall evolutionary model. When Creationists talk about "evolutionary theory not making predictions," for instance, the dodge is really that evolutionary theory *as a whole* isn't about making predictions; it's the application of specific principles embodied in the theory that are used to make predictions. Evolutionary theory as a monolithic concept is simply too broad to be applied in toto to some particular instance in biological science. That's not a shortcoming, anymore than the fact that we don't apply all of the laws embodied under "physics" to explain the Doppler shift.

We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.

If Creationists were to decide tomorrow that all crustaceans are shrimp, should we change taxonomy in order to shut them up for awhile... until they move on to their next set of demands?

55. Comment #88162 by MuNky82 on November 15, 2007 at 2:22 am

"We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.
"

How about using the plural of "Law" - Laws?
I know it is technically incorrect, but "Laws of Evolution" would indacte many Laws that lead the Evolution Theory.

Or how about the 'Conclusion of Evolution' or the 'Evolutionary Conclusion', even though it sounds horrible, "conclusion" would indicate investigation of evidence and thus concluding a valid/factual theory.

"Believe" is also weak in the sense that it sounds like a leap of faith. How about "accept", it sounds definite and powerful.

Example:
99.98% of scientist believe in the Theory of Evolution.

VS

99.98% of scientist accept the Evolutionary Conclusion.

58. Comment #88167 by Haymoon on November 15, 2007 at 2:54 am

In science the words hypothesis, theory and law have very specific meanings

see http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Creationism/ID is a dogma or doctrine. Lets call it for what it is.

59. Comment #88169 by Duff on November 15, 2007 at 3:10 am

Why not let both camps keep "theory" in their descriptions. Lets say Evolution Theory is for grown ups and ID theory is for the simple people.

62. Comment #88179 by GBile on November 15, 2007 at 4:36 am

We will really be in trouble if we would switch to the L-word.

'Law of evolution', 'Laws of Physics'?? Then there must be a 'LAWGIVER' !

Guess who that would be.

Let's not do it, it will not work.
'Scientific theory' has a well established meaning. Anyone who wants can understand this.

63. Comment #88181 by anonquick on November 15, 2007 at 4:53 am

People like levels, grades, or scales.

The fact of evolution should graded the highest level, and this level should mean something like 'certainty'. 'The earth is 6000 years old should be graded in the level which means something like 'completely rejected because it is no where near the truth'.

Evolution by natural selection should get a grade that means something like: "Everyone agrees that this is the truth, we are now fighting over some of the details".

What do people think?

65. Comment #88187 by 35bluejacket on November 15, 2007 at 6:28 am

Years ago I remember Pat Robinson telling his congregation that other religions are not fit to govern this country, and added; "I not only know it, I believe it!" Clearly he and his others think that "belief" is closer to the truth than "knowing".

Not long ago I had a Dr. of Marine Biology onboard my vessel, responding to his student (a creationist) that he didn't "believe" in evolution, "I know it!"

66. Comment #88189 by beebhack on November 15, 2007 at 6:41 am

So we have to compromise our correct use of language because of stupidity?

No.

67. Comment #88192 by Caeruleum on November 15, 2007 at 6:54 am

I don't think anyone has yet suggested using 'the principles of evolution'. This avoids the 'theory' word and suggests that evolution is based on a set of scientifically established mechanisms, which indeed it is.

69. Comment #88196 by Aquambulus hirsutus on November 15, 2007 at 7:18 am

No doubt the creationists would come up with inanities like "you don't prove a theory by calling it 'law'". But it's hardly the creationists that this is aimed at. Like the author, I can imagine that if 'laws of evolution' became common parlance, people who don't normally give it much thought, might mentally file it under Things That Sane People Do Not Doubt. It'd save RD and others from having to explain, each and every time, that evolution is true. Maybe biologists should vote on the subject, like astronomers did on the planethood of Pluto?

Off to print stickers saying "Laws CAN and DO get BROKEN".

72. Comment #88203 by 35bluejacket on November 15, 2007 at 10:22 am

Speaking of definitions. I have long concluded a few of them myself. That truth is simply knowledge and that evil is nothing more than ignorance. An anology would be light as knowledge and the lesser degree, that of shadow, darkness or evil. Truth will always win the battles over ignorance because man can not unknow truth when he learns it. Truth will allways hold the moral high ground because deception and ignorance are brothers. Truth and or knowledge is the power that advances civilizations.

If I did'nt know better I would almost think that the awesome power of truth and knowledge were a gift from God to man.

73. Comment #88251 by Russell Blackford on November 15, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Re Comment #88137, this "belief" thing must be an American phenomenon ... at least mainly. I certainly haven't encountered it anywhere else in the world. (However, maybe PsyPro is from France or Turkey or something ... or Australia. That would be interesting.)

Please, people, the word "believe" just indicates that some agent ... well ... has an attitude to a certain proposition of thinking it is true. It says nothing about whether the belief really is true, whether it is justified, whether the evidence objectively supports it, etc.

To use the commonplace example that I'm fond on, which I stole from somewhere, I might believe that there is chocolate in the cupboard. In moral psychology, the working idea is usually the Humean one that we are motivated by a combination of our beliefs (in this everyday sense) and our desires. Hence, if I desire some chocolate (my current attitude towards chocolate is that I'd like to eat some) and I believe there is chocolate in the cupboard (I think it true that "there is chocolate in the cupboard"), then other things being equal I will be motivated to go and open the cupboard door to look search for choccy.

I don't see how we could get by without this ordinary little word "belief" and its cognates ("believe", "believes" and so on). Nor do I see how we could operate socially without using a basic naive psychology in which we attribute beliefs and desires to people.

It's a real nuisance that some people (mainly in America?) seem to have elevated "believe" to mean something like "hold an opinion on faith as a personal commitment", or whatever. I hypothesise that this is tied up with America's religiosity and also with the hyper-emphasis in America on self-expression: kids seem to be taught at an early age that their personal opinions and ideas are of great importance, however ill-informed they are.

Don't get me wrong. I value self-expression and admire the way Americans always seem to be incredibly articulate, even when they are talking absolute nonsense. I'm not being sarcastic here. The self-doubt, self-deprecation, reticence, unwillingness to stand out in a group, etc., that we are taught here in Australia has its downside. That American way of doing things definitely has its attraction. No reflex anti-Americanism from me. But maybe there's a happy medium.

