Dr. James F. McGrath left a comment on my previous post regarding the recent PBS series Judgement Day. Be sure to read several posts McGrath has on the series. But more importantly...
...visit Exploring Our Matrix and read Dr. McGrath's insightful posts on things scientific and theological.
Consider, for example, the questions he poses to the ID Advertising Team (Denyse O'Leary, Philip Johnson and Casey Luskin):
In the same way, people like you cause more people to lose their faith (or to not come to faith) than any Darwinian biologist ever could. You tell people evolution is nonsense and present it as incompatible with faith, and some people who don't know any better actually believe you. Then when eventually the mountain of evidence finally gets their attention, they lose their faith, because people like you told them that was the only other option.
Do you fear God? If so, do you think you will not be held accountable for putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of the faithful and those who could believe if it weren't for people like you driving them away from God? [emphasis added].
Dr. McGrath's point is well taken - largely because I am a perfect example of what he is discussing. I remember the day the nuns at St. Thomas More Catholic School in Paradise, California allowed a number of us 6th graders to develop a class lesson on any subject of interest to us and were given time to "teach" the rest of the class. My lesson was on paleontology (using Romer's Vertebrate Paleontology as a main source, if I remember correctly) and made no apologies for liberally invoking evolution. The kids, and the nuns, loved it. The concept of evolution was never a problem for Catholics during my childhood - the pursuit of science was actively encouraged by the nuns and during high school, my biology teacher and mentor (and agnostic) used to comment that his best science students came from the Catholic school. Fast forward 30 some years and we have Catholics Behe and O'Leary spreading misinformation about science and telling students they can't accept evolution and have faith; Cardinal Schonborn telling lies about evolutionary theory; most of my fellow Knights of Columbus couldn't give you a single fact about evolutionary biology but are convinced intelligent design is science; even a significant number of my relatives have been fed enough false information through the church that they now ask me if it's true that all animals appeared suddenly during the Cambrian or that scientists have abandoned radiocarbon dating.
The propaganda from the church and the gullibility of the flock got to be too much. If I have to go against the evidence and believe that Darwin was completely wrong or abandon the Catholic faith, well....the faith just became meaningless. And this didn't end with me....the Catholic church asked my wife and my kids to sacrifice too much in intellectual integrity to make it worthwhile to remain.
So we all left.
O'Leary, Luskin, Johnson and Behe are so interested in protecting their own version of faith that they cannot even comprehend the impact they're having on the church. It's no wonder young people have developed such a negative view of Christianity.
Showing posts with label Science and Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science and Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
Richard Colling Saga Update
John Hay, Jr. (Bikehiker) has posted a well-written letter to the Board of Trustees at his alma mater, Olivet Nazarene University, requesting that they "...immediately and fully restore Department of Biological Sciences Chair Richard Colling, Ph.D., to teach General Biology and to rescind the Presidential ban on Colling’s book Random Designer".
Please go to John's site and read the letter. Those of you not familiar with Richard Colling's experiences at Olivet Nazarene University can look at my previous post on the topic. I would also suggest you read some of the comments left by some students at ONU...there was also quite a discussion group engaged in conversation on this topic on Facebook.
Please go to John's site and read the letter. Those of you not familiar with Richard Colling's experiences at Olivet Nazarene University can look at my previous post on the topic. I would also suggest you read some of the comments left by some students at ONU...there was also quite a discussion group engaged in conversation on this topic on Facebook.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
More News on Richard Colling...And A Good Idea
Richard Colling has also been exchanging comments on Henry Neufeld's blog, Threads From Henry's Web. I would recommend adding Henry's blog to your blogroll lists, particularly if you are at all interested in thoughts on the intersection of science and theology. Colling's comment to Neufeld is another straight-from-the-heart account of the current situation at Olivet Nazarene University, where his book has been banned from classroom use and he is no longer allowed to teach the biology class - simply because he has a theistic view of evolution. Colling has also been posting at The Panda's Thumb...with some encouraging news:
Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.
The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.
(Anyone surprised that fundamentalists are fabricating issues and evidence?). The good news is that Colling seems to now be getting support from students, faculty and parents who actually know something about the subject of his courses rather than his critics who are largely making it up as they go. An anonymous reader on my previous post suggested another good strategy that Colling's supporters might want to try:
If I were a student on Dr. Colling's campus, I'd try to organize a peaceful gathering on the quad or under the flagpole, where his book would be read aloud, paragraph by paragraph, to anyone who would listen.
An absolutely fantastic idea! We have enough prayer-around-the-flagpole events anyway...why not one is support of an earthly cause for a change?
There is another theme running through all these emails, posts and comments regarding Colling's situation - his teaching is not at odds in the least with Church of the Nazarene theology. Another anonymous reader indicated the following:
THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DOCTRINE OR MANUAL OF BELIEF THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! We believe that God created the Earth, but we have never had the small-minded, rather stupid view that He could not use evolution to do that. And no one I know, at least in our local church, holds to a 'young earth' viewpoint. Nor is that view an accepted one in our doctrine. That is one of the saddest things about Dr. Colling's plight--that he is being pilloried for teaching biology in a way that does not even contradict our doctrine.
Professor Colling said as much again in his comment on Threads From Henry's Web:
They can’t stand the apparent public endorsement of evolution in spite of the fact that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries - including evolution. I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by all the biology faculty here.
This is really the crux of the problem. Whether or not you believe in a deity, the fact is that MOST theologies do not have an issue with evolutionary theory, or the fossil record, or the fact that Lucy may have been one of our ancestors. The problem starts when an ignorant few suddenly decide they are going to re-interpret standard theology to make it appear that churches have an issue with evolution. I know a lot of people often cite my former, Catholic Church as a light of evolutionary acceptance, but I can no longer accept that description. Despite Pius (who was lukewarm toward evolution, I grant you), despite John Paul, despite Benedict's recent proclamations, there are many(mostly American) Catholic writers who seem to still insist that, "No, that's not what they meant....the only science Catholic doctrine really supports is intelligent design". And these writers are gaining more ground within the Catholic pews than all three popes put together. They are, in effect, attempting to re-package theology so that it is more accepting of their personal views.
And Colling and others are right to worry about the long-term effect this theological insistence on anti-science will ultimately have on the long-term survival of Christianity. Many of us were pushed toward atheism (or at least, out of organized religion) largely because the loudest voices in the church still promote faulty science (be it creationism, erroneous "biblical" archaeology, or something else). If church leaders (and supporters) can fabricate science, then what other aspects of doctrine (historical, theological, or otherwise) are they also fabricating?
Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.
The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.
(Anyone surprised that fundamentalists are fabricating issues and evidence?). The good news is that Colling seems to now be getting support from students, faculty and parents who actually know something about the subject of his courses rather than his critics who are largely making it up as they go. An anonymous reader on my previous post suggested another good strategy that Colling's supporters might want to try:
If I were a student on Dr. Colling's campus, I'd try to organize a peaceful gathering on the quad or under the flagpole, where his book would be read aloud, paragraph by paragraph, to anyone who would listen.
An absolutely fantastic idea! We have enough prayer-around-the-flagpole events anyway...why not one is support of an earthly cause for a change?
There is another theme running through all these emails, posts and comments regarding Colling's situation - his teaching is not at odds in the least with Church of the Nazarene theology. Another anonymous reader indicated the following:
THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DOCTRINE OR MANUAL OF BELIEF THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! We believe that God created the Earth, but we have never had the small-minded, rather stupid view that He could not use evolution to do that. And no one I know, at least in our local church, holds to a 'young earth' viewpoint. Nor is that view an accepted one in our doctrine. That is one of the saddest things about Dr. Colling's plight--that he is being pilloried for teaching biology in a way that does not even contradict our doctrine.
Professor Colling said as much again in his comment on Threads From Henry's Web:
They can’t stand the apparent public endorsement of evolution in spite of the fact that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries - including evolution. I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by all the biology faculty here.
This is really the crux of the problem. Whether or not you believe in a deity, the fact is that MOST theologies do not have an issue with evolutionary theory, or the fossil record, or the fact that Lucy may have been one of our ancestors. The problem starts when an ignorant few suddenly decide they are going to re-interpret standard theology to make it appear that churches have an issue with evolution. I know a lot of people often cite my former, Catholic Church as a light of evolutionary acceptance, but I can no longer accept that description. Despite Pius (who was lukewarm toward evolution, I grant you), despite John Paul, despite Benedict's recent proclamations, there are many(mostly American) Catholic writers who seem to still insist that, "No, that's not what they meant....the only science Catholic doctrine really supports is intelligent design". And these writers are gaining more ground within the Catholic pews than all three popes put together. They are, in effect, attempting to re-package theology so that it is more accepting of their personal views.
And Colling and others are right to worry about the long-term effect this theological insistence on anti-science will ultimately have on the long-term survival of Christianity. Many of us were pushed toward atheism (or at least, out of organized religion) largely because the loudest voices in the church still promote faulty science (be it creationism, erroneous "biblical" archaeology, or something else). If church leaders (and supporters) can fabricate science, then what other aspects of doctrine (historical, theological, or otherwise) are they also fabricating?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Richard Colling: Scientist, Christian...and Martyr
Some of you will remember that I previously posted on Dr. Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who defended evolution as God's process, contrary to the strict literal interpretation of Genesis preferred by the Church of the Nazarene, the denomination in control of ONU. Colling is a man of faith who also clearly recognizes that the real world tells a story that may ultimately be closer to God's truth than that portrayed in primitive biblical texts. In a 2004 article, Colling describes his perspective:
Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is physicist Isaac Newton's theory of gravity....
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.
Since that time, however, the forces of darkness and ignorance influencing the administration at ONU have decided that Richard Colling should not be allowed to teach science when it contradicts stubbornly held myth. Colling's personal struggle to bring peace between science and religion has come to a head, and now Professor Colling faces a situation more reminiscent of conditions in Iran than America. A pre-release Newsweek on Colling and other scientists of faith shows how these courageous individuals are being persecuted for their ideas, much in the same fashion as Galileo was persecuted for his. Because of his attempts to reconcile faith with the facts of science, ONU, under pressure from some "irate parents, pastors, and others" has brought the inquisition to Professor Colling:
Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college...
...Yet with the new term, Bowling banned "Random Designer" [Colling's book] from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.
The science blogosphere has picked up on Colling's current plight. Although Richard Colling is a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, a graduate of Olivet Nazarene University and believes in a God that is "...bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known", the reaction from Church of the Nazarene despots would lead you to believe he is another Christopher Hitchens. As PZ notes at Pharyngula:
He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church.
At EvolutionBlog, Jason comments:
You would think that even at a Christian university a person's religious views are not really relevant to what gets taught in science class. And I wouldn't have thought that theistic evolution was such an outre position among Christians that Colling would come in for this kind of flak for writing a book about it.
Panda's Thumb comments on the expected (and so far, attained) Discovery Institute hypocrisy over "teaching the controversy":
ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail....
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…
Yes, where is Casey Luskin? Anika Smith? Michael Egnor? Denyse O'Leary?
