Skeptical
NewsSkeptical
NewsRecent and fast breaking news of interest to skeptics.
We scan the spectrum of news of interest to skeptics. We don't attempt to filter out the nonsense. It's a test for the reader to figure out which is nonsense and which is not. Contact the editor if you are not sure.
Jun 25,2009, 9:45PM
By Allen J. Epling
The Six Days of Creation
By Allen Epling
Much discussion has been made of the description in Genesis of all things being made by God in 6 days. For 3 millennia the standard view of this was that the time period was 6 earthly days. It has only been in the last 20 to 30 years that serious consideration has been given to alternative theories of what those passages mean. Many faithful simply dismiss it as an unsolvable mystery. Others reject any scientific explanations of the creation outright simply because to do so, to them, means accepting the idea that the six days are wrong. There are several popular, possible explanations for the 6 days of creation and I will list them for your consideration.
1.God simply willed all things into being through a supernatural event that took 6 earth days to complete and simply aged everything instantaneously to look old. This is the traditional concept.
2. There is the idea that God created all things in 6 days that were not earthly days but heavenly days, which were longer time periods than on earth.
3. Another theory is that there is a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. and that the 6 days were a later event.
4.There is also an idea among the intelligencia that because the Babylonian Creation describes a 6 day creation also, that the Hebrews, while in exile, took that story and incorporated it into the Torah.
All of these theories have merit but are just theories. I have a problem with number one because it requires an unnecessary supernatural event when God did not have any reason to be in a hurry. Why do so much in 6 earthly days when you control time anyway and 1 billion years is nothing compared to infinity.
Some say it is literal and why not accept it at face value.
Because it would be the least natural way to complete the project and I believe God always chooses natural means over supernatural means when He has a choice. After all he did create the physical laws of the universe for some reason. Why violate them when it is unnecessary. This sometimes causes a problem with man because it is human nature to prefer a miracle over a natural event.
Another reason is that there are clear instances in the Bible of God using figurative language to describe an event, such as the Angel standing on the four "corners" of the earth in the book of Revelations. For many centuries, believers accepted that at face value, "literally", until it was proven that the earth was round.
Also, the first day was a time period before the first "day" happened on planet earth. There was no sun or earth to revolve to cause a "day" as we define it, until the second Genesis "day". How can we be sure that our definition of a day is the same as God's? If He wrote the book of Genesis, as I believe He did, then our definition of a day came later, after His. Our day is based on an earthly event, while God's day is based on Heavenly events. After all it does say, "In the Beginning, God created the HEAVEN and the Earth. Heaven came first.
Theory number 2 has merit simply because the Bible says it does. II Peter 3:8 says that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years...". This is a clear statement that our days are not the same as the Lord's days, and according to Genesis, His days came first. Even Albert Einstein, probably the greatest pure theorist of the last century, became famous for proving that time is a flexible dimension. If he were not right, all of our revered GPS units would fail to operate.
Theory number 3 describes what some call the "Gap" theory, but that is a stretch that is unnecessary. Why have the gap at all if you still have the same problem with the 6 days after the "gap".
Theory number 4 is illogical because the Torah contains details of the creation never mentioned in the Babylonian description. Those who hold to that theory forget that the Hebrews had a tradition of preserving stories of the creation by word of mouth, such as the lineage of Adam all the way down to Jesus, and it sometimes was more accurate than written text. I would suggest that it was the Babylonians who borrowed the story from the Jews while they were in exile. Daniel did have a tremendous influence on the spiritual beliefs of the rulers. Where is that level of detail and accuracy in the Babylonian Creation Epic, which is a rambling, illogical, though entertaining story.
There is a another way that the 6 days can be true and still be compatible with science as we know it. This is my own unproven, yet possible hypothesis.
At the moment God created the universe, scientists say that an event took place that they call "The Big Bang". This explosion resulted in the universe being instantly created by an enormous expansion of, not only matter and energy, but space itself, so that everything that we can observe today was begun by this event. Space is a dimension, such as length, width, and height. If space is a dimension and expanded, why not time, which is also a dimension, a concept accepted by most scientists and mathematicians?
If time did expand in this way, like space and matter, then time should have expanded much faster in the earlier period of creation than the present. The result would be that time ran faster then and is gradually slowing down as the universe ages, like a balloon that slowly reaches it maximum size.
