Skeptical News for 4 February 2007Skeptical News for 4 February 2007Archive of previous NTS Skeptical News listings
Last year, a post from Michael Francisco presented the "Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It" bumper sticker. A recent blog post at Warren Reports Blog employs so much uncritical acceptance of Judge Jones' ruling (calling it a "scathing decision" and a "hard blow"), gets so many facts wrong, and is so full of contradictions that its author, Devin James Carpenter, deserves to have the bumper sticker awarded to him. This 2-part series will respond to some of Carpenter's statements.
The "Main Issues"
Carpenter states: "The main issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover were: the soundness of evolution and 'intelligent design' as science, the separation of church and state, and the philosophy of science itself."
Actually, that's not true. The main issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover were whether Dover's policy was (1) enacted for a secular purpose and (2) whether it had a primary effect which was secular. If the policy failed either of those tests, then it was unconstitutional. Judge Jones could have answered these questions without addressing the soundness of evolution or ID as science or defining science. Indeed, even the leading anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler argues, "The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion." In order to resolve the Kitzmiller case, all Judge Jones had to find was whether the Dover Area School Board had a predominantly religious purpose—none of those other issues were mandatory.
Intelligent Design and the Designer
Carpenter observes that "'intelligent design' advocate Michael Behe ... talked at length about 'irreducible complexity,'" and then immediately Carpenter states that "[t]he plaintiffs noted, however, that science is only concerned with things that can be falsified and tested." But the Kitzmiller plaintiffs conceded that irreducible complexity IS testable. The plaintiffs claimed that invoking the supernatural cannot be done because science cannot appeal to the supernatural. That's why both the Kitzmiller plaintiffs and Carpenter, who states that ID invokes a "higher power" or "an invisible, supernatural being," are wrong. As discussed many places (like here), the theory of intelligent design does not try to identify whether the designer is natural or supernatural. As the Pandas textbook states, "All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." Since we have much observation-based experience with the products of intelligence, we can search for specified or irreducible complexity in the natural world, thereby testing for intelligent design--not trying to idenitf supernatural design--in natural objects.
But this wasn't the most egregious misrepresentation of Carpenter. Carpenter states "Michael Behe said in his testimony that 'the designer is in fact God'" and claims that this is what drives Behe's ideas. In fact, Behe actually said:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
A. No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Day 10 testimony)
Clearly Behe explains that science and intelligent design cannot tell you if the designer is God. Behe's own theological view is that the designer is God, but that is not a conclusion of intelligent design. Thus, when Behe makes the statement quoted by Carpenter, this is the context of what Behe actually says: "I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God." The full context makes it clear that Behe's conclusion that the designer is God does NOT come from ID but from his own personal theological views. But Carpenter does not provide this context, leaving readers thinking that ID concludes the designer is God.
Misstating the "Wedge Document"
Carpenter also misquotes the "Wedge document," claiming that one of its goals is "replacing current scientific practice with 'theistic and Christian science.'" That is NOT what the Wedge Document says, and it does not even contain the phrase "theistic and Christian science." Its true meaning is explained here. If motives matter so much to Carpenter, why doesn't he scrutinize the fact that many leading Darwinists have anti-religious motives? Or is Carpenter applying a double-standard?
ID and Conservatives
Carpenter asserts that "[m]ost conservative intellectuals seem embarrassed by intelligent design." He quotes Charles Krauthammer, who badly misunderstands ID and whose misunderstandings of ID we've responded to at length (for example, see here or here). Indeed, John West recently authored Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest, where he rebuts many arguments from the leading conservatives who do oppose ID.
Who is "Steve Chapman"?
Carpenter quotes someone named "Steve Chapman, the founder of the Discovery Institute" who he claims called the Dover ruling a "disaster…as a public relations matter." Carpenter can be forgiven, as he probably meant "Bruce Chapman," but this make me wonder, how familiar is Carpenter with the subject of his critique? With so many people (like Carpenter) using the Dover decision to misrepresent ID and confuse the basic facts (e.g. "Steve Chapman"), perhaps Bruce Chapman was correct. But readers are invited to read the full article quoting Bruce Chapman to see the context of Chapman's views.
Part II of this response will discuss Mr. Carpenter's philosophical and other arguments against ID.
Posted by Casey Luskin on February 3, 2007 9:00 AM | Permalink
Published: February 02, 2007 07:57 am
By Brianna Bailey THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.)
NORMAN, Okla. — Hundreds of churches across the globe will mark Evolution Sunday Feb. 11 with sermons and educational events dedicated to the idea that religion and science don't have to be sworn enemies.
So far, 535 congregations from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Virgin Islands, and five foreign countries are scheduled to participate, including Norman Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.
Local author and Norman Unitarian Universalist member Susan Cogan will speak on "Why Darwin Matters," a talk that will focus on the validity of evolutionary theory.
"It's a way to fight back," Cogan said. "It's a way to show that you can believe in God and accept evolution. The scientific debate has kind of been forced into a political and religious one."
The church also will host "Darwin Day" Feb. 12 which will feature a screening of the 1960 film "Inherit the Wind," which portrays a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial.
Cogan created an educational display on evolutionary theory for the Norman Public Library in January that also will be featured at the church during the event.
A hot-button issue since Charles Darwin's "The Origin of the Species" was published in 1859, evolutionary theory has crossed over from science class to Sunday school as a popular sermon topic in recent years.
Results of a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey released in August 2006 found that about 40 percent of a cross-section of Christians from various denominations said the debate on evolution had been addressed in some form from the pulpit of their church.
Evolution Sunday is the brain child of Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor at Butler University in Indianapolis, Ind. The second annual event has grown by about 11 percent this year, Zimmerman said.
"These aren't all churches on the east or west coast, or big cities. They are mostly from rural areas and the Midwest," Zimmerman said. "The fact is that the vast majority of clergy members accept evolution and don't want creationism taught in schools."
Zimmerman's efforts to get clergy members active in the public debate on evolution began with the Clergy Letter Project in 2004, an online letter that has been signed by more that 10,000 American clergy members from all denominations. The letter was meant to refute claims by creationists that evolution conflicts with Christian beliefs.
"They want to set up a false dichotomy that if you believe in the Bible then you can't believe in evolution," Zimmerman said.
The letter states: "While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook." The letter goes on to state that "the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."
Eighty-seven clergy members from Oklahoma have signed the letter so far, according to the Clergy Letter Project Web site.
Local signers of the letter say the point of the letter is to reconcile evolution with faith in the public debate over evolutionary theory.
"I think it's perfectly consistent with religious conviction," said Tom Boyd, David Ross Boyd emeritus professor of philosophy and religious studies. Boyd, who signed the Clergy Letter, also is an ordained Presbyterian minister. "You can still believe that God is the creator and accept evolutionary theory, but if you take the Bible as an inerrant historical text, then, well, a lot of Christianity is split along that fall line."
Zimmerman said the clergy members who back Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project come from many different religious traditions and social and ethnic backgrounds.
"I have tried to come up with something all of these people who have signed have in common," Zimmerman said. "And the only thing is that they are all ordained and they are all deeply spiritual."
Brianna Bailey writes for The Norman (Okla.)
Posted by Casey Luskin on January 31, 2007 3:36 PM | Permalink
Hear Dr. Randall Price Present
Secrets Of The Dead Sea Scrolls
This professionally produced video takes you on an exciting journey into the world of archeology to witness the incredible discovery and continued unraveling of the mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Dr. Price, earned his doctorate at the University of Texas in Near-Eastern Studies. He directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls some 2,000 years ago. These scrolls, perhaps the most significant archeological discovery of all time, have changed the way we view the Bible.
