|
Evolution:
The Scientific View
With Dr. Eugenie Scott
"Evolution" Project Education Spokesperson
Monday, Sept. 24, 2001; Noon EDT
Monday, Sept. 24, PBS will begin airing the seven-part television series, "Evolution," which travels around the world to examine evolutionary science and the effect it has had on society and culture. From an in-depth look at Charles Darwin's key concepts of evolution to the struggle between science and religion, the series seeks to explain what the theory of evolution means for our past, present and future.
Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was online Monday, Sept. 24 at Noon EDT, to discuss the series.
Scott has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987. THe center is a pro-evolution non-profit science education organization. She holds a Ph.D. in biological anthropology from the University of Missouri.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Alexandria, Va.:
Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution at the same time?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: There?s an old joke from Kentucky:
Q: Do you believe in infant baptism?
A: Believe it! I?ve seen it!
Some people don?t believe that one can be a Christian and still accept evolution, but I?ve seen it! I know many theologians who accept evolution, plus many scientists who are theists and who are Christians.
Washington, D.C.:
How did the "Evolution" project evolve? Are there any other components besides the TV series?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: The Evolution project has extensive web and video support for teachers to help them both learn more about evolution as well as do a better job teaching it.
Edmonds, Wash.:
"Intelligent Design" proponents, like creationists, claim that evolution, if true, had to have occured by mere chance alone. They have never provided any scientific evidence to substantiate this claim, only opinions. Teaching this idea in our public schools opens the door to science instruction made subservient to sectarian religious dogma.
Dr. Eugenie Scott: Intelligent Design theory (or Intelligent design Creationism ? some prefer the latter) has not yet demonstrated that it truly is a scholarly movement. It may ?but thus far it has convinced neither the scientific community nor the philosophical scholars that there is a there, there. If it does, then it will deserve ? like any good scholarship ? to trickle down to the high school level. But it has a ways to go to convince scientists and other scholars at the college level.
Falls Church, Va.:
Are you at all religious?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: I am not a believer in God. Hopefully that will not affect the opinion you or others may have about my knowledge or understanding of scientific issues. I believe that science and religion may have some overlap regarding subject area, but that each has strengths the other lacks for their particular areas of interest.
San Diego, Calif.:
What is the "wedge" strategy of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: The ?Wedge? strategy is an effort to attack evolution (and even science in general) as a means of promoting theism (especially Christian theism) over philosophical materialism. If Intelligent Design (ID) proponents can cause Americans to be suspicious of evolution (which they attack as being scientifically weak), then a ?wedge? is inserted into confidence in science. Scientists restrict themselves to explaining the natural world using natural processes, something called methdological materialism. Because the ID proponents confuse this rule with philosophical materialism, they claim that by attacking methodological materialism they are attacking philosophical materialism. Actually, by proposing that science be allowed to let in the occasional miracle, ID promponents are attacking all of science. It is a thoroughly confused set of ideas, but remarkably effective.
Baltimore, Md.:
The series starts tonight? What does the first episode concentrate on? How many episodes are there and is it on back-to-back nights or over several weeks?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: The first program is a 2-hour 'Masterpiece Theatre meets Nova' docu-drama on the life of Darwin intercut with segments showing modern day scientists researching some of the same topics. Tuesday will be shows 2 and 3, each of which leasts 1 hour. Wednesday will be shows 4 and 5, and Thursday will end with the final two shows. Check your local listings for time, though most PBS stations will be showing it at 8:00 - 10:00 PM.
Austin, Tex.:
Have the recent discoveries of Ardipethicus ramidius kadappa and another discovery (whose scientific name I can't remember) from five million years ago changed the view of the development of humans in evolution? Are we older than we used to believe? Will the books on human evolution have to be rewritten to include these new discoveries?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: Discoveries of Ardipithecus and other early hominids tell us interesting things about early hominids, and may cause some revision about details of early evolution, but they hardly will cause extensive revision of textbooks. People are unaware of how much we agree upon regarding human evolution, mostly because the press (maybe understandably! They are looking for a good story!) tends to exaggerate controversy. Physical anthropologists don?t argue about the Big Ideas: the earliest evidence we have for human evolution is from Africa; we stood up before we got big brains; we stood up before we learned how to make tools; we used tools before we got big brains; we got big brains before our dentition reduced; there is a gradual progression of complexity of tool types through time, though many areas where tool technologies remained static ? lots of agreement here!
