Oklahoma City University

Department of Biology

Viewpoints

States and Bills and Puppy Dog Tales

R.E. Jones

Adjunct Professor of Biology

Oklahoma City University

Abraham Lincoln is said to have been fond of the following riddle: "If you call a tail a "leg", how many legs does a dog have?" Given the setup, the obvious response is "five legs". This assumes the dog has the usual four legs plus a tail, which for the purpose of the riddle we are also calling a "leg". But the riddle is meant to reel you in. "Five legs" is the sucker response. According to Mr. Lincoln the correct answer is four legs, because "calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg." Along the same lines, I would offer a second riddle: "If you call the theory of evolution "controversial", how many working theories of Biology, Medicine, and Agriculture do you have left?" The answer, in like fashion is "one", because calling evolution controversial does not make it controversial.

There are those who would like us to believe that Darwin's theory is controversial. Case in point is the recent evolution disclaimer proposed by the State Textbook Committee. It was stated in the disclaimer that evolution is a "controversial theory which some scientists believe..". First, the slippery use of the word "some" does not technically make the statement false, but does make it deliberately misleading. The statement is accurate only in the same sense that "some physicians believe in bacteria". In the Biological scientific community, the theory of evolution is as much a consensus as is the notion of creation among fundamentalist ministers, regardless of determined efforts to convince people otherwise. Granted, in the fundamentalist arena, evolution may be considered controversial, but in the scientific arena it is not. Labelling evolution theory controversial is a strategy that at best is wishful thinking and at worst is called "poisoning the well". It plants an a priori assumption of the weakness or illegitimacy of a robust, workable theory that has proven its reliability for over a hundred years.

A theory has two main functions. The first is scholastic. The theory must provide a consistent explanation of all the data and observations under its particular umbrella. The second is predictive. If the theory is correct it consistently predicts the outcome of future observations or experiments. The soundness of a theory rests in the reliability of its predictions. It is the business of science to continually test its theories through risky predictions. Contrary to the Hollywood version of the scientist, the main effort of science is not to prove its theories, but to test them, and, if possible, to tear them down. Darwin's theory has withstood over a hundred years of such efforts. The testable hypothesis is, by the way, the element that distinguishes science from religion and philosophy, not only in the academic community, but also in rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is because of these rulings that Creation Science is now generally called Creationism. It isn't testable.

There are only two things that make a theory "controversial" in the scientific arena. One is the presence of inconsistencies or conflicts in its explanation of diverse observations and data. Although the precise timeline or order of specific events in the evolutionary scenario have -- and will continue to be -- debated and revised as new information is uncovered, the evolutionary theory which explains the events has not changed and remains valid. An example of a serious inconsistency in the theory itself would be, for example, if someone were to discover a human fossil imbedded in a 3.5 billion year old stromatolitic fossil complex. No such out-of-order artifacts have ever been found that challenge the validity of evolution. It has been argued by opponents that the fossil record is incomplete. True, but not so incomplete as to raise serious doubt about the theory. All of the thousands of fossils and skeletons ever found are in an historical order that is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. Stating that the fossil record is incomplete does not make the theory of evolution controversial. It merely points out a fact that is true of all science. Science is open ended. The data upon which all scientific theories rest are by nature incomplete. That is why scientists continue to do research, and in doing so, constantly test and challenge their own theories.

The second thing that would make a theory "controversial" is the suggestion of a different, but equally complete theory. Equally complete would mean that the new theory is as broad and adequate at explaining existing data and makes equally good predictions. There have been no such theories offered since Darwin first proposed the original. Arguments given by the proponents of Creationism have not constituted new theories, but only potshots aimed at discrediting the current one. Having read hundreds of these potshots, I have never read one of them that truly hit the mark. Most of them depend upon equivocation, borrowing terms or principles that have a precise meaning in science and playing on a slippery double meaning of the terms, or on a distortion of otherwise clearly defined concepts. All of them have one thing in common -- a charming appeal to the common sense of those who are ignorant of the science or those who simply have a strong desire to believe. The problem is that they sound a lot like science, but none of them are.

One aspect of evolutionary theory that has sustained its share of potshots is the element of random mutation. It is only half of evolutionary theory, the other half being natural selection. But by emphasizing the word "random", usually touting it as the only element of evolution, we can have 'em rolling in the aisles. One of my particular favorites draws the analogy between evolution and a tornado sweeping through a junkyard, randomly assembling a 747. However, another good example can be found in the proposed disclaimer of the Textbook Committee. The disclaimer states that according to evolution "random, undirected forces" gave rise to living things. Both of the above statements are untrue -- false witness, if you will pardon the expression. Mutation which gives rise to variation is random, and sexual recombination is random, but reproductive success is not random. It is highly selective, hence the term "natural selection". In fact, the selectiveness of reproductive success is the very mechanism (not force, by the way) which made Darwin's theory viable and makes it the only sound theory of biological descent and diversity ever to be proposed. Evolution, in short, has both random and highly directed elements. Both elements are necessary. Randomness alone would lead to the dissolution of all recognizable species. Natural selection is so directive that were it the only element operating on Earth's biology there would be no diversity. The elegant beauty of the theory lies in the balance between the random and the highly directed. But the misrepresentation of evolution as a "random, undirected" process by its opponents has made the notion a popular misconception. And, let's face it, the idea effectively makes evolution look pretty silly. 747 indeed!

