Creationist conference at Michigan State University

It would be so cool if Lenski showed up at that talk. I envisage a Woodie Allen/Marshall McLuhan moment.

Creation Summit is “not overtly evangelistic,” [Mike] Smith wrote. But “we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Ah, my alma mater. When I was there in the early 70s there was a natural science professor there who was famously a creationist. I think his name was John Moore. I was always a bit shocked by that and wondered how it came to be. My own Nat Sci prof was absolutely NOT a creationist.

When I was there the Gen Ed science requirement was a three-term series of courses (they were on the quarter system then), which focused on big picture ideas and "paradigm shifts" (a big buzzword at the time). One term dealt with biology/evolution, one with geography/geology and one with astronomy. I always thought this was a lot more useful for non-science majors than memorizing the parts of leaves or cells for the test, and then promptly forgetting them. I still actually remember a lot of the concepts and can discuss science reasonably intelligently, even though I am in a completely different discipline, and that year (1972-73) was my science class. Sadly, they seem to have gone back to a more conventional model these days.

There are also many other evolutionary biologists at MSU. They could all show up. The creationists would of course publicize this as showing that their views are being taken seriously.

I looked at their web site, which is here, and notice that they have advertised a debate between John Sanford and Robert Pennock. Then in the small print they mention that Pennock has not accepted their invitation, and in fact has not even replied to their invitation!

Carl Drews, you are out of date. Anti-evolution web sites are very much promoting the supposed connection between Darwin, racism, and the Nazis. It's a major theme at Uncommon Descent, and I gather that "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" had clips of marching Nazi soldiers as a major theme.

<sarcasm>

See, the reason for the Third Reich is not a thousand years of antisemitism in Europe, nor is it the wave of virulent militaristic right-wing nationalism that swept over Europe in the wake of the French Revolution.

No no, it was all the fault of Charles Darwin, scribbling away at Down House.

</sarcasm>

challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.

Joe Felsenstein said: There are also many other evolutionary biologists at MSU. They could all show up. The creationists would of course publicize this as showing that their views are being taken seriously.

including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview

Joe Felsenstein said: I looked at their web site, which is here, and notice that they have advertised a debate between John Sanford and Robert Pennock. Then in the small print the mention that Pennock has not accepted their invitation, and in fact has not even replied to their invitation!

I don't see a huge problem here, AS LONG AS...

1) They met the same standards for being allowed to use campus space for their event that anyone else who wanted to do so would be expected to meet. Respect for occupancy codes, no disruption of others, and so on.

2) No libelous accusations are made about faculty members. For example, if they dispute Lenski's conclusions and argue that divine miracles actually explain his results, that's fine. If they make public statements accusing faculty members of falsifying results, or something of that nature, the university should have security terminate the conference and take immediate legal action. If they make such statements in a secretive way, the university won't know, but then it won't really matter.

3) Likewise, any implication that, merely because this conference was held on MSU property, it is in some way endorsed by MSU, should lead to immediate legal action by the university. It is hard to believe their claim that they did not choose the venue because it is an academic center associated with evolutionary biology. However, that doesn't make it illegal for them to choose that venue. If I want to rent a room at the Museum of Modern Art to give a crackpot lecture about the "decadence" of modern art, for example, if they accept my rent and I don't misrepresent myself as an agent of the museum, so be it. But the university should be alert for any attempts at false association.

4) The article says that a Christian student of science is upset by the implication that they, too, might deny science; I urge science-supporting Christians to express their disapproval in public venues. Although I strongly agree that faculty and students would be utterly wasting their time if they went to this thing to try to defend science to the unconvinceable, a protest presence by those with a different interpretation of Christianity might be of some value. (It is worth noting that I defended the Bill Nye debate; that was a professional entertainer working in an entertainment forum, and I thought he did much more good than harm. And extra attention directed to the Ark Park does not, by the way, appear to be all good for Ken Ham. Here, on the other hand, I strongly agree that it would be absurd for working scientists or their students to "debate" with these individuals. However, a challenge to their interpretation of Christianity might be interesting.)

5) They bother to say that they aren't trying to proselytize, but anyway, it is perfectly legal for them to proselytize.

While the choice of venue, and the dissembling about it, clearly demonstrates creationist science envy and difficulty with the truth, overall, I'm inclined to agree that this is perfectly legal free speech. Unless they do one of the things I mentioned above.

"Creation Summit secured a room at the university’s business school through a student religious group, but the student group did not learn about the details of the program—or the sometimes provocative talk titles—until later, says MSU zoologist Fred Dyer."

Emphasis mine. It doesn't matter, but Fred Dyer may be a little naïve.

harold said: I don't see a huge problem here, AS LONG AS...

Agreed on all counts. If space is available for student groups to rent, then any group that wants to rent space should be allowed to do so, for any legal purpose.

I think #3 is especially important, as crackpot groups (of all kinds) have been known to do just that: rent space at a respected institution and then claim they are some sort of official event at said institution.

Check out Creation Summit.

It's one of many "networks" of creationists, loose affiliations of the same old folks.