If time ran faster in the early universe, than now, God's consistent clock could have indicated one day while perhaps 1 billion years were passing in moments just after the creation of the universe. As the universe expanded, and creation progressed further, this difference would diminish to where, perhaps on the seventh day of God's clock, only 1 million years of earth's time passed. This would allow time for all the processes to take place that our science book say happened.
We still have no idea of how our clock compares with God's clock today but the Bible 2000 years ago said that one day of God's time was equal to 1000 years of man's time. God Himself said to Adam, that "in the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die." Adam lived for 930 years, well within a "day" of God. To say a day is 24 of our hours would be to say that God was wrong about that.
If science says that man began as a species on earth 2 million years ago, which could have been the 6th day on God's clock, and then we would have no conflict between the two.
I realize that all of the above ideas are possible and plausible, and any statement on them would be hypothetical at best, as no one can say for sure. The point I would like to make here is that there are explanations for this passage that are compatible with what we know to be true, and anyone looking for the truth should begin with an unbiased, open mind to all possibilities. That is not always true of both scientists and the Christian Fundamentalists.
To say that anything is certain is foolish and for any scientist who believes in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, such a statement would be hypocritical.
This article is part of a continuing feature dealing with the Evolution Vs Creationism debate. Each week a new topic will be dealt with presenting, hopefully, a balanced, educated viewpoint, while ALWAYS upholding the divinity and sanctity of the Bible. The basic tenet of this article is that every word of the book of Genesis is factually, historically, and scientifically true.
For the book from which these thoughts were taken, visit http://beyondgenesis.com
Category: Creationism • Policy and Politics
Posted on: June 25, 2009 9:15 PM, by Josh Rosenau
Via PZ Myers, I learn of a new entrant into the science/religion accomodation fracas. Mano Singham's generally well-grounded historical look at how these arguments have played out historically begins:
The accommodationists argue that it is a mistake to insist that science is antithetical to religion because if science is determined to be an intrinsically atheistic enterprise, then even so-called moderate religionists will turn away from science and not support efforts to oppose the teaching of religious ideas such as intelligent design in science classes. This kind of mistaken solicitousness for the sensitivities of religious people, the fear that they will take their ball and go home if others are mean to them, is not new. During the run up to the Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, there were many accommodationists of that era who did not want Clarence Darrow to defend Scopes because they felt that his scorn for religious beliefs would alienate potential religious allies. We now view Darrow's performance in that trial as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools.
However we view Darrow's performance in retrospect, one thing is absolutely true about his work in Scopes. Darrow lost. Scopes was convicted (his sentence – a $100 fine – was overturned on a technicality). Darrow's legal strategy failed.
In fact, it was not until 1968, 43 years after the Scopes trial, that laws like that in Tennessee were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. For over 40 years, science classes in several states could not cover human evolution. Darrow dealt creationism a PR blow, but by the time Epperson overturned the laws of the Scopes era, creationists had moved on to a new legal strategy.
The initial strategy attempted by the ACLU and Darrow was … to present theistic evolution and argue that evolution did not necessarily violate the prohibition on "teach[ing] any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible." The judge forbade the testimony of theologians and scientists about the ways evolution and the Bible could be reconciled, and instructed the jury not to consider anything about the validity of the law, only to ask whether Scopes broke the law. Since he basically admitted he had done so, this left little room for Darrow and the ACLU. They preserved their grounds for appeal, and Darrow gradually became more and more vigorous in attacking the supposedly literal interpretation of the Bible.
And he lost.
In Dover, as in McLean before, theologians were allowed to testify about the compatibility of science and religion, and judges cited their testimony in rulings against creationist laws. Based on the available evidence, then, the accommodationist view works in court, and anti-religious rhetoric fails. Of course, correlation doesn't equal causation. That doesn't seem to stop the anti-accommodationists from claiming that accommodationism has failed since creationism still exists.
But before anyone advocates a return to Darrow's anti-religion tirades, remember that he failed, and that his failure held back science education for decades. And religion didn't go away, so it's not like the anti-accomodationists got their wish, either. I'm fine with the anti-accommodationists proposing their own strategies, but I hope they don't expect me to accept a strategy which would consign thousands of kids to substandard education.
Yesterday, ENV spoke with Michael A. Flannery about his new book Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism (Erasmus Press). While credited as evolution's co-discoverer, Wallace fell away from the Darwinian faith and came to espouse a view remarkably suggestive of intelligent design. Now, the rest of the interview.
ENV: Scientifically, how does Wallace's culminating work, World of Life, stand up today as compared to Darwin’s Origin of Species?
MAF: That’s a complex question. Darwin’s Origin is really a metaphysical treatise supported by some biological speculations and those speculations give it the appearance of science. The thing that makes this question so difficult to answer is that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was Thomas Henry Huxley’s brilliant public relations campaign on behalf of Darwin’s theory, Darwinism has lodged itself as the reigning biological paradigm and Origin is its magnum opus. All this means is that everyone has probably heard of (if not read) Darwin’s Origin, but few would even know who Wallace is, much less know his World of Life. That’s a big reason I wrote this book in the first place.
But that said, Darwin’s book had major problems from the start. For one thing, the title simply doesn’t deliver. It purports to be a book on the origin of species but tells us nothing of the origin of life itself, the very root of origins. Nevertheless, the book has had an influence far out of proportion to its actual value in moving science forward. For example, I can’t think of a single medical advance that is dependent upon it. In fact, Louis Pasteur, who exploded the old view of abiogenesis (biological life from nonliving matter), proved biogenesis — namely, that life must come from life — and gave us germ theory of disease, was a vocal opponent of evolution. Most of the so-called evolutionary “advances” in science we hear about have nothing to do with Darwin’s central theory of macroevolution, that random mutation eventually would produce speciation; they are really just examples of microevolution (species variation) which was wholly uncontroversial even in Darwin’s day. We could have gotten that from Wallace’s World of Life.
In contrast, Wallace’s book is a more complete and comprehensive work. It assumes common descent but argues that it is guided and infused with design. Its principle thesis presents what I call intelligent evolution, the idea of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility in which nature is viewed as having design and purpose within a theistic context. Wallace understood that the origin of life could be addressed more simply as a problem of cellular complexity. Haeckel, an early and ardent Darwin supporter, had a very simplistic idea of the cell as merely a mass of protoplasm. Darwin held similar reductionist views. But Wallace knew better; the cell was a far more complex and intricate system. Wallace discusses this at length in The World of Life, thus making it far more prescient than the Origin.
In fact, I’d say that Wallace’s understanding of nature as comprising many biologically complex designed mechanisms is being vindicated in the literature. Indeed, the problem of understanding the human intellect in merely Darwinian terms, the issue that initiated Wallace’s disagreement with his elder colleague, is increasingly heading towards Wallace’s solution. In an April issue of Nature just this year, Johan Bolhuis and Clive Wynne asked, “Can evolution explain how minds work?” While they’re careful not to call for an abandonment of the Darwinian paradigm, they admit that recent “findings have cast doubt on the straightforward application of Darwinism to cognition.”
Let me conclude by pointing out something very important when considering their respective theories. Darwin came to his “science” (his theory of evolution) by way of his metaphysic; that is to say, he developed his theory from a preconceived materialistic philosophy. Wallace, on the other hand, came to his metaphysic (his teleological worldview) by way of his science; that is to say, his theory led him to seek deeper understanding of the natural world through a transcending, purposeful theism. Why? Because a purely materialistic explanation like natural selection was unequal to the task of answering for the complexity of nature. It remains so.
ENV: In World of Life, Wallace sought to explain the problem of natural evil and ended up anticipating arguments C.S. Lewis would later make about the problem of pain. You write fascinatingly about Wallace’s and Darwin’s contrasting attitudes to pain and discomfort. Darwin was a hypochondriac and complainer. The pain of losing his daughter Annie confirmed him in his religious unbelief. Wallace lost his son Bertie and this seemingly confirmed him in his spiritual convictions. Are these biographical coincidences, or do they relate to the worldview implicit respectively in Wallaceism and Darwinism?
MAF: I think Wallace was much better at handling adversity because he had to face it throughout his life. At one point Wallace lost most of his precious specimens and notes on his return from the Amazon in a shipwreck and spent ten days and nights in a lifeboat before being rescued. His response was not to rail against his misfortune, but, as he writes in his autobiography, My Life, “to bear my fate with patience and equanimity.” Wallace had to earn his living and when he married Annie in 1866, and when they started a family he had the additional burden of providing for them. These were responsibilities wholly unknown to Darwin.
By contrast Darwin lived something of a pampered lifestyle of wealth and privilege. Unfortunately, this didn’t translate into emotional stability for Darwin. He was beset by skin rashes, stomach cramps, debilitating nausea, and flatulence, and he used his illness to dodge unwelcome or difficult situations and responsibilities. In short, Darwin didn’t handle adversity well and used his illness as a shield.
At some level I think Darwin’s problem emanated from an obsession with notoriety and recognition, something he saw his theory could provide. But it literally ate him alive. It didn’t help to have only materialism — the here and now — as a comfort. Add to that his wife Emma’s fervent Christian belief and Darwin was a lonely man. When his daughter died, that was it. She was gone.
But Wallace knew Bertie had moved on and that his brief life here on earth was a temporary sojourn toward greater spiritual realms. So I would say that their very different responses to the problem of evil or pain in this world was a product of their backgrounds and their belief systems.
ENV: Wallace became a devotee of spiritualism, in ways that will strike many a modern reader as flaky. Does that invalidate his version of evolutionary theory in contrast with Darwin’s?
MAF: Not in the least. Wallace was a man of his times and in Victorian England (America too for that matter) spiritualism was not considered an illegitimate topic. Some of the best scientific minds on both side of the Atlantic believed it to be a valid — and indeed testable — hypothesis. In England the noted physicist William Crookes, anthropologist Andrew Lang, and philosopher Henry Sidgwick were spiritualists; in America there was Henry Bowditch, Dean of the Harvard Medical School and Simon Newcomb, head of the Smithsonian, to name just a few who actively promoted spiritualism.
I would also add that Wallace’s evolutionary theory was in no way dependent upon his belief in spiritualism. His theory was derived from what he believed to be the inherent limitations of natural selection. Had Wallace never expressed a belief in spiritualism, if he had never written one word on the subject, his theory of evolution would remain unchanged and intact.
ENV: Thank you for your time. Your book is a fascinating contribution!
MAF: Thank you, David, for your interest and this opportunity.
Posted by David Klinghoffer on June 26, 2009 2:26 PM | Permalink
By Bob Ellis on June 25th, 2009
Center for Science and Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer kicked off his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design yesterday with a presentation at the Heritage Foundation (see video below).
As the accompanying article at the Discovery Institute points out, Dr. Meyer’s book exposes the fact that materialists/naturalists/evolutionists have a really hard time explaining the origin of life.
After all, everything in science tells us that it is impossible for life to spring from lifeless materials. Therefore, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists rely on an unscientific event at a pivotal point in their theory of origins, even as they demand that only scientifically verifiable information be considered in any scientific examination.
Some of the usual questions from intelligent design skeptics came up at the presentation yesterday:
Another questioner posed the inevitable “Who designed the designer?” challenge. Meyer answered that if the designer is assumed to be immanent in nature, that could be a strong objection. “But then there’s the idea that the intelligence [responsible for the design of life] is transcendent,” meaning outside nature, as Meyer himself supposes. What’s known by modern science about the origin of the universe, the singularity from which all physical existence burst forth, demands that we suppose exactly such a cause. Before the Big Bang, of course, there was no nature. Whatever caused the Big Bang is, therefore, necessarily transcendent.
It’s a good question, but the question itself assumes the designer is a part of the universe and is thus subject to the laws of causation which govern the universe. Whether you believe God created the universe (as I do), or merely believe “a” designer created the universe, intelligent design theory assumes a designer outside and independent of the laws governing the universe.”
Meanwhile, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists, by the self-imposed parameters of their own theory, insist that no supernatural cause may be considered…yet their own theories concerning the origin of the universe are impossible (something cannot come from nothing–has it ever been observed in science?) without a super-natural force.
As you see, creation and intelligent design are logical and rational within the framework of their own theory, while materialism/naturalism/evolution are illogical, irrational and impossible within the framework of their own theory.
Finally, as we know, information (rational, meaningful information) doesn’t come into existence without an intelligent origin; it doesn’t just happen.
Meyer asked, “What cause, based on our experience, is capable of producing information?” The only such known cause is intelligent agency.
No kidding.
Materialists/naturalists/evolutionists insist that something which cannot be observed or tested according to scientific principles (i.e. God) cannot be considered in the world of science.
Yet they expect us to believe in key points of their theory (something from nothing, life from lifelessness, information without intelligence) when these contentions have not been observed or verified in science?
Sounds like a big double-standard to me. Or a lot like hypocrisy. And maybe a lot of hope that the average person won’t figure out that their emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
CATCHING UP WITH RNCSE
Selected content from volume 28, number 4, of Reports of the National Center for Science Education is now available on NCSE's website. Featured are Brandon Haught's chronicle of the recent fight over the place of evolution in Florida's state science standards, Leon Retief's history of creationism in South Africa, and Stephen C. Burnett's "From the World-Wide Flood to the World Wide Web: Creationism in the Digital Age," reporting his investigation of what search engines provide about creationism and evolution. And there are reviews, too: Stephen Matheson discusses Gordon Glover's Beyond the Firmament and Jason Rosenhouse assesses Thomas Woodward's Darwin Strikes Back.
If you like what you see, why not subscribe to RNCSE today? The next issue (volume 29, number 3) features dispatches from Texas by Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science, NCSE's Joshua Rosenau, and Jeremy Mohn, who revealed Don McLeroy's penchant for quote-mining. There's also a story about the the crowning of the kilosteve -- Steve #1000 in NCSE's Project Steve -- and a host of reviews, including Peter Dodson on Donald R. Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, Andrea Bottaro on Kenneth R. Miller's Only a Theory, and Donald R. Prothero on Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Don't miss out -- subscribe now!
For the selected content from RNCSE 28:4, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/rncse/28/4
For subscription information, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/membership
IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION III
A special supplement to the June 16, 2009, issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled "In the light of evolution III: Two centuries of Darwin" is now freely available. As the editors, John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala, explain in their introduction:
***
In the articles of this Colloquium, leading evolutionary biologists and science historians reflect on and commemorate the Darwinian Revolution. The authors of these Proceedings canvass modern research approaches and current scientific thought on each of the 3 main categories of selection (natural, artificial, and sexual) that Darwin addressed during his career. Although his legacy is associated primarily with the illumination of natural selection in The Origin, Darwin also contemplated and wrote extensively about what we would now term artificial selection and sexual selection, as reflected for example in two books titled, respectively, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1869) and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). In a concluding section of these Proceedings, several science historians comment on Darwin's seminal contributions. Thus, these Proceedings are organized in 4 parts: Natural Selection, or Adaptation to Nature; Artificial Selection, or Adaptation to Human Demands; Sexual Selection, or Adaptation to Mating Demands; and The Darwinian Legacy, 150 Years Later.
***
Among the authors represented are NCSE Supporters Francisco J. Ayala, Michael Ruse, and Elliott Sober. Recordings of and slides from a few of the talks are also freely available. A previous "In the light of evolution" volume included "Biological design in science classrooms" by NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott and Nick Matzke.
For "In the light of evolution III," visit:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1.toc
For the recordings and slides, visit:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_Darwin_program
For "Biological design in science classrooms," visit:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8669.full
STICK SCIENCE CARTOON WINNERS ANNOUNCED
The winners of the Stick Science cartoon contest, sponsored by Florida Citizens for Science, were announced on June 19, 2009. "The basic concept here," as FCFS's Brandon Haught explained in announcing the contest, "is to draw a cartoon that educates the public about misconceptions the average person has about science." And lack of artistic ability was no barrier: "all entries must be drawn using stick figures. This is about creative ideas, not artistic ability."
The third place winner was Brooke Lundquist of Niceville, Florida; the second place winner was Benjamin Tichy of Calistoga, California; and the first place winner was Richard Korzekwa of Los Alamos, New Mexico: congratulations to all three! Their winning cartoons, along with those of seven runners-up, can be viewed on the Florida Citizens for Science website.
The entries were judged by NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott; Phil Plait, the author of Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies!; Carl Zimmer, the author of Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea and Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life; and Kate Miller, the founder of the evolution toystore Charlie's Playhouse.
For the announcement of the winners, visit:
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=1081
For the original announcement of the contest, visit:
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=983
For the winning cartoons, visit:
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?page_id=1066
RUN THE RAPIDS WITH NCSE
Due to a last-minute cancellation, there is a vacant spot on the upcoming NCSE Grand Canyon raft trip, starting at Marble Canyon, Arizona, on July 2, spending eight glorious days on the Colorado River in the company of NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott and geologist Alan Gishlick, and ending at Lake Mead on July 10. The cost is $2480. Call now!
For information on the trip, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/about/excursions/gcfaq
Thanks for reading! And don't forget to visit NCSE's website -- http://ncseweb.org -- where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it.
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x310
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://ncseweb.org
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism -- now in its second edition!
http://ncseweb.org/evc
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://ncseweb.org/nioc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://ncseweb.org/membership
June 18, 10:33 AM
John Freshwater, an eighth grade science teacher of the Mount Vernon City School District in Ohio is in the news again. This time he is suing. You may remember that he was sued last year after he was accused of proselytizing to students, placing Ten Commandments and Bible verse posters on classroom walls, having a Bible on his desk, and for burning crosses into the arms of his students. In other words - he inappropriately brought his religion into the classroom.
Along with those accusations, it was also alleged that Freshwater taught creationism (or intelligent design by another name) in his classroom rather than the prescribed science material. At the time of the original lawsuit, Freshwater was suspended from his teaching job without pay while hearings were conducted to determine if he should be terminated.
Now, according to a report on The Columbus Dispatch's Web site, Freshwater has the nerve to file a lawsuit against "the school-board members, Superintendent Steve Short, middle-school principal William White and Thomas and Julia Herlevi of H.R. on Call, who were hired by the board to conduct the investigation" on the grounds that they "violated his constitutional and civil rights."
Reportedly, Freshwater is "seeking $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages" stating that the actions of those named in the suit were "malicious, fraudulent and oppressive and committed with an improper and evil motive." He also wants his job back.
Freshwater maintains that he did not violate district policy, He also said that he did not teach intelligent design in his classroom. Although he didn't deny having a Bible, he defended its presence by saying that other teachers have Bibles on their desks.
Now, alleged religious antics of this teacher aside, there are some people, like PZ Myers, who believed that Freshwater should have been fired because he was a horrible science teacher. Back in April of last year, PZ said, "He's an incompetent science teacher." PZ cited the following to make his case:
In one class, Freshwater used Lego pieces to describe the beginning of the world. He dumped the pieces, then asked students if the Legos could assemble by themselves, said Joe Stuart, 18, assistant editor of the high-school newspaper.
When Freshwater taught students about electrical current, he used a device to leave a red mark in the shape of a cross on the forearms of some students, Stuart said.
"If it were just about the Bible, I don't think people would have a problem with it," Stuart said.
In his evaluations through the 21 years he's worked for the district, Freshwater has drawn consistent praise for his strong rapport with students, broad knowledge of his subject matter and engaging teaching style.
In 2006, he was instructed to remove from his curriculum a handout titled "Darwin's Theory of Evolution — The Premise and the Problem." A parent had questioned its validity and use in a science classroom.
PZ went on to point out that "his popularity is not an indication that he's a good teacher." He added, "Freshwater can believe whatever he wants. When he decides to use his public school classroom to shove his beliefs down student throats, he's in the wrong and should obey the order to keep his class secular. And when his personal beliefs so scramble his judgment that he can't even teach the evidence and logic of science, his professional duty, fire him." (His emphasis.)
I agree with PZ on this point. But that aside... this man supposedly caused physical harm to the students with whom he was entrusted and as far as I am concerned he should not be allowed to teach children (or be near them in a professional capacity for any reason) ever again. It doesn't matter what it was that he burned into their arms - it could have been a smiley face for all I care. Speaking from the standpoint of a parent, I can say that I would not want this man near my children. In fact, I wouldn't allow it.
It takes a lot of nerve for this man to even consider asking for his job back - let alone suing to get it. Perhaps this move is indicative of his judgment, which seems to be lacking.
June 20, 9:36 AM
Members of the scientific community have historically rejected the notion that intelligent design has a place in science curriculums while supporters of intelligent design claim that the theory of evolution lacks enough factual support to be widely accepted. The proliferation of the argument from both sides is staggering and passionate, both often unwilling to see the others' point of view. But, are the two ideas mutually exclusive?
Many people are aware of the heated debate that took place in January of this year over the right to teach intelligent design in public schools. The language that made it into the curriculum in section 7, A-F of chapter 112.34 is that the student is required to “analyze and evaluate” evidence related to evolutionary theory. This could prove to be a beneficial practice in semantics for creationists and textbook authors as well as Texas students.