Another point that should also be addressed, if for no other reason than its mention in the textbook disclaimer, is the artificial distinction made by Creationists between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution refers to the genetic changes within species that arise from random mutation and either natural or artificial selection. The changes may be enhanced by natural catastrophe or by colonizing new environments. Microevolution is granted by creationists as having been adequately documented. It would be hard for even the most staunch Creationist to refute. Examples abound among virtually all species of domesticated animals or plants. The classic example arising from natural selection is the often cited peppered moth. Macroevolution refers to diversity which gives rise to new species. Macroevolution is where Creationists draw the line. The implication is that the line can be distinctly drawn. There aren't two theories of evolution. The difference between micro- and macroevolution is only a matter of degree, and the point where species diverge is often vague.

John Ray, an English botanist in the seventeenth century gave us the most widely used definition of a species. A species is a group of individuals that are able to interbreed and give rise to fertile offspring. Therefore, a Dachshund and a Cocker Spaniel are members of the same species, while a horse and a donkey are not. But what about a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard? Or what about mayflies that mate in the morning and then die before noon versus those that mate only in the evening? There are several kinds of barriers that prevent similar, coexisting animals or plants from interbreeding. All of them constitute some form of genetically determined incompatibility. Applying an unambiguous definition of species is difficult or near impossible at times. Science has shown us that living things represent much more a continuum of variation than a collection of neatly defined species. At what point do variants become new species? At what point does microevolution become macroevolution?

The notion of inviolate, unchanging species was ingrained in Western thought by the essentialism of Plato and Aristotle. The essentialist view is that all living things are imperfect representations of pure archetypal forms or essences. The archetypal forms are eternal and unchanging, but due to the imperfection inherent in earthly copies, we see variation within species here on Earth. The Greek essentialism was transferred directly from Plato and Aristotle to Christian dogma, primarily by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The point is this: when the discussion of evolution becomes a debate between micro- and macroevolution, the argument is one of philosophy or religion -- not science. In science, macroevolution is merely the extension and inevitable result of microevolution. Such a debate is akin to arguing whether microgravity causes a pen to fall to the floor, while macrogravity makes a meteor fall from the sky. (That was, in fact an issue for debate during the Renaissance -- not using those trendy terms, of course -- but was put to rest by Isaac Newton, who unified the gravitational laws.)

Nevertheless, in answer to those who claim that macroevolution has not been demonstrated, I offer one documented example of macroevolution. Bread wheat, Triticum aestivum is an example of a brand new species of wheat, separate and distinct from the original wild species by all criteria. Wild Triticum and T. monococcum, the earliest documented domestic wheat both have 14 chromosomes. Bread wheat has 42 and is unable to cross breed with the other two. Bread wheat is the decendent of a hybrid cross between the two original species some 11,000 years ago. There were several distinct genetic changes over the years, one of which resulted in Emmer wheat, another new species with 28 chromosomes. The lineage can be traced, not only by genetic techniques, but also by archaeological excavations of farming villages which provide us with a seed record as well. Voila! Macroevolution with all the "missing links" accounted for.

This is not an indictment of fundamentalist or any other religious belief, only the attempts of those who would impose those beliefs on the teaching of science. Science and religion serve two separate functions. One attempts to describe the details of life and the physical rules that affect it, while the other attempts to give life meaning and a sense of purpose. The Bible is not a textbook on science, and one would be ill advised to search for spiritual comfort in a physics or biology text. Science and religion may complement each other, but the distinction between the two must be preserved else both fail. Which brings us to the final point.

The State Attorney General has ruled that by state law the State Textbook Committee does not have the power to require a religiously based disclaimer be pasted in science books as a condition of approval of the book by the Committee. The wording of the disclaimer carefully avoided mentioning Creationism or religion by name, and the committee would claim that the disclaimer is religiously neutral and based on scientific objections. Judging from recent statements by several state representatives (and including the Governor) there are a number of lawmakers who have been buffaloed into believing this. And this is in spite of the fact that the dispute is clearly about offending fundamentalist beliefs. The purpose of this discussion has been to show that the disclaimer is completely religious in nature, and thinly veiled at that. And the reason for the discussion is that we haven't heard the last of this.

Representative Jim Reese has introduced to the legislature an amendment to state law that would greatly expand the power of the State Textbook Committee. House Bill 1876 would not only give the Committee the power to require a religiously based disclaimer in textbooks, but would give them the power of a line item veto of the text itself. The addition to current law is brief: "The Committee may specify the conditions which must be met for final adoption of the textbook." Current law only gives them the power to approve or disapprove a textbook in toto. The new law would give them the power to bargain with publishers on a line-by-line, paragraph-by-paragraph basis with state textbook contracts as the ransom. The money, of course, goes to the most compliant publisher. Let's take a look down that road.

This last week Laura Dobson of the Textbook Committee voted against all but one of the proposed science textbooks, stating that all of them contained "significant inaccuracies" that promoted evolution. She was the only member of the committee who vetoed all the books, and other members pointed out that many of Ms. Dobson's "inaccuracies" were accepted scientific standards over which all students are tested on a statewide basis. In this case, Ms. Dobson was outvoted. But, as I said, we're just looking down the road a ways to see where it could lead.

Religious concerns are up front in this case. Representative Reese has been quite clear that the reasons for introducing the bill are so that the committee can put pressure on the publishers to comply with local religious standards with regards to evolution. No committee, regardless of credentials, and whether or not posessed by a personal agenda, is academically qualified to have the kind of power proposed by this bill. But the current State Textbook Committee and Representative Reese have made it plain that this would be a law respecting the establishment of religion. Hopefully, no amount of clever wording or pseudoscientific gibberish can disguise that fact.

Viewpoints Disclaimer Statement

Articles published here are the personal creative and intellectual property of the author. All opinions expressed in Viewpoints are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the University.