Lookie, there's Jerry Bergman! And the high school educated good "Rev" David Rives! And homeschoolers galore. A real collection of creationist nuts all in one bag. Sometimes you feel like a nut, I guess.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, I guess.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview

Maybe it's just chance that it was called "evolutionary theory" there, but I think it's interesting that it's not "Darwinism." Because, of course, Nazis weren't really very keen on "Darwinism," banning such books in at least one well known proclamation. Nazi propaganda did sometimes veer into "Darwinian" language, yet clearly any evolution they accepted was largely mythic mystic nonsense conjured up by German Nationalists--sort of like ID crap, even if the latter is less pernicious overall. "Darwinism" certainly gave no overt comfort to anti-Semitism, while the junk "science" that Nazis typically ascribed to made Jews the enemies of "noble races," etc. etc. Indeed, if you want a takeaway message about Nazis and evolution, as with Nazis and a number of other sciences, it is that letting politics meddle with science is a recipe for governmental evils. That gives no aid or comfort to the pseudoscientific creationists of today, such as the IDists. Glen Davidson

I very strongly suspect that the "student group" in question has at least one member who knew EXACTLY what this was about, by the way.

Strange the way people who obsess over whether something is "literally true" have a tendency to be so sneaky. Maybe it isn't a coincidence.

The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event’s website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview, why “the Big Bang is fake,” and why “natural selection is NOT evolution.”

Creation Summit is “not overtly evangelistic,” Smith wrote. But “we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Puzzling why they would need a full day of eight workshops to present absolutely zilch. As far as the Hitler/Darwin link goes, John West of the dishonesty institute will never let that rest.

At the conference site: http://www.originsummit.com/ it's abundently clear they are all diehard creationists. Alas, the "fellow" at the bottom of the page is not a contributor, for it looks like he might blow away their empty nonsense. Yes, the talking chimp, a relative of ours, and theirs.

eric said:

harold said: I don't see a huge problem here, AS LONG AS...

Read the link. While it's short on details, it appears that the Christian organization didn't actually tell, or perhaps mislead, the student organization who booked the space on the subject of the conference. IMO that might take it out of the "free speech" category and put it into "misuse of campus resources by an outside group" category. If a student group wants to sponsor a creationist meeting, that's one thing. But if the student group wanted to sponsor some other sort of meeting, and creationists lied to them about what the meeting was for, that is another thing altogether. The students would be in the rights in protesting it and the administration would be in the rights in not letting it happen. But, the article is pretty skimpy on details, so maybe the student group was fine with what happened.

Is there a single one of these guys who doesn't claim to be both an atheist and an acceptor of evidence for evolution in a former life? It is like they have a conversion to not just religion, but to evidence is unneeded, unimportant, etc. I wonder if this works in apologetic circles to keep the faithful faithful?

We may have been banned from the classroom, but banned does not mean silenced. By book- ing the speakers, and renting the facilities, we still have an impact.

Doc Bill said: I stand by my statement elsewhere that all creationists are dishonest. All creationists are dishonest. ...

harold said: If the students were genuinely misled, and wish for the event to be cancelled as a remedy, then indeed I would support cancelling it. If not, the best remedy to BS speech is better speech.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Is there a single one of these guys who doesn't claim to be both an atheist and an acceptor of evidence for evolution in a former life?

Combating the lunacy of ID/creationism has to be done from a clear-headed understanding that ID/creationism is and always has been a sectarian socio/political movement dead set on taking over everything from education, to government, to foreign affairs. The aims of this movement have been folded into the agendas of the paranoid Far Right in this country.

The socio/political history of ID/creationism needs to be kept clearly in focus; and anyone who is taunted into debating ID/creationists needs to be brought up to speed on ID/creationist history and tactics. Without that background firmly in mind, anyone who mud wrestles endlessly with ID/creationists can become as mentally ill as they are; as is demonstrated by the website Uncommon Descent (descent into drooling insanity).

Engaging them directly on a public stage gives the leaders of this movement the legitimacy they crave. Yet their lies have to be continuously called out by way of superior public relations and educational instruction that makes it clear that ID/creationists routinely distort and lie about everything they touch, from science, to history, to religion, to philosophy, to all of social studies.

The political crap that continues to go on in Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Kansas should be a constant reminder to everyone - including moderate Christians and other religious folks - that these IDiots are determined to bring on the zombie apocalypse by capitalizing on political corruption and cronyism in government.

If MSU decides to ignore the Creation Summit visit, fine, but if they wish to challenge them in a major way, our experience a few years ago at the University of Oklahoma might help. PZ Myers covered it well here, entitled ‘How to Organize Against a Creationist Lecture.’ The DI is still complaining about the reception Dembski received, and later about their other appearances at OU.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/19/how-to-organize-against-a-crea

eric said: In some cases I think the claim is more ritualistic than factual.

"My scientific belief in creation is largely based on two thermodynamic laws of nature. The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life. The second basic law ... describes unavoidable losses in any process which involves the transfer of energy. This law is directly related to the Curse which was placed upon nature at the fall of mankind in Eden. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature, and these laws are entirely consistent with the biblical, six-day creation."

"Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature, and these laws are entirely consistent with the biblical, six-day creation."

I thought the whole point of naturalistic science was to explain things using the laws of nature. I hadn't noticed us using anything else.

Entropy may not be "the thing that makes the world go round", it is the cost of making the world go round. It is like paying your dues, to do something that you do not enjoy in order to have something that you want.

Entropy is measurable, even your thinking incur the cost of entropy. Thinking about evolution or thinking about creation - entropy is impartial.

The Big Bang was the start of a veritable experiment in entropy.

There are lots of mysteries in the universe waiting to be solved, if they can be solved. When - and how, will it end?

Is there a perpetual motion engine, a freee luch generator somewhere in the equations?

One of the theories advanced to account for the behavior of the universe was the Big Crunch theory. That was at a time when we expected that the expanding universe would have to slow down, come to a halt and start contracting due to the force of gravity, back again to where it started, disappearing into the nothing that it came from.

Dues paid, order restored, perfect balance at the bottom line.

Would that be the end, or would a new cycle start again?

That all changed when it was discovered that instead of slowing down, the universe was speeding up. I presume cosmology at present is in a stage of reorientation with the effort of creating a new and consistent theory of cosmology incorporating the new discoveries.

In the meantime, we can ponder the mysteries of the universe that we think we know. Not even the vacuum of space is empty, it is seething with activity.

There is so much more to be learned but at 84 I realize there isn't time and energy enough...

Ignorance is what fuels creationism. The source of that ignorance is a sad story and the current state of affairs on our beautiful miracle of a planet is a testimony to that.

Mike Elzinga said: Therefore, the answer to this ID/creationist assertion is that life violates the ID/creationist's version of "the second law of thermodynamics" because the ID/creationist "second law of thermodynamics" has been concocted so that life violates it.

The picture with the Science article linked to above has the old saying: "Evolution the fossils say no." At this point in time projection is a way of life for the creationists and they know that they are the fossils that they are talking about. Sad, but funny in context.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview

Maybe it's just chance that it was called "evolutionary theory" there, but I think it's interesting that it's not "Darwinism." Because, of course, Nazis weren't really very keen on "Darwinism," banning such books in at least one well known proclamation. Nazi propaganda did sometimes veer into "Darwinian" language, yet clearly any evolution they accepted was largely mythic mystic nonsense conjured up by German Nationalists--sort of like ID crap, even if the latter is less pernicious overall. "Darwinism" certainly gave no overt comfort to anti-Semitism, while the junk "science" that Nazis typically ascribed to made Jews the enemies of "noble races," etc. etc. Indeed, if you want a takeaway message about Nazis and evolution, as with Nazis and a number of other sciences, it is that letting politics meddle with science is a recipe for governmental evils. That gives no aid or comfort to the pseudoscientific creationists of today, such as the IDists. Glen Davidson

"My scientific belief in creation is largely based on two thermodynamic laws of nature. The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life. The second basic law ... describes unavoidable losses in any process which involves the transfer of energy. This law is directly related to the Curse which was placed upon nature at the fall of mankind in Eden. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature, and these laws are entirely consistent with the biblical, six-day creation."

Carl Drews said: That conference description sounds retro. I thought most creationists had given up trying to associate evolutionary theory with Adolf Hitler. From Science Insider:

Creation Summit is “not overtly evangelistic,” [Mike] Smith wrote. But “we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

Mike Smith might want to review what Intelligent Design is about. I don't recall Dembski and Behe saying that the Big Bang is a fake. And I'm pretty sure there is Internet service in Oklahoma.

Frank J said:

Carl Drews said: Mike Smith might want to review what Intelligent Design is about. I don't recall Dembski and Behe saying that the Big Bang is a fake.

Thank you! As wrong as Dembski and Behe are about evolution, this would be a golden opportunity to ask the Biblical literalists at that conference to comment on Dembski and Behe's clear consistent admission of 4 billion years of life, Behe's acceptance (and Dembski's "mere uncertainty") regarding common descent, etc.

eric said:

Frank J said:

Carl Drews said: Mike Smith might want to review what Intelligent Design is about. I don't recall Dembski and Behe saying that the Big Bang is a fake.

Thank you! As wrong as Dembski and Behe are about evolution, this would be a golden opportunity to ask the Biblical literalists at that conference to comment on Dembski and Behe's clear consistent admission of 4 billion years of life, Behe's acceptance (and Dembski's "mere uncertainty") regarding common descent, etc.

Dembksi has this wierd idea of the Fall (circa 4000 BC) propagating effects backwards through time, changing the history of the universe and making life appear evolved when it didn't. So I'd classify him as "OEC with strong omphalos tendencies," and it may indicate that he thinks the Big Bang is a fake (as in, not the way God actually created but just the way it looks post-Fall). Dembski has had problems with his employer before about being too mainstream. He had to retract a statement about the flood being local in order to keep his job. His 'backwards propagating Fall' idea seems to me to be an attempt to assuage his YEC employers, to come up with an observed-old-earth-consistent explanation for how YECism could be true.

@eric:

Dembski, probably more than any other anti-evolution activist, says whatever he thinks the ausience at hand will buy, and is probably more aware than any other anti-evolution activist of how much committed Biblical literalits will tolerate and/or tune out. If his seminary employers are YEC (do you know for sure?) they probably tolerate OEC and at least "uncertainty" of common descent.

