When scientists decide they know what the right answer is, despite what the scientific evidence may indicate, then bad things can happen. This was the theme of my recent book Science's Blind Spot, where I explored the history and consequences of the mandate for naturalism in science. For about two hundred years before Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution, theologians, philosophers and scientific investigators promoted a series of religious and philosophical arguments that mandated purely naturalistic explanations for the history of the world.

Darwin's book, where he used a plethora of these metaphysical arguments for his otherwise scientifically weak theory of evolution, was something of a capstone for the movement. The foundation was in place, and as one historian put it, Darwin (and Wallace) did not conclude that evolution was true after discovering a mechanism, but rather first believed evolution was true and then searched for a mechanism. ¹

The problem with science today is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know any better. This is science's blind spot. When scientific problems arise, it is always assumed that the correct naturalistic explanation has not yet been found. Scientists may not be able to explain love very well, but they are sure there must be a way.

Today, science is assumed to be able to provide a true, or approximately true, explanation for all things. Simply put, naturalism is assumed always to be true. And so science can (and often does) proceed with quite unlikely explanations as though they were true.

Of course evolutionists do not agree with any of this. But when they disagree they simply reinforce the very problems they are attempting to refute. Jitse van der Meer's review² of Science's Blind Spot is a good example. In Science's Blind Spot I point out several problems with evolution with which van der Meer takes issue. For instance, consider the human eye. It is of course no surprise that the eye, from its molecular mechanisms on up, is incredibly complex. What is less well known is that the human eye is uncannily similar to the eye of the squid.

Evolution is supposed to be a blind, unguided process that has no particular end in view. It is an open-loop process that meanders through an astronomical design space influenced only by the unguided events of the moment. Given the enormous size of that design space, it is unlikely that evolution would arrive at a similar design in independent lineages, in different environments and starting from different initial conditions. But in the origin of the human and squid eye, and myriad other examples in biology, this is precisely what we must believe occurred.

The repeated finding of astonishingly complex, intricate, and similar designs in otherwise distant species is one of the profound discoveries in biology. It is like finding the same Rube Goldberg machine in your backyard and on the Moon. And it certainly has implications for evolution. Can we really ascribe this, without a second thought, to yet another amazing and mysterious aspect of natural law? Unfortunately evolution prohibits any such pondering, and van der Meer easily dismisses the evidence as a nonissue. After all, writes van der Meer, "The differences in detail between the vertebrate eye and the squid eye are what make it possible to distinguish them from similarities due to common descent […] Thus common descent is not falsified and does not need to be patched up."

While this is an interesting point and worthy of discussion, it hardly resolves the question at hand. Evolutionists, who believe the species arose on their own, often fail to perceive obvious problems with the theory. If one has already accepted that the human eye arose on its own, then what cannot happen? So what if biological lightning strikes twice. I suppose the evolutionist's credulousness is understandable. What is disappointing is their inability to view the evidence from a more theory-neutral perspective.

Unfortunately, from there van der Meer's review degrades into baseless and bizarre criticisms. In his search for errors van der Meer accuses me of a variety of positions which I neither hold nor espouse in the book. First, he somehow concluded that I use "Popper's falsification view of scientific progress as the gold standard for science." Actually, I discussed the pros and cons of predictions and falsification. I then discussed a variety of failed evolutionary predictions, not in deference to Popper but, as I discussed in the book, because evolutionists routinely overestimate evolution’s prediction power. This reminds me of so many debates where evolutionists belittle the skeptic for inquiring into the claims of Neo-Darwinism.

Next, van der Meer somehow determined that I ignored "the successes of explanation in terms of natural causes." Actually, I repeatedly praised such successes of science. This response is typical and I have incurred it many times. Criticize naturalism and you will be said to be rejecting all of science. Naturalists are unable to take theory evaluation at face value because it raises the specter that naturalism may be insufficient.

Or again, van der Meer concludes that I must be ignorant of common philosophical terminology as I confuse scientific deduction with mere empirical observation, and classify panspermia as a supernatural explanation. But I wrote no such things and here again I am reminded of an unfortunate aspect of the origins debate. The issues are so heartfelt and the atmosphere so charged that partisans often pigeon-hole those who do not agree with them into untenable straw man positions. These contrived positions make for easy targets and convenient justification to quickly dismiss entire viewpoints. True to form, van der Meer concludes that the entire volume is unreliable. Ironically, I gave examples of just this problem in Science's Blind Spot.

If these specific criticisms seem strange, the review becomes more sensible when van der Meer issues his broader criticisms. The thesis of Science's Blind Spot—that the mandating of naturalism in science for non scientific reasons may not be healthy—is unacceptable to evolutionists. They argue that naturalism must be mandated, and that it is crucial for science's well being. As van der Meer explains:

But explaining natural phenomena as the result of divine action is a science stopper. Not only do we not know why God made things the way they are so that predictions might be made, but it is also impossible to manipulate God as a variable in a scientific experiment. I leave aside that going in this direction would be spiritually inappropriate and also that it is theologically questionable to assume that God's action in the world can be conceived in terms of causal action.

Therefore, it is not the case that naturalistic explanations are merely preferred, or that they are used in a certain subset of problems, such as in the laboratory. No, all of science must adhere to naturalism, regardless of the evidence. No matter how poorly evolution explains biology, the theory will always be promoted.

Science's Blind Spot challenges the hegemony of naturalism in today's science as bad for science. This hegemony was motivated and is sustained for non-scientific reasons. While naturalists accuse skeptics of religious motivations, it is in fact naturalists who constrain science with non-scientific beliefs. Ironically, as Science's Blind Spot argues and van der Meer yet once again confirms, science is dogmatically constrained to naturalism for religious reasons. The blind spot is still there.

FOOTNOTES
¹ Janet Browne, The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 169.
² Jitse van der Meer, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 60:2, 135-6, June 2008.

Posted by Cornelius Hunter at 3:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In 1998, Darwinian biologist David J. DeRosier stated in the journal Cell, "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human." Firstly, it functions like a human-designed rotary engine that propels a bacterium through a liquid medium in the same way a propeller powers submarine through the ocean. A website devoted to rotary engine enthusiasts has observed that when it comes to the Rotary engine, "Nature always does it first." The flagellum is basically a rotary engine, with a motor, a rotor, a stator, a bearing, a u-joint, and a propeller. Now it turns out that the flagellum has a clutch. According to recent Research Highlights from Nature:

"A protein that allows the soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis to quickly halt its propeller-like propulsion and thus stick to a surface has been identified by Daniel Kearns of Indiana University in Bloomington and his colleagues. EpsE, the protein, seems to act like a clutch rather than a brake; it leaves the rotors that drive the bacterium's flagella unpowered but spinning freely rather than slowing them down."

A schematic showing some of the common "engine parts" of the flagellum can be seen below, borrowed from the Access Research Network:

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Reading Barbara Forrest's impassioned plea on Richard Dawkins' website against the Louisiana Science Education Act, one might get the impression she opposes injection of religion in biology classes (even though the Act isn't intended to do that).

Indeed, when I followed the link to her Louisiana Coalition for Science "open letter" to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, I found the following statement, with which I agree wholeheartedly:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is violated when the government endorses a sectarian doctrine. . .

As recently reported here, the NCSE partnered with the University of California on the Understanding Evolution website, on which the UC endorses the sectarian doctrine of religious organizations, including the United Church of Christ. By Forrest's own admission, the UC is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The truth is that Forrest and her colleagues at NCSE have no problem with government endorsing religious doctrine in relation to evolution, as long as it is a religious doctrine they agree with.

Forrest and her colleague Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of NCSE, also have no problem with injecting religion into biology class. Indeed, NCSE Executive Director Scott authored an article available on the UC Understanding Evolution website in which she recommends that public school teachers initiate discussions of religion in their biology classes.

As an example of a recommended strategy, the article relates the experience of teachers who

have had good results when they begin the year by asking students to brainstorm what they think the words "evolution" and "creationism" mean. . . . Don't be surprised to find some variant of, "You can't believe in God" or some similar statement of supposed incompatibility between religion and evolution. Under "creationism" expect to find more consistency: "God"; "Adam and Eve," "Genesis," etc. The next step in constructing student understanding of concepts is to guide them towards a more accurate view. . . . After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked, "Which statement was made by the Pope?" or "which statement was made by an Episcopal Bishop?" and given an "a, b, c" multiple choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn't have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith. A teacher in Minnesota . . . had good luck sending his students out at the beginning of the semester to interview their pastors and priests about evolution. They came back somewhat astonished, "Hey! Evolution is OK!" Even when there was diversity in opinion, with some religious leaders accepting evolution as compatible with their theology and others rejecting it, it was educational for the students to find out for themselves that there was no single Christian perspective on evolution. The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps that's why Forrest's colleague, Scott, sometimes refers to herself as the "Evolution Evangelist."

Posted by Larry Caldwell at 7:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

ABC's political radar has the most accurate take on the Louisiana Science Education Act yet:

And [Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has] just signed a law allowing teachers to foster "critical thinking" about evolution--a law critics said could amount to sneaking the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

Imagine that — critical thinking might actually lead to teaching evolution, rather than just indoctrinating students.

Posted by Anika Smith at 3:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein opens today at theaters across Canada. Visit the movie's official website at www.expelledthemovie.com for up to the minute news about the film and its Canadian release.

Read a review of the film, Break Down the Wall: A Movie Review of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", by Douglas Groothuis, The Constructive Curmudgeon. For more information about the movie, more reviews of the film, and commentary by leading scientists and scholars, visit Discovery Institute's Expelled Explained page. For more information about intelligent design and scientific research challenging Darwinian evolution, visit www.intelligentdesign.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Spain’s parliament has taken the dubious first step in support of "our evolutionary comrades" in adopting special rights for apes akin to human rights, the first time any nation has done so.

The decision of the Spanish parliament is manifestly the triumph of sentimentality over reason. Although the leftist politicos who supported the ruling no doubt view themselves as enlightened citizens of a scientifically progressive Europe, their emoting and posturing has blinded them to the contradictions entailed by their position.

Take one criterion mentioned: genetic relatedness. Without question a human zygote has a far greater degree of genetic relatedness to King Juan Carlos than does any gorilla, chimp, or orangutan. Yet this same criterion is flouted by the Spanish government when it comes to the question of abortion. Thus the notion of genetic relatedness holds between any adult human and any great ape, not between any adult human and a human embryo. (Which makes one wonder if it is legal in Spain to perform an abortion on a mother chimp.) This reminds one of a young woman who was staunchly pro-abortion but was opposed to eating eggs. The justification she proffered to explain her stance was that eggs reminded her of chicken embryos that don't make it to hatch. She felt for chickens; she did not feel for unborn children.

Or consider the other criterion, evolutionary closeness. The phylogenetic tree is a continuum, so no objective line can be drawn at the great apes versus, say, monkeys or tigers. In fact, the Spanish grandees can only show their commitment to naturalistic principles by extending "human rights" to all mammals. One might even call this extension MMU (pronounced moo) or the Mammalian Manumission Union. Certainly this would make all cat, dog, and pot-bellied pig owners happy and make the ruling more personal, more relevant. The downside, though, is that bull-fighting would have to cease as would most cow and pig farming. (And we know how much Spaniards love their pork.) Regardless, that the parliament limited its ruling to great apes only shows that the members cannot or will not follow this criterion to its logical conclusion.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith has followed the great apes trail for several years and has more on this at his Secondhand Smoke blog.

Posted by Staff at 1:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. The bill enjoyed surprisingly overwhelming support from lawmakers. It was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, and pased the state House by a vote of 93-4.

Here are some key facts about the new law.

• Teachers are still required to teach according to state and local science standards. But under the law, a school district could permit a teacher to present additional scientific evidence, analysis, and critiques regarding topics already in the approved curriculum.

• Teachers are still required to follow the standard curriculum, and school districts would still need to authorize what teachers are doing in order for the law to come into operation. Moreover, any teaching or supplemental instructional materials would have to be consistent with the prohibition of the promotion of religion in Section 1D of the bill. Finally, any inappropriate instructional materials could be disallowed under the bill by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

• Upon the request of a local school board, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will be required to "allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Assistance from the State Board in this area now will "include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied."

• Teachers will be permitted to "use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." But teachers using supplemental resources must first "teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system," and the State Board of Education reserves the right to veto any inappropriate supplemental materials.

• The law is needed for two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do.

• The law will not allow for inclusion of religion. Section 1D of the law clearly states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
  

  Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ben Stein was just recognized by the Entertainment Merchants Association for his courageous work in Expelled.

From here:

EMA’s Freedom of Expression Award, which previously has been presented to George Carlin and the Smothers Brothers, recognizes individuals associated with the home entertainment industry who have spoken out on important political, social, and cultural issues, often at considerable professional risk. EMA champions the First Amendment rights of DVD and video game retailers and their customers by actively opposing legislative proposals that would curtail those rights and filing legal challenges to laws that violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, no matter how unpopular that expression may be.

“Just being a conservative in Hollywood categorizes Ben Stein as courageous,” noted Bo Andersen, President of EMA. “But more, he has fearlessly articulated, as only he can, views that would be considered provocative by many and established himself a leading conservative voice in the nation. In his latest cinematic work, Ben Stein boldly and without equivocation, embraces a free speech stance and a different world view in the discussion of intelligent design versus evolution. He has made a profound impact on free public discourse, and EMA is honored to present him with our Freedom of Expression Award.”

Ben Stein stars as the host of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which examines the conflict between advocates of intelligent design and evolutionists, and the hostility of the scientific community towards scientists that embrace intelligent design. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, was produced by Premise Media and will be distributed on DVD on October 21, 2008 by Vivendi Entertainment.

“There are very few like Ben Stein, who continues to impact popular culture in a variety of ways, from his broadcast and print work, to his most recent involvement in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” stated Tom O’Malley, President, Vivendi Entertainment. “His voice is one of the most respected not only in Hollywood, but all over America, and we’re delighted that he is being recognized for all of his insightful and impactful work on this film.”

Posted by Anika Smith at 12:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After all of the harrumphing by Darwinists that the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) promotes “creationism” and is therefore unconstitutional, the director of the Louisiana ACLU has now conceded that the bill is actually fine as written according to a Louisiana TV station:

ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that if the Act is utilized as written, it should be fine....

Of course, Ms. Esman goes on to fret that some people might misuse the bill, and in that case the ACLU might sue. Well, I have news for Ms. Esman: Any law can be disregarded, and so yes, if a teacher wants to willfully ignore what the Louisiana Science Education Act says and try to endorse religion, the teacher no doubt can do so (until the ACLU comes knocking at the door). But in such a case the teacher would be violating the law itself as well as the Constitution, because the LSEA explicitly states that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.” Incredibly, Ms. Esman suggests that this wording doesn’t mean what it says, insisting that “It does not say it prohibits the introduction of religion, and there’s a difference.” Actually, the language is even broader than that, prohibiting anything that might be used to promote a religious doctrine or religious discrimination.

In any case, the bottom line is that even the ACLU has had to acknowledge that the LSEA as written is constitutional. I guess the sky isn't falling, after all.

Posted by John West at 12:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Self-described atheist writer Jason Streitfeld is calling on his fellow atheists to endorse the Louisiana Science Education Act, which would support teachers who want to promote critical thinking on evolution and other science issues. “The bill is good. The bill is right. The bill should be embraced by atheists and scientists throughout the world,” writes Streitfeld in The American Chronicle. He says that the current approach to science education in America isn’t working, and we need to try something new:

The way public schools in America teach science simply isn´t working. Students don´t learn how exciting and dynamic scientific discovery can be. Instead, they memorize (or, at least, they try to memorize) dry facts and formulas. Rarely do they engage in the sort of critical thinking and comparative analysis that makes science such an integral part of civilization.

…what the bill supports is exactly what American students need: encouragement to think critically about controversial topics.

Streitfeld also warns fellow atheists and Darwinists that by opposing the bill they are proving their critics right:

Ultimately, by reacting negatively to this bill, atheists and supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory are proving their opponents right: they are acting like reason and the facts are not on their side. This could be enormously damaging to their cause.

Posted by John West at 12:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

P.Z. Myers recently posted at Pharyngula a plea for more funding for cancer research. His sister-in-law (mother of three kids) died tragically from melanoma several years ago, and Myers asked Pharyngula readers to support cancer research more vigorously. It’s a sentiment with which we all agree.

Yet Myers used this tragedy to denigrate religious faith. Noting his subsequent conversation with a pediatric oncologist in which he learned about the progress that has been made in the treatment of childhood cancer, Myers claimed:

How does she [the oncologist] do that [successfully treat some children’s cancers]? With science. She sent me a whole stack of references on the amazing progress that has been made over the last several decades, thanks to clinical trials and evidence based medicine… If we want to cure … cancers…, don't look to magic, or wishful thinking, or ancient shamanistic wisdom, or prayer — we've had those for millennia [sic], and they do nothing…What we need is more research, more doctors, more clinical trials, and more money.[Emphasis in original]

He points to graphs showing the remarkable improvement in outcomes of children with acute lymphocytic leukemia over the past 40 years. And indeed there have been significant improvements in the outcomes for many kinds of cancer in the past few decades, particularly in children’s cancer.

But, leaving aside his dubious tactic of using the death of a relative to advance his ideology, I take exception to his claim that prayer and religious faith had nothing to do with the improvements in the treatment of cancer.

The remarkable progress in the treatment of cancer in the past several decades had a lot to do with faith and prayer. Myers misunderstands the origins of modern medical science and the history and nature of cancer treatment.

Advances in science and cancer treatment emerged, not from science in isolation, but from a culture that made science possible and that directed the fruits of scientific work toward good and compassionate goals. The culture from which science has emerged is Judeo-Christian culture, and modern science has arisen only in Judeo-Christian culture. Why has science been so closely linked to this specific culture?

The scientific investigation of nature using the scientific method depends on the metaphysical view that nature is rational and that natural laws can be discovered and used by human beings. The Judeo-Christian understanding of God and of man’s relationship to God accords with these preconditions for successful science. The application of science to care for the sick presupposes the view that we have an ethical obligation to help the weakest among us. The atheist view of metaphysics — that the universe has no purpose and no designer and no transcendent ethical code — provides no impetus to scientific inquiry or to the compassionate application of scientific knowledge. Modern science arose in Judeo-Christian culture — a milieu of faith and prayer. It arose from Judeo-Christian culture — and nowhere else — for a reason.

Medical science is particularly in debt to a culture of piety. Sociologist Rodney Stark has pointed out the striking differences in survival rates from epidemics in cities in the Roman world in the first centuries A.D. Stark has studied mortality from two epidemics — one in the second century and one in the third century A.D. He notes that the survival rates in Christian communities were substantially higher than the survival rates in pagan communities. He cites evidence that this was due in large part to the care that Christians provided to the sick and to the refusal of uninfected Christians to flee the area with the onset of the epidemic. Many deaths in epidemics are due not to the acute effects of the infection but to dehydration, starvation and exposure of survivors of the initial infection who are abandoned. In pagan communities, healthy people generally fled, and left people who might have survived to die for lack of nourishment and shelter. Christians more often wouldn’t flee, and stayed to care for the sick, even at the risk of their own lives. The result was a markedly better survival rate in Christian communities than in pagan communities. This ancient advance in medical care wasn’t from science; it was from compassion and courage. And in the midst of an deadly epidemic, compassion and courage arose then, as they so often do now, from faith and prayer.

There is no doubt that the simple tasks involved in the care for the sick — provision of food, water, shelter, and comfort — played a major role in the history of medicine. Even in the modern era of remarkable scientific achievements, such care is still essential for good medical outcomes, as any nurse or practicing doctor will attest. People are healed by the culture of medicine, not just by drugs or surgery, and that culture includes cutting edge science and basic humanitarian care. Both have deep roots in Western Judeo-Christian culture — a culture of faith and prayer.

For a modern example of the consilience of medical science and Judeo-Christian culture, consider St. Jude’s Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. St. Jude’s is probably the leading children’s cancer center in the world, and it has been at the forefront of many of the advances in cancer care over the past several decades.

Where did St. Jude’s Hospital come from? It was founded in 1962 by Danny Thomas, an actor popular in the middle decades of the 20th century. Thomas was a devout Catholic, and during the Great Depression he struggled financially and spiritually. He was barely able to feed his family, and in despair he prayed in a Detroit church before a statue of St. Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of the hopeless and of lost causes. Thomas asked what God wanted him to do with his life, and he promised St. Jude that he would build him a shrine if he could help him understand God’s calling for him.

Thomas’ fortunes improved, and he became a successful actor. He kept his promise to St. Jude. He came to understand, through prayer, that the shrine he was to build was to be a hospital for children with incurable diseases. He organized donors to build a hospital for children with cancer, and in 1962 St. Jude’s Hospital opened in Memphis. Thomas had two principles that were not negotiable. The hospital would become a center for the best research and clinical care for children with cancer, and no child’s family would ever pay for any of the care. Every aspect of the care — transportation, housing, the medical care itself — would be free to the families. The hospital would be a shrine to St Jude — the patron saint of the hopeless.

Within a few years doctors and researchers at St. Jude’s were at the forefront of childhood leukemia research. Due to many factors — advances in science, advances in collaboration between St. Jude’s and other cancer centers, the development of pediatric oncology as a well-defined specialty, and the development of special hospital units and nursing skills to care for these kids — survival rates for many children’s cancers, such as acute lymphocytic leukemia (the most common form of childhood cancer) improved markedly. Before the 1960's, more than ninety percent of children with acute lymphocytic leukemia died of the disease. Today, ninety percent of children with acute lymphocytic leukemia are cured. St. Jude’s — the hospital that began with a prayer — was at the forefront of this remarkable accomplishment.

I’ve had many personal experiences with St. Jude’s Hospital (I’m a pediatric neurosurgeon). I’ve sent many of my own young patients to St. Jude’s. I’ve had children with brain tumors for whom I could offer nothing more. I did my best with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, to no avail. When I can’t help any more, I call my neurosurgical colleagues at St. Jude’s.

They have never asked me if the child’s family can pay, and they have never refused a patient of mine. From the moment I call, everything is paid for. St. Jude’s pays for all of the transportation, and if the child is too sick to fly commercially, they provide a private medical jet to bring the child to Memphis. The care once the kids get there is superb. I’ve had many children for whom I thought there were no good medical options, and they’ve come back to me, in six months or a year, tumor-free. I love St. Jude’s Hospital.

Where did this miracle — and it is a miracle — come from? It can be said, without exaggeration, that St. Jude’s Hospital came from a prayer. A specific prayer, offered by a destitute man in a church in Detroit in the 1930s. Thomas' deep religious faith founded this remarkable hospital and his faith and prayer led quite directly to the remarkable advances in curing acute lymphocytic leukemia and other cancers in children.

So, pace P.Z. Myers, where do advances in medical science and in the treatment of children’s cancer really come from? Contra Myers, what really gave us this blessing isn’t merely science but a culture, the same culture that has given us thousands of hospitals and even has given us modern science itself. It’s a culture of science, compassion, and faith. It's a Judeo-Christian culture. This culture has many manifestations — theology (which forms the basis for our metaphysics and ethics), modern science and economic prosperity (which arose from the Christian West) which enable us to pursue these noble goals, and devotion and prayer that motivates people like Danny Thomas to create great hospitals and that sustains the families of sick children and sustains the professionals who care for them. Science grew in a culture made fertile by Christian (and Jewish) faith and prayer. When science is explanted from Christian culture and is idolized — consider evolutionary psychology and eugenics — it becomes banal and even evil.

Medical science inspired by Judeo-Christian values has given us St. Jude’s Hospital, St. Mary’s Hospital (at the Mayo Clinic), Presbyterian Hospital (at Columbia, my alma mater), and thousands of other hospitals with names like St. Joseph's, St. Vincent’s, St. Luke’s, St. John’s, St. Agnes, St. Anthony, St. Barnabas, St. Catherine, St. Clares, St. Charles, St. Elizabeth, St. Francis, St. James, St. Jerome, St. Peter, St. Margaret, Mary Immaculate, Our Lady Of Lourdes, Our Lady Of Mercy, Sisters Of Charity, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Mt. Sinai, Maimonides, Beth Israel, Jewish Memorial, Holy Cross, Scared Heart, Mercy, and Good Samaritan. Where are the hospitals founded on Myers' atheist principles? What medical advances has hatred for Judeo-Christian values given mankind?

Judeo-Christian culture is indispensable to medical science. Yet there is a modern militant atheist movement that seeks to idolize science and that preaches hatred of Christian values and faith. Pharyngula is a particularly vile expression of that movement. Yet Myers’ atheism is parasitic on the Christian culture he despises. Look again carefully at the graph of the medical data that Myers uses to extol science and to denigrate faith and prayer.

All of Myers' data are from St. Jude’s Hospital.

Posted by Michael Egnor at 8:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As everyone waits for Governor Jindal to sign the first law to protect the academic freedom rights of teachers who present evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution, it is worth noting that the sponsoring senator has again clearly spoken about the intent of the Louisisiana Science Education Act.

Darwinists keep falsely claiming this bill would open the science classroom door to creationism or religion. Louisiana Senator Ben Nevers (D) says that is not the case.

"This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom," he said. "It has nothing to do with religion. Most textbooks are seven years old or older. Science can be very changeable in some areas. It is important to bring current science into the classroom."

The legislation is called the Louisiana Science Education Act. As worded, the bill allows science teachers to supplement textbooks with other materials "to help students understand, analyze, critique and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

The stated intention is to "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."

"It gives a clear process on how to deal with getting supplemental information into the classroom," said Nevers.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Get ready for the year of evolution. The New York Times has an article today ("Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution") describing an entire "Year of Evolution," featuring "a series of exhibitions, seminars and lectures to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin next February, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, 'The Origin of Species.'"

And what local celebrity would better grace a celebration of Darwin than the man who forbade schoolteachers and children from "disparaging" Darwin and his theory?

Events will include a talk by John E. Jones III, a federal judge who ruled in 2005 that teaching intelligent design — the belief that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of a higher power rather than of evolution — in public school science classes was unconstitutional.

Nevermind for the moment how the Times used a critic's definition of ID to discredit the theory as a belief. (If you want a better definition of the theory, click here.) It's the final quote in the story that sounds an ominous note for dissenters from Darwin:

"We will try to find ways of persuading people that it’s not in conflict with their faith," Dr. Brown said.

So what are they going to do about it? What ways are Dr. Brown and the rest of the Philadelphia Darwinists considering for this task? Brainwashing? Mind-melding? Or just suppressing any and all evidence to the contrary?

Posted by Anika Smith at 5:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Q: Who wrote this?

The new bill doesn’t mention either creationism or its close cousin, intelligent design. It explicitly disavows any intent to promote a religious doctrine. It doesn’t try to ban Darwin from the classroom or order schools to do anything. It simply requires the state board of education, if asked by local school districts, to help create an environment that promotes "critical thinking" and "objective discussion" about not only evolution and the origins of life but also about global warming and human cloning, two other bêtes noires of the right. Teachers would be required to teach the standard textbook but could use supplementary materials to critique it.

A) Discovery Institute
B) The New York Times
C) All of the above

The Times' editorial board may not like the LSEA, but at least they understand what it says and does, which is a far cry from much of the media out there.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

NRO's John Derbyshire has another bombastic blog post ("Governor Jindal, Veto This Bill!"), this time decrying the Louisiana Science Education Act.

According to Derb, "The act opens the door to the teaching of creationism in Louisiana public schools." Of course, this is patently absurd. The bill says that students should be able to critically analyze scientific evidence regarding evolution, global warming, and human cloning; and secondly the bill says it should not be construed to promote religion (bear in mind that SCOTUS deemed creationism "religious" in 1987). This bill is about scientific evidence, whatever there may be, pro and con. No more no less.

Attempting to scare the promoters of this bill (which, BTW, just passed the LA House 94-3, with 35 co-sponsors), Derb claims that lawsuit is in the air. This too is misinformation. No state or school district which has adopted this middle-of-the-road, common-sense policy regarding the teaching of hot-potato scientific issues has ever been sued. What would the suit-bearers say? That hot-button scientific issues should be taught as unchanging dogma? That no critiques—no matter how scientific—deserve to be discussed?

With all due respect to our friends at NRO, how can they let Derb post information that can be shown false with a Google search? Derb has every right to criticize any bill he chooses—but he has no right to misrepresent it.

Posted by Logan Gage at 10:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Science magazine urgently contacted us several days ago allegedly to get our take on the Louisiana Science Education Act passed by the state’s legislature and awaiting the governor’s signature. (A bill opposed by the AAAS, publishers of Science.) The reporter interviewed CSC's John West for upwards of an hour seemingly trying to get the facts straight. Then she called back with an urgent request for a picture of the cover of Explore Evolution: The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism. One wonders why she bothered.

Science has a story in their latest issue that is in lock step with their typical Darwin only approach to science education policy. It leads with a from Darwin defender Barbara Forrest, puts the words academic freedom in scare quotes, and then inserts a quote from LA. Governor Jindal that was not about, nor had anything to do with, the LSEA. Finally they round it out with attacks from critics, nicely referred to as science educators.

“Science educators say the new wording is intended simply to circumvent rulings by U.S. courts that creationism and intelligent design are unconstitutional religious intrusions into a public school science curriculum.”

“The bottom line is this: science is complicated, often controversial, but oh so interesting. We need to be academically honest when discussing scientific theories and searching for scientific truth. Teachers deserve the freedom to present the evidence for controversial theories and also the evidence against them.”

“it shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

Oh yeah, they do use a graphic of Explore Evolution that they urgently demanded as well--with dismissive caption that doesn't even describe the book. Well, I guess at least we can describe Explore Evolution as "featured in Science."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

British atheist and staunch Darwin defender Richard Dawkins’ official website is urging Americans to oppose the Louisiana Science Education Act. Newsflash for Richard, we’re not a British colony anymore.

Barbara Forrest has been scare-mongering all over the country that the LSEA is a secret ploy to get religion or creationism into science classes. And she’s been complaining loudly in Louisiana that outside groups are trying to get it passed. Now, though, she’s not just asking for help from outside her state. She’s asking for help from outside the country!

In fact, the LSEA

is a home-grown measure. Drafted by Democratic state senator Ben Nevers, the bill was inspired by the Ouachita Parish School District Policy which was established almost two years ago. The LSEA echoes some of what Discovery Institute has called for in its sample academic freedom legislation, but the bill has been advanced by Louisiana citizens and has won overwhelming support from Louisiana legislators.

Forrest and her friends, however, are calling for help from around the world. Forrest's letter is being showcased and e-mailed all over the world by Richarddawkins.net. As usual, the letter is full of falsehoods.

This bill is not about creationism or religion. That’s a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as some that challenges it. If a tenth grader can understand arguments for Darwinism, she can understand scientific arguments against it. For more information on what the bill does (and does not) do, see here.

Forrest’s new “coalition” is trying to rile up activists to flood Governor Jindal with hate mail. Instead, why don’t you click here and send him a message of support and let him know Louisiana should lead the way to academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the LSEA into law.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Darwinists often lament that Intelligent Design is distinctly American movement; they imply, of course, that everyone else is on their side. It is thus with great joy that thanks to new technologies like YouTube we can now see that this is false.

István Tasi, a member of the Hungarian ID movement, is featured in a new video by director Viktor Gardos. Opposing István is Dr. Zoltan Galantai, a Hungarian historian of science.

This is not István's first appearance on television. Back in 2005 he and physicist Dr. Ferenc Jeszenszky appeared on the most popular science program in Hungary ("Omniscient University") in a debate with two Darwinists titled, "Are we existing accidentally?"

This new video has English subtitles, so don't be afraid to watch!

Posted by Logan Gage at 9:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Text of Louisiana Science Education Act

Louisiana State Legislature Passes Landmark Act That Encourages Critical Analysis of Evolution

Questions and Answers about the Proposed Louisiana Science Education Act

Testifying for Academic Freedom in Louisiana

Louisiana, Circadian Rhythms, and Darwin in Biology: An Interview with Biology Professor Wade Warren

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article reporting how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently passed a resolution that "called on universities not to automatically terminate or refuse to appoint professors who refuse to sign a 'loyalty oath.'" That sounds reasonable. But the same article explained that the AAUP hypocritically adopted a separate resolution against academic freedom bills in Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana because they "allow science teachers to critique 'prevailing scientific theories.'" It seems that academic freedom for dissenting views is all the rage among the elite of academia—unless you want to use your academic freedom to question Darwin.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An attorney friend e-mailed me to say:

It's so much easier to write scary stories when the legislation itself is NOT ever quoted. Isn't there some sort of journalistic standard that should at least urge a reporter to quote the primary source?

Section 1D of the bill clearly states

that it

"shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Baton Rouge -- With a 36-0 vote, Louisiana’s state senate today passed a landmark academic freedom bill protecting teachers that encourage critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics.

Known as the Louisiana Science Education Act, the bill was previously passed by the state’s House of Representatives with a 94-3 vote, and now will be sent to the governor for his signature.

"The bill is a bold statement protecting the freedom of teachers to discuss both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution and other controversial scientific theories," said Casey Luskin, an attorney and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. "The bill does exactly what it says, which is to allow teachers and school districts to 'use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.'"

Click here for more.

Posted by Anika Smith at 9:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week Glenn Altschuler, professor of American Studies at Cornell, reviewed (among other books) Ken Miller's Only a Theory for the Baltimore Sun. See "A Counterattack for Evolution."

Three quick observations.

First, Altschuler amazingly makes a historical reference to the French revolution, noting that the great chemist Lavoisier was beheaded at a judge's order. He then tells us, "Although scientists fared much better in the 19th and 20th centuries, millions of people remain uneasy with or hostile to them." Yet this frame of reference loses all its historical content. It was not the religious or the anti-evolution crowd that led the French revolution but rather a materialist ideology of man and his place in the world stemming from Rousseau and other thinkers. Thus Altschuler gets it exactly backwards. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, judges haven't exactly been on our side lately either.

Second,

Altschuler seems to agree with the sentiments of Spiritual Evolution that "[s]pirituality enhances empathy and trust. Religion promotes mistrust and division." It is striking that a scholar would nonchalantly accept such sweepingly broad generalizations. That is one thing. But it's another to accept such statements when they run in the face of nearly all available social science.

Third and last, perhaps Altschuler is not familiar with Ken Miller's previous work, Finding Darwin's God, for if he is, it is amazing that he could let this statement pass unchecked:

Extending an olive branch to religious Americans, Miller suggests that evolution and faith aren't really in conflict because all of nature is part of God's providential plan. In this sense, he believes, the conviction that "the universe had us in mind from the very beginning" is a "perfectly valid metaphor."

Now, it is difficult to see how we could at once be an accident of history and yet the universe had us in mind from the very beginning. Even metaphors cannot be contradictory if they are to have meaning.

I have not yet seen Only a Theory. I wonder whether Miller has actually changed his mind and now believes that humanity was intended or whether this is merely a new rhetorical strategy. To me, the "metaphor" seems little more than a placebo to blunt the trauma of ontological demotion.

For those who have not seen, Michael Behe has a few comments on Only a Theory at his Amazon blog here.

Posted by Logan Gage at 3:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By a unanimous vote of 36-0, Louisiana's state Senate has just approved the Louisiana Science Education Act, which seeks to protect the right of teachers and local school districts to encourage "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Because the bill passed the Louisiana House last week by a vote of 94-3, the bill now goes to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for his signature. Be prepared for an onslaught of misinformation about the act, most notably the false claim that the act permits the use of "religious" materials in science classes. Read the bill for yourself here, especially Section 1D, which emphatically states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." For a clear analysis of what the law will do, read here.

Posted by John West at 12:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Behe has a brief review of Ken Miller's new book up at his Amazon blog:

Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, has written a new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, in which he defends Darwinism, attacks intelligent design, and makes a case for theistic evolution (defined as something like “God used Darwinian evolution to make life”). In all this, it’s pretty much a re-run of his previous book published over a decade ago, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. So if you read that book, you’ll have a very good idea of what 90% of the new book concerns. For people who think that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because parts of it can be used as a paperweight or tie clip, and so would be easy to evolve by chance, Miller is their man. Despite the doubts of many — perhaps most — evolutionary biologists of the power of the Darwinian mechanism, to Miller’s easy imagination evolving any complex system by chance plus selection is a piece of cake, and intermediates are to be found behind every door. A purer devotee of Darwinian wishful thinking would be hard to find.

Read more here.

Posted by Anika Smith at 11:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In case you missed this gem from The New York Times, you're going to love the logic:

Nonetheless, Dowd’s views do bring solace to some, going by reactions from parishioners who claim that a scientific perspective has helped them come to terms with their follies of the past. For some at least, the recognition of genetic and biochemical frailty is a healing act. Last fall, for example, after Bob Miller, an 81-year-old man, heard Dowd’s sermon at a Unitarian church in Pensacola, Fla., he felt his guilt over a string of affairs from four decades ago melting away. “I could never quite understand why I had behaved that way,” says Miller, who was climbing the corporate ladder when his infidelities began, leading to the breakup of his marriage. When Dowd began talking about viewing moral lapses against the backdrop of evolution, “suddenly a light went on inside my head,” Miller says. His rising status at his company, he concluded, had probably contributed to increased testosterone. “I think the physical change in my body was so strong that it completely overpowered any moral teachings and religious beliefs I had,” Miller says. “It was still inexcusable, but it made more sense.”

Posted by Logan Gage at 9:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on Jeanne Caldwell's appeal from the District Court's dismissal of her lawsuit against the University of California and the National Science Foundation regarding religious statements made on the University of California's "Understanding Evolution" website. (Full disclosure: Jeanne Caldwell is my wife.) The website, which is programmed and hosted by the University of California in conjunction with the National Center for Science Education, was created with over $500,000 in financial support from the National Science Foundation. The District Court had dismissed Jeanne Caldwell's lawsuit on the basis of her alleged lack of standing to bring the action. The District Court's ruling, if upheld on appeal, would essentially render the internet an "Establishment Clause-free zone" by barring citizens from suing to stop a governmental endorsement of religion that occurs on the internet. The District Court did not reach the merits of Jeanne Caldwell's Establishment Clause claim.

The key part of the UE website targeted by Jeanne Caldwell's lawsuit is a webpage titled, "Misconception: Evolution and religion are incompatible," in which the UC gives K-12 teachers suggested responses to students in their classroom who ask whether evolution is inconsistent with their personal religious beliefs. Prior to the announcement of the lawsuit in the media, the UC religious response webpage read:

Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science (as in science class), only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one has to choose between science and religion is divisive. Most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. (Emphasis added.)

Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. (Emphasis added.)

Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute argued the case at oral argument on behalf of Jeanne Caldwell. Mr. Snider pointed out that the UC's religious response webpage, with its link to seventeen denominational statements on evolution, amounts to the State of California endorsing and disseminating religious materials in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Some Darwinist apologists have attempted to justify the UC's religious response webpage by claiming that it merely "describes" rather than "endorses" religious viewpoints on evolution. However, at oral argument, this was not the UC's position at all. Rather, the UC defended its right to engage in religious propagation, as long as it does so in the context of a supposedly secular enterprise.

Two members of the three-judge panel hearing the appeal asked William Carroll, the attorney for the UC, whether the UC takes a position on religion on its religious response webpage. Mr. Carroll never did answer the question directly, even after Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher described that question as the "critical" question in the case Instead, Mr. Carroll side-stepped her question by arguing that the UC's defense on the merits of the Establishment Clause claim is that the Court should consider the UC's religious response webpage in the context of the website as a whole.

Mr. Carroll's indirect answer to the court's key question was a tacit admission that the UC indeed takes a position on religion on its religious response webpage. Notably, Mr. Carroll did not argue the fallback position that the UC's religious response webpage purportedly only describes religious positions rather than endorsing them.

So why would the UC stake out the more aggressive position that it has the right under the Establishment Clause to engage in religious advocacy as long as it is buried within a larger secular enterprise? One possible explanation is that Mr. Carroll did not think he could sell the court on the premise that the UC religious response page merely describes rather than endorses a religious position. Another possible explanation is that the UC does not want to be limited to merely describing various religious viewpoints on evolution; it wants to be able to advocate particular religious doctrine on evolution.

After all, according to the NCSE and UC's grant application to the National Science Foundation, one of their primary purposes in establishing the UE website was to combat the alleged "influence of a minority of vocal Christian fundamentalists throughout the country" on biology curricula and instructional materials. Of course, pinning the reasons people don’t support evolution solely on a religious group marginalized from the mainstream is purposefully misleading. People from varied religious backgrounds (or no religious background, for that matter) dispute evolution on scientific grounds. And this includes the majority of Americans. In 2004, a poll showed that only 13% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. It is impossible that the other 87% are "a minority of vocal Christian fundamentalists."

Unwilling or unable to defend evolution on scientific grounds, the UC and NCSE have apparently concluded that their best option is to address any religious objections to the theory by proactively re-engineering the religious beliefs of children. In particular, the UC seeks to replace school children's belief in traditional Christianity, and its Creation story, with belief in a Christian theology that embraces a Darwinist creation story. And the UC and NCSE seek to achieve this goal in K-12 biology classes.

It turns out the people who always claim to want to keep religion out of science actually want to convert our children's biology classes into Darwinian Sunday School classes.

Posted by Larry Caldwell at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Even as school is letting out for the summer, Premise Media is working in conjunction with the distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures, to bring Ben Stein back for the summer. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being made available from June 15th to August 30th for special group screenings at your preferred theater.

• Larger groups and multiple groups can be accommodated by contacting the organizers directly.
  
• Screenings will be prepaid and pre-scheduled group events so anyone interested must contact the organizers directly to coordinate your event
  
• Please do NOT contact the theatre directly
  
• For detailed information or to schedule a screening please contact Tripp Thornton, Premise Media EVP-Sales at Trippht@bellsouth.net, 678-546-5580

Considering the problems that dogged the production of Expelled (claims that key Darwinists were tricked into taking part, the ejection of "raving atheist" PZ Myers from a showing, accusations of copyright violation (not really substantiated), release delayed from February to April, (and of course, Ono's lawsuit), it is surprising that the film is even out of the can, let alone that it is #5 in political documentaries.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which now goes to the state Senate for final approval. Critics are already in overdrive trying to misrepresent the proposed law. Here is a quick guide to the facts.

What would the Louisiana Science Education Act actually do?

Two main things:

1. Upon the request of a local school board, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education would be required to "allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Assistance from the State Board in this area would "include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied."

2. School districts could permit teachers to "use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." But teachers using supplemental resources must first "teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system," and the State Board of Education would reserve the right to veto any inappropriate supplemental materials.

Why is the law needed?

For two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do.

Would the law allow the teaching of creationism or other religious beliefs?

Absolutely not. Section 1D of the law clearly states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Would the law allow teachers to teach whatever they want in the classroom?

No. Teachers would still be required to teach according to state and local science standards. But under the law, a school district could permit a teacher to present additional scientific evidence, analysis, and critiques regarding topics already in the approved curriculum.

But wouldn’t the law allow teachers to present wacky non-scientific evidence or religious arguments?

No. Teachers are still required to follow the standard curriculum, and school districts would still need to authorize what teachers are doing in order for the law to come into operation. Moreover, any teaching or supplemental instructional materials would have to be consistent with the prohibition of the promotion of religion in Section 1D of the bill. Finally, any inappropriate instructional materials could be disallowed under the bill by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Would this law be unconstitutional?

No. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that it is permissible for schools to teach "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories" (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578), and even groups like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have conceded that "any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught." In addition, it should be noted that at least nine states currently have state or local policies that protect, encourage, and sometimes even require teachers to discuss the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. None have been challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Posted by John West at 9:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Chicken Littles at Americans United for Separation of Church and State are now running around warning that

The Louisiana House of Representatives [has]... approved a measure that opens the door to teaching creationism in public schools...

Well, no, it didn't. The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Americans United conveniently neglects to mention that section of the bill. If any school districts or teachers try to use the bill to promote creationism or other religious views, they will be violating the law itself. Any supplemental textbooks adopted under the law would have to abide by this prohibition in Section 1C. In addition, any inappropriate supplemental textbooks or instructional materials could be vetoed under the law by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

What would be permitted under the bill is the presentation of scientific analysis and critiques of existing scientific theories. Thus, school districts could allow teachers to cover debates among scientists about whether random mutations are actually a major engine for evolutionary change as modern Darwinism claims. They could also allow discussions of experimental evidence showing the limits of natural selection. And they certainly could allow the presentation of more information and analysis about theories of the chemical origins of life from non-life.

Posted by John West at 6:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first Associated Press story is out about the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act by Louisiana's House of Representatives, and I'm pleased to say that it supplies an accurate description of the arguments both for and against the bill. That may not seem like a big deal, but when it comes to major media coverage of the evolution issue, it is. The beginning of the story states:

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A proposal that would let science teachers change how they teach topics like evolution, cloning and global warming in public schools was overwhelmingly approved Wednesday by the Louisiana House.

The bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, would let teachers supplement school science textbooks with other materials. The House voted 94-3 for the measure.

The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate.

Supporters say the bill — titled the "Louisiana Science Education Act" — is designed to promote critical thinking, strengthen education and help teachers who are confused about what's acceptable for science classes.

"It basically protects teachers to be able to teach controversial subjects in science without looking over their shoulders," said Rep. Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe, who handled the bill in the House. He also said the bill was not aimed at promoting any religious doctrine.

Earlier we had criticized the AP in Louisiana for its reporting about this issue. It's nice to see some improvement.

Posted by John West at 7:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Baton Rouge -- By a vote of 94-3, Louisiana's House of Representatives today passed an academic freedom bill that would protect teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics.

There was no vocal opposition, and the floor speech by Rep. Frank Hoffman made clear that the bill was about science, not religion.

"This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute. "Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven't read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on."

Click here to read more

Posted by Anika Smith at 5:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The AP is reporting here about Louisiana's passage of the Science Education Act. Here is the text of theAct as it passed the Louisiana House of Representatives today:

AN ACT

To enact R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students' critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1. R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

§285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

Section 2. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.

Posted by John West at 3:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Louisiana House of Representatives just approved the Louisiana Science Education Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 94-3. The bill previously passed the Louisiana Senate by a vote of 35-0. Because there was a minor amendment to the bill in the House, the bill now goes back to the Senate for its concurrence, but the original author of the bill (Senator Nevers) has indicated his support for the slightly amended version, and so Senate concurrence is likely.

The Louisiana Science Education Act is designed to safeguard the right of Louisiana teachers "to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The bill emphatically states that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Thus, any claims that this bill is about "creationism" are completely bogus.

Prior to the House vote, Rep. Frank Hoffmann gave an excellent statement of the reasons for the bill, emphasizing that its focus is on science and that it cannot be used to promote religion. I'm sure the other side will now go into overdrive trying to misrepresent the bill. Let's hope people actually read the legislation for themselves so they will see that the hysterical rhetoric of the other side is just that--rhetoric.

Posted by John West at 2:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It's surprising that editorial writers aren't better educated on the issues they pontificate on.

Last weekend it was the New York Times making the claim that there are no weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory, albeit they were likely led astray by the misleading article by Laura Beil.

(As an aside, Ms. Beil finally did respond to my question about why she didn't bother to contact Discovery Institute or Texans for Better Science Education, both of which she attacked in her story. Her response:

I did not contact you before the story because I was focusing on the situation here in Texas, and I am not aware that you have any direct involvement. I did not contact Texans for Better Science Education (other than to note their efforts) because the best source to represent their views is Don McLeroy.

Today it's the Waco Tribune with this statement.

Evolution is fact, not theory.

Presumably they mean what they write next.

Life forms change -- evolve -- based on natural selection.

Evolution simply implies change, whether at stable or rapid rates, based on conditions for thriving and surviving.

Just like they play loose with who they define as evolution skeptics.

With most creationists, their template is a "young earth," one only thousands of years old.

Lots of scientists are extremely skeptical of Darwinian evolution -- definition number three. So much so that sixteen of the world's leading thinkers on evolutionary biology are meeting next month to see where to go from here -- here being the fact that Darwinian evolution is an inadequate theory.

What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature -- let's call them "the Altenberg 16" -- who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena.

There are numerous scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. The scientific literature is full of them. Those familiar with the debate in Ohio some years ago will remember that Discovery Institute submitted the "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources" to the Ohio State Board of Education:

These 44 scientific publications represent important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution... The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Can't get enough David Berlinski? If you've been going through withdrawl since Dr. Berlinski returned to Paris after his American book tour for The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, then have we got an interview for you:

Read Christopher A. Ferrara's interview "Jewish Intellectuals Challenge Tyranny of Darwinism."

Posted by Logan Gage at 7:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over the past decade or so there has been much hype about computer simulations of Darwinian evolution. The most hyped is Avida at the MSU Digital Evolution Laboratory. Avida researchers claim their work is not a simulation, but actually is Darwinian evolution in action. They describe it like this:

In Avida, a population of self-replicating computer programs is subjected to external pressures (such as mutations and limited resources) and allowed to evolve subject to natural selection. This is not a mere simulation of evolution -- digital organisms in Avida evolve to survive in a complex computational environment and will adapt to perform entirely new traits in ways never expected by the researchers, some of which seem highly creative.

You can't ignore the fact that ...

... previous computer simulations of evolution, such as Avida, were carefully proscribed and tightly constrained by the environment created by its programmers. For example Avida shows how organisms can advance in an environment where they are solving problems, but problems that were set up for them to solve. The digital organisms produced there can only do so much or go so far as they are constrained by the environment the programmer has designed.

Should the Avida team be working in quarantine? Lenski argues that Avida itself acts as a quarantine, because its organisms can exist only in its computer language. "They're living in an alien world," Lenski says. "They may be nasty predators from Mars, but they'd drop dead here." Life is a different environment than that programmed for Avida's digital organisms.

Enter the new evolution computational software just released by Biologic Institute. The program, Stylus, was developed by molecular biologist Douglas Axe and software engineer Brendan Dixon, and announced last week in a peer-reviewed publication at PLos One.

Stylus however goes way beyond previous computer simulations. Axe describes it this way:

Like the structures of life, the structures of language are used to solve real problems at a high level. And the high level solutions in both worlds depend on a succession of solutions at lower levels.

In life, body plans serve the needs of particular modes of life, organs serve the needs of particular body plans, tissues serve the needs of particular organs, cells serve the needs of particular tissues, protein functions serve the needs of particular cells, protein structures serve the needs of particular protein functions, protein sequences serve the needs of particular structures, and genes serve the needs of these particular protein sequence requirements.

In a similarly hierarchical way, texts of various kinds serve the needs of particular communication objectives, sections serve the needs of particular texts, paragraphs serve the needs of particular sections, sentences serve the needs of particular paragraphs, phrases serve the needs of particular sentences, and words serve the needs of particular phrases.

What about letters serving the needs of words? Well, the problem with letter-based texts is that they are only sequences, whereas structures figure prominently in the functions of proteins. Protein sequences must form functional three-dimensional structures in order to work, whereas alphabetic sequences function directly as sequences.

But not all written languages are alphabetic. Chinese writing, in particular, employs structural characters that are analogous in some interesting ways to protein structures. Like folded proteins, these written characters perform the low level functions from which higher functions can be achieved.

Avida, Stylus. Stylus, Avida. Out with the old, in with the new.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past weekend, I read in the New York Times that there are no weaknesses left in modern evolutionary theory. Now this from The Scientist. (emphasis all mine).

This theory of evolution is really a framework for thinking about change in the living world. It provides no specific guesses for the kinds of traits that may exist, no strong requirements or prohibitions on how they may interact to make a complex organism or ecosystem, and no commitments to how innovation can occur. Even the problem of how a differentiated population ultimately divides into two distinct species (posed in the title of Darwin's seminal work) remains a major technical problem in evolutionary biology.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at his Amazon blog, Michael Behe has a new post reviewing the work of Richard Lenski on E. coli mutations. While Lenski interprets his findings as showing the quirky nature of evolution, Behe has a different perspective:

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse.

Posted by Anika Smith at 3:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial page showed yet again how pro-Darwin ideology trumps the facts when it comes to the major media's coverage of the evolution debate. On Saturday, the Times' editorial page warned readers ominously:

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow.

The Times apparently hasn't been paying attention to Texas during the past decade, because (as we pointed out last week) the "strengths and weaknesses" language the Times' editorialists so fear has been part of the Texas science standards since at least 1998! In short, the Texas State Board of Education isn't considering whether to add "strengths and weaknesses" language; it's the Darwinists who are trying to remove the language that has been in the Texas science standards for a decade.

As for whether "other states are likely to follow" Texas's example: the Times' editorial writers clearly haven't been paying attention to what has been happening in those other states over the last decade. Six states already call for the critical analysis of evolution in their science standards—Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama, and Missouri. Contrary to the Chicken Littles at the Times, the sky hasn't fallen in any of them.

The Times' editorial writers also engage in collective wish-fulfillment by asserting that "the courts have consistently banned [intelligent design] from science classrooms." Really?

Last time I checked only one court (a federal district court in Pennsylvania) had banned intelligent design from science classrooms, and that highly controversial ruling was never appealed so it has no binding force anywhere else. This lone ruling is now transformed by the Times' into multiple rulings by unnamed courts everywhere.

Of course, the underlying theme of the Times' editorial is that there are no scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, and that anyone who says otherwise must be promoting "creationism." As readers' of this blog know, that claim is just as much bunk as the other errors in the Times’ editorial.

Posted by John West at 8:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

In the recent Intelligent Design issue of Salvo Magazine, Logan Gage and I co-authored a piece titled, "Barking up the Wrong Tree," which assesses popular arguments for universal common ancestry. From the outset, it should be stated that neither Logan Gage nor I feel that universal common ancestry is necessarily incompatible with theism. In a twist of poor logic, however, that fact is apparently sufficient for some theists to think that they should therefore accept common ancestry. Logan Gage and I observe that "when discussing science and faith, it is vital to ask the right questions. Queries beginning with the words 'Could God have...?' tend to be unenlightening. The much more revealing question is 'What does the evidence say?'" Thus the "right question" is not whether God could have used common ancestry in the history of life (of course He could have, that's why we call Him God!). The "right question" is: What does the scientific evidence say about universal common ancestry? On that point, we find that the scientific data is increasingly challenging universal common ancestry on multiple fronts ranging from paleontology to molecular biology. To see the whole article, click here to read Barking up the Wrong Tree.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past week The New York Times ran a new article on the Vast Intelligent Design Conspiracy. The article was titled, "Opponents of Evolution are Adopting a New Strategy" and attempts to expose the creationist plot to take over America's schools.

The Times article documents the efforts of opponents of intelligent design in Texas. One of these groups, of course, is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), always vigilant in its efforts to stamp out the dangerous cultural virus of academic freedom before it spreads.

"Very often over the last 10 years," says Glenn Branch, "we've seen antievolution policies in sheep's clothing." Branch is part of the NCSE pack and he takes great care to bleat his remarks convincingly. Groups like NCSE are concerned about Texas because of the sway the state has over the textbook industry. Texas, like California, is a big market for publishers. They are worried that if objectivity in textbooks takes hold in Texas, it could spread to the rest of the nation.

So far, the full extent of this plan has been known only to a few, but the intrepid staff of the New York Times is now beginning to unravel the plot. Times reporter Laura Beil, using valuable time that could have been spent doing further investigation into the dangers of fluoride in the city's water, has carefully researched the Protocols of the Elders of ID and is hot on the scent of the meaning of its secret code:

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

... "'Strengths and weaknesses' are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists," said Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that promotes religious freedom.

What the reporter (and Miller) didn't notice is that the letters of this expression--"strengths and weaknesses"--when rearranged using the decoder ring issued to every card-carrying member of the Discovery Institute, spells, Death gets new sneakers (more or less).

You'll have to admit, it's clever.

I will probably get in trouble for revealing it, but when an ID advocate thinks someone else might be a creationist agent, he simply says, "Strengths." And if the other person, looking to the right and left to make sure no one else can hear, says, "and weaknesses," at the same time giving the secret handshake, he knows he has identified his creationist contact, and can pass along any secret messages from headquarters.

I'm sure there are some who would say that it may be time for the ID movement to fess up to its nefarious plan to clandestinely impose creationism on the nation--sort of like what the liberals did years ago in taking over major newspapers like the Times. But why should they blow their cover when the conspiracy is having so much success?

For example, the movement gained gained valuable exposure with the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." As part of a plan hatched by ID leaders at secret creationist meetings (which, unfortunately, have to be squeezed in between meetings of the Illuminati, since they share a conference room), the movie put Darwinists in the position of having to oppose academic freedom.

Then, in an equally crafty move, the Council on ID Relations quietly launched its effort to undermine science instruction in schools by requiring that it be balanced. The Darwinists, initially unaware of the plans that had been put into motion, played right into creationist hands by ceding expressions like "strengths and weaknesses" to the enemy. Outside of Darwinist circles, after all, most people actually think objectivity is a good thing.

Whether the Times will discover the full scope of the threat is uncertain. No one at the Times has yet noticed, for example, that if you play the movie's interview with Richard Dawkins backward, you can hear Ben Stein saying, "Bill Dembski is dead"--or that there is a missing 18 1/2 minutes of interview footage.

And when will the Mulders and Scullies at the Times realize that Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial was not written by Philip Johnson, but by another man with the same name?

Obviously the Times has more work to do, yet it may be well on its way to a Pulitzer for blowing the lid off this conspiracy. Yes, there are creationists under the bed, and the Times seems well on its way to discovering them.

Posted by Martin Cothran at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I am often asked what to make of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's new book Chance or Purpose?

Luckily, I can now point people to Denyse O'Leary's spot-on review.

Among the many highlights, O'Leary notes that

Schonborn focuses on knowing design not through empirical evidence but through natural reason. Yet if Darwinism is correct, true reason may not exist. Second, if Schonborn wants to oppose the fatuous conclusions of evolutionary psychology then he needs to oppose the supposed facts on which it is based. (Francis Collins makes the same mistake regarding altruism in The Language of God. He argues for Darwinian evolution and then argues against evolutionary explanations of altruism. Apparently he thinks the miraculous powers of natural selection can build the entire human body—including the brain—but do not affect our behavioral traits like altruism. He takes back his reductionism when it suits him, i.e., when he wants to support his religion or even his own thoughts, as if they were exempt from the Darwinian process. But I digress.) O'Leary notes that one cannot accept reductionist, Darwinian explanations of nature and then take reductionism back at will. Third and most enjoyably, she writes of Schonborn, who accepts methodolocial naturalism but says it has limits:

So, what are the limitations, precisely? Specifically what segment of reality doesn't the method show, and why not?

Actually, Darwin was not simply trying to get rid of intervention, he was trying to get rid of design in nature as well. And why not take him at his word?

On this point, I think Schonborn simply misunderstands Darwin. If Darwin and his heirs succeed, Schonborn's own views can be accounted for by brain glitches.

He speaks as though physical scenarios have no logical relationship with metaphysical realities. Like Alister McGrath, he seems to think that Darwinian evolution is equally compatible with theism or atheism.

I find this absurd. One cannot, at will, take the physical facts of an origins scenario and then divorce it from any natural logical implications. Clearly if there is no intelligence involved in evolution then one metaphysic is implied and others ruled out and vice versa.

It is especially surprising to me that a Cardinal would maintain such a proposition, for Catholicism has long supported Natural Law thinking where, they say, certain facts of nature imply a certain moral order.

Or again, many Catholic intellectuals are anxious to decry Descartes's sharp spirit-matter dualism. They say Descartes led us astray by separating two substances which are not easily separated. In this view, human beings are a union of the two substances. Thus
it is odd that a Catholic intellectual like Schonborn would so easily split the entire world such that something as foundational as origins scenarios (a physical reality) can be so easily divorced from metaphysical interpretations.

Posted by Logan Gage at 2:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Discovery senior fellow and bioethicists Wesley J. Smith weighs in on scientism at his blog SecondHand Smoke.

I read this NYT op/ed by Columbia physics professor Brian Greene whilst flying home from Europe in the Herald Tribune. On its face, Greene seems to be promoting better science education both in schools and among the general public. But it struck me that his underlying message is that science should be elevated into a first principle that provides us with our personal values and our existence with its overarching meaning. Green writes:

The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise, predictive and reliable--a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations--for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth--not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.

With that, my scientism radar deployed through my skull and began twirling furiously. It seemed to me that Greene was preaching a sermon that would end in an altar call rather than promoting greater scientific knowledge and appreciation.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As previously pointed out, the New York Times botched its recent story about the science standards debate in Texas, implying that support for covering the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution is supposedly a new strategy on the part of Darwin critics. The only problem is that the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the Texas science standards was already included some 10 years ago in 1998 when the existing science standards were adopted, and so there is nothing new about it. (Indeed, the language itself derives from the 1980s, before the current sciences standards.) More importantly, the debate over whether to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution has been going on across the nation for the past decade.

Now, however, New Scientist's Celeste Biever (yes, Celeste Biever, secret agent) has botched the story even further. She asserts that

this summer, the Texas state education board will decide whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught in public schools.

...critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse...

Changing the language to dodge the law is an age-old tradition for the anti-evolution movement.... [emphasis added]

Poor Celeste is even more fact-challenged than usual. She seems to think that the Texas Board of Education is debating whether to add strengths and weaknesses language to its science standards. In fact, the language has been in the current standards for a decade! The debate is about whether to remove the language, and the people trying to "change" the language are the Darwinists.

If reporters like Biever can't even get such basic facts straight, no wonder they have a hard time reporting accurately on the scientific debate over evolution and intelligent design.

Posted by John West at 4:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times is reporting on the scheduled review of Texas' science standards later this year by the state school board. Seems like this must be reporter Laura Beil's first rodeo because she gets all excited (mistakenly) about something that is old hat in Texas: textbook wrangling.

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."

The words are "strengths and weaknesses."

According to the critics, (of which Beil interviewed quite a few, as opposed to the one single person she spoke to that favors the current science standards, but balance and accuracy aren't exactly currency of the realm in the Times' news rooms, either Dallas or New York) the Texas science standards need to be revised to remove the phrase "strengths and weaknesses." They make the claim, and Beil runs with it, that this is a brand new idea cooked up by Discovery Institute.

As they say in Texas, "you can put your boots in the oven but that doesn't make 'em biscuits."

The central premise that teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory (and chemical origin of life theories) is a new, post-Dover innovation is flagrantly false.

That this is false can be proven with only a minimal amount of research, which makes it so much more surprising that Beil would blindly follow the assertions of the NCSE and others without bothering to call the people they're attacking -- Discovery Institute and Texans for Better Science Education.

Let's review. In 1998, the Texas Board of Education adopted the current set of science standards calling on students "to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." You can read the standards for yourself here. This is the language that the New York Times now insists is a new development!

But there's more. The year 1998 was also when Discovery Institute began defending the academic freedom of high school teacher Roger DeHart to teach the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. (You can see his story told in the DVD "Icons of Evolution.")

In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted a policy calling for students to be able to "critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." During the same year there were hearings before the board in which the strengths and weaknesses of evolution were discussed, and dozens of scientists petitioned the board to include critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum.

In 2003, the Texas Board of Education was asked to enforce its previously adopted "strengths and weaknesses" language in the adoption of biology textbooks that year. Unfortunately, the Board didn't do that, although it did insist that numerous errors overstating the evidence for Darwin's theory be corrected in the textbooks.

In 2004, Alabama introduced an academic freedom bill to protect the right of teachers to teach the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory. The Alabama bill has served as a model for many of the academic freedom bills on evolution that came later.

During the same year, a school district in Grantsburg, WI adopted the following science standard:

Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design.

All of this happened before anyone skeptical of Darwin's theory ever had the misfortune of even hearing about the squabbles of folks in Dover, PA.

Following Dover, the effort to protect the right of teachers to cover the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory continued. In 2006, Oklahoma's legislature considered an academic freedom bill, and local school boards in Louisiana and California adopted academic freedom policies dealing with covering the strengths and weaknesses of evolution and other science issues.

The story that critically examining the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory in the classroom is some newfangled idea is absurd. This is just another attempt of Darwinists to ignore the facts--which is certainly something they have a lot of practice doing.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

There are several good news stories on the recent development in the federal court case in which Yoko Ono seeks to prevent further distribution of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the Ben Stein film. And then there is this one from ars technica:

Notice the way the writer feels obliged to abuse free speech—by misrepresenting intelligent design—even as he defends it.

Read more here at Discovery Blog.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

There is an interesting new education project under construction at Binghamton University. According to The New York Times:

Yet a few scholars of thick dermis and pep-rally vigor believe that the cultural chasm can be bridged and the sciences and the humanities united into a powerful new discipline that would apply the strengths of both mindsets, the quantitative and qualitative, to a wide array of problems.

that the Darwinian establishment fails to take its own ideas seriously.

For instance, take human moral concerns. We find these all throughout the literature of the Western canon. Yet what would a consistent Darwinist have to say when analyzing moral concerns in literary texts? Would she not treat them as Darwin treats moral notions in The Descent of Man? Would she not treat them as every bit as evolved to fit the environment as fingernails? Rather than pointing to any sort of truth, are not such concerns from, say, the 18th century passé at the most?

And thus I worry that instead of providing a unifying curriculum, such a project (if consistent with Darwinian principles) would reduce the humanities to irrelevancy. If the human person does not have a stable nature, what could the ancients possibly have to teach us about the present order? So…why study literature on its own terms? And what objective criterion could one use to judge books “good” or “bad”?

It reminds us of Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilization (see Benjamin Wiker’s discussion in 10 Books That Screwed Up the World, p. 131). Sanger uses Darwinian logic and language in her book of 1922, writing that stupid Irishmen were breeding like rabbits and the virtuous Scots were breeding more slowly—a situation clearly leading humanity to doom! (This, of course, leaves those of us with Irish and Scottish blood feeling extremely conflicted! But let that pass for now.)

But this should strike the reader as silly—and not just for the pseudo-scientific racism of it all. It is fundamentally inconsistent in the same way as the Binghamton project; for their Darwinian reductionism reduces objective value concerns to rubbish. If the Irish are outbreeding the Scots, doesn’t this show that the Irish are "better" in Darwinian terms?

In other words, Sanger uses Darwinism to destroy objective values (which forbids the undermining the sacredness of human life) and then uses objective values about what is "good" to argue for her eugenic fantasies.

In the same way—while we do not wish to impute anything like the scientific racism of Sanger to the Binghamton folks—we worry that in accepting Darwinism (and hence reductionism) the Binghamton project can have no true unification with the humanities, for it has undermined its value from the start. Lucky for those of us who want to see a unified curriculum that Darwinism's pretensions to being good, objective science are tenuous at best.

Posted by Logan Gage at 8:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Update: Download the US District Court ruling here. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has more on the story.

According to the Associated Press:

Yoko Ono has lost her Manhattan legal battle to block the use of John Lennon's song "Imagine" in a film challenging the theory of evolution.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Expose hypocrisy. Nearly every argument that Barbara Forrest makes in the evolution debate, when applied fairly, can be turned against her. Keep this point in mind if you ever have to debate Dr. Forrest, because in my experience, this rule holds true under nearly all circumstances. I’ll give three examples from her recent talking points against academic freedom in Louisiana:

In the debate between dualists and materialists over the relationship between the mind and the brain, materialists often invoke neuroscience to buttress their assertion that the brain causes the mind entirely, without need for an immaterial mind or soul. Indeed neuroscience has demonstrated many examples of correlation between physical brain processes and mind states. Do examples of correlation between brain states and mind states genuinely provide evidence for the materialist claim that mind states are merely brain states?

The wild claims of neuroscientists, such as the astonishing claim by atheist Yale neurologist Steven Novella that "the materialist hypothesis— that the brain causes consciousness — has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated," suggest that some materialists, such as Dr. Novella, don’t even understand the core issues in the mind-brain debate.

David Chalmers, a leading philosopher of the mind and a particularly lucid thinker on the matter of consciousness, published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 1995 entitled “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” The seminal paper has given rise to much debate, and I believe that Chalmers clarifies the important issues in the mind-brain debate in a very important way.

Chalmers, who is probably best described as a property dualist, notes:

Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain.

There is not just one problem of consciousness. "Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into "hard" and "easy" problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods.

There is no real issue about whether these [neurophysiological] phenomena can be explained scientifically. All of them are straightforwardly vulnerable to explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. To explain access and reportability, for example, we need only specify the mechanism by which information about internal states is retrieved and made available for verbal report. To explain the integration of information, we need only exhibit mechanisms by which information is brought together and exploited by later processes. For an account of sleep and wakefulness, an appropriate neurophysiological account of the processes responsible for organisms' contrasting behavior in those states will suffice. In each case, an appropriate cognitive or neurophysiological model can clearly do the explanatory work….If these phenomena were all there was to consciousness, then consciousness would not be much of a problem. Although we do not yet have anything close to a complete explanation of these phenomena, we have a clear idea of how we might go about explaining them. This is why I call these problems the easy problems. Of course, "easy" is a relative term. Getting the details right will probably take a century or two of difficult empirical work. Still, there is every reason to believe that the methods of cognitive science and neuroscience will succeed.

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience...It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one.

So what is the materialist response to Chalmers' observations? Materialists such as Dr. Steven Novella deny the relevance of the hard problem of consciousness to our understanding of the mind. Referring to an earlier reference of mine to the hard problem, Dr. Novella wrote:

Dr. Egnor…is referring to another common fallacy used to dismiss the undeniable evidence linking brain function to mental function - retreating to philosophy, or more specifically to a conceptual realm that is not empirical and which defies common language…[p]hilosophers have asked what is probably a meaningless question - why is it that we “feel” that we exist, that we experience ourselves and the world - a phenomenon they refer to as “qualia.” I say this is meaningless because it does not yield any specific predictions or distinctions from a purely materialistic world.

Dr. Novella's description of the origin of our subjective experience as “a meaningless question” should leave the reader gasping. It's hard to imagine an assertion more misguided. We are subjects, not merely objects. First-person ontogeny is the aspect of our minds with which we are most familiar. In fact, first-person ontogeny is the only aspect of ourselves with which we are familiar, in the tautological sense that it is the only thing that we actually experience. It is the indispensable quality of the mind. The origin of subjective experience is the fundamental question—the hard problem—in understanding the mind. Yet there is nothing in the material world that intrinsically refers to or explains subjective experience. There is nothing in third-person ontogeny from which one would infer first-person ontogeny. No theory in physics or chemistry invokes the emergence of first-person experience. A detailed scientific understanding of the physics and chemistry of the brain—from molecular structure to neurochemistry to electrophysiology to neuroanatomy—would not at any point provide a scientific explanation of why we are subjects and not just objects.

This hard question about subjective experience in the relationship between the mind and the brain has been at the core of the most active and contentious issue in analytic philosophy in later 20th century and early 21st century. As science is a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy), scientists must grapple with these profound philosophical issues. Contra Dr. Novella, it’s not a matter of applying or not applying philosophy to this scientific debate. It is a matter of applying good philosophy or bad philosophy to this debate.

The hard problem of consciousness is the most important problem in understanding the mind, and thus far materialism has provided no insight. It is unclear how it even could provide insight. Nothing about the scientific characterization of matter—and nothing about materialism—explains the emergence of subjective experience. The principal materialist response to this catastrophe for materialist ideology has been to deny the relevance of subjective experience to our understanding of the mind. Yet the retreat to science and the denial of the relevance of philosophy is no refuge. Science is natural philosophy.

Materialists, left with the choice of denying materialism or denying the reality of subjective mental experience, deny subjective mental experience. There is no fanaticism like materialist fanaticism.

Posted by Michael Egnor at 9:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)