Another Comprehensive, Scientific Book On Evolution?

One of the RSS feeds I receive recently brought the following to my attention. It seems to be another example of using words without definitions, but rather loading them with implied meaning. Here's the news release:

The National Academies | News | New Book on Science and Evolution: "January 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine have released Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations for life should be included in public school science class."

One paragraph from the complete news release states:
"Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species."

By the way, no attempt is made to define the term "species." The problem is, no one has yet come up with a species-definition which is universally applicable to all life-forms

I'll have to leave further scientific arguments in this debate in the hands of people a lot more competent than I am. My concern here is with the way phrases and words are used to promote biased viewpoints. Let's start with the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. What is that? Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine claims to provide independent, objective, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector, and the public.

One would think that it must involve millions of brilliant scientists all across the USA who have all agreed that Creationists are incompetent in the field of science and prejudiced against scientific advances. In fact the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies lists a membership of but 1,689 as of December, 2007. I could not discover how many scientific organizations there are in the USA, but any Google search suggests there are thousands. My point: This report speaks for a tiny minority, yet claims to present "a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution."

Moreover, what is the "current scientific understanding of evolution"? Apparently the whole question of evolution is up for grabs in this country. A National Geographic survey review of a number of surveys found that "People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations." That study suggest that this is because of the influence of independent religious teachings and the freedoms we enjoy.

Lots of questions are left hanging. Is there, in fact, but one common and current scientific understanding of evolution? What is the difference between macro and micro evolution? Is there scientific evidence for Intelligent Design? Can one believe in a Creator who designed the universe and all in it and still be a scientist? I have often cited Lee Strobel's 2004 book The Case for a Creator. In his book Strobel interviews a number of highly acclaimed scientists from the disciplines of cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry and psychiatry. Strobel concludes "As I reviewed the avalanche of information from my investigation, I found the evidence for an intelligent designer to be credible, cogent, and compelling. Actually, in my opinion the combination of the findings from cosmology and physics by themselves were sufficient to support the design hypothesis. All of the other data simply built an even more powerful cumulative case that ended up overwhelming my objections," p. 283.

The debate is not over. The evidence is not all in. There is no such thing as a single and "current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom."