I guess I'm hitting the local papers hard today. Les Lane made a comment about an op-ed in the Pioneer Press. The thing is supposed to be a "rebuttal" to a lovely piece by Lisa Peters that I praised earlier this month. It isn't. It's standard creationist hackwork, a compendium of cliches and lies that we have all heard repeatedly.

Creationists have a real advantage when doing this kind of thing. They can lie brazenly, and in a single short sentence declaim something with absolute confidence that is nothing short of an outright fabrication, and it would take me an hour to adequately dissect their words and show how fraudulent they are. Take, for example, the title of the op-ed:

Evolution is a theory in crisis

It's a lie. Here, this guy, Bob Hazen, has written a fairly long piece in which he makes assertion after assertion, and he has the gall to start it with a bold lie as the title. Here I am, trying to make an honest and thorough reply to the article, and I'm finding it hard to look past the title. Shouldn't I just wad this newspaper up and throw it in the trash, not bothering to reply to such garbage? Yes. Unfortunately, it's the editors of the Pioneer Press who should have instantly canned this kind of crank nonsense, so we, the informed readers, are stuck with the pointless chore of plodding through, making note of the foolishness therein.

You see, evolution is not in crisis. It's a healthy, active science, inspiring investigators and guiding research in the field and the lab. The theory is supported with near-unanimity by biologists; the few who disagree are generally crackpots and people driven by an unscientific religious agenda. The only people who claim it is a "theory in crisis" are creationists, who want to pretend there is honest doubt where there is none.

Hazen then follows up with a bullet-point list of creationist talking points, each one false. It doesn't get any better from the title on, I'm afraid.

In her June 1 Viewpoints column, Lisa Peters expressed her frustration with evolution not being discussed enough in schools. I couldn't agree more. As a high school teacher, I would love to see elementary, middle and high school students do any of the following:

• Let's discuss the difference between evidence and interpretations of evidence — e.g., the evidence of common features (limbs or DNA).

Evolution explains that common features are caused by a common origin. But other scientists believe that common features may be the result of a common design, with the same effective design used repeatedly. Wheels appear on everything from trikes, bikes and motorcycles to cars, vans and buses. Let's discuss if that means that bikes randomly evolved over eons of time into motorcycles.

What "other scientists"? There are features that are common because of convergent evolution, and there is no argument that that happens. However, no scientist that I know of claims that limbs or DNA are of independent origin in different species. That's the kind of claim that will make knowledgeable people look at you funny—but Bob Hazen is willing to blithely toss it off. I hope he doesn't invent that kind of crap in his high school classes.

But sure, let's compare bicycles to biological organisms. Are there any obvious differences that come to mind?

How about reproduction?

I think if you parked a couple of bikes and watched them for a few eons, you wouldn't see much happen other than rust. I hope Mr Hazen's high school students are aware that if you parked a couple of animals somewhere for a few eons, there'd be some amazing stuff going on.

• Let's discuss with students the three distinct shades of meaning of the term "evolution" — 1: simply "change itself"; or 2: "variation within a species" (moth populations changing dominant color but still being simply moths); or 3: "the unbroken line of development from molecules to humans." Let's discuss how both creationists and evolutionists agree with the first two meanings but disagree only about the theorized, unobserved definition 3 of molecules-to-humans development. Let's discuss Peters' misleading claim that disagreement with definition 3 is equivalent to rejecting definition 1 regarding simple change per se. Let's discuss what this is: unclear terminology at best, bait-and-switch at worst.

Yes, there are multiple definitions of evolution. It's a complex idea, not easily accommodated in a short sound bite, and evolution, as a theory, integrates a wide array of observation, evidence, and inference. Of course it has multiple shades of meaning; that isn't a strike against it at all.

Try reading the talk.origins FAQ, Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. Hazen has everything wrong. There is a body of theory that addresses the mechanism of evolution, and that's where variation and changes in allele frequency over time come into play. That theory is used to explain the fact of evolution, that the history of life on earth is characterized by billions of years of churning, large-scale transformation. This is not open to serious question: the earth is billions of years old, life has changed radically over the course of time, and life continues to change. Yet this is precisely the part that Mr Hazen thinks can be appropriately challenged in the classroom.

