Re-reading Root-Bernstein and McEachron in Cobb County, Georgia

The Controversies Continue Between Anthropology and "Intelligent Design "

Benjamin Z. Freed

The following selection is a recent update of the im- portant issues raised in the first article by Root- Bernstein and McEachron. As a holistic science that looks at many different aspects of the human condition over time, anthropology incorporates different ap- proaches to data collection and interpretation. Some areas of anthropology, such as biological and physical anthropology, primatology, and archaeology, generally addere to the tenets of hypothetico-deductive science. In'other words, anthropologists in these fields propose theories that can be tested using empirical data.

Insights into how living organisms function and how they change over time have been generated by a set of concepts and theories collectively known as evolutionary theory. Modern biology, from the under- standing of cells to populations of animals, relies heav- ily on evolutionary theory for explanations about why living things are the way they are. As discussed in the following article, evolutionary theory provides an explanatory backdrop for understanding biological phenomena, much as any explanation of physical movement or a chemical reaction should be compati- ble with the laws of physics and chemistry.

Although it is almost universally accepted by the scientific community, some people (particularly fun- damentalist groups) have seen evolutionary theory as incompatible with Christian beliefs. The past two decades have seen a resurgence of popular debate over evolution- ary theory, especially as it is taught in high schools in the United States. There has been a push in some religiously conservative communities to have evolutionary theory removed from schools, or to have its teaching presented as mere theory rather than scientific fact. One alternative explanation of complex biological mechanisms has been proposed called "intelligent design."

In this selection, the author reexamines many of the principles in the first article. He looks at the religious

underpinnings of creationist beliefs and then examines the supposedly "scientific" intelligent design theory. Using basic criteria for the evaluation of scientific the- ory, he concludes that intelligent design fails to qualify as hypothetico-deductive science. He then goes on to discuss how anthropology both suggests a need to un- derstand the religious motivation for attacks on evolu- tionary theory and, at the same time, provides a strong impetus for anthropologists who work on evolution to defend the teaching of evolution on the basis of its scientific merit.

I n 1984, I took a graduate course on the history of biology. In preparation for that seminar I read the arti- cle that was the previous selection in this volume "Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Contro- versy," Root-Bernstein & McEachron's (RBM) treatise on what is a scientific theory. Little did I realize that the article would later catch up to my everyday life some twenty years later.

I am now an anthropologist at Emory University, and I live in the suburban Atlanta, Georgia, commu- nity of Cobb County-a place that has recently been in the news because of debates concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools. I not only must write about my results on lemur ecology, behavior, and evo- lution, but I must also transfer the information to the general public, especially within my community. In my case, I give guest lectures at schools, provide work- shops for teachers, and talk with parents and students at coffee shops and PTA meetings.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, antievolution propo- nents from Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Georgia (Cobb County) brought their arguments to local school boards, state legislatures, and even the national poli- tical stage. For example, prior to 2002, Cobb public school students' exposure to evolutionary biology was limited. The subject had been excised from some lessons and books, and students whose classes and books did deal with the subject had the choice of opting out of those lessons. Three primary effects were ob- served by many of us at local universities: (1) relatively few students went on to major in the biological sciences; (2) students were at a disadvantage in intro-level college biology when asked to compete with other students who had received high school evolutionary biology in- struction; and (3) students continued to misunderstand and underappreciate science, especially biology.

In 2002, the Cobb County school board approved a college-compatible biology textbook. Shortly afterward, the board responded to a creationist-led petition by affixing in each biology textbook stickers that read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Likewise, similar moves were raised elsewhere under the banners of "critical consideration," "teach the controversy," "alternative scientific views," and "theory, not fact" legislation. Soon after the Cobb stickers, antievolution proponents in Dover, Pennsylvania, required that "intelligent design" (ID) objections to evolution be raised before science lessons on evolutionary biology.

Reprinted with permission of Benjamin Z. Freed.

WHY WOULD A SCIENTIST, SUCH AS MYSELF, GET UPSET OVER SUCH A STICKER?

Strictly speaking, the stickers confound student comprehension of evolution in several ways. First, evolution is fact and scientific theory, overwhelmingly observed and discussed in the peer-reviewed, scien- tific literature. To those who claim that evolution has never been observed, I point to peer-reviewed research on Anolis lizards, tomatoes, and North American fossil primates, among numerous other topics. Second, evo- lution is not a hunch, a guess, or a theory, as the term is used in the common vernacular. To conflate scientific theory (as described by RBM) and the vernacular use of the term "theory" is to confound student compre- hension of the strengths and limitations of the scien- tific method. Third, evolution is not a scientific theory about origins of life. It is a well-substantiated scientific explanation for critical aspects of origins, such as its timing, but primarily evolution is about biological change over time. Fourth, facts themselves are muta- ble; they are subject to reevaluation as techniques and accuracy improve. Finally, the school board singled out evolution. No other scientific theories (e.g., gravity, germ theory, plate tectonics) needed to be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and granted crit- ical consideration. The board went out of its way to have students be wary of one scientific theory, the theory at the core of modern biology.

To be clear, the school board's stibers were completely at odds with RBM's article and the scien- tific literature. Twenty years after my initiation into antievolutionist arguments, here I was faced with a sticker and policy that showed no comprehension as to what is science, theory, and evolution, the very topics discussed in RBM. To me, as a scientist, the sticker was technically inaccurate, misleading, and confusing. It was typical of a new wave of antievolutionism.

DOES THIS VERSION O F ANTIEVOLUTIONISM, INCLUDING ID, MEET THE STANDARD OF SCIENCE AS DEFINED IN RBM?

RBM's article was written during the early 1980s, when biologists, legal scholars, and historians dealt with the first legal wave of modern creationism. After a resounding series of legal decisions against this religious-based movement, a new wave of antievolution approaches emerged under the name "intelligent design" (ID). ID is a belief that a so-called irreducible complexity of living forms is too great to be explained by evolution. To this movement's

proponents, only an "intelligence" (e.g., an omnipotent deity) could account for the origin and diversity of l i f e i Strictly speaking, ID can be traced to early-nineteenth- century theologian William Paley. Like 1980s creation- ism, ID represents a belief about a scientific issue rather than a scientific view of the same issue.

In recent years, biochemist Michael Behe, mathe- matician William Dembski, and other proponents of ID have called into question Darwinian natural selec- tion's ability to explain origins and evolution of organisms. For instance, they point on the one hand to developments in the field of molecular biology, which have shown cells to be much more complex than once suspected. At the cellular level, ID support- ers suggest that a bacterium's flagellum, or propeller- like tail, could not have evolved independently of all the complex cellular structures that move the tail. They argue that, since all of these complex parts must "fit" together to function, like the parts of a mouse- trap, no one element could evolve independent of the others, and so they must be evidence for an intelligent designer. Other proponents of ID point to mathemat- ical models that suggest Darwinian selection might not be any better than random accumulations of changes and is unlikely to explain complex living organisms.

Fortunately, evolutionary theory is up to these challenges. Irreducibly complex structures can evolve from nonirreducible complexity if a structure evolves with one function and is then co-opted for another. Moreover, a species does not evolve in a vacuum, but rather co-evolves alongside other species that are also evolving-a condition left unaccounted for by the mathematical models of evolution.

Biologists, such as Miller (1996, 1999, 2004) and Padian (2002), have pointed out serious scientific flaws with ID. Miller (2004) noted that the bacterial flagel- lum is not as irreducibly complex as people have been led to believe. ID is not considered science by anyone actually studying evolutionary biology (see discus- sions in Pennock, 2001; Larson, 2003; Scott, 2004) be- cause it does not fulfill basic requirements of scientific endeavor. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong in whole or part, but they are scientific never- theless because they can be tested against empirical data. If one reexamines RBM, an ID proponent would have to relax at least two tenets of the scientific method: the need for testable and falsifiable hypothe- ses, and the reliance on above-nature forces. Evolution by natural selection is built on scientific evaluation of testable and falsifiable hypotheses of natural phenom- ena without the invocation of-above-nature forces. ID fails on all of these criteria. For that reason, evolu- tionary theory has generated a wealth of research in

which hypotheses are tested and confirmed, while ID has produced no such research programs or scholarship.

THEN WHY HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE TAKEN T O I D AND OTHER FORMS OF ANTI EVOLUTION?

To many people ID is a satisfying rubric or explana- tion. The notion of an "intelligence" matches many religious viewpoints or worldviews of a single, omnipo- tent deity. Forrest and Gross (2004), for example, noted the religious ties between ID and creationism. In an ini- tial exploratory sociological survey of creationists, Wiccans, and university students, Eve (2004) found strong evidence that adherence to creationism was more strongly related to social beliefs, attitudes, and politics than to actual scientific literacy. Belief in cre- ationism was more a matter of the ways that people use to judge "truth claims" about evidence of the ancient human past.

I suspect what Eve found occurs in my community as well. Few people readily access the scientific litera- ture. Many antievolutionists incorrectly but readily equate evolution, natural selection, and Darwin. By doing so, Darwin has been made into a strawman, one who is viewed as being opposed to local religious beliefs. To many people, science is used to support religious beliefs. If it cannot do so, it must be viewed with great skepticism. Many of these people turn to Internet-accessible, readily available opinion, political, and religious pieces to confirm their views. Science is viewed as an opposing monolith that directly contra- dicts and opposes religious belief.

AS MANY IN MY COMMUNITY HAVE ASKED ME, HOW DOES SCIENCE CRITICIZE ITS THEORIES? OR IS SCIENCE A MONOLITH?

Science criticizes itself primarily through peer review. In peer review, a manuscript is sent to a journal's edi- tor, who then solicits evaluations from independent scientists. These reviewers receive no payment for their time and effort. Each manuscript is checked for its authenticity, overall scientific merit, adherence to pro- fessional ethical and scientific guidelines, and accuracy in review of previous works. Based on the reviewers' comments, the editor decides whether or not to pub- lish the article, and whether revisions or clarifications are required before publication. In this way, peer re- view affords the reader the assurance that an article

has fulfilled its overall scientific mission and con- tributed to the overall understanding about a topic. If a scientist takes issue with an article, the scientist may write a response in publication.

This is the level of scholarship that scientists have come to expect. I suspect that the public expects no less of science. Responsible? Yes. Tough? You bet. Manu- scripts get rejected all the time. We revise and resub- mit. Democratic? Not necessarily. Scientists don't vote in opinion polls or cast ballots about each item, but at least scientists have a way to "critically consider" material. If an ID follower wanted to write a scientific research article, the peer-review process would yield an evaluation of the article's scientific merits, ethics, and scholarship, just like any scientific manuscript. Science is no monolith.

To many of us in evolutionary biology and an- thropology, ID followers have not only failed to show clear scientific merit in method, but they have yet to show true scholarship. Reviewing the peer-reviewed scientific literature, one finds no research articles nor any evidence that ID is being used to explain biology. ID has not been shown to be a best-fit or useful scien- tific explanation for understanding nature. In Cobb, antievolution material that was not vetted by scientific peer review was introduced to the public access tele- vision, and the local op-ed pages. Many people could not then understand why this material shouldn't be available for science classes. Padian and Gishlick (20021, however, have cited numerous flaws in the sci- ence and scholarship of this material. Rennie (2002) and Young and Edis (2004) have also discussed many of the most frequent claims. Position statements against ID proponents' claims have also been brought forth by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, and many other scientific organizations, including those from anthropology.

In Cobb, local parents sued the school board, see- ing an unnecessary intrusion of religion into govern- ment. Scientists from the region's major colleges spoke up, submitted affidavits, in some cases testified, and worked with local parents, educators, and students to explain more about the scientific method. Although the case is under appeal, a district judge decision forced the school board to remove the stickers from the texts.

Similar antievolution tactics and claims were repeated elsewhere, most notably in Dover, Pennsylva- nia. The school board tried to diminish evolution and to provide alternate scientific theory discussion for its science classrooms. Parents in the district sued the school board, arguing an unnecessary religious intru- sion into biology lessons. Proponents of evolutionary

biology and ID provided testimony before a federal judge. In December 2005 the judge ruled that the tac- tics, claims, and literature of antievolution proponents were not divorced from religious motives. In some cases, what was presented as an alternate scientific view was thinly veiled creationism. The proposed alternative scientific views, including ID, were not sci- ence. The effect of the board's policy was to diminish evolutionary biology education and to presuppose in students' minds that alternate scientific views exist.

On the bright side, both Cobb and Dover have forced educators at all levels to think more about what is science. In Cobb, scientists and educators have begun to interact more directly with the general public and with each other. The school district science admin- istration has also formed a unique partnership with businesses and educators to improve science out- reach, to establish greater links between teachers and college educators, and to foster greater student interest in science. Many of us are now re-reading and dis- cussing philosophy of science papers.

WHAT IS THE VIEW OF GENERAL ANTHROPOLOGY?

As a rule, anthropologists are trained to respect the fact that different groups of people possess vastly different worldviews. Indeed, the variation among different ways of seeing, understanding, and making sense of the world lies at the root of many anthropologists' curiosity about humanity and human experience. While anthropology teaches respect and appreciation for such diversity, it also teaches that respect does not equal agreement. A North American anthropologist, for instance, may be fascinated by the origin myths or healing rituals of aboriginal peoples in Australia, Central Africa, or the Amazonian rainforest. But he or she can be respectful of cultural differences and still in- sist on taking antimalarial drugs to prevent infection, or refuse to participate in a healing ceremony involv- ing traditional surgery even if the host community is convinced that it would help.

As a biological anthropologist trained in the scien- tific method, I can appreciate the fact that some belief systems are rooted in stories about the nature and ori- gins of the life that are fundamentally distinct from- and even contradict-the basic tenets of scientific research and scholarship. Anthropology does, however, help demonstrate that different systems of knowledge address different questions. Some knowledge systems, like religious traditions, address questions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of the human life and of the world as we know it. As RBM so clearly describe it, science is designed to address a different set of

concerns. Rather than seeking answers to questions of ultimate meaning, science seeks explanations for how the natural world operates, and for how it has come to exist as we observe it today. Science uses tools, methods of gathering and evaluating knowledge, and methods for determining the validity, reliability, and relevance of such knowledge that differ markedly from those of the world's myriad religious systems. These tools, methods, and procedures are the very hallmarks of science, and they are what allow scientists across the globe to communicate and evaluate one an- other's work through a common language.

Religious beliefs, like those motivating the ID movement, often have profound meaning and signifi- cance for proponents. We must nonetheless keep in mind the fundamental distinction between forms of religious belief and scientifically validated forms of knowledge. While evolutionary biologists and biologi- cal anthropologists may be deeply frustrated by the challenges the ID movement poses for science educa- tion and scientific literacy in the United States, this frustration does not come from a sense of disrespect for ID advocates' religious beliefs. Rather it stems from an overriding commitment to the fact that different kinds of questions demand different kinds of information, different methods of evaluation, and different criteria for establishing what is "true." Ultimately, anthropo- logy teaches that religion and science aim to define and establish different kinds of truth about humanity, human life, and the world we live in.

Looking back, the RBM article has helped me refo- cus and analyze science as it relates to my community and my students. For those of us who view science as a way of explaining many critical aspects of life, we find an overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed ev- idence for evolution. For anthropologists, evolution is the best-fit scientific explanation for the genetic and paleontological record, and it offers us much under- standing about medicine, ecology, and ourselves. Scientists 7 thorough and responsible scholarly

debates on many aspects about evolution, such as its mechanisms, effects, and pace. To many of us in science, evolution is a tremendous theory, one that holds power in explaining the available scientific evidence and the vast data yet to be discovered. Theories are powerful and wonderful; they're not just hunches.

REFERENCES

Behe, M. 1996. Darwin's black box. The Free Press. Eve, R. 2004. Creationism, evolution, and a struggle for the

means of cultural reproduction. American Anthropolog- ical Association meetings. Atlanta, GA, December, 19, 2004.

Forrest, B., and P. Gross. 2004. Creationism's Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press.

Larson, E. 2003. Trial and error: The American controversy over creation and evolution. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.

Miller, K. R. 1996. A review of Darwin's black box. Creation/ Evolution 16:3640.

. 1999. Finding Darwin's God. HarperCollins.

. 2004. The flagellum unspun: The collapse of "Irreducible complexity." In W. Dembski and M. Ruse (eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81-97.

Padian, K. 2002. Waiting for the watchmaker. Science 295: 2373-2374.

Padian, K., and A. Gishlick. 2002. The talented Mr. Wells. Quarterly Review of Biology 77(1):33-37.

Pennock, R. T. 2001. Intelligent design, creationism, and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Rennie, J. 2002. 15 answers to creationist nonsense. Scientific American 287(1):78-85.

Scott, E. 2004. Evolution vs. creationism: A n introduction. Greenwood Press.

Young, M., and T. Edis (eds.) (2004). Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism. Rutgers University Press.