With all the attention being paid to Christine O’Donnell’s “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” gaffe, a lot less attention is being paid to what she said about evolution and intelligent design. The exchange occurs starting around the 12:00 mark and ends around 15:00 in this link.
Even though O’Donnell had been on tape in the 90s saying “evolution is a myth” she’s been trying to distance herself from her past. She has several times refused to answer whether she accepts the theory of evolution. This time she answered the question – she doesn’t. Is it any surprise that someone who said scientists are making mice with human brains doesn’t know anything about science?
O’Donnell tries to turn the teaching of science into a local school issue. That’s just not true, as has been ruled many times. States and local communities are still covered by the U.S. Constitution (that’s why the Tea Party belief that states can establish a state religion is just wrong). O’Donnell is wrong on two fronts: local schools are not allowed to teach religious doctrine in public schools (really is she saying schools could teach sharia if the community wanted?) and “intelligent design” is no theory it’s just warmed-over creationism.
The test case for O’Donnell’s beliefs was Kitzmiller v. Dover:
In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, “intelligent design” was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools.
As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of “intelligent design,” the trial attracted national and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling in which he held that “intelligent design” was, as the plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism.
The judge in the case was a George H.W. Bush appointee, BTW. TalkOrigins has a full archive of the trial testimony and coverage. The major finding of the case was that intelligent design was a word coined in 1987 after the court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that “scientific” creationism can’t be taught in schools. The highlighting testimony was Barbara Forrest who showed the words “intelligent design” simply replaced “creation” in these creationist textbooks.
The best resource for anti-evolution arguments is TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims. (Yes, there’s an app for that.) Of course, the Index already has a rebuttal for O’Donnell’s assertion:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
- Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
- Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
- Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
It drives me seriously nuts that common English has changed the word theory from this:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).
To the common colloquial meaning of “wild-assed guess.” Just remember, a theory is something that has been observed, tested and verified. Most of all it can be tested. Intelligent design can not be observed nor tested and therefore can not be science. That’s why it can’t be taught as science. Hey, I would have no objection to a science teacher using the example of intelligent design creationism to show the difference between a scientific theory and religious doctrine, but I doubt that’s how O’Donnell wanted it to be taught. Evolution is the basis for modern biology – it is the central unifying theory.