Dr. Price will take you to the scene of the original caves where the scrolls were discovered with one of the Bedouins who made the discovery. See and hear from the most prominent archeologists who are working with the scrolls to uncover their ancient secrets.
New Location
Dr. Pepper Starcenter
12700 N. Stemmons Fwy Farmers Branch, TX
Tuesday, February 6th, 7:30 PM
ANTIEVOLUTION LEGISLATION IN NEW MEXICO
Two identical antievolution bills were introduced in the New Mexico legislature recently: House Bill 506, introduced by W. C. "Dub" Williams (R-District 56), and Senate Bill 371, introduced by Steve Komadina (R-District 9). If enacted, these bills would require the state department of education to adopt rules to "give teachers the right and freedom, when a theory of biological origins is taught, to objectively inform students of scientific information relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of that theory and protect teachers from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so; and ... encourage students to critically analyze scientific information, give them the right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins and provide that no student shall be penalized in any way because the student subscribes to a particular position on biological origins." The bills further specify, "'Scientific information'" does not include information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines. Scientific information may have religious or philosophical implications and still be scientific in nature."
Also introduced in the legislature were two related antievolution memorials: House Joint Memorial 14, introduced by Representative Williams, and Senate Joint Memorial 9, introduced by Senator Komadina. A memorial, according to the New Mexico legislature's website, is "[a] formal expression of legislative desire, usually addressed to another governmental body, in the form of a petition or declaration of intent. A memorial does not have the force of law." A joint memorial is a memorial adopted by both houses of the legislature. HJM 14 and SJM 9 are addressed to the state department of education, in effect asking it to comply with the requirements of HB 506 and SB 371; unlike them, however, they offer a rationale, including the claims "teaching some aspects of evolutionary theory causes controversy"; "scientific theories of biological origins have implications that can challenge or support the personal religious or philosophical beliefs of students and their parents"; "most parents favor allowing teachers to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory when biological origins are taught"; and "many credentialed scientists challenge certain aspects of evolutionary theory."
The Albuquerque Journal (January 30, 2007) reported that during hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on HJR 14, Williams was candid about his religious beliefs: "However we evolved, we're here. What we evolved from we will never figure out," Williams said. "There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this and if you have the faith I have, God did it all." The committee voted 7-4 along party lines to table the bill; at The Panda's Thumb blog, Dave Thomas reported, "Indeed, several teachers testified against the bills yesterday, just as teachers in Dover and Rio Rancho opposed similarly-worded policies. Not one proponent of the resolution showed up to defend it." Thomas (past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science) also observed, "New Mexico's scientific community is actively opposing these measures, charging that they are totally unnecessary additions to our excellent state science standards." According to the Albuquerque Journal, "Lawmakers said Monday's vote was a signal that the effort to inject intelligent design teaching into classrooms wouldn't get far." The current legislative session ends on March 17, 2007.
For the text of the bills and memorials, visit:
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/07%20Regular/bills/house/HB0506.html
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/07%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0371.html
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/07%20Regular/memorials/house/HJM014.html
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/07%20Regular/memorials/senate/SJM009.html
For the story in the Albuquerque Journal, visit:
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/534004xgr01-30-07.htm
For Dave Thomas's report on The Panda's Thumb blog, visit:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/creationism_mea.html
ANTIEVOLUTION BILL IN MISSISSIPPI DIES
Mississippi's House Bill 625, introduced by Representative Mike Lott (R-District 104) on January 9, 2007, died in committee on January 30, 2007, which was the last day for committees to report bills originating in their house of the legislature. If enacted, HB 625 would have provided, "The school board of a school district may allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the schools within the district. However, if the theory of evolution is required to be taught as part of the school district's science curriculum, in order to provide students with a comprehensive education in science, the school board also must include the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the science curriculum." A similar provision was part of 2005's House Bill 953, of which Lott was the chief sponsor; HB 953 died in committee on January 31, 2006.
For the text of Mississippi's House Bill 625,
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2007/html/HB/0600-0699/HB0625IN.htm
For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Mississippi, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=MS
ANTICREATIONIST LEGISLATION IN MONTANA
House Joint Resolution 21, introduced by Representative Robin Hamilton (D-District 92) on January 26, 2007, in the Montana House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Education, would, if enacted, express the Montana legislature's recognition of the importance of separation of church and state and support of the right of local school board trustees to adopt a science curriculum based on sound scientific principles. The resolution refers to "a number of national fundamentalist organizations seeking to force local schools to adopt a science curriculum that conforms to their particular religious beliefs and that includes theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory" and describes their efforts as undermining "a community's local control, a teacher's academic freedom, and a student's opportunity to receive quality science education" as well as the separation of church and state. A similar resolution, SJR 8, was introduced in the Montana Senate in 2005, but died in committee.
For the text of Montana's HJR 21, visit:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HJ0021.htm
For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Montana, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=MT
DARWIN DAY APPROACHES
And only ten days remain until Darwin Day! Colleges and universities, schools, libraries, museums, churches, civic groups, and just plain folks across the country -- and the world -- are preparing to celebrate Darwin Day, on or around February 12, in honor of the life and work of Charles Darwin. These events provide a marvelous opportunity not only to celebrate Darwin's birthday but also to engage in public outreach about science, evolution, and the importance of evolution education. NCSE encourages its members and friends to attend, participate in, and even organize Darwin Day events in their own communities. To find a local event, check the websites of local universities and museums and the registry of Darwin Day events maintained by the Darwin Day Celebration website. (And don't forget to register your own event with the Darwin Day Celebration website!)
Part of the fun of Darwin Day 2007 will involve Randy Olson's Flock of Dodos, the hilarious documentary that examines both sides of the controversy over the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, is scheduled to be shown at over fifteen museums across the country as part of their Darwin Day celebrations, on or around February 12, 2007. New Scientist describes Flock of Dodos as "a film that will appeal to the average person on either side ... without condescension, poking lighthearted fun at everyone." Screenings are already scheduled in thirty cities around the country, including Berkeley, Boston, Denver, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York City, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Seattle, St. Louis, and Tampa -- and more are being added.
And Evolution Sunday returns! Hundreds of Christian churches all over the country are taking part in Evolution Sunday, February 11, 2007, by presenting sermons and discussion groups on the compatibility of faith and science. Michael Zimmerman, the initiator of the project, writes, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. ... Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic." At last count, over 550 congregations across the country and around the world were scheduled to hold Evolution Sunday events; they are listed at the Clergy Letter Project website.
To find or register a Darwin Day event near you, visit:
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2007.php
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/regevent/index.php
For information about Flock of Dodos and its Darwin Day events, visit:
http://www.flockofdodos.com
http://www.flockofdodos.com/darwinday.htm
For information about Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project, visit:
http://www.evolutionsunday.org
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
If you wish to subscribe, please send:
subscribe ncse-news your@email.com
again in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.
Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site: http://www.ncseweb.org where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it. Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
Posted by Judy Riley on Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
Paul Z. "PZ" Myers, assistant professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, has a theory of evolution that he recently took right to the source – the birthplace and home of Charles Darwin. Myers' long-time colleague, Larry Moran of the University of Toronto, arranged for Myers to accompany him on a trip to England. While in England they talked with Richard Dawkins, who currently holds an endowed chair as the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
Dawkins is a preeminent British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. He first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularized the gene-centric view of evolution. In 1982, he made a major contribution to the science of evolution in his widely cited book The Extended Phenotype. He has since written several best-selling popular books on, and appeared in a number of television and radio programs about, evolutionary biology, creationism and religion.
Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, humanist and skeptic, and is a prominent member of the Brights movement, which describes various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion. In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog," Dawkins' impassioned defense of evolution has earned him the name "Darwin's rottweiler."
A developmental biologist (one who studies embryos), Myers discussed with Dawkins the latter's book, titled The God Delusion. Dawkins takes a strong atheistic view with which Myers essentially agrees. "We disagree on the scientific issues, however," added Myers, "such as on the relative importance of selection in evolutionary history." Although Myers views Dawkins as a well-spoken, quiet person, he also noted that Dawkins is the biggest "popularizer…a big man for communicating science to the public."
"We also did the 'touristy' things related to evolutionary biology," said Myers. They visited a natural history museum in Kensington as well as Down House where Charles Darwin lived as well as Westminster Abbey, where Darwin is buried alongside Sir Isaac Newton and, noted Myers, "it is nice to see Darwin get that measure of respect," a reference to Darwin's burial in such a prestigious location.
Myers has garnered some notoriety of his own. His personal Web blog, Pharyngula (pronounced far-ING-ula, named after a specific developmental stage), won top honors in the 2006 Weblog Awards in the Best Science Blog category. Last year Myers' blog won the Koufax Award in the Best Expert category. A seasoned blogger, Myers developed a Web site in 1993, from which his personal blog evolved in 2003. Today, 20,000 to 25,000 people read Pharyngula each day.
What's the attraction to his particular blog? Myers cites several reasons why people are attracted to blogs. "Word of mouth. To have a unique voice people are looking for personality. Being controversial and tapping into politics. And, speaking with some authority on a topic in which one is an expert."
The success of Myers' personal blog has led to an opportunity to write a bimonthly column for a relatively new publication, SEED magazine, which sponsors science blogs. Myers' January 10, 2007 column, "PZ Myers on how the cavefish lost its eyes," can be read online at SEED.
SEED's founder and editor-in-chief, Adam Bly, is "an up and comer who promotes good science," said Myers. The magazine is all about bringing art and science together, a concept of which Myers, as a faculty member at UMM, one of the nation's premiere public liberal arts colleges, is well aware. Myers was also invited by SEED to a "salon" in New York, an occasion for presentations, informal discussion and a celebratory dinner attended by only 30 invitees.
Myers is also in the process of writing his own book about evolution and developmental biology, atheism and creationism, with the working title Natural Revelation.
A UMM faculty member since 2000, Myers and his student research partners have presented at various national conferences. Matt Larson '01, for example, won first prize for "best undergraduate research presentation" at the 2001 National Zebrafish Conference. Following graduation from UMM, Larson continued his education at the University of Minnesota Medical School, and is now a physician.
"Research is very important [in getting] students [to think] scientifically doing something new and having them thinking differently," said Myers. "At UMM, students get to know faculty on a one-to-one basis and faculty get to know the students. At the University of Washington (where Myers earned a bachelor of science degree in zoology), I felt like a passive consumer. UMM students get to be active participants."
Personal blogging and hob-nobbing with experts in his field aside, Myers is first and foremost a teacher and researcher. He deftly separates his personal beliefs from his classroom lecture topics: "I tell my students that they must talk about facts and evidence."
By D. D. Delaney Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2007
On Dec. 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled a resolution unconstitutional which the Dover, PA, School Board of Directors had passed mandating that "(s)tudents will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Jones' 139-page opinion in the widely publicized Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District has, for the time being, stymied persistent efforts of the faithful to force the concept of a divine creator into the curricula of American public school science classes as an alternative or complement to the teaching of evolution.
But, says Paul Rasor, director of the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College, while the issue "might be settled temporarily because of the influence of this one opinion, if history is any indication I would say it's not done."
Historically, concern among Christian fundamentalists about teaching evolution in public schools "comes and goes over the past 80 years," says Rasor, "and now it's coming again." Accordingly, because "we thought it would be of some interest to the public and to our students," the Center has scheduled a six-week spring symposium, Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design: Religion and Science in the Public Schools.
"Our purpose," he says, "is to educate people about this. We'll try to provide a forum for discussion...from the perspective of law, of science, of education, and of cultural history...so if and when it comes up in particular school districts they will...make more informed decisions."
Rasor will launch the symposium's first session, Thursday, Feb. 1, with the topic, "Crossing the Lines: God, Public Schools and the Constitution."
"I'll go through a lot of the court cases...and use my talk as a way to set up the lecture series," which will take up a range of social and cultural issues in weekly sessions.
Over the years, beginning with the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925, which found a Dayton, TN, high school biology teacher guilty of teaching evolution in violation of state law, courts have been asked to resolve disputes over what role, if any, religious belief may legally play in classrooms. It's a constitutional issue because the "establishment clause" of the first amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Consistently and incrementally, beginning with a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas which threw out a state-wide ban on teaching evolution, the courts have interpreted that clause as prohibiting either creationism or intelligent design from mixing or competing with Darwin's theory in public school classrooms.
Creationism, sometimes called "scientific creationism," holds that the world was set in motion by a supernatural supreme being, as recorded, for instance, in the Book of Genesis. "The term isn't used in these cases anymore," says Rasor, since the Supreme Court established in Edwards v. Arkansas (1987) that creationism is a religious theory prohibited under the establishment clause.
Rather, as testimony in Kitzmiller established, anti-evolution forces, revising their terms, brought forth the theory of intelligent design (ID)—"the claim," says Rasor, "that the universe is so complex it must have been created by an intelligent higher being. The controversy is the intelligent design folks arguing it is...an alternative scientific view to evolution and ought to be taught as a science."
But after hearing testimony from scientists, theologians, and teachers, Judge Jones ruled in an opinion "so thorough, so well reasoned—an amazing job of analyzing constitutional law"—that ID is a religious theory whose "real goal is not just to promote (the believers') view...but to challenge or get rid of evolution. It is a strategy linked to a long-term campaign" to impose religion in public schools.
Citing findings in a 1982 federal case, Jones wrote, "The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as a response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism.
ID, then — a religious view — can only be taught, says Rasor, "if you're teaching...different religious traditions as history or literature or comparative religion. But you couldn't have a religious course where a particular religious view is taught as truth."
And though ID certainly cannot be taught as a science, "evolution could be intelligent design" with "a designer who started the process." But that's still "a religious theory" because, unlike scientific theories, "it is not subject to testing or disproving."
Evolution "doesn't really take a stand on whether there's a creator. That's not a part of evolutionary science."
On Feb. 8 Dr. James Gilbert, distinguished professor of history at the University of Maryland, will discuss the deeper cultural and historical forces which keep the issue alive in "Religion versus Science: Why Does It Matter?"
On Feb. 15 Dr. John E. Haught, research professor at Georgetown University's Dept. of Theology, will explore whether God and evolution need be mutually exclusive in his talk, "Evolution and Faith: What Is a Stake?"
Science has its say on Feb. 22 when Drs. Paul M. Resslar and Philip Rock of the Virginia Wesleyan Biology Dept. present "How Do Biologists View Creationism and Intelligent Design?"
The view from public school classrooms will be presented on March 1 by Ginger L. Ferris and Dr. B. Malcolm Lively of VWC's Education Dept. Their topic is "Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution: What's a Teacher To Do?"
The symposium closes on March 8 with a look at the future when Kent Greenawalt of Columbia University Law School tackles the subject, "Science and Religion in the Public Schools: What Next?"
Each week's session is presented twice, at 11 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., in the College's Boyd Dining Center. For more information, call 455-3129.
By Rosie Macaulay
A division of the controversial Church of Scientology appeared at the Alternative Careers fair at the weekend. Operators of the stall, hosted by The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, told students that psychiatrists were responsible for genocide in the Balkans. They offered no career advice at the fair, which included representatives from the public, charity and campaigning sectors. Several students were "deeply offended" by the operators' remarks.
The Commission was established by the Church of Scientology, for "investigating and exposing... criminal acts within the psychiatric industry." Scientologists believe that mental illness is a "hoax" perpetuated by the pharmaceutical industry, that the government invents mental illnesses and that psychiatric medication is designed to kill millions of people.
One student said, "They told me that the recent genocide in Eastern Europe was due to psychiatrists and that mental illnesses are invented by the government for some evil reason. I was deeply offended by many of these claims. "I think that their presence there was completely inappropriate." Harriet Williams, a second-year English student from St Hilda's who visited the stall, was also offended.
She asked, "How did they get in? It's ridiculous, they shouldn't be trying to manipulate students who are just trying to find a career." Sophie Corlett, the policy director of mental health charity MIND, told The Oxford Student, "I find the remarks the Commission made deeply concerning. "To the one in four people who will experience a mental health problem at some point in their lives, it is a very real and distressing issue.
One student who attended the fair said, "It wasn't remotely obvious at first what the organisation was about. I saw the words 'human rights' and that's what interested me." "The woman I spoke to just ranted on about all the scandals the Commission had discovered and offered me lots of leaflets and literature about their work." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was not formally invited to the careers fair.
Two days before the event, the Commission put in a telephone request to set up a stall at the fair. The Careers fair organisers agreed because they were under the impression the Commission was a human rights charity that would give students career advice.
The Director of the University Careers Service said, We are very careful to ensure that our students are not made to feel uncomfortable or antagonised by any of the exhibitors. "If any student is offended by talking to an organisation then I am very sorry. We are impartial, and students should be afforded access to a wide range of organisations." Other organisations that were present included Oxfam, Liberty and the Make-A-Wish Foundation, all of which offered careers guidance.
Brian Daniels, UK Spokesperson for Citizen's Commission for Human Rights, defended the Commission's presence at the fair. He said, "CCHR carries out volunteer work. The leaflet about the Alternative Careers fair said that the purpose of the fair is to find out more about what the organisations present do. We fit that criteria. We offered lots of literature and spoke to students.
Scientologists have a history of recruiting susceptible individuals, such as alcoholics and drug addicts, through counselling and the offer of help. According to its founder L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology aims to create "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
The nature and legal status of the Church has sparked international controversy. Scientologists were banned from entering Britain between 1968 and 1980. In recent years, an application by Scientology for charitable status was rejected after the authorities decided its activities were not of general public benefit.
Copyright © OSSL 2007
Last Updated: Friday, 12 January 2007, 08:57 GMT
An archaeological find in Russia has shed light on the migration of modern humans into Europe.
Artefacts uncovered at the Kostenki site, south of Moscow, suggest modern humans were at this spot about 45,000 years ago.
The first moderns may have entered Europe through a different route than was previously thought, the international team reports.
The research is published in the journal Science.
"Until now, it appeared as though the earliest presence of modern humans in Europe was in south central Europe, in places like Bulgaria and Greece," explained John Hoffecker, author on the paper and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, US.
"This reflects an entry from the Levant (eastern shores of the Mediterranean) just before 44,000 years ago."
Missing Neanderthals
But the team believes it has now found an alternative and possibly earlier entry route into the continent.
The researchers examined tools, personal ornaments and carved ivory discovered under a layer of ancient volcanic ash at the site, which lies along the Don River.
The artefacts most likely belonged to modern humans and dated to about as early as 45,000 years ago, said Professor Hoffecker. However they were dissimilar to artefacts found at the other European sites, he added.
"This suggests we have a not very closely related group of people at Kostenki, suggesting at the very least that we have an alternate route for modern humans into Europe - perhaps this being the earliest one," he told the BBC News website.
Professor Hoffecker said he was surprised to have found such early evidence of modern humans at Kostenki.
"It is arguably the coolest and driest part of mid-latitude Europe. It is the last place we would expect to see them first," he added.
A possible reason to migrate to these harsher conditions may have been the lack of Neanderthals present in this area at this time.
"The absence of Neanderthals meant there were no competitors to deal with for resources," Professor Hoffecker said.
Possible routes
Fossil records suggest modern humans emerged in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago, but their dispersal is thought to have begun between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Evidence of modern humans has been found in Australia, dating to about 50,000 to 45,000 years ago.
Professor Hoffecker said it was difficult to say exactly where the modern humans found in Kostenki would have come from.
One possible route, some researchers believe, is from western Asia via the Caucasus Mountains, which lie between the Caspian and Black Seas.
He added that modern humans might have migrated into central Asia, but then turned back on themselves to make the move into Europe.
Another paper, published in the same journal, reveals that a skull found in South Africa appears to represent an ancestor of the modern humans that eventually migrated to Europe and Asia.
Professor Chris Stringer of the department of palaeontology at the Natural History Museum, London, said: "These papers are interesting from an anthropological and archaeological point of view, and confirm some of the things we have thought on this subject.
"I think we will see increasing evidence of these ancestral modern people and their behaviour in western Asia, and at an even earlier date, in Africa."
By CORNELIA DEAN Published: January 31, 2007
Under its new Democratic chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform took on the Bush administration's handling of climate change science yesterday, and even the Republicans on the panel had little good to say about the administration's actions.
And when witnesses spoke in defense of the administration, it was often to say only that there were still some scientists who doubted that climate view or that the administration's approach was not unique.
"Cherry-picking" science to suit policy or political goals is at least as old as the Eisenhower administration, said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado. The committee itself is guilty of it, he added, pointing to a news release linking rising ocean temperatures to bigger and more frequent coastal storms, something about which there is still debate.
But the other witnesses spoke about how the administration had delayed, altered or watered down the findings of government scientists, the kind of thing they said they had not experienced in the Clinton administration.
Drew Shindell, a NASA scientist who said he was speaking as an individual, not for his agency, described research he and his colleagues did on ozone depletion and greenhouse gases over Antarctica.
Dr. Shindell said the findings helped explain recent cooling on the continent, a phenomenon cited by climate dissidents as challenging the mainstream view. And, he said, the findings suggested Antarctica might warm rapidly in the future, melting ice and sharply raising sea levels. By the time the administration had signed off on the work, he said, its importance had been played down and references to "rapid warming" had been deleted.
Another witness, Rick Piltz, said he resigned in protest in 2005 from his job with the federal Climate Change Science Program when he became convinced that the administration's goal was to "impede" the understanding of climate science among the public and even the Congress.
Part of his job, Mr. Piltz said, was to compile periodic assessments of government climate research for the Congress. "This report has essentially been made to vanish by the Bush administration," he said.
The fourth witness was Francesca Grifo, who directs the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group that researches environmental, arms control and other issues.
Dr. Grifo's testimony drew largely from a report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, a private group that defends whistle-blowers. The report, made public yesterday, is based on a Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal climate scientists and interviews and document searches by the Government Accountability Project. It says it is common for scientists to be pressured to eliminate references to climate change, for their work to be changed to misrepresent their findings, and for climate-related materials to disappear from Web sites.
Almost 60 percent of the scientists who responded to the survey said they had personally experienced such an incident in the last five years, the report says, and those who said their work was most closely related to climate change experienced the most interference. (Information about the report is available at www.ucsusa.org.)
Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, noted that a majority of scientists queried had not responded to the survey. Dr. Grifo said she attributed that to the "chilling effect" of administration actions. Anyway, she said, scores of scientists reported problems. "That number should be zero," she said.
Michael Balter Published: January 31, 2007
PARIS: In January, Britain's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority issued new guidelines for teaching about science and religion. They include some excellent ideas. For example, the guidelines encourage teachers to stage historical debates between science and religion, with students taking the roles of Charles Darwin, Galileo and even Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University scientist and outspoken atheist.
In another exercise, students are asked to write an essay on the following topic: "The world is very complex. Does this mean that it must have been the work of a creator God?"
These suggestions, which are designed for 14-year- old students, are intended only for religion classes, and not the science curriculum. That is a pity, because a confrontation between scientific and religious views of the universe would be an ideal way to teach science — especially a subject as contentious as the theory of evolution.
So far, however, British scientists and their supporters have managed to keep creationism out of the classroom, along with its latter-day incarnation, intelligent design (the "thinking man's creationism," as Science magazine put it recently.)
In the United States, despite strong pressure from religious groups, a 1987 Supreme Court decision banning classroom teaching of creationism has held up.
As depressing as those figures might be to scientists, they are pretty good compared to the results of similar surveys in the United States. A Gallup poll in November 2004 found that only 13 percent of respondents thought that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings, while 45 percent said they believed that God had created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so.
To be sure, this chronic skepticism about evolutionary theory reflects the continuing strong influence of religion. Yet it also implies that scientists have not been persuasive enough, even when buttressed by strong scientific evidence that natural selection alone can account for life's complexity.
Could it be that the theory of evolution's monopoly in the classroom has backfired?
For one thing, this monopoly strengthens claims by creationists and intelligent-design proponents that scientists don't want to be challenged. More importantly, it shields Darwinian theory from challenges that, when properly refuted, might win over adherents to evolutionary views.
A few years ago, a biology instructor at a university in Washington State set out to test this idea.
First-year biology majors were divided into four sections. Two groups were assigned portions of Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker," a pro-evolution book, as well as a book advocating intelligent design called "Icons of Evolution." These groups also viewed a short animated creationist film and read an online rebuttal of creationist ideas, as well as materials on the nature and history of science. The other two groups read only evolutionary materials.
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
The instructor concluded that directly and respectfully engaging with students' beliefs, rather than ignoring them as most science teachers are forced to do, could be a more effective way to teach evolution.
Soon after this study was published, I got into a ferocious debate with commentators on a pro-evolution blog, who argued that this approach was all fine and dandy for university students but too advanced for high school students.
Yet the first-year students in Washington were just out of high school, and the new British guidance for religion classes — which uses a similar strategy — is aimed at 14-year-olds.
The polls show that scientists and science teachers have little to lose and everything to gain by bringing creationism into the classroom, where it can be critically debated and its merits compared to those of evolutionary theory.
The history of the theory is one of bitter debates between science and religion. In "On the Origin of Species," Darwin refuted the arguments for intelligent design put forward by the 18th century English philosopher William Paley, who had greatly influenced Darwin until he visited the Galapagos Islands and saw natural selection at work. Over the ensuing decades, Darwin's theories were rigorously tested and criticized before they won over even the majority of
The best way to teach the theory of evolution is to teach this contentious history. The most effective way to convince students that the theory is correct is to confront, not avoid, the continuing challenges to it.
Michael Balter writes for the magazine Science. The views expressed here are his own.
By Devin James Carpenter
"I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means."
Those words were uttered by Clarence Darrow in the famous Scope's "monkey" trial that took place more than eighty years ago. And yet, to this day, a debate over belief, science, and religion is still occurring within intellectual circles, the general public, and in politics. One of the more recent examples of this was Kitzmiller v. Dover, a court case that considered the constitutionality of 'intelligent design.' 'Intelligent design,' a theory that purports to be science, claims that "the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance." Most scientists, however, dismiss 'intelligent design' as disguised creationism. Ian Barbour's four categories of the relationship between science and religion (conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration) help illuminate the different perspectives of the plaintiffs and defendants. In the end, Judge E. Jones III, striking the movement with a hard blow, ruled against 'intelligent design.' This was a good decision for three reasons: 'intelligent design' is horrible science (it is not testable), dismal philosophy (there are myriad examples of things in the world that let the viewer infer that it is not designed), and it blurs the line between church and state.
The main issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover were: the soundness of evolution and 'intelligent design' as science, the separation of church and state, and the philosophy of science itself. The whole ordeal started when Dover, Pennsylvania's school board adopted a new policy that forced high school biology teachers to notify their students of criticisms and alternatives to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Eleven parents saw the new policy as a "Trojan horse for religion in the public schools" and sued the school board. In the courtroom, 'intelligent design' advocate Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University, talked at length about "irreducible complexity," the idea that certain biological systems (the human eye and bacterial flagellum for example) are too complex to ever be formed by chance and adaptation. The plaintiffs noted, however, that science is only concerned with things that can be falsified and tested; 'intelligent design' with its invocation of an abstract higher power and its reliance on a philosophy that mimics William Paley's "watchmaker," seems to lack the ability of either. The judge, however, was not concerned with all the philosophy and complex biological talk as an end but as a means to discover if "intelligent design" was a scientific theory or a religious one. In his scathing decision against the teaching of 'intelligent design,' Judge Jones called the decision to teach the controversial theory one of "breathtaking inanity." He also concluded that 'intelligent design' was a religious theory citing the Discovery Institute's (a think tank in Seattle that supports 'intelligent design') "Wedge Document" that listed one of their goals as replacing current scientific practice with "theistic and Christian science." Although philosophy of science and the soundness of evolutionary theory were discussed widely in the trial, the explicit connection of 'intelligent design' to religion was its downfall.
The reaction to 'Kitzmiller' was varied. Most conservative intellectuals seem embarrassed by intelligent design. For example, Charles Krauthammer has called 'intelligent design' a "fraud…whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge…they are to be filled with God" and Ross Douthat has written that "intelligent design fails conspicuously." Conservatives who actively promote 'intelligent design,' however, were very disappointed with Judge Jones' ruling. Michael Behe, one of the defense's lead witnesses, claimed that the ruling "went way over what …a judge is entitled to say" and Steve Chapman, the founder of the Discovery Institute, called the decision a "disaster…as a public relations matter." "It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists," he said. Pro-evolutionists and liberals, on the other hand, were extremely happy with the ruling. "His logic is flawless, and he hit all of the points that scientists have been making for years," a professor of mathematics who participated in the trial was quoted as saying and Jerry Coyne, a professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, wrote that the decision sent a "message across the country" to all school boards that "risk ridicule and legal opprobrium by inviting intelligent design into its classrooms." The opinions ranged from jubilation to dismay.
Ian Barbour outlined four categories concerning the relationship between religion and science: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. The conflict model postulates that religion and science clash; the most widely cited example used for proof of this is Galileo's trial. The independence model claims that science and religion can't conflict since they are completely different realms of experience. Stephen Jay Gould endorsed this model when he claimed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" and the National Academy of Science wrote in their policy statement in 1981 that "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." The dialogue model proposes that there are many parallels between science and religion; science is not completely objective, for instance, and religion should be held to a rational standard. Lastly, the integration model holds that science and religion gain "mutual support" from each other. An example of this can be seen in many religious scientists espousing of a "natural theology."
Within the 'Kitzmiller' case, the two clearest positions on the relationship between religion and science were the conflict model and the integration model. It is clear that 'intelligent design' advocates received impetus, at least partially, to promote their theory for theological reasons. For example, Michael Behe said in his testimony that "the designer is in fact God." Yet, Behe is hoping to inform science through theology and vice versa; this is an explicit espousal of natural theology and the integration model. Staunch evolutionists, however, see 'intelligent design' as conflicting directly with science because it calls into question (on a theological basis) the ability of nature to transform simple biological beings into complex ones. Also, the idea that science should give credence to an invisible, supernatural being is contrary to the standards of proof that is crucial to scientific practice.
Judge Jones made the right decision; 'intelligent design' is bad science, bad philosophy, theologically driven, and, if taught in schools unconstitutional. One of science's central tenets is the idea of falsification and testing. It is impossible to falsify a creator or 'intelligent designer' because the designer is, theoretically, outside of the material world. The most common example of this is Bertrand Russell's "teapot" argument; Russell said that he could not disprove the proposition that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, but that didn't mean that it was wrong for him to believe that there was no teapot. In fact, 'intelligent design' seems to be merely a negative theory, meaning it only criticizes evolution and doesn't propose anything scientific of its own. In William Saletan's words:
" They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things."
'Intelligent design' simply doesn't deserve to be called "science." Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, can be falsified; for example, if scientists found fossils of a certain animal that were dated too early or too late to coincide with evolution, the theory would have to be revised or thrown out. Apart from being bad science, 'intelligent design' is also faulty philosophy. The human eye might seem to complex to be formed by natural selection (Richard Dawkins has shown this to be false ), but there are many other examples that would lead the viewer to believe that humans and animals are not designed by a sentient being but by nature. For example, "some cave animals, descended from sighted ancestors that invaded caves, have rudimentary eyes that cannot see; the eyes degenerated after they were no longer needed." Why would a sentient designer give these animals eyes? And what about the human appendix? An appendix is "certainly not the product of intelligent design," Jerry Coyne has written. "How many humans died of appendicitis before surgery was invented?" Also, as Neil deGrasse Tyson noted at a lecture at the Salk Institute, over 90 percent of species that have lived on Earth are now extinct; and natural, horrendous biological diseases (aggressive childhood leukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia etc.) are counterintuitive to a design theory. These three examples (plus wings on the flightless kiwi bird, tooth buds on embryos of toothless animals, a coating of hair on human embryos) seem to point to gradual, natural evolution, not sentient design.
Once one has established that 'intelligent design' is not science and is bad philosophy, the real question is if it is constitutional to teach in public schools; or in a simpler form: is it a religious theory? For the proponents of 'intelligent design' (as we have seen in Michael Behe's own words) the answer to that question is a resounding yes. A member of the Dover School Board that implemented the failed policy for teaching 'intelligent design' defended his position by saying: "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" Clearly, the school board had a theological, not scientific purpose. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, devised the "Lemon" test to see if something violated the establishment clause. The three components of the test are:
"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."
With this in mind, Judge Jones made the right decision, concluding that "intelligent design is based on religion rather than science, and…that intelligent design is an updated version of 'creation science'" which is unconstitutional given that it violates all three facets of the "Lemon" test.
Judge E. Jones III was right to side with the plaintiffs, and the scientific community as a whole, in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The philosophical debate that surrounds this trial and religion in general is fascinating; and Ian Barbour's categories help to see where different people stand. Hopefully, the growing literature and interest in this topic will further human intellect and knowledge in both the realms of science and theology.
Through their partnership as co-hosts of the "Way of the Master," TV program actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort have become players in the field of apologetics.
They are hoping to develop a few more players with the creation of a new board game, called "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution."
The co-hosts said they hope the game will help fight against what they maintain is the brainwashing of an entire generation.
"We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation-evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times," Cameron, the star of the '80s sitcom "Growing Pains," said in a news release.
A trademark of the game, he said, is that the playing pieces are small rubber brains.
"We used the brains because we want players to use their brains," Cameron said, who considered himself an atheist before finding Christ. "The incentive is to play for 'brain' cards, and the team or individual with the most brains wins. There are brains all over the game, because we want to make people think deeply about what they believe.
"This is because the average person doesn't know that the evolutionist lives by a blind faith in an unscientific theory. Through the game we show the irrational nature of evolution, using their own beliefs and quotes. This explains why evolutionists have a special language, something we call 'the language of speculation,' where they use words like 'We believe, perhaps, probably, maybe, could have ...' They can't speak of their theory without it."
Using the game piece, the actor said the project is both educational and entertaining.
"To believe in evolutionary 'transitional forms' is to hold to the belief that one species evolved into another," he said. "However, there is no scientific evidence of any species evolving into another—not in creation, nor in the 'fossil record.' Most people don't know that."
Well-known creationist Ken Ham, of the Answers in Genesis ministry lauded the board game, saying it clearly reveals the "bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution."
"Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" also comes with a free, award-winning DVD called "The Science of Evolution," in which Comfort and Cameron take an orangutan to lunch and discuss the theory of evolution.
"This game didn't happen by accident," Cameron said. "It was intelligently designed with a specific purpose in mind, and we hope it creates a big bang in the Christian and secular world."
The game's release comes as the company recently announced it was relocating from Southern California to Denton, Texas, about 30 miles north of Denton. The ministry decided to move because of escalating operating costs, including Workman's Compensation. In addition, a friend of the ministry donated eight acres of Denton property to help build a new headquarter site.
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is available through Christian bookstores, or through wayofthemaster.com.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Conservative US Christians denounce evolution as atheistic and say it should not be taught as the only explanation for life. The most conservative view is creationism, the Bible-based account saying God made the world in six days
LONDON - Reuters
British classes may soon give equal time to creationists as to the Darwinists and atheists who reject these views of the world's origins. Newly published school guidelines issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) have resorted to placing the issue firmly in religious education class rather than the science classes, which is where U.S. creationists want it to be handled.
By placing creationist views with those of their critics in religion classes, the QCA could head off the divisive debates that have pitted religion against science in the United States.
"This is a clever way of defusing the issue," Clifford Longley, a religious affairs commentator, told Reuters.
While endorsing neither side of the science and religion debate, the QCA made clear it sees creationism and intelligent design as part of a wider public debate that pupils should be able to understand.
Among the guidelines, applying to children up to the age of 14, is a suggestion that pupils act out the debate by playing the roles of Galileo, Darwin and current best-selling atheist author Richard Dawkins. A spokesman for the Authority said guidelines were not compulsory, "Our position is that it should be discussed in religious education and not in science."
Creationism and intelligent design:
Conservative U.S. Christians denounce evolution as atheistic and say it should not be taught as the only explanation for life. The most conservative view is creationism, the Bible-based account saying God made the world in six days. U.S. courts have banned this theory from state schools as a violation of the separation of church and state.
A more recent argument is intelligent design, which says nature is so complex that it must have been the work of a creator rather than the result of random natural selection as outlined in Darwin's theory of evolution.
Anglican views on the world's origins cover the spectrum, from "theistic evolution," which reads the Biblical story allegorically, to a literal belief in the words of Genesis, the first Book of the Christian Bible.
Longley welcomed the way the guidelines included the faith-based approach in the wider debate. "I have no philosophical objection. It is not being taught as truth but as an idea that is out there," he said.
John Wilkins, former editor of the Roman Catholic weekly The Tablet, agreed it was a good compromise solution.
"I can see no reason why we have to regard Darwinism as a holy text that cannot be questioned," he said.
"It is a very good idea to challenge that in religious education. Just teaching children Darwinism doesn't stretch their minds and give them intellectual hurdles to jump over. There should be lively debate."
Category: Culture Wars
Posted on: January 29, 2007 3:43 PM, by Josh Rosenau
Cato defends childrens' liberty to be wrong. This is not the first time that Andrew Coulson has advanced this line of argument. Essentially, his claim is that the only way to end the wars over creationism would be to let children learn whatever they want in schools that their parents pay with other people's tax dollars. Doing otherwise, he insists, would be "illiberal, undemocratic, divisive, ineffective, and counter-productive." That "someone who agrees wholeheartedly that a natural process of evolution is the best explanation of how human beings came to be" finds this argument compelling is very odd, and his consistent treatment of evolution as if it were anti-religious by its nature suggests that his views are more … nuanced than he's letting on.
Below the fold, I take on each adjective quoted above. Coulson is wrong on each, and in the process displays a disregard for liberty and limited government that is surprising coming from a libertarian think tank.
To claim that teaching about evolution is illiberal, he argues that teaching only evolution in science class somehow reduces childrens' liberty to believe as they like (or, critically, as their parents might like). Yet, as he and his colleagues note, a parent who does not want a child to experience science as scientists practice it is free to home-school, or to send their children to a school that doesn't teach science as it is practiced. And knowing about evolution does not forbid anyone from believing as they choose, even if they choose to believe counterfactuals. As Dr. Myers points out in a related context, it is profoundly illiberal to say that "if someone follows a religion that says the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, you are not allowed to hand them a compass and take them outdoors early in the morning." There is no Constitutional right not to have your beliefs challenged by empirical evidence.
Teaching evolution does not imply that "that government is in possession of absolute truth, and that this truth is derived from the application of scientific methods to natural observations." All teaching evolution means is that we teach science as scientists practice it. When and if science produces a new consensus on that or any other matter, the content presented will change as well. That's how schools adjusted as new evidence emerged regarding the Big Bang and continental drift. None of this has any implication about parents' ability "to pass along any religious views at all to their children."
Coulson introduces a red herring by arguing:
If it is the government's role to impart a secular scientific explanation of human origins to all children, why would we not also instruct them that their parents' religious beliefs are unsupported by scientific evidence and should be discounted in favor of natural explanations of historical religious figures? Doing so would clearly be government as Orwell's "Big Brother" rather than the government envisaged by our Founding Fathers.
He handily answered his own question there; teaching empirical results of our shared reality is different from imposing untestable beliefs on others. Teaching empirical results of the scientific method does not prevent anyone from having beliefs in the supernatural, and the only liberty it takes away is the liberty to believe things that are false, or to treat nonscience as science. In short, to lie. Teaching creationism (including IDC) in science classes would force teachers to lie, and would force children to learn lies.
Coulson then proceeds to make the most foolish argument possible, that teaching evolution is undemocratic because "the majority of Americans do not subscribe to our view of human origins." This is true, but irrelevant. Free speech and a free press also poll poorly, but we don't consider it undemocratic to defend those rights. Science is not determined by polls, it is determined by the evidence. Coulson argues "if we chose to mandate what is taught about human origins, and we are true democrats, we should mandate equal time for creationism and evolution." Would it be undemocratic to teach that antibiotics kill viruses? NSF polls show that the public generally believes that, but it is false, and believing it can lead to abuse of antibiotics which in turn produces drug-resistant bacteria. The issue isn't democracy, it's accuracy. Parents who prefer for their children not to learn accurate science are free to homeschool or to pay someone else to lie to their children. There is no reason that public funds should be spent on teachers who lie, and that is what vouchers would do.
Coulson is right to observe that the issue of creationism is divisive, but that doesn't mean that advocates of teaching science in science class ought to surrender. His argument could just as easily be used to argue that the creationists should give up, and that argument would at least be supported by the empirical scientific evidence. His subsequent argument that teaching only evolution has been ineffective is undermined by his observation that divisive culture wars have meant that many science teachers don't actually teach it. It's true that many students don't learn the material, but the people promoting division over evolution bear the blame for that, not evolutionary biology. He argues that we should fund schools that don't teach evolution (or do teach creationism) because "[a]fter well over half a century during which natural evolution has been the sole official explanation for human origins in the nation's public schools, the American public's beliefs on the subject" are negative. This makes as much sense as saying that the persistence of murder is an argument against police, or that the number of houses that burn down every year is an argument against fire departments. People don't know or agree with the scientific evidence, so let's stop teaching it? Please.
Similarly, he points to political pressure to create national science standards, and pressure on federal officials to insert creationism into bills like No Child Left Behind, and argues that the solution is to back off of the fight against creationism. I find that no more compelling than an argument that we should abandon the fight for first amendment protections just because they poll poorly.
The idea that we should just let people take public funds and build their own little school systems in which truth is determined by polling is so foolish and illiberal as to be laughable. Indeed, I find it odd that a libertarian think tank would be pushing that line of reasoning. It is one thing to talk about protecting individual freedoms, it is another to say that public funds should be used to allow parents to force their beliefs on their children. While no one disputes your basic right to raise your children as you will (modulo overt abuse), there is no reason that we should allow public funds to be spent on private schools or home schooling that forces children to accept a divisive religious worldview.
Teaching evolution in public schools is exactly what a liberal education should do. We present all of the theories that are compatible with the empirical data, and encourage children to explore their own religious views with people that they trust on those matters. It's how a liberal democracy should work.
Posted on Mon, Jan. 29, 2007 A guest column by John F. Popp
On Jan. 10, The News-Sentinel carried a large advertisement sponsored by "The Clergy Project" and "Alliance for Science" that asked your readers to urge their pastors to sign a letter endorsing the idea that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with religion and the Bible's creation account.
The real purpose of the sponsors is to keep the competing theory of intelligent design from even being mentioned in the classroom. This effort began in 2004 when a school system in Grantsburg, Wis., passed a resolution requiring other theories of origin to be taught along with evolution. The sponsors of this ad and other evolutionists brought tremendous pressure to bear on the school board that then rescinded its policy.
The ad in your paper refers to evolution as a "scientific truth." It is not a fact; it has not and cannot be proved. It is a theory – and a pretty wild one, at that. I prefer the story of the young princess who kissed the frog, who then turned into a prince. It is quicker and just as plausible.
Part of the massive effort to silence the Grantsburg School District was a letter from the Wisconsin academic community friendly to evolution, asking the Grantsburg School Board to rescind its policy and teach only evolution, with 321 professors and academicians as signatories. Most of them are biologists, historians, anthropologists, philosophers and zoologists, but no mathematicians, although there were two professors with statistical disciplines. Perhaps if this group had canvassed more mathematicians, they would have learned that the statistical odds of evolution are not very good. In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British mathematician and astronomer who originated the steady-state theory of nucleogenesis, calculated the probability of life originating by random processes was one chance in 10 to the 40,000th power – that's 10 with 40,000 zeros behind it – if given 4.6 billion years to do so.
Not only is the probability of evolution essentially zero, it is inconsistent with a belief in God. The American National Association of Biology Teachers in its 1995 official position paper went to great length to point out that there can't be any God or higher power involved in the creation of life. It said, "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution, an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historic contingencies and changing environments."
So now the Clergy Letter folks want to have the clergy endorse God's role in evolution, even though the teachers who are teaching it insist God is not involved in creation?
It is obvious the evolution establishment has two different stories for two different audiences. Audience No. 1 is the pastors and parishioners who are told evolution is compatible with God's role in the creation of life. Audience No. 2 is our students in public schools being told that God had nothing to do with the creation of life.
The real purpose of this consortium is to keep the concept of "God created the heavens and the Earth" out of sight and out of mind in the public schools. Doesn't sound like an honest approach or academic freedom to me.
I still like the Grimm brothers' frog story a lot better!
John F. Popp is a resident of Fort Wayne.
Published: Monday, January 29, 2007
Jonathan Wells
As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column ("Evolution Sunday not so benign," 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across America will celebrate Darwin's theory on Feb. 11.
Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.
Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply change over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical interpretation, it can mean that God created the world over a long period of time rather than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can mean minor changes within existing species, which we see happening before our eyes.
But Darwin's theory claims much more — namely, that all living things are descended from a common ancestor and that their present differences are due to unguided natural processes such as random variations and survival of the fittest. It is not evolution in general, but Darwin's particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution Sunday celebrates. That's why it is timed to coincide with Charles Darwin's birthday.
The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary biologist Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted the following policy in 2004: "Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design."
Zimmerman called the policy a decision "to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance."
But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who "embrace scientific ignorance."
Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism's strengths and weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?
Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans believe God created the human beings in their present form a few thousand years ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but that God guided the process. Despite their differences, both of these groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image of God.
Darwinism denies this.
Darwin himself wrote that he could see "no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the winds blow." Although he could not "look at the universe as the result of blind chance," Darwin saw "no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details." Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned."
Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists depend heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support. Enlisting Christian clergy to defend "science" or "evolution" is a tactic used to perpetuate that support.
For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin organization euphemistically named the National Center for Science Education. As an acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian worldview, yet she wrote in 2002: "I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"
To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating evolution as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in agreement to the obvious fact that "the present is different from the past" does Scott introduce them to "The Big Idea" — namely, Darwin's theory. Organizers of Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.
The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It doesn't fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central tenet of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate Darwin, churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of God and the value of good science — which includes studying the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design."
ANTIEVOLUTION BILL IN MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi's House Bill 625, introduced by Representative Mike Lott (R-District 104) on January 9, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Education, would provide, if enacted, "The school board of a school district may allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the schools within the district. However, if the theory of evolution is required to be taught as part of the school district's science curriculum, in order to provide students with a comprehensive education in science, the school board also must include the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the science curriculum." A similar provision was part of 2005's House Bill 953, of which Lott was the chief sponsor; HB 953 died in committee on January 31, 2006.
For the text of HB 625, visit:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2007/html/HB/0600-0699/HB0625IN.htm
For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Mississippi, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=MS
KENT HOVIND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS
Kent Hovind, the evangelist who styles himself "Dr. Dino" and runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry as well as Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small creationist theme park in Pensacola, Florida, was sentenced to ten years in federal prison on January 19, 2007. In November 2006, a federal jury found Hovind guilty of fifty-eight charges, including failing to pay payroll taxes for his employees, structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, and "corruptly endeavor[ing] to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws" in a number of ways. He was detained in jail until his sentencing, although his wife Jo Hovind, who was found guilty of forty-four charges, was allowed to remain free.
At the sentencing, the Pensacola News-Journal (January 20, 2007) reported, Hovind adopted a meek demeanor, telling the judge, "I stand here in great fear of the power of this court. Your decision can destroy my life, my ministry and my grandchildren." But recordings of his telephone conversations from the jail, played in court, told a different story: Hovind accused the Internal Revenue Service, the judge, and the prosecutor of violating the law in prosecuting him, and referred to unspecified things he could do "to make their lives miserable." In handing down the sentence, the judge explained that Hovind's troubles were due to his "refusing to accept what the law is." In addition to ten years in prison and three years of probation, Hovind's sentence also included paying over $600,000 in restitution to the IRS.
In "Earth to 'Dr. Dino': Please pay your taxes and start facing reality," a columnist for the News-Journal (January 21, 2007) was unsympathetic to Hovind's plight, writing, "You got caught, so quit whining and take your punishment like a man." The column continued, "Hovind is sniffling in court, dabbing tears from his eyes and comparing himself to Jesus and Job. He urges the judge to let him go home rather than do serious time for bilking the government. This same government guarantees 'Dr. Dino' freedom of religion and freedom of speech so he can denounce the theory of evolution, promote 'creation science' -- an oxymoron to many -- and operate Dinosaur Adventure Land and Creation Science Evangelism." The columnist was more sympathetic to Jo Hovind, who is due to be sentenced on March 1, 2007.
For the Pensacola News-Journal's story, visit:
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/NEWS01/701200319/1006
For the recordings played in court, visit:
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/VIDEO/70119009/1006
For "Earth to 'Dr. Dino'" in the Pensacola News-Journal, visit:
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701210332
DARWIN DAY APPROACHES
And there are only two weeks left until Darwin Day! Colleges and universities, schools, libraries, museums, churches, civic groups, and just plain folks across the country -- and the world -- are preparing to celebrate Darwin Day, on or around February 12, in honor of the life and work of Charles Darwin. These events provide a marvelous opportunity not only to celebrate Darwin's birthday but also to engage in public outreach about science, evolution, and the importance of evolution education. NCSE encourages its members and friends to attend, participate in, and even organize Darwin Day events in their own communities. To find a local event, check the websites of local universities and museums and the registry of Darwin Day events maintained by the Darwin Day Celebration website. (And don't forget to register your own event with the Darwin Day Celebration website!)
Part of the fun of Darwin Day 2007 will involve Randy Olson's Flock of Dodos, the hilarious documentary that examines both sides of the controversy over the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, is scheduled to be shown at over fifteen museums across the country as part of their Darwin Day celebrations, on or around February 12, 2007. New Scientist describes Flock of Dodos as "a film that will appeal to the average person on either side ... without condescension, poking lighthearted fun at everyone." Screenings are already scheduled in thirty cities around the country, including Berkeley, Boston, Denver, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York City, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Seattle, St. Louis, and Tampa -- and more are being added.
And Evolution Sunday returns! Hundreds of Christian churches all over the country are taking part in Evolution Sunday, February 11, 2007, by presenting sermons and discussion groups on the compatibility of faith and science. Michael Zimmerman, the initiator of the project, writes, "For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. ... Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic." At last count, over 500 congregations in all 50 states were scheduled to hold Evolution Sunday events; they are listed at the Clergy Letter Project website.
To find or register a Darwin Day event near you, visit:
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2007.php
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/regevent/index.php
For information about Flock of Dodos and its Darwin Day events, visit:
http://www.flockofdodos.com
http://www.flockofdodos.com/darwinday.htm
For information about Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project, visit:
http://www.evolutionsunday.org
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
If you wish to subscribe, please send:
subscribe ncse-news your@email.com
again in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.
Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site: http://www.ncseweb.org where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it.
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp