Science Blog

Science news straight from the source

Navigation

  • Topics
    • Aerospace
    • Animals
    • Anthro and Archaeology
    • Bio and Medicine
    • Brain and Behavior
    • Business and Economy
    • Computers and Electronics
    • Education and Outreach
    • Energy and Environment
    • Geoscience
    • Internet and Communication
    • Media and Entertainment
    • Nanotech, Chem and Materials
    • Physics and Numbers
    • Security and Defense
    • Software
    • Space
    • Transportation
  • Reader Blogs
  • Commerce
  • Register/Login
  • RSS
Home Topics Animals
  • Contact
  • Home

Popular Today

  • Old men chasing young women: A good thing
  • Caltech scientists discover why flies are so hard to swat
  • Study points to potential new use for Viagra
  • Study says eyes evolved for X-Ray vision
  • Yellowstone Supervolcano: Only Lukewarm?
more
Google

Similar entries

  • Intelligent Design on Trial
  • Dover: 'Intelligent design' ruling relied too much on plaintiffs
  • Geologists slap back at Bush
  • Does Ruling in Dover Case Signal New Anti-Evolution Strategy?

Recent Comments

  • The Pioneer Anomaly Solved
  • Confusion fosters Inspiration
  • Gaia is one big ball of cooperation
  • Human lizards
  • A new herbal cure
more

Reader Blogs

  • Cafe Scientifique Pittsburgh features...me!
  • Latest Info on Morgellons Tonight
  • Emil Lenz - One Science Is Not Enough
  • Modern Cosmology
more

Review of ONLY A THEORY: EVOLUTION AND THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA'S SOUL

Fred Bortz's picture
  • Animals
  • Education and Outreach
  • Media and Entertainment
 

Review of Only a Theory Evolution: and the Battle for America's Soul
by Kenneth R. Miller

(Viking, $25.95, 256 pages, June, 2008)

Reviewed by Dr. Fred Bortz (Copyright 2008 by Alfred B. Bortz)

Originally published on The Science Shelf Book Review Archive, where you may see this review with an image of the book cover.

  • Buy Only A Theory from Amazon.com.

    The Science Shelf has numerous other reviews of books about Evolution and Human Origins. <--Follow that link for the list.

    In 2004, the science department of the Dover Area High School in eastern Pennsylvania met to select a new textbook for its general biology course. Their choice: a widely-used Prentice Hall text by Brown University professor Kenneth R. Miller and co-author Joseph S. Levine.

    The selection process seemed unremarkable until, as Miller describes in his new book Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, "One of the board's members complained that the book was 'laced with Darwinism from beginning to end' and set about helping to present an alternative to teachers. The board also arranged for the purchase of two classroom sets of the ID [Intelligent Design] textbook Of Pandas and People, which were placed in the high school library."

    Mainstream science rejects ID's claim of scientific legitimacy, because it introduces an entity called the intelligent designer whose powers go beyond Nature. Though ID advocates, such as the researchers of the Discovery Institute, explicitly distinguish that designer from a deity, their approach still looked enough like religion to prompt a group of eleven parents to file a federal lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by Tammy Kitzmiller, alleged that the board had violated their First Amendment rights by establishing a particular religious doctrine as part of the school's curriculum.

    With that, a local skirmish over Darwin's theory erupted into Kitzmiller v. Dover, a full-fledged legal battle between advocates of Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, presided.

    In Only A Theory, Miller does not tell the full story of that trial. Rather his purpose is to present its implications, drawing on both his broad perspective as a leading biology educator and his experience as the plaintiffs' opening and most important witness.

    He draws his title from a brief encounter in a courtroom, where "even a whisper can catch your attention, especially one that comes right at you with a smile and a wink."

    "'Only a theory,' she said, shaking her head just enough to get my attention as I walked past her," Miller continues. "'It's only a theory—and we're gonna win." Her smile was genuine, and its certainty was unmistakable."

    She didn't win in that trial. Judge Jones recognized that ID was old-fashioned Creationism in a fancy suit, but Miller and his courtroom antagonist both know that the uniquely American cultural war over Evolution will continue. That prospect worries him, especially as he ponders the goals and strategies of the ID movement.

    Under the guise of proposing "irreducible complexity" as a competing hypothesis to Darwinian Evolution, ID advocates set out to demonstrate scientifically that an entity that they describe as the intelligent designer must exist. The designer is not necessarily divine (though they won't argue against that), but he, she, or it clearly must operate beyond the natural realm.

    The problem with this approach is that it only works if science is redefined to include the "non-natural," a term ID advocates use to avoid "supernatural." The tactic, if successful, not only overturns Darwinian Evolution but also shreds the fabric of natural science itself.

