Lies My Teacher Told Me

A few years ago, James Loewen published a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. No, it's not about Darwinism. It's about American history. But they could certainly publish a book about Darwinism with the same exact title.

The reason I mention this is...I decided to go back and review the controversy over the NCSE's answers to the "10 Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution." I had previously mentioned this document in my review of the documentary Expelled.

I would like to discuss 3 of these "questions" in detail because I have a personal connection to them. After all, I did take high school biology. And I do remember some of it.

Note: NCSE is pro-Darwinist; The Discovery Institute is pro-Intelligent Design.

The first question...

"Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth--when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?"

NCSE’s Answer:

Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

Discovery's Rebuttal:

(a) Most biology textbooks include the origin of life--and the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.

(b) Because the Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the “first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.” When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, the experiment doesn’t work.

(c) If the origin of life “remains a vigorous area of research,” it is only because origin-of-life researchers are dedicated to their work, not because they have discovered anything that demonstrates how life originated.

Todd's Analysis:

Like former atheist Lee Strobel, I remember the Miller-Urey experiment from high school. Let's just say the subject was more than just "treated." Rather, it was portrayed as a major scientific breakthrough and solid evidence of Darwinism.

This webpage grades biology textbooks from "A" to "F" in terms of how they cover the Miller-Urey experiment. An "F" is reserved for textbooks which "include a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth."

I guess my high school textbook would get an "F."

Next question...

"VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry--even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?"

NCSE’s Answer:

Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits--mammals--are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology--”evo-devo”--is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. “Faked” drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel--and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed.

Discovery's Rebuttal:

(a) Far from confirming the NCSE’s claim that the early stages of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones, embryological research confirms that the claim is false.

(b) The NCSE’s claim that “the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development” is also false.

(c) Textbooks claim that the various CLASSES of vertebrates resemble each other in their early stages. By focusing on taxonomic levels below classes, the NCSE is attempting to evade the issue.

(d) Although the NCSE claims that “faked” drawings “are not relied upon,” a simple examination of biology textbooks shows that the NCSE is wrong.

Todd's Analysis:

I can personally confirm Point D. The NCE is wrong. The faked drawings are still in high school textbooks. I know because I used them. That's probably why evolutionary biologist (and pro-Darwinist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”

Sigh.

Next question...

"PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection--when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?"

NCSE’s Answer:

These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point--the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Discovery's Rebuttal:

(a) The NCSE’s first point is technically correct: The textbook pictures are illustrations, not actual evidence.

(b) The NCSE is using this technical point, however, to obscure the real issue: The textbook pictures misrepresent the natural resting-place of peppered moths and conceal serious flaws in the standard story.

(c) Staged peppered moth photos are not comparable to re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg, because the former misrepresent the truth.

(d) If using staged photos and re-telling a flawed story “demonstrate a point,” as the NCSE claims, the point is that students cannot trust what they read in their biology textbooks.

Todd's Analysis:

Again, the NCSE is being willfully dishonest, and the Discovery Institute (regrettably) isn't being tough enough. In many textbooks, the peppered moth experiment isn't an innocuous "illustration." Rather, it's used as direct evidence for Darwinism. Again, see this webpage on different biology textbooks. The textbook I used would get an "F.'


I'm already looking forward to the next round of this controversy, because - in the very brief time since that list was published - even more Darwinian "facts" have been exposed as lies.

In my high school biology class, the mating behavior of peacocks was used as evidence for Darwinism. But as this blog post explains, recent evidence invalidates that theory.

Some of the highlights...

Darwin's theory of sexual selection is widely regarded as explaining how the peacock's magnificent tail evolved.

The PBS Evolution Library says: Peahens often choose males for the quality of their trains - the quantity, size, and distribution of the colorful eyespots."

And why, you ask?

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller of University College, London, thinks he has an answer:

The peacock's tail is not just an arbitrary outcome of sexual selection. It's there because it's costly, which means only those fit, healthy, strong peacocks can afford to carry around those tails.

This hypothesis, called Zahavi's handicap or the "handicap principle," states:

An individual with a well developed sexually selected character [such as a peacock's flashy tail] is an individual which has survived a test. A female which could discriminate between a male possessing a sexually selected character, from one without it, can discriminate between a male which has passed a test and one which has not been tested. Females which selected males with the most developed characters can be sure that they have selected from among the best genotypes of the male population.

So, according to this thesis, the hen bird realizes that the tail is a handicap for the cock bird, but, to the extent that he bears it in a cocksure manner, she also realizes that he must be a healthy mate.

Sounds bizarre. But is it true? Umm, well...

Jennifer Viegas, of Discovery Channel News, reports on the work of Mariko Takahashi of the University of Tokyo and her colleagues on this very question (March 26, 2008). Their findings contradict earlier reports that the peahens are impressed by brilliant tails.

From spring 1995 through spring 2001, the researchers observed peafowl (the correct name for the species) mating at Izu Cactus Park on the Izu Peninsula, about 100 kilometres southwest of Tokyo. They found that the peahens do not pay much attention to the peacocks' feathered finery. As Viegas reports,

The determination throws a wrench in the long-held belief that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice. It could also indicate that certain other elaborate features in galliformes, a group that includes turkeys, chickens, grouse, quails and pheasants, as well as peacocks, are not necessarily linked to fitness and mating success. [ ... ] Across the board, the researchers were unable to link the elaborateness of a peacock's train with his mating success. In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied. They also couldn't detect any link between a particular male's fitness and his train.

Oh well. Better luck next time, guys.

-Todd