Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Intelligent Design

  • Good Sermon Science Comments

    Today I attended Pensacola’s First United Methodist Church where Dr. Wesley Wachob is pastor. He recently saw the movie Expelled!, and though he said he recommended people see it, he proceeded to dump pretty heavily on the movie’s content. He encouraged the church’s young people to become “brilliant scientists” and noted that there is no contradiction between good theology and good science, and that creationism is not science, no matter how you dress it up.

    Some of the wording may differ in the audio I’m linking, because he preaches three times, and the audio is not of the same service I attended (9:45 am), but I listened to sections, and it sounds like the goal was much the same.

    More pastors need to speak boldly like this to their congregations so that people will realize that creationism isn’t the only Christian option. It’s good when Christians who are scientists speak out; we need more theologians, and specifically more pastors to do so.

    You can find the audio on this page. Click on the little speaker by “The Unknown God.” (Update: Comments on science start at about 14:30.)

  • Origin Models: An Abundance of Christian Views

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is an interesting philosophy in politics and war. Usually the amity between “enemies of enemies” lasts about as long as hostilities between those particular enemies. Wesley Elsberry has posted an excellent article on problems with the “two model” approach to the creation-evolution debate.

    To summarize, though you should go read his excellent post, anti-evolutionist strategy depends on the notion that if the theory of evolution falls, then creationism will be the only alternative. One response to this has always been to ask just which alternative theory would win, considering Hindu, Native American, and many, many other creation myths available. But if one simply considers the various Christian views that gather under the umbrella of intelligent design (ID), then the question would be which ID wins if evolution loses.

    The problem is that none of these approaches is actually a coherent theory, and to the extent that they approach having the elements of a theory, various of their bodily appendages are sticking out of the edges of the big tent. ID is at best an observation, or better a supposition, not a theory. That is, it explains nothing, but rather points out things that it alleges cannot be explained without proposing an alternative, that is if we take seriously the suggestion that the intelligent designer is not God.

    Partially under this big tent of ID, we find young earth creationists, old earth creationists, ruin and restoration creationists, and the occasional theistic-mostly-evolutionist. The problem is that each of these views would tend to produce very different results in the fossil record and in the behavior of living organisms.

    A few years back I reviewed the book What is Creation Science?, and noted that they tried to distinguish debates about the age of the earth, a global flood, and the idea of special creation, apparently to be understood in a vacuum. They wanted to argue them separately.

    But consider the common statement by creationists that new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, precisely as you would expect them to appear had they been specially created by God. Is the age of the earth and the question of a global flood irrelevant to this point? Hardly! This statement would generally match an old earth creation model, because in that model the age of the earth is accepted at about 4.5 billion years, and these species are supposed to have appeared over long periods of time. I’m not certain why God would want to create in that fashion, but that’s not my subject today.

    Because of the long periods of time available, creatures would have been fossilized, and if God created in the phased pattern suggested, then one would expect new species to appear and disappear abruptly. I’m ignoring the great difficulties with fossil preservation and discovery here. There will always be a first specimen of a particular species, and a last specimen of a particular species. The “abrupt” separation is a matter of classification, a binary choice that doesn’t mirror the actual history in detail, nor it is intended to. We would always assume there are many, many creatures who lived and died but weren’t fossilized or whose fossils have yet to be discovered.

    But the young earth creationist shouldn’t use this argument, because by his view all of life should have appeared abruptly in the fossil record, and then continue forward without disappearance, except for a few extinct species. How many species should become extinct in a matter of a mere 6 to 10 thousand years?

    I don’t know if there are young earth creationists who don’t believe in a global flood. Normally the two go together because they are derived from the same approach to interpreting Genesis 1-11. But if the young earth creationist believes in a global flood he shouldn’t believe in any substantial number of fossils at all. A mere period of less than 2,000 years from creation to the flood should produce very, very few fossils. They should all be the result of the global flood.

    So if our hypothetical young earther believes in a global flood, he shouldn’t be looking for any sign in the fossil record of the origin of species; that all happened in one week, so you wouldn’t have any of the intermediate states fossilized. One should then look for a different principle of sorting for fossils, as indeed various creationists have done. It is not my purpose to examine those views here except to point out that they are each different.

    Then there is the difference between old earth and young earth creationists over the entrance of sin into the world. Was human sin the cause of all physical death? I’m not going to go into detail, but again this would have an impact on the evidence that we would be likely to see.

    Thus even leaving out other religions, just Christianity can produce quite a number of alternative views. Which one is supposed to replace the theory of evolution as a model? Again, ID is deceptive by trying to pretend that these views have enough in common to belong under a single tent. It is also deceptive in suggesting that it actually proposes an alternative model. It really proposes that we have either the theory of evolution or, well, not!

    Even the fig leaf garment of one of the rather weak creation models is here removed, yet we are all supposed to believe that we are hearing a debate between two substantial theories. Actually all we are hearing is the proposal that we dump around a century and a half of scientific progress and refinement in favor of saying “I don’t know.”

    I’m rather interested in this specific point because Florida is working on a so-call academic freedom bill, which proponents claim has nothing to do with religion, or even with ID (see the Florida Citizens for Science blog. But what they can’t produce is the alternative scientific information they propose should be in the classroom, but which is not allowed there now. The only beneficiaries of their law would be ID or some one or other of the more specific creationisms that are available. We thus know from the start that their effort is deceptive.

    As one final note I believe this is also an indication that ID bears a closer resemblance to theology, where multiple alternative explanations for one thing can coexist and be bundled loosely, than to science, in which competing theories are constantly tested in the hopes of discarding those that don’t make it and keeping those that do. Theology studies something that is very hard to get into the lab by its very nature. ID seems to bear some resemblance to that.

  • Some Thoughts on Intelligent Design

    . . . by Bruce Alderman

  • Joe Carter’s 10 Ways Darwinists Help ID

    I found these 10 ways rather amusing (part 1, part 2, part 3. Perhaps we should all take advice from the opposition and say just the things they’d like us to say. Here’s my response, briefer than my usual!

    1. Well, if ID advocates would just define an actual theory and quit trying to disguise the religious intent, perhaps people’s perception of your work would match yours. I’m not required to be deceived, however, and thus I represent it as I see it rather than as you would like me to see it.
    2. It is stealth creationism. It’s religiously driven. ID advocates must be delusional if they think their activities would be driven by scientific concerns. It’s that large body of creationists out there that keep ID going. Just look at the efforts to market “Expelled!” to churchgoers–an open admission of the religious nature of the controversy if I ever saw one.
    3. “Science in the gaps” is almost cute, but unfortunately completely lacks validity. You see, the “God of the gaps” is constantly receding, while science keeps advancing. The fact that we find ever more complex stuff and then come to understand it is a positive thing about the power of scientific investigation. You’ll have a parallel when you find science retreating and God filling in the space. It’s not going to happen. In reality God is never retreating. He’s unthreatened by natural explanations and science will continue to grow. There’s always going to be something more, at least “always” from a limited human perspective.
    4. Produce some science and scientists will publish it. Until then, quit complaining! Oh, and by the way, it’s not science because–wait for it–it’s not science–not because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed science journals.
    5. Sexual selection is a topic of controversy in evolution. Why not provide some scientific discussion if you think that helps ID. The reason ID advocates won’t do that is that if you adjust the factors a bit you’ll still have evolution.
    6. Learn how words are defined and used in different contexts. In other words, instead of trying to plug your idea of design into a scientific discussion, use the author’s definition.
    7. I’m not an atheist. But I neither want to regulate who gets to be vocal, nor do I want to. If you’re not sufficiently perceptive to hear the many religious voices in favor of the theory of evolution, such as Francis Collins, John Haught, Richard Colling, Kenneth Miller, and many others, perhaps you have a discernment problem.
    8. Where you divide the questions is an interesting point. Richard Colling, in his book Random Designer, deals quite directly with origin of life issues, but the fact is that they are logically somewhat different. Common descent, an old earth, and the mechanism of variation+natural selection are not dependent on explaining the origin of life. The reason creationists want to combine them is that common descent has been largely explained in broad terms, while the origin of life has not. Combining them makes a better target. Scientists, on the other hand, have to investigate the topics, and the different states of the science suggest they need to be looked at separately.
    9. Pot, kettle, black. Oh, and many creationists are liars, especially young earth creationists. That’s not an argument against creationism, but it sure does complicate things. It’s annoying having to hunt for the honest creationist so you can argue with him.
    10. You started by accusing us of attacking a strawman, then you end with a strawman yourself.

    My suggestion to other defenders of evolutionary theory: Don’t take Joe Carter’s advice.

  • Science Panel in Tallahassee

    And a stellar one it is. This discussion is sponsored by Florida Citizens for Science. You can find details here.

  • 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.

  • What is a Level Playing Field?

    According to the New York Times, Dr. Richard Dawkins “withered” when confronted with questions in the screening of expelled:

    Mr. Mathis said in an interview that he had confronted Dr. Dawkins in the question and answer period after the screening and that Dr. Dawkins withered. “These people who own the academic establishment and who have great friends in the media — they are not accustomed to having a level, open playing field,” Mr. Mathis said. “I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes.”

    Check this post on The Panda’s Thumb for some more comments on the development of this story. It appears that “spin” in this case has involved some very creative retelling. Did security miss Dr. Dawkins? Did they let him in intentionally? Inquiring minds may find themselves challenged by the large number of alternate stories. Personally I suspect that they missed Dawkins (while recognizing PZ Myers) as was initially reported, then thought it would look better to have intentionally allowed him in. That is just an opinion, however.

    What is most revealing about this quote, however, is what Mathis must regard as a “level, open playing field.” As I commented in in an earlier post there is a child’s view of fairness that involves each person winning the same number of times, irrespective of skill. Normally, as people mature, they replace this with the idea that the playing field should be the same for all, but that the “best” person (most skilled, prepared, determined, etc.) should win.

    (more…)

  • 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.

  • 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!