Arlington, Va.:
I read in USA Today a few weeks ago that the president's education bill now before Congress has language that, in effect, could allow the teaching of creationism in K-12 classrooms? Is this true?
Dr. Eugenie Scott:
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum?s amendment to the Education Bill now in conference would have left the door open to the teaching of ?evidence against evolution?, a recent creationist strategy that has evolved since court decisions struck down laws providing for ?equal time? for creation science. Unfortunately, the amendment was ?sold? to the Senators as a ?critical thinking? encouragement, which it actually is not. Teaching ?evidence against evolution? sounds ?fair? to many people unfamiliar with the rhetoric of this controversy; from a scientific point of view it makes about as much sense as teaching ?evidence against the second law of thermodynamics? and promoting perpetual motion machines! But the ?fairness? argument is used very skillfully by antievolutionists and whether valid from a scholarly point of view, is quite popular and effective with the American public.
Falls Church, Va.:
Science teachers are in the crosshairs of this issue. They have the responsibility to teach good science, i.e., evolution, but many come under attack from those who think creationism, or other forms of it, is science. What can teachers do to defend the teaching of evolution?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: I encourage teachers to learn and teach accurately about 1) the nature of science; to learn and teach accurately about 2) evolution, to be consious that some students in their classes may object to evolution on religious grounds, and to be respectful of this. No student should feel his/her religious views are being attacked in a public school ? but no religious view should prevent students from being exposed to one of the most basic of scientific ideas. A teacher told me she had a parent from a particular religious faith that does not believe in modern medicine complain that she did not want her child taught the germ theory of disease.... It would be unreasonable to deprive the other students in the class from learning this information because it went against the views of another student. I recommend that teachers make it clear to students and parents whose religion opposes evolution that it is the students? responsibility to learn the material ? whether the student accepts the information is up to them.
Wiredog:
I wonder how many farmers reject evolution out of hand? Or do people not realize that modern food species were evolved?
By the way, what's with all the question marks showing up in the replies here? Font problems?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: Dunno about farmers. One would think that they would understand the principle of descent with modification, as their plants and animals have done just that, but many farmers dont take a long view.
I am trying to figure out the quote sitation. Maybe I'll try underscores to indicate quotes. This is my first time doing this on-line work, so any success at getting this information posted I consider a triumph!
Washington, D.C.:
If humans are descended from primates, why would we still exist at the same time?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: The Big Idea of evolution is common ancestry. We most recently shared a common ancestor with chimps, then more distantly with Orangs, then more distantly with monkeys, more distantly with lemurs, etc, back through a common ancestor with mammals, and even farther back to an eventual common ancestor with petunias. There still are mammals, lemurs, monkeys, chimps and petunias because we are not descended from any of them ? we just shared a common ancestor at some time. You are not shocked that you and your cousin are both exist now, because you are not descended from your cousin ? you shared a common ancestor with your cousin through your grandfather. Thanks for the question ? it gets asked a lot!
Arlington, Va.:
Eugenie -- how did you get interested in studying evolution? And how were you raised? Did your parents believe in evolution?
Dr. Eugenie Scott:
I attended high school in the early 1960s, and no evolution was taught in my high school biology class. My h.s. teacher, in fact, only surreptitiously told us about natural selection ? it was considered too controversial!! It wasn?t until I got to college that I learned about evolution, and found it a fascinating set of ideas that explains many things about biology: why there are so many different kinds of animals, why biochemical processes are so similar across all cells, etc.
Near as I can recall, no one talked much about science at all when I was growing up. My Mom thought the Garden of Eden was right there in La Crosse, WI, where I was born. It?s a pretty nice place, actually....