Hazen's complaint that this is unclear wording or bait-and-switch is false. I can describe an elephant as "an animal used as a beast of burden in Asia", "a large herbivore with a harem-style mating scheme", or "a mammal of the genus Elephas." All three are true, and that there are a plethora of definitions that encompass the phenomenon does not suggest any confusion in the mind of the biologist, let alone the non-existence of the elephant.

• Let's have students discuss what committed evolutionists admit: that evolution is not so much a conclusion from evidence as it is an assumption of how the evidence should be interpreted. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted his bias of explaining all things only by existing natural processes of chance interactions of matter, energy and time.

Only a creationist would be so absurd as to complain that scientists restrict their study to the entire goddamn physical universe.

It is partly correct that science restricts itself to reality, but it's more than an assumption. That is a pragmatic decision, because matter, energy, and time are all we can work with. What would Mr Hazen suggest we should study in the high school science classroom instead? Does he have access to the æther, samples of the Holy Ghost, flasks of angelic essence that we can all use to assay and replicate and manipulate, those generic tools of the scientific method?

And evolution is the only current conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. The evidence is immense; libraries and museums are packed full to the rafters with it. Evolution is the theory that best accounts for all of that evidence; Intelligent Design and other varieties of creationism do not, instead demanding that we pretend vast chunks of the evidence, which contradict those bogus theories, do not exist. This is not how new theories achieve currency in the scientific establishment. If the creationists want to sway us, they need to formulate theories that don't have such gaping holes.

• Let's have students discuss the Pennsylvania State professor who found that his own biology colleagues admitted that they would not have done their own biology research any differently even if they had believed that evolution was wrong.

This is vague and unreferenced, so it's impossible to refute. However, the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Biologists disagrees with him. They've stated strongly that evolution is supported, and is not challenged in the slightest by creationism. They state that "The Theory of Evolution meets the criteria of science and the criteria of a scientific theory and is not based on faith, mere speculation or dogma. Evolution as a scientific theory is supported by a vast body of scientifically scrutinizable evidence coming from such sources as anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, genetics and the fossil record." I think I'll accept the opinion of a credible and well-established professional scientific society over the biased assertions of an ignorant creationist speaking outside his field of expertise.

• Let's have students discuss Peters' claim that "we share 98 percent of our genes … with chimpanzees." Let's put Peters' claim alongside the statement of evolutionist William Fix that "[Similar] organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology [similarity] in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."

Then let's examine the sentences "Many scientists have questions about evolution" and "Any scientists have questions about evolution?" which are about 97 percent similar yet have dramatically different meanings and functions. Does similarity require that one evolved from the other?

Yes, let's put that claim alongside the credibility of William Fix, author of the book, The Bone Peddlers. Try looking up Fix. He's hard to find; you'll only find him mentioned on creationist web sites, with few exceptions, where this same quote is recycled endlessly. One exception is a review on TalkOrigins, which cites some of the poor data used in the book and summarizes it thusly: "Fix's criticisms of the fossil record have no validity. Although creationists occasionally like to promote Fix as someone who is skeptical of evolution from a non-creationist viewpoint, his criticisms appear to have been mostly borrowed from creationist literature. Fix's book has, in fact, sunk into almost total (and well-deserved) oblivion. A web search for it found no references to it except for the occasional creationist web page."

The comment that common genes aren't the basis of homologous structures is straight from the Discovery Institute's current obsession, which I've discussed before. We do see molecular novelties, of course, but they do not change the fact that structures like the tetrapod limb are built using similar transcription factors, signalling molecules, and receptors. The message of modern developmental biology and molecular genetics is that the similarities at the level of DNA are surprisingly great.

• Let's have students discuss how the common decision of evolutionists to prevent scientific evidence from suggesting intelligent design is not a scientific decision. It is a philosophical decision — and an inconsistent one at that, as certain branches of science (like archaeology) allow the conclusion that a stone was shaped into an arrowhead by the deliberate actions of an intelligent agent, rather than by the chance interactions of water and sand.

I missed the meeting of the Evilutionist Conspiracy where we made this "common decision."

