This page is sponsored by Google Ads. ARN does not necessarily select or endorse the organizations or products advertised above.
HOCHMUTH (voice-over): The debate is as old as life itself: Why are we here and how did we come to be? Ever since Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands and then published his "Origin of Species," evolution through natural selection has been the prevailing scientific theory. But are there cracks in that long-held consensus?
According to 19-year-old Joe Baker, the answer is a resounding yes.
JOE BAKER, HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR: I believed in evolution for a long time, eighth grade through ninth grade. And, as someone presented to me the facts of science, I began to question what I believed.
HOCHMUTH: The high school senior from Perkasie, Pennsylvania, is on a personal crusade. He claims many examples of Darwinian evolution in his school's biology textbooks are simply wrong and wants his school board to put labels in those books warning students about the alleged errors.
BAKER: This isn't about typos. These are the main icons that are used to teach evolutionary theory. Many of them are fraud.
I think the remedy for all of this is having people like me stand up and say, you know, this is wrong, at least in their classes. And maybe, if they get really radical, go up and stand against the school board.
HOCHMUTH: So far, at least, it seems he isn't getting very far.
STERLING: There is misinformation in textbooks. We do not have control of publishing companies.
BAKER: Well, these aren't...
KAREN STERLING, PENNRIDGE SCHOOL BOARD: And I ...
BAKER: These aren't small errors.
STERLING: ... am not -- I understand that they're not small issues. And we don't deal with any small issues here.
If it was just talking about the errors in textbooks, we believe that we have a staff that can handle that. When you start moving off the science-based theories and into the religious-based theories, you're moving into areas that don't belong in the biology classroom.
BAKER: I personally am not asking for any of these to be taught or brought in -- anything that I believe to be brought into the science curriculum, but for the evidence that they have to be taught honestly.
Could everyone here who supports me please stand up?
HOCHMUTH: While Joe's crusade is personal, he is not alone. He raises questions voiced by a growing minority of scientists and scholars in an emerging field called intelligent design. They question some of the basic tenants of traditional Darwinism and propose life on Earth is here by design rather than chance.
Among them is Jonathan Wells, who holds Ph.D.s in both theology and biology.
DR. JONATHAN WELLS, AUTHOR, "ICONS OF EVOLUTION": As I looked more and more and dug a little bit deeper, I found many misrepresentations in the biology textbooks and, at that point, became convinced that even the general pattern of Darwinian evolution was false -- or at least it distorts the evidence to make itself look truer than it is.
HOCHMUTH: One of the most glaring examples, says Wells, are illustrations of vertebrate embryos still found in some textbooks. It turns out they're based on drawings faked more than a hundred years ago to make them look more similar than they really are and to make a stronger case for common descent.
Another example is the peppered moth, used for decades by evolutionists as evidence of natural selection. Studies have shown that, after the Industrial Revolution, darker varieties predominated -- the conclusion: that darker moths were better camouflaged on trees blackened by pollution and harder for predatory birds to find, an example of survival of the fittest. But there's a problem.
WELLS: When biologists looked more closely, they realized that they couldn't even show that peppered moths rest on tree trunks in the wild. And it turns out that these textbook photos showing them on tree trunks have all been staged. And I think that's bad science.
HOCHMUTH: The mainstream scientific community is firing back at Wells' objections. Jerry Coyne is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago studying genetics and the origin of new species.
JERRY COYNE, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: The problems with the examples that Wells point out, like the pepper moth, were not discovered by Jonathan Wells; they were discovered by other scientists, including myself. And we have published these problems in the scientific literature. So Wells is merely dredging them up again and pretending that, you know, he found them.
WELLS: But the textbooks still teach them as though there were nothing wrong with them.
HOCHMUTH: Still, Coyne argues that traditional Darwinism doesn't depend on the examples that Wells points out. He says there are plenty of other examples, like the fossil record. But here again, Wells raises questions.
WELLS: There is quite a bit of disagreement over how these various fossils fit into some sort of progression. The disagreement is rampant in the field. And the people who studied these fossils admit to it freely, at least in the professional literature. So they themselves use the word myth to refer to this story of ape-to-human evolution.
COYNE: You don't have to know the common ancestry in order to know that evolution occurred. All you have to do is be able to see a sequence in the fossil record of organisms that change over time. And that's exactly what we have in the human fossil record. The theory of evolution has been confirmed with so much evidence over the 150 years since it's been suggested that no serious scientist calls it into question anymore.
HOCHMUTH (on camera): That Darwinism should come under attack is nothing new. Ever since the theory gained widespread acceptance back in the 19th century, it's faced critics both inside and outside science. What's new about the so-called "intelligent design" movement is that, in a sense, it claims to have found God.
MICHAEL BEHE, BIOCHEMIST, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: In the nucleus, you've just got all this DNA.
HOCHMUTH: Michael Behe is a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His research has convinced him that some molecular systems are so irreducibly complex, they must have been designed. Take, for example, the flagella that propels certain types of bacteria.
BEHE: Maybe it looks like it was designed because it was designed. So just like trying to put together a mousetrap from random parts in your garage, it's very difficult to envision how different pieces that weren't already adjusted to each other could come together and form something as complex as a bacterial flagellum.
EUGENIA SCOTT, ANTHROPOLOGIST: In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it.
HOCHMUTH: Eugenia Scott is an anthropologist by training and a committed evolutionist. She's concerned the intelligent design movement may have ulterior motives.
SCOTT: The literature of the intelligent design people is very clear: They don't like evolution. They don't like common ancestry. They want God to be intervening at regular intervals to bring about the diversity of modern living things. That's a religious statement; that's not a scientific statement.
BEHE: Let me just say, I disagree. All sorts of scientific theories have religious implications. Darwin's theory has religious implications.
HOCHMUTH: Behe is a Roman Catholic, but says he does not interpret the biblical creation account literally. Within the intelligent design movement, some scientists do and some don't. But all have doubts about the Darwinian notion that life evolved through totally natural processes.
BEHE: At root, Darwinism says that life is the result of chance: chance processes, you know, with natural selection, but chance, nonetheless. Nobody intended human beings to be here. Nobody intended anything to be here. It just sort of happened. It'll go away someday.
WELLS: The ultimate question here is: Is God real? I mean, is there a God that we are answerable to who created us and gave purpose to our existence or not?
COYNE: People don't like the idea that humans are part of the evolutionary process and that they, in particular, are the sort of random blind products of this process called natural selection, and that they're not -- we're not the special products of any creative process.
And people don't like that because it -- they think it deprives them of having a purpose in a universe and it makes them feel alone. You know, I'm perfectly content, myself, to live with that.
HOCHMUTH: Which brings us back to Joe Baker and what he believes. He freely admits he accepts that God created the world as described in the Bible and, that in turn, God created him.
ROBERTA RECENES, PARENT: I admire him. I admire his faith. But I think he's going about it the wrong way and he's trying to impress his faith on my student and my community.
HOCHMUTH: Joe responds to such criticism by arguing his crusade is not just about faith, but facts.
BAKER: I think that students should be able to think for themselves and just test the evidence for themselves, not necessary read this in the book, but look at the -- look at the -- look at the fossils, study the different layers of the Earth, study the rocks and study science, the empirical tests of science and then come to their own conclusions.
Special Series : Voyage of Life: (Part II) The Past
1.According to the video, what has been the prevailing scientific theory on the origin of humanity? Who is credited with this theory? Who is Joe Baker? Does he agree with Charles Darwin? Explain. What is Baker's personal crusade?
2.What is the basic belief of the "intelligent design" movement? What is Jonathan Wells' academic background? Why does he question Darwin's theory of evolution? What examples of "distorted evidence" does Wells cite to support his view? Why does Wells think the example of the peppered moth illustrates "bad science"?
3.Who is Jerry Coyne? What is his response to Jonathan Wells? What does Coyne point to as evidence to support Darwinian evolution? What does Wells think of the fossil record? What has Michael Behe's research convinced him about the origins of life? What does he think about the design of some molecular systems, like that of the flagella that propel bacteria? What do you think of his statement, "Maybe it looks like it was designed because it was designed"? How does anthropologist Eugenia Scott view the intelligent design movement?
4.According to Jerry Coyne, why are people generally uncomfortable with the idea that humans are part of the evolutionary process? Why is Joe Baker uncomfortable with what he is learning? How have some people responded to him? What is Baker's response to his critics?
5.Biologically speaking, what is meant by "natural selection"? To what extent is natural selection a part of the theory of evolution? In the video, Jerry Coyne states that because of natural selection, "we're not the special products of any creative process. People don't like that because they think it deprives them of having a purpose in the universe and it makes them feel alone." Why do you think that evolution is not accepted by everyone? Do you think some people reject the theory of evolution for the reason Jerry Coyne cites, or has science failed to "make its case"? Are there other reasons? Discuss. If you are comfortable stating your views on this topic, share what you think about the origins of life with the class.
6.Throughout the ages, how has science handled the challenges of long-held beliefs? Have students work in groups to learn more about the role of science in challenging longstanding views, such as the Earth as the center of the universe, the belief that the Earth was flat, and the belief that evil spirits caused disease. Have groups share their findings. Compare these examples to what is happening today with the evolution and intelligent design movements. How is science now being challenged? Why do students think so many are challenging modern science? Discuss.
File Date: 5.02.01
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety
for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.
Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.