Before the 2010 "Flood" episode, Dembski even allowed the possibility that the "design" was inserted at the Big Bang, which is even more "hands off" than Behe's designed ancestral cell. The difference is that Dembski has never personally committed to any origins account. He could be a closet Last Thursdayist, for all we know. But my personal suspicion is that he personally accepts 100% of evolution, though will never admit it.

Frank J said: He could be a closet Last Thursdayist, for all we know. But my personal suspicion is that he personally accepts 100% of evolution, though will never admit it.

eric said:

Frank J said:

Carl Drews said: Mike Smith might want to review what Intelligent Design is about. I don't recall Dembski and Behe saying that the Big Bang is a fake.

Thank you! As wrong as Dembski and Behe are about evolution, this would be a golden opportunity to ask the Biblical literalists at that conference to comment on Dembski and Behe's clear consistent admission of 4 billion years of life, Behe's acceptance (and Dembski's "mere uncertainty") regarding common descent, etc.

Dembksi has this wierd idea of the Fall (circa 4000 BC) propagating effects backwards through time, changing the history of the universe and making life appear evolved when it didn't. So I'd classify him as "OEC with strong omphalos tendencies," and it may indicate that he thinks the Big Bang is a fake (as in, not the way God actually created but just the way it looks post-Fall). Dembski has had problems with his employer before about being too mainstream. He had to retract a statement about the flood being local in order to keep his job. His 'backwards propagating Fall' idea seems to me to be an attempt to assuage his YEC employers, to come up with an observed-old-earth-consistent explanation for how YECism could be true.

Ron Okimoto said: The picture with the Science article linked to above has the old saying: "Evolution the fossils say no." At this point in time projection is a way of life for the creationists and they know that they are the fossils that they are talking about. Sad, but funny in context.

Frank J said: If his seminary employers are YEC (do you know for sure?) they probably tolerate OEC and at least "uncertainty" of common descent.

my personal suspicion is that he personally accepts 100% of evolution, though will never admit it.

I believe you're out of date. Dembski is no longer affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is located in Iowa, and the only current institutional affiliation of his that I have heard of is as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Joe Felsenstein said: I believe you're out of date. Dembski is no longer affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is located in Iowa, and the only current institutional affiliation of his that I have heard of is as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

ksplawn said: In literal news of preaching to the choir, Pope Francis has unsurprisingly re-affirmed that evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand' (Tuesday 28 October 2014)

Joe Felsenstein said: I believe you're out of date. Dembski is no longer affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is located in Iowa, and the only current institutional affiliation of his that I have heard of is as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Carl Drews said:

ksplawn said: In literal news of preaching to the choir, Pope Francis has unsurprisingly re-affirmed that evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Here is more coverage at The Independent (United Kingdom):

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand' (Tuesday 28 October 2014)

What do you suppose Michael Behe (a Catholic) thinks when he reads articles like this? Do you suppose he says, "Look at that! The Pope, who is my spiritual leader, has declared that evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith. I had better give up all these anti-evolution activities of mine and accept the Holy Father's word."

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I believe you're out of date. Dembski is no longer affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is located in Iowa, and the only current institutional affiliation of his that I have heard of is as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

I wonder what that pays these days and how good are the health and retirement benefits?

What do you suppose Michael Behe (a Catholic) thinks when he reads articles like this? Do you suppose he says, “Look at that! The Pope, who is my spiritual leader, has declared that evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith. I had better give up all these anti-evolution activities of mine and accept the Holy Father’s word.”

— Carl Drews

Joe Felsenstein said: I believe you're out of date. Dembski is no longer affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is located in Iowa, and the only current institutional affiliation of his that I have heard of is as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Frank J said: [Dembski wi]ll either claim that the Pope was misquoted, and really accepts ID (*) and not evolution "as science defines it"...

The pope seems to accept common descent, but a God-driven planned descent, not the bloody, messy, undirected kind evolution proposes.

scienceavenger said:

Frank J said: [Dembski wi]ll either claim that the Pope was misquoted, and really accepts ID (*) and not evolution "as science defines it"...

From my reading of the Pope, Dembski is [holds nose] right on this one, assuming an expansive definition of ID. The pope seems to accept common descent, but a God-driven planned descent, not the bloody, messy, undirected kind evolution proposes.

TomS said: I wonder if the Pope has in mind something like Teihard de Chardin's ideas. I have never had the energy to figure out was he was saying, but I'd got the impression that it is well-liked by many Catholic theologians.

On a completely different tack, I think that natural languages present another results of bloody, messy, undirected processes.

scienceavenger said:

Frank J said: [Dembski wi]ll either claim that the Pope was misquoted, and really accepts ID (*) and not evolution "as science defines it"...

From my reading of the Pope, Dembski is [holds nose] right on this one, assuming an expansive definition of ID. The pope seems to accept common descent, but a God-driven planned descent, not the bloody, messy, undirected kind evolution proposes.

I gave up trying to pin down what is meant by ID, since it seems to oscillate based on the situation, and is ultimately vacuous. It's a political strategy, we all know that. But what I was really after with my comment was the "not evolution" part. The Pope (and others), may say they support evolution, but when you dig into the details of what they have in mind, they've still got a directed process in mind, not the mutation, selection, undirected process we mean when we say "evolution".