Seriously, there is no such arbitrary decision. The reason the evidence of molecular biology is not interpeted as design is because it does not suggest design. "Design" is an excessively and unwarrantedly complex hypothesis that does not explain anything about molecules, and that invents and invokes a mysterious and complex agent for which there is no supporting evidence. Archaeologists will ascribe an arrowhead to human action because it is the simplest explanation, because we have direct evidence that humans can and do make arrowheads, and because we can see evidence for the existence of humans.

It's that simple. No conspiracy necessary. For the same reason, when I find bird poop on my car, I do not postulate that angry creationists are getting even with me by carefully sculpting artful excreta in their kitchens and planting it on my car—I see birds, and tree branches overhead.

• Let's discuss with students the mathematical problems regarding the astronomically high improbability of atoms coming together by chance to make even a single protein molecule.

Since evolution is not a purely chance process, this is a strawman argument. If we want to discuss this issue, let's first explain to the students that creationists who bring this particular kind of argument are demonstrating their own ignorance of how proteins form, and are possibly making a maliciously misleading comment to mislead. Then let's have them read Ian Musgrave's most excellent discussion of the subject, "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations".

Has anyone else noticed that whenever a creationist starts ranting about the mathematical problems behind evolution, they never seem to have much of a grasp of mathematics? They either commit the egregious error of pretending the problem is one of multiplication of serial probabilities (showing a lack of comprehension of the underlying biological processes), or they start waving their hands frantically as they list various non-mathematical phenomena. In this case, it's particularly bad that Hazen can't actually back up his claim with any math, given that he's a math teacher.

• Let's have students discuss excellent science books such as "Icons of Evolution," in which scientists admit that numerous common images of evolution — including Darwin's finches, four-winged fruit flies, Haeckel's embryos and peppered moths — are either fraudulent or irrelevant as evolutionary evidence.

Icons of Evolution is an extraordinarily poor book, an incredibly lousy piece of sloppy, ideologically-driven scholarship. If this is the kind of incompetent science Mr Hazen would like to inflict on school kids, I think his teaching licensure ought to be revoked.

He misrepresents the book, as well. In it, scientists do not admit to fraud or irrelevance; Jonathan Wells, the Moonie and creationist, accuses them of it. With the exception of Haeckel's embryos, none of his examples above are false, and all are valid examples of good, solid evolutionary biology; while Haeckel's original embryo drawings were tainted with deception and his theory of biogenesis was wrong, the phenomenon they illustrate, that vertebrate embryos resemble one another at an early stage and possess a suite of phylotypic traits, is real. I've written a fair amount about Haeckel's embryos before. The story of the Grants' work on Darwin's finches won Weiner a Pulitzer Prize for The Beak of the Finch, the analysis of the homeotic genes behind those four-winged flies won Lewis a Nobel Prize, and the peppered moths are a classic story of natural selection that isn't in doubt. Wells' and Hazen's claims of fraud are ludicrous.

Peters claims, "Elementary teachers … don't know much about evolution." But quite a few elementary teachers — and parents — I know are informed enough about evolution to find it wanting, for scientific reasons. Many teachers are scientifically skeptical of the "just-so" evolutionary stories that human features are "inherited from the earliest fish."

Many teachers recognize that when Peters makes this claim, she has crossed over from the observable, repeatable science of fossils and anatomy to the speculative belief system of evolutionary inferences.

Knowledge is power. Students and teachers should acquire more than just the selected knowledge that evolutionists want to limit students to. Then more students will find out what creationists, many laypeople and most evolutionists already know — that molecules-to-humans evolution is a theory in crisis. Let's have students discuss all these issues, because this crisis is not going to go away, regardless of Peters' stories.

Isn't it ironic that Hazen, who has here demonstrated a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology, who has done nothing but recite tired creationist cliches, who has thrown up old lies and half-truths and delusions, should then claim that parents and teachers who find evolution wanting can be called "informed"? "Speculative belief system," my ass—that's about as justified as calling algebra "a vague philosophy built on poorly defined premises." Hazen is once again relying on his and his readers ignorance of the subject to pronounce a false judgment on it. And of course, once more he trumpets his lie, that "evolution is a theory in crisis." Disgraceful. This man is a high school teacher? I am grateful that he is not teaching biology, and that my kids are nowhere near him.