San Diego, Calif.:
Can you tell us something about the talks of the Intelligent Design proponents and their critics at this summer's "Interpreting Evolution" conference?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: I did not attend that conference. Reports are that it was fairly typical of ID conferences: the ID proponents said pretty much the same things they always say at their conferences. Their effort is directed at educating the public rather than convincing the scientific and scholarly communities that they have a legitimate scientific or scholarly position.
Sacramento, Calif.:
Why are the proponents of evolution allowed to present their ideas as absolute FACT and the Creation scientists called totally stupid and not even true scientists? It`s so unfair. washingtonpost.com:
Be sure to tune in Friday for a discussion with Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis at 2 p.m. EDT.
Dr. Eugenie Scott: I think you will find that high school teachers present evolution as matter-of-factly as they present any other well-supported scientific theory, like gravitation, atomic theory, cell theory, etc. I prefer to think of *facts* as things like the sequence of fossils in the geological record, the similarities and dissimilarities in anatomy, biochemistry, and embryology, the distribution of plants and animals around the world and other observations, and evolution as the theory that explains them. Theories are more important than facts, because theories explain facts.
Creation science was examined by scientists in the late 1970s and 1980s ? I have a shelf full of books and filing cabinets full of articles by scientists reviewing the claims of creation science. The reason creation science is not given equal time in public schools is that it is very poorly supported science. It?s not that they are stupid, it?s that they have been unable to come up with a reliable, valid scientific explanation for how things got to be in their present state that is better than the idea of common ancestry of living things. Both scientists and the courts have judged that creation science is not science, so why should we pretend to students that it is, and give it equal standing in science classes?
Boston, Mass.:
Can you tell us a bit about your organization "National Center for Science Education?" It looks like interesting work.
Dr. Eugenie Scott: NCSE supports the teaching of evolution in the schools. We do this by informing teachers, school boards, members of the public, etc., of what is going on in the antievolution movement(s), and advising them of the most effective ways to support the integrity of science. About half to two thirds of our members are scientists, though we have many members who are concerned about this issue for first amendment reasons: creationism is also, of course, a church and state separation issue. We are a clearinghouse for information on this topic; check us out at www.ncseweb.org We always welcome new members! Although we send you our newsletter, which one of my members described as *the most depressing newsletter I ever read cover to cover*!
Point Loma, Calif.:
If we try to teach evolution "warts and all," do we end up with many classrooms being taught "just warts" or skipping it entirely?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: Well, this assumes that evolution has *warts* ? that the Big Idea of evolution is somehow greatly flawed, that the evidence does not support the conclusion that living things descended with modification from common ancestry. You would have difficulty finding this view taught in the science departments of the secular universities, state and private, and it definitely is not taught at Brigham Young, Baylor, Notre Dame, Texas Christian and other fine sectarian universities. Scientists dispute the details of evolution ? which lineages gave rise to which, the relative importance of natural selection and other mechanisms of evolutionary change, and so forth. We do not debate *whether* evolution occurred, just how and when and the really interesting questions! But if teachers are told to teach *warts and all*, I fear that the (fortunately low) percentage that wishes to use the classroom for proseletyzing will take the opportunity to introduce creationism.
Austin, Tex.:
Are we more closely related to the common chimp or the pygmy chimp (bonobo)?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: I dont think we have enough information to be able to tell. The split from our common ancestor was quite recent, and we just cant tell at this point whether we are closer to pygmy chimps or whether pygmy chimps are more closely related to P. troglydetes.
Washington, D.C.:
To Sacramento - Why are the proponents of astronomy allowed to teach their position as absolute FACT and astrologers called totally stupid and not true scientists? It's so unfair!
Maybe because the proponents of evolution and astronomy use scientific reasoning and scientific evidence to back up their claims, while astrologers and creationists use religious beliefs and texts, emotion, and shoddy (if any) evidence to back up theirs?
Dr. Eugenie Scott: Thanks, DC -- that's an excellent response!
Thanks everyone who submitted questions -- sorry I did not get to answer all of them. Please check out the Evolution program Monday through Thursday evenings on PBS. I think you will find it most enjoyable and informative.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
