The Fish Wars

Shall the Fundamentalists Win?

2009-04-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

Stained glass window depicting the empty tomb at a church in L.A. - Inscription says - "He is not here, he is risen!"
Copyright (c) 2006 Wendee Holtcamp

I just stumbled on this 1922 sermon, later published as a booklet, written by Presbyterian Minister Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?: Defending Liberal Protestantism in the 1920s," while researching my book (on making peace between evolution and Christianity, which by the way is due very soon - agghhhh!!!) All I have to say is wow, wow, wow!! What a powerful and profound message, and also very interesting given that this took place nearly a century ago. It outlines some of the same controversies of fundamentalism vs modernist/liberal thought, and science versus religion.

Fosdick was investigated and later resigned from the Presbyterian Church after publishing this, but soon became a minister at a Baptist church, and then founded Manhattan's Riverside church. This was just three years before the Scopes Monkey Trial, and one of the Presbyterians promoting the opposing view of fundamentalism was the attorney in that trial – William Jennings Bryan.

Here are some quotes from the sermon that resonated with me:

"Science treats a young man’s mind as though it were really important. A scientist says to a young man, “Here is the universe challenging our investigation. Here are the truths which we have seen, so far. Come, study with us! See what we already have seen and then look further to see more, for science is an intellectual adventure for the truth.” Can you imagine any man who is worthwhile turning from that call to the church if the church seems to him to say, “Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking; now think, but only so as to reach these results."

"...the Fundamentalists are giving us one of the worst exhibitions of bitter intolerance that the churches of this country have ever seen."

"...there is one thing I am sure of: courtesy and kindliness and tolerance and humility and fairness are right. Opinions may be mistaken; love never is."

"...there are multitudes of reverent Christians who have been unable to keep this new knowledge in one compartment of their minds and the Christian faith in another. They have been sure that all truth comes from the one God and is His revelation"

"...for the sake of intellectual and spiritual integrity, that they might really love the Lord their God, not only with all their heart and soul and strength but with all their mind, they have been trying to see this new knowledge in terms of the Christian faith and to see the Christian faith in terms of this new knowledge."

This was written just 3 years before the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial and during a time at which there existed a huge controversy between "modernists" and "fundamentalists" within the Presbyterian Church, which made up around 25% of Christians at that time. The split affected many other denominations as well, and led to the decline of Presbyterianism in the U.S. I was actually researching the history of the term fundamentalist, which is when I learned about this whole history - fascinating!! Fundamentalism arose at the Niagara Bible Conferences which were held annually from 1876-1897 where a fourteen-point creed was developed, and later distilled at the 1910 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to 5 fundamentals of the Christian faith:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

I actually hold to a fairly conservative ("fundamental") belief in all of these things other than the pre-millennial second coming (I believe that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod which I attend does not hold that belief either and they're a fairly conservative church). I don't necessarily agree with inerrancy of Scripture. Well, that all depends on how you define it, as there's a whole history around the use of that term, and it didn't even arise until this conference in 1910!!! Yet so many churches use that as "fundamental" to faith. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and is useful for teaching... and so much more. Its history in coming together is very interesting. I think that some things will always remain holy mysteries this side of heaven. It's also pretty ironic that the Presbyterian Church today is definitely not fundamentalist!

Regardless, the fact that the controversy between science and religion, and conservative/fundamental versus progressive/liberal thought has occurred for so long is just fascinating....Now besides merely defining the fundamentals of the faith, the fundamentalists of that era did more, as they do today. They mixed in political and anti-science thought with the religious ideals. They opposed evolution, and (in effect) opposed educational learning about things like Biblical scholarship as they believed it led people away from the faith. Just think, demanding and requesting people not learn so their faith would not be weakened or lost. What kind of religion or faith can be lost by learning? That is a weak faith indeed, not much worthy of following. I believe Christianity holds up to scrutiny and I say to education of all manner - whether Biblical history, science, or any such thing -bring it on! We need Christians to be more educated about their own religion. We need society more educated about this faith that has so influenced America, Europe, and the world.

I leave with the question: have the fundamentalists win? Shall we let them?

Cross-posted at Bohemian Adventures blog

PS Hope you had a blessed Easter!!

Awesome video

2009-03-27T19:50:00.000-07:00

Please all Christians watch this awesome and funny video of a Christian to other Christian on why you should listen to the expertise of REAL scientists - ie evolutionary biologists!

IN fact check out his whole "channel" - I haven't watched any of his other videos but I'll be back to check them out! http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

I will post some links to blogs etc on the Texas State Board of Education results from the past 3 days testimony and voting of the Board on science standards. It's a mixed bag.

Not on the Test

2009-03-18T07:17:00.000-07:00

Check out this fantastic song/video by Grammy winner Tom Chapin, Not on the Test. It aired on NPR and is a sarcastic song about the problems with standardized testing, sung to his 3rd grade son. Check it out: http://www.notonthetest.com

Here is one stanza of lyrics, mid-song

Each box that you mark on each test that you take,
Remember your teachers, their jobs are at stake.
Your score is their score, but don't get all stressed.
They'd never teach anything not on the test.

And here's an article in NY Teacher, Union fights the trend that starts with teaching to the test.

God spot and White House science advisors

2009-03-11T09:12:00.001-07:00

Just wanted to post a couple links. I came across this article today in the Daily Mail newspaper online, and found it interesting.
Scientists discover the brain's 'God spot'... and show that faith helps human survival.

The only thing that annoys me about the journalist's reporting of the story, and possibly inherent in the research (I haven't read the scientific papers themselves so can't remark) is in this sentence in the article: "Scientists, philosophers and theologians continue to argue about whether religious belief is a biological or a sociological phenomenon."

Why is it an either/or proposition? It's NOT.

Second I wanted to express my complete excitement when I got an email over a listserv I've long been a member of, ECOLOG-L (sci.bio.ecology) talking about the Obama administration inducting zoologist Jane Lubchenco as NOAA advisor and former AAAS president (American Association for the Advancement of Science) John Holdren as White House Science Advisor. I saw this and thought, wow how exciting that a scientist whose marine ecosystem work I read about in my Biology 101 textbook back in 1989 or so is now being inducted in the Obama admin! How cool to not have industry cronies advising the White House on science! But then I also saw that some Senator has placed an "anonymous hold" on them... and I am not sure what that means, exactly, but UGH! Here's a link to a blog post on the hold:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/science_advisor_and_noaa_admin.php

quotes on truth

2009-02-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

I am writing, and revising, my chapter on truth - how we come to believe what we do. I've come across some fantastic quotes I thought I'd share here.

There are truths, that are beyond us, transcendent truths, about beauty, truth, honor, etc. There are truths that man knows exist, but they cannot be seen - they are immaterial, but no less real, to us. It is only through the language of myth that we can speak of these truths. - J. R. R. Tolkien

Only through myth, through story telling can we aspire to the life we were made for with God. To write and/or read myth was to meditate on the most important truths of life. – JRR Tolkien

"No doubt those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power." -- CS Lewis, The Abolition of Man

"And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger." -- CS Lewis The Last Battle (this has got to be the most insightful quote ever - so apropos to intelligent design!)

"To admire Satan [in Paradise Lost] is to give one's vote not only for a world of misery, but also for a world of lies and propaganda, of wishful thinking, of incessant autobiography." --CS Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Pascal.

The E Word: a playground adaptation

2009-02-03T14:49:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to give a quick shout out to the blog for the upcoming play by Sharon Sparlin, who I met at the November 2008 hearings at the State Board of Education in Austin. The play looks riotously funny - I've seen the "treatment" which takes place between young kids (the young Charlie - aka Charles Darwin and Emma). Check out the E Word blog: http://www.theewordplay.blogspot.com/. She also links back to my blog, as well as several other fantastic science blogs out there.

Colbert on evolution

2009-02-01T14:53:00.000-08:00

A brief interruption in programming to share something funny.

“Evolution is that like, millions and billions of years of mutations and recombinations and cosmic rays knock something out of one DNA so when the mitosis or myosis or whatever –osis come together something else happens and the fur falls off and suddenly King Kong is a man?”

– Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report.

Mixed outcome in TX Edu Board vote

2009-01-24T09:06:00.000-08:00

"I am on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt."
- Wendell Phillips

I missed Wednesday's State Board of Education hearing due to a hospital stay (details at my personal blog, Bohemian Adventures - I'm ok!) but here are a few links of interest.

The New York Times did a good balanced article on what happened, Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution.

There's a fantastic new website called TeachThemScience.org: Science Education Matters that has a wealth of great information on the issues, specifically related to Texas science education. It is a joint project of The Clergy Letter Project and The Center for Inquiry. The Clergy Letter Project is described on their website as:

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.

The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here. Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages. And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.

It is formally endorsed by the United Methodist Church, and I hope that many more denominations embrace it. I was asked to be a scientific consultant of the Project, and my name is now listed in their directory of scientific consultants on call to help clergy (or others).

progress on my book

2009-01-16T00:25:00.000-08:00

I've been working hard on my book (which as I've mentioned before is about making peace between evolution and Christianity and will be published by Beacon Press). I've been writing new content, and rearranging my first few chapters into a cohesive story. I can write a feature article like it's nothing, since I've been doing it for nearly a decade and a half, but this is my first book and wrapping my head around the overall structure is challenging - but I'm actually having a lot of fun with it.

I've cleared my plate of other tasks and made it my only focus for the time being. The first chapter in the book, The Making of a Christian Evolutionist, talks about how I came to be a Christian who accepts evolution. It takes the reader from me as a naive but faithful young child, through some challenging life situations and to the point where I became an atheist in high school and college, then ultimately back to the Christian faith. But of course during college, I became educated as an evolutionary biologist/ecologist. The chapter tells the story of my life, in a nutshell.

The next chapter is titled - as it stands now - The Fish Wars. This introduces the whole debate over evolution and creationism from the perspective of me teaching biology at the community college where I worked for several years, and the interactions with my students. This chapter gives a good, simple overview of what evolution actually is - and what it isn't. The next chapter is In Search of the Holy Grail of Truth (Or, I Don’t Quite Understand Your Question) - and it's in progress, but covers my experience testifying at the Texas State Board of Education in 2003 and this year (well late 2008 - and there's another hearing next week!), conflicting views on "truth" and how and why people come to believe what we believe.

The next chapter, There is a Striking Resemblance Between You and a Monkey, is about my travels to Colorado to spend Easter with the Epperson family, who were involved in the landmark 1968 Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas that essentially overturned the infamous 1929 Scopes Monkey Trial which confirmed that it was ok to make teaching (human) evolution illegal. I love the title of this chapter! It's actually what someone said in a letter to Susan Epperson during the time of the Supreme Court battle back in the 1960s. The things people say! Yes, as a matter of fact there is a striking resemblance between you (and me) and a monkey!