Anyway, my suggestion that the problem is a specifically American one, or mainly so, is hypothesis not theory. The main point is that the ordinary little word "belief" needs some rescuing, since we need a word with that everyday meaning and it won't be easy to revise such a basic part of our language to find a substitute

75. Comment #88370 by rustylix on November 16, 2007 at 9:04 am

The rebuttals to the claim that "Evolution is just a theory" always include defining the fact that in science the word theory means a well-substantiated explanation of data. Why not just rebut with a similar statement "Creationism is just baloney" that is not accepted by 99.8% of the scientific community.

Motivation of Creationists?

2007-10-28T23:01:00.000Z

Cartoons attacking Creationism

2007-10-24T20:59:00.000+01:00

reposted from: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9
Thanks to Dr Baloney for this link.

Worth a look ... for a chuckle ... and makes you think!

UK Government gives guidance on teaching of Creationism in science classes

2007-10-16T09:00:00.000+01:00

Download MS Word copy and reposted from: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890

TeacherNet has been developed by the Department for Children, Schools and Families as a resource to support the education profession.

Chris Street emphasis in blockquote

GUIDANCE ON THE PLACE OF CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE LESSONS

The National Curriculum

The National Curriculum secures for all pupils, irrespective of background and ability, an entitlement to a range of areas of learning. Its aim is to develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for each pupil's self-fulfilment and development as an active and responsible citizen. It makes expectations for learning and attainment explicit to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, employers and the public, and establishes national standards for the performance of all pupils.

The National Curriculum provides the framework of what should be taught in a particular subject. It does not state how subjects should be taught and schools are free to add additional material to it when developing their school curriculum (for example some schools choose to teach Astronomy at GCSE in addition to other science GCSEs).

Science in the curriculum

Science is a core subject of the National Curriculum throughout every key stage.

The science programmes of study set out the legal requirements of the science National Curriculum. They focus on the nature of science as a subject discipline, including what constitutes scientific evidence and how this is established. Students learn about scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge with extensive supporting evidence. Hypotheses are developed on the basis of the body of knowledge and are tested experimentally to generate further evidence that may be supportive or contradictory. Experimental work can then be used to generate further evidence in order to test new hypotheses based on these bodies of scientific knowledge. The role of the scientific community in evaluating and validating new work is also included as is the nature of, and evidence for, evolution.

Religious Education in the curriculum

Religious Education (RE) is a component of the basic curriculum, to be taught alongside the National Curriculum in all maintained schools.

There is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things in RE. The DfES and QCA have published a non-statutory national framework for RE and supporting teaching units which include the unit 'How can we answer questions about creation and origins?' The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. Students have opportunities within RE lessons to discuss, explore, question and evaluate these relationships. The unit can be downloaded from http://www.qca.org.uk.

Scientific theories

The use of the word 'theory' can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a 'hunch'. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community.

However, it also signals that all scientific knowledge is considered to be provisional as it can be overturned by new evidence if this is validated and accepted by the scientific community.

Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole. Creationism and intelligent design therefore do not form part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study.

What is appropriate to teach in science lessons?

The nature of, and evidence for, evolution must be taught at key stage 4 as these are part of the programme of study for science. Key stages 1, 2 and 3 include topics such as variation, classification and inheritance which lay the foundations for developing an understanding of evolution at key stage 4 and post-16.

The nature of science as a subject discipline must also be taught, as described in Sc1 Scientific enquiry at key stages 1 and 2 and how science works at key stages 3 and 4.

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.

However, there is a real difference between teaching 'x' and teaching about 'x'. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.

Addressing students' questions about creationism or intelligent design

Science teachers can respond positively and educationally to questions and comments about creationism or intelligent design by questioning, using prompts such as 'What makes a theory scientific?', and by promoting knowledge and understanding of the scientific consensus around the theories of evolution and the Big Bang.

Choosing appropriate resources

The DCSF does not specify teaching resources. There is a wide variety of resources available for use in schools and teachers are free to use their professional judgement to select appropriate materials for their science lessons.

Any resource should be checked carefully before it is used in the classroom. If resources which mention creationism or intelligent design are used, it must be made clear that neither constitutes a scientific theory.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is creationism a valid scientific theory?

'Creationism', a term commonly used as a shorthand for 'young-Earth creationism', is the belief that the Earth and its many species did not gradually come into being over billions of years but were created suddenly and within the last 10,000 years. This proposed timescale can be investigated scientifically with the scientific evidence indicating a much older Earth (between 4,000 and 5,000 million years). The existence of a 'creator' is not scientifically testable.

Is a belief in creation the same thing as 'creationism'?

Belief that God created everything that exists is shared by Christians, Jews, Muslims and many others all over the world. Many of the founders of modern science, as well as contemporary scientists, have held and do hold this belief, one 'that science cannot address' since it is religious/metaphysical.

In view of this, in the interest of good science education, it is important that science teachers do not assert or imply that science contradicts traditional beliefs in creation and design.

To the belief in creation, creationists have added the belief that the Earth is geologically young, although this is not supported by mainstream science.

Is intelligent design a valid scientific theory?

The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons.

Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science.

Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.

Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.

Should time be given to creationism and intelligent design in science lessons?

The theory of evolution lies at the heart of biology and should be taught at key stage 4 and in GCE advanced level biology.

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories and do not form part of the science National Curriculum or the GCSE and GCE A level subject criteria.

There may be situations in which it is appropriate for science teachers to respond to student comments or enquiries about the claims of creationism or intelligent design. This would be to establish why they are not considered as scientific theories as described above in 'What is appropriate to teach in science lessons'. One way to do this would be to consider the mechanisms by which new scientific knowledge becomes established and why creationism and intelligent design do not meet these requirements.

If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works. Such aspects include: 'how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides evidence to test ideas and develop theories'; 'that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer, and some that science cannot address'; 'how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time and about the role of the scientific community in validating these changes'.

Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?

Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.

Should I use resources about creationism and intelligent design that are sent to my school?

Decisions about which resources to use rest with schools and teachers. Organisations promoting creationism and intelligent design quite often provide resources for schools; these may include paper-based activities, leaflets, DVDs, CDs, music, workshops, other activities and web resources. While these resources may be used, it must be remembered that they do not support the science National Curriculum and they present a particular minority viewpoint that is not underpinned by scientific principles and evidence.

What about students who hold creationist beliefs or believe in the arguments of intelligent design?

Some students do hold creationist beliefs or believe in the arguments of the intelligent design movement and/or have parents/carers who accept such views. If either is brought up in a science lesson it should be handled in a way that is respectful of students' views, religious and otherwise, whilst clearly giving the message that the theory of evolution and the notion of an old Earth / universe are supported by a mass of evidence and fully accepted by the scientific community.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Creation: theologically, God's purposeful act of bringing and holding the universe in being. This traditional belief in divine, designed action is shared by Jews, Christians, Muslims and others.