The Texas Citizens for Science criticized the Texas Board of Education’s appointment of anti-evolution proponents to the panel of professional scientists charged with the task of reviewing the issue. The two most heavily criticized members of the panel were Stephen Meyer and Ralph Seelke who are the co-authors of the textbook Explore Evolution which promotes intelligent design (the book was out of print when I looked for it recently). A news release by the Texas Citizens for Science reported that the book “was written in a way that removes any mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design to make it appear to be a secular, nonreligious evolution text [but has an] underlying message of antipathy to modern biology and a rejection of evolutionary science.” In any case, the fact that the co-authors of the textbook served on the review panel does seem grossly unethical at the very least.
What disturbed me the most is that Cynthia Dunbar, who moved to nominate Stephen Meyer (undoubtedly, she was well aware of his ideological leanings), appears to have rigid views about the liberal component of our political system, the transparency of which are unequivocal.
Cynthia Dunbar is the board member residing over district 10, the district in which I live. According to Dunbar’s website, she is an “outspoken pro-family conservative activist and [has] been in the trenches fighting for our core American values for over 28 years.” Thanks, Cynthia. The most overt part of her political and social ideology is her recent book One Nation Under God: How the Left is Trying to Erase What Made Us Great, published in September of 2009. It is rumored that Governor Rick Perry will tap her to replace Don McLeroy who was ousted as chairman last month—six of one, half a dozen of the other.
What this suggests to me is that Governor Perry along with many other conservatives in Texas are trying to impose the religious ideology of the Republican Party on Texas children. As far as religion is concerned, I believe that it is the job of individual families to decide how and whom they want their children to worship. This latest action by the Texas Board of Education shows how the right-wing political faction in Texas is clearly sidestepping the separation of church and state.
However, the liberal-left is often just as rigid as anyone regarding the issue. Spirituality should play an important role in our society (it matters very little which religion you identify with). I was raised by a Christian family in Central Texas. Throughout my early education I attended parochial school (one Baptist and two Lutheran). I had church on Sundays, chapel on Wednesdays, and a religion class that was part of our educational curriculum Monday through Friday. Growing up, I learned a lot about Christian theology. But, it was always explicit that what I was being taught was religion.
Regardless of my mixed religious philosophy and my sometimes ambiguous political ideology, I think that trying to insinuate one’s personal beliefs into a scientific curriculum is unacceptable. The teaching of Christian theology is fine, but call it what it is. The practice of religion is generally based on faith in lieu of empirical evidence; the practice and study of science is based on the gathering of facts through scientific inquiry and analysis. They are not the same thing.
I will admit that the theory of evolution is, up to this point, incomplete, but that doesn’t make it wrong. The fossil record is inconclusive and scientists constantly uncover new evidence that leads to the revision and rethinking of currently accepted scientific theory. That’s what science is, an ongoing attempt to disprove current theories about how our world operates. Therefore, the new language “analyze and evaluate” that was added to the science curriculum in Texas is redundant. The current adoption of instructional materials through 2010 will not be much affected. However, we will have to wait until the following year to “analyze and evaluate” the content of the textbooks that will be adopted for science curriculums in the state of Texas in the coming years.
Published June 19 2009
Even though there’s no credible evidence for the theory of evolution, and lots of evidence against it, it is taught in our public schools as a fact. You may say, so what? The problem is that the natural conclusion of the evolution theory is that life is a product of chance, an accident, therefore there’s no creator God, life is purposeless, meaningless, and therefore morality is manmade, changeable and relative. And since we’re not held accountable to a creator God, eat, drink and be merry.
The product of evolutionary teaching is a godless society where narcissism (excessive self-love and self-interest) is the norm. Today, society, government and corporations are largely controlled by greed, dishonesty, arrogance, and self-interest. Could that explain the problems in our society today? Could that explain our current corporate corruption and bankruptcies? Could that explain our federal financial mess and national indebtedness?
If purpose establishes value, and evolution tells us that we’re simply accidents, then life has no purpose, other than to reproduce and we already have plenty of people, and therefore life has no value. Having no purpose or meaning to life is the cause of low self-esteem. Remove the creator God, then suicide, murder, disobedience, drug use, promiscuity, and abortion aren’t immoral. Could this explain why suicide is the No. 1 killer of our youth? Could this explain why shootings and murders are common? Could this explain why people persist in dangerous, harmful and reckless behaviors — as though their life has no value?
