Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Expelled! Humor

    This is simply too funny. Put down your coffee. Chew and swallow whatever food you may have put in your mouth.

    OK. Ready. Go read this post on Panda’s Thumb.

    [Don’t read on until you’ve read the linked post.]

    I’ve been amused at the way the producers have been promoting Expelled!, annoyed by the way the tricked interviewees when they were producing it, and appalled by some of the things reported by reviewers. It looks like one of those movies that make me glad I have dedicated friends who will watch and report. My blood pressure won’t tolerate the watching!

    I do note the “alternate” story provided in the comments, in which I put about as much faith as I do in the producers of this movie.

    But now we have incompetent expelling . . . this is just too much fun.

  • Distress, Lies, and Christlikeness

    I follow Dr. Steve Matheson’s blog Quintessence of Dust very closely, because as I have read what he posts I have found that he has a high level of integrity, and also provides an extremely high density of information in carefully chosen words. Recently he has been posting on the topic of just how one refers to false statements from people who ought to know better.

    I appreciate the attention he has been giving this issue, because non-specialists have no choice but to trust the integrity of credentialed scientists, at least in the basic data they present. Interpretation is always a different matter.

    Today he has a post On folk science and lies: Back to the basics, in which he digs further into this topic. It’s partially a response to this post by a colleague of his at Calvin College, Kevin Corcoran. Both posts are well worth reading. I provide the second link for those who may not follow all the links, but might I recommend you read this second post when you get to it’s link in Steve’s post? He provides a nice break point so that you can read the second post in context.

    I made the following comment, which I’m reposting here, again for the benefit of those who won’t follow the links:

    I think you are doing a good job with a difficult topic. The problem is in determining the nature of a statement and the intent of the author. Perhaps that should lead us to call statements “false” rather than “lies.”

    I still have a concern here, however. Remember I come at this from a different direction. I’m a Bible teacher and writer at the popular level. I try to communicate things that I study from more serious scholars. At one time I thought I could basically trust information from RtB, even where I might disagree with conclusions.

    What I hear from people in the classes and seminars I offer is that they are getting their information from Christian sources, and specifically from Christian sources who claim strong scientific credentials. These same sources are directly or indirectly accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of a conspiracy to deceive. Because of the claim to be Christian and scientifically credentialed, these non-specialists accept their claims.

    Hugh Ross falls into that category of trust. I can name any number of people with whom I work who will accept his statements or statements of his associates simply because of his reputation. What responsibility does that place on him? Is there a point where a qualified Christian expert (such as you, Steve), should call him on what he is doing?

    It’s not so much the word “lie,” though I continue to have difficulty understanding how a biologist could say certain things that have been quoted here on your blog unintentionally. At a minimum they seem to me to involve negligence.

    I take blog posts here, or books by Christian authors whose integrity I have no reason to doubt, and quote the counter-statements. Not being a specialist (it’s not written in Greek or Hebrew!), it’s hard for me to judge.

    But from my non-expert’s point of view, that’s what makes the issue of integrity so extremely important. Integrity doesn’t mean always being right, but it does mean being careful, presenting the truth as best one knows it, and acknowledging errors when they are pointed out.

    As I have been on the wrong end of some very unChristlike comments, and unfortunately I’ve been guilty of some myself, I’m very conscious of that issue as well. If we can be very, very clear as to what is reliable and what is not without going any further than necessary in making personal accusations, that would be ideal.

    I very much appreciate your efforts in this area. If you determine you’ve deviated from the path you set for yourself, you have also clearly demonstrated a willingness to be corrected and to acknowledge errors. All of that gives evidence of your personal and professional integrity.

    I remain uncomfortable with this topic, but I regard it as of great importance. I’ll be interested in any comments made here or there.

  • 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.

  • Why I Quit Trusting Creationist Writers

    I’ve mentioned several times before how I migrated from young earth creationist all the way to theistic evolution, and even to the point of objecting to the term “theistic” in front of evolutionist. I am a theist, but the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and should remain the same whether one is a theist or not.

    Now the question people often have is just why I made all these changes, and how I decided which authors to trust, considering I am not myself a scientist. Well, there’s a good illustration today on The Panda’s Thumb, which shows how it worked for me. In this case, Casey Luskin builds a quote out of a late page, and combines it with a piece of one from much earlier, in order to make the author say something he didn’t say.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re a scientist or not, that should make you wonder whether the writer in question can be trusted. For me, the experience took more time. I had read creationist books all my life, and then suddenly I read books by the actual scientists, and I found that evolution was something different than I had been told in case after case. I can now pick up a creationist book and look up certain items in the index, and I know I’ll find misinformation. For example, “punctuated equilibrium/a” will almost guarantee that I find an error.

    One of the reasons creationism maintains such a high popularity in this country is that it is supported by Christian writers and speakers. For many Christian lay people, the fact that something is espoused by a trusted Christian leader is regarded as sufficient reason to consider it valid. Unfortunately, many of these Christian leaders are, in fact, embracing carelessness, or perhaps even negligence in fact-checking. For those who are trained in the appropriate scientific fields, I can even say embracing and proclaiming falsehood.

    As I say with everything, each person needs to check and recheck and not simply accept the word of an authority figure. This applies to all areas of life, but right now I think it particularly applies to science because there is so much misinformation out there. I wish I could say that all of this was sincere error, but recently I’m reading of more and more cases where it is hard to make that case.

    Whatever the motivation, however, careful checking for yourself, and careful checking of your authorities is critical.

  • Florida and Academic Freedom Follies

    The Florida Citizens for Science blog has a post summing up the current situation with creationist bills in the Florida legislature. FCFS communication director Brandon Haught shows how the bill in the Florida Senate is essentially taken directly from the Discovery Institute’s web site.

    What is the purpose of these bills? Academic freedom is not generally considered an issue in public high schools. Curriculum is closely controlled. Supposing someone who was opposed to so-called creation science chooses to use this academic freedom to thoroughly analyze, and of course vigorously refute that position. This would be as an alternative to what is currently mandated–clear teaching of the theory of evolution in its proper scientific place. Would these folks be equally happy with that?

    Fundamentally, these laws are simply a case of people who do not understand the material trying to replace well-supported work done by experts in the subject. But there is something further. I suspect that creationists will be almost as happy if the bills are defeated. Then they can yell loudly about how “academic freedom” was defeated, and point to it as a case of “Darwinist” suppression.

    It seems there is nothing these folks won’t do to avoid having to actually do the hard work of science. Their expertise at this avoidance perhaps was learned in childhood, when they were avoiding learning things like the meaning of “theory” in science.

  • Why Anti-Evolution Lies?

    Earlier I blogged about Dr. Steve Matheson’s use of the term “folk-science” to deal with some creationist writing about science. in that post I struggled with that term, and how to distinguish lies from differences of opinion, viewpoint, and simple ignorance.

    Well, Dr. Matheson is now dealing with some material he outright calls lies. This starts with When it’s not just a disagreement, and continues with Talking trash about “junk DNA”: lies about “function” (part II). I don’t know nearly enough to get involved in this argument, though Matheson’s articles are straightforward and I think I understand the logic.

    The thing that I can follow is that the statements of science are being misrepresented. This was one of the things that started me away from young earth creationism. While I could not always understand the reasons that young earthers were wrong about science, it was often quite easy to simply compare what evolutionists wrote about the subject, and what creationists claimed they wrote and to find out that they did not match.

    But I wax long-winded as usual, and I only have a simple point. Since the representation of the mainstream science position is false, and is easily demonstrated to be false, why use it? Would it not be logical to exclude easily disconfirmed material from your argument? I would suggest that if they could make their argument whilst correctly representing the mainstream science, they would. The fact that they resort to these types of misrepresentation suggests that they don’t have alternatives.

    I have long had respect for Reasons to Believe, even while disagreeing with their position. Reading this series is suggesting that my own ignorance allowed me to give them the benefit of the doubt. Consider the weakness of a theory if you cannot support it without obvious misstatements of the opposing postion.

  • From YEC to Theistic Evolutionist

    Since I’ve made this journey myself, I’m always on the alert for other stories of similar journeys. It’s interesting that I’ve found many more such stories amongst those studying science. On the religion side, it’s generally those who studies nuts and bolts material (textual criticism, history, archeology, and so forth) who start to see holes in the fabric of a literalist view of the Bible.

    Dr. Steve Matheson has an interesting post at Quintessence of Dust on this very topic, discussing the story of paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, as told in an article in Science. It’s worth reading Dr. Matheson’s summary even though the article is available only to subscribers.

    In these discussions by scientists I frequently see discussions of the need to prepare a theological framework to help people migrate their faith along with their science. I personally found this very difficult coming up as a Seventh-day Adventist. I ended up leaving the church entirely for a period of 12 years, before finding my own balance. There are a couple of problems. For many conservative Christians, any alteration in one’s view of the Bible is apostasy, and thus there is little room for adjustment. The view has to be shattered and then rebuilt. There are some careful theologians and specialists in Biblical studies who also have an interest in the people they teach who can help with this, but they are few and far between. On the other hand, there is too much of a tendency in those who make the journey to laugh at those who have not and expect them to jump. This is combined with a tendency to minimize the gap involved. I personally often have trouble expressing the differences in interpretation without sounding impatient and condescending, so I understand the difficulty. At the same time I know I’m speaking against positions I once held myself with some fervor!

    “Just don’t take it so literally” becomes the mantra. But “not taking it so literally” is not an adequate foundation. Just how do you take it? What does the Bible mean in a new context? Besides the problem of oversimplification there is a difference in terms of theology. There is not a single Christian theology to which one can appeal in this case. In particular dealing with issues like randomness and teleology, Arminians and Calvinists tend to see things very differently.

    I’d add one more thing. Because of my writing (on religion, not science), in which I state my positions, I was never able to conceal the change from my family, most of whom are still young earth creationists. That is probably the hardest single thing for them to accept about my faith as it now stands. It’s a good idea to understand that this is a significant issue. At the same time, I’m not going to keep quiet, simply because I know many are afraid to speak up because they feel that there are so few who will understand. It’s important to be present and accounted for!

    In any case, I’m glad to see the discussion going on.

  • Fordham Institute Criticizes Science Standards Compromise

    According to the Bradenton Herald, Paul Gross used the word “dishonest” in reference to the compromise language. Personally I prefer “silly” or “inane.” The changes didn’t change the meaning.

  • On the Processes of Science

    Dr. Tony has an excellent post on the processes of science, discussing some words like “theory” and “fact” and also talking about how one goes about doing science. This is from a general perspective, not just from biology or evolutionary theory.

    One of my favorite books on Evolution, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, seems to blur this point badly by using the terms “fact” and “theory” more in the popular sense. This makes trouble for all of us, I think, though obviously Mayr is a guiding scientific light:

    “. . . Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. . . .” (p. 12)

    It’s troubling that a biologist of his stature uses that loose of definitions. Otherwise, his book is excellent, and I heartily recommend it. But I’m sticking with this: “Theories don’t grow up to be facts. They explain facts, and they grow up to be more firmly confirmed theories.”

    I like the practical way in which Dr. Tony explains the process. Besides the meaning of “theory” he addresses the “science is what happens in the lab” error common in creationist circles. They announce that evolution cannot be science, because not every aspect can be repeated in a laboratory. His presentation deals nicely with that.

  • Florida Adopts Compromise Science Standards

    The Florida Board of Education voted 4-3 today to add the words “scientific theory of” before the word evolution in the standards. It was my understanding that the phrase would be added also before every scientific theory in the standards if this was done, but I don’t yet know if that is the case.

    The fact that this is regarded as a compromise illustrates how little some know about the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context. The meaning should not be changed at all, but obviously some people think that evolution is weakened in this way, and presumably hope to introduce religious alternatives. But evolution is a theory, and “theory” in a scientific context refers to an explanation of a variety of observations, not to a “weak” fact.

    We will have to keep watch on Florida’s educational community to see that teaching is not weakened due to some perceived meaning in the word “theory.”