Creationism: a term commonly used as shorthand for its most common variant, 'young-Earth creationism'. As well as a belief in creation, it includes the additional belief that creation occurred by specific, non-natural divine events in six 'days' some 6000-10,000 years ago, rather than by God's creative actions through the natural processes of stellar, chemical and biological evolution.

Design: purposeful planning behind an object or action.

God-of-the-gaps: the name given to the practice of substituting an explanation of agency [in this case God] into current gaps in our scientific understanding, where what is needed is an explanation of the mechanisms [i.e. a scientific explanation]. It is not part of science teaching - and cannot be philosophically justified - to 'plug God in' to gaps awaiting a scientific explanation. Although the two types of explanation are logically compatible, they are not interchangeable.

Intelligent Design: the belief (held by members of a movement starting in the early 1990s) that certain biological features are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution and therefore point to 'intelligence'.

Irreducible complexity: a structure is claimed to be irreducibly complex if it could not have originated by natural processes; this claim is made for any biological system consisting of many interacting parts in which the absence of any one part means that the whole system does not function. Two examples which have been frequently quoted are the mammalian eye and the bacterial flagellum. Plausible mechanisms by which both could have evolved have now been described .

Origins: a word commonly used for the processes by which the universe, life and humankind originated. Such processes as stellar, chemical and biological evolution are the province of science, and need to be distinguished from the theological concept of an act of creation.

Science: the systematic study of the origins, structure and behaviour of the physical/natural world through observation, theorising and experiment.

Scientific theory: a consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanation of an aspect of the natural world which can, at least in principle, be tested by observations and/or experiments. Examples are the kinetic theory of gases, continental drift and plate tectonics, biological evolution and quantum theory.

RESOURCES
There is a wide range of resources and background material on these topics and those in the list below are good starting points.

Website articles
A page on the website of Christians in Science devoted to sources of information about origins, creation, creationism and intelligent design. It includes a number of links to web pages that are relevant to creationism and ID: http://www.cis.org.uk/for_members/education/origins.shtml

The Interacademy Panel's statement on the teaching of evolution:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

Further articles may be found on the pages of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php

Non-academic books
Ayala, Francisco J (2006) Darwin and Intelligent Design, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-3802-3.
Poole, M. W. (2007) User's Guide to Science and Belief, Ch 8-10, Oxford: Lion Hudson, ISBN 978-0-7459-5274-1

Academic books
Jones, L. & Reiss, M. J. (eds) (2007) Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking account of creationism, New York: Peter Lang. Examines the implications of the rise in creationism for school science teaching and presents suggestions for ways forward.
Manson, Neil A (ed) (2003) God and Design: The teleological argument and modern science, London: Routledge. Considers the design argument from historical, philosophical, theological, biological and physical perspectives.

Creationism out of the classroom

2007-10-16T08:52:00.000+01:00

reposted from: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/09/creationism_in_the_classroom.html

James Randerson

All James Randerson articles
About Webfeeds

Creationism out of the classroom

September 28, 2007 11:51 AM

The UK government has issued new guidelines to teachers on what to teach about creationism and intelligent design in science classes. They are pretty explicit that creationism and ID do not belong.

The move seems to be a response to efforts by the ironically named campaign group "Truth in Science". Last year it sent DVDs promoting ID to every school in the land in the hope that they would be used to teach the creationist idea alongisde evolution in science lessons.

The new guidelines could not be clearer:

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.

That doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned of course, but the guidelines state that it should only feature as part of discussions about what does and does not make a scientific theory.

The use of the word 'theory' can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a 'hunch'.

In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community...Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole.

There are even specific guidelines about using materials from groups like TIS:

While these resources may be used, it must be remembered that they do not support the science National Curriculum and they present a particular minority viewpoint that is not underpinned by scientific principles and evidence.

For more on TIS check out the British Centre for Science Education.

The origin of speciousness

2007-10-16T08:46:00.000+01:00

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_randerson/2007/10/the_origin_of_speciousness.html

The origin of speciousness

School science lessons are are not the place to teach children about creationism and 'intelligent design'.

James Randerson

Articles

Profile

All James Randerson articles
About Webfeeds

October 9, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version

Growing numbers of school kids (we are told) believe in creationism. That poses a problem for teachers presenting evolution as part of the science curriculum. So they should cover religious explanations of origins alongside Darwinism.

That was the argument put forward last week in a new book entitled Teaching About Scientific Origins. One of its editors Prof Michael Reiss, of the Institute of Education in London told the Guardian:

"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins. While it is unlikely that they will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help them to manage it - and

to learn more science.

"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says, and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.

Prof Reiss, who has a PhD in evolutionary biology and is also a Church of England priest, qualifies his position in the book:

"Teaching about aspects of religion in science classes could potentially help students better understand the strengths and limitations of the ways in which science is undertaken, the nature of truth claims in science, and the importance of social contexts for science.

"I do not belong to the camp that argues that creationism is necessarily nonscientific ... Furthermore I am not convinced that something being 'nonscientific' is sufficient to disqualify it from being considered in a science lesson. An understanding of (nonscientific) context often helps in learning the content of science."

This "anything goes" approach to school science will only serve to blur the boundary between evidence-based scientific knowledge and faith. At best it will provide an unwelcome distraction in an already tight curriculum. At worse it has the potential to confuse children as to what science is and what it is not.

To borrow an example from the evolutionary biologist and popular science author Prof Steve Jones, we don't ask science teachers to spend valuable teaching time explaining why the stork theory of human reproduction won't get you many marks in the exam. Nor do we ask them to go in detail through the case for the sun revolving around the earth. School science lessons are for giving pupils a working knowledge of our current - but of course provisional - picture of how the world works, plus the evidence underpinning that. There is too much fascinating science out there to waste time rehearsing discredited old ideas.

The job of a science teacher should be to present the evidence in favour of Darwin's beautiful theory.

The new guidelines from the government on teaching evolution state that alternatives to Darwinism such as creationism and intelligent design can come into discussions on the subject, but only to illustrate what does and does not constitute a scientific theory.

In stating clearly that creationism and intelligent design "should not be taught as science" they are right on the money.

Prof Reiss is not saying that creationism is science, but his proposals seem to stem from the dangerous notion that religious views are beyond challenge. Education should be about allowing such views to be challenged.

Fundamentalist TV station censors Attenborough over evolution

2007-10-09T06:59:00.000+01:00

source: NSS Newsline October 5th

When a Dutch religious TV station with a creationist agenda showed David Attenborough's wildlife documentary series The Life of Mammals it edited out all references to evolution.

Evangelical Broadcasting made the changes to the BBC series when it was shown on Dutch TV this summer. In one example, Sir David's commentary was changed from: "We will look at the lives of our closest relatives" to "we will also take a look at the apes". Fossils are mentioned without the dates given in the BBC script. Several scenes with Sir David have been cut out of the Dutch version because they contradicted the fundamentalist view of creation.

Sir David Attenborough said he was "unhappy that they should change it because I meant what I said when I said it."

The BBC usually allows broadcasters to make minor edits to its programmes to remove references that might be "inappropriate" in a particular cultural setting. Evangelical Broadcasting, therefore, is not seen as being in breach of its contract.
See how the evangelicals doctored the series
See also: Council of Europe condemns teaching of creationism

UK Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

2007-10-05T19:31:00.000+01:00

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm

Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Creationism is not taught as a subject in schools

The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning.

Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.

This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.

Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.

The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins

Professor Reiss

He said:

"The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.

"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."

Prof Reiss estimates that

one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran.

Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.

"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."
Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students,

he argues in a new book.

'Not equally valid'

"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.

His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".

Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science

Hilary Leevers
Campaign for Science and Engineering

He supports new government guidelines which say creationism should not be discussed in science classes unless it is raised by pupils.

But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.

The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.

Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief".

"The author suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true," she said.

Teachers could discuss how creationism differed from scientific theory if a student brought up the subject, but any further discussion should occur in religious education lessons, she said.

A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said it had recently published guidelines to teachers on the issue.

"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory."

Unscience

2007-09-14T20:22:00.000+01:00

reposted from: http://cectic.com/050.html

Clergy Letter Project - Christians in support of Evolution & science

2007-09-12T08:26:00.000+01:00

reposted from:-

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

Evolution? Impossible.

2007-09-10T20:42:00.001+01:00

reposted from http://www.irreligion.org
via stumbleupon.com

Here’s a delightful diagram of maturing fetuses of various types.

We clearly have nothing in common.

Texas Board of Education Unlikely to Include Creationism

2007-09-10T07:56:00.000+01:00

reposted from Atheist Revolution

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Texas Board of Education Unlikely to Include Creationism

Despite the presence of several creationists on the Texas State Board of Education, it appears that ID will not enter the science classroom. This is good news for Texas children and defenders of science education. Teaching crap and calling it science does not change the fact that it is still crap. Fortunately, board members appeared to understand this simply truth.

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution.

According to The Dallas Morning News,

A solid majority of the State Board of Education, which will rewrite the science curriculum for public schools next year, is against the idea, even though several members say they are creationists and have serious doubts about Charles Darwin's theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Sadly, we can't celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not."

Absolutely. It is a national disgrace to see that Texas Governor Rick Perry and President Bush approve of creationism being taught in public schools. Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation's children receive the science education they need.

Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

2007-09-04T22:59:00.000+01:00

Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

by ucl.ac.uk

Reposted from: richardDawkins via
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/ejn/ejn_comics/

Click here for more

Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story

2007-08-30T03:18:00.000+01:00

reposted from Michael Behe blog

Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story

9:44 AM PDT, August 24, 2007

Dear Readers,

As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Common descent, natural selection, and random mutation are separate concepts; the first two are well supported, but the power of random mutation is not.

I argued that evolution — understood just as common descent — did happen, but that randomness played only a minor part. Instead, nonrandom processes — either front-loaded, guided, or somehow influenced by an intelligence — played by far the greatest part.

Unfortunately, stories in the news and on the internet regularly confuse the facets of Darwinism, ignore distinctions made in The Edge of Evolution, or misstate the arguments of intelligent design. The disregard for critical distinctions blurs the issues badly. This is the first in an occasional series of brief posts to correct confusions.

A recent New York Times story by Kenneth Chang touted a new paper in Science by the laboratory of Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon as refuting intelligent design.

Thornton’s laboratory has been interested in the evolutionary development of differences between two proteins abbreviated GR and MR. Since the two proteins are very similar, and since they bind very similar small hormone molecules, they likely developed from an ancestral gene by gene duplication and subsequent diversification.

Despite Chang’s story, none of that challenges intelligent design, which agrees that minor evolutionary changes can happen by random mutation and natural selection.

The gist of the new paper is that the workers reconstructed in the lab what they thought would be the ancestral protein, as well as several later evolutionary versions of it. To get to a protein mimicking modern GR, they purposely introduced several mutations to the ancestral form. The first few mutations took the protein’s activity part of the way toward the modern activity. But adding several other mutations that they thought would increase the specific activity to that of modern GR unexpectedly caused the protein to lose all its ability to bind the hormones. So, after thinking awhile, the authors then went back and intentionally introduced other mutations which did not affect hormone binding, but which they hoped would strengthen a particular part of the protein. After deliberately strengthening that part, they found they could add the final mutations, the protein would retain its activity, and its activity would be much more similar to modern GR.

Now, dear reader, can you guess which parts of Darwin’s theory this all neglects? Of course — both random mutation and natural selection.

The workers nicely showed it is quite reasonable to think that the one ancestor protein could produce two descendants, but they didn’t even try to address the question of whether it could happen by chance plus selection. Of course, getting a single amino acid mutation by chance is not a problem.

But in order to have the mutation be positively selected, it has to benefit an organism. The authors (and news stories) completely ignore that — the authors didn’t measure whether duplicating the ancestral gene, and then modifying it, would benefit an organism that was used to relying on just one protein (admittedly that would be hard to do). What’s more, in order to be confident that a multi-mutation scenario reconstructs a Darwinian process, all subsequent mutations have to be positively selected, too.

But they aren’t. Although they test none of the mutations in actual organisms, the authors themselves feel that the very particular mutations they deliberately introduced, which strengthen the protein but don’t affect hormone binding, would have been neutral. That makes those mutations much, much less likely to spread in a population, to be available later for when the beneficial mutations came along. In other words, the authors themselves think the scenario involves a big stroke of luck. In the New York Times Chang quotes Thornton: “‘These very exquisitely adapted bodies we have represent a role of the dice,’ Dr. Thornton said. ‘And they could have turned out very differently.’”

Big strokes of “luck,” however, point much more to intelligent design than to Darwinism. If evolution were guided or designed to unfold in a particular way, then very improbable events would be expected to be packed into it. The bottom line is that, while the new paper is very clever work, it offers no support at all to Darwinism. If anything, the authors careful work points strongly away from randomness. If even such minor evolutionary differences as those between GR and MR are problems for chance-driven evolution, greater evolutionary difference are almost certainly beyond the edge of random evolution.

Scientists re-trace evolution

2007-08-30T01:53:00.000+01:00

reposted from http://www.uoregon.edu
reported: http://www.nsf.gov/
This is the original press release from Univ. Oregon

Also see my blogs here and here.