    Why should the designer only work in biology? Why invoke astrophysics and 13.7 billion years of history to explain the universe? Why invoke 4.5 billion years of solar system development to create the kind of planet on which the designer could bring a long sequence of ecologies into existence, only to have them replaced by other ecologies until one eventually emerges in which humans dominate?

    Fortunately, despite all their efforts to prove that irreducibly complex units exist, ID researchers have been foiled by Nature itself. Miller describes scientific research that has systematically demolished ID's most cherished claim.

    ID advocates have been forced to go back to the drawing board, but they are not giving up. Miller worries about what damage their continuing assault may produce.

    Yet he expresses confidence in the unique American system that encourages challenges to the established order. It is the source of the legendary American individuality and self-sufficiency that economic conservatives tout as the engine that drives our progress.

    They argue that our economy thrives with fewer controls. It achieves maximum efficiency by allowing individuals to act in their best interest. It encourages innovation. Many novel ideas fail, but the most successful ones lead to new ways of doing things in an always challenging environment.

    That's economic evolution by natural selection, and it happens without a designer's intervention. Why shouldn't life on Earth, or any other planet, operate in the same way?

    In Astrobiology, his latest book for young readers, Fred Bortz describes the science behind space aliens, including how a variety of life forms might evolve on other worlds.


  • Submitted by Fred Bortz on Sun, 2008-06-29 17:56.
    • Fred Bortz's blog
    • Printer-friendly version
    • 1992 reads


    And here's the kind of back-door entry of ID Miller feared

    Submitted by Fred Bortz on Thu, 2008-07-10 07:38.

    This article describes the politics of Intelligent Design in Louisiana, where the new, charismatic, Roman Catholic governor has allied himself with religious fundamentalists; and he apparently does not care about redefinition of natural science to include the possibility of a supernatural intelligence.

    As Miller notes, the battle will continue and those who are concerned about preserving the integrity of science can't afford to let their guards down.

    Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

    • reply

    Another piece of evidence against ID

    Submitted by Fred Bortz on Thu, 2008-07-10 07:26.

    This is not as damning as the refutation of "irreducible complexity" as Miller notes in his book, but it does refute arguments against evolution of fish with two eyes on the same side of their bodies. For those who argued, "Where's the intermediate state?", this finding says, "Right here!"

    Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

    • reply

    Constraints on the curriculum

    Submitted by Fred Bortz on Mon, 2008-06-30 11:27.

    I think Anon goes too far with "freedom of expression." Teachers are hired to work within a curriculum, and the school board is responsible for developing that curriculum.

    In any reasonable school system, the board and administrators work with the teachers on curriculum issues. The curriculum provides necessary structure to promote the best possible education for the students. That structure necessarily puts some constraints on a teacher's freedom of expression, just as the Constitution and laws place constraints on the school board's choices for that curriculum.

    The message of the Kitzmiller v. Dover verdict is that the school board did not follow the Constitution when it implemented a curriculum that established a particular religious doctrine.

    Likewise, if a teacher were to assert "freedom of expression" and teach ID as an alternative to a Darwinian view of evolution, the school board would be obligated to intervene.

    Coglanlab is correct that the argument is over what the curriculum should include and how curriculum decisions should be made.

    Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

    • reply

    How far does that go?

    Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2008-06-30 10:50.

    The argument then, is about what the proper limits are, and what is included or excluded by those limits.

    No. The argument is not about what the limits are nor what is included or excluded in those limit. It is about who sets those limits.

    The government has no legal business constraining thought or expression.

    Let teachers teach without big brother sitting in the corner of the classroom.

    • reply

    How far does that go?

    Submitted by coglanglab on Mon, 2008-06-30 08:27.

    Anonymous:

    In schools, children are taught that 1 + 1 = 2. Should more freedom of expression be allowed?

    As far as I can tell, the point of school is to teach children useful knowledge and skills. That may be liberally defined, but not so liberally defined that it includes teaching information known to be false. What exactly would be the point of that.

    So unless you are a total anarchist, I will assume you agree that there are limits on what should be taught in school. The argument then, is about what the proper limits are, and what is included or excluded by those limits.

    Please try my web-based experiments

    • reply

    They argue that our economy

    Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2008-06-30 04:24.

    They argue that our economy thrives with fewer controls.

    Our education system will thrive with fewer controls too.

    The federal government should stop controlling expression in the schools.

    • reply

    Post new comment

    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <blockquote>
    • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

    More information about formatting options

    Copyright, Science Blog.
    Think. It's not illegal yet. Read our Privacy Policy.
    RoopleTheme