Humes lecture review

Warning: Seriously lengthy post ahead...

Humes opens with the query as to why there are those who question Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“Why would a country who so loves it’s state of the art medical technology, it’s laser driven DVD players, its digital lifestyle, all the fruits of science and yet simultaneously reject an idea, a scientific theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community? Why this disconnect?”

I’ve heard this type of statement in the past, and it has never made much sense to me. Of course science brings us many innovative and wonderful things that help us immensely, but this type of statement just seems unfair to me. It’s as if he’s putting forth the idea that everything worth living for is due to science.

The problem is that we can we include in that list weapons of mass destruction, the eugenics movement, or how about a scientist who believes in the necessity of killing off 90% of the population to save the environment?

Science is not “evil”, science is not “atheistic”, science is a tool of discovery. Science is always correcting itself as new information is discovered. Sometimes people approach science with bias, and sometimes science is even taught dogmatically. But, “science” isn’t the problem. The conflict stems from individual worldviews that scientists hold that may cause varying interpretations of the evidence that is being considered.

Evolution is a valid and undeniable fact, but the question is how far reaching are the mechanisms of evolution? How much of what is taught is actually “fact” and how much is merely an speculative extrapolation of the evidence?

In regard to the testimony in the Kitzmiller case, Humes admits that the testimony was at time “mind-numbing” or “sleep inducing”, but also claims that “most of it was utterly fascinating“. He talks about the “spectacular” fossils displays of a creature who is known as the walking whale - a whale like creature with legs, and also mentioned fossil images of feathered dinosaurs preserved in shale.

It always amazes me that some people are so awed by these “transitionals”. Here too we have varying interpretations of these creatures, yet mainstream science only allows consideration of one interpretation. Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not. Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“.

Humes certainly doesn’t mention the lengths that somes scientists have gone to in order to produce a “transitional”. Hoaxes abound, and recently even the famous paleontologist, Richard Leaky, has tampered with fossils to make them appear more like transitionals.

I also find it interesting that scientists are so enamored with these supposed “transitionals”, yet to this day we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature. Consider the evolutionary changes that would have had to occur in order to explain different body types and the evolution of vital organs.

Microevolution involves changes is size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations. These type of changes are clearly supported with empirical evidence.

Yet, as Walt Brown so aptly puts it:

Macroevolution would be shown if the offspring of an animal or plant had a different and improved set of vital organs that could be inherited. Despite many breading experiments trying to cause such changes, this has never been observed. Micro changes are trivial in comparison to the long-sought macro changes.

For example. all species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Can you see why macroevolution is ridiculous?

Then Humes goes on to talk about the issue that led to the Dover lawsuit. The entire lawsuit was in response to the Dover school board’s decision to have one *short* statement read to the science class before the lesson on evolution was introduced. Here is Humes description of how that decision was carried out...

“In the end, the presentation on ID had to be presented by the administrators in the school district who went classroom to classroom and made their little talk while the teachers stood out in the halls like the bad kids, along with the kids who risked being stigmatized by opting out of the presentation.”

“During presentations on ID, the administrators instructed the students not to ask questions. You can hear this information, but you may not ask questions about it. Can you imagine a school telling a student not to ask questions? It’s exactly the opposite of where we need to be in our schools.”

He ~again~ misleads his audience toward the end of his lecture by describing the same scenario in which administrators reading the paragraph on ID are supposedly not allowing questions because they have no answers for the students. He says: “Here we are going to have a lesson on intelligent design that we’re going to bring into the classroom, and we’re not going to let you ask questions about it”.

This accusation had me close to jumping out of my chair in protest. First of all, no one was going to teach a “lesson on intelligent design” in the Dover schools. So, there we have our first ~extremely~ misleading statement.

Second, the city of Dover was in the middle of a high profile lawsuit at the time, so the administrators reading the approved statement about ID to the class were probably walking on pins and needles. And, third, the teachers were standing out in the hall in protest waiting, like immature children, for the ID statement to be read to the class. Can you imagine if the administrators had opened up to questions and left the teachers in the halls waiting to teach their science class? Those teachers would have blown a gasket!

Here is the statement, which Humes never read to his audience, that was the cause of a million dollar + lawsuit.

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. At theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the Origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses up on preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

I kid you not. That meager statement is what led to the Kitzmiller case.

The science teachers refused to read this simple paragraph to the class. There was not a “presentation” or “lesson” on ID, and in that statement it mentions that if there are questions in regard to ID, the textbook Of Panda’s and People could be make available to the students. So, Humes statement that the students were not allowed to ask questions is misleading. They were told that further information was available if they were interested.

I don’t know of ~any~ ID proponents who would not allow questions to be asked about the design inference. In fact, ID supporters are very vocal about their want to debate and field questions on the topics surrounding this controversy. It’s the evolutionists who refuse to engage in publicized dialogue and debate.

Then Humes works on the religious fanaticism angle. He states that he went to a “mega-church in San Juan, CA” to learn more about ID. He claimed that this particular church was having a “huge event on Intelligent Design, creationism, and a critique of evolution”, and that “the speaker at this event played an ancillary role in the Dover case“. He then goes on to tell us that the speaker was Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) and explains that there were “3,000 worshippers in this great meeting place cheering like superbowl fans”. He explains Hovind’s young earth creationist beliefs and the fact that he is now in jail for tax evasion. He stated that Hovind believes and preaches that evolution is a “conspiracy by scientists and Darwinists to silence the truth“. At the end of his Hovind spiel, he stated again that “That was my visit with Dr. Dino, the mega church, and the Intelligent Design presentation.”

I found it particularly deceiving to connect ID with Kent Hovind. Hovind has absolutely no connection with the Design community, but this angle did leave it’s affect on the laughing audience. This comparison between ID and a mega church gathering with Hovind, who has a tendency to emphasize exaggerated conspiracy theories, would be like considering what blogmeisters, PZ Myers (Pharyngula) or Pay Hayes (Red State Rabble) have to say about this controversy. Both Myers and Hayes are big on conspiracy theories as well. They feel that ID supporters are Christians who are “lying for Jesus” and who plan to establish a theocracy in which atheists are at risk of being burned at the stake. But, Humes mentions none of this in his “fair” and “unbiased” account.

It could very well be that the ID supporters on the Dover school board had listened to a Hovind lecture at one time or the other, but so what? That should have no impact on whether that particular paragraph was to be read to the class, nor should it have an affect on the question as to whether ID is science or not.

He also mentions that...“Insults were hurled about on the playground and in the school board meetings...who in your family is the monkey?” No doubt the “monkeys” were throwing insults as well. Due to my involvement in this debate, I’ve had Darwin supporters throughout the country hurl insults at me on a daily basis. Red State Rabble’s last insulting comments were tame compared to most, but he had a jolly time razing me about being the “church lady“ and the “wicked witch of the west”. Shoot, PZ’s even been know to display a “Blogs Against Theocracy” logo. Can anyone say paranoid conspiracy theorist? The man is a virtual preacher for fundamental atheists. Yet, for some reason, Humes doesn’t consider this in his “fair” and “unbiased” account.

Humes then mentions that “ironically this [Dover] was a place where people initially settled to get away from government mandated religion“, as if ID is a religion and ID proponents are trying to push religion on science classes. If you ever actually attend a lecture on ID, you’ll find that religion need not be discussed even in passing. Obviously, there are religious implications, but no more so than the religious implications of the Theory of Evolution. When discussing ID in a teaching environment, there is no need to bring up the topic of religion at all.