Download a large picture of the proteins (4mb) here.

Scientists re-trace evolution

EUGENE, Ore.—(Aug. 16, 2007)—Scientists have determined for the first time the atomic structure of an ancient protein, revealing in unprecedented detail how genes evolved their functions.

"Never before have we seen so clearly, so far back in time," said project leader Joe Thornton, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oregon. "We were able to see the precise mechanisms by which evolution molded a tiny molecular machine at the atomic level, and to reconstruct the order of events by which history unfolded."

The work involving the protein is detailed in a paper appearing online Aug. 16 in Science Express, where the journal Science promotes selected research in advance of regular publication.

A detailed understanding of how proteins – the workhorses of every cell – have evolved has long eluded evolutionary biologists, in large part because ancient proteins have not been available for direct study. So Thornton and Jamie Bridgham, a postdoctoral scientist in his lab, used state-of-the-art computational and molecular techniques to re-create the ancient progenitors of an important human protein.

Thornton then collaborated with University of North Carolina biochemists Eric Ortlund and Matthew Redinbo, who used ultra-high energy X-rays from a stadium-sized Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago to chart the precise position of each of the 2,000 atoms in the ancient proteins. The groups then worked together to trace how changes in the protein's atomic architecture over millions of years caused it to evolve a crucial new function – uniquely responding to the hormone that regulates stress.

"This is the ultimate level of detail," Thornton said. "We were able to see exactly how evolution tinkered with the ancient structure to produce a new function that is crucial to our own bodies today. Nobody's ever done that before."

The researchers focused on the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein in humans and other vertebrates that allows cells to respond to the hormone cortisol, which regulates the body's stress response. The scientists' goal was to understand the process of evolution behind the GR's ability to specifically interact with cortisol. They used computational techniques and a large database of modern receptor sequences to determine the ancient GR's gene sequence from a time just before and just after its specific relationship with cortisol evolved. The ancient genes – which existed more than 400 million years ago – were then synthesized, expressed, and their structures determined using X-ray crystallography, a state-of-the art technique that allows scientists to see the atomic architecture of a molecule. The project represents the first time the technique has been applied to an ancient protein.

The structures allowed the scientists to identify exactly how the new function evolved. They found that just seven historical mutations, when introduced into the ancestral receptor gene in the lab, recapitulated the evolution of GR's present-day response to cortisol. They were even able to deduce the order in which these changes occurred, because some mutations caused the protein to lose its function entirely if other "permissive" changes, which otherwise had a negligible effect on the protein, were not in place first.

"These permissive mutations are chance events. If they hadn't happened first, then the path to the new function could have become an evolutionary road not taken," Thornton said. "Imagine if evolution could be rewound and set in motion again: a very different set of genes, functions and processes might be the outcome."

The atomic structure revealed exactly how these mutations allowed the new function to evolve. The most radical one remodeled a whole section of the protein, bringing a group of atoms close to the hormone. A second mutation in this repositioned region then created a tight new interaction with cortisol. Other earlier mutations buttressed particular parts of the protein so they could tolerate this eventual remodeling.

"We were able to walk through the evolutionary process from the distant past to the present day," said Ortlund, who is now at Emory University in Atlanta. "Until now, we've always had to look at modern proteins and just guess how they evolved."

The work was funded by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship to Thornton.

Contact: UO media contact, Zack Barnett, 541-346-3145

Source: Joe Thornton, 541-914-2588

Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational Epistasis

2007-08-29T23:54:00.000+01:00

Summarised: http://creationismvevolution.blogspot.com/2007/08/molecular-evolution-proven.html

From:
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/208/molecular-evolution-proven#comments

my Comment
I've just started blogging (today) on Creationism v Evolution

I bought Michael Behe 'Darwins Black Box' a few years ago - but its still in my 'to be read' book section.

From Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070816143825.htm

"The work involving the protein is detailed in a paper appearing online Aug. 16 in Science Express (abstract here): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1142819
where the journal Science promotes selected research in advance of regular publication."

The University of Oregon have the press release: http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=8.16.07-Ancient-Proteins.html

Supporting Online Material for
Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational
Epistasis: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1142819/DC1/1
contents: Materials and Methods, Figures, Tables and References

It would be interesting to read the full Science article - cost $10
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1142819.pdf
www.sciencexpress.org / 16 August 2007/ Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1142819

downloaded here: C:\Users\cstreet\Documents\Home\Interests\Creationism v Evolution\1142819_Science.pdf

I've reposted some of this article here:-

Supporting Online Material for
Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational
Epistasis: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1142819/DC1/1
(download FOC for Figures, Tables and References)

The structural mechanisms by which proteins have
evolved new functions are known only indirectly. We
report x-ray crystal structures of a resurrected ancestral
protein—the ~450 million-year-old precursor of
vertebrate glucocorticoid (GR) and mineralocorticoid
(MR) receptors. Using structural, phylogenetic, and
functional analysis,

we identify the specific set of
historical mutations that recapitulate the evolution of
GR’s hormone specificity from an MR-like ancestor.

These substitutions repositioned crucial residues to create
new receptor-ligand and intraprotein contacts. Strong
epistatic interactions occur because one substitution
changes the conformational position of another site.
“Permissive” mutations—substitutions of no immediate
consequence, which stabilize specific elements of the
protein and allow it to tolerate subsequent function switching
changes—played a major role in determining
GR’s evolutionary trajectory.

A central goal in molecular evolution is to understand the
mechanisms and dynamics by which changes in gene
sequence generate shifts in function and therefore phenotype
(1, 2). A complete understanding of this process requires
analysis of how changes in protein structure mediate the
effects of mutations on function. Comparative analyses of
extant proteins have provided indirect insights into the
diversification of protein structure (3–6), and protein
engineering studies have elucidated structure-function
relations that shape the evolutionary process (7–11). To
directly identify the mechanisms by which historical
mutations generated new functions, however, it is necessary
to compare proteins through evolutionary time.

Here we report the empirical structures of an ancient
protein, which we “resurrected” (12) by phylogenetically
determining its maximum likelihood sequence from a large
database of extant sequences, biochemically synthesizing a
gene coding for the inferred ancestral protein, expressing it in
cultured cells, and determining the protein’s structure by xray
crystallography.

Specifically, we investigated the
mechanistic basis for the functional evolution of the
glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a hormone-regulated
transcription factor present in all jawed vertebrates (13). GR
and its sister gene, the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR),
descend from the duplication of a single ancient gene, the
ancestral corticoid receptor (AncCR), deep in the vertebrate
lineage ~450 million years ago (Ma) (Fig. 1A) (13).

