I'm Not Darwin-Only, I'm Science-Only

I am not "Darwin-only"; I'm "Science-only" for the content of public school science classrooms.

Casey Luskin notes that we talked some at the Kitzmiller et al. v. DASD trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

I am grateful to have had numerous friendly conversations with individuals from the Darwin-only side over the past few days. Wesley Elsberry (NCSE staffer) and I spent some time shooting the breeze and taking-in the spectacle together while engaging in friendly conversation outside the courthouse waiting to watch the media feeding frenzy as the attorneys walked out of the courtroom.

I'm pretty sure that I've said this before, but I'll take this opportunity to let Casey know clearly that I'm not "Darwin-only". In fact, one can find my line of CafePress items that state the "I'm Not Darwin-Only, I'm Science-Only" slogan in the left sidebar here.

Charles Darwin did a great deal of work, and many of his ideas continue to be usefully employed in evolutionary biology, but it is a fundamental mischaracterization of evolutionary biology to call teaching it "Darwin-only" instruction. I'd like students to get familiar with some other names in evolutionary biology, including, for instance: Romanes, Weissman, De Vries, Morgan, Muller, Fisher, Wright, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Stebbins, Simpson, Haldane, Watson, Crick, Wald, Lewontin, Lorenz, von Frisch, Tinbergen, Kimura, Crow, Raup, Foote, Gould, Dawkins, Ayala, Delbruck, Hershey, Luria, Williams, MacArthur, Pianka, Eldredge, Margulis, McClintock, Morris, Woese, Horner, Collins, and many, many more who have contributed to the modern understanding of evolutionary biology.

When I say "Science-only", I mean those findings that have not merely been presented to the scientific community as interesting possibilities, but which have endured critical scrutiny and empirical testing. Even if one credulously credits all of their claims concerning what should be considered "peer-reviewed" publications concerning "intelligent design" the "intelligent design" advocates are in very early stages of putting some work before the scientific community. They have a long way to go to catch up to such fringe-science topics as crypto-zoology (Bigfoot, Nessie, etc.), homeopathic medicine, or even dowsing. As Curtsinger notes, PubMed returns 900 hits for "horse feces", and a "Web of Knowledge" search for "cold fusion" I just ran returns 902 hits. Is "cold fusion" ready to enter the high school physics curriculum? Not hardly. But it is far, far ahead of conjectures such as "intelligent design".

So, please, Casey, lay off the "Darwin-only" rhetoric.