Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: evolution

  • Inside Higher Ed on Dr. Richard Colling

    Inside Higher Ed has an article, Academic Freedom and Evolution which discusses the AAUP response, amongst others, to the situation at Olivet Nazarene University where Dr. Colling is no longer assigned to teach a general biology course he had taught for years, and his book Random Designer cannot be used as reading in any class. The article also notes the rather interesting lack of response from the Discovery Institute.

    Since I’m currently blogging my way through Dr. Colling’s excellent book, I thought readers would be interested. I will note that I do not object to privately funded, religious schools having theological requirements for their professors, provided everyone knows about those tests and can respond accordingly. In this case, it is not the theology of the denomination involved, nor a standing policy of the school, but rather a response to donor complaints that is driving the case of an already tenured professor who is simply teaching good science.

  • Random Design and New Information in the Genome

    Last night I wrote a response to chapters 9-11 of Dr. Richard Colling’s book Random Designer, and I really thought my post was inadequate. Those chapters discuss the very core of evolutionary theory–variation (specifically mutation) and natural selection, including the balance between preserving information through accurate copying, but also allow new information through copying errors.

    Of course, this jumps right into one of the key objections of anti-evolutionists–the production of new information. They repeatedly make the claim that variation + natural selection cannot produce new information, and they produce substantial formulas to “prove” it. Sometimes people tell me that I can’t be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution. My normal response is, “And yet here I am.” In this case I’m tempted to respond, “And yet there the new information is!” Of course, that wouldn’t answer the question.

    But Dr. Steve Matheson has provided an answer on his blog, which I read shortly after writing the other piece. I was particularly glad that I read his piece right after reading Dr. Colling’s very simple explanation, because the basics of the process were fresh in my mind. It’s often hard for me to follow this information–they didn’t teach me about gene duplication in Greek class!

    In any case, Dr. Matheson goes to work on a gene duplication in yeast, in a case where we can observe the operation of yeasts that have the unduplicated and unmutated form of the gene, and others that do. I’m not even going to take a stab at summarizing the science, but it’s there. The weakness of Dr. Colling’s presentation is that there are few examples. Now his book is such that it would be inappropriate to fill it with lengthy examples. One would never get to the end. But of course there will be those who say, “We can’t just take his word for this!” Well, don’t. Steve Matheson has provided some of the science that backs this up.

    I should mention, of course, that for those with the stamina, you can find a great deal more in Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. The problem there, however, is that for someone like me who is not a scientist, it’s hard going. I had a dictionary in one hand and my browser open to an online encyclopedia (not Wikipedia!) throughout just so I could look up the examples. But folks like Drs. Colling and Matheson cut it down to size.

    What becomes clear is that it’s really quite easy for new information to appear in the genome, and that it has happened many times. The real question is what pathways are used. The mark of a scientists is looking for new answers. The mark of a non-scientists is declaring questions closed. Scientists expect peer review. It may not always be fun, but it’s generally beneficial. Non-scientists want to get their junk out to the public who are not qualified to check it. I particularly liked this quote:

    I’m a developmental biologist, and therefore partial to many of the arguments of evo-devo thinkers. I’m excited about the union of evolutionary and developmental biology, and I do think that many of the new evo-devo ideas are thought-provoking and potentially fruitful. But the debate is riveting and informative, and I find Lynch and Coyne and their talented colleagues to be alarmingly convincing. I’m worried about some of those cool ideas, but I do take some comfort in this thought: any idea that can survive the onslaught of Lynch and Coyne is a hell of a good idea.

    The public needs to realize that scientists are generally operating with this type of an attitude. If they actually realized this, I believe they would be much less susceptible to the blandishments of pseudoscience.

  • Random Designer IV

    This is a continuation of my series blogging through the book Random Designer by Dr. Richard Colling. The previous entry is Random Designer III.

    In chapters 9-11, Dr. Colling continues to present the basics of evolution and the history of life on earth in language that is comprehensible to the layman. I’m very glad to have found this book, if nothing else than for the clear explanation of what’s involved in the theory of evolution and the basic outlines. There is a certain amount about faith in this first section, but primarily these chapters are about the process of evolution and the history of life on earth, and the level of evidence involved.

    Chapter 9, titled “The Platform of Life” discusses the basic genetic material that all creatures have in common and how changes occur. The basics of evolution, mutation and natural selection are introduced. In chapter 10 we go on to discuss good, bad, and neutral mutations, and how cells manage to copy accurately. There is a balance between changes and stability that allows life to continue to diversity.

    Chapter 11 moves from a discussion of the mechanics and the details of cells and looks at the age of the earth and how life has developed. One thing that I noticed was that for 2 billion years bacteria were the sole inhabitants of the earth. I had known this, but it just hadn’t struck me before. The process of developing an oxygen atmosphere took a long time. In addition, I hadn’t realized that the cells had to develop a way to deal with one byproduct of oxygen.

    Dr. Colling strongly emphasizes the strength of the evidence for all of this, including the lines of evidence from multiple fields. This may contradict a literal reading of Genesis, but it is clearly true, and thus we need to examine how we understand the scripture passages.

    This takes us to Part II which deals with the issues of faith and evolution. I am likely to end up blogging more on that part than I did on this.

  • Links for 12/7/07

    Here a just a few things I think my readers might find interesting, but that I won’t get much time to comment on:

    • Human events has an article on intelligent design by a conservative who doesn’t think much of it. In fact, he thinks the main stream media cover it because it’s embarrassing to conservatives. “The Left believes, correctly, that Intelligent Design is a political loser, and so they gleefully attempt to hang it around the neck of every right-of-center movement from libertarian neo-conservatism to isolationist populism — shouting all the while ‘See, the American Taliban has come for your children! Elect a Democrat before it’s too late!’” — It’s an interesting perspective! (HT: Panda’s Thumb)
    • It’s not really about evolution, but Carl Zimmer has his 100th picture of a science tattoo
    • Steve Martin has the fourth in his series of articles on Polkinghorne quotes, in which we find this quote (from Martin, not Polkinghorne): “Many Christians, I think, put too much stock in the implications of scientific discoveries.” Hmmm! It leads one to think!
    • I’m just getting all my RSS subscriptions updated on my new computer or I would have gotten this one earlier, but this post by Dr. Steve Matheson is too good to miss. He looks at a Discovery Institute showcase piece by Jonathan Wells, and shows it’s serious problems. The answer seems to be that there was a testable hypothesis in the article, but it proved wrong, and didn’t have anything to do with ID in the first place. In addition, any article that calls Jonathan wells “a former developmental biologist” can’t be all bad!
    • And in the obligatory link to something I wrote, my fictional God-Talk Club gets into ID while discussing homeschooling in my latest post. Remember that those posts are for fun and practice, though I do welcome responses either to presentation or to content.

    There are very few things that haven’t been moved to the new computer, imported, or otherwise sorted out. For those who my have missed the post I switched not only to a new CPU but to a new operating system. I’m now using Ubuntu Linux, after trying it on a separate machine for a few months. I’m thus far very happy with the results. Having the old machine on the same network has made moving stuff pretty easy.

  • Creation-Evolution Posts and Reading Recommendations

    I’ve been posting a good deal about evolution since the Florida science standards have been rewritten and it’s time for comments. Early next year we’ll be dealing with a vote. Generally people think the new standards are good, but as is not uncommon, a different standard is applied to evolution than to other scientific theories.

    The issue is often framed either as faith vs. evolution, i.e. all who accept evolution are atheists, and atheists are bad, so we should reject evolution. As a subset the issue is framed as Christianity vs. evolution. Every aspect of that framing is wrong. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It’s unfortunate that one can smear a theory by associating it with a certain category of people, but in the case of atheists that seems to work. It’s wrong, but there it is. But one of the advantages to science is that its results can be replicated, and they look the same to a Hindu, a Christian, or an atheist. One’s religious beliefs don’t change the information. Thus who it is that produces the information is not the issue.

    To back up some of my current writing, I’d like to point to some of my past post, taking on the religious issue first. There is not just one creationism. Even Christians subscribe to a number of different posts. In my review of What Is Creation Science? I commented on the attempt by the authors to separate the flood geology, the age of the earth, and what they call the “fact” of creation. This is an astounding claim. How can one make predictions about the fossil record without any timeline? How can one make predictions about it without regard to a universal flood? If such a flood happened, then it would certainly leave evidence. This situation is only made more complex by views such as old earth creationism, ruin and restoration creationism, and some minimal forms of ID that claim that perhaps God either tweaked the creation just a little bit here and there, or perhaps only created the first life-form with front-loading.

    I wrote a series of posts early in the days of this blog outlining these various views and also relating them to basic Christian doctrines. The major posts in that series were:

    For those interested in the religious aspects in particular, combine this with my series on my Participatory Bible Study blog. That series actually starts with Genesis 3, but it references my pre-blog (though updated) essay, Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship, and then continues with Genesis 3.

    You can get the whole series using this link, or by clicking on “Genesis” in the tag cloud in the right sidebar (at Participatory Bible Study).

    To the list of suggested readings, I would now have to add at least John Haught’s book God After Darwin, and Richard Colling’s book Random Designer, which I’m reading right now.

  • Random Designer II

    I’m continuing to blog through this interesting book by Dr. Richard Colling, and I’m enjoying it a great deal. I want to note that this isn’t a review; rather, it’s simply journaling the experience of reading the book. I’m doing this because this book appears to me to be a powerful experience in itself. It’s not about being a microbiologist, accepting evolution, and incidentally being a believer. It is clear throughout that Dr. Colling takes his faith seriously.

    In fact, I get a bit of a feeling of retelling Genesis. That may sound odd to many readers, so let me digress. There are many positions on how to interpret Genesis, from taking it as narrative history, which results in the young earth creationist position, to a symbolic interpretation, such as taking each day as a long period of time, but trying to fit the days into the scientific facts. My own position is that Genesis expresses God’s message of involvement in the creation in the context of that era’s cosmology. God is not trying to convey cosmology; the writer provides the cosmology from what he knows. God’s message would come through clearly to those who accept that cosmology.

    Modern Christians interpreters can be compared, I believe, to someone who receives a letter and gets all his information out of the envelope and the paper, missing the actual message. Now please be aware that this is my position. I do not know what Dr. Colling’s position is on Genesis. Perhaps he expands on that in later chapters, but I’m blogging as I read. In today’s reading I got the distinct sense of a writer perceiving God’s presence everywhere, and conveying that in modern terms. You can take that for what it’s worth, but that’s my impression thus far.

    At the end of my previous blog on this topic, I mentioned that chapter 3 (I accidentally said chapter 2) discusses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and describes this not as a problem for evolution, and it is sometimes presented by creationists, but rather as the driver (that’s the title of the chapter).

    I vaguely recall when I first encountered this issue, and someone explained how evolution could not possibly work, because everything tends towards maximum disorder, and evolution has it going the other way. My own thought was, “and yet here we are,” since living creatures, when they’re growing, certainly do appear to go the other way. Later I read some explanations that clarified things for me quite a bit.

    In chapter 3, Dr. Colling discusses the second law in layman’s terms. The explanation is the simplest and most straightforward that I’ve ever read, and yet I don’t see any omissions of things that should be expected at this level. I’m sure this isn’t ready for a physics text, but it works for this Bible teacher! He continues (p. 27) with constructive synthesis reactions and their required input–energy, and finally describes these reactions as creative.

    That really doesn’t do justice to the chapter, but I don’t think I am capable of boiling it down and still getting in the essentials. The next chapter is titled “Upon this foundation” and subtitled “The Universe is Born.” Together those pretty much tell the tale. This chapter goes from the big bang approximately through the formation of the earth, looking at how the various elements are formed and why.

    I’m going to conclude by discussing chapter 5, in which we find a discussion of the ins and outs of the formation of life (abiogenesis, though Dr. Colling doesn’t use the term). This is the first time I’ve found a good introduction for the layman to this complex topic. Normally folks distinguish abiogenesis from biological evolution, and well the should. Biological evolution, starting with the presence of at least a living cell is much better understood, and one can assume the miraculous appearance of the first life, and yet accept the theory of evolution.

    Dr. Colling details the major elements that have been studied, those cases in which we have possible pathways, and being very clear that this is not a field in which anyone has solid answers, or is likely to have any soon. Yet there is a good deal of material available that suggests that natural processes may be found given time. I like the enumeration of the pieces we need, those we have, and those we need, along with the caution that just because we have a possible pathway to the formation of certain molecules doesn’t mean that’s the only one, or the one that actually occurred.

    This is a chapter that those who have problems delineating the boundaries of science. Many criticisms of evolutionary theory simply involve pointing out stuff we don’t know yet. But “stuff we don’t know” is the sort of stuff that excites real scientists, and sets them off on the path of discovery. I would say that a good way to distinguish a scientific attitude is by one’s reaction to the unknown. The person who views the absence of knowledge as a stop sign does not have the attitude of a scientist.

    On that note, let me use a brief quote. After describing some of the complexity of biomolecules, Dr. Colling says (p. 39):

    But obstacles like these do not discourage scientists. They have a profound belief, based upon experience, that the physical world will ultimately make sense. Therefore, just as a skilled detective pieces together the various elements of a crime scene to recreate past events, modern scientists are using he growing wealth of scientific information to knit together a relatively coherent picture of how life on earth developed.

    Now that’s a scientific attitude. In addition, creationist criticisms of evolutionary theory are often based on the expectation that an answer will answer everything at once. Perhaps this expectation is based on the overwhelming breadth of “In the beginning God …” But in studying complex topics scientists often have to spend years studying minute portions of the puzzle, knowing that a broader answer will only result after their work has been combined with that of others.

    For example, back in chapter 4, Dr. Colling cites the work of Stanley Miller. I have heard this experiment criticized over and over because, as some folks say, he did all that work and he still couldn’t create life. This assumes, of course, that he was trying to create life. Perhaps we’re also inclined to this kind of expectation by the movies. The hacker sits down at a computer keyboard, and in 30 seconds has hacked his way into a major government installation. The scientist clones a human in his basement, solving the question of cloning in one big package. But in fact each of these processes involves many complex steps. Miller provided one pathway. As I understand Dr. Colling’s summary, it’s not likely to be the right one, but he still provided the knowledge that there were conditions under which such complex molecules could form.

    I’ve read a couple more chapters, but my normal tendency to be long winded is getting ahead of me, and I should probably not make this any longer. I’ll be continuing with chapter 6, “Magnificent Molecular Micro-Machines.”

  • The Continued Saga of Science Education

    The state’s director of science curriculum has resigned after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design. (Source: Austin-American Statesman

    A number of other bloggers have commented on this already (Pharyngula here and here, Wesley Elsberry, and The Panda’s Thumb), and you can review the story there. I’m generally a “late adopter” on these issues. I tend to wait for the rest of the story. But in this case it’s going to require a lot of convincing for me to believe that Chris Comer was not fired because of her support for teaching evolution.

    My major problem with this case is this: Opposing the teaching of ID in public schools is the right thing for a science curriculum director to do. One of the most dangerous things coming out of this controversy between ID and evolution is a confusion between treating things appropriately and treating them equally, whether they are equal or not. We would not expect our science curriculum staff to be neutral about the teaching of astrology, geocentrism, flat earth, or any of a number of other non-scientific ideas in science class.

    How do we know that those things are not valid science? Well, real working scientists have checked them out and found them to be invalid. There are still people out there who believe each one, but we don’t have to “teach the controversy” about them, because scientifically there is no controversy. The same is true of ID. Scientifically there is no controversy. A few guys with graduate degrees, largely outside of the appropriate fields do not create a scientific controversy. To have that, you require science being done on both sides, and you don’t. On one side we have PR and politics. On the other we have science. For a science curriculum director to remain neutral would, in my view, require a lack of integrity.

    One indicator of trouble on this topic is the number of times one has to remind boards of education and other officials of the rulings of the courts on this issue. Why is it that such large numbers of people can only be persuaded to learn and teach (or allow the teaching of) well-established science because the courts say so? Here in Florida a school board is considering the teaching of ID. One major argument against it is, of course, the cost of a major lawsuit. But there is one argument that should rule the day, but doesn’t: We’re talking about science class. Let’s teach science.

    Being neutral about ignorance is not an option.

  • A Note on Evolution, ID, and Ethical Behavior

    No, this isn’t going to be an extended discussion of the ethics of intelligent design advocates, though one of their number does come into it.

    One of the frequent charges made against evolutionary theory is that it undermines the basis for morals. Various anti-evolutionists have blamed evolutionary theory for everything from the holocaust to bad behavior in schools. It’s interesting that the only people who are saying that if evolution is true there is no basis for morality are the anti-evolutionists themselves, and thus they would have only themselves to blame if some young people took it to heart.

    I saw this kind of argument again today when I read a portion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript (HT: Austringer, who actually quotes two more examples than I do). I normally don’t have the patience to read trial transcripts, and so tend to read other people’s summaries. But this section isn’t all that long and I think it will help make a couple of points about how ethical behavior is driven.

    First, however, I must mention the interesting ethical question of continuing to claim that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics didn’t get its day in court. Given a substantial record indicating the contrary, one wonders if that can be regarded as either thoughtful or ethical. (Such appears to be the activities of the Discovery Institute blog.)

    The following is a quotation from the testimony of Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Eric Rothschild (Q) is cross-examining.

    Q And then if you go over to the next page, in the first paragraph, you blame — you blame the current deplorable condition of our schools resulting in large part in denying the dignity of man created in God’s image, correct?

    A Yes, correct.

    Q And the rest of the paragraph builds on that concept, right?

    A That’s right. Many teachers tell me they have difficulty with — in the classroom with student behavior because there is no — there’s no sense of respect or accountability to the teacher, to the school, or to authority.

    Q And effectively what you’re advocating in this fundraising letter is that the FTE’s publications are an antidote or a partial antidote to these problems of hostility to Christian views and the cultural decay in our schools, isn’t that right?

    A I would say that they’re not an antidote to the hostility to Christian views, but they are an antidote to the hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits and a positive outlook and philosophy.

    Now what I see there is a claim that cultural decay results from the teaching of the things that the FTE opposes, particularly in Of Pandas and People, and that this creates hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits, and even against a positive outlook and philosophy. The mere notion that human beings are descended from a common ancestor with apes is so powerful that it will accomplish all of that.

    Two things come to my mind in response.

    The first is the Christian doctrine of total depravity. In general, Christians have not taught that good people are produced by a proper understanding of the universe, but rather that this is accomplished by the grace of God. There are innumerable major and minor variations on this theme, but the doctrine of total depravity basically says that humankind is fallen, unable to do anything of and for themselves of a morally positive nature.

    So exactly how is total depravity worse than common descent in terms of producing a hopeless attitude? Common descent does not even suggest that we are morally hopeless, but rather than we come from a morally neutral background in which our ancestors behaved as beasts, presumably in the way proper to their species and situation. We come to the point of ethical decision making at the same time when we take on whatever distinctive characteristics make us moral creatures.

    Total depravity tells us that we are, in fact, worthless–on our own. Now of course the goal is to make us come to God and be redeemed. But that is precisely my point. Christianity doesn’t preach the redemption of the really good people who understand that they were designed for moral behavior, but rather for fallen people who are doomed to moral failure.

    Which of these views gives the higher place to humanity? Which is more likely to produce moral people? Actually I see little reason to believe either one has a major impact. But if one can argue that evolution has an impact (I do not), then one can also argue that the doctrine of total depravity would have such an impact.

    Christians, as believers in redemption, should have no difficulty working within a context in which redemption is necessary. It does not matter if one was previously dirt being formed by the hand of God into a shape, or if one was an ancestral form of animal behaving according to its character. What matter is what one is now.

    But that leads me to ask just what is the primary motivation to bad behavior? I think that is demonstrated within this transcript. As humans we choose to regulate our behavior as part of societies. But we all have things that we truly desire. The question is generally whether our ethics will regulate the way we behave in order to achieve our desires. Can we deny ourselves a desired goal because the process required to get it is wrong, however we come to the conclusion that it is wrong?

    Well, the same section of trial transcript suggests that belief in intelligent design does not preclude taking the less ethical pathway. The desire of the defendants, and of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics was to have intelligent design taught in schools. FTE produced a textbook for that purpose. The Dover Area School Board acted for that purpose. In order to accomplish that goal, intelligent design must not be seen as religious. If it was found to be a religious idea, it would be rejected.

    The only ethical way to get a religious idea into American public school classrooms would be to change the constitution. Not that I’m suggesting such a thing be done. But coming out openly and saying, “We want to promote Christianity in public schools. The establishment clause is in our way. Let’s get rid of the establishment clause,” would be ethical, however inadvisable. People could get a look at just what the ID advocates wanted. (Note that not all ID advocates want this. My comments here refer specifically to those trying to introduce ID into public school classrooms.)

    In cross-examination, again, Eric Rothschild brought up five sources that indicate that FTE had as its purpose the promotion of Christian thought. I’m just going to quote three of them:

    1. The from 990

      Q And the explanation that the Foundation provides to the IRS is that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective, isn’t that right?

      A That’s what it says.

      Q Okay. And Pandas is one of those publications, isn’t it?

      A No, Pandas doesn’t fit this because this is not an accurate statement.
      [the quotation begins on page 84, line 12]

      So either the form 990 was falsified, or Of Pandas and People has a different purpose than the one stated.

    2. Then the corporate charter:

      Q If you go to the third page of the document, it identifies the purposes for the — for which the corporation1 was formed?

      A Right.

      Q And what it states is that the primary purpose is both religious and educational, and then it talks about making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible?

      A Yes.

      Q Is it your testimony that that’s also an inaccurate submission?

      A It was boilerplate that the attorney that was helping us become established used. I felt that it was inappropriate. He said we need to be clear in identifying yourself as having a genuine nonprofit purpose, and so the language that originated with me is the phrase, “but is not limited to.”

      Q And everything else was the attorney’s?

      A Yes, most of it, I think nearly all of it, possibly all of it.
      [the quotation begins on page 85, line 24]

      In this case we appear to have a goal–formation of a non-profit–and it is therefore OK, even for an organization named “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” to just use the boilerplate. Apparently identifying their actual activities wouldn’t do.

      In fact, I have no doubt that the religious purpose was truthful, and it became inconvenient later. The problem is that either the document must be false, or the testimony about the document must be false. There’s some lying involved here somewhere.

      I am also fairly certain that nobody is so careless as to late a completely incorrect statement of purpose go through in a corporate charter. Normally you would get something you can live with. I may be optimistic about human nature, however.

    3. The organization’s web site:

      Q Mr. Buell, this document is something that was1 pulled off the Internet, but you recognize it as a purpose statement for the Foundation that used to be distributed?

      A Yes. I don’t actually — I don’t actually remember this statement, but it’s obviously an FTE statement.

      Q And in this statement it says, “The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has been established to introduce Biblical perspective into the mainstream of America’s humanistic society, confronting the secular thought of modern man with the truth of God’s word.”

      A Yes, that’s right.

      Q And then it talks about how there would be a public — a textbook published which will present the scientific evidence for creation side by side with evolution.

      A Yes, and this, by the way, was written before — I can just tell from the language, this was very early, before the National Academy defined the term creation science. So the terms of art that are in play today were not in existence at that time.

      Q This was just your use of the word creation?

      A Yes, right.

      Q And into the third paragraph it describes the Foundation as a Christian think tank, correct?

      A Yes. I would say in contrast to that, there’s what we’ve done for over 25 years, which is not to be a Christian think tank, but to actually engage in primary works of science.

      Q And that includes Pandas, correct?

      A It includes Pandas, yes.

      And there we have it. What they’ve announced that they have done for all those years is not what they have actually been doing. There is some extremely disingenuous work with the definition of creationism–the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t really have the power to control definitions–but that would require more writing.

    Conclusion: It is more important to accomplish the purpose–getting ID into public schools–than it is to be truthful about the purpose of one’s organization.

    This shows, I think what is the primary challenge to ethical behavior, and its not evolution. It is the attitude that says that if we have a goal we regard as desirable we can take any means necessary to accomplish that goal. In this case that manifests itself by the denial that an organization is actually pursuing Christian values.

    But it manifests itself also in the claim that evolution results in all kinds of behavioral and moral problems. This claim is made in opposition to evolutionary theory–we shouldn’t teach it because it causes deteriorating morals. But the effect of a fact does not impact the truth of that fact.

    To be quite honest I’d rather evolution weren’t true either. I like to preach about a loving God, and it would be much nicer to be able to show a really cuddly process of creation, a loving God carefully crafting creatures and not allowing them to fight it out. But my desire does not change the facts. And there are good points about the facts as well. A less hands-on, saccharine God, though perhaps not my first choice may be a better choice. But it still doesn’t matter. What is, is.

    By attempting to argue against evolution based on the way it makes people feel, anti-evolutionists fall directly into this same trap. That which they desire to be true, must be true. But of course reality rolls blithely on, unconcerned with their desires, and people of integrity want to know what actually is, not what they wish.

  • A Taste of Teaching the Controversy

    “Teach the controversy” is one of the well-worn slogans of the creationist movement, and has been well used in the controversy about intelligent design (ID). It’s power is in an appeal to fairness. There’s a dispute? Teach both sides. What could be fairer than that?

    As with most slogans the problems occur in practically every word. What is “the” controversy? What are the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory that one should teach? And even more importantly, what does it mean to teach a controversy?

    I would suggest that in order to actually teach something, the instructor needs to take the students through a process of evaluation, of weighing and testing the evidence provided. If that controversy is ID vs the theory of evolution, such a weighing and testing will result in a negative evaluation of ID–unless, of course, one tries to privilege certain ideas over others.

    This is not the type of “teaching the controversy” that is desired by ID proponents. In general, they are asking that their views, though representing those of a very small minority of the scientific community, should be taught alongside evolution as having equal validity. The attempt to get these materials into public schools is simply an end-run around the process of science, and indeed of scholarship in general. What ID advocates are asking is that ideas that have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community should be presented instead to high school students for their evaluation.

    I can understand this desire. It’s always fun to take your material to an audience that will not be qualified to challenge you seriously on facts or logic. But it’s not the proper place to get ideas evaluated.

    We have just seen an example of “teaching the controversy”, and doing it well, on NOVA, and the ID folks don’t particularly like it. (The complaints about “Inherit the Wind” footage are particularly humorous.)

    Well, I’m not surprised. They didn’t actually want the whole controversy taught. They didn’t want all their claims evaluated. They just hoped they would be presented side by side to unsuspecting high school students who do not yet have the knowledge to evaluate what they are hearing.

    There are reasons why ID is presented to popular audiences rather than scientific ones. 1) Doing the actual science is too hard, or perhaps 2) The advocates know that no matter how hard they work, the evidence just isn’t there, or 3) They don’t actually care about science at all, and they’re just trying to make points in the culture wars. Come to think of it, it could be all of the above.

    But this argument does not only apply to ID. In the public school science program, we need to teach science, and we need to have some basis on which to decide what is and is not science. Any minority viewpoint can hire PR firms and try to get itself treated as science through the political process, but that is not a good way to determine what really is science. I suggest one standard: Consensus science. There is plenty of that to fill the science curriculum. Other ideas may apply, but the process goes through the scientific community for publication, testing, and verification.

    I would add one more note on this. I have commented before on the NCBCPS Bible curriculum which is aimed at public schools. Many Christians see this as a wonderful opportunity to restore Biblical literacy. But they need to think again. Just how is it that the Bible can properly be taught in public schools? It will have to be taught as an academic subject, which means that the historicity of certain stories, such as the exodus, the destruction of Jericho, or similar things, should be evaluated in a scholarly fashion, as objectively as possible.

    That requires, amongst other things, qualified instructors, and good curriculum (NCBCPS isn’t good curriculum). This will be Bible as a secular topic. Now I wouldn’t mind such a class. The reason I still oppose putting this in public schools is that I believe it inappropriately privileges my own sacred book over that of others and that it is extremely unlikely that we will find appropriately qualified teachers for a sound, academic course on the Bible at the High School level.

    I know, for example, that if I were to teach such a course, many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical students and parents would be shocked at what I would say, though I would be able to point to a great deal of scholarship in all of it. You see, I would “teach the controversy” about many of these subjects, evaluating the evidence, and some people would not be happy with the results.

    Perhaps in High School classes we should teach the most important elements of a subject (and make no mistake, evolution is one of these), and leave the myriad of controversies that people can cook up to be settled through examination by qualified persons.

  • Danger in Silence

    There’s an excellent, thoughtful post on An Evangelical Dialog on Evolution, titled When the Acceptance of Biological Evolution has Personal or Professional Repercussions.

    I think this strikes closer home to those who are evangelicals in the United States, because their institutions are more likely to be subject to fundamentalist pressure on the issue of [tag]evolution[/tag]. Let’s face it, United Methodist schools like Emory, SMU, or Duke are not likely to be subject to this kind of pressure from the right–pressure from the left is more likely there.

    But I do think that silence on controversial issues is dangerous. It allows people to assume that you believe something you don’t, and can deny cover and fellowship to someone who might be forced to take a stand on things about which you are keeping silent.

    I must add the balancing point, however. There are so many controversial issues, and so many outrages committed in the world that to comment on all of them is quite impossible. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution can each keep a Christian writer busy full time simply answering angry comments, leaving little time for anything else.

    On balance, however, I suggest that speaking up is most often appropriate, even if it is only to let people know where you stand without getting fully involved in debate.