GR is
activated by the adrenal steroid cortisol and regulates stress
response, glucose homeostasis, and other functions (14). MR
is activated by aldosterone in tetrapods and by
deoxycorticosterone (DOC) in teleosts to control electrolyte
homeostasis, kidney and colon function, and other processes
(14). MR is also sensitive to cortisol, though considerably
less so than to aldosterone and DOC (13, 15). Previously,
AncCR was resurrected and found to have MR-like
sensitivity to aldosterone, DOC, and cortisol, indicating that
GR’s cortisol specificity is evolutionarily derived (13).
To identify the structural mechanisms by which GR
evolved this new function, we used x-ray crystallography to
determine the structures of the resurrected AncCR ligandbinding
domain (LBD) in complex with aldosterone, DOC,
and cortisol (16) at 1.9, 2.0, and 2.4 Å resolution, respectively
(table S1). All structures adopt the classic active
conformation for nuclear receptors (17), with unambiguous
electron density for each hormone (Fig. 1B and figs. S1 and
S2). AncCR’s structure is extremely similar to the human MR
[root mean square deviation (RMSD) = 0.9 Å for all
backbone atoms] and, to a lesser extent, to the human GR
(RMSD = 1.2 Å). The network of hydrogen-bonds supporting
activation in the human MR (18) is present in AncCR,
indicating that MR’s structural mode of action has been
conserved for >400 million years (fig. S3).
Because aldosterone evolved only in the tetrapods, tens of
millions of years after AncCR, that receptor’s sensitivity to
aldosterone was surprising (13). The AncCR-ligand structures
indicate that the receptor’s ancient response to aldosterone
was a structural by-product of its sensitivity to DOC, the
likely ancestral ligand, which it binds almost identically (Fig.
1C). Key contacts for binding DOC involve conserved
surfaces among the hormones, and no obligate contacts are
made with moieties at C11, C17, and C18, the only variable
positions among the three hormones. These inferences are
robust to uncertainty in the sequence reconstruction: We
modeled each plausible alternate reconstruction [posterior
probability (PP) > 0.20] into the AncCR crystal structures and
found that none significantly affected the backbone
conformation or ligand interactions. The receptor, therefore,
had the structural potential to be fortuitously activated by
aldosterone when that hormone evolved tens of millions of
years later, providing the mechanism for evolution of the
MR-aldosterone partnership by molecular exploitation, as
described (13).

To determine how GR’s preference for cortisol evolved,
we identified substitutions that occurred during the same
period as the shift in GR function. We used maximum
likelihood phylogenetics to determine the sequences of
ancestral receptors along the GR lineage (16). The
reconstructions had strong support, with mean PP >0.93 and
the vast majority of sites with PP >0.90 (tables S2 and S3).
We synthesized a cDNA for each reconstructed LBD,
expressed it in cultured cells, and experimentally
characterized its hormone sensitivity in a reporter gene
transcription assay (16). GR from the common ancestor of all
jawed vertebrates (AncGR1 in Fig. 1A) retained AncCR’s
sensitivity to aldosterone, DOC, and cortisol. At the next
node, however, GR from the common ancestor of bony
vertebrates (AncGR2) had a phenotype like that of modern
GRs, responding only to cortisol. This inference is robust to
reconstruction uncertainty: We introduced plausible
alternative states by mutagenesis, but none changed function
(fig. S4). GR’s specificity therefore evolved during the
interval between these two speciation events, ~420 to 440 Ma
(19, 20).

During this interval, there were 36 substitutions and one
single-codon deletion (figs. S5 and S6). Four substitutions
and the deletion are conserved in one state in all GRs that
descend from AncGR2 and in another state in all receptors
with the ancestral function. Two of these—S106P and L111Q
(21)—were previously identified as increasing cortisol
specificity when introduced into AncCR (13). We introduced
these substitutions into AncGR1 and found that they
recapitulate a large portion of the functional shift from
AncGR1 to AncGR2, radically reducing aldosterone and
DOC response while maintaining moderate sensitivity to
cortisol (Fig. 2A); the concentrations required for halfmaximal
activation (EC50) by aldosterone and DOC increased
by 169- and 57-fold, respectively, whereas that for cortisol
increased only twofold. A strong epistatic interaction between
substitutions was apparent: L111Q alone had little effect on
sensitivity to any hormone, but S106P dramatically reduced
activation by all ligands. Only the combination switched
receptor preference from aldosterone and DOC to cortisol.
Introducing these historical substitutions into the human MR
yielded a completely nonfunctional receptor, as did reversing
them in the human GR (fig. S7). These results emphasize the
importance of having the ancestral sequence to reveal the
functional impacts of historical substitutions.
To determine the mechanism by which these two
substitutions shift function, we compared the structures of
AncGR1 and AncGR2, which were generated by homology
modeling and energy minimization based on the AncCR and
human GR crystal structures, respectively (16). These
structures are robust to uncertainty in the reconstruction:
Modeling plausible alternate states did not significantly alter
backbone conformation, interactions with ligand, or
intraprotein interactions. The major structural difference
between AncGR1 and AncGR2 involves helix 7 and the loop
preceding it, which contain S106P and L111Q and form part
of the ligand pocket (Fig. 2B and fig. S8). In AncGR1 and
AncCR, the loop’s position is stabilized by a hydrogen bond
between Ser106 and the backbone carbonyl of Met103.
Replacing Ser106 with proline in the derived GRs breaks this
bond and introduces a sharp kink into the backbone, which
pulls the loop downward, repositioning and partially
unwinding helix 7. By destabilizing this crucial region of the
receptor, S106P impairs activation by all ligands. The
movement of helix 7, however, also dramatically repositions
site 111, bringing it close to the ligand. In this conformational
background, L111Q generates a hydrogen bond with
cortisol’s C17-hydroxyl, stabilizing the receptor-hormone
complex. Aldosterone and DOC lack this hydroxyl, so the
new bond is cortisol-specific. The net effect of these two
substitutions is to destabilize the receptor complex with
aldosterone- or DOC and restore stability in a cortisolspecific
fashion, switching AncGR2’s preference to that
hormone.

We call this mode of structural evolution
conformational epistasis, because one substitution remodels
the protein backbone and repositions a second site, changing
the functional effect of substitution at the latter.