Henry Neufeld, however, cuts right through to the main issue in a post entitled "Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited". The "Teach the Controversy" argument is nothing but pure propoganda - there is no expectation on the part of its advocates that any sort of "controversy" be taught. It is only the first step in getting control of the curriculum and weeding out evolutionary science altogether. As Neufeld argues:
I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control....
This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself....
I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.
You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.
Other good discussions of Colling's situation can be found at Metacatholic and Higgaion. And while I'm sure other bloggers have also commented, we all can do no better than to let Richard Colling speak for himself. I have been privileged to have exchanged emails with Richard Colling over the past few days and he has written eloquently on his perspective, his plight and his desire to do nothing more than to teach students that they do not have to fear science in order to maintain personal faith. With Professor Colling's permission, I post the entire message I received this morning:
Hello Chris,
This article tells only the tip of the iceberg, but will give you a flavor...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/
Here is the actual truth. All I have ever wanted to do is to communicate and then cultivate a message of peace and harmony between Science and Faith. Unfortunately, what I have learned over the past two years is that some profoundly scientifically naive fundamentalist Christians only want war - apparently intent on destroying and discrediting anyone who does not conform to the fundamentalist creationist mindset.
I truly feel that I can empathize with Galileo of 1633 when the Catholic church placed restrictions on him. I suppose it was inevitable that it would someday come to this: The battle fought against the scientifically naive religious authority and won by Galileo (albeit it took 400 years for vindication) was in the physical sciences. (The earth is NOT the center of the universe.) In contrast, regarding the emancipation of evolution (biological sciences) from the self-appointed religious authorities has not yet occurred in the United States. Perhaps it is time.
I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith.
It has been a rude and very unsettling experience. While promoting a message of peace, and after 26 years of faithful devotion to Christian higher education and investment in the lives of thousands of our college men and women, it is difficult to describe the depths of my disappointment that a few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals have been allowed to create such discord and damage to to me and the university in the public's eye - by convincing a university president to acquiesce to their demands. (even though the president privately continues to say that he has identified nothing in my teaching or writing that is scientifically or theologically deficient.) The truth is this: My students love me, I love them, and we are all getting along fine. The outside critics notwithstanding...
I have been told in essence in a letter from the president of the university that although it may seem unfair, the truth and facts will not matter here. Perception is what is guiding his actions. I am still numbed by these words coming from a university president when discussing the teaching of biology in a university setting. Therefore, it seems that the only tools allowed for this discussion and commitment to truth and principle are political tools. Sad. I have always held that it is truth and education that sets us free, not uninformed political perceptions.
I am under no illusion that certain members of the board of trustees who have been uniformly hostile toward my teaching and writing may now attempt to manufacture something to use to retaliate against me. Oh well. I stand on truth and principle.
I include here for you a written statement I provided to the local newspaper. The article should come out today. Feel free to disseminate any of this commentary and information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I have ever wanted in my 26 years of writing and teaching is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. I believe I have faithfully fulfilled this work in a manner that models the stated ideals of an Olivet Nazarene University faculty member. Therefore, I am very disappointed by these unwarranted and unnecessary actions which seem to suggest otherwise.
I believe these measures, made in response to off-campus scientifically uninformed critics of evolution, cannot help but cast a negative, and up until this time, an undeserved reflection on Olivet's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher education. As a proud ONU alumnus (Class of 1976) and veteran faculty member of 26 years who devoted my entire professional career to upholding the Olivet mission of "Education with a Christian Purpose", this seems like a medieval blow to the university's dedicated professional faculty and the institution's educational standing in the greater academic community.
In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.
Let the whole world know. It is time for truth and transparency.
Rick Colling
Not much else to say. Professor Colling is another of those rare men of honor and integrity who might just bring someone like me back to the fold. I will tell you one thing: I no longer believe creationism is merely misguided...in many manifestations (such as this) I think it is actually evil. I can no longer give creationism or its proponents any quarter....
Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is physicist Isaac Newton's theory of gravity....
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.
Since that time, however, the forces of darkness and ignorance influencing the administration at ONU have decided that Richard Colling should not be allowed to teach science when it contradicts stubbornly held myth. Colling's personal struggle to bring peace between science and religion has come to a head, and now Professor Colling faces a situation more reminiscent of conditions in Iran than America. A pre-release Newsweek on Colling and other scientists of faith shows how these courageous individuals are being persecuted for their ideas, much in the same fashion as Galileo was persecuted for his. Because of his attempts to reconcile faith with the facts of science, ONU, under pressure from some "irate parents, pastors, and others" has brought the inquisition to Professor Colling:
Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college...
...Yet with the new term, Bowling banned "Random Designer" [Colling's book] from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.
The science blogosphere has picked up on Colling's current plight. Although Richard Colling is a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, a graduate of Olivet Nazarene University and believes in a God that is "...bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known", the reaction from Church of the Nazarene despots would lead you to believe he is another Christopher Hitchens. As PZ notes at Pharyngula:
He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church.
At EvolutionBlog, Jason comments:
You would think that even at a Christian university a person's religious views are not really relevant to what gets taught in science class. And I wouldn't have thought that theistic evolution was such an outre position among Christians that Colling would come in for this kind of flak for writing a book about it.
Panda's Thumb comments on the expected (and so far, attained) Discovery Institute hypocrisy over "teaching the controversy":
ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail....
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…
Yes, where is Casey Luskin? Anika Smith? Michael Egnor? Denyse O'Leary?
Henry Neufeld, however, cuts right through to the main issue in a post entitled "Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited". The "Teach the Controversy" argument is nothing but pure propoganda - there is no expectation on the part of its advocates that any sort of "controversy" be taught. It is only the first step in getting control of the curriculum and weeding out evolutionary science altogether. As Neufeld argues:
I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control....
This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself....
I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.
You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.
Other good discussions of Colling's situation can be found at Metacatholic and Higgaion. And while I'm sure other bloggers have also commented, we all can do no better than to let Richard Colling speak for himself. I have been privileged to have exchanged emails with Richard Colling over the past few days and he has written eloquently on his perspective, his plight and his desire to do nothing more than to teach students that they do not have to fear science in order to maintain personal faith. With Professor Colling's permission, I post the entire message I received this morning:
Hello Chris,
This article tells only the tip of the iceberg, but will give you a flavor...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/
Here is the actual truth. All I have ever wanted to do is to communicate and then cultivate a message of peace and harmony between Science and Faith. Unfortunately, what I have learned over the past two years is that some profoundly scientifically naive fundamentalist Christians only want war - apparently intent on destroying and discrediting anyone who does not conform to the fundamentalist creationist mindset.
I truly feel that I can empathize with Galileo of 1633 when the Catholic church placed restrictions on him. I suppose it was inevitable that it would someday come to this: The battle fought against the scientifically naive religious authority and won by Galileo (albeit it took 400 years for vindication) was in the physical sciences. (The earth is NOT the center of the universe.) In contrast, regarding the emancipation of evolution (biological sciences) from the self-appointed religious authorities has not yet occurred in the United States. Perhaps it is time.
I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith.
It has been a rude and very unsettling experience. While promoting a message of peace, and after 26 years of faithful devotion to Christian higher education and investment in the lives of thousands of our college men and women, it is difficult to describe the depths of my disappointment that a few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals have been allowed to create such discord and damage to to me and the university in the public's eye - by convincing a university president to acquiesce to their demands. (even though the president privately continues to say that he has identified nothing in my teaching or writing that is scientifically or theologically deficient.) The truth is this: My students love me, I love them, and we are all getting along fine. The outside critics notwithstanding...
I have been told in essence in a letter from the president of the university that although it may seem unfair, the truth and facts will not matter here. Perception is what is guiding his actions. I am still numbed by these words coming from a university president when discussing the teaching of biology in a university setting. Therefore, it seems that the only tools allowed for this discussion and commitment to truth and principle are political tools. Sad. I have always held that it is truth and education that sets us free, not uninformed political perceptions.
I am under no illusion that certain members of the board of trustees who have been uniformly hostile toward my teaching and writing may now attempt to manufacture something to use to retaliate against me. Oh well. I stand on truth and principle.
I include here for you a written statement I provided to the local newspaper. The article should come out today. Feel free to disseminate any of this commentary and information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I have ever wanted in my 26 years of writing and teaching is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. I believe I have faithfully fulfilled this work in a manner that models the stated ideals of an Olivet Nazarene University faculty member. Therefore, I am very disappointed by these unwarranted and unnecessary actions which seem to suggest otherwise.
I believe these measures, made in response to off-campus scientifically uninformed critics of evolution, cannot help but cast a negative, and up until this time, an undeserved reflection on Olivet's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher education. As a proud ONU alumnus (Class of 1976) and veteran faculty member of 26 years who devoted my entire professional career to upholding the Olivet mission of "Education with a Christian Purpose", this seems like a medieval blow to the university's dedicated professional faculty and the institution's educational standing in the greater academic community.
In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.
Let the whole world know. It is time for truth and transparency.
Rick Colling
Not much else to say. Professor Colling is another of those rare men of honor and integrity who might just bring someone like me back to the fold. I will tell you one thing: I no longer believe creationism is merely misguided...in many manifestations (such as this) I think it is actually evil. I can no longer give creationism or its proponents any quarter....
Sunday, September 02, 2007
A Lesson In Creationist "Kinds"
My current edition of American Scientist has a wonderful article by Elaine Ostrander entitled “Genetics and the Shape of the Dog”. The piece generally focuses on the results of the dog genome project and its implications for understanding the genetics of canine diseases and potential changes to dog breeding programs. More specifically, the article discusses how an understanding of the dog genome demonstrates how tiny genetic changes lead to tremendous physical variation within the species.
In reading the article I could not help but be struck by the potential implications for creationism (both kinds – young-earth and intelligent design). Most creationists trot out the “kinds” argument for explaining the differences they see between different species: God created the basic kinds of animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and all the species we see today are essentially variations on a theme. In other words, they can accept the relationship between genotypic change and phenotypic change only to the extent that these changes are limited to the same “kind” of animal. Dog variation (stand a Chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for example) can easily be the result of minor fluctuations in the genome – but the differences between a Chihuahua and a Siamese cat are the result of God’s creative separation of the species.
Creationists engaged in a cursory reading of Ostrander’s article (and can we expect creationists to engage in anything but a cursory reading?) will find the vocabulary necessary to proudly proclaim that “science” has verified the “kind” hypothesis of speciation. Of course, the “kind” hypothesis can only be supported if your knowledge of the animal world is extremely limited. Scientists working with either morphological (physical) or genetic variation among species understand that this discrete categorization of animals doesn’t work. One can easily envision the variation among dogs (most of us own one or more) and think that the “kind” hypothesis makes sense; but how many completely understand the range of variation within the genus Canis? The Family Canidae? The Order Carnivora? It’s easy to envision the “kind” separation between cats and dogs, but where does one “kind” end and another begin?
