Greetings from Lawrence, Kansas

But Jerry Manweiler, a physicist from Lawrence, said he supported teaching intelligent design. "It's important to know the theory of evolution, but it's also important to understand the nature of God," he said. Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers' "lack of humility."

Pro Steve Steve,
Thanks for your valuable contribution to science education in Kansas. Will you join your relatives at the Kangaroo Court?

Steve, you said "At this event three anti-evolutionary members of the Kansas State Board of Education are going to supposedly judge whether Intelligent Design stuff should be included in the Kansas science standards."
What do you mean "supposedly"? Is their decision not final? And are you sure that they are anti-evolutionist?

What do you mean "supposedly"? Is their decision not final? And are you sure that they are anti-evolutionist?

These "expert" hearings emerged because the anti-evolutionists were embarrassed by the fact that every person at the public hearings who supported them was a bible thumping special creationist. The ID movement's well calculated strategy of hiding their true intentions was being disrupted by the people who hadn't gotten the memo.

See this post by Jack.

So, Steve, Flint--are you saying you think that the school board panel WILL admit creationism into their curriculum?

Funny, I thought Steve Steve would be taller.

"We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say," said Kathy Martin, District 6 Board member. "Some naturalistic [evolutionary] opinion is correct, but not all of it is." Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts." And there is the controversy: Intelligent Design theory unavoidably impacts religion and religious philosophy. Martin said, "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic." Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is not well disguised. "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation," said Martin. "Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard," said Martin.

I'm confused. Earlier, it seemed that people here were sure that this endeavor by the creationists would fail. Can it be appealed or something? How could the board members be stupid enough to place a committee member who would publicly state her bias before the proceedings?
God, that woman's words were chilling. She sounds like a promoter of Lysenkian biology in the USSR.

JEFFERSON COUNTY - Seventh-grader Bailey Pierce, hand pressed against her heart, was reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when the voice over the intercom said something that stopped her cold. "One nation, under 'your belief system." Bailey said that guidance counselor Margo Lucero substituted the phrase for "under God" while leading the morning pledge at Everitt Middle School on Wednesday.

Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."

"There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith," said the Rev. Peter Luckey, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt.

"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically." --Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", Scientific American July 2000, p.81. ***** "An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it. Gould says that science 'doesn't intersect the concerns of theology.' Surely that is wrong; science and theology may have different concerns, but they do intersect. The most important point of intersection has to do with purposive explanations of natural phenomena. For theology it is no small matter whether nature is interpreted teleologically. When the world is interpreted non-teleologically--when God is no longer necessary to explain things--then theology is diminished." --James Rachels, Created From Animals, 1990, p.127. ***** "(W)e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanation...that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." --Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28.

Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers' "lack of humility."

I applaud, enjoy, and share much of The Panda's Thumb with people around the world. I wish you long life and continued "success." That said, I cannot but wonder if in engaging in the "debate" as is so often demanded by the ID/C crowd we only allow them to set the agenda and gain a legitimacy that they have not earned. I sadly realize the catch 22 implied in my concern, but science is a culture with syntax, grammar, and rules (so is ID/C and that's the rub.) Science seeks understanding with a self-correcting methodology. ID/C demands untested faith. Any "debate" will confuse anyone who does not share the cultural values and language of science. (It must be learned.)

Anyway, over the years I've seen passionate argument, public debate, seemingly endless books and articles, eloquent statements, court decisions, and sometimes ridicule used to present and explain what is as T. H. Huxley said-- so simple--so obvious--so magnificent. The ID/C crowd is still out there and growing. Have "we" added to their growth by following the values of our culture? I don't know what else to do, but I fear the future more and more each day.

"There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith," said the Rev. Peter Luckey, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt. Rev. Luckey is simply, painfully incorrect on that claim.

So am I the only one who finds the Steve Steve stuff creepy?

FL:

I see three choices available as it becomes increasingly clear over the centuries that primitive and uninformed guesses about reality turn out to be wildly incorrect.

1) Deny reality. This is your selection. If primitive superstitions conflict with modern knowledge, then the modern knowledge must be wrong.

2) Re-interpret the superstitions to resolve the conflict, while retaining as many of them as current understanding of reality allows. This is what Rev. Luckey is doing.

3) Tentative accept our understanding of reality pending new evidence, paying no attention to the mistakes embedded in any particular religion. This is what many (if not most) scientists do.

Your issue with Luckey seems to boil down to the definition of a "real Christian". In his world, real Christians regard reality as God's handiwork, and the better we understand it the better we can interpret and explain God's Word (which was sure to be misunderstood by people lacking all knowledge and background). In your world, a Real Christian is one who clings to one particular interpretation of one particular scripture, which just happens to be your interpretation.

And the difference in practice is fairly clear. If science determines something neither you nor Luckey believed, Luckey says "Oops, I must have it wrong." You say "science is wrong again; my interpretation is infallible." NOTE that both you and Luckey regard your scriptures as infallible. The difference is, Luckey does not consider himself infallible, and you do.

I don't know what else to do, but I fear the future more and more each day.

So am I the only one who finds the Steve Steve stuff creepy?

FL, Just because chucking the god of the gaps arguments doesn't glorify God in the primitive and ignorant way humans have traditionally worshipped him, that doesn't "diminish" God. As the B.G. Missionaria Protectiva says, "as cultures evolve, so do their gods."

Maine Yankee nicely captures the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" aspect of evo/creo "debates".

A few years ago here in Ohio, the evophobes on the state school board launched an effort to incorporate ID in the science curriculum. They invited a couple of representatives (Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells) from the Discovery Institute to come and persuade the rest of the board. The evophiles on the board invited a couple of prominent actual scientists (Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss) to represent reality.

Krauss spent the first part of his talk on what a sham it is to present this as a match between equally qualified "theories".

But once the school board has been effectively railroaded, the issue of granting the ID crowd illegitimate authority - at least in the eyes of the school board - is water under the bridge.

Incidentally, I think the unholy alliance between the board member who initiated the ID putsch and the Howard Ahmanson and his christian right crusade needs to be shouted from the rooftops. (See this query and the response immediately following it.) I live in the district in question, and I guarantee you less than 0.1% of the electorate is aware of this connection.

FL:

If there is anything that professing Christians should be moving away from with regard to this 'debate', it is the faith of Thomas that demands evidence before belief.

My question is why won't Prof. Steve take off the Lone Ranger mask?

Faith in God and in divine inspiration of scripture without direct evidence is fine, Mike. What gets kind of silly is when people have faith in things that are thoroughly falsified, like a 6,000 year old Earth. It also doesn't make sense to assume that one can pinpoint where God "intervened" in creation. Why would he need to intervene when he created the whole freakin' universe? And it does not diminish his glory to assume that he did so by his own natural processes. In fact, that kind of consistency in a God would be admirable.

Googling for Jerry Manweiler

Manweiler's bio at his company Fundamental Technologies.
http://www.ftecs.com/principals.html#jwm

Manweiler's featured on a 6News Lawrence talking about Cassini probe
http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2004/jul/01/cassini/

Manweiler's bio at his company Fundamental Technologies.

Consider, if you will, intelligent agency to mean the capacity to learn.

"god is a concept
by which we measure our pain"
John Lennon

Great White Wonder

Glad you enjoyed that.
As they say, "you can't make this stuff up."

FL,

It is true that some evolutionary biologists think that evolution implies that there is no God. There are, however, plenty who think otherwise. When scientists speak on such matters, they are not acting as scientists, but amateur philosophers, and often incompetent ones at that.

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural, so it is impossible to use science either to confirm or rule out the existence of God. Likewise, it is impossible to use science to confirm or rule out the presense of divine intervention. There is simply no way to scientifically test the proposition that God directed the process of evolution, or whether He set up the laws of nature so as to ensure that they would produce a creature that reflects His image.

As regards Christianity, evolution does rule out a literal reading of Genesis, but it certainly does not rule out the doctrinely essentail elements of the story. There's no scientific reason to reject the existence of Adam and Eve or a literal fall. And of course, there is no way to scientifically rule out the proposition God is the ultimate creator of all things. Science rules out a global flood, but it certainly does not rule out a localized flood that wiped out most of the human race at an early time in human history when the human population was small and concentrated in a small geographical area.

"god is a concept by which we measure our pain" John Lennon

GWW,

People who care about science should denounce the incompetent philosophical ramblings of people like Dawkins and Provine as strongly as they denounce those of Demski and Behe. When atheists abuse the mantle of science to push their religion (and atheism is just as much a religion as any other), they needlessly scare away from science people with strong theistic convictions. The Provines and Dawkins or the world are just as responsible for middle America's hostility to science as are biblical fundamentalists.

--Adam

People who care about science should denounce the incompetent philosophical ramblings of people like Dawkins and Provine as strongly as they denounce those of Demski and Behe.

The Provines and Dawkins or the world are just as responsible for middle America's hostility to science as are biblical fundamentalists.

Last time I checked it was still legal to profess atheism in the U.K. and the U.S. I understand that political realities make it advisable to speak softly, but this business of acting like the religious have the right to muzzle everyone can only have a bad outcome. I don't know Provine's work, but here's three cheers for Dawkins.

Jim and GWW,

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit. Still, people like Dawkins and Provine don't do the cause of advancing science any good when they start using science to push atheism. I don't question their right to do it; I just question their prudence and intellectual honesty.

People like this have contributed to the association of evolution with atheism in the mind of the common people. Part of that is a result of Fundamentalists using their quotations to scapegoat all scientists as a whole, but part of it stems directly from their own efforts.

And it's not just these two individuals. Every generation since Darwin's time has had high profile people abusing the theory of evolution for this purpose. Darwin, to his great credit, stayed out of religious controversies. Evolutionary biologists would be wise to emulate him.

--Adam

So, when Rev. Luckey publicly proclaims that "There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith", I have to wonder out loud whether Rev. Luckey is either unaware of the current situation, or maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the details, or doesn't want to think through it critically, or something. Or . . . maybe the white flag's already been waved by him. Not a pretty picture, if that happens to be the case.

You believers are welcome to your faith. I just wish you'd recognize that many of us don't want to have anything to do with it and get tired of the fuss you make when anybody criticises your notions. Christianity may be sacred to you. It isn't sacred to us. You have no right to expect any more respect for your ideas than you have for ours.

Ben,

Re "So am I the only one who finds the Steve Steve stuff creepy?"

Well, after ya get used to him he becomes more bear-able. :)

---

luminous,

Re "Consider, if you will, intelligent agency to mean the capacity to learn. "

Um. Anybody realize that this proposed definition would include the gene pool of a species? :)

---

Adam,

Re "It is true that some evolutionary biologists think that evolution implies that there is no God. There are, however, plenty who think otherwise."

Yeah, it's the extemists on both ends of the "spectrum" that have the bad habit of telling people to pick one concept over the other. Personally I see no logical inconsistencies between the notions "A higher power is behind it all" and "evolution is consistent with natural processes".

Henry

Jim,

You're welcome to your atheism as well. Just don't go around pretending it's scientific.

I'll keep religion out of science, and you keep science out of religion. Deal?

--Adam

I like Steve Steve.

-Steve

Dear Adam,

I never said I was an atheist. I'm just not a believer. From the point of view of somebody interested in what is the case, religions are just not very interesting except as social and political institutions.

By the way, though a clever apologist can easily refashion religious ideas to make them consistent with history, philology, and the natural sciences, it is not quite accurate to say that traditional Christianity can be made consistent with the known facts. Unless the sciences are disastrously mistaken, traditional Christianity is simply false. But you knew that.

Dawkins provides some material for ID quote mines, and he may even conflate evolution and atheism in an undistinguishing reader of one of his works. But for one who appreciates his sometimes pompous, sometimes self-effacing quirky informal writing style, it is easy to distinguish his philosophical assertions from his well-researched scientific ones. Once he starts delving into cosmology (literally light years from his chosen field) one can readily realize that this is the philosophizing Dawkins, not Dawkins the scientist.
His methodical yet entertaining narrative on different aspects of biology is very solid and convincing, however, and I think he has done a lot to further the understanding of evolution in intellectuals outside the field.

If Adam and Jim allows my two cents?
I am sure you are aware that religions can be studied as biological and social phenomena, and studied with scientific methods. I fail to understand why this should be considered inappropriate from either realm, but I suspect the strongest resistance comes from religion.

I have no poll or first hand knowledge of the scientists doing so, but my guess(sic) is that the majority of these would be atheists or agnostics.
My reason for my guess would be their opportunity to see some of the existing similarities (as seen "from the outside") between even widely dissimilar belief systems making absolute and mutually exclusive truth-claims simulatanuosley.

Cassanders
In Cod we trust

"A Maine Yankee

I don’t know what else to do, but I fear the future more and more each day.

Here’s what to do: take a stand and don’t be afraid to speak out and educate your peers about the disgusting anti-science agenda of the ID peddlers and the Disclaimery Institute when the subject of creationism in schools comes up.

And keep the chin up, my friend."

Thank you GWW. I'v spent 30 years teaching Anthropology at colleges and universities. I blog. I send letters to editors (who may or may not publish them.) Yet it seems to have made little difference. Who was it that tried to command the tides? I would like to live to see it go out again. Thanks again.

literally light years from his chosen field

— Harq al-Ada

Many years ago my Dad looked up from his newspaper and exclaimed, "That Timothy Leary is literally a bastard!" In my innocence, I asked him how he knew Leary's parents were never married. He thought I was being sarcastic.

It was a pun. Cosmology.. space.. light years. If one assumes a knowledge of cosmology involves knowledge about space, than it is knowledge about objects that are LITERALLY light years away. Well, maybe it's not quite right grammatically. I'll flagellate myself for it after lunch.

Um, then why do the vast majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution and all the rest of modern science and see no conflict at all between them.

As the B.G. Missionaria Protectiva says, "as cultures evolve, so do their gods."

I often think we get the sense that the materialistic worldview is a recent development, stemming from the influence of modern science, as is science has given us positive proof that this is the only right way to look at the world. But in fact, science has done no such thing. Each worldview is a set of fundamental presuppositions, philosophical and metaphysical assumptions about the world, which go all the way back to the origins of philosophy. They also go back into various religious traditions.... ....The poem ("Enuma Elish") is talking about the origin of the world, and it ultimately tries to vindicate Marduk as the head god of the Babylonians. The poem starts out with Tiamat and Apsu, who are the salt and fresh waters. Notice that this starts out with natural, material forces. As the salt and fresh waters mingle, there is a sort of cohabitation, and out of this comes a first generation of gods. As the gods go on, they kill each other and do various things. For generation after generation you get new gods, and as you read along, you find that these gods are becoming more and more conscious and intelligent, until you finally get to the head god, Marduk. Notice what is happening. It is not that you are starting out, as in Genesis, with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that God speaks the world into existence; that God, a conscious, intelligent, personal agent, is the source of all being, and then everything is created as a result of this intelligence. Rather, intelligence is emerging as a byproduct of natural forces working themselves out. So we see an evolutionary story in the Enuma Elish. I am not just imposing it; it is there. We also find this in other myths and religious traditions of the ancient world. Hesiod, who came just after Homer, wrote his Theogony to explain how the gods came about. It starts with an abyss, or chaos, and then earth and heaven, Gaia and Uranus, who become husband and wife. This leads to one generation of gods, and which comest to more gods who end up being the gods of Mount Olympus. So here again we see a progression from natural forces and primeval simplicity to intelligent agents. This is always the trajectory of materialsim. You have to explain the complex--the things meaningful and purposeful--as a result of primeval simplicity. Christian worldviews and other theistic worldviews generally turn that around, saying it is not primeval simplicity, but a process guided by a conscious personal God. If there is an evolutionary process, God guides it also. You do not get something from nothing. That is what the materialists are looking for. They are looking for the ultimate free lunch. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.04.ID_Orthodoxy_Heresy.htm