And yes, I'd bet heavily that if you pinned the pope down and made him answer the many questions you posed, he would indeed agree that many elements of nature and humanity could not have evolved. He's far too politically savvy to get pinned down in that manner however. One does not rise to such an office in a political organization (and the RCC is certainly that) to be so easily trapped. But he's closer to Dembski's view of the world than Darwin's.

scienceavenger said: And yes, I'd bet heavily that if you pinned the pope down and made him answer the many questions you posed, he would indeed agree that many elements of nature and humanity could not have evolved.

scienceavenger said: But what I was really after with my comment was the "not evolution" part. The Pope (and others), may say they support evolution, but when you dig into the details of what they have in mind, they've still got a directed process in mind, not the mutation, selection, undirected process we mean when we say "evolution".

Is undirectedness something that can be tested for?

Since I am also not religious, I won't presume to speak for religious folks or the Pope; there are just too many differing concepts about the relationship of a deity - or deities - to how life evolved.

I can't keep track of all the nuances; and I am not certain that the folks who try to adjust their religion to science have worked those details out in their own minds. I suspect that, for most religious people, it is a fairly informal process that gets fitted, if at all, in and around the basic necessities of just getting on with life and work.

But one thing seems very clear to me, as harold has already mentioned; ID/creationism can definitely be written off as a pseudoscience concocted to fit fundamentalist sectarian dogma. It is worthless socio/political crap designed to get around the laws, the courts, and the Constitution. I can't even imagine the Pope endorsing any of it.

So if we clear away the ID/creationist socio/political crap for what it is, then it might be interesting to try to figure out what the Pope is suggesting. It wouldn't surprise me if he is trying to encourage Catholics to not be afraid to work these things out for themselves, to study and learn, and not feel ashamed if they aren't able answer these questions within their lifetimes. I suspect that this topic is not going to be at the top of the Pope's agenda given all the other issues of population, birth control, climate change, war, disease, poverty, and hunger that looms over the planet.

Evolution is basically an unimportant side issue for most people who don't have the time, knowledge, or motivation to try to figure out all the theological and philosophical issues involved. It's basically egghead stuff; and they need to deal with more pressing mundane issues for which they could use some guidance.

Religious folks look to their religions for the traditions and templates for living. I personally don't expect everyone to be a science nerd or to have the interest or motivation to think about the implications of science for religion.

It seems to me that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to be interested in - let alone be concerned about - the relationship of science to religion. There is a long, complex history there that only a few fortunate scholars, unencumbered by daily problems outside their control, are able to think about. In fact, I would venture a guess that the Pope is speaking mostly to people who don't have the luxury of spending many hours a day on the Internet haggling over religion and science.

The ID/creationist schmucks do it because they want to control the reins of power; and some of us have done it because we recognize that they haven't earned and do not deserve those reins.

I gave up trying to pin down what is meant by ID, since it seems to oscillate based on the situation, and is ultimately vacuous.

It’s a political strategy, we all know that. But what I was really after with my comment was the “not evolution” part. The Pope (and others), may say they support evolution, but when you dig into the details of what they have in mind, they’ve still got a directed process in mind, not the mutation, selection, undirected process we mean when we say “evolution”.

And yes, I’d bet heavily that if you pinned the pope down and made him answer the many questions you posed, he would indeed agree that many elements of nature and humanity could not have evolved.

He’s far too politically savvy to get pinned down in that manner however. One does not rise to such an office in a political organization (and the RCC is certainly that) to be so easily trapped. But he’s closer to Dembski’s view of the world than Darwin’s.

ID can be summarized in some pretty short, pithy statements that have actually been the central "arguments" of its leaders.

"If you put a mouse in a thermos bottle, seal it up and put in on a shelf for a million years, then, when you open it up, a cat won't come out." (Paraphrase of a Duane Gish thermodynamics argument)

"If a string of characters of length L, picked randomly from an infinite collection of N types of characters contains Information = log₂(N ^L) greater than 500, then life was designed." (William Dembski)

"If you open the door to a room full of atoms and molecules and other junk, a computer won't spontaneously assemble; therefore life was designed." (The thermodynamic argument of Granville Sewell; close enough to not be a paraphrase)

"Tornadoes blowing through junkyards don't assemble 747s; therefore life was designed." (Fred Hoyle; favorite authority figure of the ID/creationists)

It's neo-paleyism meets elan vital, as written by Gary Zukav. ;-p

fnxtr said: It's neo-paleyism meets elan vital, as written by Gary Zukav. ;-p

riandouglas said:

scienceavenger said: And yes, I'd bet heavily that if you pinned the pope down and made him answer the many questions you posed, he would indeed agree that many elements of nature and humanity could not have evolved.

isn't it his/the RCC's position that God introduced souls into a couple of proto-human's who were otherwise modern homo sapiens sapiens?

mattdance18 said: Additionally, Thomism holds that the very existence of nature itself ("nature" qua whole universe from its largest to its smallest parts) is not something that can be explained by nature.

I have the impression that Teilhard de Chardin has a lot of influence in Catholic theology. That his ideas were even influential in the 2nd Vatican Council. Myself, I had never had the energy (or motivation) to figure out what Teilhard was saying, but it struck me that he had some kind of divine direction to evolution. I wondered whether some of what the Pope said was following a Teilhardian bent.

