Postcards from The Wedge: review and commentary onExplore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinismby Steven C. Meyer et al
| Autor: | Brian D. Metscher |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2009 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Evolution & Development. 11:124-125 |
| ISSN: | 1525-142X 1520-541X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/j.1525-142x.2008.00309.x |
| Popis: | The latest out of the Discovery Institute is 159 glossy pages of color-illustrated creationist nostalgia published by Hill House Publishers, best known for lavish butterfly books by their founder, antievolution lepidopterist Bernard d’Abrera. All the old favorites are hereFfossils saying no, all the Icons, flightless Ubx flies, irreducible flagella, even that irritating homology-is-circular thing. There are no new arguments, no improved understanding of evolution, just a remastered scrapbook of the old ideas patched together in a high-gloss package pre-adapted to survive the post-Dover legal environment. The whole effort would be merely pathetic if it did not actually represent a serious and insidious threat to education. Everything about this book is designed to avoid the legal obstacles that have impeded previous anti-evolution efforts. Foremost is the meticulous omission of all red-flag words and any direct statements of the nonscientific conclusions it proffers. And it is surely no coincidence that this book came out just as a number of states began passing legislation allowing supplemental materials for teaching the ‘‘strengths and weaknesses’’ of evolutionary science. The book comprises eight little modules, each presenting a ‘‘Case For,’’ a ‘‘Reply,’’ and ‘‘Further Debate’’ on a topic chosen to contribute ‘‘Arguments For and Against’’ one of three headings: Universal Common Descent, The Creative Power of Natural Selection, and Molecular Machines (‘‘A New Challenge’’). This organization forms the basis for the ‘‘inquiry-based approach’’ of the book, a term which has been cunningly co-opted as an excuse for leaving out all mention of creationist conclusions. The point–counterpoint organization is used to give the appearance of a comprehensive treatment, but the substance is thin, fragmented, and demonstrably biased. Every talking point in the book has been dealt with already (see Isaak 2006; Flank 2008), and none is a legitimate scientific issue. Most of the sections end with a statement that the ‘‘debate’’ is continuing, offering students the impression that these contrived conflicts are both real and scientific. The ‘‘neo-Darwinism’’ in the book’s subtitle is key to its efforts to show that ‘‘there are, indeed, important scientific controversies about the key claims of evolutionary theory and about the arguments that are used to support them.’’ More or less everything we call ‘‘evo-devo’’ is meant to augment evolutionary theory to include factors other than the coding genome, and so these authors cite evo-devo works by real scientists as ‘‘critiques’’ of ‘‘neo-Darwinism.’’ The authors repeatedly conflate ‘‘neo-Darwinism’’ with the scientific idea that goes by a similar name. More important, this allows them to cite the same names on both ‘‘sides’’ of their ‘‘debates.’’ All of the topics are treated in a manner much more appropriate to discussions of theological contentions or political positions rather than to scientific discourse. The authors appeal to students to take on the role of jurors: weighing evidence and deciding which view is right. Apart from the fact that this is very much not how scientific inquiry works, this book has the same advocates arguing both sides of each case. ‘‘In science, it is ultimately the evidenceFand all of the evidenceFthat should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence’’ (p. 10, italics original.) No, it won’t: they never give actual alternative ‘‘theories’’ (because one of them would be unconstitutional in public schools), and the ‘‘evidence’’ given in this EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 11:1, 124–125 (2009) |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|