Public schools avoid any references to God, so I don’t expect they’ll ever change. Ultimately it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach the Biblical account of Creation, and knowledge of God, to their children. Thus giving them the understanding that they’re valuable in God’s eyes, they were created with purpose and meaning.
Don Werner
Northfield, Minn.
At lunch I read Tom Siegfried's piece in Science News about multiple universes, and now I need a nap. Make no mistake, it's a fine piece, especially the top, which elegantly lays out the anthropic principle:
"...there may be many universes, and life occupies one with congenial conditions. In other words, the properties of the universe that physicists measure are "selected" by the fact that physicists exist to begin with."
But about two-thirds of the way through it I got completely lost. I need to brush up on the concept of Boltzmann Brains:
Boltzmann brains are named for the 19th century physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a pioneer in explaining probabilistic processes in physics. In an infinite universe, all things are possible, even random accumulations of atoms that precisely mimic objects that evolved by cause-and-effect processes -- such as brains. Somewhere in the cosmos, such a random mix of molecules has produced a brain identical to yours in every respect, neurons in identical configurations, with all your memories and perceptions. If enough matter and energy is around to make them, Boltzmann brains could become quite populous, making them, rather than humans, the typical observers of the cosmos.
It is clear that you are not a Boltzmann brain, though. Close your eyes and clear your mind of all unpleasant thoughts. Then open your eyes, and you see all the same stuff, not the newly randomized world that a Boltzmann brain would see.
If Boltzmann brains dominated the cosmos, humans would be rare, so your very existence implies that the average habitable universe must be young enough to restrain the odds of Boltzmann brain formation.
All I know is some days my brain definitely has a "Boltzmann" feel to it.
One of the commenters on the story quotes a line -- "The question is whether life has a starring role in the cosmic drama or is merely an extra, permitted by prevailing conditions but not required to explain them" -- and then declares: "To even consider such a question smacks of creationism! By what possible mechanism could the existence of humans on this tiny planet in the totally non-special location within our universes vast sea of galaxies of stars, most far larger than our sun, have any effect on our universe as a whole?"
But that's a tone-deaf response. Siegfried isn't suggesting in that sentence that humans might be the point, the meaning, the purpose of our universe (which is pretty much the creationist argument), only that the laws of physics in our universe may be directly related to -- constrained by -- limited by -- the existence of physicists. If that makes any sense. And even if it doesn't, who cares -- it's a summertime Friday!
By Joel Achenbach | June 19, 2009; 12:40 PM ET
Published: June 18, 2009 08:39 pm
Reader's Forum: June 19, 2009
As a professing Christian and follower of Jesus Christ and the person who appears to have started the current science vs. evolution debate, I would like to clarify the Christian position very simply; since those who do not believe in a Creator God are trying to define our beliefs and positions for us.
Simply stated, the Bible is the Christian’s ultimate authority in all things including creation, morality and eternal destiny. It is the true history book of the universe. God was there in the beginning, we were not. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2Ti 3:16.
It is an either or proposition. Either you believe God created the way He said, or you don’t. Sadly many Christians have developed compromise positions such as Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution, Day Age Theory, Gap Theory, etc. All these compromise positions originate from man’s opinions outside of the Bible.
There is a war going on; a war of the worldviews. It is not a war between religion and science as most people think. It is a war between religion and evolution.
The definition of science in Webster’s 1828 dictionary states this: Science; knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts. Evolution attempts to explain creation by unguided chance processes without a God.
In most cases evolution does not use real science to make its case, it uses faith. They do not know where the matter came from, or how life came about from chemicals, or how the information in the cell originated. But the evolutionists say, given enough time, we have faith that it could happen. This is not logical. It surely is not science. Evolution is a religion. The definition of religion is: a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
I already have a faith. If you’re an evolutionist, tell me what your faith has to offer and I’ll tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ has to offer.
A building has a builder, a painting has a painter, and a table has a maker. Why would time, space and matter not need a creator? God is the miracle maker who, in six days created the heaven, the Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, Exodus 20:11. Creation cannot be explained by science, only by a creator God, who created outside the physical laws of nature.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20.
When it comes right down to it, what I believe or what you believe is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is this; what is the truth? Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me.” John 14:6.
— David A. Brown, Terre Haute
Contacting the North Texas Skeptics
The North Texas
Skeptics
P. O. Box 111794
Carrollton, TX 75011-1794
214-335-9248 Skeptics Hotline (current information)
E-mail