Although S106P and L111Q (“group X” for convenience)
recapitulate the evolutionary switch in preference from
aldosterone to cortisol, the receptor retains some sensitivity to
MR’s ligands, unlike AncGR2 and extant GRs. We
hypothesized that the other three strictly conserved changes
that occurred between AncGR1 and AncGR2 (L29M, F98I,
and deletion S212Δ) would complete the functional switch.
Surprisingly, introducing these “group Y” changes into the
AncGR1 and AncGR1 + X backgrounds produced completely
nonfunctional receptors that cannot activate transcription,
even in the presence of high ligand concentrations (Fig. 3A).
Additional epistatic substitutions must have modulated the
effect of group Y, which provided a permissive background
for their evolution that was not yet present in AncGR1.
The AncCR crystal structure allowed us to identify these
permissive mutations by analyzing the effects of group Y
substitutions (Fig. 3B). In all steroid receptors, transcriptional
activity depends on the stability of an activation-function
helix (AF-H), which is repositioned when the ligand binds ,
generating the interface for transcriptional coactivators. The
stability of this orientation is determined by a network of
interactions among three structural elements: the loop
preceding AF-H, the ligand, and helix 3 (17). Group Y
substitutions compromise activation because they disrupt this
network. S212Δ eliminates a hydrogen bond that directly
stabilizes the AF-H loop, and L29M on helix 3 creates a steric
clash and unfavorable interactions with the D-ring of the
hormone. F98I opens up space between helix 3, helix 7, and
the ligand; the resulting instability is transmitted indirectly to
AF-H, impairing activation by all ligands (Fig. 3B). If the
protein could tolerate group Y, however, the structures
predict that these mutations would enhance cortisol
specificity: L29M forms a hydrogen bond with cortisol’s
unique C17-hydroxyl, and the additional space created by
F98I relieves a steric clash between the repositioned loop and
Met108, stabilizing the key interaction between Q111 and the
C17-hydroxyl (Fig. 3B).

We hypothesized that historical substitutions that added
stability to the regions destabilized by group Y might have
permitted the evolving protein to tolerate group Y mutations
and to complete the GR phenotype. Structural analysis
suggested two candidates (group Z): N26T generates a new
hydrogen bond between helix 3 and the AF-H loop, and
Q105L allows helix 7 to pack more tightly against helix 3,
stabilizing the latter and, indirectly, AF-H (Fig. 3B). As
predicted, introducing group Z into the nonfunctional
AncGR1 + X + Y receptor restored transcriptional activity,
indicating that Z is permissive for Y (Fig. 3A). Further,
AncGR1 + X + Y + Z displays a fully GR-like phenotype that
is unresponsive to aldosterone and DOC and maintains
moderate cortisol sensitivity. Both N26T and Q105L are
required for this effect (table S4). Strong epistasis is again
apparent: Adding group Z substitutions in the absence of Y
has little or no effect on ligand-activated transcription,
presumably because the receptor has not yet been destabilized
(Fig. 3A). Evolutionary trajectories that pass through
functional intermediates are more likely than those involving
nonfunctional steps (22), so the only historically likely
pathways to AncGR2 are those in which the permissive
substitutions of group Z and the large-effect mutations of
group X occurred before group Y was complete (Fig. 3C).
Our discovery of permissive substitutions in the AncGR1-
AncGR2 interval suggested that other permissive mutations
might have evolved even earlier. We used the structures to
predict whether any of the 25 substitutions between AncCR
and AncGR1 (fig. S5) might be required for the receptor to
tolerate the substitutions that later yielded GR function. Only
one was predicted to be important: Y27R, which is conserved
in all GRs, stabilizes helix 3 and the ligand pocket by forming
a cation-π interaction with Tyr17 (Fig. 4A). When we reversed
Y27R in the GR-like AncGR1 + X + Y + Z, activation by all
ligands was indeed abolished (Fig. 4B). In contrast,
introducing Y27R into AncCR (Fig. 4B) or AncGR1 (fig. S9)
had negligible effect on the receptor’s response to any
hormone. By conferring increased stability on a crucial part
of the receptor, Y27R created a permissive sequence
environment for substitutions that, millions of years later,
remodeled the protein and yielded a new function.
These results shed light on long-standing issues in
evolutionary genetics. One classic question is whether
adaptation proceeds by mutations of large or small effect
(23). Our findings are consistent with a model of adaptation
in which large-effect mutations move a protein from one
sequence optimum to the region of a different function, which
smaller-effect substitutions then fine-tune (24, 25);
permissive substitutions of small immediate effect, however,
precede this process. The intrinsic difficulty of identifying
mutations of small effect creates an ascertainment bias in
favor of large-effect mutations; the ancestral structures
allowed us isolate key combinations of small-effect
substitutions from a large set of historical possibilities.
A second contentious issue is whether epistasis makes
evolutionary histories contingent on chance events (26, 27).
We found several examples of strong epistasis, where
substitutions that have very weak effects in isolation are
required for the protein to tolerate subsequent mutations that
yield a new function. Such permissive mutations create
“ridges” connecting functional sequence combinations and
narrow the range of selectively accessible pathways, making
evolution more predictable (28). Whether a ridge is followed,
however, may not be a deterministic outcome. If there are few
potentially permissive substitutions and these are nearly
neutral, then whether they will occur is largely a matter of
chance. If the historical “tape of life” could be played again
(29), the required permissive changes might not happen, and
a ridge leading to a new function could become an
evolutionary road not taken.

Our results provide insights into the structural mechanisms
of epistasis and the historical evolution of new functions.
GR’s functional specificity evolved by substitutions that
destabilized the receptor structure with all hormones but
compensated with novel interactions specific to the new
ligand. Compensatory mutations have been thought to occur
when a second substitution restores a lost molecular
interaction (30). Our findings support this notion, but in a
reversed order: Permissive substitutions stabilized specific
structural elements, allowing them to tolerate later
destabilizing mutations that conferred a new function (9, 10,
31). We also observed a more striking mechanism:
conformational epistasis, by which one substitution
repositions another residue in three-dimensional space and
changes the effects of mutations at that site. It is well known
that mutations may have nonadditive effects on protein
stability (32), and fitness (9, 33), but we are aware of few
cases (11, 34) specifically documenting new functions or
epistasis via conformational remodeling. This may be due to
the lack of ancestral structures, which allow evolutionary
shifts in the position of specific residues to be determined.

Conformational epistasis may be an important theme in
structural evolution, playing a role in many cases where new
gene functions evolve via novel molecular interactions.

Molecular Evolution Proven

2007-08-29T22:27:00.000+01:00

reposted from bay of fundie

Molecular Evolution Proven

August 29th, 2007

Michael Behe is an especially dangerous creationist, because he isn’t the strident, shrill looney that you typically see on that side of the fence. His arguments actually sound plausible to many people, even those who reject other creationist claims as downright absurd.