Ostrander provides an interesting figure showing the phylogenetic grouping of “dogs” based on a comparison of genetic sequences. Our domestic dog is grouped with an impressive array of wild species and the question to creationists begs itself: when is a dog not a dog? Wolves are clearly “dog-like”, as are coyotes. That’s easy. What about dholes and jackals? How about foxes? Certainly dog-like, but clearly some differences (to make it easier on our creationist friends reading this, we’ll follow their preferred methodology and ignore the morphological differences that don’t quite “fit” the “kind” hypothesis – foxes are dogs!). But we’re not even close to the end of the dog-like animals within the Canidae. Hyenas? What “kind” would they fall under? How about mustelids (mink, ermine, weasel, ferret)? Mephitids (skunks)? – are skunks more like dogs or cats? Or are they a separate “kind”? On Ostrander’s diagram “raccoon dogs” are listed. What about raccoons? Are they dogs…or are they bears? Some bears are awfully dog-like (particularly the smaller ones).
Of course all of my evolutionary biology friends understand this dilemma perfectly – and it is one reason we buy into evolution as an explanation for this huge variety of life we see around us. Taxonomy, like Sesame Street, certainly reflects the human propensity for grouping animals that are not like another. Very basic groups (dogs and cats) are simple to understand. But when you have knowledge of the entire range of animals represented in a group (Carnivores, for example) you spend a lot of time scratching your head (or arguing in the literature!) over a huge number of animals that do not quite fit in one group or another. And here I am just talking about living species. Add in the fossil record and (contrary to creationist claims) transitional species – species that don’t easily fall within one group or another because they share characteristics of both - are suddenly a dime a dozen. Of course the Ken Hams of the world are not interested in explaining the totality of the evidence – their only interest is in sifting the data for the few nuggets that support their own ideas. Contrary to Ham’s claims, creationists and evolutionary biologists are not looking at the same set of data!
In my college courses I generally prohibit students from writing papers on creationist ideas (unless it is from a strictly historical comparative perspective). I sometimes wonder if that is not a mistake. If the idea is to get a creationist student to “think outside the box”, then perhaps allowing a paper on creationism would be a better learning tool, provided it adhered to strict scientific guidelines. Could a creationist student learn something from the following assignment?...
Write a term paper on the creationist “kind” model. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Re-group all genera and species from these families according to biblical “kinds” and then justify, in detail, the characteristics you used to organize them into separate kinds and why these characteristics are discrete for each kind.
For the intelligent design creationists out there I would modify the essay requirements:
Write a term paper on the creationist “intelligent design” model of species origins. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Discuss, in detail, the mechanism for species divergence within each. At what taxonomic level is the designer likely to have intervened to define a new group of organisms (what criteria would you use to define the point at which a designer intervened? What drives the mechanism for the divergence (why did the designer intervene at this particular point and not another?).
It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such an exercise.
In reading the article I could not help but be struck by the potential implications for creationism (both kinds – young-earth and intelligent design). Most creationists trot out the “kinds” argument for explaining the differences they see between different species: God created the basic kinds of animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and all the species we see today are essentially variations on a theme. In other words, they can accept the relationship between genotypic change and phenotypic change only to the extent that these changes are limited to the same “kind” of animal. Dog variation (stand a Chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for example) can easily be the result of minor fluctuations in the genome – but the differences between a Chihuahua and a Siamese cat are the result of God’s creative separation of the species.
Creationists engaged in a cursory reading of Ostrander’s article (and can we expect creationists to engage in anything but a cursory reading?) will find the vocabulary necessary to proudly proclaim that “science” has verified the “kind” hypothesis of speciation. Of course, the “kind” hypothesis can only be supported if your knowledge of the animal world is extremely limited. Scientists working with either morphological (physical) or genetic variation among species understand that this discrete categorization of animals doesn’t work. One can easily envision the variation among dogs (most of us own one or more) and think that the “kind” hypothesis makes sense; but how many completely understand the range of variation within the genus Canis? The Family Canidae? The Order Carnivora? It’s easy to envision the “kind” separation between cats and dogs, but where does one “kind” end and another begin?
Ostrander provides an interesting figure showing the phylogenetic grouping of “dogs” based on a comparison of genetic sequences. Our domestic dog is grouped with an impressive array of wild species and the question to creationists begs itself: when is a dog not a dog? Wolves are clearly “dog-like”, as are coyotes. That’s easy. What about dholes and jackals? How about foxes? Certainly dog-like, but clearly some differences (to make it easier on our creationist friends reading this, we’ll follow their preferred methodology and ignore the morphological differences that don’t quite “fit” the “kind” hypothesis – foxes are dogs!). But we’re not even close to the end of the dog-like animals within the Canidae. Hyenas? What “kind” would they fall under? How about mustelids (mink, ermine, weasel, ferret)? Mephitids (skunks)? – are skunks more like dogs or cats? Or are they a separate “kind”? On Ostrander’s diagram “raccoon dogs” are listed. What about raccoons? Are they dogs…or are they bears? Some bears are awfully dog-like (particularly the smaller ones).
Of course all of my evolutionary biology friends understand this dilemma perfectly – and it is one reason we buy into evolution as an explanation for this huge variety of life we see around us. Taxonomy, like Sesame Street, certainly reflects the human propensity for grouping animals that are not like another. Very basic groups (dogs and cats) are simple to understand. But when you have knowledge of the entire range of animals represented in a group (Carnivores, for example) you spend a lot of time scratching your head (or arguing in the literature!) over a huge number of animals that do not quite fit in one group or another. And here I am just talking about living species. Add in the fossil record and (contrary to creationist claims) transitional species – species that don’t easily fall within one group or another because they share characteristics of both - are suddenly a dime a dozen. Of course the Ken Hams of the world are not interested in explaining the totality of the evidence – their only interest is in sifting the data for the few nuggets that support their own ideas. Contrary to Ham’s claims, creationists and evolutionary biologists are not looking at the same set of data!
In my college courses I generally prohibit students from writing papers on creationist ideas (unless it is from a strictly historical comparative perspective). I sometimes wonder if that is not a mistake. If the idea is to get a creationist student to “think outside the box”, then perhaps allowing a paper on creationism would be a better learning tool, provided it adhered to strict scientific guidelines. Could a creationist student learn something from the following assignment?...
Write a term paper on the creationist “kind” model. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Re-group all genera and species from these families according to biblical “kinds” and then justify, in detail, the characteristics you used to organize them into separate kinds and why these characteristics are discrete for each kind.
For the intelligent design creationists out there I would modify the essay requirements:
Write a term paper on the creationist “intelligent design” model of species origins. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Discuss, in detail, the mechanism for species divergence within each. At what taxonomic level is the designer likely to have intervened to define a new group of organisms (what criteria would you use to define the point at which a designer intervened? What drives the mechanism for the divergence (why did the designer intervene at this particular point and not another?).
It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such an exercise.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Creationist Essay Winners Versus True Young Scientists
Answers In Genesis has announced its winners in the creationist essay contest for young people. Zeno and Bay of Fundie provide appropriate evaluations of these essays, which meet the predictions we would all expect from homeschoolers and the religiously educated who have been successfully sheltered from actual science. Zeno sums up the expected content of the essays:
While it's not fair to expect teenagers to write purely original essays, all of the winning papers suffer from the suffocating effects of their reliance on recycled creationist propaganda. Time and again the writers make demonstrably untrue statements (and they probably don't know any better). In this, of course, they simply mirror their elders.
Through random chance (or should I attribute it to divine intervention?) the very antithesis of an Answers In Genesis sponsored essay contest also published their winners this year. In my current issue of Natural History (arriving the day I first learned of the AIG essay winners) the American Museum of Natural History also announced its 2007 Young Naturalist Awards winners. From the article:
Every year scientists from the American Museum of Natural History travel far and wide on expeditions to learn more about the natural world. The Young Naturalist Awards, now in its tenth year, invites students in grades 7-12 throughout the United States and Canada to follow in those footsteps, embarking on their own expeditions in areas of biology, Earth science, or astronomy. Their research can be conducted as to home as their backyard or a local pond or stream.
This year's Young Naturalist Award winners are:
Ashley Hunt (Grade 7) - Algae in the Weiva River: Is it Helping or Hurting Water Quality?
Noah McDonald (Grade 7) - The Toads of Delaware County
Alexandria Day (Grade 8) - An Analysis of Water Quality on the Severn River over Two Years
Ryan Wham (Grade 8) - Lighter, Brighter, and Cooler: An Analysis of the Effects of Roofing Albedo on Ambient Temperature
Alex Nagler (Grade 9) - Investigation of Water Quality in Mercer County Lake
Jon Atkinson (Grade 9) - Barn Owls on the Side of the Road
Viola Li (Grade 10) - From the Desert to the Subalpine Forest
Nikola Champlin (Grade 10) - Thigmomorphogenesis in Pisum Tendril Development
Anastasia Roda (Grade 11) - Human Factor IV: The Impact of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor on the Plankton, Benthic, and Biofouling Communities in the Reactor's Intake and Discharge Creek
Arjun Potter (Grade 11) - A Survey of the Birds of Indroda Nature Park in Gujarat, India
Joanna Nishimura (Grade 12) - More Than Meets the Eye: Do Himasthla sp. B Cercariae Use Chemo-orientation?
Jeremy Koelmel (Grade 12) - Lichens as Indicators of Vehicle Pollution
More on the contest winners may be found here.
The distinction betwee these kids and the winners of the AIG creationist contest is quite clear. The Young Naturalist winners followed the dictates of science by asking questions, gathering data and then reporting on where those data led them in their interpretation. The ground rules of the contest made this quiet clear:
After identifying a question, students plan how they will gather information, conduct outside research to learn more about their topic and possible methodologies, observe their subjects, and record their findings. Finally, their data analysis results in conclusions that either answer the original questions or lead to further inquiry.
By contrast, the AIG essay contest winners had already determined their conclusions before even beginning any research. Research was largely confined to those sources that already agree to their position and anything presented in alternate sources was either falsified, mischaracterized or the data ignored so that the biblical mythology could be upheld.
So which group is conducting the better science?
While it's not fair to expect teenagers to write purely original essays, all of the winning papers suffer from the suffocating effects of their reliance on recycled creationist propaganda. Time and again the writers make demonstrably untrue statements (and they probably don't know any better). In this, of course, they simply mirror their elders.
Through random chance (or should I attribute it to divine intervention?) the very antithesis of an Answers In Genesis sponsored essay contest also published their winners this year. In my current issue of Natural History (arriving the day I first learned of the AIG essay winners) the American Museum of Natural History also announced its 2007 Young Naturalist Awards winners. From the article:
Every year scientists from the American Museum of Natural History travel far and wide on expeditions to learn more about the natural world. The Young Naturalist Awards, now in its tenth year, invites students in grades 7-12 throughout the United States and Canada to follow in those footsteps, embarking on their own expeditions in areas of biology, Earth science, or astronomy. Their research can be conducted as to home as their backyard or a local pond or stream.
This year's Young Naturalist Award winners are:
Ashley Hunt (Grade 7) - Algae in the Weiva River: Is it Helping or Hurting Water Quality?
Noah McDonald (Grade 7) - The Toads of Delaware County
Alexandria Day (Grade 8) - An Analysis of Water Quality on the Severn River over Two Years
Ryan Wham (Grade 8) - Lighter, Brighter, and Cooler: An Analysis of the Effects of Roofing Albedo on Ambient Temperature
Alex Nagler (Grade 9) - Investigation of Water Quality in Mercer County Lake
Jon Atkinson (Grade 9) - Barn Owls on the Side of the Road
Viola Li (Grade 10) - From the Desert to the Subalpine Forest
Nikola Champlin (Grade 10) - Thigmomorphogenesis in Pisum Tendril Development
Anastasia Roda (Grade 11) - Human Factor IV: The Impact of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor on the Plankton, Benthic, and Biofouling Communities in the Reactor's Intake and Discharge Creek
Arjun Potter (Grade 11) - A Survey of the Birds of Indroda Nature Park in Gujarat, India
Joanna Nishimura (Grade 12) - More Than Meets the Eye: Do Himasthla sp. B Cercariae Use Chemo-orientation?
Jeremy Koelmel (Grade 12) - Lichens as Indicators of Vehicle Pollution
More on the contest winners may be found here.
The distinction betwee these kids and the winners of the AIG creationist contest is quite clear. The Young Naturalist winners followed the dictates of science by asking questions, gathering data and then reporting on where those data led them in their interpretation. The ground rules of the contest made this quiet clear:
After identifying a question, students plan how they will gather information, conduct outside research to learn more about their topic and possible methodologies, observe their subjects, and record their findings. Finally, their data analysis results in conclusions that either answer the original questions or lead to further inquiry.
By contrast, the AIG essay contest winners had already determined their conclusions before even beginning any research. Research was largely confined to those sources that already agree to their position and anything presented in alternate sources was either falsified, mischaracterized or the data ignored so that the biblical mythology could be upheld.
So which group is conducting the better science?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
And A Good Example Of Catholic Science
My father-in-law sent me a link to Bellarmine’s magazine, Connections, the current issue of which contains a number of articles on the school’s alumni and their take on various views of science, including evolution and intelligent design. Bellarmine is a Catholic college prep high school in San Jose, California and my father-in-law has always been proud of his attendance there. He should be. While reading the articles I again found a bit a hope that the Catholic educational system (of which I am a product, at least partially) hasn’t completely teetered to the side of anti-science advocacy. (Unfortunately, I merely have to read Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, Benjamin Wiker, Richard Newhouse and numerous authors in First Things, or visit a host of “Catholic Answers” web pages to realize there is still a large and vocal group of Catholics wanting to return science to the 12th century). Nonetheless, the articles clearly showed a group of scientists who, while maintaining their own faith, clearly understood that science pretty much tells us the truth about the way in which the world works. The article on “Finding Frontiers in Science” highlights the amazing scientific discoveries of the last decade, including “…new discoveries of hominid skulls in Kenya leading to breakthroughs in studying early man”. In an interview with several Bellarmine alumni scientists, Dr. Richard Nevle says
Now, it’s pretty clear that shallow seas once existed on the Martian surface. But back in the mid-eighties the notion of water on Mars was still very speculative. Holding pieces of Mars in my hand was pretty cool. And that is the reason, to this day in my geology class, I pass around meteorites to my students, because there’s nothing neater than holding on to a 4.6 billion year-old piece of history.
Bellarmine alumnus and science teacher Marty McKenzie:
People don’t realize it, but science is a great path for people who want to do something creative. To take a set of scientific observations, make sense of them, and come up with new experiments to test your theory — that is really a creative challenge.
No Answers in Genesis anti-science young earth creationists in this crowd of Catholic scientists. And while the Catholic journal First Things seems to be touting authors who doubt the existence, effects or human sources of global warming, these Catholic scientists view the issue less politically and more pragmatically:
Roman DiBiase:
Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of waiting around for the best solution to appear before taking action. There are certain things we can do as a country that can help regardless of the exact nature of the problem. There is no reason not to build more energy-efficient houses, or fuel-efficient cars. Conservation is the key. The technology is available, but it requires a certain acceptance of failure on our part. People don’t want to change unless they absolutely have to, especially when the status quo is perfectly functional in our day-to-day lives. While I personally would not like to see gas go up to $6-8 per gallon, I’m sure it would jump-start a new era of energy efficient vehicles and alternative transportation.
(I agree: I’m not excited about $6-8/gallon gas, either – but it may be the only thing that gets us really serious about abandoning fossil fuels and moving into more efficient, cheaper and non-polluting sources of energy. Humans never seem to make radical jumps in their technology and cultural evolution until faced with a crisis).
Richard Nevle on the human causes of global warming:
So, with the birth of agricultural civilization about 8,000 years ago, humans began clearing land of forests to make it available for agriculture. The burning of those trees, by comparison to previous eras, was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Later on, the advent of rice cultivation began to introduce large amounts of methane to the atmosphere…I and my collaborator surveyed the existing natural records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from this time, and just as importantly, the records of the carbon isotope composition of CO2 — a chemical fingerprint, which together reveal a removal of CO2 in the atmosphere right after European arrival that is consistent with the signal expected from reforestation. All because so many indigenous Americans died from pandemics during the centuries of European conquest. Humans, we learned, seem to be changing climate even before the Industrial Era.
On the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution, none of the Bellarmine alumni favored intelligent design. They were, however, unwilling to abandon faith completely, certainly something to be expected from Catholic scientists. I was interested, however, to read that they were exploring the intersection of faith and science beyond what we would normally read in the mainstream press. Charan Ranganath asks, “When is the imprimatur of God imposed upon matter? Is it at the very beginning of the universe — in the very nature of matter itself? For scientists who have a faith life, this is a very appealing notion. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, in other words, a god who is manifested in the order of nature…How does randomness fit with the notion of a God who is active in our lives? Now that’s an interesting question”.
There are vestiges of Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle here, again something to be expected from Catholics and certainly something akin to what was presented during my early Catholic educational career. I am afraid that I have come to largely abandon the NOMA principle although there was a time when I advocated for it. During that period in my life, the randomness question was actually quite easy to solve: for a god of infinite time and space (which is presumably what we all believed in) is there such a thing as “random”? Randomness is a product of scale…and at the scale of human perception, things that appear random to us may not in fact be random to something at a much different scale.
Now, however, I think this is all a rather moot point. Personally I can no longer accept today’s religions as a window on the spiritual (I’ve read too much Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris; studied too much religious history, and know too much about human behavior). Religion (and by association, theology) is largely a product of human political agendas, disguised as something personal. But more on that later…
In the article, Charan Ranganath seems to look to further discovery in science as a way to bolster a personal faith, provided a mind is kept open: “I told him every time I’ve learned something about the brain, it gives me an appreciation of our complexity and of the delicate balance of factors that makes each of us unique. If you believe in God (or Gods), I would think that understanding our origins and our nature should reaffirm that belief, not undermine it”.
But Dr. Ranganath’s most impressive words on the subject of evolution and intelligent were the following:
When I hear about this issue, I can’t help but think that the blame falls squarely on scientists, not on the “religious right.” …Unfortunately, most scientists aren’t interested in engaging in a dialogue with the public, which is why you have the current state of affairs. If we want people to believe in science, we have to actually give them a reason, and say it clearly and consistently.
Certainly many scientists don’t engage the public on a regular basis. We need to step out of our ivory towers and discuss the method and results of scientific inquiry, whatever the discipline. As I’ve said countless times before, we need to compete with the creationists in constantly voicing why they are in error and we are correct. Those of us in the blogosphere are taking a good first step to counter the misinformation generated by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the like. It’s good to see that good Catholic institutions like Bellarmine are turning out scientists who feel the same way…
Now, it’s pretty clear that shallow seas once existed on the Martian surface. But back in the mid-eighties the notion of water on Mars was still very speculative. Holding pieces of Mars in my hand was pretty cool. And that is the reason, to this day in my geology class, I pass around meteorites to my students, because there’s nothing neater than holding on to a 4.6 billion year-old piece of history.
Bellarmine alumnus and science teacher Marty McKenzie:
People don’t realize it, but science is a great path for people who want to do something creative. To take a set of scientific observations, make sense of them, and come up with new experiments to test your theory — that is really a creative challenge.
No Answers in Genesis anti-science young earth creationists in this crowd of Catholic scientists. And while the Catholic journal First Things seems to be touting authors who doubt the existence, effects or human sources of global warming, these Catholic scientists view the issue less politically and more pragmatically:
Roman DiBiase:
Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of waiting around for the best solution to appear before taking action. There are certain things we can do as a country that can help regardless of the exact nature of the problem. There is no reason not to build more energy-efficient houses, or fuel-efficient cars. Conservation is the key. The technology is available, but it requires a certain acceptance of failure on our part. People don’t want to change unless they absolutely have to, especially when the status quo is perfectly functional in our day-to-day lives. While I personally would not like to see gas go up to $6-8 per gallon, I’m sure it would jump-start a new era of energy efficient vehicles and alternative transportation.
(I agree: I’m not excited about $6-8/gallon gas, either – but it may be the only thing that gets us really serious about abandoning fossil fuels and moving into more efficient, cheaper and non-polluting sources of energy. Humans never seem to make radical jumps in their technology and cultural evolution until faced with a crisis).
Richard Nevle on the human causes of global warming:
So, with the birth of agricultural civilization about 8,000 years ago, humans began clearing land of forests to make it available for agriculture. The burning of those trees, by comparison to previous eras, was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Later on, the advent of rice cultivation began to introduce large amounts of methane to the atmosphere…I and my collaborator surveyed the existing natural records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from this time, and just as importantly, the records of the carbon isotope composition of CO2 — a chemical fingerprint, which together reveal a removal of CO2 in the atmosphere right after European arrival that is consistent with the signal expected from reforestation. All because so many indigenous Americans died from pandemics during the centuries of European conquest. Humans, we learned, seem to be changing climate even before the Industrial Era.
On the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution, none of the Bellarmine alumni favored intelligent design. They were, however, unwilling to abandon faith completely, certainly something to be expected from Catholic scientists. I was interested, however, to read that they were exploring the intersection of faith and science beyond what we would normally read in the mainstream press. Charan Ranganath asks, “When is the imprimatur of God imposed upon matter? Is it at the very beginning of the universe — in the very nature of matter itself? For scientists who have a faith life, this is a very appealing notion. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, in other words, a god who is manifested in the order of nature…How does randomness fit with the notion of a God who is active in our lives? Now that’s an interesting question”.
There are vestiges of Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle here, again something to be expected from Catholics and certainly something akin to what was presented during my early Catholic educational career. I am afraid that I have come to largely abandon the NOMA principle although there was a time when I advocated for it. During that period in my life, the randomness question was actually quite easy to solve: for a god of infinite time and space (which is presumably what we all believed in) is there such a thing as “random”? Randomness is a product of scale…and at the scale of human perception, things that appear random to us may not in fact be random to something at a much different scale.
Now, however, I think this is all a rather moot point. Personally I can no longer accept today’s religions as a window on the spiritual (I’ve read too much Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris; studied too much religious history, and know too much about human behavior). Religion (and by association, theology) is largely a product of human political agendas, disguised as something personal. But more on that later…
In the article, Charan Ranganath seems to look to further discovery in science as a way to bolster a personal faith, provided a mind is kept open: “I told him every time I’ve learned something about the brain, it gives me an appreciation of our complexity and of the delicate balance of factors that makes each of us unique. If you believe in God (or Gods), I would think that understanding our origins and our nature should reaffirm that belief, not undermine it”.
But Dr. Ranganath’s most impressive words on the subject of evolution and intelligent were the following:
When I hear about this issue, I can’t help but think that the blame falls squarely on scientists, not on the “religious right.” …Unfortunately, most scientists aren’t interested in engaging in a dialogue with the public, which is why you have the current state of affairs. If we want people to believe in science, we have to actually give them a reason, and say it clearly and consistently.
Certainly many scientists don’t engage the public on a regular basis. We need to step out of our ivory towers and discuss the method and results of scientific inquiry, whatever the discipline. As I’ve said countless times before, we need to compete with the creationists in constantly voicing why they are in error and we are correct. Those of us in the blogosphere are taking a good first step to counter the misinformation generated by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the like. It’s good to see that good Catholic institutions like Bellarmine are turning out scientists who feel the same way…
Of Capybaras And Catholics
I’ve been meaning to post on this ever since a good friend of mine brought it to my attention at work several weeks ago. Many of you may be familiar with the large capybara of South America. This animal is a member of the Order Rodentia – the same order to which mice, rats, field voles and squirrels belong – it’s just that capybara’s are a whole lot bigger. Most weigh in at over 100 pounds. Even the most taxonomically challenged would not have a difficult time concluding that this thing is a mammal (although I doubt many would immediately recognize it as a ROUS (Rodent Of Unusual Size – yes, I saw the Princess Bride). However, it turns out that the Catholic Church, through a twist of theological reasoning, proclaimed the capybara to be a fish. Yes, you heard correctly…during all those years of Lenten Fridays, while most of us were suffering through fried patties of cod, halibut or orange roughy in recognition of “meatless” observances, those in South America were happily consuming vast quantities of mammal meat, with the full blessing of the Church. Now, I do not begrudge my South American brothers and sisters the redness of their Lenten meat. I happen to love fish (although there are few who can butcher a fish meal better than a Catholic during Lent!). Nor, in all fairness, do I mock the Catholic Church over this. The proclamation was made during the 15th century, when Catholic officials in charge of such matters as meat taxonomy had little or nothing to go on other than local descriptions of the capybara – which pretty much amounted to “it’s mostly found it water”. No, I cannot mock a decision made half a century ago.
What I can mock them for is that, in 500 years since the decision (and 250 years since Linnaeus!) they haven’t changed their classification!!! The Catholic Church still considers capybara to be a fish.
The reasons for this seem to be clear. South America is loaded with Catholics who have a long tradition of eating capybara meat on Lenten Fridays (among others). In the interest of maintaining a large number of souls under the Catholic umbrella (and reais, pesos and bolivars in the collection basket!) I can understand why the Church would be so reluctant to accept modern science and maintain theological consistency. But if Catholic theology can be so easily morphed to accommodate the acquisition of political power (which is what a lot of souls ultimately buys you), then why should any Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) proclamation be considered something more than a contingency of values, as subject to the vagaries of political will as genetic variation is to the forces of natural selection?
Were this an isolated case, it might be considered something of an anomaly, but apparently the Catholic Church also considers sea turtles to be fish (and not reptiles). Local consumption of turtle meat along the Mexican coast, particularly during Lent, has compounded efforts to save these endangered animals. Conservationists and concerned fishermen pleaded with the Pope to repeal the declaration that sea turtles are fish in an effort to stem the tide of slaughter during Christianity’s Holy Week. (This was in 2002 and I can find no record of the Pope actually complying in an effort to help conservation efforts). Again, the issue appears to be a Vatican more concerned with stemming the tide of deserters than maintaining a consistent theology. This tells me that theological rules are made to be broken (or at least, never corrected)…but such is the nature of religion.
What I can mock them for is that, in 500 years since the decision (and 250 years since Linnaeus!) they haven’t changed their classification!!! The Catholic Church still considers capybara to be a fish.
The reasons for this seem to be clear. South America is loaded with Catholics who have a long tradition of eating capybara meat on Lenten Fridays (among others). In the interest of maintaining a large number of souls under the Catholic umbrella (and reais, pesos and bolivars in the collection basket!) I can understand why the Church would be so reluctant to accept modern science and maintain theological consistency. But if Catholic theology can be so easily morphed to accommodate the acquisition of political power (which is what a lot of souls ultimately buys you), then why should any Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) proclamation be considered something more than a contingency of values, as subject to the vagaries of political will as genetic variation is to the forces of natural selection?
Were this an isolated case, it might be considered something of an anomaly, but apparently the Catholic Church also considers sea turtles to be fish (and not reptiles). Local consumption of turtle meat along the Mexican coast, particularly during Lent, has compounded efforts to save these endangered animals. Conservationists and concerned fishermen pleaded with the Pope to repeal the declaration that sea turtles are fish in an effort to stem the tide of slaughter during Christianity’s Holy Week. (This was in 2002 and I can find no record of the Pope actually complying in an effort to help conservation efforts). Again, the issue appears to be a Vatican more concerned with stemming the tide of deserters than maintaining a consistent theology. This tells me that theological rules are made to be broken (or at least, never corrected)…but such is the nature of religion.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Lassen High School Biology Field Trip
Dinner with Lassen County friends the other night proved to be something of an eye-opener for me regarding the profound effect some individuals in this community have had on the teaching of biology at the local high school. One of the major efforts touted locally is the Biology Field Trip taken by high school sophomore biology class students each year. This trip involves taking students to the California coast for a week of camping and presumably studying biology. However, it has historically been lead by individuals with strong ties to the Christian community here in Lassen County. I have been on the field trip as a parent helper and have largely given those involved the benefit of the doubt with regard to their motivations for participating in the field trip, although it was clear that religion is more a driving force than science for many of those involved. My friends all had personal experience with the event and referred to it not as the “Biology” field trip but the “Evangelical” field trip. Stories of proselytizing efforts on the part of the staff, parent volunteers and some students were relayed. I have also received email messages from former LHS students who have suggested their biology training was minimal at best, but the emphasis on evangelism was first-rate...
Recently the LHS biology staff has turned over and hopefully the biology field trip will focus less on personal evangelization and more on actual biology. I know most of the current staff and I am confident this will be the case. I have also offered to take a more active role in both the field trip and as a consultant in my own areas of science expertise. Regardless, after the other night’s conversations with many long time residents of the county who have personally witnessed the non-science shenanigans of some associated with the field trip, I will be paying more attention than I have of late.
Recently the LHS biology staff has turned over and hopefully the biology field trip will focus less on personal evangelization and more on actual biology. I know most of the current staff and I am confident this will be the case. I have also offered to take a more active role in both the field trip and as a consultant in my own areas of science expertise. Regardless, after the other night’s conversations with many long time residents of the county who have personally witnessed the non-science shenanigans of some associated with the field trip, I will be paying more attention than I have of late.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Illuminati Not Such A Bad Idea...
Well, given the apparent global attempt to use religion as the source of all knowledge and return humanity to the dark ages, perhaps the formation of an Illuminati organization is not completely unwarranted...
I guess that, if religion and the religionists were to succeed in dominating human organization and society, the potential silver lining could be that such a science-deprived society might ultimately prove Eric Pianka correct...
By the way, it has been suggested that we change the name from LACOSI (Lassen County Society of the Illuminati) to LACIS (pronounced "lackies") - Lassen County Illuminati Society...no formal vote as yet, however...
Finally here is a message for the founding "LACIS" members:
THE ARTIST IS WORKING
I guess that, if religion and the religionists were to succeed in dominating human organization and society, the potential silver lining could be that such a science-deprived society might ultimately prove Eric Pianka correct...
By the way, it has been suggested that we change the name from LACOSI (Lassen County Society of the Illuminati) to LACIS (pronounced "lackies") - Lassen County Illuminati Society...no formal vote as yet, however...
Finally here is a message for the founding "LACIS" members:
THE ARTIST IS WORKING
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Lassen County Society of the Illuminati
Well, I'm finding myself in somewhat of a dilemma. I had previously (and somewhat offhandedly) mentioned the potential formation of a Lassen County chapter of the Illuminati after visiting the new Thai restaurant in nearby Janesville with some friends. Well, you would be amazed at the sudden deluge of emails and phone calls I've received expressing interest in participating in such a group (although in all seriousness, I wonder if this has more to do with making sure the new Thai place stays in business to facilitate the welcomed break in the standardized cuisine here...). This means I probably have to take this a bit more seriously than I had originally intended...
Well, first, let me suggest a formal name for the group: Lassen County Society of the Illuminati...LACOSI for short - turns out "LaCoSi" also happens to be the elemental designation of a Pauli paramagnet (whatever the hell that is - but it at least has a specific connection with science!).
I also went back to Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel to refresh my memory on the definition and nature of the Illuminati (from where I derived the term). Let's just say the definition was more on target than I originally contemplated:
"So who were the Illuminati?" Kohler demanded.
Yes, Langdon thought, who indeed? He began his tale.
"Since the beginning of history," Langdon explained, "a deep rift has existed between science and religion. Outspoken scientists like Copernicus - "
"Were murdered," Kohler interjected. "Murdered by the church for revealing scientific truths. Religion has always persecuted science."
"Yes. But in the 1500s, a group of men in Rome fought back against the church. Some of Italy's most enlightened men - physicists, mathematicians, astronomers - began meeting secretly to share their concerns about the church's inaccurate teachings. They feared that the church's monopoly on 'truth' threatened academic enlightenment around the world. They founded the world's first scientific think tank, calling themselves 'the enlightened ones.' "
"The Illuminati."
"Yes," Langdon said. "Europe's most learned minds...dedicated to the quest for scientific truth."
Well,so far so good...
...."Unfortunately," Langdon added, "the unification of science and religion was not what the church wanted."
"Of course not," Kohler interrupted. "The union would have nullified the church's claim as the sole vessel through which man could understand God."
Again, no problem...here's the kicker:
..."But aren't scientists today a bit less defensive about the church?"
Kohler grunted in disgust. "Why should we be? The church may not be burning scientists at the stake anymore, but if you think they've released their reign over science, ask yourself why half the schools in your country are not allowed to teach evolution. Ask yourself why the U.S. Christian Coalition is the most influential lobby against scientific progress in the world. The battle between science and religion is still raging, Mr. Langdon. It has moved from the battlefields to the boardrooms, but it is still raging."
Perhaps there is a need for a new Illuminati afterall...
Well, first, let me suggest a formal name for the group: Lassen County Society of the Illuminati...LACOSI for short - turns out "LaCoSi" also happens to be the elemental designation of a Pauli paramagnet (whatever the hell that is - but it at least has a specific connection with science!).
I also went back to Dan Brown's Angels & Demons novel to refresh my memory on the definition and nature of the Illuminati (from where I derived the term). Let's just say the definition was more on target than I originally contemplated:
"So who were the Illuminati?" Kohler demanded.
Yes, Langdon thought, who indeed? He began his tale.
"Since the beginning of history," Langdon explained, "a deep rift has existed between science and religion. Outspoken scientists like Copernicus - "
"Were murdered," Kohler interjected. "Murdered by the church for revealing scientific truths. Religion has always persecuted science."
"Yes. But in the 1500s, a group of men in Rome fought back against the church. Some of Italy's most enlightened men - physicists, mathematicians, astronomers - began meeting secretly to share their concerns about the church's inaccurate teachings. They feared that the church's monopoly on 'truth' threatened academic enlightenment around the world. They founded the world's first scientific think tank, calling themselves 'the enlightened ones.' "
"The Illuminati."
"Yes," Langdon said. "Europe's most learned minds...dedicated to the quest for scientific truth."
Well,so far so good...
...."Unfortunately," Langdon added, "the unification of science and religion was not what the church wanted."
"Of course not," Kohler interrupted. "The union would have nullified the church's claim as the sole vessel through which man could understand God."
Again, no problem...here's the kicker:
..."But aren't scientists today a bit less defensive about the church?"
Kohler grunted in disgust. "Why should we be? The church may not be burning scientists at the stake anymore, but if you think they've released their reign over science, ask yourself why half the schools in your country are not allowed to teach evolution. Ask yourself why the U.S. Christian Coalition is the most influential lobby against scientific progress in the world. The battle between science and religion is still raging, Mr. Langdon. It has moved from the battlefields to the boardrooms, but it is still raging."
Perhaps there is a need for a new Illuminati afterall...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
More Evidence Of A Genetic Component To Religion?
Well, the religious are not going to like this...another study suggesting that "religiousness" seems to have a genetic component that predisposes some towards it. Studies of twins suggests the following:
According to study author Laura Koenig, the popular idea that religious individuals are more social and giving because of the behavioral mandates set for them is incorrect. “This study shows that religiousness occurs with these behaviors also because there are genes that predispose them to it.”
According to study author Laura Koenig, the popular idea that religious individuals are more social and giving because of the behavioral mandates set for them is incorrect. “This study shows that religiousness occurs with these behaviors also because there are genes that predispose them to it.”
Friday, April 06, 2007
Blog Against Theocracy - First Submission
As I mentioned, the Blog Against Theocracy is going full tilt this weekend (I'm feeling for Blue Gal...she seems to be inundated with blog posts contributing to this effort and I'm about to add to her workload...). Already the "offended" have come forth crying foul and indicting this as an attack on Christianity:
And then there's the blogswarm over this "Blog Against Theocracy" idiocy, which boils down to an attack on any public expression of Christianity (something protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) under the guise of opposing something that doesn't exist in the US and no Christian I'm aware of is advocating: theocracy.
Here's the common, and misguided, argument presented by most outspoken Christian fundamentalists: if you openly criticize, critically evaluate or question anything about Christianity then you are infringing on the right of Christians to publicly express their views. No one with any intellectual, ethical or constituional credibility is arguing that Christians should not be allowed to express their views openly (ok, there are certainly a few at the outer margins, but let's not use the tail of the distribution to characterize the entire curve). What many of us are arguing is that if you feel you have a constitutional right to publicly parade your views in front of the rest of us, then we're going to publicly point out why those views might be in error historically, logically, scientifically, philosophically, etc. If you are going to seriously argue that religious views (specifically "Christian" views - I'm sure the whiner above won't mind if Buddhism, Islam or Paganism are being questioned) should be allowed free reign in society without any "response" by those who don't hold those same views, then you are definately on the slippery slope toward theocracy.
As for this country not being a theocracy....well, perhaps not yet. But clearly many of us feel political forces are moving in that direction and it's time to seriously consider if this is the trajectory we want this country to take. Not a theocracy?...consider the ID proponents who are trying to legislate intelligent design creationism into the classroom; or the YEC creationists supplanting actual science with mythology; how about the anti-choice proponents attempting to legislate the religious view that five cells is equivalent to the six-year old riding his bike down the street; consider the number of evangelical Christians who want us to remain in Iraq largely to bring about biblical Armageddon; how about our tax money going to fund "faith based" initiatives and private schools?; how about the large number of Christian dominionists who are actively engaged in getting the government to follow biblical principles?
There has clearly been a concerted effort to make government at all levels be more supportive of Christian values (note that the arguments are not generally about making government more religious; they're about making it more "Christian" - by contrast, most of us "blogging against theocracy" want to maintain a clearly (and actively) secular government with little or no religious influence in terms of policy or law. Religions are based on personal belief supported by flawed or falsified history and science. They have no business running governments (and have always fostered rebellion when they did).
Speaking of flawed history, I'm going to cheat a bit on this first "Blog Against Theocracy" and re-post a previous entry on the Da Vinci Code. Yes, I know the book probably erred in its specifics and that some of the presentations could be questioned. However, I just started going through the Discovery Channel's The Da Vinci Files series and there a lot of questions regarding the nature of Jesus Christ, the rise of Christianity, the errors, additions and re-writes in the Bible, and the suppression of "heretical" voices that makes me wonder how active the Church has been in silencing alternative views.
This post highlights the incredible hypocrisy often displayed by Christians when they dismiss readers as "historically illiterate" when they read Dan Brown's books, but fail to question the same public's "scientific illiteracy" when it comes to reading popular books by Behe, Dembski and Wells on Intelligent Design. So, from the March 2006 Northstate Science files:
How Ironic - Da Vinci Code Readers are Considered "Historically Illiterate"
While searching the blogosphere yesterday for comments on biblical archaeology, I ran across Chris Heard’s site Higgaion and its link to a Catholic Online article regarding the Da Vinci Code. The article (dated 24 February) interviews apologist Mark Shea who, with theology professor Ted Sri, have co-authored The Da Vinci Deception, supposedly “a guide that reveals the fact and fiction behind “The Da Vinci Code””. I will try to write more on the issue of The Da Vinci Code itself later. However, what immediately struck me in the article was the notion of Christians asserting arguments against The Da Vinci Code because it creates a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate historical information, juxtaposed with scientists’ assertions that Intelligent Design is creating a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate biological information.
The irony here is just too good to pass up.
The article begins by asking Shea what compelled he and Sri to write the book:
The short answer is that tens of millions of people have read "The Da Vinci Code" and many have had their faith in Christ and the Catholic Church shaken. This blasphemous book has become a major cultural phenomenon, largely by attacking the very person and mission of Jesus Christ. It must be addressed.
Just out of curiosity, how many millions have read Philip Johnson’s books such as Darwin on Trial, or William Dembski’s No Free Lunch? How many millions cite Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution as containing factual information about evolution? Shea is concerned that millions of Christians have read The Da Vinci Code without critically thinking about it – but would he stop to consider how many Christians bother to critically think about Icons of Evolution? Further, Shea thinks the historical inaccuracies need to be addressed – good for him; he’s found areas of disagreement and should offer a response. When evolutionary biologists confront the biological inaccuracies of Wells, Dembski or Johnson, what happens? They’re accused of being “dogmatic Darwinists”. Is Shea, therefore, to be considered a “dogmatic Christian”?
Shea then discusses the concept that popular works like The Da Vinci Code really become a source of “pseudo-knowledge” that, in essence, replaces critical thought and the hard work of historical investigation:
The longer answer is that "The Da Vinci Code" has become the source for what I call "pseudo-knowledge" about the Christian faith. Pseudo-knowledge is that stuff "everybody knows," such as the "fact" that Humphrey Bogart said "Play it again, Sam" -- except he didn't. Pseudo-knowledge doesn't matter much when the issue is the script of "Casablanca."
Are the popular works of Wells, Behe, Johnson, Dembski anything other than the “pseudo-knowledge” of which Shea speaks? Dembski himself has stated that he sees Intelligent Design as a popular movement and prefers to "disseminate his views in non-peer-reviewed media". None of the intelligent design proponents have offered testable hypotheses or original scientific work on their ideas but instead continue to prop up vague "controversies" in evolution that lack supporting evidence. The effort is clearly aimed less at doing the hard and dirty work of science than at popularizing "psuedo-knowledge"for broad acceptance. Principle among this genre of explanation for the diversity of life on earth has been Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity”, which now functions as a concept “everybody knows” (particularly Christian apologists looking for shortcuts to God); this despite continued biological work “reducing” irreducible complexity to observations easily explained through natural selection. Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City (see yesterday’s post) speaks with authority to his followers that ‘the empirical data supports the principle of “irreducible complexity”’, when the empirical data actually show the contrary. He has clearly not bothered to read the works of established scientists in evolutionary biology, preferring instead to peddle “pseudo-knowledge” because it fits better with a pre-conceived worldview.
The response will no doubt be that Dan Brown is not a historian or theologian, and therefore does not possess the scholarly credentials necessary to speak with authority on the subject. Therefore, good Christians should not take his views seriously. Perhaps not. But that begs a question: how seriously should Christians consider the views of “scientists” on the Dissent From Darwin list? A recent New York Times article established something evolutionary biologists have been saying for some time: the list is irrelevant. Only a quarter of the scientist signatories are from biology and few of those conduct any research at all on the question of life’s origins and diversity. The remaining scientists are largely chemists, engineers and physicists. Dan Brown is certainly no less qualified to speak with authority on history and theology than are engineers and chemists qualified to speak on matters of evolutionary biology. What goes around, comes around boys and girls!
Shea is very concerned about the impact the The Da Vinci Code novel (and upcoming movie) will have on the general audience. More to the point, he is concerned that Brown’s audience lacks the necessary intellect to critically evaluate the book’s historical claims:
In May, it will appear as a major film and will acquire even more unquestioned authority among millions of historically and theologically illiterate viewers -- unless Christians state the facts and help viewers recognize just how badly they've been had.
Historically and theologically illiterate viewers...How ultimately ironic. What about the scientific literacy required to critically evaluate proposals such as Intelligent Design? Just how scientifically literate are the 90% of the American population who supposedly buy into Intelligent Design? How scientifically literate are the kids Ken Ham preys upon with his historically incorrect bible propaganda? Can the majority of Carl Baugh’s viewers think critically about his claims? Mark Shea is absolutely correct to be concerned about the historical and theological illiteracy of the audience – just as evolutionary biologists are justified in being concerned about the same audience's scientific literacy. The fact is that most Americans have lost the ability to think critically, preferring instead to take the FOX thirty second sound bite as gospel because it’s easier. But my bet is that Shea and other apologists will not accept the distinction. Critical thinking is necessary only when the sacred cows of Christian theology are being slain; it’s not necessary if evolution is the target.
Finally, there’s this gem:
The problem is the average reader does not know "The Da Vinci Code" actually makes you more stupid about art, history, theology and comparative religion.
Yep, just like reading Icons of Evolution makes the average reader more stupid about biology, paleontology and the history of biological thought. Wouldn’t Mark Shea and Catholic Online agree?
And then there's the blogswarm over this "Blog Against Theocracy" idiocy, which boils down to an attack on any public expression of Christianity (something protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) under the guise of opposing something that doesn't exist in the US and no Christian I'm aware of is advocating: theocracy.
Here's the common, and misguided, argument presented by most outspoken Christian fundamentalists: if you openly criticize, critically evaluate or question anything about Christianity then you are infringing on the right of Christians to publicly express their views. No one with any intellectual, ethical or constituional credibility is arguing that Christians should not be allowed to express their views openly (ok, there are certainly a few at the outer margins, but let's not use the tail of the distribution to characterize the entire curve). What many of us are arguing is that if you feel you have a constitutional right to publicly parade your views in front of the rest of us, then we're going to publicly point out why those views might be in error historically, logically, scientifically, philosophically, etc. If you are going to seriously argue that religious views (specifically "Christian" views - I'm sure the whiner above won't mind if Buddhism, Islam or Paganism are being questioned) should be allowed free reign in society without any "response" by those who don't hold those same views, then you are definately on the slippery slope toward theocracy.
As for this country not being a theocracy....well, perhaps not yet. But clearly many of us feel political forces are moving in that direction and it's time to seriously consider if this is the trajectory we want this country to take. Not a theocracy?...consider the ID proponents who are trying to legislate intelligent design creationism into the classroom; or the YEC creationists supplanting actual science with mythology; how about the anti-choice proponents attempting to legislate the religious view that five cells is equivalent to the six-year old riding his bike down the street; consider the number of evangelical Christians who want us to remain in Iraq largely to bring about biblical Armageddon; how about our tax money going to fund "faith based" initiatives and private schools?; how about the large number of Christian dominionists who are actively engaged in getting the government to follow biblical principles?
There has clearly been a concerted effort to make government at all levels be more supportive of Christian values (note that the arguments are not generally about making government more religious; they're about making it more "Christian" - by contrast, most of us "blogging against theocracy" want to maintain a clearly (and actively) secular government with little or no religious influence in terms of policy or law. Religions are based on personal belief supported by flawed or falsified history and science. They have no business running governments (and have always fostered rebellion when they did).
Speaking of flawed history, I'm going to cheat a bit on this first "Blog Against Theocracy" and re-post a previous entry on the Da Vinci Code. Yes, I know the book probably erred in its specifics and that some of the presentations could be questioned. However, I just started going through the Discovery Channel's The Da Vinci Files series and there a lot of questions regarding the nature of Jesus Christ, the rise of Christianity, the errors, additions and re-writes in the Bible, and the suppression of "heretical" voices that makes me wonder how active the Church has been in silencing alternative views.
This post highlights the incredible hypocrisy often displayed by Christians when they dismiss readers as "historically illiterate" when they read Dan Brown's books, but fail to question the same public's "scientific illiteracy" when it comes to reading popular books by Behe, Dembski and Wells on Intelligent Design. So, from the March 2006 Northstate Science files:
How Ironic - Da Vinci Code Readers are Considered "Historically Illiterate"
While searching the blogosphere yesterday for comments on biblical archaeology, I ran across Chris Heard’s site Higgaion and its link to a Catholic Online article regarding the Da Vinci Code. The article (dated 24 February) interviews apologist Mark Shea who, with theology professor Ted Sri, have co-authored The Da Vinci Deception, supposedly “a guide that reveals the fact and fiction behind “The Da Vinci Code””. I will try to write more on the issue of The Da Vinci Code itself later. However, what immediately struck me in the article was the notion of Christians asserting arguments against The Da Vinci Code because it creates a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate historical information, juxtaposed with scientists’ assertions that Intelligent Design is creating a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate biological information.
The irony here is just too good to pass up.
The article begins by asking Shea what compelled he and Sri to write the book:
The short answer is that tens of millions of people have read "The Da Vinci Code" and many have had their faith in Christ and the Catholic Church shaken. This blasphemous book has become a major cultural phenomenon, largely by attacking the very person and mission of Jesus Christ. It must be addressed.
Just out of curiosity, how many millions have read Philip Johnson’s books such as Darwin on Trial, or William Dembski’s No Free Lunch? How many millions cite Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution as containing factual information about evolution? Shea is concerned that millions of Christians have read The Da Vinci Code without critically thinking about it – but would he stop to consider how many Christians bother to critically think about Icons of Evolution? Further, Shea thinks the historical inaccuracies need to be addressed – good for him; he’s found areas of disagreement and should offer a response. When evolutionary biologists confront the biological inaccuracies of Wells, Dembski or Johnson, what happens? They’re accused of being “dogmatic Darwinists”. Is Shea, therefore, to be considered a “dogmatic Christian”?
Shea then discusses the concept that popular works like The Da Vinci Code really become a source of “pseudo-knowledge” that, in essence, replaces critical thought and the hard work of historical investigation:
The longer answer is that "The Da Vinci Code" has become the source for what I call "pseudo-knowledge" about the Christian faith. Pseudo-knowledge is that stuff "everybody knows," such as the "fact" that Humphrey Bogart said "Play it again, Sam" -- except he didn't. Pseudo-knowledge doesn't matter much when the issue is the script of "Casablanca."
Are the popular works of Wells, Behe, Johnson, Dembski anything other than the “pseudo-knowledge” of which Shea speaks? Dembski himself has stated that he sees Intelligent Design as a popular movement and prefers to "disseminate his views in non-peer-reviewed media". None of the intelligent design proponents have offered testable hypotheses or original scientific work on their ideas but instead continue to prop up vague "controversies" in evolution that lack supporting evidence. The effort is clearly aimed less at doing the hard and dirty work of science than at popularizing "psuedo-knowledge"for broad acceptance. Principle among this genre of explanation for the diversity of life on earth has been Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity”, which now functions as a concept “everybody knows” (particularly Christian apologists looking for shortcuts to God); this despite continued biological work “reducing” irreducible complexity to observations easily explained through natural selection. Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City (see yesterday’s post) speaks with authority to his followers that ‘the empirical data supports the principle of “irreducible complexity”’, when the empirical data actually show the contrary. He has clearly not bothered to read the works of established scientists in evolutionary biology, preferring instead to peddle “pseudo-knowledge” because it fits better with a pre-conceived worldview.
The response will no doubt be that Dan Brown is not a historian or theologian, and therefore does not possess the scholarly credentials necessary to speak with authority on the subject. Therefore, good Christians should not take his views seriously. Perhaps not. But that begs a question: how seriously should Christians consider the views of “scientists” on the Dissent From Darwin list? A recent New York Times article established something evolutionary biologists have been saying for some time: the list is irrelevant. Only a quarter of the scientist signatories are from biology and few of those conduct any research at all on the question of life’s origins and diversity. The remaining scientists are largely chemists, engineers and physicists. Dan Brown is certainly no less qualified to speak with authority on history and theology than are engineers and chemists qualified to speak on matters of evolutionary biology. What goes around, comes around boys and girls!
Shea is very concerned about the impact the The Da Vinci Code novel (and upcoming movie) will have on the general audience. More to the point, he is concerned that Brown’s audience lacks the necessary intellect to critically evaluate the book’s historical claims:
In May, it will appear as a major film and will acquire even more unquestioned authority among millions of historically and theologically illiterate viewers -- unless Christians state the facts and help viewers recognize just how badly they've been had.
Historically and theologically illiterate viewers...How ultimately ironic. What about the scientific literacy required to critically evaluate proposals such as Intelligent Design? Just how scientifically literate are the 90% of the American population who supposedly buy into Intelligent Design? How scientifically literate are the kids Ken Ham preys upon with his historically incorrect bible propaganda? Can the majority of Carl Baugh’s viewers think critically about his claims? Mark Shea is absolutely correct to be concerned about the historical and theological illiteracy of the audience – just as evolutionary biologists are justified in being concerned about the same audience's scientific literacy. The fact is that most Americans have lost the ability to think critically, preferring instead to take the FOX thirty second sound bite as gospel because it’s easier. But my bet is that Shea and other apologists will not accept the distinction. Critical thinking is necessary only when the sacred cows of Christian theology are being slain; it’s not necessary if evolution is the target.
Finally, there’s this gem:
The problem is the average reader does not know "The Da Vinci Code" actually makes you more stupid about art, history, theology and comparative religion.
Yep, just like reading Icons of Evolution makes the average reader more stupid about biology, paleontology and the history of biological thought. Wouldn’t Mark Shea and Catholic Online agree?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Christians As Conservationists: Another Round
In her March 20 editorial in the Lassen County Times, Managing Editor Barbara France discusses the concept of being “environmentally conscious”. She seems to, in part, be responding to a blog entry claiming that “…those who are Christians cannot be environmentalists because they want to protect (dominate it) the earth”, and that further this blogger said “…recycling is pretty much all Christians can do”. I don’t know this for a fact, but I am pretty sure the blogger to whom she was referring was me; I’ve written a couple of pieces regarding Christians and conservation here and here. And as usual, there seems to be some significant misunderstanding of my intended point. Are recycling, conserving water, planting trees and changing to energy efficient light bulbs activities that help protect our environment? Absolutely…no one would suggest otherwise, and the fact that many Christian organizations are urging their members to participate in such activities is certainly cause for hope. I applaud those organizations and individuals that take such a stand and encourage them to continue the effort.
But that was never my criticism.
My take on the issue is simply this: 1) “environmental conservation” encompasses problems far beyond recycling and switching to energy efficient light bulbs; 2) major environmental issues are all underwritten by evolutionary science, such as ecology and population biology (yes, even forest management is guided by evolutionary principles, although you’ll rarely see “Darwin” mentioned in papers on natural resource management); 3) such science is rejected by most Christians, largely for one of two reasons: it either conflicts with Scripture (or more precisely, their particular interpretation of it) and/or it conflicts with their ability to accumulate wealth and prosperity with unregulated abandon; and 4) while many Christians proclaim themselves conservationists by virtue of their recycling habits, they are also responsible for maintaining social and political policies (through their voting efforts) that are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the world’s environments. I began my series of posts on this issue by citing from an article by David Orr (2005a) and I can be no more eloquent than Orr in summarizing the problem:
"More specifically, right-wing evangelicals have been placed in positions of authority throughout the federal government, including departments and agencies that administer federal lands and environmental laws, and they have not been shy in amending scientific reports in ways more agreeable to doctrine. Many professional environmental scientists and highly competent career civil servants have been fired or forced into early retirement, replaced by others with apocalyptic religious views and open hostility to laws and regulations aimed to protect the environment. By all evidence, the Bush administration intends to eliminate inconvenient regulatory barriers to resource extraction, pollution, and the preservation of species…” (Orr 2005a:290-91).
While many Christians may be good at recycling (again, a good thing!), there is a significant and crucial tension between the larger Christian worldview and major issues of environmental protection today. As I responded to a commenter on a previous post:
My argument was not to deny that these [recycling, etc] help but to suggest the following: 1)these are not the primary environmental problems this world faces - loss of habitat, species extinction, uncontrolled development, global warming, dependence on fossil fuels, an assault on public lands, uncontrolled population growth - these are but a few; 2) these larger and more ominous problems have a scientific basis, rooted in evolutionary theory, that the Christian Right constantly works to undermine, discredit or lie about; as Orr points out, Christians are unwilling to accept these larger problems in part because they are unwilling to sacrifice financial gain to achieve conservation goals ("too much regulation" ! is the excuse you hear constantly); 3)I would further argue, as Orr mentions but doesn't emphasize, that the Christian disrespect for science that doesn't agree with their worldview is also at the heart of why they dismiss larger problems affecting humanity. I'm sorry, Jen, but there is a major line to be drawn between true conservationism and some Christians throwing cans into the recycling bin and calling it good (not much difference between that attitude and simply waiting around for the Rapture).
Are most Christians willing to support environmental regulation that might limit growth and development or at least demand that such development occurs in an environmentally friendly manner? Or do they thing there is too much government regulation? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Are most Christians willing to pay higher taxes to support land management and park agencies that help protect large swaths of habitat for conservation purposes as public enjoyment? Or do they think those lazy government employees make too much already and public lands should be open for as much development as possible since that’s the proper capitalist way? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Are most Christians willing to accept that natural, materialist processes occur in nature (species loss affecting the broader environment for example) and can be effectively managed by specialists with the proper scientific background? Or is all creation simply fixed by the Creator with nothing that humans can do to change it until the Rapture? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Do most Christians believe that habitat preservation is more important than economic growth? Or is it simply our God-given right to turn as much land into business complexes as we possibly can? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Do most Christians believe that humans can actually make this planet inhabitable by their economic actions, or does it simply not matter because in the end God will take all the believers in the Rapture? This is an environmental conservation issue…
How about this?....Do most Christians believe that human population growth is a serious issue, has deleterious effects on resource use, can lead to famine, disease and war, and that population control efforts are a responsibility we have to the human species? Or is “every sperm sacred”? This is a major environmental conservation issue…
So, does all this mean that Christians (even evangelical Christians) can’t be good conservationists? Again, Orr says it best:
Are the positions of conservative biologists and evangelicals hard and fixed? Could one be a right-wing evangelical, for example, and a good conservation biologist? Having known a few, the answer is yes. But reconciling religious doctrine at the extreme with the goals of conservation requires heroic intellectual acrobatics. (Orr 2005a: 291).
In all this I have painted Christians with a broad brush. I understand the significant variation in Christian belief that exists, but I do this on purpose. By far, it is right-wing evangelical conservative Christians who have a national voice and are intending to speak not only for every other Christian sect (as well as non-Christians) and moderate/liberal Christians don’t seem to be having much of a say. Many of the respondents to Orr complained of the same thing – how can you condemn all of us when many are actively engaged in conservation efforts? I’ll leave you with Orr’s response in a second article:
And, yes, I do believe conservative evangelicals are “complicit” in “eviscerating environmental statutes, treaties, and policies,”as Van Dyke says. Although I did not put it quite that bluntly, I will accept his wording.
Finally, it is one thing to boldly exercise oneself to joust with me, living humbly at the outer margin of respectability and influence in the pages of a scientific journal with relatively few readers and limited public visibility. It would be quite another to engage as energetically with, say, Jerry Falwell and his followers,or Pat Robertson and his, or the millions of subscribers to James Dobson’s network, or Rick Scarborough, or all those within the Christian Coalition, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or James Kennedy and the Dominionists who intend a right-wing evangelical takeover of the U.S. government “whatever the cost” (Moser 2005). Or those further out still, the rabid followers of the end times, and all those merchants of fear and divine vengeance frothing on “Christian” radio across the heartland. And, if unbeknownst to me, that dialog has begun, let me inquire in the spirit of constructive Christian engagement, how is it going? Are you making headway? Are they listening?
Moser, B. 2005. The crusaders. Rolling Stone (April).
Van Dyke, F. (2005) Between heaven and earth: evangelical engagement in conservation. Conservation Biology 19 (6): 1693-96.
Orr, D. W. (2005a) Armageddon versus extinction. Conservation Biology 19(2): 290-92.
Orr, D. W. (2005b) A Response. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1697-98.
But that was never my criticism.
My take on the issue is simply this: 1) “environmental conservation” encompasses problems far beyond recycling and switching to energy efficient light bulbs; 2) major environmental issues are all underwritten by evolutionary science, such as ecology and population biology (yes, even forest management is guided by evolutionary principles, although you’ll rarely see “Darwin” mentioned in papers on natural resource management); 3) such science is rejected by most Christians, largely for one of two reasons: it either conflicts with Scripture (or more precisely, their particular interpretation of it) and/or it conflicts with their ability to accumulate wealth and prosperity with unregulated abandon; and 4) while many Christians proclaim themselves conservationists by virtue of their recycling habits, they are also responsible for maintaining social and political policies (through their voting efforts) that are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the world’s environments. I began my series of posts on this issue by citing from an article by David Orr (2005a) and I can be no more eloquent than Orr in summarizing the problem:
"More specifically, right-wing evangelicals have been placed in positions of authority throughout the federal government, including departments and agencies that administer federal lands and environmental laws, and they have not been shy in amending scientific reports in ways more agreeable to doctrine. Many professional environmental scientists and highly competent career civil servants have been fired or forced into early retirement, replaced by others with apocalyptic religious views and open hostility to laws and regulations aimed to protect the environment. By all evidence, the Bush administration intends to eliminate inconvenient regulatory barriers to resource extraction, pollution, and the preservation of species…” (Orr 2005a:290-91).
While many Christians may be good at recycling (again, a good thing!), there is a significant and crucial tension between the larger Christian worldview and major issues of environmental protection today. As I responded to a commenter on a previous post:
My argument was not to deny that these [recycling, etc] help but to suggest the following: 1)these are not the primary environmental problems this world faces - loss of habitat, species extinction, uncontrolled development, global warming, dependence on fossil fuels, an assault on public lands, uncontrolled population growth - these are but a few; 2) these larger and more ominous problems have a scientific basis, rooted in evolutionary theory, that the Christian Right constantly works to undermine, discredit or lie about; as Orr points out, Christians are unwilling to accept these larger problems in part because they are unwilling to sacrifice financial gain to achieve conservation goals ("too much regulation" ! is the excuse you hear constantly); 3)I would further argue, as Orr mentions but doesn't emphasize, that the Christian disrespect for science that doesn't agree with their worldview is also at the heart of why they dismiss larger problems affecting humanity. I'm sorry, Jen, but there is a major line to be drawn between true conservationism and some Christians throwing cans into the recycling bin and calling it good (not much difference between that attitude and simply waiting around for the Rapture).
Are most Christians willing to support environmental regulation that might limit growth and development or at least demand that such development occurs in an environmentally friendly manner? Or do they thing there is too much government regulation? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Are most Christians willing to pay higher taxes to support land management and park agencies that help protect large swaths of habitat for conservation purposes as public enjoyment? Or do they think those lazy government employees make too much already and public lands should be open for as much development as possible since that’s the proper capitalist way? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Are most Christians willing to accept that natural, materialist processes occur in nature (species loss affecting the broader environment for example) and can be effectively managed by specialists with the proper scientific background? Or is all creation simply fixed by the Creator with nothing that humans can do to change it until the Rapture? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Do most Christians believe that habitat preservation is more important than economic growth? Or is it simply our God-given right to turn as much land into business complexes as we possibly can? This is an environmental conservation issue…
Do most Christians believe that humans can actually make this planet inhabitable by their economic actions, or does it simply not matter because in the end God will take all the believers in the Rapture? This is an environmental conservation issue…
How about this?....Do most Christians believe that human population growth is a serious issue, has deleterious effects on resource use, can lead to famine, disease and war, and that population control efforts are a responsibility we have to the human species? Or is “every sperm sacred”? This is a major environmental conservation issue…
So, does all this mean that Christians (even evangelical Christians) can’t be good conservationists? Again, Orr says it best:
Are the positions of conservative biologists and evangelicals hard and fixed? Could one be a right-wing evangelical, for example, and a good conservation biologist? Having known a few, the answer is yes. But reconciling religious doctrine at the extreme with the goals of conservation requires heroic intellectual acrobatics. (Orr 2005a: 291).
In all this I have painted Christians with a broad brush. I understand the significant variation in Christian belief that exists, but I do this on purpose. By far, it is right-wing evangelical conservative Christians who have a national voice and are intending to speak not only for every other Christian sect (as well as non-Christians) and moderate/liberal Christians don’t seem to be having much of a say. Many of the respondents to Orr complained of the same thing – how can you condemn all of us when many are actively engaged in conservation efforts? I’ll leave you with Orr’s response in a second article:
And, yes, I do believe conservative evangelicals are “complicit” in “eviscerating environmental statutes, treaties, and policies,”as Van Dyke says. Although I did not put it quite that bluntly, I will accept his wording.
Finally, it is one thing to boldly exercise oneself to joust with me, living humbly at the outer margin of respectability and influence in the pages of a scientific journal with relatively few readers and limited public visibility. It would be quite another to engage as energetically with, say, Jerry Falwell and his followers,or Pat Robertson and his, or the millions of subscribers to James Dobson’s network, or Rick Scarborough, or all those within the Christian Coalition, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or James Kennedy and the Dominionists who intend a right-wing evangelical takeover of the U.S. government “whatever the cost” (Moser 2005). Or those further out still, the rabid followers of the end times, and all those merchants of fear and divine vengeance frothing on “Christian” radio across the heartland. And, if unbeknownst to me, that dialog has begun, let me inquire in the spirit of constructive Christian engagement, how is it going? Are you making headway? Are they listening?
Moser, B. 2005. The crusaders. Rolling Stone (April).
Van Dyke, F. (2005) Between heaven and earth: evangelical engagement in conservation. Conservation Biology 19 (6): 1693-96.
Orr, D. W. (2005a) Armageddon versus extinction. Conservation Biology 19(2): 290-92.
Orr, D. W. (2005b) A Response. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1697-98.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Excuse Me...Who's Arrogant????
Rush Limbaugh is simply "passionate"...Bill O'Reilly is "passionate"....Pat Robertson is "passionate"...
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is "arrogant"...
Again, another entry too good to pass up. Read "Look up arrogant, you faith-filled gas bag!"
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is "arrogant"...
Again, another entry too good to pass up. Read "Look up arrogant, you faith-filled gas bag!"
Europeans More Advanced Than Americans
No surprises here. Europeans have a significantly better understanding of science and evolution than Americans. Of course the primary reason for this is Americans' uncritical acceptance of Bronze Age texts as absolute fact:
"The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. "The way we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. is that they are both one-book religions".
"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science.
So tell me again, how is Christianity fundamentally different from Islam?
"The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. "The way we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. is that they are both one-book religions".
"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science.
So tell me again, how is Christianity fundamentally different from Islam?