When he described ID, he stated that “proponents of this idea say it’s a valid scientific alternative to evolution”, though that statement is deceiving as well. ID proponents have no beef with evolution, though they don’t support the notion that evolutionary mechanisms can account for everything we observe in nature.

He does mention at one point that ID is not the same as teaching the biblical account of creation, yet he had already lumped the two together in his Hovind spiel. He seems to teeter back and forth on this idea and pulls the two together and throws in an evangelist here and there to add to the religious emphasize as much as possible. He states that “it (ID) does recycle some of the basic arguments against the ToE that have been sited by creationists in the past.” Again -- so what.

He states that although the ID proponents don’t mention who the designer is, there is more than a “wink and a nod” to this idea of not identifying the designer because everyone attracted to ID understands who we’re talking about when we say intelligent designer. He states that ID proponents say we can detect the evidence of design without naming the designer and who knows what that might be..“maybe it’s space aliens”. He acts as if he considers that ridiculous and notes that the space alien bit is “actually a line from proponents of ID - it’s not my characterization”. Personally, I don’t know what’s so weird about that statement. Scientists have been speculating and searching for life on other planets for an eternity..ie. Seti. They also seem quite interested in the possibility that there may have been life of some sort on Mars. So, I don't understand what is so outrageous about this possibility.

But, Humes merely waves this option away as being a “very crafty” way in which to get around the wall of separation between church and state. This assumption irritates me to no end, because I support the separation of church and state with every fiber of my being for the very obvious reason that most people don’t want their kids subject to who knows what kind of “religious” thought might be thrust upon them during their school hours. If I wanted my kids to get religion in school, I’d have chosen a private school setting.

I think it’s a crying shame to think that we might have to stop scientific inquiry at a certain point and possibly never get to the truth regarding origins merely because some people are so opposed to anything that might remotely suggest that there is an ultimate designer. This has nothing to do with establishing a state religion - it’s a quest for truth and following the evidence wherever it may lead. But, we have guys like Humes and Judge Jones who are convinced that there is a great conspiracy to push a specific religion on our poor unsuspecting students, and yet they claim it’s guys like Hovind who have the overactive imagination.

Later in the talk, he resorts back to the religious angle yet again. He talks about another “ID event” he attended at a Christian university in Los Angeles. He stated that the proponents of ID were making their presentation and insisting that it was a scientific idea, not a religious one. “Yet“, he continues, “the audience of very enthusiastic supporters were shouting Amen and Alleluia throughout the presentation”. That got him some laughs, but I sat wondering who the lecturers were of this particular “ID event”. I’ve never attended an ID lecture or event where audience members shouted “Amen”. It would seem extremely out of place to attend a Behe lecture for example and have audience members shouting “Amen” or “Alleluia”.

Then he states that if the underlying “genesis” of ID is religious in nature, that doesn’t necessarily make it unacceptable for public school teaching. But, he tells us that Judge Jones found that ID is not a scientific idea, that it proposes at bottom a supernatural explanation for what we see in nature. He said it may be correct to do so, and perhaps ID proponents are correct, but it’s just not science and therefore not appropriate for science students. “It’s a religious idea”.

IMHO, it’s a ridiculous notion to consider ID in a religion class because it just isn’t religion. Attend one lecture on ID and you’ll find that a preacher certainly isn’t going to be qualified to teach the subject to his parishioners and it’s also out of place in a philosophy class other than perhaps a philosophy of science class.

Then he goes into his spiel about Judge Jones becoming the target of death threats and that he had to be placed under 24 hour guard by US Marshals shortly after the decision came out. A “fair and unbiased account” would have also mentioned the many accolades Jones received as well. He was featured in Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the year. He was also voted by Wired magazine as one of the “10 sexiest geeks”, and was asked to speak at graduation commencement speeches. It sounds like his life has been pretty exciting since the Dover trial.

A “fair and unbiased account” would also have provided the fact that Judge Jones borrowed 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. A “fair and unbiased” account would also have included reference to the Discovery Institutes response to the trial in the book, Traipsing into Evolution”.

He alludes to the religious nature of ID throughout the presentation, but never mentions the anti-religious implications of the ToE. He makes the ID supporters out to be religious fanatics, but doesn’t mention that on any given day you can go on-line and find that the majority of scientists who are fanatical activists for the ToE are atheists or strong agnostics, and that they seem to bad mouth religion almost continuously.

He talks about the “two theories of evolution”, one being the “talk radio” version, which Humes says is “all made up”...“It’s merely critics of evolution defining a theory they don’t like but using misinformation to do so”. I’ve addressed Humes “talk radio” spiel in the past.

Then he touches on the Darwin/Hitler connection. Now, this is a subject that I’ve never been terribly interested in because Hitler was a madman, so there’s no telling what all was involved in shaping his worldview. But, at this point, Humes dismisses the possibility of any impact that the ToE might have had on Hitler whatsoever and provides this instead:

What I found is that in terms of writing that was influential on and provided a justification for Hitler’s final solution, was a pamphlet called “On the Jews and their lies” and this is really a horrendous diatribe which advocated persecution, concentration camps, denial of rights, and no mercy for jews who were described as “poisonous worms”. This pamphlet was not written by Charles Darwin, bit was written in 1542 by a german monk named Martin Luther. The same Martin Luther which launched the reformation and founded protestant Christianity. Now his writings were used as a justification for the Holocaust. Does that mean that we should condemn protestant Christianity as a result? Of course not. By the same token, even if it were true, and I found no evidence that it is, that something that Darwin wrote, was used as a justification for the final solution has not impact al all on the validity of evolution theory or of Darwin’s standing in the scientific community.

So, he blames the Holocaust on Martin Luther and finds “no evidence” that Darwin’s “dangerous idea” was ever considered by Hilter. While it is true that Luther unjustly condemns the jews in the pamphlet Humes mentioned, he is certainly not being honest in saying that he can find “no evidence” in regard to the connect between Hitler and evolution. A “fair and unbiased account” would have included mention of the eugenics movement that Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, instigated. There are also hundreds of books and articles which make the Darwin/Hitler connection, so maybe he should have tried google during his search.

Even today, Richard Dawkins says that the eugenic ideas that supported the Nazi’s thinking, including their notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ programs, “may not be all that bad“. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins wrote “I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them”.

Then we have the usual diatribe about the fear that America is “falling behind” and may not be able to compete in the global marketplace. “We just don’t make as many engineers and scientists anymore in America. We import them, and now we aren’t even doing that. Why is that? Scientists are lying to us. Why be scientists? They aren’t honest, they’re atheists.”

Gag...I support ID, but I don’t think “scientists” are lying to us, and I don‘t think that atheists are dishonest either. I do think that the majority of the leaders from the “scientific community” who are enveloped in the fight to save Darwinism from the sinking ship are philosophical naturalists, but I don’t think they are lying. I think they truly believe what they say, and for some time now they have had control of what will and will not be considered science. Those who stand up to them often find their job security as risk (ie. Sternberg).

For all the complaining scientists do about ID, it still doesn’t negate the fact that ID is a scientific inference and it is testable, falsifiable, and offers predictions. ID is also responsible for pushing scientists to come up with answers for the “dead-end“ problems associated with the ToE. Michael Behe explains it as follows:

The theory of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead-end problems. The intellectual competition created by the discovery of design will bring sharper analysis to the professional scientific literature and will require that assertions be backed by hard data. The theory will spark experimental approaches and new hypotheses that would otherwise be untried. A rigorous theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the advancement of science in an area that has been moribund for decades.

I missed quite a bit of the Q&A portion of the lecture due to my irritation level getting out of control, so I didn’t catch every question that was asked. I took a little break, then listened to the remaining questions from the back of the room. Humes brought up the much highlighted astrology canard in which, at the Dover trial, Behe is accused of stating that astrology is science. This is a complete farse as explained here, and at the Behe lecture I attended, Behe also corrected this fallacy that has been circulated:

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.

Humes also writes Behe off as seeming almost incompetent on the witness stand, and mentions the “pile of books” placed in front of Behe which supposedly provided evidence for the evolution of the immune system. Again, pure rhetoric and spin. Behe responded to this circulating fallacy at his lecture as well.

From my review of the lecture:

As far as the “stack of books and articles” presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. He said that the “stack of books” we always see in pictures was staged because pictures were not allowed to be taken in the courtroom. So, obviously, this was an antic to try to make Behe look foolish.

Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.

Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, “Those papers were not good enough”. In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don’t address the question as he posed it. They address a different question.

Behe said that he seems to find himself following Ken Miller around correcting these issues that Ken keeps relaying to the public. Apparently, Richard Dawkins uses these same words (“those papers were not good enough”) in his latest book, The God Delusion. So, both Miller and Dawkins are relaying inaccurate information and the scientific community is eating it up and using it against him as well.

Whew....Done.

Humes Lecture

Okay, I've gone through my notes a few times now, and I just seriously have no idea what got me so upset the other night. Really... Humes seems quite rational, and I can't imagine why I thought he was misleading his audience.

Could it be that the full moon had me off kilter? Or, could it be that today is...


APRIL FOOLS!!!!!!!!!


Gotcha! Humes lecture review is coming, but it's going to be a while. This week is pretty busy with all those Easter eggs to fill and preparation for a big Easter party at my house next weekend.

Calm after the Storm

I lost it at Humes lecture...seriously.

I've listened to quite a few lectures surrounding the issues in this debate, but the lecture I sat through tonight was by far the most difficult to stomach. In fact, I had to leave my chair at one point because the guy next to me was about to get slapped.

This has ~NEVER~ happened to me before, and I've always been extremely calm at these lectures regardless of how much I disagree with the speaker. I also get quite irritated when I hear someone badgering the speaker etc. even if I agree with their point.

But tonight was different, and I'm trying to sit back and reasonably consider the lecture again to try to figure out what it was that led me to the point of no return.

I think the main reason is this particular speaker has been prefacing his book and lectures with the notion that he is "unbiased" and "fair". He was introduced that way this evening as well. So, you'd hope to actually get an "unbiased and "fair" account. I was still hoping for some semblance of fair reporting when I walked in there tonight, but I was ~seriously~ disappointed. His lecture was worse than the book.

To be honest, I'd rather listen to Dawkins speak again than sit through another Humes lecture, because at least with Dawkins we know what we're getting. He certainly doesn't claim to be "unbiased".

I'd also like to know where one draws the line between describing someone as misleading and being an outright liar. Seriously. I've never heard so many half truths, half of the story, or outright unfair *speculation* in my life.

I had made it through most of the lecture when at one point I simply couldn't take it anymore and turned around to talk to a guy I knew who was sitting behind me. My whispering was getting a bit loud, and the guy next to me (who I recognized from many other lectures) looked at me and gave me an irritated "shhh". I bit back "don't tell me to hush". I seriously cannot believe I said that!!! He told me to go have my conversation outside, and at that point I just got up and left, because staying simply wasn't going to be a good thing.

I did talk to Humes for a second afterward and asked him a question about something he mentioned in his lecture that I still cannot believe he had the gall to relay to the public. After his response, I really lost it and told him I hope the DI gets a hold of his lecture tonight because it was the most misleading portrayal of the issues that I've ever heard.

I'm still in shock. I am always cordial to people regardless of their position in this debate, but tonight I was out of control. I think the reason I got to the point I did is because the man is basically either a liar or clueless.

So, I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I try to put together a review of the lecture. I'm not even sure my notes are worth much because I was pretty much livid throughout his entire spiel. I do plan on calling KU to see how soon they will be posting that lecture, because if this dude is spewing this particular version of supposed facts in regard to ID/creation/evolution, then someone needs to set him straight. Although, thankfully, it doesn't appear that he lectures too often and there were only around 80 in attendance tonight. But, if the Darwinists get a load of the spin he's pushing, they'll undoubtedly put the guy on the payroll (if they haven‘t already). They do love a good spin doctor.

In closing, if there are any DI fellows out there reading this...get a copy of this lecture, and be sure to have a dozen or so barf bags lined up before you listen to it.

Ed Humes at KU this Wednesday

Ed Humes, author of Monkey Girl, will speak this Wednesday, March 28 @ 7:30pm, at the Dole Institute located on KU campus.

I will say, as an author, he writes a very interesting book. I may have to read some of his other books that are not connected with the evolution debate to appreciate his writing a bit more.

Hopefully I’ll have time to stay and have him sign my copy of his book. But, I’ll be kind of embarrassed due to all the highlighter and post-it notes all over the place.

Hopefully he won’t notice??

Just thinking...

I got to thinking about Ed Humes' ability to paint a picture of his subject with his subtle descriptions. I mentioned in this post that it seemed to me that the ID supporters were always painted negatively while the evolutionists descriptions were more flattering.

His descriptions of people throughout were very telling in that every person who did not support Darwinism was painted as a person who was trying to force religion into the schools. There were also negative overtones in regard to their descriptions such as "his eyes burning and birdlike", "something of a loose cannon", "an affable, balding law professor in his sixties with a conspicuous gray comb-over", "the big, bluff animal doctor", or "a young attorney...with a soft, hoarse voice, a pained expression on his face, and a poker hand he didn't seem to relish...". Humes is a master of subtle digs against those who support design, but his description of Miller, Matzke, Scott, Forrest, and the Dover science teachers are glowing, with Miller even being compared to a "rock star".

Well, it just dawned on me that he did the same thing to me when he linked to my blog from his website:

A brief but revealing back-and-forth between opposing points of view on this Talk Radio Evolution theme can be found at Evolving Thoughts, while the creationist take from someone who calls herself ForTheKid can be found here.

Monkey Girl in the Blogosphere — Two popular blogs have reviewed Monkey Girl. Red State Rabble brings a Kansas perspective to the story, having lived through and ably documented the evolution wars in the Sunflower State for years, while PZ Myers complains (ever so nicely) over at Pharyngula that Monkey Girl kept him up too late reading. Update: Evolving in Kansas finds Monkey Girl a good read, too. [my emphasis]

It's almost like sending subliminal messages...

First he says “the creationist take” which seems to automatically link creationist with ID again. Then he says “who calls herself” ForTheKid. First of all its ~ForTheKid*s*~, and something just somehow sounds demeaning in the way he says that. It seems as though he could have just used my blog name like he did everyone else. We have “Evolving Thoughts”, “Red State Rabble”, “Pharyngula” and “Evolving in Kansas”, but I’m just referred to as that freaky creationist who “calls herself ForTheKid*s*”. I suppose he couldn't bring himself to print the words "Reasonable Kansans".

I feel insulted somehow, but perhaps I'm just being too sensitive about these descriptions?

Looks like he likes Pat & PZ though....figures. I'm going to have to have a little talk about this with him after his lecture next week at KU. I just can't believe he likes those two meanies better than me!!

Judge Jones & Monkey Girl

I ran across Judge Jone's endorsement of Ed Humes book, Monkey Girl:

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller vs. Dover presiding judge: “Ed Humes' remarkable and balanced narrative has captured the essence of this complex and emotional dispute. When discussing the trial I have frequently found myself saying that to truly understand it, you had to be there. Humes' compelling book accomplishes just that.”

Simply breathtaking...

How anyone can consider Hume's book as being a balanced account is certainly beyond me.

Finished reading Monkey Girl

My family went on a quick camping trip this weekend. Two words...cold & windy. But, it did give me some quiet time with my family away from all the hustle and bustle of normal life. I also found time to finish reading Monkey Girl.

The book did put a bit of a damper on my usually festive camping mood. It made me feel profoundly sad. This sadness didn't center around the issues in the debate but rather the way in which people treated each other throughout the Dover ordeal. The bitterness, spite, anger, and resentment throughout left me with an awful feeling that I still haven't shaken.

Humes sees only one side of this situation, and that is unfortunate. His descriptions of people throughout were very telling in that every person who did not support Darwinism was painted as a person who was trying to force religion into the schools. There were also negative overtones in regard to their descriptions such as "his eyes burning and birdlike", "something of a loose cannon", "an affable, balding law professor in his sixties with a conspicuous gray comb-over", "the big, bluff animal doctor", or "a young attorney...with a soft, hoarse voice, a pained expression on his face, and a poker hand he didn't seem to relish...". Humes is a master of subtle digs against those who support design, but his description of Miller, Matzke, Scott, Forrest, and the Dover science teachers are glowing, with Miller even being compared to a "rock star". The term "creationism" (whatever that truly is) is painted as a fanatical right wing belief that only those who are ignorant or liars would associate themselves with it.

Poor Bill Buckingham is ripped up one side and down the other by both sides in the debate. I have to wonder if anyone who opposed his judgment on various issues throughout the whole affair ever approached him personally, one on one, just to see how he was feeling. Apparently, if Humes account is correct, during the time he was on the board and supporting ID he was taking OxyContin for an injury, his mother died, his father died, his dog died, two close Uncles died, his closest aunt died and his neighbor's daughter committed suicide (he was the first to find her). He also considered suicide.

Was anyone around for him? Did the science teachers realize this was going on? Did they care? If they did try to help and he wouldn't accept their help, did they voice their concerns to his clergy or someone who he might be comfortable talking with?

Where is the compassion for others? Why don't people listen to one another with respect and consideration for viewpoints that don't exactly jive with their own? How did this situation go to the lengths that it did? Who would sue over a simple paragraph like the one that was approved by the board? And, when the ACLU took up with those parents who were disgruntled, if I had been a board member, I would have just said let's drop the whole thing because it's not worth the trouble. There are better venues in which to approach this growing acceptance of Intelligent Design and perhaps the evolutionists are right in saying that it should not be brought to the schools yet. Because, as we have seen, the Dover science teachers didn't seem to have any more knowledge about the movement than the board members. Teachers in general have no idea what intelligent design is, and they certainly are not familiar with the arguments against Darwinism because they have never had the opportunity to learn about these issues from anyone other than Darwin supporters.

What people refuse to acknowledge is that there are two distinct interpretations of the scientific data when it comes to origins, and to dismiss either is simply wrong. In the end, that is what this all boils down to -- regardless of what anyone will admit. Is there a higher source of intellect responsible for our existence or not, and can we detect the design in nature that this higher source may have been responsible for?

Although Humes would have us believe that those who support ID are ingenuous, ill informed religious extremists, he never mentions much at all about the fact that the majority of those on the other side of this debate are quite hard core in their atheist or agnostic beliefs. He, like Judge Jones, does not find this relevant at all.

Time and time again we are given examples of something that an ID supporter said that would acknowledge that they do believe in God and do hold certain religious beliefs. Although, this has absolutely nothing to do with the science of ID at all, it is the number one consideration in whether the design inference should be considered scientific.

It’s interesting that Humes gives the flamboyant atheist and University of MN biology professor, PZ Myers, this flattering description:

Myers became a one-man wrecking crew, blogging furiously against Bush, Berlinski, Behe, The New York Times, and Discovery, and posting links to research papers and other information that refuted every one of their claims.

Myers is an interesting, dynamic science writer, and his excitement at the revolution going on in his discipline - developmental biology, one of the hottest fields in science - is palpable, as is hi anger at the claims of ID proponents. His is one of the most read personal science blogs on the Internet - Pharyngula.org, which routinely draws 25,000 readers a day - and he uses the platform to talk science, post weekly exotic photos of cephalopods (octopuses), and attack intelligent design incessantly.

He never mentions that right under the title of Myers blog site are these words:

"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal".

Nor does he mentions that Myers has what seems to be a mission to degrade religious thought at every possible opportunity. Some of the categories of his blog include: "godlessness", "kooks", and "creationism", in which he daily rips apart those whose views differ from his own atheistic religious outlook on life. He's harsh, cruel, and unjustly bitter toward religion. I once tried emailing PZ and reasoning with him, but he said something negative and told me he wouldn't respond to any further emails from me. I said nothing disrepectful or nasty, but he refused to even consider my concerns. I was told to go away.

There are many like him involved in this debate and that is why people like Bill Buckingham are concerned. But, Humes considers these concerns somewhat imaginary and that they are merely instigated by people like Kent Hovind. One certainly doesn’t have to listen to Hovind to know that there are many Darwinists out there who reject God. Just surf the Internet for a few days and you'll understand quite quickly that Bill's concern is justified. Though, this CERTAINLY does not mean that science is atheistic. It merely means that many of the vocal scientists supporting Darwin's theory are atheists who want no part of religion and feel that it is a hindrance to our students to rely on God, in any fashion, rather than scientific evidence. Science, itself, is not the problem.

Humes does mention that Barbara Forrest is part of a humanist group because it came up in the trial, but it he also informs us that Judge Jones says that is not significant to the trial. That is something that I truly do not understand.

Nick Matzke, along with others from the National Center for Science education are praised up one side and down the other while every ID supporter is subjected to an endless string of digs. The religious beliefs of the ID supporters are put under a microscope, yet those on the plaintiffs side are rarely mentioned at all.

Miller (who is the token Christian) is also praised beyond belief, but from where I'm standing this gentleman seems to suffer from an inexplicable extraordinary case of personal credulity. In his mind there is apparently nothing that evolution cannot accomplish and he uses the most simplistic examples to support it and extrapolates them to no end.

There is a reason why people like Bill Buckingham are concerned with the implications of evolution and his concerns are not just in his imagination. If you spend enough time on the Internet and read many of the things said by Darwin's supporters on-line, it becomes increasingly clear that the majority of those who support Darwinism are atheists or strong agnostics. There are exceptions just as there are atheists and agnostics who support design, but in the end, this entire debate centers around an interpretation of the scientific data surrounding the facts about evolution. Philosophical and religious beliefs factor in on one’s interpretation regardless of whether either side cares to admit it or not.

It is reasonably clear that the Dover board members were ignorant to many facts regarding evolution, ID and creation science, and that is unfortunate. If someone is going to take a stand on these issues as they did, it is vitally important to completely understand what you are endorsing.

It also appears that they did lie about using the term "creationism" during board sessions and that is something that cannot be overlooked. It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall during those board meetings, because I have no doubt that the Rehms and the science teachers got every bit as nasty as those board members who supported ID. I’ve also seen what the media did to the board members here in Kansas, so I have no doubt that the media did misrepresent the boards actions and their words on various occasions as the board members alluded to.

Sigh...I could go on and on forever as my book is so full of post-it notes it's depressing. But, I’m just too sad about the situation to think about it further right now. I do wonder how Bill Buckingham is faring. He apparently moved away from Dover, and I hope that things are turning around for him. I hate to see people who have gone through so much get beat even further in an ordeal like this. It’s too bad the whole think wasn’t stopped early on to save a lot of heartache for the citizens of Dover.

More Monkey Girl

As I continue to read through Monkey Girl, one thing keeps coming to my mind. It seems to me that a huge majority of those who oppose Intelligent Design are much more concerned about doing away with a literal interpretation of biblical history than they are concerned about their interpretation of the scientific evidence. They can’t accept the fact that ID has nothing to do with a literal interpretation of the Bible, though that is the main reason they oppose it.

And, something that really needs to be rectified in this debate is to come up with a much better set of definitions in order to communicate clearly when addressing various issues surrounding the ToE. If pro-evolution scientists really wanted to help people better understand evolution, they would work hard at defining the various aspects of the theory so that people know what in the heck they are talking about. Though, it is very convenient for them at times not to have to break the term down.

Humes wrote on pg. 27:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the scientific community is that evolution is the bulwark of modern biology and medical research, from the development of new antibiotics to the fight against cancer, and that America’s next generation of scientists will fall hopelessly behind the rest of the world if evolutionary theory is watered down or banished from our schools. [my emphasis]

As I’ve stated several times, I’m darn near convinced that evolution is worthless to science at the macro level and in regard to common ancestry. It is certainly an interesting interpretation, but science could roll along just fine without ever giving it any consideration. The part of the theory that is vital to science is microevolution, which is not being questioned in the least.

All this talk about the development of new antibiotics etc. is based on microevolution, which can be empirically tested. ID supporters point this out ad nauseam, but to no avail. Over and over we see these same examples and are warned that our students will “fall hopelessly behind” if we question evolution in any way.

This scare tactic is interesting because ~several~ times throughout the book Humes implies that teachers are scared to death to even broach the subject of evolution in the classroom and that, at present, most of them water it down or don’t teach it at all. So, we should have “fallen hopelessly behind the rest of the world” quite some time ago. But, the truth is that we haven’t. In fact, scientific literacy is on the rise.

I think that if the “scientific community” would lift the ban on allowing discussions about design, both teachers and students would benefit. Teachers wouldn’t have to worry about how they taught evolution if they were allowed to let the students discuss the controversial issues as well. ID doesn’t negate evolution at any level, so the teacher could teach evolution (common ancestry and all) and state that there are those scientists who feel that life is too complex to have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms ~alone~ and go on to explain the inference a bit further. If ID were taught properly, religion wouldn’t be mentioned AT ALL.

Humes goes on to say:

Yet polls also find that solid majorities of Americans are essentially ignorant of evolutionary theory and the scientific evidence that support it, and are nearly as clueless when it comes to the details of the literal biblical stories of creation (with many unaware that there is more than one creation story in Genesis alone).

Sigh...no doubt this is true, but it is also true that even less understand what Intelligent Design is actually about because of the horrendously misleading information being spread by the scientific community.

Humes assertion that “many [are] unaware that there is more than one creation story in Genesis alone“ sounds like a Burt Humburg statement (Burt evidently had Humes ear during the Dover trial). He and I went a few rounds regarding his conclusion about Genesis 1&2 some time back in a Kansas forum. Genesis doesn’t have “two” creation stories, but you certainly won’t convince those who are looking for a reason to dismiss scripture to believe that (and, yes, I know that Burt is a theistic evolutionist).

Here is basically what I told Burt:

Genesis contains two descriptions of creation. The first is chronological, while the second is from man’s perspective (literary). A close study of the Hebrew words shows no conflict. Christ, who in a single sentence mentioned both descriptions, knew they referred to the same creation event. (Mt 19:4-5) Per my footnotes in my NIV Bible: 1:1-2:3 is a general account of creation, while 2:4-4:26 focuses on the beginning of human history. Ch. 2 also sets the stage for the fall. It tells of the scene and circumstances of the fall, supplementing the terse account of man’s creation in ch.1 with only such data as comes into play in the ensuing tragic-drama.

Also, I think everyone would agree that the writers of scripture were not complete idiots. There were approximately 40 writers over a 1,500 year period. Even those who have done a very small amount of biblical research would have to admit that the writers were pretty bright individuals.

Now, having said that, the fact that those 2 chapters are worded the way they are, in my mind, make the chapters all the more convincing. Moses and the other readers would have all caught an “error” like that. I think if chapter 2 was meant to be a chronological account just as chapter 1 was, Moses would have said “Whoa, hold the phone! We can’t have this - people will think we’ve made an error!!! Even Jesus quoted from both of the chapters at the SAME time. (Matthew 19:4-5) You‘d sure think someone would have noticed that there were two creation stories with conflicting facts if they were, in fact, both chronological accounts.

But, just because I interpret these two chapters this way doesn’t necessary make me correct beyond all doubt, but Humes certainly cannot assert as fact that there are “two creation accounts” in Genesis. I simply think his reasoning on this point is illogical.

That is something that irks me. People constantly slam those who support traditional Christianity and a literal interpretation of scripture. But, I hear the craziest things in regard to what a literal interpretation consists of. Evidently, everyone has their own interpretation of what a “literal interpretation” entails, which is another source of conflict in this debate.

Humes does make a very good point with the following comments:

It would not occur to the organizers of “Steeling the Mind” (anti-evo. group) to invite an evolutionary biologist to the conference so that attendees could hear a different perspective, just as it would not occur to the organizers of the annual conference of the National Science Teachers Association, which met a few weeks later in the same vicinity, to invite a panel of creationists to join one of it’s sixteen separate sessions on teaching evolution and dealing with related controversies in public schools.

No kidding. Everyone preaches to the choir, but the ID side is certainly more open to public debate than those who support evolution. I do not support creation science being taught in the schools, but I do like Walt Brown‘s (a creation scientist) idea of a written debate which would cover all aspects of science that surrounds this controvery. That would be facinating, and since most people have already been conned into thinking that ID is creation science, let’s get a good solid debate that would help put many of these questions to rest for those of us who are interested.

Humes writes:

One speaker at “Steeling the Mind” put it this way: “Kids go off to college and give up on God. Start worrying less about where your kids are going to go to college, and send them to a Christian school now”. A young man in the audience turned that concern on its head, admitting that he preferred to bank on ignorance: “I’m really afraid to learn too much about evolution, because it might make me doubt my religion. And then where would I be? What would I tell my family? My girlfriend?”

Boy, ain’t that the truth. Some religious folks don’t want to “get confused” so they stick their head in the sand and never think about things that they fear might lead them to doubt their faith. I’ve known people like this, and I find it absolutely ridiculous to have such an attitude. How in the world will you know if your faith is worth fighting for or sharing with others if you don’t thoroughly search for truth at every turn? It blows my mind that more people aren’t searching diligently for answers in regard to human origins, and many of those answers focus on science and theology. If there is a designer, what was his purpose in designing this vast universe? Merely a whim? If no designer exists, how in the devil did we evolve from virtually nothing? Logically, there has to be a designer of some sort, and it seems illogical that our universe was based on nothing more than a whim. That is where religion comes in, and those who never study various religions or consider the supporting evidence for each are really missing out on an extraordinary journey. My Christian faith has been strengthened immensely by jumping out of the comfort zone.

Okay, I’m rambling so I’ll quit. I was actually going to write about Chapter 9 of Monkey Girl since it focuses around the Kansas science standards. I’ll bet Jeremy is wondering what I thought of that chapter! But, as I was paging through my book, I came across other areas that I had highlighted and got distracted from my goal.

My poor book is almost completely covered in yellow highlighter.

Monkey Girl - The Cause of my Evolving Migraine

First off, let me start by saying that *I am biased* in regard to my opinions surrounding the issues in this debate. Furthermore, I don’t think there is anyone involved in this debate who is not biased. Humes may have thought that an unbiased account would be the proper way to go about writing this book, but in the end, his bias is blatantly obvious, and my personal opinion is that he had very specific views about the controversial issues surrounding this debate before he even started writing. I believe it is *perfectly* acceptable to write in regard to your own personal views of the issues, but let’s just be honest about that fact upfront.

I am going to comment on portions of the book as I read them. I realize that this is not the best way to post a review because I may voice concerns about a particular issue that Humes addresses in greater detail later in the book, but, nevertheless, I’m going to post about portions of the book that bother me as I come upon them. If that approach bothers you, don’t read the posts. Thanks.

Right from the start it seems that Humes is going to place ID squarely in the realm of religious thought and zealous fanaticism.

ID = creationism, biblical literalism, fundamentalism, fanaticism. Goodness so many -isms!

The first paragraph sets up his objective quite nicely:

The Reverend Jim Grove is a wiry and intense man, his eyes burning and birdlike as he takes the measure of each person entering the ninth-floor federal courtroom in downtown Harrisburg. He is among the first people whom visitors encounter as they arrive to watch the trial billed in the media as the second coming of the legendary Scope Monkey Trial. “Yes,” Grove says, “it’s a monkey trial all right. And the evolutionist are the monkey.” He does not smile when he says this. [ my emphasis]

Not doubting for a second that Humes portrayal of Rev. Jim is accurate, it is just frustrating that this is the the person that Humes chooses to classify as the norm when considering people who support ID or creation science. Then he rolls right on to describing some creation scientists and a Texan preacher by the name of Dave Reagan in the same fanatical way. I live smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt, and I’ve never met people who display such fanaticism. I’m absolutely sure they exist, but I certainly do not believe they are the norm.

From the start, Humes equates ID with creation science, and that conclusion can only be made due to a person’s speculation about what they think is really at the surface of this debate. If we consider the science alone, ID in no way resembles creation science except that both concepts accept the notion that there is something responsible for the design we see in nature.

Then we move on to the Dover school board members, and as Bill Buckingham was the board chairman during the Dover circus act, Humes paints a very dire picture of poor Bill. He is described as “bullheaded and indefatigable”. Two quotes allotted to him are “I had more luck than brains”, and “I’d rather take a beating than back down”. He was “primed” for a religious experience after being “born again” due to witnessing the deaths of two children during his job as a cop. He had changed churches and accepted the fundamentalist** belief that the Bible is the “literal inspired word of God.” [Oh the horror!] Due to injury he becomes “unemployable” and addicted to OxyContin. Evidently his grammar sucks as well, because Humes quotes him as saying “I wasn’t afraid of nothing”.

Sheesh....dire painting of Bill’s picture. But on to the other characters of the book...

The science department at Dover is praised extensively and Humes mentions that though the teachers referred to evolution primarily as “changes over time” and the principles of common descent were taught, the teachers avoided getting into the evolution of man. Though, it is interesting that the science teacher he lauds in his tale had wanted a mural hung in the hall that was “given as a gift” by a student to the science department. It depicted various stages of evolution from primate to human, and evidently someone hauled it off and burned it (or so the story goes). Not particularly a big deal that the science teacher would have liked to see it hung, but it seems to me that there may have been the remote chance that the science teachers might have added more friction to the debate than Humes lets on. The fault seems to be placed entirely on the school board members. At any rate, it is obvious that there is no one either in the science department or on the BOE who is considering these issues as adults. It appears that from the start there is bickering back and forth and philosophical and religious issues surfacing at every turn. Humes implies that problems surfacing in Dover have been caused by the board members and their alluded to ignorance of science, and that those in the science department are merely trying to defend their position (which is of course correct beyond question).

We also are told that there are those involved in this Dover fiasco who would have liked to “crush evolution and wipe it from the blackboards”. There is also an underlying suggestion that many of these type of fanatical creationists are part of a larger group who want to put laws in place that advocate a “no-hold-barred advocacy of Christianity by government fiat”.

I know how the description of the “facts” can be twisted and spun to favor ones own bias. I watched the media and pro-evo. groups tear our Kansas board members apart and put a spin on anything they did or said to make them look like fanatical loons. I contacted a few of the board members on occasion to see if what was said about them was true, because if it was, I thought they should definitely be committed to a local psychiatric ward. But, after speaking with them, it was blatantly obvious that their words and actions had been stretched & spun beyond belief.

Regardless of what Humes portrays in this book, we have fanatics preaching from both sides of this debate. Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, et. al. scream to the rafters that religion is turning our nation into religious zombie idiots, and on the other side we have the over zealous preachers screaming that everyone who doesn’t believe their particular version of scripture will be going to hell. AND SCIENCE IS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. It’s seriously out of control, and people need to take a deep breath and consider whether they are actually working with those on the other side in an effort to understand each other and fix the problems or if we are pushing the problems to a point where communication is no longer an option.

In the first three chapters of Humes book, he describes the problems that we find on one side of this debate. He is silent as to ~why~ these people have reached the point of appearing fanatical and doesn’t bother to mention that there are people from the other side raging war like words against those who hold religious beliefs dear. I have to wonder if those who support evolution ever stop and really listen to the concerns from the other side rather than simply wave them off and start right in with the name calling. I watch PZ’s blog fairly regularly and it is a rare occurrence to see someone, who supports his scientific assumptions, stand up to him and tell him that he is causing his opposition to fight even harder. What is wrong with scientists that they simply ignore this type of behavior? As for the other side, do those who support ID ever voice their concerns when they think that someone from their side of the debate has gone too far in their actions toward their opposition? I have, but I can tell you (without my bias talking) that the Darwinist, anti-ID blogs and websites are much worse in how they treat people. At times they act subhuman. Yes, we can all get caught up in this type of behavior and I have at times said things I shouldn't, but that should not be the norm.

I also think that Christians need to be leary of anyone who is trying to turn the nation into a “Christian Nation” in the political sense. I don’t want to get into that in this particular post, but Christianity was never about ruling government and that type of agenda will lead to serious problems, IMO.

Humes also seems to blame this controversy for dumbing down science. He writes:

As the school board continued to focus on and question all things evolutionary, he [Rehm/physics teacher] found himself cutting back on certain class activities designed to get kids turned on to science. No one had ever criticized or questioned these lessons-quite the contrary, his students seemed to love them - but he started second-guessing himself. Such was the “chilling effect” of the board’s stated concerns about evolution, he’d later say - a legal term for pressure-induced self-censorship that he had never used or thought about before.

Sad. Know what? If the “scientific community” would actually consider addressing these issues with concern for parents, students, and teachers instead of using their “my way or the highway” arrogant attitudes, I truly believe that students would find these issues fascinating and the discussions would actually enhance their excitement about science.

We are horrifically *failing* at how we are handling this controvery, and I don’t see scientists actually trying to work on this problem. Sure, they gather together and try to figure out where they’ve gone wrong in getting the public to accept their interpretation of the issues surrounding the controversy. But, they never sit back and say, what could I do to understand these concerns better and ~make some concessions~ somewhere (the very first place to start would be to portray ID honestly).

I believe the Dover board did a pretty good job of making concessions toward the scientific community. It seems, from what the media and Humes tells us, that these folks were pretty solid, die-hard creationist and biblical literalists. But, in the end, did they vote to have creation science taught in the schools? No. Did they demand to have ID taught in the schools? No. So, what was all the rumpus about?

Let me tell you...

The board wanted a short paragraph read in the science classrooms...curious as to the wording? Here it is...

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered,. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. At theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the Origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses up on preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

This paragraph (which takes about 1 minutes to read) was to be read to the class before the introduction of evolution. Yup, this little paragraph that the board approved sent a group of parents into such a frenzy that they sued the school district. Unbelievable isn’t it? Especially since the statement is completely accurate, though the board didn’t advocate teaching ANYTHING in regard to creation science or ID in the the public school science classes.

Now, Humes would have us believe that the board would have liked to do much more than present that small paragraph, but that they knew the science teachers wouldn’t support or agree to it. So, guess what? They compromised....but that apparently wasn’t good enough. It is shocking to me that people would sue over something like this. I have heard murmurs from the pro-Darwin crowd that a lawsuit might be attempted by disgruntled parents here in Kansas who are upset about the latest turn of events regarding our science standards. I will go on the record as saying that, in my opinion, a lawsuit in regard to this matter is a mistake. Lawsuits in regard to these issues get seriously ugly and there is no point in stoking the fire further. Education is needed coming from both sides of this debate, and meaningful communication and concession needs to be considered.

Humes approach is like so many of the other books, blogs, and articles regarding the issues of this debate. Those from both ends of the issue point out the fanatics preaching warnings to their groupies about the views from the other side. But, guess what? The majority of US citizens fall in the middle somewhere and would like nothing better than to get to a point where these issues can be discussed in an open, honest, fair way without censorship, name calling, fear tactics, etc. surfacing at every turn. Why can’t someone write a book looking for a way to solve this crappy situation we’ve found ourselves in? I mean, do people actually believe that eventually one side will prevail and the opposing view will be buried until the end of time? Sheesh, this is the way wars are started, and it seems that this culture war is getting worse all the time.

There is a real need to stop making assumptions about religious and philosophical issues surrounding this debate and start *listening* to each other and considering the actual science being presented. At times, I read that those in the “scientific community” are trying to figure out how to approach this growing “problem” with “creationism”, assuming that if they teach the community “how science is done”, and learn how to communicate better with the public that this “problem” will go away. The general idea is that if they can teach the poor ignorant masses, the public will reject those “old fashioned” religious ideas and science will benefit greatly. That approach is probably going to fail.

Tell ya what...the first thing that the “scientific community” needs to do is to ~present ID accurately~. Let that be your starting point, and if you feel you are already presenting it accurately, check with someone from the ID side to be ~sure~ that you are. Communicate! Work together...act like adults.

Okay, I got a few things off my chest, so I’m feeling better for the time being. Now, on to the next chapter! I must forge ahead irregardless of that evolving migraine.

**Readers should be aware that there is a difference between “fundamentalism” and “traditional Christianity”. The first has a particular outlook on end time prophecy that is relatively a new concept in the Christian church. I am a traditional Christian who believes in a “literal interpretation of scripture”, but as I learned early on in life, there are various interpretations of that phrase.

More on Monkey Girl

Evidently Ed Humes is aware that I’m writing various posts in regard to his book. At his site, I found the following:

Talk Radio Evolution — Over at Pharyngula, readers riff on my OpEd's description of the two versions of evolution (the real theory, and the cartoonish talk-radio version designed not to inform but to inflame and deceive). I was particularly caught by a line from commenter Blake Stacy, whose summation sentence offers sound advice to all sides of the evolution-creation-intelligent design debate: It's hard to see why we should say anything other than the truth, as best as we can figure it out — particularly when the truth is all we have to offer. A brief but revealing back-and-forth between opposing points of view on this Talk Radio Evolution theme can be found at Evolving Thoughts, while the creationist take from someone who calls herself ForTheKid can be found here.

You can following the links from his site.

I am struggling to find the time to comment further in regard to what I’ve read in the book so far, but I have some thoughts that I really want to put into writing.

At the moment, Dave and Jeremy are giving me a lot to think about in the comments section of this post. So, if you’re looking for something to read, you might consider checking out those comments. We’re discussing the necessity of the concept of macroevolution.

And, Ed, if you’re out there, I’m enjoying reading the book. As an author, you write an interesting novel, but there are quite a few things I believe you’re wrong about, and I also feel that you are seriously adding to the problem that we have with the fear factor hovering around the various aspects of this debate.

I also think that the evolutionist crowd (ie. PZ et. al.) can certainly be accused of writing posts and articles which “inflame & deceive” their readers. It is interesting that you consider PZ a credible source in regard to the various aspects of this debate, because I can think of no one who does a better job of causing people to clamor toward ID.

His arrogance, horrendous attitude, disregard for portraying ID honestly, and his contempt for religion is very harmful to the theory of evolution.

On occasion, I give people his blog address and tell them to consider his comments as he is a professor at a major university. Honestly, they are appalled at what they read and it certainly gives them reason to consider these issues more seriously. Hope you’re getting my point. His approach is detrimental to the ToE.

More later...

Growling over Monkey Girl

Unbiased, Humes is not.

I seem to have to take a breather after every couple chapters. I was reading it in the car this morning with my poor husband sitting right next to me. I usually urge him to take the Darwinist stance to try to help me understand their mentality. Poor guy...can you imagine being *my* sounding board?

I'm seriously busy today, but I'll try to post about some issues in the book that I'm struggling with as soon as I can find some time.

Oh, btw, Casey has posted another article in regard to the book.

Humes gets huffy

Apparently, Ed Humes is whining because he received a review of his book that was less than glowing. Wanna take a guess at what he accused the reviewer of being?

Wait for it...

BIASED

ROTFLMAO....

Ed Humes article in the LA Times

Humes makes it exceptionally clear in this article that he is anything but unbiased about Darwinism. I’ve ordered his book, Monkey Girl, and I’m almost afraid of what I’ll find in it. Thank goodness Casey Luskin is addressing various misconceptions in the book.

In the LA Times article, Humes mentions the following:

“The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans — a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.”

This is far, far, from what educated individuals who reject Darwinism believe to be true. We do not believe that evolution purports that “molecules magically produced flower, horses, and human...”, nor do we believe that evolutionists claim humans evolved from monkeys and just “popped“ into existence one day. We are quite aware that Darwinists claim that humans branch off from the same ape-like ancestors as modern ape species, though are not direct descendents of what we call a “monkey” today.

Humes writes that ID supporters claim that “scientists believe that all life is accidental”. He feels this is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Well, that certainly depends on what aspect of evolution you are discussing. If you are starting midstream with the theory, obviously there are factors which allow for one to generalize that the process is guided to some extent. And, while ~some~ scientists support the notion of design in general but oppose discussions regarding the evidence, ~most~ scientists (75% according to an article in Nature) express disbelief in a personal god which obviously supports the fact that they believe that design in nature is non-existent, and that there is merely an “illusion of design”. So, the only other option other than design is chance! Hence, we are correct in stating that most scientists believe that life is the result of a random accidental chance event.

If you consider the evolutionary paradigm in which mainstream scientists base many theories upon, you’ll find that due to the process of methodological naturalism, we are only allowed to consider causes that ~apparently~ exclude this “illusion” of design (here I had thought science was based on observation). If we exclude design, scientific theories in respect to origins must be based on the assumption that life is the product of random events. So, ~if~ we are wrong in that assumption, we may never discover the true cause of our existence.

Darwin, himself, posited the notion that evolution does not require a designer, and therefore when you consider the first cause of the theory, you are looking square in the face of pure chance and random occurrences. Darwinists, of course, tell us that evolution doesn’t speak of a first cause to our existence, yet obviously there had to be something that started these evolutionary events which led to human life. If design is out of the question we’re left with random, unguided, chance occurrences.

Even in this letter from The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity: Nobel Laureates Initiative, the terms “unguided“, “unplanned“, and “random” are used when speaking about evolution:

[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.[my emphasis]

Olson goes on to say:

But then there is the real theory of evolution, the one that was on display in that Harrisburg courtroom, for which there is overwhelming evidence in labs, fossils, computer simulations and DNA studies. Most Americans have not heard of it. Teachers give it short shrift in schools because the subject upsets too many parents who only know the talk-radio version. But real evolution isn't random; it doesn't say man came from monkeys. Those claims are made up by critics to get people riled up — paving the way for pleasing alternatives like intelligent design.

Oh, for the love of God...do tell, what is this overwhelming evidence that most Americans have never heard of?

Evolution is NOT rocket science, and anyone who takes a bit of time to study the subject can clearly conclude that the term “evolution” covers a wide range of theoretical claims. Granted, there should not be a person on the face of the earth who rejects evolution in the sense that Olson is referring to. Obviously, we share commonalities with the animal kingdom, and evolutionary mechanisms are certainly aspects of the theory that are empirically sound beyond any doubt.

But, when we broach the subject of macroevolution, we are considering historical science that is based on ~inference~ and speculation from what we observe in microevolutionary changes.

Real evolutionary theory explains how life forms change across generations by passing on helpful traits to their offspring; a process that, after millions of years, gradually transforms one species into another. This does not happen randomly but through nature's tendency to reward the most successful organisms and to kill the rest. This is why germs grow resistant to antibiotics and why some turtles are sea animals and others survive quite nicely in the desert, and why dinosaurs — and more than 99% of all other species that have ever lived on Earth — are extinct.

The environment changes. The recipe for survival changes with it. And life changes to keep up — or it dies. Darwin's signature insight is both brilliant and elegantly, brutally simple.

These are all examples of microevolutionary changes and no one is rejecting these empirically sound facts. NOBODY!

The real theory of evolution does not try to explain how life originated — that remains a mystery. The truth is that many scientists accept evolution and believe in God — and in a natural world so complete that it strives toward perfection all on its own, without need of a supernatural designer to keep it going.

True, evolution does not explain how life originated, but it assumes that all of life evolved from that first common ancestor (whatever that might has been). The evidence does not support this aspect of evolution with empirically sound data, and it should not be taught dogmatically as fact. Though this aspect of the theory should ~most certainly~ be taught in science classes, students should be allowed to consider both the strengths and weaknesses surrounding this facet of evolution.

BTW, In the science journal, Nature, a study showed that 7% of scientists believe in a "personal god," 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." So the "many" scientists Humes refers to above is about 7% of them.

The judge in Pennsylvania eventually found that real evolution was not stupid; that intelligent design was religion, not science, and that the school board in Dover, Pa., whose actions had precipitated this replay of Scopes, was out of line. Judge John E. Jones III was rewarded for his sensible and well-documented ruling with death threats. Such is the power of talk-radio evolution.

Jones’ “sensible and well-documented” ruling included a 6,004 word section regarding whether intelligent design is science, and he copied that section almost verbatim from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling. Yeah, he’s brilliant! Get a copy of the book, Traipsing into Evolution, for more information about Jones and his biased decision.

BTW, I’d love to hear more about this “death threat”. It appears to me that Jones was put up on a pedestal. He was featured in Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the year. He was voted by Wired magazine as one of the “10 sexiest geeks”, and was also asked to speak at graduation commencements. I don't think life has been all that difficult for him since the trial.

Meanwhile, a creationist history of the Grand Canyon is on sale in national park shops. A major American museum expressed interest in having me speak about my new book but decided the subject of evolution was too "political" right now to risk it. And teachers across the nation tell me they feel compelled to downplay or skip evolution lessons to avoid controversy; one L.A.-area high school instructor said she is the only one of five science teachers on her faculty to even mention evolution in class, notwithstanding a clear state mandate to teach it.

Sadly, this has resulted due to the way in which the “scientific community” is handling this controversy. They blatantly refuse to consider anything other than what supports their philosophical leanings. Thus, many parents across the nation are upset about the way in which the theory is being taught. It’s not ~what~ is being taught that is so upsetting, but ~how~ it is being taught.

Scientists refuse to debate, but rather mandate what will be taught in the science class regardless of the opposition (which includes the majority of US citizens). If science has the proof to back their macroevolutionary claims, then they need to get their best advocates of the theory up on that debate platform and let the public hear their arguments when ~posed against their opposition~.

Judge Jones has since told me that his only regret in the case is that he did not bend the rules to allow live TV coverage so more people could see the powerful evidence supporting his decision. Because the one thing the prophets of talk-radio evolution have, it seems, is the loudest megaphone.

That’s absurd. Darwinists have complete control of mainstream media. I’ve read the most unbelievably inaccurate accounts about this debate from major media outlets. To get to the truth, one has to really do some digging.

Olson seems to draw the conclusion that if the general public were not so dimwitted, they would accept the theory of evolution with open arms. The problem is that his definition of evolution is ambiguous and by no means provides his readers with the aspect of evolution that ID supporters reject.

Granted, there are people who reject evolution who don’t fully understand the theory. On the other hand, there are many individuals who do not understand Intelligent Design because they have been misled by individuals like Humes. This will change with time, and the public will become more aware of the various aspects of this debate and what is occurring at the roots of it as well. Time heals all wounds as they say, and in the end science will eventually recover from being held hostage by neo-Darwinism.

Those of us who are pro-science rather than pro-naturalism will slowly but surely forge ahead and try the best we can to correct the blatant disregard from evolutionists to be forthright in relaying information to the public about the issues in this debate.