So that's where I'm at now, completing and organizing and writing these first few chapters - the first half of the book. I've already done the excursions and such for the rest of the chapters too (which include narrative chapters on young earth creationism, and one on intelligfent design, among others). I'm having a lot of fun with it all, and am very excited about my progress! Prayers are much appreciated!!

New Texas SBOE science standards hearing

2009-01-15T07:57:00.000-08:00

A few items of note. There's a new hearing of the Texas State Board of Education on the science textbook issue. By law they're required to have 2 hearings, and I blogged about my experience at the previous one. This one they're limiting to 4 hours max of testimony. So I may or may not get time to testify, depending on when I sign up on Friday - the only day they have open for signing up! But I'm going to Austin to meet up with and talk with folks from the National Center for SCience Education (NCSE) and others supportive of evolution.

Here's a press release about registration, which is tomorrow, Friday Jan 16, 2009, only.

Dear Texas Friends,

The Texas State Board of Education has an upcoming meeting on 21 January 2009 at which there will be an opportunity for the public to testify about the third TEKS draft.

The third and final TEKS draft has been released, and we feel that speakers should encourage the SBOE to adopt this draft. The third draft does not use the “strengths & limitations” language present in the second draft and is stronger scientifically than the previous drafts. However, the SBOE may decide to ignore these recommendations and cobble together their own Science TEKS at the last minute, which this board previously did for the English Language Arts TEKS.

To testify, you must register this Friday, 16 December, between 8 am and 5 pm (Central). Registration usually occurs on the Friday and Monday before the meeting; however, this time Monday is a holiday. Because there will be a 4-hour time limit on the testimony, we encourage potential speakers to sign up early on Friday. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, and should bring 35 handouts of the main points of his or her testimony.

According to the TEA website, you may register, by phone, fax, or in person by:
1. phone: 512-463-9007
2. fax: 512-936-4319 (on this form, chose “Full Board”:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/forms/registration_testimony.html
3. in person: at the William B. Travis (WBT) State Office Building, 1701 N. Congress, Austin, Texas 78701

TEA webpage for testifying before Full Board:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/op_rules.html#publictestimony

TEA webpage for meeting (the details of the 21 January meeting are not yet
posted, but will be posted to this address):
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/mtg_mat_current.html

The third TEKS draft:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/Sci_TEKS_9-12_Clean_010509.pdf

On another note, I came across this interesting Pharyngula blog post, Texas has a problem, by PZ Myers about the state of Texas education...

fair, or "balanced"?

2008-11-23T13:46:00.001-08:00

Check out this absolutely excellent analysis of the media coverage of the Nov 19, 2008 Texas State Board of Education hearing, fair, or "balanced"? by Tony Whitson on his Curricublog. What he says is absolutely right on the money. They give equal coverage to the sides even though that's not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

Only a few newspapers - including the Ft Worth Star Telegram reporter that quoted me in an article - mention the overwhelming number of scientists and pro-science advocates versus the few creationists. The reporters also quote people like someone from the Texas Free Market Foundation, without mentioning that he was a registered lobbyist for Focus on the Family. Sometimes journalism is very discouraging - and the daily and local newspapers tend to be the worst. I'm in the media, but I do believe magazine reporting is often much higher caliber. For one thing, we have longer turnaround times, allowing for more fact-checking. The writers tend to (but not always) have more science background, or know how to research a little better. Anyway check out the curricublog. Very astute observations that should get wider play.

Fox News on TX Evolution Debate

2008-11-23T11:53:00.000-08:00

The truth will set you free. But first it will make you damn mad.
- Scott Peck.

I just came across this Fox News video "Evolution Debate Could Decide Children's Future" - which covered the State Board of Education hearing last Wednesday, and I'm in the video at two places: first coming into the hearing room after Clare Wuellner, Director of Center for Inquiry Austin, who they interviewed (she was dressed in the 1860-era getup, and is in the photos posted in my previous blog post). And then later you can see me standing in the audience at the Texas Freedom Network press conference. I would embed the video but I don't think I can... check it out!

Oh, and even though the coverage is decent, the title is kind of stupid, like how exactly is evolution going to decide children's future? The actual video shows that the decision of the Texas SBOE could determine how other states act on textbooks - but that was actually the issue at debate in 2003 and is not up for debate, currently. The issue currently is about the TEKS or standards. Yes, other states sometimes follow Texas' lead in some things, but... do they really? Actually come to think of it this reporter did not do his background research at all.

The other thing he missed is that although this coverage was better than most in terms of repesenting accurately that the science advocates came out in force and the creationisst were few in number, he did allow Mark Ramsey to wave about the "academic freedom" argument, but the reporter never counterpoints to explain that the reality is that nobody is trying to stop academic freedom. That is absurd! The point is that you don't teach *high school* students every brand new hypothesis and idea in science and/or allow them to debate the merits or come up with their own hypotheses. They are simply not equipped for it. Textbooks have always taught the current state of science (or whatever subject), and the process of science. And, if that were heeded, then intelligent design would not be in the textbooks. Nor would there be any "weaknesses" of evolution taught because evolution is one of the most robust theories in science - and if taught thoroughly (as I did when teaching at Kingwood College) it should be quite clear to students that the theory has genetic, genomic, physiological, anatomical, paleontological, and geological evidence - as well as predictive power.

The debate of evolution is a cultural and religious one and NOT a scientific one. So if creationists want it to be taught, they need to have a different class set up, or to teach it in social studies or current events. Dumbing down science is not going to help our children's future.

So maybe the Fox News report got the title right after all. If we remove or weaken evolution education in schools, our children's future IS at stake. As is our nation's future, really. And general concern over America's science lead was clearly shown in the National Academy of Sciences report (that I quoted in my testimony) Rising Above the Gathering Storm.

photos from SBOE hearing

2008-11-21T20:37:00.000-08:00

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
- Voltaire

I have posted blog posts about my testimony at Daily Kos as Messin' with Texas Education, and at Texas Kaos - where it's currently on the recommended diary list.

Please go and add a comment at Daily Kos, or recommend me in the Tip Jar (the first comment) so that it gets on the Recommended List!

Claire Wuellner, Director of Center for Inquiry-Austin, dressed in a 1860-era getup to make the point that the only scientific controversy over evolution ended around 1860 after Darwin's theory was first introduced on the scene.

Dinosaur Barney and Clare Wuellner (as 1860-era woman) were some of the characters who showed up at the Texas State Board of Education hearing.

At the Texas Freedom Network press conference prior to the hearing, someone holds a sign of the earth, asking "How old am I?"

Gail Lowe, one of the creationist board members.

The audience looks riveted. ;)

Notice all the "Stand Up for Science" stickers on everyone?

slam dunk at the State Board of Education

2008-11-20T00:11:00.000-08:00

A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly, for he thinks that if the truth can be clearly seen it can very well take care of itself.

-Thomas Merton, No Man is an Island.

I just got home from Austin after a very long day at the State Board of Education hearing. Testimony on science TEKS didn't even start until about 3:45pm, and I spoke about 6pm, about halfway through the speakers. Something like 92 people signed up to testify - overwhelmingly scientists and science advocates. I think in the first 4 hours only 3 creationists spoke. This was a very different situation from in 2003 when I think it was about 60-40 (60% science advocates, 40% creationists). However that hearing was about textbooks, was more widely publicized, and intelligent design proponents flew in from Seattle, and evolution advocates from California. It was a bit more of a media circus.

This year, they are revising the TEKS, which occurs every 10 years. They had a panel of scientists and science teachers who came up with a new version of the TEKS, and it was posted online Sept 15 here. These were pretty good. Then Monday, 2 days before the hearing, they posted a "new" version which had stealthily snuck back in the "strengths and limitations" (formerly "strengths and weaknesses") language which has been in the TEKS for 20 years but it has increasingly been seen and used as a possible place for those opposed to evolution to insert a wedge to criticize the theory - so was removed by the panel in the first (Sep 15) version.

This is the problem with that language. Despite hysterical claims that science advocates and "evolutionists" are trying to prevent academic freedom, the reality is that analysis and criticism of scientific theories belongs in the halls of academia, in the laboratory, and among those scientists with enough know-how and expertise to know what they're critiquing and analyzing. It is not something that middle or high school students are educated enough or equipped to be able to adequately discuss the merits of a theory. I think it would be useful for students to debate or discuss the evolution-creation controversy but NOT in the science classroom, but in a cultural studies, religion, or social studies course, and because of the controversy this would need to be developed in a textbook or textbooks that could present the information in a non-biased manner.

I wrote my testimony a couple days ago. However, during the hearing I got so absolutely disgusted at the behavior of the creationist board members that I added a paragraph to my testimony and called them out on their lies. In a repeat of the antics in 2003, which will be covered in my book, these Board members questioned people just for the sake of making their own points, putting people on the spot to answer questions outside of the testimony-givers realms of expertise and then fail to ask questions of actual scientific experts. They often asked questions of the young people, and those few creationists who agreed with them. Also, three creationist board members in particular, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, and Barbara Cargill - repeatedly denied that the strengths and limitations language and their various changes on the November TEKS update had anything to do with religion. Sure. Whatever.

This is how it went when I gave my testimony.

I open with the same paragraph I wrote and posted previously, giving my background as a Christian and evolutionary biologist, mom, and former college biology instructor. Then I added something like this (it was written down but I spoke extemporaneously so it veered a bit):

Despite what the creationist members of the Board say - Ms Lowe, Ms Leo, Ms Cargill, Ms Dunbar, Mr Mercer, Dr McLeroy and others - everybody in the nation knows that this is absolutely a religious battle, that your dislike of evolution and naturalism and any changes to the TEKs that are supported by the Discovery Institute are religiously motivated. Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed that ID and these issues are religious in nature. For you to sit there and tell everyone it is not smacks of arrogance and deliberate willful deception. In other words, lying. I know who the Father of Lies...

At which point Chairman McLeroy interrupts me to say, flustered, "We don't say that word here. You can't say that word."

I look at him, confused.

"Lies. You can't say lies."

"I can't say the words lies?" I ask, incredulous.

So I continue, not finishing the sentence that I was going to say, which was "I know who the Father of Lies is, and it's not Jesus and it's not God." I then continue on with my asking them why they are willing to play dice with our taxpayer money to risk a lawsuit, and why they're willing to play dice with our children's future, and kept to the rest of the testimony I'd written - but because of the time McLeroy took away from me by interrupting me I was not able to read my closing few sentences.

A reporter from the Fort Worth Star Telegram came over to get my testimony and hey, look at this, he quoted me in the article, Evolution proponents descend on State Board of Education.

Last I will say that McLeroy made a demand that nobody clap, hoot, holler, or talk during people's testimony because he and the Board members wanted to be able to listen to those who spoke and it was a show of respect for those who took the time to come and testify. And for the most part this was respected by the audience. However I was not shown the same courtesy by the Board! During my testimony, Terri Leo repeatedly laughed and talked over her shoulder to someone (I think he was a creationist/ID person giving her questions and comments about the testimonies). The laughter and talking by the Board was loud enough to be picked up on the live feed that was streamed from the TEA website because someone emailed me commenting on it.

I felt very good about my testimony afterwards! Got a lot of positive comments and nods from the audience as I finished. I had prayed right before I got up to speak, and had been a bit nervous but I found a calm before going up there and I spoke my truth firmly and clearly. I think it is simply essential to truth to call a spade a spade. These people have their right to their opinions, for sure, but lying to the public about the religious nature of their opposition to evolution is simply ridiculous! EVERYONE knows that the battle against evolution is all about religion! ID proponents may do their best to disguise that and lie about it, but anybody who does even a minute bit of research knows the truth. It's really not that hard to figure out. There was some fantastic testimony given and I was super gratified to hear at least 3 or 4 pastors get up and speak in favor of evolution and the science-advocate position that supports the Sep 15 version, and says get rid of the "strengths and limitations" language. Hallelujah!

I even got my photo on the Houston Chronicle Evosphere live blog from the event (the one I have above). Check it out. And check out this great quiz in the Texas Monthly, "How Well Do You Know Your State Board of Education" - truly frightening.

My original testimony, which was modified by the inclusion of the above-mentioned paragraph:

I’m here to testify as a Christian who is educated as a biologist, and a mom of 2 middle school aged kids – one of whom goes to public school and one who goes to a private Episcopal school, which by the way teaches evolution alongside the Christian faith. I have taught biology at the college level, and I currently work as a freelance science writer. In fact, I am working on a book on making peace between evolution and Christianity which will be published in 2010 and will include some details from this very hearing.

I have 2 quick points I want to make, followed by some more general comments. 1st, I think it’s highly unethical that you did not even put the final version of the revised TEKs online until Monday afternoon – knowing that most people would not even have a chance to look at them, 2 days before the hearing. 2nd, on TEKS C3A. I support the Sep 15th version of TEKS C. 3. (A) which says, “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing;”

The Nov revision introduces the phrase “strengths and limitations” which is no different from the flawed “strengths and weaknesses” argument that has been roundly rejected by scientists. Although I understand the TEKS do not anywhere explicitly discuss Intelligent Design, this “strengths & limitations” language is pushed exclusively by religiously-motivated opposition to evolution, and is used as a wedge to allow teachers to cast aspersions on evolution in classrooms.

My first question to you - members of the State Board of Education – Are you willing to play dice with our taxpayer money on the possibility of costly court battle by introducing religiously motivated language in Texas science standards? The 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case cost Dover over $1million.

My 2nd question to you – are you willing to play dice with our children’s education as our nation’s science lead deteriorates? In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” decried our nation’s deteriorating science education and critical thinking skills. It stated, “Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.”

Evolution does not threaten religious belief – including Christianity - except if you read Genesis absolutely literally, which most Christian denominations do not. The Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist and Catholic Churches - among others - formally accept an evolving Creation. Nearly 70% of our nation’s founding fathers were either Presbyterian, Episcopal or Congregationalist – (a denomination which later became part of the Presbyterian Church and was associated with founding Harvard Yale and Dartmouth). Our Founding Fathers very much appreciated both logical, scientific reason and religious faith as compatible but also demanded – as Thomas Jefferson said – a wall of separation between church and state. The majority of our nation’s 43 Presidents also have hailed from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist denominations (over 62%), all of which believe that Genesis is not a divinely dictated textbook. America’s Founding Fathers deeply respected religion and its values, but they equally valued science and reason.

So to summarize, I urge you as elected members of this Board who are accountable to the public: Do not harm the bedrock of science and reason upon which our nation was founded by weakening Texas science standards with the “limitations” language. It’s inclusion will only weaken science education, our state, our children’s future and the ability to create brilliant and critically thinking minds in our state and our nation.

Here's an MP3 of my testimony, where you can hear them laughing when I say their names, and McLeroy interrupting me.

Newsflash to Palin

2008-10-26T21:51:00.000-07:00

Palin gave her first policy talk and during this talk which was about special needs funding, she ridiculed fruit fly research... She said:

“…sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”

This has a clip:

Research on fruit flies may seem esoteric to someone who has absolutely no understanding of science, but, Newsflash: Fruit fly research provided the bedrock foundation of modern genetics. Anyone who paid any attention in biology (that is, if their state's education system wasn't already completely floundering) should know that. Because fruit flies reproduce readily and produce many offspring in short periods of time, you can study the changes that occur when you breed together different strains (red eyes, white eyes, messed up wings, etc - and that allowed scientists to find where the specific genes were and what they were linked to - and that is how modern genetics was born).

Now that the genome of Drosophila has been mapped, fruit fly research is even more valuable - including research on things like autism which is one of "Special needs" that Palin wants to support and fund. She needs to do her research a little better! It does not bode well for science funding should McCain-Palin get elected. Nor for the future of sound science education.

Expelled Exposed

2008-04-26T14:44:00.000-07:00

The movie Expelled hit the theatres recently. While I want to watch the movie, I don't want to contribute any money to the coffers of these people who want to undermine science education and science. I recommend everyone check out the excellent website Expelled Exposed. As it says on the banner, "Flunked, not Expelled: What Ben Stein isn't telling you about intelligent design."

Expelled Exposed was created by the National Center for Science Education, a highly reputable organization led by Dr. Eugenie Scott. There's a great video on the website. Educate yourself on this Expelled Exposedvery important issue, and don't be swayed by the flashy Hollywood documentary movie and the mega-millions being spent by the intelligent design supporters.

Science and PR

2008-02-12T12:48:00.001-08:00

I have much more to say on this topic, but I'm replying to a comment a friend made to a previous post, and I realized it was worthy of its own post. She said:

"I do kind of disagree with you on the 'science and scientists do not have PR campaigns.' comment. Basically I view a lot of modern medicine to be a PR campaign. Sure I understand that the scientists creating the vaccines aren't necessarily the one's creating the ads but at the same time I often wonder how often medicine gets 'ok'd' just so someone can get their name recognized and the drug put on the market."

She's definitely right that sometimes technology or scientific endeavors DO have PR campaigns. But the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry are not SCIENCE themselves, but the fruits of research. Companies with an agenda (profit) then take up a scientific "result" and push to get it used or accepted by more and more people so they can "save lives" or "help people" but really, sadly, that is secondary to their primary goal to make more money. I say that because I've seen too many products rushed througH FDA approval and then revoked years later or sold with stringent warnings - from tobacco to DES to DDT to many many more pharmaceuticals that end up in litigation over deaths and injuries.

My main point was that the process of scientific inquiry takes years and many multiple independent studies are required before a concept becomes accepted as a reliable theory with predictive power, like evolution. Even if Intelligent Design WAS "scientific" (rather than having a predetermined conclusion, which makes it not science) it would still be in its infancy, and so their groups' desire to get it into textbooks is as ridiculous as the tobacco industry trying to get into school textbooks that smoking is good for you! However, convincing the public of buying something - whether a product or an idea - THAT is the job of advertisements, which are really just subtle propaganda or "PR". That is why the Expelled movie is not doing intelligent design any favors because it just shows even more that ID is merely a big PR machine and not a genuine scientific endeavor.

If you dig deep enough and are not dead-set on your conclusion, even those convinced either that ID is "God's way" or that evolution is false, can and will see the truth. They usually don't want to dig much though. Many people do not like to challenge their beliefs because it's difficult and uncomfortable.

Evolution Weekend

2008-02-08T15:40:00.001-08:00

It's Evolution Weekend and check out the post on the Beacon Broadside, the blog of my upcoming book's publishing house, Dust Off Your Darwin Costume: It's Evolution Weekend! by Glenn Branch. He talks about his book (co-authored with NCSE Director Eugenie Scott), "Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Deisgn is Wrong for Our Schools." I met Dr Scott when I testified before the Texas State Baord of Education in 2003 regarding the Texas textbook adoption process. She's an amazing person, and NCSE does great work! We're gearing up for another crazy battle this coming school year since Governor Perry appointed Don McLeroy as the chairperson of the SBOE - and McLeroy is a loud and devout creationist.

For an alternative view from a Christian, read my testimony at the 2003 SBOE, which says that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible. Branch and Scott agree with this view. Happy Darwin Day!

scott peck on reality and truth

2008-01-27T19:33:00.000-08:00

Here are some great quotes from a genius, Scott Peck, Christian psychotherapist and best-selling author of The Road Less Traveled. These quotes speak to some very profound truths that the world would be wise to understand.

"By attempting to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we are giving away our power to some other individual or organization. In this way, millions daily attempt to escape from freedom."

"If our lives are to be healthy and our spirits are to grow, we must be dedicated to the truth. For truth is reality. And the more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the world."

"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death explorng the mystery of reality, revising and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true."

"We must always hold the truth, as best as we can determine it, more vital to our self-interest, than our comfort."

Amen!

the deception and lies of ID

2008-01-26T08:30:00.000-08:00

Although I wrote in a previous post: "The whole problem with intelligent design as 'science' is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account," the slippery snakes of the ID movement do not tell you their intention outright. The original (young earth) creationists did/do not hide this intention, but ID creationists do. Instead, ID proponents say they are looking for "signs of a designer" which may be an alien culture, a purple playdough man, or God (OK I added the purple playdough man idea myself). Why don't we add the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the list, too?

So my point is that they've deviously veiled their intent by claiming they are looking for signs of intelligence using probability theory and signs of "irreducible complexity" which fools their followers but not most scientists. And fortunately, not Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case who ruled ID is religious-based "creationism in disguise" and not science. Hence, teaching it in schools AS SCIENCE violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no bones about it, the proponents of ID want to break down that wall between church and state. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case was a resounding victory for science, but ID proponents certainly won't stop there.

As a Christian myself, I always wonder why the IDers don't think for a moment that maybe God *isn't* on their side when he keeps giving victory after victory to the supposedly "other side"? Although God's ways are mysterious and no one can claim to fully know God's ways, God is certainly on the side of Truth (and I do believe that there is Truth), especially since in the Bible the devil is described as the "father of lies."

The extent of ID proponents' lying, hypocrisy, and deception is truly frightening. Of course, isn't it always the case that those who are most guilty of propaganda and lying will cast this stone out to the other side. Have you ever had a cheating spouse or significant other accuse you of cheating? Or lying? It's a very common psychological tool used by the lying, deceiving person or group to sidetrack attention away from themselves. ID and other creationists frequently accuse evolution advocates of propaganda. Of course discerning the truth is not all that difficult, but it requires critical thinking, deeper research and understanding the issues, motives, and truths to all these situations. Unfortunately, most people do not have time for that, so they just tend to accept whatever the group/crowd thinks that they most closely align themselves with. To our country's peril! And to that individual's detriment as well.

I plan to start working on a course, seminar and workshop series that will help people decipher the real story from propaganda, and to discern lies versus truth. Are you being duped? Find out how to find out for yourself! Details coming soon.

I'd support having the "controversy" taught in schools, BUT it should be done in a social studies, religion, or cultural studies course and absolutely NOT in a science classroom!

is there evidence for macroevolution?

2008-01-24T20:22:00.000-08:00

After I cross-posted my last blog entry to The Daily Kos I got some good comments and discussion. The poll was done just for fun, sort of tongue-in-cheek though it did offend a couple of friends! That doesn't bother me so much, but one friend actually said she FORGAVE ME as if a difference of theological opinion is enough to cause a Christian friend of 20+ years to not forgive me? What about Jesus saying forgive 7 x 7 times?! I just wish we could all have a sense of humor here, people! :)

Anyway I believe that we have to stand up for Truth and that is why I am adamant about evolution. I KNOW evolution is fact. I have Faith in God and Christ. There's a big difference.

So the comment from a random person I don't know on Daily Kos was:

It surprises me to here [sic] so many argue against ID and in support of Evolution on the basis of facts when most of the facts I've heard on these posts are either wrong or the arguments are lacking the facts. First it's important to know what the basis of ID is and what the followers believe. Not what the religious conservatives who tried to use ID in there favor to get religion back in school believe it is. It's a story of "really don't be on my side" because the conservatives are not helping the idea behind ID. Also to those who boldly call evolution a fact and not a theory. The science has the evidence to support the evolution of species due to natural selection. However, Evolution remains a theory that has plenty of gaps in going from one family to another. Apparently I must have had a terrible evolution teacher when I took the course in college because the gaps are amazing when you actually look at the details. Probabilities and mathematics are a science. You can prove how statistically improbable something is due to its complexities. How different is that basic concept than ID.

And my response:

You must certainly have had a very bad biology teacher because the evidence for macroevolution - NOT just microevolution and natural selection - is overwhelming not scant.

The very fact of the universal genetic code in itself overwhelmingly supports common descent of all organisms from bacteria to human(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code). That is just the beginning. Other basic facts (not theory) in support of evolution are:

the shared muscle & bone arrangements in all vertebrates, which have been modified to fit the function in various creatures (birds versus whales versus bats versus fish etc)
evidence from convergent evolution (unrelated organisms will evolve in very similar ways to rspond to similar evolutionary pressures)
evidence from similarities of flora & fauna on Africa and South America and other continents due to plate tectonics (the continents used to be connected, so organisms on continents that used to be connected are more similar genetically than continents that were not connected - or in relation to time apart since at one point everything was one land mass which then moved apart into Gondwanaland and Laurasia, and then further split).
The fact that geneticists can actually detect specific changes in genes and how that affects traits in one closely related organism to the next.

This is just the very beginning of evidence!!

I get frustrated that people who have had a single Biology class in college, learning evolution for a max of 3-4 weeks, think that they can debunk the whole thing by saying there'e no evidence. Try taking a bio class again, or reading about evolution from a non-biased source (scientists) or take an Evolution class. Or sit in on one. Whether or not there is a God/ "designer" is not a question that science can answer! Trying to redefine science so that it appeases Christians/IDers/anti-evolutionists is doing a grave injustice to our society, our world, Christianity, and Truth itself!

Expelled: The Intelligent Design movie

2008-01-20T11:53:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted with a tongue-in-cheek quiz at the Daily Kos.

The whole problem with intelligent design is that its proponents like to say it is science, and that the status quo of scientists are not allowing this new concept to be introduced into science classrooms, from some sort of discrimination or something. It's a reasonable enough sounding argument, and the premise of the new documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." And the makers of this film want people to see this movie so badly that they're offering to pay schools and churches $5 per student to see it. I first read about this on The Daily Irrelevant and The Bad Idea Blog.

What intelligent design proponents - in the movie and elsewhere - don't tell you is that science and scientists do not have PR campaigns. They don't have to pay money to people to accept scientific theories and facts. They quietly go about their work in the halls of academia, in the laboratory, using computer models, in the field doing experiments, publishing results in scientific peer-reviewed journals. This is how science works. Scientific ideas don't need a PR campaign, films, and money to promote themselves. They MAY use these techniques as teaching tools, but that is generally after a scientific concept is well established.

Intelligent design is not well-established, and despite what the film may tell people, it's not being expelled. It doesn't have enough data or studies behind it to be put into textbooks. In fact, it's not even science. Somehow we as a society seem to have forgotten what science even is. This shall not do! Science revolutionized the way people thought, paving the way for the amazing scientific and technological advances since then - germ theory, vaccines, antibiotics, traveling to the moon. The key here is that science requires scientists to throw out ideas that don't have supporting data. Every scientific hypothesis is always open to falsification - being shown to be false.

The whole problem with intelligent design as "science" is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account. Science does not work if you have a pre-set conclusion! No, for a process or idea to be science, those testing the premise have to be able to throw out the hypothesis if the data doesn't fit. Intelligent design is not willing to do that. Because that would mean they are saying, nope, we're wrong. God didn't create the world. At least that is what the fear it means.

People that promote intelligent design KNOW that there is a God who created the universe. And I, myself a Christian, believe that they're right. But that doesn't make intelligent design right. Because ID does not even provide a proper mechanism, or method, through which the universe came into existence other than "God did it," (technically, their terminology is that the world has "irreducible complexity" that could not possibly have been created by anything other than an intelligent designer).

However, evolution by means of natural selection has amazing explanatory power in terms of how the world could have gone from single-celled organisms to complex beings, even human beings. There's no scientific controversy over evolution. There is ONLY a social, religious and cultural controversy.

Another problem with intelligent design proponents is this - very few people who follow it have ever taken a college Biology class in which they learned about evolution and its evidence. Instead they learn about evolution from those attacking it, in the churches and by the "professional creationists" who make money by selling books and making movies to promote their views. And now if you will excuse me, I need to go worship my Noodly master. Ramen!

When science & faith find common ground

2008-01-19T19:39:00.000-08:00

Daily Kos contributing editor Steven Andrews wrote a fantastic Op-Ed in Wednesday Jan 16's Austin American-Statesman, "When science and faith find common ground." He starts by saying

"The age-old, simmering conflict between science and religion is threatening to boil over in Texas with the usual battle lines being drawn around evolutionary biology and public education science standards. Here's a thought: Instead of a long and potentially bitter stand-off between science advocates and creationist proponents, why doesn't Texas skip that mess and go straight to a reasonable compromise? Instead of arguing about fossils, radiometric dating methods or constitutional law, I'd ask those skeptical of evolution what better natural evidence for the brilliance of a Creator could there be than myriad complex processes unfolding over billions of years through countless steps in exquisite order spanning the entire cosmos?"

But my favorite line is when he uses the term "professional creationists" in this paragraph:

"It's no coincidence that professional creationists try to frame the issue as a struggle between science and religion. It's a false dichotomy to be sure, but it's also a powerful public relations tactic, one that serves their goals well. But despite what creationists may say, the choice is not between science and religion, or belief vs. atheism."

I've never heard it put like that, but it's such a perfect characterization of the people who devote their lives to pushing creationism in the classrooms and in society. I strongly believe that despite it being led largely by (right-wing conservative) Christians, creationism detracts from Jesus' message and does far more harm to Christianity than good. In fact, I don't see any good coming from it at all. It wastes taxpayers money (over $1 million spent on the recent Dover court case), tries to insert a religious concept into science classrooms, weakening science education, specifically and our school systems, generally, and last but not least, makes Christians look foolish to educated scientists and academics, many of whom are turned away from religion because of such tomfoolery. And as a concept, it's simply wrong, false, untrue, a lie masquerading as "Christian truth" which is really the most insidious of all things. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if ever there was one. Beware of creationism and inteligent design!

Christianity is about loving God and loving your neighbors of all sizes, shapes, creeds, colors, and religions. And forgiveness and grace. Fighting to get everyone to take a literal view of Genesis creation account should not be the central focus of any Christian's life. Nor should fighting to get schools to remove evolution, or introduce its supposed "weaknesses" or to push intelligent design (another form of creationism). What the Creation tale offers us is not a scientific treatise on Creatoin, but a story of how humanity got a soul, a conscience. Adam didn't eat an apple. It didn't have anything to do with sexual sin. What he did was eat of the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil." If that is not profound, and clear, I don't know what is.

Call for Presidential Debate on Science

2008-01-08T17:04:00.001-08:00

This is sooooo needed!!! For information about ScienceDebate2008, visit: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/

From the National Center for Science Education newsletter:

A CALL FOR A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

A non-partisan coalition is calling for a presidential debate on science and technology. "Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness," the coalition writes, "we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy."

In a December 26, 2007, press release, John Rennie, editor-in-chief of Scientific American and a member of the coalition's steering committee, explained, "Matters of science and technology underpin every important issue affecting the future of the United States. It's crucial for the nation's welfare that our next president be someone with an understanding of vital science, a willingness to listen to scientific counsel, and a capacity for solid, critical thinking. A debate would be the ideal opportunity for America and the candidates to explore our national priorities on these issues."

The coalition is chaired by Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rush Holt, scientists themselves, who remarked in a joint statement, "We believe a debate on these issues would be the ideal opportunity for America and the candidates to explore our national priorities for the twenty-first century, and we hope candidates will wish to be involved in such a discussion." Among the others calling for the debate are fourteen Nobel laureates, the editors-in-chief of Nature and Science, and NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott. The coalition is accepting new supporters on its website.

news on the evolution front

2008-01-07T22:09:00.000-08:00

There was an interesting article in the Washington Spectator, Is Darwin Losing the Battle With God? It covers the battle to keep creationism out of science classrooms, starting with the Dover courtcase and ending with the firing of Texas Education Agency (TEA) Director Chris Comer. I think the most startling point is in the concluding paragraph:

Now, teachers she knows in small towns across Texas have come to her [Chris Comer] to say they've been forced to teach creationism in science class for years. She asked them why they didn't do anything about it. "Come on," they told her. "What can I do? It's Texas."

Yowza. I've heard of high school teachers avoiding evolution in class for fear of being called "spawn of the devil" or other names by enraged parents (never mind that students have to learn these topics to pass their state skills tests). But I've never heard of teachers being forced to teach creationism! That is a major violation of the separation of Church and State. People, this issue of separation of Church & State is what caused Americans had to fight for our independence against the Crown of England! Have we forgotten so soon what America was founded on, and why?

in other news, the National Academies of Sciences & the Institute of Medicine have published a new book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism.

A description from the NAS website for the book:

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.

A gorgeous and educational 8-page brochure is available online as a PDF and a Press Release from NAS is available also.

the woman TX creationists don't want you to hear...

2008-01-06T10:48:00.000-08:00

"Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don't Want You to Hear"

The long-time Director of TEA, Chris Comer, was fired in November 2007 after she simply forwarded an email about this speaker, Barbara Forrest. It received press in the New York Times, among other places.

These are short 2-minute videos that give you a sample of the longer videos I blogged about 2 days ago at http://evolutionvscreationism.info/. These short clips were put on YouTube to link to the current Texas controversy! Apparently funding to create more science ed videos to SQRE, the organization who put the longer ones together, depends on the popularity of these. So go watch!

And the rest:
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

The videos or mini-lectures are all free to watch and show in science classes and meetings.

free evolution-creationism podcasts

2008-01-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

Nothing's free right? OK well maybe Youtube, podcasts, the web (sort of)... But here's a fantastic FREE resource for teachers, students and anyone interested in the evolution-creation issue, produced by Scientific, Qualitative, Research, & Education, Inc. (SQRE).

Each podcast is a mini-lecture on a variety of evolutionary topics primarily addressing the evolution/Creationism controversy. The videos are well-made, substantive, and scientific. They feature such well-known personalities as Genie Scott, Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller, and others who can speak authoritatively about these topics.

They are free to anyone and can be used in schools, colleges, etc. (and in Texas if you dare).

Topics include Is Evolution Just a Theory? and Is Hearing Both Sides Fair? and other hot topics.
Go to http://listentothescientists.com/ or http://evolutionvscreationism.info/ to access these free mini-lecture podcasts.

Huckabee on evolution & creationism

2008-01-03T19:11:00.000-08:00

As of 9pm, Texas time, it looks like Huckabee will win the Iowa Caucus. True this is just one state's primary, but I took the time to look up a bit more about him online.

The Wikipedia entry says:

Huckabee has voiced his support of creationism. He was quoted in July 2004 on Arkansans Ask, his regular show on the Arkansas Educational Television Network: "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Huckabee also stated "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."[145][146][147][148] In the Third GOP Debate in June 2007, Huckabee was asked by Tom Fahey whether he believed in evolution, and he responded, in part: "I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don’t honestly know, and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president."[149] Huckabee's
position is that acceptance of evolution is not relevant to being President.[150][151]"

Now I don't take issue with his statement, "I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don’t honestly know..." with the exception that it sounds a bit too politicalese to me, but I do take exception to the end of this statement which was "...and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president."

Science is absolutely critical in our nation, and given the current battle over putting intelligent design in the classroom, understanding evolution is essential for any President or leader. Science fuels technology, medicine, and the future of our environment in many ways. Evolution is central in biology, and that touches on medicine, genomics, HIV, vaccinations, green technology, global warming issues, and so much more. To not understand - or accept as fact - evolution will certainly do a disservice to the Office of the President and the United States. We need strong leadership on science and education policy. We can not afford to weaken our education systems and our children's education because interest groups want to bring religion thinly disguised as "science" into the classroom. And we need strong leadership to guide our nation in all of these issues. Did I say that already?! We need strong leadership with regards to science education!

I read that the rallying of social conservatives - ie evangelicals - was responsible for Huckabee's surprise showing in Iowa when he was in single digits just weeks before. But that scares me a bit. I am a Christian, and I have grave concern that vast numbers of Christians are blindly listening to the Christian leaders telling them how to vote, who to suppport, and who will promote their religious agenda, when in fact, people MUST make up their own minds if we are to have a healthy functioning democracy. And for everyone's own spiritual and psychological health. Sapere aude! Dare to be wise!

When asked "What is Enlightenment," Immanuel Kant replied wrote this in an essay:

“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] ‘Have courage to use your own understanding!’--that is the motto of enlightenment.”

Creationism degrees in Texas?

2007-12-21T15:51:00.000-08:00

Reprinted from the NCSE newsletter:

The Institute for Creation Research is seeking to grant graduate degrees in Texas. Meanwhile, Glenn Branch offers his take on the Comer controversy, the Alliance for Science is holding its second annual essay contest, and new content from Reports of the NCSE is available on the NCSE website.

ICR SEEKS TO GRANT DEGREES IN TEXAS

The Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth creationist organization, has cleared the first hurdle in its quest for authorization to issue master's degrees in science education in Texas. The Dallas Morning News (December 15, 2007) reported, "The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which will consider the request next month." According to a December 17, 2007, report by Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science, THECB will meet on January 24, 2008, to consider the ICR's application. If approved, the ICR will have two years to obtain accreditation for its graduate school from an independent accreditation agency.

ICR recently moved its headquarters from the San Diego, California, area to Dallas. In the October issue of ICR's publication Acts & Facts, its president John Morris explained, "The possibility of moving to Dallas surfaced when my brother, Dr. Henry Morris III, discerned that a central location would be beneficial for ICR, with several possibilities for student services at nearby affiliated colleges. The many good churches and large numbers of ICR supporters living in North Texas made it a natural fit for the ministry. When my father [Henry Morris] was still alive he approved the move to Dallas, especially as a way to strengthen the graduate school. In 2006, ICR opened a distance education effort in Dallas, as well as the hub of ICR's internet ministries. ... As additional operational functions were assigned to the new Dallas office, the Board concluded that it was in ICR's best interests to move the entire ministry."

The ICR's graduate school was previously accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), a group founded by Henry Morris; Henry Morris III presently serves on its commission. Texas does not recognize accreditation by TRACS, forcing the ICR to seek temporary state certification while it applies for accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). As a first step toward certification, a committee of Texas educators visited the ICR's facilities in Dallas to evaluate whether the ICR meets the legal requirements for state certification. The report described the educational program as "plausible," adding, "The proposed degree would be generally comparable to an initial master's degree in science education from one of the smaller, regional universities in the state."

NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott disagreed, telling the Dallas Morning News, "It sounds like the committee may have just taken at face value what the ICR claims ... There's a huge gulf between what the ICR is doing and what they're doing at legitimate institutions like ... [the University of Texas] or Baylor." (The committee members were a librarian, an educational administrator, and a mathematician; none was professionally trained in biology, geology, or physics.) Inside Higher Ed reported (December 17, 2007), "Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would authorize master's degrees in science education that are based on complete opposition to evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these groups are particularly concerned because the students in these programs would be people who are or want to be school teachers."

Although Patricia Nason, chair of the ICR's science education department, told the Dallas Morning News, "Our students are given both sides. They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion," the ICR's statement of faith includes the tenet, "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false." Similarly, applicants to the ICR's graduate school are explicitly told that their answers to the essay questions on the application help to determine "your dedication to the Lord, the Word, and teaching creation science."

According to the Dallas Morning News's article, the ICR's graduate program "offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also offers a class called 'Advanced studies in creationism.' And the course Web page for 'Curriculum design in science' gives this scenario: 'The school board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades

6-12 science goals. ... Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?'" The ICR's graduate school's website repeatedly declares, "ICR maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of evolutionism in tax-supported institutions."

The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, Raymund Paredes, is to study the ICR's application and offer his opinion to THECB. He told the San Antonio Express-News (December 19, 2007), "Because this controversy is so potentially hot, we owe it to both sides to be absolutely fair in evaluating it. ... Maybe the real issue here is to put this proposal in the right category. Maybe it's not a program in science education. Maybe it's a program in creation studies. Then we have to decide whether that is a legitimate field or not." The New York Times (December 19, 2007) reported, "Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, 'I don't know. I'm not a scientist.'"

For the Dallas Morning News's article, visit: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/121507dnmetcreation.2b0d011.html

For Texas Citizens for Science's report, visit:
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm

For the THECB committee's report (PDF), visit:
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/ICR-Site-Visit-Report-and-ICR-Response.pdf

For Inside Higher Ed's article, visit:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/17/texas

For the San Antonio Express-News's article, visit:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121907.01A.Creationism.2951a43.html

For The New York Times's article, visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/education/19texas.html

and now for some serious news...

2007-12-01T21:16:00.000-08:00

From NCSE newsletter, reprinted with permission...sad sad state of affairs!

TEXAS EDUCATION OFFICIAL FORCED TO RESIGN OVER EVOLUTION

Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, was forced to resign after forwarding a short e-mail message announcing a presentation in Austin by Barbara Forrest. The Austin American-Statesman (November 29, 2007) reported, "Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities, saying, 'FYI.'" Less than two hours later, Lizzette Reynolds, the TEA's senior adviser on statewide initiatives, complained to Comer's supervisors, writing, "This is highly inappropriate ... I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities ... it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports."

The e-mail was then cited in a memorandum recommending Comer's termination, the American-Statesman noted: "They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, 'it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science.' The memo adds, 'Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.'" Other reasons for recommending her termination were listed in addition.

But Comer told the newspaper that she thought that the long-standing political controversy over evolution education in Texas was
responsible: "None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said. NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott suggested that Comer's termination seemed to be a warning to TEA employees. "This just underscores the politicization of science education in Texas," Scott said. "In most states, the department of education takes a leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do the bidding of the board."

Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network, which advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right, also expressed her concern. "It's important to know whether politics and ideology are standing in the way of Texas kids getting a 21st century science education," Miller told the American-Statesman. Alluding to previous battles over the place of evolution in Texas science standards and textbooks, she added, "We've already seen a faction of the State Board of Education try to politicize and censor what our schoolchildren learn. It would be even more alarming if the same thing is now happening inside TEA itself."

In a report dated November 29, 2007, Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science contended that the real reason that Comer was forced to resign was her defense of the integrity of science education during her long tenure at TEA. Describing Comer as a martyr of science, he added, "But she will not be a victim," predicting that scientists and science teachers in Texas will be "outraged by her treatment by a state agency that is now publicly and officially forgoing accurate and reliable science to serve the ideological and religious biases of a small minority of state public education officials."

Barbara Forrest herself was aghast at the news, telling NCSE, "In my talk, I simply told the truth -- about the history of the 'intelligent design'
movement, about the complete rejection of its claims by the scientific community, and about the Kitzmiller trial and my involvement in it. Maybe the TEA can't afford to take a position on what constitutes good science education -- maybe it must remain neutral on whether or not to lie to students about evolution -- but if so, that's just sad." A professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a member of NCSE's board of directors, Forrest is the coauthor (with Paul R. Gross) of Creationism's Trojan Horse.

Comer's resignation comes a few months before the Texas board of education is expected to review the science portion of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the state science standards that determine both what is taught in Texas's public school science classrooms and the content of the biology textbooks approved for use in the state. In 2003, there were concerted if ultimately unsuccessful attempts to wield the TEKS to compromise the treatment of evolution in the textbooks then under consideration, and it is expected that such attempts will recur -- especially since the new president of the board is himself a vocal creationist.

For the story in the Austin American-Statesman, visit:http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129science.html

And in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30resign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1196572010-AxV+fYdlohPhOTejSd58cw

flying spaghetti monster hat

2007-12-01T17:15:00.000-08:00

"The Pope has a special hat. Rabbis have special hats. Rastafarians have special hats. Why not Pastafarians?"

http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html

MSNBC also has an article on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster getting some academic attention: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21837499/page/2/

Ramen!

Origin of Life Paper Retracted

2007-10-25T19:50:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an article today, '55 'Origin of Life' Paper is Retracted describing how professor Homer Jacobson publicly retracted statements he made in a 1955 issue of American Scientist about the improbability of the early origin of life. Sign of the times - he Googled his name. What he found though horrified him -- Creationists and anti-evolutionists were regularly using his words to support their cause. He reread his old article, and realized there were some mistakes in it. So he did what he felt was best, publicly corrected the long-ago mistake. The Chronicle of Higher Education blog has a piece on this issue also. Good for Dr. Jacobson!

Can God Love Darwin?

2007-09-21T17:51:00.000-07:00

Sharon Begley writes about embattled Nazarene University professor Richard Colling, who supports evolution, is a Christian, and wrote the book Random Designer. The Newsweek piece, Can God Love Darwin? says:

In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable."

All I can say is that it's a sad sad day when our country is so uneducated that people actually do not understand that evolution is fact, and ministers devote so much time to writing letters and haranguing professors who are merely teaching the current scientific consensus. It's really sad because our nation's critical thinking skills, and our ability to discern truth from propaganda is disintegrating and that makes our nation vulnerable to all manner of propaganda, and false teaching, and that is what led to Nazi Germany where highly educated people followed leaders to a horrifying end.

TGFE website

2007-09-18T10:12:00.000-07:00

Michael Dowd's Thank God for Evolution has a new website that is really great visually and content-wise. Check it out: http://thankgodforevolution.com/. It includes an audio message from Michael, endorsements from several Nobel Laureates, and more.he also has a blog.

The Politics of God

2007-08-18T21:26:00.001-07:00

There is an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine, "The Politics of God" which mentions a letter Iranian President Ahmadinejad sent to George W. Bush. The NYT article quotes it as saying:

“I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad continued, reminding his fellow believer that “according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.” There follows a kind of altar call, in which the American president is invited to bring his actions into line with these verses. And then comes a threatening prophecy: “Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. . . . Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.”

The Politics of God essay is adapted from the upcoming book by Mark Lilla, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West, which will be published next month. It's quite an interesting article. It relates to something that will be in my book, which is also in the previous blog post, about the parallels between the earlier violent era of Christianity and the current violence within Islam. He discusses the beliefs of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who "changed the question" that people of the day debated from "God and his commands" to "man and his beliefs" and talked about how humankind's fear led to assigning divine powers to all manner of things - animals, women, leeks... and then they feared those things that could control the whims of the universe. Ultimately it was fear of God, and he argues that because their souls were at stake they fought, and that led to wars, and that led to fear and led to people being more religious.

I'm not convinced that "because their souls were at stake they fought." I think that if people had serious concern about their souls, they wouldn't fight! I think most religious people engaged in bloodshed have deluded themselves. However immature religious people do fight to convince others of their beliefs, and to force others to think like they do. I think that is what led to wars. And what does today. I can't wait to get my book out there.

Islam vs. Islamists

2007-08-14T21:14:00.000-07:00

I watched an absolutely fascinating documentary on Houston PBS last night, Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. It talks about attempts to silence moderate Muslims by more extreme fundamentalist Muslims, often by death threats. It talked about the Wahhabi Muslims, who are the very extreme Muslims that want sharia law instituted which means Muslim law for all people, even in non-Muslim countries. This law includes stoning women and men to death for adultery --the documentary showed secretly captured footage (which was horrid). Yet many moderate Muslims believe in democracy, and in separation of church and state, and were interviewed and highlighted in the piece. This includes Phoenix physician Zuhdi Jasser, who leads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

Here's the documentary trailer on YouTube.

Apparently there was a big controversy several months back because the documentary was supposed to air as part of a Crossroads in America series on PBS, but got pulled. The reason? PBS wanted the producer to somehow say that the moderate Muslims portrayed within (who believe in democracy and live in a Westernized society) are actually not "true Muslims" but the extreme fundamentalism represents a truer form of Islam.

The irony here, and the beauty, is how parallel this is to Christianity, and to some extent Judaism. In these three religions (which I know best) there are gradations from fundamentalism and literal interpretations of Scripture, to more moderate and even liberal interpretations. Fundamentalists inevitably claim they are the only "true" believers. Ultra-Orthodox Jews take a literal interpretation of Genesis, as I understand it, and believe things like the devil planted dinosaur bones like Christian creationists.

Interestingly, the literal interpretations also seem to be more tied to political activism (at least within Islam and Christianity), probably because the leaders can control those with fear. Christians in past eras engaged in Crusades because they applied Old Testament laws to the new evangelism. Spreading the "good news" became killing others who didn't convert. It's quite similar to the current flaring of Islamic fundamentalism. They want to force everyone to follow their way, which will never happen, because once you've tasted freedom there's no going back.

The fundamentalist Islamists want to institute sharia law which came not from the Kuran but, as I understand it, from oral tradition (hadith). Christian denominations vary on whether the Bible is the sole source of authority, as do Jewish sects on the use of the Torah (Old Testament) versus the Talmud (rabbinic discussions and interpretations of the Torah and its Law).

These three religions share many similar teachings, and so it comes down to whether we interpret Scripture and religious teachings literally, or rather take the spiritual lessons meant within. You can believe the Bible, for example, to be literally true without believing that every word is literal. What about poetry? In Islam, should one interpret things like the 72 virgins one will receive in heaven as a literal truth or as a description of the ecstasy of heaven since perhaps sex is the closest ecstasy we will feel to heaven on earth? (It's no accident that Jesus called the Church his bride).

It's also ironic that there are fundamentalist Christians who tend to agree with the fundamentalist Muslims that "the only good Muslim" is one who is an extremist, and wants to force their faith on others. It furthers their own cause which is often to condemn those outside their religion, and paint Christianity as somehow different. All religions suffer the same problems. That does not make the religion itself wrong, it just shows the ways humans in their selfishness and greed and power-hunger can hijack what is truly meant by faith.

Here is an interesting interview with the documentary producer, Martyn Burke.

the flying spaghetti monster comes to texas

2007-08-05T15:03:00.000-07:00

Margaret Downing of the Houston Press blogs in Creationism and the Dumbing Down of Texas:

"Listen, if you want to believe in creationism, go ahead. If you can’t find any way to reconcile your religious beliefs with science other than to reject evolution, a-ok. But that is a religious preference. You might as well reject the theory of gravity while you’re at it. And all those old bones and fossils they’ve dug up? Fakes, just like the moon landing. It’s a pretty slippery, greasy slope of ignorance."

Agreed. As I blogged before, I witnessed firsthand McLeory in action and was astonished and dumbfounded that such tomfoolery could take place in the 21st century in a government entity (maybe such nonsense happens all the time in politics in other subjects, but his words and childish behavior were the height of absurdity). A teacher friend wrote a letter to Governor Perry on theissue, and the reply from Perry was that he didn't have any problem with intelligent design being taught alongside evolution, and that he should address any further concerns to the State Board of Education. The same Board that he'd just appointed a creationist the Chairperson of.

The Houston Press blog refers to the nonsense being akin to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I had to laugh out loud at this hilarious satire on religious ridiculous anti-reason folks. I think I'd heard of it years back, but this is fantastic! What a great way to parody something that is truly absurd. Check out Wikipedia's Entry. The concept was started by Bobby Henderson as a satire, of course, and he encourages teaching of the Pastafarian theory of Creation in science classrooms. For one thing, you conclude prayers be declaring Ramen instead of Amen. Henderson has written a book in which he outlined the Gospel of The Flying Spa ghetti Monster. This is a riot. I have to get a FSM Ichthus for my car! Also see Henderson's FSM website. He blogged that we should contact Don McLeroy and encourage inclusion of the Pastafarian/Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory of Creation alongside evolution - "i.e. that the Flying Spaghetti Monster changes our observations to make it appear that the world conforms to Natural scientific theory." Send your letters to:

Don McLeroy
9277 Brookwater Circle
College Station, TX 77845
979 255-2538
979 846-1174 (FAX)

And one of the most hilarious things is that someone emailed him asking him if this is "for real" and then laying into him about how stupid the FSM religion was, and giving him logical arguments (with lots of typos). Honey, if you can't figure out that this is a parody... well what can I say.

Special Issue on Dover case

2007-07-26T22:28:00.000-07:00

Social Studies of Science has a special issue on the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case. There are several PDFs of journal articles on the case, including two by Michael Lynch who was an expert witness. I haven't read them yet but they should be interesting.

In other news, the Creation Museum in Kentucky has surpassed 100,000 visitors. Now half of them are probably people like me wanting to check out the freak show, but the other half, well I just don't know about them.

Bad news for Texas

2007-07-25T22:32:00.000-07:00

Today I heard the news... Governor Rick Perry appointed Dr. Don McLeroy as the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. All I can say is Texans, be prepared for another showdown.

In 2003, I testified at the textbook hearings where opponents of evolution tried to water it down by introducing so called "strengths and weaknesses" (when in reality that is a farce). Don McLeroy was on the Board then but not Chair. When I walked in, of the 15 members, he sat there with a huge posterboard displaying:

Copernicus’ “Heliocentric” Hypothesis—Yes

Darwin’s “Common Descent” Hypothesis—NO

Along with various other things on the posterboard refuting Darwin. Whatever. Here's a link to his website which has much of the info. He was utterly horrible in the hearing - interrupting other members, asking very loaded questions of people who did not have the expertise to answer, and then not asking the actual scientific experts - which included Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg among other notable experts - the questions that they could have answered. It was done, I'm sure, to create the aura of people not having answers when it comes to evolution. But he'd ask students! Not the professors!

All I can say is, thank God my kids go to a private Episcopal school! (Yes, the Episcopal denomination accepts and teaches evolution). I was thinking about putting them in public for high school but surely not if this guy gets his hands on their textbooks. His behavior at the 2003 hearing was appalling. Here's a quote of his about evolution from the Dallas Morning News article linked below, "It is wrong to teach opinion as fact," he said. So he's not even arguing points about the science, he calls the whole 200 years of evolutionary biology studies "opinion." And he now heads our TX State Board.

Oh, and he's a dentist, not an academic but sure loves to use that doctor moniker.

The Dallas Morning News has this article, Conservative to Lead State Education Board: Perry picks chairman as panel prepares to revisit several course standards.

2007 is the year our textbook standards are up for revisiting. Help us dear God!

Science and Islam, and Dawkins

2007-07-05T13:21:00.000-07:00

My colleague Todd Pitock - who I met at the ASJA (American Society of Journalists and Authors) meeting in New York earlier this year - wrote an interesting piece in the latest Discover Magazine, "Science and Islam in Conflict" - but check out the print mag because it has great photos and as Todd says, the online version lacks the panache of the magazine layout.

The latest Scientific American magazine also has an interesting dialogue between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss about conflict between science and religion, "Should Science Speak to Faith?" Frankly I get very irritated when magazines continue to give Dawkins so much space to fill the pages of their magazine, radio play, because he is utterly fringe on his beliefs on the incompatibility between science and faith.

As a scientist, Dawkins is fantastic and I love his book The Selfish Gene and his ideas on memes (cultural ideas that transmit from generation to generation in a sort of non-genetic natural selection). However, his belief (opinion, non-scientific in any way) that faith is a delusion and that science and faith are incompatible is held by only a very small minority of people, including other atheists and agnostics. Would Scientific American give as much space to Ken Ham or another young earth creationist? I think not! And they shouldn't! Dawkins gets space because he sells magazines, is charismatic and opinionated, and is well-known - he's like the Ann Coulter of anti-religion! That is not a good enough reason. Giving him space when an article is about his own scientific concepts, or about his books perhaps is ok (his latest, The God Delusion, is not new enough to merit a whole article on him at this stage).

Frankly although the dialogue is interesting, both of these people are very cynical and condemning of religion in their own way. By continuing to give them press, it simply continues to spread the idea that scientists are always anti-God or anti-religion. Krauss also makes the mistake of saying "If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth" because he's claiming you can't cherry-pick your beliefs from the Bible. But he clearly hasn't read - or understood - the whole Bible or theology behind Christianity - because first of all he's taking things literally (ironically, the same thing he is asking fundamentalists not to do. Many of the Old Testament stories and even commandments have deeper and literary meanings hidden within the most obvious initial read of it) and second of all, according to Christian theology, Jesus came to bring a new covenant that ends legalism (following rules for the sake of it, and thinking one is better than others at the same time such people often treat people very poorly - this is according to the Bible not me, though I wholeheartedly agree) - and Jesus came to herald a deeper, more spirit- and grace-based faith. Somehow many Christians have not grasped or embraced what Jesus was all about. And clearly many non-religious people don't get it either.

Thank God For Evolution!

2007-06-10T20:50:00.000-07:00

This book may be before it's time, but I hope and pray the world is ready. This new book "Thank God for Evolution! How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World" to be released soon by Council Oak Books was written by Reverend Michael Dowd. It's reality and science based, and I don't know any more apt word than prophetic. This is the type of book that could spawn a movement that could change the world. He says so many profound things. For example, that science is God's current revelation to humanity. Revelation didn't stop with Christ, but Truth is being revealed daily by science and scientists and we can take meaning and lesson from these things, including evolution as a beautiful creative force.

The message of this book speaks to all religions but mostly tries to relate Christianity to a modern-day evolutionary and scientific worldview. It includes a section entitled “The Gospel According to Evolution” which interprets the gospel in light of our current knowledge of evolution. It is in no way “new age.” It's very down to earth, positive, accessible to everyone, and has a lot of great quotes interpersed within. One of the most profound discussions, in my opinion, is his distinction between day (literal) and night (figurative) language and he says that we essentially belittle God by taking as day language what was clearly meant as night language. The world just might not yet be ready for Michael Dowd, but for the world's sake, I hope it is!

I'll talk more about this book in the entries to come as I read through it all. I've talked to Michael by phone, and watched some DVDs of his message. He was a former fundamentalist who rejected evolution and gradually came to realize that it not only was true, but that it had a profound message for humankind. He talks about miracles, the virgin birth, resurrection, being co-creators with God of this life on earth, and of course Creation itself which is ongoing.

http://www.counciloakbooks.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=222

Edwards on evolution

2007-06-05T10:44:00.000-07:00

Hallelujah! Someone with some sense. The Democratic Presidential candidates had a forum on their religious faith - Faith Guiding Our Votes (see CNN article on this), and in this, Soledad O'Brien asked Sen. John Edwards about what he believes about evolution and he stood up for the view that you can be a devout Christian and accept evolution. Watch the video here.

why do people resist science?

2007-06-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

An interesting article, "WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?" By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg at The Edge.
PAUL BLOOM is a psychologist at Yale University and the author of Descartes' Baby. DEENA SKOLNICK WEISBERG is a doctoral candidate in psychology at Yale University. The original paper was actually published in the journal Science, 18 May 2007,
Vol. 316, pp. 996 - 997.

"The developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy."

This is a fascinating article, based in the authors' research, on rejection of science by educated people and how children learn and how our initial biases get reinforced by cultural and religious belief systems. Check it out!

flock of dodos

2007-05-28T20:12:00.001-07:00

The documentary Flock of Dodos will air on Showtime several times this week. I haven't yet seen the documentary but plan to. Former evolutionary ecologist Dr. Randy Olson produced this lighthearted show looking at the intelligent design /evolution debate. As NCSE described it, "At first it seems the problem lies with intelligent design -- a movement labeled recently as "breathtaking inanity" by a federal judge -- but when a group of evolutionists convene for a night of poker and discussion they end up sounding themselves like ... a flock of dodos."

View the Showtime air dates/times.

The DVD for Flock of Dodos has some special features, including the 6 1/2- minute "Pulled Punches" - scenes that got cut from the documentary. You can view it on YouTube. The great ironic highlight in this is Dr Michael Behe, biochemist, author and intelligent design proponent, saying "My kids don't go to public schools; what do I care?"

The problem with anti-evolution rhetoric

2007-05-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

All I can say is that people can convince others just about anything if they have enough money. This New York Times article, "Adam and Eve in the land of Dinosaurs" talks about the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky which opens May 28. The museum is the brainchild of the notorious young earth creationist Ken Ham.

People talk about "What Would Jesus Do?" but would Jesus have Christians spend billions of dollars to promote literal interpretation of Genesis like the Discovery Institute and the young earth creationists starting the Creation Museum and Dinosaur Land, while people around the world are starving and gravely suffering? While people still don’t know the love and grace of Christ? Creationist movements preach to the choir and at the same time, without doubt, they turn people away from the faith far more than they bring anyone into the faith. Has anyone ever become a Christian from listening to creationists preach Creation?

I honestly can’t understand how any Christian who truly assesses the situation can think Christians that live that kind of way could be truly following Jesus. What about spending that kind of money on missions and humanitarian work instead?

I care about the faith, about the integrity of God’s word, and the way that people practice it out in their lives as witnesses to nonbelievers. But frankly the direction it’s headed scares me! Clinging to nonsense at the expense of rationality does not serve as a good witness.

National Center for Science Education Director Eugenie Scott appeared on ABC's Good Morning America to discuss the new museum. In this ABCNews online article, it says:

"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."

This basic misunderstanding is one of the biggest problems with anti-evolution rhetoric. The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that a Savior or Messiah will come into the world. Christians believe it was Jesus. Jesus rescued all people from sin and death... to those who accept the Way, the Way of love. Absolutely, you can not deny that horrible pain and suffering exist - among humans and animals. People do horrible things to other people - murder, rape, torture, manipulation, lies. Evolution does not give permission to anyone for anything. Evolution simply describes the way the world is. It's a dog eat dog world. Hello... that is what the whole story of original sin, and the Fall, are all about.

Yes, religion and spirituality offer morals and rules for living that allow people to rise above their sinful and selfish tendencies that we all have. To Buddhists, it is way of dharma - right conduct, and nonharm. The Boddhisattva in Buddhism commit to helping all others achieve a state of enlightenment out of the committed Bodhisattva's compassion. To Christians, it is the Way of grace and forgiveness and brotherly love. The Golden Rule. Christian and other religious tenets allow people living in an evolutionary world - in which yes, horrible events such as murder occur and we all are selfish by nature- to choose not to live a life that harms others- such as murder. So how come Christians know their faith so little that they can not understand that?

So the point the guy's making is that evolutionists don't have a "reason" to be moral, meaning that they don't have a God telling them what to do. Yet many do live just as moral of lives as Christians. How can this be? And many Christians fail to follow the tenets of their religion. Priests abusing young boys. Pastors leaving churches in shame after extramarital affairs. Christian abortion clinic bombers. These are extreme examples - but not really. Every Christian, like every person, has things in their past - or present - they're ashamed of. We all fail to be perfectly good, we all hurt others intentionally or not. That is why Christians believe we need a Savior - someone who loves us unconditionally no matter how much we screw up. And I'm talking major screw up - God's forgiveness is for those very people who do the major ^&*%-ups as well as the little ones. If only they can accept it - to really accept that one is loved and forgiven despite one's flaws - that is when a revolution of the heart takes place (and those who have committed the most grievous crimes are often the most grateful recipients of grace).

But when an evolutionist follows morality despite not having a religion - well, what do you think of this? Jesus said, in one of my favorite passages, when he was hanging out with a Samaritan woman who had been divorced many times and was living with a man not her husband. Jesus shared water from the well and said "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

To worship in spirit and in truth, to me, means to live out the way of loving your neighbor as yourself (which is the earthly manifestation of loving God) - and those who do this are following God whether they think they are or not. To be not hypocritical, to be truthful in words, to live a life of respect for one's fellow human beings - that to me is worshipping in spirit and in truth.

The late Jerry Falwell on evolution

2007-05-15T17:43:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell, who died today at age 73, said in a 2004 interview with CNN about evolution, "[T]here is a total blackout of creation instruction in the public schools of America, and in most of the colleges and universities, because I think the scientists who, under the guise that this is not true science, are afraid to expose their theory, their model to the creation model. And to me, that is a violation of academic freedom."

The problem with this "academic freedom" argument is a basic misunderstanding of science. In just about any other field - history, sociology, cultural studies, literature studies - you could discuss any and every fringe idea or ideas that, once fringe, have become common belief. However, in science, you want to teach students about scientific facts, scientific reality. We want to teach students how the world actually works (whether physics, biology, chemistry)- not just all the random ideas people think might be true (no matter what the source - the Bible, one's mind, etc.). Hence, not teaching creationism is not about restraining academic freedom.

If you want well-educated students and ultimately an intelligent citizenry, in the science classroom, you want teachers to discuss studies that have been designed with scientific rigor, that have passed through the scientific peer-review system and that are generally accepted in the scientific community. Debates can and do exist within science, but such alternative hypotheses are still published in scientific peer-reviewed journals before they make it into textbooks. For example, evolutionary biologists debate the role of chance events (a volcanic explosion destroying an entire small population of some rare species but leaving 2 or 3 individuals to carry on the species' genes) versus natural selection driving the long-term evolution of species. But biologists don't argue over whether natural selection occurs -- any more than physicists argue about whether gravity occurs. Even intelligent design proponents agree that natural selection occurs - it drives antibiotic resistance of bacteria...

The scientific method was developed to separate out scientific facts from "beliefs" many years ago. Scientists begin with an educated guess (a hypothesis - which is essentially a belief) but then rigorously test that idea by designing a study that prevents bias, using statistics to analyze the data collected, and then analyzing the results.

However, creation "science" is not a scientific idea - let alone a consensus or even a real opposing scientific idea - because it begins with an answer rather than a question: Creation must follow the 7 literal days of Genesis. If you begin with a preconceived answer that you are unwilling to discard if the science shows the opposite - then that is not science. If Jerry Falwell - or anyone for that matter - could discard the idea of a 7-day creation after looking at the data, then that would be science. In fact, early scientists did believe in a 7-day creation, but even before Darwin, the hypothesis of a 7-day creation was rejected by geologist Charles Lyell and others, and has since been soundly and absolutely destroyed by the scientific data, with thousands of radio-isotope dating and evolutionary studies.

Clinging blindly and stubbornly to this belief in a 7-day creation then, throws science out the window and remains clearly in the realm of faith. Blind dogmatic faith. If that's what one chooses to believe in, well, ok, but this is what psychiatrist Scott Peck writes in the bestselling book, The Road Less Traveled, about clinging to beliefs:

“We may denounce the new information as false, dangerous, heretical, the work of the devil. We may actually crusade against it, and even attempt to manipulate the world so as to make it conform to our view of reality.… Sadly, such a person may expend much more energy ultimately in defending an outmoded view of the world than would have been required to revise and correct it in the first place.”

Dr. Dino Goes to Jail

2007-05-13T21:33:00.000-07:00

Dinosaur Adventure Land Theme Park in Florida is designed to teach kids of all ages how people lived concurrently with the dinos. Ha! The whole concept - and the theme park - seems so outlandish that I planned to visit there for my book. I just learned from the NCSE news page, though, that the guy who runs it, the fairly well-known (as far as young earth creationists go) "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind, was recently sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for 58 tax offense charges including various legal breaches related to taxes and employees. He owes the IRS over $600,000 in restitution to the IRS. According to Wikipedia, the IRS shows the theme park earned over $5 million from 1999 to March 2004. Apparently the Hovinds tried to renounce their US citizenship and their social security numbers, claiming instead to become "a natural citizen of 'America' and a natural sojourner" and claiming not to live in the state of Florida but in "the State of Florida Body-Politic Corporation." The US government didn't buy it.

Republican candidates and evolution

2007-05-07T12:18:00.000-07:00

In the first Republican debate, 3 candidates raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. All I can say is Thank God the rest have at least a modicum of sanity. Someone commenting on the Washington Post blog said had best answer, "the correct answer is that you cannot 'believe' in evolution. evolution (as a process) is a demonstrable fact."

The Liberal Values blog makes a good point also. Huckabee had said that he didn't understand what the question had to do with being President of the United States, but as the blog rightly points out, it's incredibly important that the President of the U.S. have a basic understanding of modern science. Evolution is a fundamental backbone of biology, and the specious debate over evolution has become a precious waste of our judicial system's time and money. With around 50% of American rejecting evolution (rejecting reason for blind faith) this issue will continue to gain importance... We may as well be arguing about a flat earth!

Technorati Profile

The Creation

2007-05-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

Shared by a fellow Christian evolutionist, Warren Aney, this poem really touched me. It's beautiful. I share it here with his permission

Genesis 1

In the beginning there was only God
Just God
Nothing else
No time no space no energy no matter
But it did matter
To God

So God created
Something out of nothing
God created
Time and space and energy and particles
And God created
The laws for this universe
And there was neither night nor day
Then energy became light
And God saw that the light was good
This was the first day
Three minutes long

Then the matter came together
And became nebulae and stars and exploding novae
And this was the second day
Two billion years long
And God saw that it was good

Then came bodies of liquid and gas
And bodies of solid rock with water and air
And these bodies rotated from dark into light
Another day
Six billion years long

Then in a special place
The waters became rich
And out of this richness came life
And this life divided and multiplied and transformed
And God saw that it was good
And this was one more day
Three billion years long

Then the waters brought forth swarms of living creatures
Tiny floaters became small swimmers, and seaweeds, and fish
And Earth rotated from dark into light
A fifth day
One hundred seventy five million years long

Then life crept unto the land
And grew out of the ground
And sprang into the air
There became earthworms and ants and snails and birds
And there became ferns and flowers and grasses
And snakes and lions and apes and antelope
And God saw that it was good

Then this universe became aware of itself
An ape looked up and saw the stars
And thought
And wondered
And
It is said
God told this human
Take care of things
And God saw everything that had happened
And behold
It was very good
And the earth rotated from dark into light
The sixth day
Four hundred million years long

Now God rests and enjoys
This
The seventh day
Five million years long
So far

Copyright (c) 2005 Warren W. Aney

Existentialism

2007-04-30T13:43:00.000-07:00

A writer colleague of mine and I had an email discussion over my book concept - making peace between evolution and Christianity.

He wrote, "I survive through a concept of existentialism and a belief in God’s holy mystery" followed by a great explanation of existentialism... and then "Such as it is with my view of scientific explanations evolution, young earth creationists, the Gnostic Gospels, or the place of Mary Magdalene in the rank of the original apostles. My “existentialist belief” is that each subject is interesting, a worthwhile exercise of human intelligence, but ultimately irrelevant to the Holy Mystery of Creation and Its Creator — the Unknowable Concept existing outside of what we perceive as the universe."

He also blogged the whole discussion at http://www.garypresley.net/ in the 4/30/07 entry.

My response is that I mostly agree. I agree that evolution is not ultimately directly relevant to the Holy Mystery of Creation which will always be on some level unknowable in terms of the role God played - or didn't. But I believe that in current affairs, the issue of evolution is vastly more important, though, than the place of Mary Magdalene as an apostle or the Gnostic gospels, etc.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, from Nov 2005, (the panel includes several Nobel Laureates) states:

"Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. … We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost- and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost-if indeed if can be regained at all."

In many respects, science education is floundering in the U.S.. The latest polls show between 45-53% of the U.S. public reject evolution. Many studies show a lack of critical thinking skills among the public, including the college educated. I've met several teachers that shy away from teaching evolution for fear of being called "spawn of the devil" among other things.

Evolution is not just a hypothesis, or "just a theory," it is foundational to biology. There are dozens of university "departments of ecology and evolutionary biology," and hundreds of thousands of scientific peer-reviewed studies published over the past 200 years on various aspects of evolution. You don't have whole departments about "the Gnostic gospels" or "Mary Magdalene." So even if evolution's role in the Holy Mystery of Creation falls into this same general category of a Holy Mystery, I still believe that the situation with evolution elevates it to a higher level of importance in today's world, for practical purposes.

Noah's Ark Replica

2007-04-28T21:20:00.000-07:00

This is actually pretty cool! This guy in the Netherlands built a replica of Noah's Ark. It's 2/3 the length of a football field and 3 stories high. There's a photo at the CNN site. And guess what? The real Ark would have been 5 times larger. Wow. This is really cool. "New Noah's Ark ready to sail" CNN.com

I don't like how they define "creationist" as anyone who believes in the "literal truth of the Bible" because creationist specifically refers to beliefs around the Genesis creation account, not other aspects of Genesis like Noah's Ark and the flood. I believe in the absolute truth of the Bible, but I think getting a perfect "literal" interpretation of ancient words and meaning is impossible in today's world. I believe that the Noah story did happen, though I believe in a more local rather than worldwide flood, since the Hebrew word "erets" can mean both world and land. Literalist would be a more accurate term than creationist (though this guy may be a creationist, that is not clear by the story). But I guess that's not that correct either since one can believe Noah built the Ark and not be a fundamentalist or creationist.

That movie Evan Almighty about a modern day Noah looks like it's going to be a hoot!

Creationism goes global

2007-04-28T14:47:00.000-07:00

The Economist has an article in their April 2007 issue, In the Beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global. All the more reason to write my book, and quick-like. A new 770-page full-color illustrated "Atlas of Creation" quotes the Koran and claims to prove Darwin's theory wrong and links it to all kinds of horrors, such as fascism, communism and terrorism.

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706

On critical thinking and faith

2007-04-25T17:09:00.001-07:00

In his book Audacity of Hope, presidential candidate Barack Obama, once an atheist, writes about how he became a Christian, “It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.”

In the beginning...

2007-04-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

I have been busy working on my book proposal, the book formerly known as "The Fish Wars: How Evolution and Christianity Can Make Peace" which I'm renaming "Losing My Religion: A Christian Gets Fed Up..." I need to come up with the second half of that sentence or just leave it as is. I am taking a much more first-person approach and will talk about how the anti-science fervor, the literalism and fundamentalism and Christian right mixing politics with religion is not just about as opposite as you can get from what Jesus was all about, it's causing a lot of people to laugh at and walk away from Christianity.

My book will also talk about how many people in the church were not there for me during and after my divorce while all my non-Christian friends were. What does this say about the faith? Or about theirs anyway? I have met person after person who have said the same thing, so this is not just a local phenomenon affecting me. I am not embarrased in any way to be a Christian. I love the Bible, I love Jesus, and I think it's a beautiful empowering faith. But I am increasingly embarrassed by the Christians... the judgmentalism and narrow-minded pursuit of a political agenda, making creationism, abortion, gay marriage the main topics in their repertoire. What about poverty? What about being there for people in your life, and not running away or judging people who are not perfect? What about forgiveness?

There are certainly many wonderful things Christians have done in the world and continue to do. But in America, where I'm from and what I know, it's a mixed bag. All I know is that many intelligent and compassionate people would not think of becoming a Christian because of it's rejection of science. It's actually quite harmful to our society, and quite scary how sheep-like people can be. People often blindly follow and don't think critically about their beliefs. I like to say, Jesus didn't call people sheep for no reason! :)