Unfortunately, these philosophical and metaphysical disputes are often treated by Catholics, including some recent popes, as if they were inherent to the scientific issues themselves. Instead of letting metaphysics be metaphysics and science be science, there is a frequent tendency to speak as if evolution implied a particular metaphysical view. This makes criticisms of the metaphysics, with which they disagree, sound like criticisms of evolutionary science, with which they don’t. This is unfortunate, but then, it’s a pretty common conflation. There have certainly been prominent evolutionary biologists who are atheists (e.g. Dawkins or Myers) who also make it.

What I don't understand, is why is denial of science all of a sudden a "conservative" thing? ("Sudden" as in the last several decades.) When (or how, or why) did "stupidity" and "lying" become "conservative", "Christian" values? It wasn't what *I* was taught in the church.

I'm mean, sure there were always "political" lies: "When I'm elected, I promise two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot." But politicians didn't used to simply tell bald faced lies about testable reality. When did, "We have always been at war with Eastasia" become a politically correct "conservative" value?

Sure, Fox "News" and the internet. But this phenomenon started before the rise of either. My wife has observed that a major part of the problem is that the Left and the Right are, today, operating from a different set of "facts". When there existed just 3 network news outlets, everyone was pretty much starting from the same "reality". Today? Not so much. Today in "conservative land", the deficit is skyrocketing out of control, Obama is a power-mad socialist communist fascist Muslim Atheist dictator from Kenya, and evolution and the majority of science are all "lies straight from the pit of hell."

phhht said:

mattdance18 said: Additionally, Thomism holds that the very existence of nature itself ("nature" qua whole universe from its largest to its smallest parts) is not something that can be explained by nature.

Once again, we see religion's favorite fallacy, god-of-the-gaps. After all, there must be some explanation, because we just don't know is tacitly rejected. So if nature cannot be explained by nature, well, then, gods must have done it.

Scott F said: What I don't understand, is why is denial of science all of a sudden a "conservative" thing? ("Sudden" as in the last several decades.) When (or how, or why) did "stupidity" and "lying" become "conservative", "Christian" values? It wasn't what *I* was taught in the church.

mattdance18 said: As an atheist, I have some sympathy with your overall point (and I'll get to that in a moment). But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Thomists are guilty of "god of the gaps" thinking, even in this limited sense.

I definitely don't see why such a principle should be anthropomorphized, as if it had intentions and will, some grand cosmic mind. This very anthropomorphization seems contrary to the supposed transcendence of God, and transcendence itself seems like a convenient way to immunize claims about God from evidence deficiencies. And most importantly, I definitely can't square the idea that God is purely and perfectly good, that his intentions and will are exclusively benevolent and just, with the reality of suffering and evil in the world.

What I don’t understand, is why is denial of science all of a sudden a “conservative” thing?

Oh dear -- I forgot anti-vaxers, who are supposedly mostly liberal.

Matt Young said: Oh dear -- I forgot anti-vaxers, who are supposedly mostly liberal.

riandouglas said: From my admittedly parochial view, anti-science occurs on both "sides", but is far more mainstream on the right vs the left.

riandouglas said: From my admittedly parochial view, anti-science occurs on both "sides", but is far more mainstream on the right vs the left.

riandouglas said:

mattdance18 said: ... I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Thomists are guilty of "god of the gaps" thinking, even in this limited sense.

I have read some Thomist thought. Where I think they do insert their God into nature is when it comes to the mind. In my reading of modern Thomists, the mind is still the purview of the spiritual.

I definitely don't see why such a principle should be anthropomorphized, as if it had intentions and will, some grand cosmic mind. This very anthropomorphization seems contrary to the supposed transcendence of God, and transcendence itself seems like a convenient way to immunize claims about God from evidence deficiencies. And most importantly, I definitely can't square the idea that God is purely and perfectly good, that his intentions and will are exclusively benevolent and just, with the reality of suffering and evil in the world.

This strikes me as odd about Thomism as well. I've heard it said that their God is not a person, and is not moral (ie. like a principle), but then we have all of this talk of God's wants and desires and thoughts. These are supposed to be taken analogously, as our language and ourselves are not up to the task of describing these things univocally.

mattdance18 said:

Scott F said: What I don't understand, is why is denial of science all of a sudden a "conservative" thing? ("Sudden" as in the last several decades.) When (or how, or why) did "stupidity" and "lying" become "conservative", "Christian" values? It wasn't what *I* was taught in the church.

I think it's the end result of the "Southern Strategy," initiated by Nixon and perfected by Reagan. They made a play for the most irrational elements of the Democratic party in order to win the South, and the Dixiecrats are now staunchly Republican. But we reap what we sow. Ideology trumps reality on science now as then. They've always been opposed to evolution. They once also had science denialism about race; now they've added climate sciences into the mix. In other words, the irrationalism has always been there. It's just that the conservatives -- with whom I would have once upon a time had at least some sympathy -- actively sought support from the irrationalists, and they got it. It's their own damn fault.

mattdance18 said:

riandouglas said: From my admittedly parochial view, anti-science occurs on both "sides", but is far more mainstream on the right vs the left.

I'd agree with that. Anti-vaxxers and evo-psych opponents tend to be leftist, but they seem tiny in terms of both numbers and influence compared to antievolutionists and climate change opponents on the right. Plus, right-wing economic ideas lean more heavily on Ayn Rand these days than on empirically based, mathematically modeled economics. Remember when Congressman Yoho of Florida said that the U.S. not increasing the debt limit would stabilize world markets? He wasn't alone in his breathtaking ignorance, either. Craaaaa-zyyyyyy....

mattdance18 said:

riandouglas said: From my admittedly parochial view, anti-science occurs on both "sides", but is far more mainstream on the right vs the left.

I'd agree with that. Anti-vaxxers and evo-psych opponents tend to be leftist, but they seem tiny in terms of both numbers and influence compared to antievolutionists and climate change opponents on the right. Plus, right-wing economic ideas lean more heavily on Ayn Rand these days than on empirically based, mathematically modeled economics. Remember when Congressman Yoho of Florida said that the U.S. not increasing the debt limit would stabilize world markets? He wasn't alone in his breathtaking ignorance, either. Craaaaa-zyyyyyy....

I think everyone is completely correct, but the anti-vaxers, for example, are extremely dangerous, and I do not want the left to get too smug about its commitment to science.

Regarding public policy, your right to send an unvaccinated child to public school is public policy, at least under certain conditions.

Matt Young said: Oh dear -- I forgot anti-vaxers, who are supposedly mostly liberal.

Matt Young said:

What I don’t understand, is why is denial of science all of a sudden a “conservative” thing?

Is it a "conservative thing"? We on the left have our anti-science wing too. Off the top of the head, see this hatchet job on evolutionary psychology, written by 2 nonscientists, for example. If I remember right, The Nation was not exactly enamoured with Gross and Levitt either. And then there are genetically modified foods, which are to the left as climate change is to the right. The left is just smarter and not as obvious about its anti-science side.

On another topic, the conference was scheduled for Nov 1, this past weekend. Anyone know what happened? Any campus write ups and such. Just curious.

You saw the word “conservative” and felt that you had to ride to the rescue of poor, persecuted conservatives.

Steve Schaffner said: Is undirectedness something that can be tested for?

harold said: Essentially what happened to cause popes to make comments on evolution is that the US Protestant fundamentalist right wing sufficiently politicized it to force a comment from the pope. The pope didn't want conservative Catholics thinking that evolution denial was something they should embrace, just because it's labeled "conservative".

Matt Young said:

You saw the word “conservative” and felt that you had to ride to the rescue of poor, persecuted conservatives.

God forbid! By "we on the left," I meant me and my fellow leftists, whoever they may be. Incidentally, please avoid misquoting: I said "supposedly mostly liberal," not exclusively liberal. That does not mean that reactionaries like Ms. Bachmann cannot be anti-vaxers too. Anyway, this is getting way off task.

mattdance18 said: On the other hand, however they are conceiving the relation of soul or mind to body, I would still say that they are not invoking a god of the gaps -- or at least they're trying not to do so. Every Thomistic exposition I've ever seen at least attempts to make their view of the relationship consistent with what empirical science tells us about how the brain and the rest of nature work. I don't think they succeed, but they're trying. And they are explicitly not trying to introduce breaks into nature.

"The first human to have rational thought (a la the Eureka moment in the film 2001) would not have been an ape that got lucky via a bold of lightning, but an animal that, from the beginning of its existence, was empowered (due to a mutation in the gametes of its parents) to think and act rationally."

"The soul of a person, on the other hand, is wholly immaterial, the argument for this being that a person has at least some mental operations that are not wholly explicable in material terms – and we can deduce what a thing's nature is from the way it necessarily acts or behaves."

"In other words, intellectual activity, i.e. the forming of ideas or concepts, the making of judgments, and logical reasoning (as all grounded in fundamental intellectual powers), is an essentially immaterial process, i.e. intrinsically independent of matter, however much it may be extrinsically dependent on matter for its normal operations in the human being."

"It may be that conservation laws simply do not apply when mental activity is involved; or it may be that conservation does apply, but that the soul never creates new energy, and instead merely regulates the distribution of conserved energy already present."

And I've always wondered: If we can't understand the sense in which God is "benevolent" or "just," then how can we even claim that the doctrine of analogy works at all? How can we know that our "benevolence" or "justice," etc. truly resemble God's? The whole doctrine makes no sense, I think.

eric said:

harold said: Essentially what happened to cause popes to make comments on evolution is that the US Protestant fundamentalist right wing sufficiently politicized it to force a comment from the pope. The pope didn't want conservative Catholics thinking that evolution denial was something they should embrace, just because it's labeled "conservative".

Huh? Pius' encyclical was put out in 1950. I can't see that as a response to the politicized US fundie right, since it predates the politicized US fundie right. As for this Pope's choice to discuss it, well first it wasn't something he chose to bring up, he was answering a question. So I wouldn't read any deeper political decision into it than that - him answering a question does not denote some evolution agenda, either pro or con. Secondly, I think the way he chose to answer had much more to do with walking back from Benedict's position rather than the US fundie right. Let's not get "you probably think this song is about you" vain here: the Pope probably doesn't think about the US protestant fundy right hardly at all. Their opposition to evolution is probably not even on his radar.

riandouglas said:

mattdance18 said: On the other hand, however they are conceiving the relation of soul or mind to body, I would still say that they are not invoking a god of the gaps -- or at least they're trying not to do so. Every Thomistic exposition I've ever seen at least attempts to make their view of the relationship consistent with what empirical science tells us about how the brain and the rest of nature work. I don't think they succeed, but they're trying. And they are explicitly not trying to introduce breaks into nature.

