Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Intelligent Design

  • Persecution for Christians who Accept Evolution

    When Troy Brittain started blogging, I knew we’d get some good stuff, and his post More Irony from the ID Creationist Crowd is a good example. It seems unlikely that the real interest of the ID crowd is academic freedom.

  • Also Richard Colling

    PZ Myers (yes, he who was expelled from Expelled!)* Pim van Meurs, has posted a couple of interesting cases on The Panda’s Thumb, and I want to make sure one name is also known: Dr. Richard Colling. I wrote about his situation in a number of posts, and also blogged through his book Random Designer.

    I experienced conservative Christian education myself. Many of my more conservative friends think I don’t understand the closed nature of academia because I didn’t attend a public university. But I experienced the closed minds that manifested themselves as soon as one deviated from the party line by too great a degree.

    The Expelled! producers aren’t concerned about academic freedom. They’re concerned about victory. They would like to be in control and be the ones expelling.

    *My sincere apologies. I plead posting too early in the morning.

  • Suppressed and Talking about it Everywhere

    After reading this review of Expelled!, (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) based only on the 10 minute trailer, I decided to go view the various trailers for myself.

    This is a movie that I have very little interest in seeing. Let me explain that. It’s not that I don’t want to hear about ID, but I need something that at least purports to provide some sort of information, some sort of argument in favor of it. I might reject that argument after reading, but I’m not going to be attracted to the material unless such an argument is made. For me to read something, or even more for me to view something, I require some sort of reason, and since I dislike watching informational videos in general, I need an extraordinary reason to go watch one. In the case of something like Expelled!, I also rest in the knowledge that I have friends who are attracted to these things like motorists to wrecks, and they will write about it.

    Having watched the trailers I can now tell you that not only do they not give me any reason to watch the movie; they give me numerous reasons not to bother. I certainly won’t shell out money for it, and I like the energy to arrange to get my name on the list for a free showing as PZ Myers did (unsuccessfully) and Richard Dawkins did (successfully). Incidentally, I should mention that I don’t accept the explanations of the Expelled! crowd that Myers and Dawkins were gate crashers. I fully support what they did in that case. More importantly, I think it is indicative of the mindset of the producers that they did not welcome people whom they interviewed to see the finished product. Both men should have gotten in to see the movie and without such effort on their part. Myers more recent telephone escapade, on the other hand, falls outside my ethical boundaries. I confess that I laughed when I read about it (shame on me), but still, I could not do it with good conscience.

    Why did the trailers have such a negative impression on me:

    1. Misrepresentation of evolution
      It’s difficult to explain a theory properly in a short period of time, but there was no attempt made to correctly represent the theory of evolution. References to a totally random process or to lightning hitting some mud are misrepresentations intended to ridicule, not to inform. The ridicule is in no way surprising. This is constant in creationist materials on evolution. It was, in fact, one of the major elements that drew me away from creationism. This problem is especially egregious in a movie that complains about the way intelligent design (ID) advocates are ridiculed in science.
    2. First amendment issues are badly confused
      The first amendment doesn’t provide you with the right to have a particular scientific magazine publish your article, nor does it protect editors from the consequences of not following the rules (Sternberg). Peer review exists for a purpose, and that is to exclude articles that do not provide sufficient fodder for study by those who will read the journal in question. It assures readers, not that the material is all true, but that the material has enough scientific merit to be considered. Further, the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you a job at a particular university, or tenure, nor does it protect you from ridicule. In fact, the first amendment protects the right of others to ridicule you.
    3. Academic freedom doesn’t guarantee you a job or tenure
      Tenure is given to people who uphold certain standards and will advance the university. Personally, I’m not all that excited about the tenure system, but that’s because I think freedom is better protected by the variety of institutions of higher education than by a fight at a particular one. A person denied tenure is not automatically denied free speech. He can go down the road. I’m fairly sure the Expelled! crowd could find reasons that someone should be denied tenure; they just don’t think their particular silliness is a good reason.
    4. The problem for intelligent design is not that it hasn’t been considered
      In fact, it hasn’t even truly been presented yet, and I don’t mean that the meanies in the educational establishment didn’t allow it a hearing. Rather, it simply has never presented a scientific program that could truly be tested. The ID crowd want something for nothing. They want to be regarded as purveyors of a scientific theory without doing the work. Some want their theory to be presented in high school, without going through the process of consensus building.
    5. The connection of evolution with Hitler
      There are a very small number of things that deserve to be compared with Nazism. There are a variety of causes. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a cause of Nazi Germany and the holocaust is blatantly false. In a movie that complains of ridicule for ID advocates, this level of slander is incredible. Even in the trailer (and according to reviews the movie is worse), the implication of a Nazi connection is not at all subtle. It just goes to show the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the film’s makers, and Ben Stein as a spokesman. They cannot possibly have any clue of how Nazi Germany suppressed people, and at the same time claim that there is a relationship between that and their claimed suppression here. That’s why I titled my post as I did. Intelligent design has provided us with the most heard, published, talked-about, and taught “suppressed” theory in history.
    6. Lastly, the one that annoys me most, is the lie that accepting the theory of evolution is the equivalent of atheism
      Repeatedly, Ben Stein equates the theory of evolution with atheism, and claims that all ID wants is to open the door to considering that God might have done something. Evolution may be incompatible with certain forms of Biblical interpretation, but it is in no way incompatible with basic theism.

    For people who claim suppression, these folks certainly act more like the liars and propagandists who help nurture suppression. If one were to propose a conspiracy in America, one might find more validity in seeing a conspiracy in the general removal of the word “evolution” from science standards so that now, when creationists push to get their view into the public school classrooms, few people really understand what evolution actually is. This facilitates the lies about it told in just the trailers to this movie.

  • Troy Britain Has a New Blog

    I’ve been acquainted with Troy since back in early Religion Forum days. He’s had a web presence for some time, but now he has finally created a blog, Playing Chess with Pigeons (don’t ask me). Welcome to the blogosphere, Troy!

    I suspect he’ll talk about antievolution stuff quite a bit, which will be good. He already has a good post on transitional fossils.

    HT: Dispatches, where Ed Brayton was also part of the RF crowd in the good old days.

  • Not Doing Evolution Sunday

    Well, actually I am. Just not officially. First let me note that I was reminded that I needed to say something about this by a comment from Laura, who also provided this link to further information about the weekend.

    First, let me tell you what I am doing for evolution Sunday or Darwin Day. I’m headed to Tallahassee to attend Darwin Day activities that will be held at the medical school there. I will also attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, of which I’m a board member. I commend a strong commitment to and involvement in defending evolutionary science, and public school science standards. I believe that public school science standards must teach solid, consensus science, and the theory of evolution is foundational in the biological sciences.

    Second, let me commend those churches and religious organizations that are commemorating evolution Sunday. If this works well in your context this is great. I’ll discuss a bit below about what I believe “works well” and why.

    Finally, let me tell you why I and the non-profit religious education organization I lead are not doing anything specific on Evolution Sunday. I believe the theory of evolution, and only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school because it is consensus science. There is no substantial scientific controversy about it in the community of scientists in the relevant fields. The amount of noise generated on the issue does not relate to any scientific controversy but rather to religious, philosophical, and social controversies.

    And that is the key point for me. While I do not believe the scientific controversy is significant or legitimate at the moment, the religious controversy is very legitimate. It is much more widespread, and has much further to go before there is any consensus, if there ever will be. One of my strongest objections to teaching any version of creationism, including intelligent design, in public schools, is because I do not trust the state and state employed science teachers to teach religious ideas in a balanced manner. It’s not their training, and it’s well-nigh impossible to do in any case. Besides the church-state issues, which I take seriously, you could destroy a semester of science class just running through the number of different views and how they would step on one another.

    The proper place to do this, I believe, is in the home and in the church. (I will note in passing that while I am a strong supporter of public education, and my children attended public schools, I am not opposed to home schooling and believe it should be an option available to parents.) But whether you are homeschooling or not, if you are a parent you need to be paying attention to these issues and providing your children with information and reading material, and then discussing these issues with them. Sunday School classes need to undertake such discussions openly.

    Thus I would call for churches to use the same weekend to discuss religion and science from whatever perspective you choose. My preference for churches is that how one integrates one’s beliefs with science be open. A church that can allow everyone from theistic evolutionists to young earth creationists to share fellowship would be a wonderful thing. I once taught a class in Genesis to a small group, in which the lady who always took the seat to my right was a theistic evolutionist of vigorous views, while the one to my left was a young earth creationist. We all remained friends as well.

    I also know many pastors who have no problem with theistic evolution, but who simply don’t want to go there. If your church holds an explicit doctrinal position against theistic evolution, then perhaps you ought to search for some other church. But if your church does not, perhaps you ought to express the range of positions that are acceptable under your doctrinal standards, and give church members the freedom to express and discuss their beliefs.

    I think Evolution Sunday is effective in a church in which evolution would be the default position of the membership. Bringing that out into the open is good. It is also good to discuss and learn more about it. But plan also to find out how your neighbors think. For example, many Christians I know who accept evolution think the opposition largely consists of young earth creationists. That is not the case. In a church where more views are likely to be represented, I think this Sunday (or one could choose any of a number of other Sundays) can be dedicated to the topic without telling people the conclusion.

    Above all, I would hope this would be a time of some reconciliation in churches. I know I express myself forcefully and regularly on this topic. But I also have said repeatedly that I have no difficulty with fellowship in church with those of opposing views. It would just be nice to know that they could accept me on the same basis. And I have no problem with them also forcefully expecting their views, providing again there is that caveat about fellowship.

    Whatever you do or don’t do, enjoy the weekend!

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • Paying People to See EXPELLED

    Given the advance publicity, and now reviews from some friends who have seen the movie, I have almost entirely negative expectations. That is not surprising, considering that I’ve sold out to the Darwinist ConspiracyTM, and no longer believe in God.* :-;

    However, it seems that the upright and theologically correct** folks who produced the movie, have even less faith in it than I do. They apparently feel the need to pay people to see it (HT: Austringer and Glen D. at AtBC.)

    They are especially interested in getting middle and high school students to see the movie, which demonstrates yet again how much more anxious they are to bring their message before the uninitiated than to bring it before people who are qualified to critique it.

    I eagerly await exaggerated claims of ticket sales based on this particular strategy. The ID folks have taken a step down from “truth is determined by popular vote” to “truth is determined by those who can pay for it.”

    *I eagerly await the first time this is quoted by some humor-challenged individual to prove I really, truly am an atheist.

    **Political correctness is a relative newcomer on the correctness scene. Theologians just didn’t have such a catchy name for it. For centuries in many places one could get burned at the stake for not being theologically correct, rather than just expelled from a university, for example. Both ideas are, of course, destructive of freedom. That’s why, of all the epithets rained upon me, I prefer “Henry the Heretic.” It’s good to be a heretic!

  • Random Designer V

    With my previous post I completed reading the first section of Random Designer. Up to this point, while we have been touching on faith, the primary purpose of the material was to outline what evolution is, and the areas and strength of evidence for it. Obviously, in any reasonable sized book, Dr. Colling could not actually cover all the evidence, but he does provide us with the categories and with overviews.

    Having established that evolution is based on overwhelming evidence, he begins to look at how evolution relates to faith, primarily to Christian faith, though he does cover other elements. As I read it, however, the links have been established in the earlier chapters. Essentially, as a Christian reader, I have already been presented with the choice between the Random Designer, who created a universe with natural processes that would produce the variety of life we now know, and a “tinkering God” (my phrase) who does it all in detail. The overwhelming evidence of the world around us tells us that God is the Random Designer and not the tinkerer.

    Of course, any reader of this blog knows my choice. I already accepted the Random Designer before I read the book by that name, though I didn’t have that good of a name for him! Many Christians, however, will feel that there are many problems left open. For some it will feel as though they are being told that their faith, and particularly their Bible is absolutely wrong, and that they must make a choice between faith and science. I suspect that in that case many would choose their faith.

    But no such stark choice is presented. What Dr. Colling invites readers to do is to expand their understanding of God, and to see the beauty of the plan of creation which is revealed by science. To put this in my own words, we need to look at our faith and see where it can be improved and strengthened by what God has revealed in the natural world. Since both the natural world and scriptures are said by Christian doctrine to result from (or be) God’s word, we should find value in both.

    From the introduction to Part II:

    The problem, as I see it, is that we tend to squeeze God into small rigid boxes of our own making to keep Him conceptually consistent with our traditional religious beliefs. Unfortunately, this approach to religious faith is fraught with liability because it prevents God from truly being God–a creator capable of using any means He chooses for His creation. [emphasis in original]

    Now technically in Christian theology we can say that when one source of revelation (the Bible), conflicts with another, we can examine what we know from either. In other words, if science contradicts the Bible, one can check one’s science, or one can check one’s understanding of the Bible, or both. I would suggest its more important to check which one is the appropriate source for a particular type of information, but I’m using a more traditional formulation.

    In the case of evolution, however, we’ve seen that the evidence is overwhelming, and thus we have to look back at our faith, assuming that we’ve made some form of unscientific view of origins part of that faith, and we have to see where this really does fit. If we do so, I think we’re in for an enlightening journey. In Random Designer, that begins with chapter 12, “Who is Adam? The Birth of Humanity.” This chapter basically goes from biological development to consciousness, remaining with the basic claim that humans are biologically fully related to the rest of creation, but nonetheless looking at what sets us apart from other creatures on earth.

    Chapter 13 expands on consciousness and discusses our perception and cognitive abilities. I really can’t summarize it. It’s already short enough! Chapter 14, “An Honest Faith” talks about the problems of credibility and the importance of honestly admitting and addressing the evidence. He notes that the conclusion that there is a Master Designer, or God, is not a scientific conclusion. He is enlightened in forming that conclusion by science, but it is not something to be scientifically demonstrated.

    Chapter 15 then talks about the image of God. This is one of those very hard questions to deal with, because so many Christians attach the concept of God’s image to something physical. Often people who will deny it when asked directly, still think as though there is something physical about God’s image. But the concept of a Random Designer need not contradict the idea of God’s image in humanity; in fact, it can link with it very well.

    I’ll continue in my next post with chapter 16.

  • Intelligent Design and Faith

    An interesting discussion broke out in the comments to this post on The Panda’s Thumb, regarding the nature of faith and how intelligent design relates to faith. On the one hand we have some who hold that anything that provides evidence for God works contrary to faith, i.e. the purest faith is based on no evidence whatsoever. On the other we have the claim that faith is largely trust rather than belief, and thus that the issue is irrelevant.

    I’ve written a number of posts on theological problems with intelligent design (ID), and I have tried to stay general for the most part. What are the theological problems with ID that would be recognized by most theologians? What are the hidden problems, if any, that would be of concern to a variety of Christians? I recognize that there are very few things one can criticize in theology without reference to a particular theology, but I have tried to address the broadest base possible.

    In this post, however, I’m speaking directly from my own theology, which is moderate to liberal Christian. To anchor the discussion, what does that mean? Well, I’m a Christian believer who accepts such central doctrines of Christianity as the incarnation and the Trinity. I can say the apostles creed without crossing my fingers, but I’m not rigid on the details of interpretation. When I say “I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth” I see myself in fellowship with a range of beliefs about how God accomplished this creation. When I say that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose the third day, I’m not extremely tense about just how one believes that accomplishes salvation.

    Hidden in that short statement is the idea that I accept the possibility of divine intervention in the physical universe. While “Trinity” may be seen as language for us limited mortals to use in talking about God, a reality that would probably be shocking if we could actually come to comprehend it, “incarnation” involves intervention. God, in some way, becomes more part of his creation in this one person than at any other time or place. My observation is that in most miracle claims the issue is communication, rather than an alteration of reality. In other words, I don’t believe that God intervenes generally to do things all the way from emptying parking places for people to eliminating or preventing the results of a madman like Adolph Hitler. (I’ve addressed the issue of why this would be so briefly in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. I’ve also discussed the notion of miracles more extensively in my series of essays on the Hand of God, part 1, part 2, and part 3.)

    The key element here is that God created a universe that is functional, and that God lets that universe function according to consistent, observable rules as much as possible. I think at a minimum we can observe that God doesn’t intervene on a constant and regular basis in our daily lives. If God behaved in that way, one could get much clearer results from all these “prayer studies.” If God consistently altered the general chain of cause and effect for believers, all you would have to do would be to separate a group of believers from a group of non-believers (including those who believe differently than your target group), and watch what God does. While there may be statistical arguments about God’s intervention based on studies of prayer at a distance, unknown to those who are prayed for, those are marginal numbers. No study suggests that every Christian in the group, for example, is healed, or that everyone prayed for by a Christian is healed.

    I’m not saying here that nobody is healed as a result of prayer–I’m remaining agnostic on that point for purposes of this essay. What I think the evidence demonstrates quite clearly is that there is no regular, predictable form of intervention going on. This can be a critical point. I know of quite a number of people who believe that if a believer prays for something and has faith, that thing will happen. This is especially asserted in terms of healing. The excuses, of course, are always with us. If someone is not healed, someone didn’t pray with enough faith. Some would say that if a group prays for someone’s healing and one person in the group lacks faith, then the healing won’t take place. As a result, it’s hard to present airtight counterexamples. But if you look at the general picture, there are many people praying and believing, and relatively few people getting better. The data certainly counterindicates a consistently favorable result.

    (more…)

  • Barbara Forrest makes Statement on Firing of Chris Comer

    I blogged before about the firing of Chris Comer. PZ Myers now has a post that includes the full statement by Barbara Forrest about this. Comer was apparently fired for forwarding a memo announcing Barbara Forrest’s talk in Austin. It’s a good statement.