Last week, flanked by 13 University of Wisconsin scientists, Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison and Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, introduced a very reasonable piece of legislation that would prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as science in Wisconsin public schools. Specifically, the bill would require that "any material presented as science within the school curriculum … is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes [and] … is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences."
This announcement came only days prior to the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday and the international celebration of Darwin Day. Here at UW, the Department of Geology, along with several other departments, hosted the first-ever Darwin Day Outreach Symposium, which explored new evidence that has validated and expanded Darwin's argument.
UW professors and everyone involved in these two events should be commended for engaging the public on this important issue.
As it stands right now, an unacceptable disconnection exists between the scientific community and the general public. In a 2004 Gallup poll, only 35 percent of those polled believed evolution was well supported by evidence. Compare this to the 45 percent who believe humans "were created by God essentially as they are today about 10,000 years ago."
Most Americans definitely need a dose of Darwin.
In 2005, the American Museum of Natural History in New York opened a Charles Darwin exhibit detailing his life and scientific achievements. In an unprecedented occurrence, fundraisers for the $3 million exhibit were unable to attract a single corporate sponsor. For fear of a public backlash, businesses were afraid to weigh in on the side of science.
Also in 2005, in perhaps the nation's most embarrassing ID victory, the Kansas State Board of Education redefined "science" to include supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Ouija board, anyone?
It's amazing to think that, after nearly one and a half centuries, Americans have completely missed the Beagle on evolution.
Why are we still debating what the American Association for the Advancement of Science calls "one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry?"
The debate still rages in part because ID advocates intentionally exploit some of the scientific community's most commendable values, namely distaste for unqualified, grandiose conjectures. Because even scientists acknowledge evolution is not a perfect theory, ID proponents jump on this perceived vulnerability and offer instead their completely meaningless and arbitrary notion of a designer.
To underscore the bankruptcy of ID, one need only look to leading ID proponent Dr. Michael Behe's testimony at the recent high-profile trial in Dover, Penn. Because his definition of a scientific theory was so broad, Dr. Behe begrudgingly acknowledged that astrology fit into science as well as ID.
Ideally, science would be the guiding principle in the debate over evolution. Unfortunately, however, political hacks have framed the debate as a left/right issue. For example, in 2005, 15 conservative scholars gathered to identify the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. While Darwin's magnum opus "The Origin of Species" failed to crack a top ten that included classics such as the "Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf," it did muster an honorable mention.
In the face of this politically charged ID assault, who or what is to blame for society's lack of awareness about evolution? One could blame religious dogma, scientists' lack of public engagement, general apathy toward the topic or something else altogether.
Fortunately, identifying the precise source of this disconnection is not necessary to know how to fix it. The best way to bridge this divide is for scientists to show the public the corpus of evidence in favor of evolution and the tangible gains that have resulted from evolutionary thinking.
What we have seen over the past week from the UW academic community is very promising. Throwing support behind Rep. Berceau's bill and hosting the Darwin Day Outreach Symposium are excellent examples of bringing the case for evolution to the public. With greater outreach, Americans might come to see that Darwin's theory is quite intelligent in its own right.
Mark Murphy ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in economics and finance.