I’m currently reading Darwin’s Black Box (I’ll eventually post a review). In there, he points out that there is ample evidence for the evolution of large structures, such as legs and ribs.

However, he claims there is no evidence for evolution on the molecular scale. He has a point here. Molecules typically don’t leave fossils. He especially wants to know how the more complex structures—such a his favorite “whipping boy”, the bacterial flagellum—evolved.

Behe believes in “irreducible complexity”, which is his claim that some molecular machines are so complex that they could not have evolved. He claims that if you remove one piece, the whole thing breaks. Evolution occurs piece by piece; the necessary intermediate structures would not have evolved, since they would not have provided any function.

From there he jumps to the ridiculous conclusion that God must have done it.

Wrong! You Lose!

Well, now Behe has been proven wrong. We now know how molecular evolution occurred in one case, and it works just fine without God.

Science Daily reports:

Scientists have determined for the first time the atomic structure of an ancient protein, revealing in unprecedented detail how genes evolved their functions.

“Never before have we seen so clearly, so far back in time,” said project leader Joe Thornton, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oregon. “We were able to see the precise mechanisms by which evolution molded a tiny molecular machine at the atomic level, and to reconstruct the order of events by which history unfolded.” [Emphasis added. Flagellate that, Behe!]

What Thornton and his assistant Jamie Bridgham wanted to do was determine how a particular protein, the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), evolved its ability to interact with cortisol (a stress hormone).

They used computational techniques and a large database of modern receptor sequences to determine the ancient GR’s gene sequence from a time just before and just after its specific relationship with cortisol evolved.

So what they’re doing, if I’m interpreting the article correctly, is determining what this protein looked like right before it evolved one particular behavior. In order to conduct the new behavior, what would have to be added or changed to this protein?

Michael Behe would probably allege (if more than one mutation was necessary) that you can’t get there from here.

Now that Thornton and Bridgham have the DNA sequence, they still needed to get a sample of the protein. Remember that DNA is just the blueprint that tells how a protein is to be made. If you want to study the protein, you need to get some of it.

The ancient genes — which existed more than 400 million years ago — were then synthesized, expressed, and their structures determined using X-ray crystallography, a state-of-the art technique that allows scientists to see the atomic architecture of a molecule. The project represents the first time the technique has been applied to an ancient protein.

What that means is that they synthesized the genes, injected it into the DNA of bacteria (I’m guessing on this point, but that’s the usual method), and then let the bacteria produce the protein.

The important thing to know about this step is that proteins get their functionality from their three-dimensional shape. That’s where the X-ray crystallography came in.

The structures allowed the scientists to identify exactly how the new function evolved. They found that just seven historical mutations, when introduced into the ancestral receptor gene in the lab, recapitulated the evolution of GR’s present-day response to cortisol.

This is the part that Michael Behe would find interesting. Note how this new functionality requires seven mutations. Behe would claim that this is irreducibly complex. You need all seven. Take one away, and you’ve got nothing. Or do you?

They were even able to deduce the order in which these changes occurred, because some mutations caused the protein to lose its function entirely if other “permissive” changes, which otherwise had a negligible effect on the protein, were not in place first.

This is important. They were able to deduce the order in which these changes occurred! That’s watching evolution in action. Even though we don’t have a fossil record of this occurring, we now know how this structure had to evolve.

Ah, but what are those “permissive changes” and how did they happen? The permissive changes were random, benign mutations! This is how evolution works. Mutations happen all the time:

Some mutations are useful and convey an immediate benefit to the organism, which allows it to better fit its environment. This gives it a survival advantage, so it’s more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass along the beneficial mutation. Bingo! One small step along the evolutionary path.
Some mutations are harmful and either kill the organism outright or reduce its fitfulness in its environment. This mutation is therefore selected against by the environment. This is evolution’s self-correcting mechanism.
Many mutations are benign. They have no effect on an organism’s ability to survive. Therefore, they just sit there in the population. As that organism and its descendents reproduce, that benign mutation spreads throughout a subset of the population. Any population is full of countless benign mutations like this. Now if the environment were to change, some of these mutations would, by chance, convey an advantage in this new environment. That’s another way species evolve. But failing that, the mutation just sits there in some members of the population.

The atomic structure revealed exactly how these mutations allowed the new function to evolve. The most radical one remodeled a whole section of the protein, bringing a group of atoms close to the hormone. A second mutation in this repositioned region then created a tight new interaction with cortisol. Other earlier mutations buttressed particular parts of the protein so they could tolerate this eventual remodeling.

One of the collaborators, Eric Ortlund, said:

“We were able to walk through the evolutionary process from the distant past to the present day. Until now, we’ve always had to look at modern proteins and just guess how they evolved.”

It’s that guessing that gave Michael Behe the hook he needed to claim that God did it. Well now we no longer need to guess.

Scientists have shown how one molecular structure evolved. With a lot of hard work, we can probably show how the other structures evolved.

The theory of evolution is yet again triumphant. God, and Michael Behe, need not apply.

Scientific v Creationist Method

2007-08-29T21:53:00.001+01:00

reposted from http://www.bay-of-fundie.com

Wikipedia Links

2007-08-29T02:17:00.000+01:00

Wikipedia links added to blog template from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

Creationism v Evolution

BHA Science and Creationism

Evolution Education Flyer - from The Brights

Evolution Education Flyer2-sided sheet (or 2 pages)

Teach both evolution and creationism in science lessons say 54% of Britons

British Council poll finds UK adults overtake Americans in wanting science teaching in schools to include intelligent designJessica Shepherd

Evolution v Creation - EvC - a huge resource on the internet

Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash

Creationism - how to respond?

Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

by Clive Thompson

Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

by Clive Thompson

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 | function changeLocation(menuObj) { var i = menuObj.selectedIndex; if(i > 0) { window.location = menuObj.options[i].value; } } Sort Comments By: Chronological Newest Comments Highest Rank

Motivation of Creationists?

Cartoons attacking Creationism

UK Government gives guidance on teaching of Creationism in science classes

Creationism out of the classroom

James Randerson

Creationism out of the classroom

The origin of speciousness

The origin of speciousness

Articles

Fundamentalist TV station censors Attenborough over evolution

UK Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Unscience

Clergy Letter Project - Christians in support of Evolution & science

Evolution? Impossible.

Texas Board of Education Unlikely to Include Creationism

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

by ucl.ac.uk

Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story

Scientists re-trace evolution

Crystal Structure of an Ancient Protein: Evolution by Conformational Epistasis

Molecular Evolution Proven

Wrong! You Lose!

Scientific v Creationist Method

Wikipedia Links

Evolution Education Flyer
2-sided sheet (or 2 pages)

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |