Dawkins

I’m going to try very hard not to let my emotions take over as I write this entry. I hope that will be possible.

I arrived a half hour early at Lied Center tonight and stood in a very long line while waiting for the doors to open. The gentleman in front of me was waiting for a friend and we made small talk regarding the large crowd. I wondered how many in attendance were supporters of Dawkins.

When the gentleman’s friend arrived, he was thrilled with the large crowd and made the comment “and, it’s sure not for Billy Graham!”. Obviously, these men supported Dawkins. The new arrival mentioned that he didn’t have anything to do while he was waiting for the 7:30 presentation, so he hung out at Baby Dolls. I don’t know how many Baby Dolls there are in Lawrence, but evidently Kristy is quite something to see if that kind of thing flips your switch.

Paul Mirecki, from the KU religion department and staff support for the Soma (Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics) group at KU, was in the line next to me. The two gentlemen in front of me recognized him immediately and had a good laugh over Mirecki’s idea of teaching ID as a myth. The Baby Doll guy actually went over and shook Mirecki’s hand. I’m not sure what he said, but Mirecki said thank you. I also heard a woman say, regarding Dawkins, that now we would hear from a “real theologian“.

Once inside Lied Center, it was obvious that this was going to be a standing room only crowd. Later, it was also clear from the applause and laughter that I was probably one of only a handful of people who did not laud Dawkins as the bearer of truth.

Then there was a very heartfelt introduction by Leonard Krishtalka. Mr. Krishtalka is the Director of the Biodiversity Institute at KU. It has been very clear from Krishtalka’s introductions and questions throughout this series of lectures that he is a staunch supporter of Dawkins, and his introduction certainly displayed that feeling. There was almost a reverence in his tone.

Dawkins entered the stage to great applause.

He stated that natural selection can account for everything in the universe and that those who do not agree with that simply do not understand natural selection. He explained that through natural selection we start with simple beginnings which raise up gradually to complex ends. Though he believes there is a need for better education of this phenomena, he never explained to the audience exactly how natural selection works and accounts for everything we observe in nature. I’m assuming that he must have felt that since everyone was applauding him, they were all quite familiar with the process and how it accounts for the vastly complex universe we live in. Either that, or he has absolutely no idea himself.

He also said that if people understood natural selection, they would undoubtedly accept Darwinian evolution. That is interesting, because I’ve heard and read an incredible amount of information regarding natural selection and I’d have to say that if that is his smoking gun, then he is delusional. There are thousands of scientists and millions of people who understand natural selection and find it lacking in regard to what it can accomplish. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand NS, and even a student in junior high can fully understand the concept.

Many times throughout the night I wondered if he was actually destroying his own case. He talked of the high improbability of descent from that first living cell, the anthropic principle, and mentioned at least a half dozen times that nature gives the appearance of being designed. He said that every human organ is good at what it does, and that this gives a powerful illusion of design. He said that this “illusion of design” is, of course, natural selection.

It was quite clear throughout the presentation that he was in reverent awe of natural selection. In fact, I will go as far as to say that natural selection is his God. Everything he accounts for in his life was a byproduct of natural selection. He holds this belief as one would hold a belief in God. We feel we have enough evidence to support our belief, yet in the end, what we can’t explain we must hold on faith.

He mentioned that though the universe is perfectly suited for life, as the anthropic principle states is support for the improbabilities that our universe evolved by chance rather than design, the argument against that principle is that “We are here”. So evidently, since “we are here“, natural selection must work well enough to account for the astronomical complexity of the universe! This is considered logical? Goodness, and they say that ID is an argument from ignorance. Consciousness seemed to pose a problem for him as well, but that too he felt was somehow due to natural selection.

He spent quite a bit of the lecture poking fun of IDists, Creationists, and people of religious beliefs. He gave a power point presentation and showed slides that brought great laughter from the crowd. One depicted “the stork theory”: to be taught along side pregnancy theory in Kansas schools. “ Another depicted a cartoon with the caption “Avian Flu scare forces”. There were many others along the same line. The idea was that Kansas is anti-science due to the fact that many Kansans do not adhere to the idea that the universe evolved through common descent via the first living organism. I’m still trying to find out how that particular theory is beneficial to science. IDist and creationists, for that matter, view commonality between species and adaptation within species as solid fact supported by empirical evidence. The common descent via that first living organism inclusion is irrelevant to science.

He also mentioned that creationists argue from personal incredulity, which he accounts to being “lazy”. Interesting, though I would reply that he argues against the likelihood of a designer in the same manner. He can’t believe it, so it’s not true. He said as much when he was asked whether you have to be a theologian to speak on matters of whether there is a God or not. He mentioned that he doesn’t need to read a book about fairies to know that they do not exist. So, in other words, he is the one who is lazy because he doesn’t see the point in studying something he doesn’t believe exists. He believes there is no evidence for God, though many theologians will tell you that there is, and they have written numerous books which support that belief.

He told us that religion is indoctrination, and it is a form of mental child abuse to label a child as a Christian, a Muslim or any other religion. Interesting. I wonder if he has children. I have no doubt that he has “indoctrinated” them with his beliefs as well.

During the Q&A, he was asked why people “deny the power of natural selection“. His answer was that it was not due to stupidity, but to ignorance. People don’t understand it because it is not taught correctly. I would argue that natural selection is quite easy to understand, but the reason some people don’t revere it as Dawkins does is because he holds natural selection as sacred just as religious people hold God sacred.

We cannot possibly understand Dawkins' feelings regarding what he believes natural selection is capable of because we know what the evidence shows NC is capable of, and we realize that the rest of what Dawkins ~believes~ is based on faith alone. ~Faith in the God of natural selection~. Likewise, Dawkins cannot understand our faith in God because he is missing a vital element - faith and the spirit of understanding. Dawkins does have a spirit that allows for him to see all that he envisions natural selection is capable of, but that is an opposing spirit to the spirit that those who hold God’s word as truth possess.

He believes that there is no purpose or meaning in life from a scientific perspective, considering how our world evolved, but that we as individuals certainly create our own purpose and desires in life.

I must say that this speaker was the polar opposite of Os Guiness. Os tried to bring those of opposing views closer together and suggested building bridges and trying to work together with those whose views we oppose. He never once made fun of those who do not believe what he does. He didn’t show demeaning cartoons or poke fun of various groups of people who opposed his views. He did mention that Sam Harris and Dawkins were illogical, insulting, and misguided in a few of the Q&A questions. And, I’d have to agree with him. Dawkins is very insulting, and many of his arguments were quite illogical. I would never consider standing up in front of thousands of people and poke fun of his atheist perspective like he did about people who hold various religious viewpoints. I couldn’t live with myself if I did something like that.

He mentioned that evolution probably accounts for the need for religion, and that in some people that need just doesn’t evolve. Well, if natural selection can account for that need, I would hope that it continues to evolve in the future. Dawkins shows very little compassion for those who do not display the “intellect” that he accredits himself for. He feels that more people need to stand up for their beliefs that God does not exist. He believes that will better our future and the future of science.

I have to wonder what would become of us if we were all under the influence that Dawkins seems to be under. He is an extreme bigot, very prejudice, and quite divisive, which surprisingly are all the attributes that he seems to loath and attribute to those who support religious beliefs.

=====================

Okay, I made it through without loosing it, and I think for the most part I held my emotions at bay. It may not seem that way to some of you, but believe me when I state that as fact.

Now I will get emotional and say that as I left Lied center and crossed the parking lot to my car, I shed a tear for those who allow people like Dawkins to influence their worldview. That was one of the hardest lectures I’ve ever sat through in my life. For a man to stand there and state all the awful things that people do in the name of religion, and then turn around and commit the same acts that he is supposedly against, was so very sad and disheartening. What was even worse is that he received two standing ovations. That tells me that everyone in attendance very much agreed with his views. I have no problem with him stating that he doesn’t believe in God, but for his shear disregard and disrespect for those who oppose his views. If he wants to make a difference, it seems that he would not make the exact same errors that some over zealous religious factions do. But, evidently he is no better as far as how he is going to treat people, he’s just different in his beliefs as to what or who god is or isn’t.

This is the type of thing that worries me about our secular universities. Many feel it is a necessity to do away with religion, but if we are to replace it with the beliefs that attribute to the attitude of Dawkins, we may find ourselves in a situation that is even worse.

I’m going to go have a good cry now....

Dawkins speaking at KU!!!!!

Difficult Dialogues at The Commons - Upcoming Event

Mon., Oct. 16, 2006, 7:30-9:00 p.m.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Richard Dawkins
"The God Delusion"
Lied Center Auditorium

How exciting...

Normal people get excited about going to concerts, parties, or similiar outings. I, on the other hand, would pass those up in a heartbeat in order to attend these lectures covering the ID/evolution debate.

I'm not sure what that says about me...

The Lutheran Witness on evolution

Since I provided an article from the viewpoint of a member of the ELCA church, I’ve decided to share an article from the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod’s publication, The Lutheran Witness.

You can read the article, By Design, Not by Chance, for yourself at this pdf file. You will have to scroll to page 10 for the article.

Lutherans and evolution

I was brought up in the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod. The more liberal denomination of Lutherans are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

This month the ELCA publication, The Lutheran, features quite a few articles on the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy.

One article in particular caught my eye.

It was titled 'God allows the universe to create itself—and evolve', written by Mark Hollabaugh. Mr. Hollabaugh teaches physics and astronomy at a College in MN.

I feel compelled to comment on various parts of his article. First he writes:

Science, religion and politics collide in public-school classrooms. In the past few years, conservative Christian groups in some communities have gained control of public-school boards.

They replaced the teaching of evolution with intelligent design, or ID. Parents in Dover, Pa., even sued the school board to restore the teaching of evolution to the curriculum—arguing that ID is based on a biblical view of creation and isn’t science. [my emphasis]

Actually, no state that I am aware of “replaced the teaching of evolution with ID”. The Kansas school board made some changes to the state science standards, but certainly did not mandate the teaching of ID, and DID NOT “replace” evolution with anything.

The Dover school board merely expressed the desire to have a four-paragraph statement read at the introduction of the evolution curriculum defining ID as "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view". It also mentioned that the textbook, Of Pandas and People, was available for those students who have an interest. Likewise, this statement did not “replace the teaching of evolution with ID”.

Neither was the Dover trial initiated to "restore the teaching of evolution to the curriculum". The trial was initiated by a few families who did not want that particular 4-paragraph statement read to their children.

I have to wonder if the author of this article is aware of these facts?

As an astronomer, everywhere I look in the universe—from the largest galaxy to the smallest organism—I see evolution.

I wish he would elaborate on his definition of “evolution”.

Opposition to evolution, especially biological, is a hallmark of many proponents of intelligent design. The ID movement heavily influenced the 1999 Kansas school-board decision to remove references to evolution from science curricula. Those against evolution focus on what ID adherents call “irreducibly complex organisms” that can’t be explained by evolutionary theory. [my emphasis]

I’ve been over this false statement at length in previous blog entries. The board did not include ~macro~evolution references in the ’99 standards. Knowing that these issues had never been addressed in the standards before ‘99, they saw no need to add them. They left the decision to the districts just as it had been in the past. That ~does not~ mean that Kansas schools didn’t teach those concepts. All aspects of evolution have always been in the textbooks and taught in Kansas science curriculum.

Moreover, ID is poor theology. ELCA member and Minneapolis Star Tribune commentary editor Eric Ringham wrote: “[Intelligent design] attempts to define, and limit, the mind and power of God.” Why couldn’t God just let the universe evolve?

Interesting statement. God could “just let the universe evolve”, but there is ample evidence for a different interpretation of the data.

Even Richard Dawkins, who rejects the idea of religious thought, freely admits that nature gives the appearance of design. We should be following the evidence where it leads, rather than excluding a theory merely because it may have religious implications. I don’t find it necessary to dismiss the word of God for a theory that is extremely questionable. Why not support further research of Intelligent Design?

In Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press, 2004), Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross demonstrate how conservative Christian groups promote intelligent design for political purposes. Many of the movement’s spokespeople, they claim, spend time influencing public policy and not doing scientific research. Creationism, a much older viewpoint, depends directly on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

Why is it that theistic evolutionists often support the efforts of atheist and humanist scientists in their attempt to dismiss our Creator, but demonize the supporters of Intelligent Design? Clearly, Barbara Forrest is biased against anything that may resemble the possiblity of a Designer due to her prior commitment to naturalism. She serves on the Board of Directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association which describe themselves as “an affiliate of American Atheists, and members of the Atheist Alliance International”. Their mission is "...to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.”

As believers in the common truth that God created our universe (through whatever means), shouldn’t we be working together to support and search for further evidence of His design in nature? The bible tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God“. His fingerprints are obviously everywhere and it seems that scientists who hold various religious beliefs should take that into consideration at all times (even in the science lab).

Based on the results of experiments and observations, scientists modify their theories and laws when change is necessary to explain some new data. We scientists actually relish the contradictions, inconsistencies and unknowns. The essence of being a scientist is curiosity and skepticism—and having an unending drive to solve problems and search for answers.

In that case, students should be encouraged to critically analyze the questionable areas of the theory in order that they might hopefully fill the gaps, rather then having us tell them that the theory is iron clad and we must change the meaning of God’s word to fit to the ever-changing ideas in the world of science.

I believe biological, geological and astronomical evolution is a fact. I have personally witnessed astronomical and geological evolution.

Do tell...what was your definition of evolution again???

In 1975 while traveling from Holden Village, a retreat center in Chelan, Wash., to my seminary internship in Denver, I saw the sudden brightening and death of a star known as Nova Cygni. Events like this are evidence of the evolution of stars—responsible for creating the chemical elements necessary for life.

The problem with that thought process is that we have never witnessed the birth of a star - only the death. There are theories regarding the birth of stars, but they are far from solid fact. Consider the information in these two links.

When I visited Costa Rica in 2000, I was awakened at 2:45 a.m. by a moderate shaking of my hotel. The evolution of the Earth’s crust had caused an earthquake as continental plates slid past one another. We may owe the existence of life on Earth to such movements, creating ocean basins where water could collect.

Hmmm... Somehow, the occurrence of an earthquake doesn’t seem to provide earth shattering support for the idea that all of life sprang to existence through evolutionary mechanisms from that first single living organism.

Oh, btw, those continental plates are an interesting subject to research. Take the time to do some reading about the Hydroplate Theory.

As a St. Olaf freshman, I took the same “Introduction to the Bible” course that I later taught. I was fascinated as my professor explained the multiple authors of Genesis, why certain books were in the Bible and that every translation is an interpretation. Some other students had a great deal of difficulty accepting the idea that Moses didn’t write Genesis or that there were two versions of the creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24).

Much of the current debate about ID and creationism in science classrooms is due to different methods of interpreting the Bible. Most of us in the ELCA aren’t literalists. We understand the Bible has layers of meaning and importance.

And the question that theistic evolutionists never answer is which of those “layers” contain the truth of God’s word, and which do not. If God's word is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions, why bother with it at all? How do we know what to believe and what to reject?

In regard to the two versions of the creation story - the first is chronological, while the second is from man’s perspective (literary). A close study of the Hebrew words show 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.

I think we’d all agree that the writers of the Old and New Testament were not idiots. There were approximately 40 writers over a 1,500 year period. Even those who have done only a small amount of research on the subject will have to admit that the writers were pretty bright individuals. (Take for example Moses as he wrote in regard to principles of quarantine, waste disposal, sterilization, agricultural requirements etc.)

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 other early writers would have caught an “error” like that. I think if chapter 2 was meant to be a chronological account, Moses would have said "Whoa, hold the phone! We can’t have this - people will think we’ve made an error!!!" In that light, we have to consider the reason for the two accounts.

My favorite part of the day when I was on the St. Olaf faculty was the morning chapel service and faculty coffee time that followed. One day the chair of the biology department, Arnold Peterson, and I sat with Gordon Rasmussen, a beloved religion professor. Gordon told us a student had come to his office in tears because of what she had learned in biology class about evolution. Her faith had been shattered. Arnie, a man I knew had a deep Christian faith, said: “I just can’t understand the fuss. Why is it creation or evolution? Why can’t it be creation by means of evolution?”

Well, when it comes down to it, faith in God’s word and the message of Christ’s literal death and resurrection for the sin of the world is the message throughout the entire biblical narrative. If one follows the evidence in prophecy, archeology, and writings from secular history that support accurate historicity of the Bible, we can rest assured that the His Word provides truth for those who accept it.

In that sense, whether you accept evolution or the biblical account of creation doesn’t matter. My personal opinion is that I see no reason to disregard portions of God’s word for current scientific theories that are certainly questionable. Scientific theories postulated by mere human intellect are always changing.

Call it personal incredulity, but...

Every time I visit the zoo with my kids, I am awe struck by the amazing design of each animal that we see. Since I’ve been researching the subject of evolution and intelligent design, I find myself looking for all the similarities between animals and trying to make sense of the idea that we all evolved from the same first organism.

The last visit we made to the zoo was on the same day a baby giraffe had been born. He was just a few hours old when we were allowed a peak at him. When I think about how the giraffe evolved from that first living organism and time, it just doesn’t seem possible. Call it personal incredulity, but it seems every idea regarding the evolution of the giraffe centers on a certain feature evolving, but doesn’t take into consideration everything about the animal that is so unique.

A adult giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute. Due to the giraffe’s heart being much larger than it’s head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head. This is especially important when the giraffe is bending down to drink water. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head hold enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.

Scientists have found that the giraffe's tight skin and the muscles in its legs keep blood from pooling in its lower body, and the arterial pressure near the giraffe's heart is about twice that in humans to provide adequate blood pressure and blood flow to the brain.

Darwin commented on giraffe evolution in the sixth edition (1872) of his seminal book, Origin of Species:

The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.... By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe. (Darwin 1872, pp. 177ff.)

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma , wrote:

"It is speculated by neo-Darwinists that some ancestor of the giraffe gradually got longer and longer bones in the neck and legs over millions of years. If this were true, one might predict that there would be fossils showing some of the intermediate forms or perhaps some living forms today with medium-sized necks. Absolutely no such intermediates have been found either among the fossil or living even-toed ungulates that would connect the giraffe with any other creature.

Evolutionists cannot explain why the giraffe is the only four-legged creature with a really long neck and yet everything else in the world [without that long neck] survived. Many short-necked animals, of course, existed side by side in the same locale as the giraffe. Darwin even mentioned this possible criticism in The Origin, but tried to explain it away and ignore it.

Furthermore it is not possible for evolutionists to make up a plausible scenario for the origination of either the giraffe's long neck or its complicated blood pressure regulating system. This amazing feature generates extremely high pressure to pump the blood up to the 20-foot high brain and then quickly reduces the pressure to prevent brain damage when the animal bends down to take a drink. After over a century of the most intensive exploration for fossils, the world's museums cannot display a single intermediate form that would connect the giraffe with any other creature."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 83-84..

Darwin’s natural selection idea regarding the length of the giraffe’s neck is interesting, but there is so much more to the giraffe than the length of his neck. Taking evolution back to first causes, I find it incredible that we are to believe that this animal evolved, along with everything else in our universe from a common first organism. Considering the evolutionary process of that 2 foot long heart branching from a lower life form, it seems nonsensical to imagine these elaborate systems evolving through time.

Here is an evolutionary hypothesis:

Giraffes have caused controversy in science as there is very little evidence found on its long neck. A new hypothesis is Here.
Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras Drawing (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx(also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia(one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

Summer for the gods

I attended a lecture at Washburn University tonight. Ed Larson, Pulitzer Prize winning author of "Summer for the gods", spoke from 7-8:30. Unfortunately, I missed the first 20 minutes of the lecture.

Larson’s book is an historical account of the Scopes trial. It puts to rest the notion that the flick “Inherit the Wind” was in any way an accurate account of what really went down.

He was an interesting speaker and tried to keep bias out of the account, though he clearly favors the evolutionary viewpoint. He gave an overview of the Scopes trial and then talked a bit about the 1987 Edwards vs Aguillard case, and last year’s Dover trial.

One question he was asked is where he thinks this debate is headed next. He felt that creation science will not be disappearing any time soon, but that supporters may lie low for a while due to the court decisions in Cobb county and Dover. He felt the public doesn’t want to create a further divide between people and communities.

I empathize with this concern and realize that many people even within a particular church may hold opposing ideas regarding the theory of evolution. While I don’t like to see such a divide between groups of people, I do think that these issues need to keep being discussed among scientists especially.

It worries me a bit when we dismiss scientific ideas on the grounds that they ~may~ have religious implications.

He mentioned that some countries still give equal time to the teaching of creation along with evolution. Larson has spent some time on the Galapagos Islands, and found it extremely interesting that they teach creation science in their schools!!!

One guy asked how people can dismiss evolution and yet still enjoy modern medicine, biotechnology, etc., etc. I had to laugh. I don’t know if people pose those questions out of ignorance, or if they are just so put off with creationists that those type of questions just pop out.

Creationists merely interpret the evidence differently than evolutionists. It’s been obvious since the dawn of time that we share similarities with the animal kingdom and that animals are able to adapt within a species. That is what is important for advancement in science. The notion of molecule to man doesn‘t amount to much in regard to scientific advancement.

Cutest monkey

My son brought home last month’s Time for Kids magazine. It had an article in it with news about the cutest little albino Pygmy Marmoset twins. Evidently, one little guy didn't make it, but they were able to keep the other one alive. I found an article about the little things here.
Now, I could claim that little guy as a distant relative, but...




...I’m definitely not claiming this ugly thing as part of my family tree. The Almiqui was believed to be extinct until they found one in 2003. Freaky...

The Case for a Creator - on DVD

A film based on Lee Strobel’s New York Times best-seller, The Case for a Creator, is now available on DVD.

I haven’t read this particular book yet, but I have read his books The Case for Christ, and The Case for Faith.

Strobel was at one time an atheist. It’s always interesting to me to hear from individuals who held an atheistic worldview and then turned to Christ after investigating the evidence for the Christian faith.

It leaves me wondering why some people are able to see the truth and others are not. Hmmm....

Anyway, I ordered a copy of the DVD today.

UK, California, or Canada

Okay, the culprit is either from the UK, CA, or Canada.

Give it a freaking rest people or I'll cut you off.

Unbelievable...

Well, it shouldn't surprise me, but someone made a modification to my post titled, In Memory. How they did it I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that it was someone from the UK. I'll have to check into this further.

It's interesting that you feel the need to break into my blog and do something like that. I've tangled with some real fire breathers over at the Panda's Thumb, and I suppose that whoever is messing with my blog is probably from that particular area of cyberspace.

Give it a rest people. I guess I should be flattered that my blog is making that big of an impact on you, but try to act like a human being, not an animal.

Thanks.

More on ID in the UK

Sounds like Truth in Science in the UK is running into some conflicts with the British Humanist Association.

Imagine that....

It appears that when the British Humanist Association (BHA) wrote to the Education Secretary last Friday, they had not seen the contents of our resource pack.

The BHA asked the Government to inform teachers that the TiS resources “are totally unsuitable".

They apparently knew this even though they had not viewed a copy of the resources we sent to schools.

In a press release titled “Truth in Science – Lies, Lies, Lies” the BHA claimed to have “learned” that Truth in Science sent teachers “copies of ‘teaching resources’ on CD.”

This suggests they had not watched the DVDs we sent to schools before asking the Government to make an official announcement against them.

Was their letter based on evidence or prejudice?

I wonder if they actually read the resources, and if so, what exactly it was that they disagreed with.

I found this press release. No surprise that Richard Dawkins is listed as one of the Vice Presidents of the BHA. Obviously, he believes that ID is a threat to his calling, which is to rid the world of supernatural fallacies. Can anyone say prior comitment? I think when Dawkins comes to KU next week, I'm going to have to take that 'ol boy out to dinner and get him straightened out about a few things.

It looks like a Christian think tank, Ekklesia, is in cahoots with the BHA and their endeavor to rid the UK of relaying the "truth in science" to their students.

It’s so odd that these type of groups cannot see the forest through the trees. ID is not creationism by any means, and the theory does not support any particular religious belief.

Religious ~implications~ can certainly be drawn from both ID and evolution. Does that mean that we have to do away with the ToE as well????

Here we go again...

As expected, I’ve received a lengthy rebuttal from Jeremy to share with you which further explains his position regarding my Oct 3rd post.

Shoot, maybe I should just invite Jeremy to share my blogspace with me. He and I could probably duke it out forever. But, seriously, I am glad that he is polite and able to approach these issues respectfully.

Here we go again, with Jeremy’s comments in quote block, and mine immediately following:

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment. I hope you don't mind me responding in detail.

"Although evolution does not claim to answer questions about the ~first cause~ of the evolutionary process, it ~postulates~ that the first living organism initially evolved randomly along with the mechanisms of evolution into all that encompasses our universe today."

Evolution isn't an entirely random process. Indeed, natural selection is the complete opposite of random. The fact that you to still hold this misconception is disheartening, especially considering how many times we have discussed this over the last year and a half.

Jeremy, you’re not being quite fair in your attempt to express what I’m suggesting. I mentioned in an earlier post that evolution does not rely upon random events alone. At that time, I provided a link giving a further explanation of the mechanisms of evolution. I also mentioned the following in the same post you quoted from:

“...and that science can explain how our world initially evolved through random events which led to seemingly guided events by means of evolving evolutionary mechanisms. “

Many, many scientists will tell you that evolution initially took place through a series of random events. Now, I realize that that particular verbiage is probably not politically correct at this moment in time due to the conversations taking place about Darwinian evolution, but this is how it is referred to in the field of science.

Being a Christian, you of course believe that God created the universe through the means of what I refer to as Darwinian evolution. My definition of Darwinian evolution encompasses the entire evolutionary paradigm. In other words, from the initial first form of life to all that encompasses our universe today.

But, even Christian scientists who believe God created the universe through evolutionary mechanisms, refer to evolution as being a random event. I’m currently reading The Language of God, by Francis Collins. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Collins, he was the head of the Human Genome Project, and is one of the world’s leading scientists. He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life.

On page 97 of his book he writes:
“Darwin proposed that all living species are descended from a small set of common ancestors - perhaps just one. He held that variation within a species occurs randomly, and that the survival or extinction of each organism depends upon its ability to adapt to the environment. This he termed natural selection. Recognizing the potentially explosive nature of the argument, he hinted that this same process might apply to humankind, and developed this more fully in a subsequent book, The Descent of Man.”

There is no question that the initial process of Darwinian evolution supports the idea of random occurrences. Of course, an individual’s perception of what exactly this means will vary from person to person based on their philosophical worldview.

"Since pro-evolutionists...
So, if you refer to those who oppose your viewpoint as "pro-evolutionists" does that mean you are an "anti-evolutionist?"

Here again, you know better. I was very clear in my last post as to what I support in regard to the theory of evolution. Perhaps I should have used the term “Darwinists”. There is definitely a break down in suitable definitions in this debate which only adds to confusion and ultimately frustration.

...insist that design cannot be detected in nature,"
It's not that design cannot be detected. We can easily detect human design all over the place. That is possible because we know quite a bit about the motives and capabilities of human designers.

Unfortunately, the promoters of intelligent design are unwilling to specify the motives and capabilities of their designer. The one thing that can be reasonably assumed is that they are thinking of a supernatural being. The problem, of course, is that a supernatural being is completely unconstrained. Design by a supernatural being can never be ruled out as the cause of an observed phenomenon. A cause that can literally do anything is of little use in understanding the processes or history of the natural world.

It is not necessary or possible to scientifically specify the motives and capabilities of the designer through the means of empirically sound evidence at this point in time. It is possible to theorize that certain aspects of nature are better explained to have been the product of design rather than chance occurrence. I plan on covering this issue in a separate post when I find the time.

ID doesn’t state "how" design occurred, or whether it was by natural, or supernatural causes. All that you can detect through intelligent design theory is that an object has qualities that suggest design-- it does not address the metaphysical nature of how the design occurred. Again, this will take a separate post to cover adequately.

"we have no choice than to assume that the initial evolutionary events were random occurrences."

Well, if those initial evolutionary events were governed by natural selection, you could acknowledge that it is a non-random process that favors the individuals that are best fit to a particular environment. But that would require you to truly understand what you are criticizing. Based on what you write sometimes, I'm not sure that you actually do.

Well... not much is going to occur through natural selection if nothing initially existed but that first living blob of life waiting for something to happen in order for it to evolve. Obviously, random events would have to occur first before natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution could kick in and help guide the process in a meaningful way. As you know, I take everything back to first causes, and since evolution cannot postulate that first cause, we have to consider those first living organisms and how they advanced through the evolutionary mechanisms that we are familiar with. Random occurrences are very much a part of that process.

"Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found."

Actually, we have lots of detailed sequences of transitional fossils. True, we don't have as many as Darwin expected. But it turns out that Darwin's expectation was based on a simplistic idea of how new species form.

Darwin and his contemporaries generally pictured evolution as a gradual change that occurred as entire populations adapted to changing environmental conditions (phyletic evolution). We now know that new species usually form when small populations break off from larger populations and change rapidly to adapt to new environmental conditions (speciation).

Now that we have a better idea of how evolution usually works, we realize that intermediates are not as likely to be fossilized as Darwin and his contemporaries originally assumed. This isn't an attempt to explain away gaps in the fossil record. It's an expectation that derives from our refined understanding of how evolution actually works.

Yes, I’m aware of the how Darwinists view these gaps in the fossil record, but many scientists find the theory lacking in in regard to empirical evidence. We have never seen speciation occur in nature except in a few rare circumstances and these examples are nothing in comparison to what would actually have to take place in nature to explain everything we see today. The evolution of vital organs is a serious problem for the theory, and irreducibly complex machines such as the bacterial flagellum are another example of how intricately designed our bodies really are.

"First of all, evolution was not taken out of the standards because in order for it to have been taken ~out of the standards~, the information you address would had to have been in the standards before ‘99. It wasn’t. Two sets of standards were recommended in ‘99 and the board chose the set that reflected the more accurate scientific evidence we have for these issues."

Your description isn't very accurate. The Board didn't simply adopt their own version of the standards. They took evolution out of the standards that were recommended by the Board's official science standards writing committee. They also added several statements that would clearly favor a young earth creationist viewpoint.

For once and for all (hopefully), here is a synopsis of what really happened in 1999:

Tom Willis and the Creation Science Association of Mid-America (CSAMA) wrote their own draft of the standards that Steve Abrams tried to pass off to the Board as his own in May 1999. In June, the CSAMA (and others) wrote another draft that was again submitted by Steve Abrams. In July, the Board's official science standards writing committee submitted their own Draft 5.

Then, Steve Abrams, Harold Voth, and Scott Hill wrote their own version of the standards using the writing committee's draft as the basis and adding statements from the CSAMA's drafts. This was the draft that was adopted in August and later adopted in December after changes were made to avoid copyright infringement.

So, to be completely accurate, three drafts of science standards were recommended to the Board, two by Steve Abrams (written primarily by the CSAMA) and one by the Board's official writing committee. An unofficial subcommittee of the Board (Abrams, Voth, and Hill) then took the writing committee's draft and modified it in order to make their own, taking out references to macroevolution and adding language taken word-for-word from the CSAMA documents.

This clearly wasn't a case of two competing versions of the standards. It was a case of the Abrams, Voth, and Hill doing whatever they wanted using the drafts that were available to them.

Thank you for relaying your version of the process in selecting the ‘99 standards. It appears to me that, in your version of what went down, the writing standards committee reviewed the standards that were submitted by Abrams and decided to ADD numerous areas of macroevolution. So to be accurate, the board didn’t take evolution out, it appears that the writing committee ADDED macroevolution statements that had never been in the standards before, nor were they needed. Kansas schools were teaching evolution from the textbooks already. Abrams and the board of ed. decided that the extra macroevolution content was not necessary in the State standards, and left those issues to the districts.

Look, regardless of what either of us thinks about how the standards were selected in ‘99, evolution has always been included in the science standards, the student textbooks, and the curriculum in Kansas schools. Anyone who implies differently is simply not being honest.

The media has told us verbatim that the board was “taking evolution out of the standards”, which then snowballed into the idea that Kansas schools no longer taught evolution. We still see that being relayed to the public today. The article from the Washington post that started this dialogue between the two of us is just one example of many that I’ve seen in the past year.

"A few of the debatable issues were left to the districts."

And each of those "debatable" issues happened to conflict with a literal reading of Genesis. I guess that was just a coincidence, right?

Each of those issues are areas of intense debate in this country and we should not relay to our students that these issues are written in stone. Facts are facts, inferences and speculation are clearly not facts and they should not be taught that way. Our students should be urged to critically analyze these topics, if for no other reason than to encourage them to look for the answers and help contribute to filling the gaps in the theory of evolution.

"Actually, you might be interested to know that I’ve met Donnie."

I actually figured that you knew him. Since I obviously don't know him, I will take your word concerning his competence. However, since you basically agreed with each of his points, I feel the need to address them.

"The lack of evidence of seeing one species evolve into another species such as the lack of a fossil record at this time."

We have many observed instances of speciation, and there are literally tons of examples of transitions in the fossil record. The evidence for macroevolution is abundantly described in the peer reviewed literature. It is surprising to me that a Biology teacher is not aware of this evidence.

I’m sure Donnie is quite aware of this evidence, but for each example you provided, all it takes is a google search to find conflicting interpretations of those fossil finds.

And, I urge readers to link on the “observed instances of speciation” link Jeremy provided. Anyone who takes the time to get through that sucker will find that the instances of observed speciation are actually analyses of already existing species that are used to defend one or another hypotheses of how speciation occurs.

There have been a few confirmed cases of speciation in plants due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy”. Then we have the observed cases with fruit flies, but they are still fruit flies. Same thing with ring species. We have never observed speciation changes that amount to anything of substance.

"Really all we want is, we want good science to come out, and you know if evolution is good science, then it will come to be the better science."

Evolution has withstood 150 years of critical analysis, initially by British naturalists who were convinced that species had remained fixed since they were originally created by God. It has since been accepted by the vast majority scientists because it makes sense of the observational evidence. The scientific debate about whether evolution has occurred has been over for quite some time now. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either sadly misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead others.

Quite interesting that you put it that way. I would have to counter that anyone who actually thinks there is not a very heated debate going on in this country regarding whether Darwinian evolution provides an accurate interpretation of the evidence is either blind, deaf, or in denial.

"I think if you look at the last 150 years, the great discoveries in science, like in microbiology and the medical fields, um, don’t really have a lot to do with evolutionary theory...Meaning the advances we’ve made, we don’t just apply those to the theory of evolution, we look at other aspects of science besides evolution."

One of this year's Nobel prizes went to two scientists who were studying roundworm genetics. Their discovery, how micro-RNA controls genes within cells, has the potential to become the basis of future anti-cancer treatments in humans. What testable scientific theory predicts that there should be a biological connection between roundworm genetics and human genetics? If you're not sure, read the article that I linked to.

This in no way supports the notion of Darwinism --that everything we observe in our universe evolved from the first common molecule (or whatever it was that popped into existence from nothing). What it does support is that we obviously share similar chemical make up with the animal kingdom, and the information we gather from experimentation of other organisms can lead to many beneficial advances in science. That fact has never been in question. You must be aware of this after two years of debate about these issues.

"Most teachers present evolution as a fact and, um, there’s no, um, question as to its validity, which I think is the wrong way to present it."

A "fact" in science is not an "absolute truth." However, from a scientific viewpoint, the common descent of all life is a "fact" in the same sense that it is a "fact" that the inner core of the earth is solid iron. We cannot directly observe either phenomenon, but we have plenty of indirect evidence supporting it. Nevertheless, any teacher who presented evolution or the iron core of the earth as an "absolute fact" would be misrepresenting the tentative nature of science.

Jeremy, I seriously believe that Donnie is quite aware of this information. In fact, I’m certain of it. You do realize that this was an interview in which I doubt he had time to thoroughly explain all aspects of this particular topic. I think most Americans who are involved in these issues are quite aware of what is meant when we hear the phrase, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact”. And, if not, then hopefully more Americans will ask questions about these topics and become more informed. There is confusion about these issues because, as I’ve said before, the definitions used are sometimes conflicting depending on who is using them and in what context.

"'When you’re dealing with a theory that tries to explain the origins of life on earth, then of course your going to infringe upon people’s religious beliefs and their personal beliefs. And, you know, for a theory like this to do that, I mean, the topic of religion has to come up.' Duh. I’m assuming you don’t question that one."

Evolution isn't about the "origins of life on earth." Evolutionary theory describes the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. For you to misunderstand this basic distinction after all of this time literally hurts my feelings because I thought I was a better teacher than that. I really don't know what else to say.

Oh good grief. For you to try to tell me that the ToE does not cross over into theological issues is a bit ridiculous.

No, the ToE does not tell us how that first minute particle burst into existence, but from that point on, the evolutionary paradigm certainly claims to provide sufficient explanation for the existence of all that encompasses the universe.

"It’s a theory, it’s not a fact yet. Hopefully this will encourage more scientists to get involved and present more credible evidence in support of evolution and we can, you know, address that as it comes down the pipe. Hopefully this will just encourage more science to be done."

To say that it's "not a fact yet" implies that a theory could someday become a fact. Theories don't become facts, they explain the facts. Of all people, a science teacher should know better than to say something like this.

This is the statement that prompted my "stunning ignorance" comment. Let me put it this way: if one of my former students ever said something like this, I would consider it a failure on my part.

"I doubt he’d take back any of his statements."

Well, when I say something about the subject that I teach that is later shown by others to be blatantly wrong, I usually at least try to correct it. I guess that's the difference between me and Mr. Palmer.

"They’re actually quite accurate."

Well, I obviously disagree. However, some of the things you wrote in your attempt to explain Mr. Palmer's comments did help me to make better sense out of them.

Thanks for your efforts.

Sigh...semantics. As I said before--to cover all of this in a quick interview is asking quite a lot. He wasn’t teaching a science class. You’re wanting more than what is possible in a radio interview.

Jeremy, I want to thank you for expressing your opinions respectfully, and I am always grateful for your thorough explanation of the information you are presenting. I’m going to put an end to this particular discussion for now, or we may keep this up indefinitely. Thanks again.

Oct. 3rd post revisited

October 3rd, I posted this entry, and in it I stated, “The changes made to the Kansas science standards can be viewed at this link. I urge you to try to find anything that will in any way “undermine” the teaching of evolution in the classroom.”

Jeremy, who frequents my comments section, gave me a few things to think about. I’ve decided that his comment deserves an entire blog entry, so I have highlighted his comments in quote blocks below and have given my thoughts immediately following each block.

Forthekids wrote:
"The changes made to the Kansas science standards can be viewed at this link. I urge you to try to find anything that will in any way “undermine” the teaching of evolution in the classroom."

Okay, here are just a couple examples:

"Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernible direction or goal."

This statement undermines student acceptance of evolution by implicitly portraying it as a godless process.

Hmmm... could be, but what the standards offer is an accurate statement.

Although evolution does not claim to answer questions about the ~first cause~ of the evolutionary process, it ~postulates~ that the first living organism initially evolved randomly along with the mechanisms of evolution into all that encompasses our universe today.

We are told by the ~scientific community~ that design ~cannot~ be detected through nature, and that science can explain how our world initially evolved through random events which led to seemingly guided events by means of evolving evolutionary mechanisms.

Since pro-evolutionists insist that design cannot be detected in nature, we have no choice than to assume that the initial evolutionary events were random occurences.

"However, in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution."

This statement undermines evolution by misrepresenting what modern evolutionary theory predicts. In reality, evolutionary theory encompasses both gradual and non-gradual change. We know that fossilization is a rare event and that populations often go through long periods of stasis followed by rapid evolutionary change. Therefore, we do not necessarily expect to find “gradual, unbroken sequences” in the fossil record.

Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found. So, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed a very real problem for the ToE, advocates of the theory came up with additional theories like Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, that is because they have a prior commitment to evolution and have to pose additional theories in order to keep it intact.

Here are a few articles regarding punctuated equilibrium and fossil gaps from those who critically analyze the topics.

To be fair, here is a pro-evolution site giving information on punk eke.

It’s interesting that evolutionists present whale fossil “intermediates” as evidence of gradual change, yet they also use punk eke when they can’t answer questions about the enormous amount of intermediate fossils we should be seeing in museums by now if Darwinian evolution is valid. With the theory of punk eke, they can rest assured that they can have their cake and eat it too.

It’s also a fact that all high school science textbooks have information about punk eke, so our students are certainly informed that some scientists support the notion of “long periods of stasis followed by rapid evolutionary change”.

In addition, to "postulate" means to assume without evidence. Evolutionary theory does not need to assume the existence of gradual, unbroken fossil sequences because they are already known to exist. The above statement undermines evolution by concealing this fact from them. For instance, in the fossils that illustrate human ancestry, the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

Your statement above is the subject of a very heated debate, and students should be made aware that what you concur as fact, is not factual information, but fossil evidence that requires interpretation, and there are certainly conflicting interpretations. Here is just one of hundreds of articles written questioning ape to man fossil evidence. Here is one regarding whale fossils.

Forthekids wrote:
Kansas has NEVER discouraged the teaching of evolution! NEVER. Evolution has never been taken out of the standards or the curriculum, and it has been in every biology textbook since the dawn of Darwin’s theory."

Macroevolution (evolutionary common descent) WAS overtly taken out of the standards in 1999. According to the Board members themselves, the decision to teach it was left up to local districts.

In the 1999 standards, this benchmark:

"That evolution by natural selection is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology.

Examples: Evolution provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable applied answers, especially in agriculture and medicine. The more closely related species are, the greater their anatomical and molecular similarities; DNA sequences and other molecular evidence substantiate anatomical evidence for evolution and provide additional detail about the various lines of descent."

Was changed to this:

"The effect of selection on genetic variation is a well-substantiated theoretical framework in biology.

Example: Selection (natural and artificial) provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable applied answers, especially in agriculture and medicine."

Notice that the word "evolution" was deleted from the benchmark that was originally written by the writing committee. The reference to the relatedness of species was also deleted and the emphasis was placed on selection only.

In my opinion, that amounts to taking evolution out of the standards. That may not have been openly discouraging the teaching of evolution, but it certainly represented a lack of concern for whether it is properly presented in Kansas science classrooms.

“In your opinion” is certainly the key phrase here.

First of all, evolution was not taken out of the standards because in order for it to have been taken ~out of the standards~, the information you address would had to have been in the standards before ‘99. It wasn’t. Two sets of standards were recommended in ‘99 and the board chose the set that reflected the more accurate scientific evidence we have for these issues. A few of the debatable issues were left to the districts.

Something I should mention ~again~ is that evolution (or adaptation) within a species is certainly a valid fact, and no one is refuting it. The assumption that all that we observe in the universe arose from that first living organism is a whole different ball of wax. Darwinists would like the public to believe that those who disagree with Darwinism are anti-evolutionists. In fact, we all recognize evolution as a theory supported by empirical evidence except when it is extrapolated to cover macro-evolutionary changes. At that point it is open for debate.

Forthekids wrote:
"Topeka has the same biology textbooks as everyone else in the country and evolution is taught in Topeka schools just like it is everywhere else."

As I'm sure you are aware, just because evolution is in the textbook, that doesn't mean it will be given the appropriate amount of emphasis that it deserves.

The following statements come from Donnie Palmer, a science teacher at Topeka West High School (link to interview):

Okay, let’s take Donnie’s statements one by one and see what we have:

"The lack of evidence of seeing one species evolve into another species such as the lack of a fossil record at this time."

True, and I addressed that earlier in this post.

"Really all we want is, we want good science to come out, and you know if evolution is good science, then it will come to be the better science."

True, the ToE should have absolutely nothing to fear from critical analysis. If it’s as rock solid as we are led to believe, then it will be stand up against anything that is thrown at it.

I think if you look at the last 150 years, the great discoveries in science, like in microbiology and the medical fields, um, don’t really have a lot to do with evolutionary theory...Meaning the advances we’ve made, we don’t just apply those to the theory of evolution, we look at other aspects of science besides evolution."

Again, quite true. I have a couple friends in the medical field, and they’d probably attest to that. Something else I think you have twisted is that I believe you are implying that microevolution and macroevolution are one in the same. They’re not.

Obviously, it is helpful to compare our chemical makeup with that of the animal kingdom in order to make some advances in science, but it's not necessary to assume that we evolved from the same common ancestor.

"Most teachers present evolution as a fact and, um, there’s no, um, question as to its validity, which I think is the wrong way to present it."

True. That is certainly how the textbooks portray it. The ToE postulates that our ~entire universe~ arose from a single living organism. That is certainly questionable and up for debate. Microevolutionary changes which have been tested and are supported by empirical evidence are not in question.

"When you’re dealing with a theory that tries to explain the origins of life on earth, then of course your going to infringe upon people’s religious beliefs and their personal beliefs. And, you know, for a theory like this to do that, I mean, the topic of religion has to come up."

Duh. I’m assuming you don’t question that one.

"It’s a theory, it’s not a fact yet. Hopefully this will encourage more scientists to get involved and present more credible evidence in support of evolution and we can, you know, address that as it comes down the pipe. Hopefully this will just encourage more science to be done."

True, it's not a fact. In fact, parts of the "theory" shouldn't even be classified as a theory. I'm quite aware that a scientific "theory" does not imply an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts.

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

...A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

...It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

Honestly, I have no idea how one should classify the evolutionary paradigm. Parts of it are obviously based on fact, and parts of it are based on interpretation and inferences. It may be that the answer to this entire dilemma is to consider redefining the theory by breaking down into parts.

Jeremy writes:

These quotes convey a stunning ignorance concerning the fundamentals of science and the central role of evolutionary thinking in modern Biology. From the perspective of the mainstream scientific community, this is equivalent to a Chemistry teacher who rejects atomic theory or a Physics teacher who rejects gravitational theory.

“Stunning ignorance“, huh?

Jeremy, I think you should read through those quotes again because, honestly, I think you’ve kinda gone overboard on this one.

Actually, you might be interested to know that I’ve met Donnie. He’s a friend of my brothers. I even attended a class in a series he was giving on Intelligent Design. He certainly didn’t appear to me to be “stunningly ignorant”. In fact, chances are that this blog entry will get around to him, and I doubt he’d take back any of his statements. They’re actually quite accurate.

The vast majority of professional biologists consider evolutionary theory to be the central organizing principle of modern Biology. Mr. Palmer, a Biology teacher, openly rejects the central organizing principle of the subject he teaches. Of course I don't know what actually goes on in Mr. Palmer's Biology classroom, but if the above interview is any indication, his students are not getting an accurate picture of the current status of evolutionary theory.

It didn’t sound to me like he “openly rejects” evolution. It appears to me that he questions certain aspects of it.

Perhaps “professional biologists” consider evolutionary theory to be the “central organizing principle of modern Biology”, but honestly, Darwinian evolution (macro / first living organism-to-man) is of little use in the real world. It’s certainly alive and well in the lab as scientists tinker with flies, etc. trying to find their connection with man. But, the rest of the world goes right along without any need of it except for the concepts of microevolutionary changes within species. There has never been any question that we share many similiarities with the animal kingdom, but that doesn't prove cell-to-man any more than it proves Intelligent Design.

Evolutionists are always quick to mention bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But, that has nothing to do with Darwinism (macro changes). BTW, here is an enlightening link on that subject.

The core issue is not WHETHER evolution is being taught, it is HOW evolution is being taught. Apparently, in at least one Topeka classroom, evolution is not being taught "just like it is everywhere else."

Honestly, from that interview, I can’t say that Donnie teaches evolution any differently than anyone else.

I have no doubt that this entry is going to produce a flurry of comments. I do moderate them, and I don’t spend my entire life on this computer, so you’ll have to be patient. I'll post them when I get a chance.

Time magazine's latest

My mother-in-law bought me a subscription to Time magazine about a year ago and every time that sucker arrives it seems there is always something in it about evolution.

The latest edition had a catchy little cover, and the article was of course more of the same malarkey that we are, ~without a doubt~, descendants of the ape world.

Anyway, I was surfing the net looking for various opinions of the article, and who do I run across again? Casey Luskin . He’s one busy boy.

I think I’m going to start a Casey Luskin fan club....

Go Casey! Go Casey! Gooooooo Casey!!!

Pumpkins

Okay....this is a bit cheesy, but I don’t care. I like it.

"Being a Christian is like being a pumpkin. God lifts you up, takes you in, and washes all the dirt off of you. He opens you up, touches you deep inside and scoops out all the yucky stuff-- including the seeds of doubt, hate, greed, etc.

Then He carves you a new smiling face and puts His light inside you to shine for all the world to see."


Happy Fall to all!!

More on Os Guiness

I was so impressed with Os Guiness’s lecture last night that I did a little research on the guy.

I found a March ’05 interview with Os in the magazine Christianity Today. Here is the link.

ID conference at USF

Evolution news and views provides us with a report from the Intelligent Design conference at the University of South Florida.

Over 3,600 Floridians were treated to a unique presentation of intelligent design as a scientific theory challenging the reigning Darwinian evolutionary paradigm last Friday night. The Sun Dome at USF in Tampa Bay was the locale for Darwin or Design, featuring three noted ID scientists: Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. Ralph Seelke.

Not suprisingly, there were some complaints. A memo was sent to the USF faculty stating grievences about the event. The memo can be viewed at the aforementioned link.

One point made:

The complainer then goes on to cite Judge Jones’s ruling in the Dover decision to prove his point.

"In fact, as Republican judicial appointee John Jones pointed out in his
landmark Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District decision, the ID
movement is neither a recent phenomenon nor one that has ever been "led" by scientists."

It may have escaped the complainer’s notice that the event featured some of the leading ID scientists in the world. You may not like or agree with what they are saying, but you can’t argue with the fact they are indeed scientists.

Evidently, one of the faculty supporters of the event issued a reply to the complaint. Some interesting points are as follows:

... you make another false assumption regarding the "positions or their biases with respect to the topic of the memo." Clearly while you advocate scientific inquiry and integrity, you seem to believe that only what you believe to be scientific is relevant or correct. If you would take the time to investigate the academic credentials of the two main speakers at the event, you will find that their records are impeccable. They are "world class" academic scholars and well regarded in the scientific community. As to the supposed biases of the memo's authors, I suppose all persons, including the memo authors and yourself, would be considered biased in one way or another. In an environment of academic freedom, people may express their views on a variety of subjects and the authors of the memo wish to express their views on this subject, at least from the perspective of having open-minded people listen to the scientific arguments for the intelligent design position.

As academics, we recognize all facets of education and learning. Science and philosophy are subjects taught independently, although there is a long history of the blending of both. If you examine the area of "philosophy of science" of which there are numerous PhD-level courses at most universities with this title, you will find that the majority of individuals who devoted their lives to science were also somewhat philosophers themselves. This goes all the way back to Bacon who is considered the father of the scientific method. All great scientific researchers have some type of philosophy based on their individual world view. Obviously, this program goes against your worldview and/or personal philosophy, and that's OK. But to provide the false notion that everyone hearing about this program or perhaps attending it will be somehow drawn away from scientific exploration of issues is grossly exaggerated. If you would listen to the speakers on Friday (and you are certainly welcome to attend) or read some of their published articles, you would be provided with scientific, not philosophic, arguments supporting intelligent design. People can make up their own minds regarding the scientific reliability and believability of the positions espoused by the speakers.

As a personal point, I find it interesting that you refer to "a Republican judicial appointee" in your quote regarding the court decision you cited. Am I to assume, as you have in your response to seeing the Darwin or Design memo, that you are "biased?" Why not simply refer to the case without the reference to the political appointment process for naming this judge? Does it matter? Apparently it did to you since you mentioned it. Are you assuming that all of the signers of the memo are Republicans? Why should it even matter? Scientific inquiry is not a political issue, although you, by implication, try to make it one. I truly feel sorry for you and your limited perspective regarding the search for truth through scientific investigation.

The sponsors of the event have indicated that they will be putting together a DVD of the event.

Os Guinness lectures at KU

I just returned from listening to the Os Guinness lecture, and I’m sitting here wondering where to begin. This gentleman gave one of the most insightful lectures I’ve ever had the opportunity to listen to. It was a wake up call of sorts.

In the last 20-30 years the United States has found themselves in an increasingly volatile culture war. We find ourselves in an “age of exploding pluralism” and we need to find a way to agree to disagree peacefully.

Os reminds us that in the age of the internet, when we speak, our voices are heard around the world. The internet has become the “global public square”. How we treat one another regarding issues of faith is vitally important. We need to come together to “find the common vision for the common good”.

He spoke of the two extremes in this culture war. We have fundamentalist Christianity on one end of the spectrum and on the other side we find the extreme secularists. Christian Reconstructionism as well as radical Islamic groups would prefer to show favoritism to a particular religious ideal. But, what they don’t realize is that what they are working toward, which is imposing their beliefs on others, is exactly what they fear from other groups.

He mentioned that our 1st amendment law provides the opportunity for social harmony. It allows for strong religious convictions and strong political stability, unless it is abused. He mentioned that the fundamentalists assert that the framers of the constitution did not separate church from state, and at the other end, the extreme secularists put forth that there should be a strict barrier between church and state.

Os submits that neither view is accurate. He believe that faith and reason are part of the same thing, and should intermingle. Faith is a part of who we are and it affects how we view the world. He believes that we should not keep our faith hidden in the private sector while only allowing a secularist point of view in the public square.

But, he is quick to remind us that when we are talking with people of various faiths, we should be focusing on the matter at hand and the common good. We should not be debating who’s faith beliefs are correct or how they affect the subject at hand. Neither should we be forcing our religious beliefs on others.

He believes that the reason we find ourselves in this increasingly volatile “culture war” in the last 20-30 years is due to the fact that during the 1900’s most people in the United States by and large held loosely to biblical teaching. In 1959, we saw an increase in secularism (approx. 2%), and by 1969 that percentage had increased to approx. 9-11%. We also saw an increase in Buddhist and Muslim religious beliefs. While the churches and faith community used to be extremely important in peoples lives, we now find that Uncle Sam is the powerful consideration in our lives.

He also feels that both extremes in this “culture war” are not communicating properly with one another. Both sides tend to preach to their own choir, and Americans tend to hold a grudge against someone who doesn’t agree with them. The better option would be to robustly debate our differences, but not let that affect our friendships with one another.

Our objective should be to debate our differences in opinion, with respect toward one another, in order to find the common good. He believes the way to achieve the common good for all people is through dialogue and persuasion rather than coercion.

Os suggested an alternative to what he sees happening in American today. He supports a “civil public square” where people are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith but with respect toward those of other faiths and philosophies. But, we should leave the roots of our differences in the private sector which means we shouldn’t debate, for example, Christianity versus atheist ideals, but look at the consequences and implications of our differences and how we should work together for the common good.

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris were brought up in the Q&A session. Os was asked what he thought about Sam Harris’ opinion that faith should be abandoned for the common good. Os’ reply was that nothing is more irrational than the idea that we are going to see the end of faith. Humans need meaning and a sense of belonging in their lives, and whether that comes from religious or secular faith beliefs, it’s not going to come to an end. Throughout history, religion has always played a vital role in the lives of people everywhere.

In reply to the question he was asked about Dawkins, he suggested that if Dawkins believes that religion is at the root of the problems in this world, he should persuade us that this is true by ~showing us~ that atheism would provide us with a better option. He mentioned that the Katrina flood was a good indication of which groups are working for the good of others. Faith communities were the strongest support for flood victims, and they are still involved in the effort.

Os also reminded us that for those, like Sam Harris, who are constantly pointing a finger at religious groups being the cause of war and violence, we should bear in mind that in the 20th century, secularist regimes were responsible for more blood shed than any other group.

The lecture really made me think and reevaluate how I am approaching this debate. I decided to start a blog because I thought it would help me think through various issues of this ID/evolution debate and some of the aspects of this ensuing culture war.

Now, I’m finding myself wondering if that is the best option (I'm also wondering if my last blog entry could have been less volatile). I've always believed that we need to be involved in respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views to our own. We won’t learn anything about what the other side is thinking and feeling if we are constantly preaching to the choir. It’s certainly something I’m going to have to consider. I spent a lot of time in a pro-evolution forum recently, and I learned so much about other philosophies and faith beliefs. The one thing I found was that it helped me become much more accepting of those who do not hold the same faith beliefs that I do.

Anyway, Os’ lecture was extremely enlightening and as soon as it is available on the internet, I will post the link. I encourage everyone who is involved in the ID/evo debate or political debates of any kind to listen to this gentleman’s wisdom regarding these matters.

How misleading can one possibly get?

The Washington Post provided us with this article submitted by Paul A. Hanle, President of the Biotechnology Institute.

From the article:

I recently addressed a group of French engineering graduate students who were visiting Washington from the prestigious School of Mines in Paris. After encouraging them to teach biotechnology in French high schools, I expected the standard queries on teaching methods or training. Instead, a bright young student asked bluntly: "How can you teach biotechnology in this country when you don't even accept evolution?"

Huh? I have to wonder whether the author of the article or the “bright young student” have a clue as to what they are talking about.

Or, could it be that the author is purposely misleading us? There is a vast difference between the facts of evolution vs. the assumptions of Darwinism which, btw, is actually what the controversy is all about.

From the article:

I wanted to disagree, but the kid had a point. Proponents of "intelligent design" in the United States are waging a war against teaching science as scientists understand it. Over the past year alone, efforts to incorporate creationist language or undermine evolution in science classrooms at public schools have emerged in at least 15 states, according to the National Center for Science Education. And an independent education foundation has concluded that science-teaching standards in 10 states fail to address evolution in a scientifically sound way. Through changes in standards and curriculum, these efforts urge students to doubt evolution -- the cornerstone principle of biology, one on which there is no serious scientific debate.

Let me give you an example of this horrendous “creationist language” that is being thrown upon our children in order to “undermine evolution in the science classrooms”...

The changes made to the Kansas science standards can be viewed at this link. I urge you to try to find anything that will in any way “undermine” the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Remember the Dover trial? Although the public was told that the Dover school board was proposing to “teach intelligent design”, in actuality all the hubbub was about a requirement that students hear a four-paragraph statement defining intelligent design as “an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view”. It provided nothing about the substance of the theory whatsoever. Students were also told that “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”. This CERTAINLY does not indicate that the theory of Intelligent Design was going to be taught in Dover schools, nor does “undermine evolution”.

From the article:

This war could decimate the development of U.S. scientific talent and erode whatever competitive advantage the United States enjoys in the technology-based global economy. Already, U.S. high school students lag near the bottom in math skills compared with students in other developed nations, and high school seniors are performing worse in science than they were 10 years ago.

These trends can only worsen if students come to regard evolution as questionable or controversial. Thirty-seven percent of the high school Advanced Placement biology examination tests knowledge of evolution, evolutionary biology and heredity, according to the College Board. Students who do not thoroughly understand evolution cannot hope to succeed on this exam; they will be handicapped in competitive science courses in college and the careers that may follow.

This type of scare tactic is almost unforgivable. No one has proposed to take any evolutionary content out of science curriculum. The reason for that is because evolution is a valid and factual theory! Obviously, microevolution is paramount to various areas of scientific exploration. No one questions that.

What our students should be able to critically analyze are the factual statements put forth regarding macroevolution, which is the notion that the entire universe evolved randomly from the first cell (or whatever). We are told to believe that ~something~ evolved from ~nothing~ which was the common ancestor to everything we observe in our universe today. Through the mechanisms of evolution, we are to accept that we are the product of a branching tree of evolving organisms. Okay... nice theory, but don’t push it off as fact.

The problem is that we have never witnessed macroevolutionary changes actually occurring in nature without some type of manipulation from the scientist doing the experiment (the Designer, if you will). Even then, the results are minute in comparison with what we are suppose to believe in regard to macroevolutionary changes. Fiddling with flies in a laboratory is nothing in comparison to submitting that the entire universe evolved from that first living organism.

As far as macroevolution is concerned, the evidence that scientists proclaim as ~facts~ are assumptions, inferences, and speculation from what they have observed through ~micro~evolutionary experimentation and exploration.

From the article:

By teaching intelligent design or other variants of creationism in science classes at public schools -- or by undercutting the credibility of evolution -- we are greatly diminishing our chances for future scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations, and are endangering our health, safety and economic well-being as individuals and as a nation.

How misleading can one possibly get? No one is “undercutting the credibility of evolution“, and questioning macroevolutionary changes is certainly not going to hinder future scientific exploration. Any experiment that has been beneficial to man has been the product of microevolutionary breakthroughs.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with macroevolution being taught in the science class. It has merit and is an interesting ~theory~. There are scientists who spend their time in labs trying to find the connection between species, and I have no problem with that. But, I seriously disagree with teaching the theory in a dogmatic fashion and insisting that there are no controversial issues related to this theory. That is a false and misleading assumption.

From the article:

This is not a war of religion against science. The two have thrived together for centuries. Nor is it a struggle of believers against godless materialists; many believers practice science and find inspiration for it from their faith. It is a battle between religious dogma cloaked as science and open inquiry that leads to new knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

No, this is a fight against ~scientific~ dogma. We shouldn’t have to fight against the bias of scientists who have shown time and time again that they have a prior commitment to naturalism. This is also a fight against those who have a deep seeded fear that ID supporters are trying to destroy the very needed separation of church and state laws. No one is out to insert religion in the public school system in any way, shape, or form. That would be a monumental mistake.

The opposition to evolution discourages the development of entire high-school classes of future scientific talent. "It seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school," H. Holden Thorp, chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote in the New York Times last spring.

Multiply that girl's plight thousands of times -- in school districts in Georgia, Kansas, Ohio and other states that are discouraging the teaching of evolution.

Hold the phone RIGHT THERE! I am appalled that the President of the Biotechnology Institute would write and relay such underhanded and misleading information.

1. Kansas has NEVER discouraged the teaching of evolution! NEVER. Evolution has never been taken out of the standards or the curriculum, and it has been in every biology textbook since the dawn of Darwin’s theory.

2. There has never been a “14-year-old girl in Topeka” who wouldn’t be able to go on to find a cure for resistant infections. Good grief! Topeka has the same biology textbooks as everyone else in the country and evolution is taught in Topeka schools just like it is everywhere else. The ~only~ thing that the Kansas school board has proposed is that students should be allowed to critically analyze the notion that the entire universe evolved through macroevolutionary occurrences. For the record, finding a cure for resistant infections would be part of ~micro~evolutionary experimentation. Ugh...

From the article:

Last year, a report from the National Academies' Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century showed us a glimpse of the future. Of all the patent applications reaching the U.S. Patent Office, the report noted, the most by far still come from the United States. However, from 1989 to 2001, the rate of increase of patent applications from the world's fastest-growing economies, such as China and India, was nearly three times that of the United States. By that measure, innovation in those economies will blow past ours in little more than a decade -- just about the time the current classes of high school biology students will be starting their research careers.

LOL, well that certainly has nothing to do with school boards suggesting that students be allowed to question macroevolutionary theories. The correlation is ridiculous.

Perhaps if ~some~ scientists and various organizations like the National Center for Science Education spent more time actually doing science rather than fostering myths about ID advocates shoving religion down our throats, we wouldn’t have to worry about the author’s greatest fear.

From the article:

Non-scientific viewpoints deserve respect. But to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, bio-warfare and pandemic diseases, to discover lifesaving cures and life-improving breakthroughs, tomorrow's biologists must be equipped with scientifically based knowledge today.

Duh! No one is denying our students the chance to study every area of scientific thought. If they were, I’d be fighting alongside the Darwinists. Again, the supporters of ID are not taking any form of evolution out of science curriculum! They merely support critical analysis of some of the very significant gaps in the idea that all that we observe in nature evolved from a common living organism.

From the article:

Nations that value open inquiry and use scientific criteria in education, research and industry will outperform those that do not. If we are to continue to be leaders in the global economy, we must teach science, not religion, in the science classroom.

Unbelievable. ID is not religion, and this article makes me wonder whether the author has any clue whatsoever as to what the theory of Intelligent Design actually entails.

I encourage everyone reading this entry to set Paul A. Hanle straight. His article is horrendously misleading and he needs to be called on it.

Paul A. Hanle, President of the Biotechnology Institute.
pahanle@biotechinstitute.org

Two upcoming events...

Check out the Hall for Humanities Calendar...

Tue., Oct. 3, 2006, 7:30-9:00 p.m.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Os Guinness
“A World Safe for Diversity: Living with our Deepest Differences in an Age of Exploding Pluralism”
Woodruff Auditorium, Kansas Union

I once heard an interesting interview between Hank Hanegraaf and Os Guinness. Hank's website features some of Os' books.

Os...that's a unique name. Here's a short biography.

Next up to bat...

Mon., Oct. 16, 2006, 7:30-9:00 p.m.
Difficult Dialogues at The Commons
Richard Dawkins
"The God Delusion"
Lied Center Auditorium

I’d never dream of missing Richard Dawkins on the 16th. I keep trying to talk myself into reading his book, but I’m afraid that will lead to a 30 page ranting session. Maybe I’ll just wait until his lecture to let loose.