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.
In typical fashion van der Meer elucidates the evolutionary position. Science must be rigidly and purely naturalistic, not because scientific conclusions make it the obvious choice, but for non-scientific reasons. Naturalism is required both for us and for God. Anything else is bad for both science and religion.
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.
More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines
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:
Louisiana: Do Forrest and the NCSE Really Oppose Religious Instruction in Evolution?
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.)
Despite Forrest's current public posturing to the contrary, she and her colleagues at the NCSE really believe that a good "science" education should include a healthy dose of religious instruction in biology class.
Perhaps that's why Forrest's colleague, Scott, sometimes refers to herself as the "Evolution Evangelist."
ABC's Freudian Slip: Sneaking Evolution into Louisiana's Public Schools
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.
*gasp!*
Imagine that — critical thinking might actually lead to teaching evolution, rather than just indoctrinating students.
What to do in Canada this weekend? See Expelled, of course!
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.
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.
Victory in Louisiana: Governor Jindal Signs Historic Science Education Act On Evolution and Education
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."
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.”
ACLU Says Louisiana Science Education Bill on Evolution and Other Issues Is Fine As Written
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.
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.
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.
"This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom," Says LSEA Sponsoring Senator
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.
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.
Since the pro-evolution-only lobby ignores the scientific evidence that doesn't support Darwin's theory, they've decided to address what they can afford to acknowledge as a problem for many people: Darwinian evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs.
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?
Testing Your Knowledge of the Louisiana Science Education Act
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.
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.
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.
Explore Evolution Textbook Featured in Science Magazine
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.”
Never mind that they ignored us. But, what about the science educators who testified in support of the act? What do they say? Dr. Caroline Crocker, a noted skeptic of Darwinism, and Professors of Biology Dr. Wade Warren and Dr. Brenda Pierson of Louisiana College all spoke on behalf of the LSEA and in support of teaching students both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Dr. Pierson summed it up pretty well:
“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.”
And what about the bill itself, what does it say? Again, let me quote from Section 1D:
“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.”
So, the reporter waste her time as well as ours and files a report that doesn't even mention Discovery Institute or cite any of the points we made. And of course it doesn't cite anything responding to the critics of the bill, least of all the section of the legislation that prohibits any promotion of 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."
Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So
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.
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!
AAUP: No Faculty Loyalty Oaths Except to Darwinism
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.
What Part of "Shall Not Be Construed to Promote Any Religious Doctrine" Does the Darwin-only Lobby Not Understand?
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?
You would think that with passage of a law like the Louisiana Science Education Act, now headed to the governor's office for signing, that the law itself would be quoted in response to bogus charges by malcontents. As we've learned, that just doesn't happen much. A slew of articles have been running in which activists like Barbara Forrest make the false claim that the LSEA opens the door to religion in the classroom. Not so.
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."
Today's Baton Rouge Advocate carries a story that repeats these claims, and while it quotes the bill's sponsor saying that isn't the case, it never bothers to tell readers what the bill says. If people are concerned they should read the bill for themselves and make up their own mind.
Louisiana State Legislature Passes Landmark Act That Encourages Critical Analysis of Evolution
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.'"
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."
This is quite different than Miller's previous views. As he writes in Finding Darwin's God, "Evolution is a natural process…and natural processes are undirected." Miller agrees with Stephen Jay Gould’s opinion "that mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out." (Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, Harper Collins, 1999, 244)
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.
Louisiana Senate Passes Landmark Science Education Act on Evolution and Other Science Controversies
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.
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.
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.”
P.Z. Myers recently 