I was thinking that when it comes to rationality, and the mind, Thomists are indeed proposing a gap. However, David Oderberg in "Real Essentialism" states:

"The first human to have rational thought (a la the Eureka moment in the film 2001) would not have been an ape that got lucky via a bold of lightning, but an animal that, from the beginning of its existence, was empowered (due to a mutation in the gametes of its parents) to think and act rationally."

But also says:

"The soul of a person, on the other hand, is wholly immaterial, the argument for this being that a person has at least some mental operations that are not wholly explicable in material terms – and we can deduce what a thing's nature is from the way it necessarily acts or behaves."

and

"In other words, intellectual activity, i.e. the forming of ideas or concepts, the making of judgments, and logical reasoning (as all grounded in fundamental intellectual powers), is an essentially immaterial process, i.e. intrinsically independent of matter, however much it may be extrinsically dependent on matter for its normal operations in the human being."

and

"It may be that conservation laws simply do not apply when mental activity is involved; or it may be that conservation does apply, but that the soul never creates new energy, and instead merely regulates the distribution of conserved energy already present."

I'm not sure how the latter 3 statements can be made to fit with the former, or how the latter statements don't introduce a gap in nature which could conceivably lead to a disproof of Thomism (at least as applied to human rationality).

And I've always wondered: If we can't understand the sense in which God is "benevolent" or "just," then how can we even claim that the doctrine of analogy works at all? How can we know that our "benevolence" or "justice," etc. truly resemble God's? The whole doctrine makes no sense, I think.

It's the same but different (or something). I don't think they're even using the word "analogous" as we would normally use it, since the godly attributes are unlike ours - are wholly other (and especially as God's "love, justice, benevolence" lead to violence, death, war, torment and so on). I don't get it, and it's nice to know that someone else doesn't either :-)

Just a matter of nit-picking. I don't think that you had in mind a papal bull, which is a more formal statement. Something like an Executive Order which is issued by a president.

riandouglas said: I'm not sure how the latter 3 statements can be made to fit with the former, or how the latter statements don't introduce a gap in nature which could conceivably lead to a disproof of Thomism (at least as applied to human rationality).

I don't think they're even using the word "analogous" as we would normally use it, since the godly attributes are unlike ours - are wholly other (and especially as God's "love, justice, benevolence" lead to violence, death, war, torment and so on). I don't get it, and it's nice to know that someone else doesn't either :-)

TomS said: Just a matter of nit-picking. I don't think that you had in mind a papal bull, which is a more formal statement. Something like an Executive Order which is issued by a president.

harold said:

TomS said: Just a matter of nit-picking. I don't think that you had in mind a papal bull, which is a more formal statement. Something like an Executive Order which is issued by a president.

I stand corrected, it was a mere papal statement in 1996. I don't see it on this handy list of Papal Bulls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papal_bulls

mattdance18 said: As Harold put it, mind/soul could be an immaterial phenomenon that emerges from material phenomena and is then no longer reducible back to it; and whose impact in the material world is expressed through those material phenomena without requiring them to do anything "unnatural," anything inconsistent with their observable and predictable material workings.

it means explaining how exactly the mental and the material interact. This is what I take to be the insuperable difficulty for every dualistic theory, from Descartes onwards.

WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

mattdance18 said: As Harold put it, mind/soul could be an immaterial phenomenon that emerges from material phenomena and is then no longer reducible back to it; and whose impact in the material world is expressed through those material phenomena without requiring them to do anything "unnatural," anything inconsistent with their observable and predictable material workings.

gnome de net said: WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

gnome de net said: WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

Getting tangled up with ID/creationism is like stepping in a dog pile; it gets disgusting instantly, it's hard enough trying to scrape it off, and getting the stink out takes forever.

riandouglas said:

mattdance18 said: As Harold put it, mind/soul could be an immaterial phenomenon that emerges from material phenomena and is then no longer reducible back to it; and whose impact in the material world is expressed through those material phenomena without requiring them to do anything "unnatural," anything inconsistent with their observable and predictable material workings.

I think this view would run close to making the Thomist soul an epiphenomenon, something which I imagine would be unpalatable.

gnome de net said: WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

mattdance18 said:

gnome de net said: WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

Hilarious. 50,000 students, and their conference draws fewer than a hundred people, with only a third of them younger than middle age, and with several of those pro-evolution students sitting in out of curiosity. Best part is that one of the pro-evolution student-observers won their iPad raffle! Absolutely hilarious.

mattdance18 said:

gnome de net said: WRT the "Creationist conference at Michigan State University" (remember the conference?), there is this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/michigan_state_origin_summit_the_university_s_perfect_response_to_the_creationist.html

Hilarious. 50,000 students, and their conference draws fewer than a hundred people, with only a third of them younger than middle age, and with several of those pro-evolution students sitting in out of curiosity. Best part is that one of the pro-evolution student-observers won their iPad raffle! Absolutely hilarious.