Greetings from Lawrence, Kansas

| 74 Comments

Hi, folks, the last few days I’ve been in Lawrence, Kansas visiting Jack Krebs, the vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science and member of the crew here at the Panda’s Thumb. Of course, there is a big event coming up in a few weeks (starting May 5), affectionately known around here as the kangaroo court hearings. 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.

But as a warm-up, I attended an afternoon conference Thursday entitled “A Public Meeting on Evolution and Kansas Bioscience,” at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Lawrence. See this news story from Friday’s news paper.

Jack gave a speech on the theological nature of ID and more generally on why people in Kansas should be concerned about the current situation. (I’m sure he’ll report on this when he has time.) Of course I volunteered to help in any way I could. Here’s a picture of me offering some suggestions for one of Jack’s slides.

After packing up, we headed over to the church. Plymouth Congregational Church is the oldest church in Kansas. I made Jack take my picture outside the church.

They held the conference in the sanctuary. It was a beautiful room but unfortunately my pictures of the room didn’t come out too well. However, I did help Jack check out the sound system, and you can see some of the beautiful woodwork in the background in these pictures.

I met one of Jack’s friends, another KCFS Board member named Rachel Robson. Rachel is a doctoral candidate in microbiology at the University of Kansas Med Center. She bills herself as “a bacterial girl living in a bacterial world.” She’s quite articulate and a Christian interested in the relationship between science and religion. Here’s a shot of Rachel and me engaged in a very interesting theological discussion, an appropriate topic for this church setting.

Before the conference the organizers served lunch to the speakers. After hearing that such a prestigious person was in town, they made Jack invite me to lunch. It looked like the people enjoyed their food, but I didn’t have such luck. I checked out the salad, alas no bamboo shoots. Fortunately I always bring my own; all was well at the end.

So all in all it was an enjoyable and ambitious day. Educators, scientists, bioscience representatives, politicians, clergy and other interested parties mingled and spoke, giving the audience a good feel for how complex and how important it is to keep good science standards in Kansas.

So long, ’til next time. –Prof. Steve Steve

74 Comments

Professor Steve Steve, From the newspaper article you linked.

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.”

What are your esteemed opinions on:

1. How exactly is science supposed to determine the ‘nature of god’? 2. How exactly are teachers supposed to teach an ‘understanding’ of the ‘nature of god’? 3. What place does an ‘understanding of god’ have in a science class? 4. Why does a trained physicist know so little about the nature of science as to hold such infantile opinions on it. 5. Are these ill omens indeed for the future of science in our schools, universities, industrial laboratories, and country?

I address you since this is your topic, but I know a Professor of your eminence can little spare the time from your researches for such a troglodyte as myself, and would understand if others answered in your stead.

Sincerely seeking bamboo shoots,

Paul

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?

I hope Jack Krebs can answer these questions. My very limited understanding is that the kangaroo court hearings are basically a PR stunt. The elected school board has the power to determine the curriculus. It’s their job, it’s what they were elected to do. Their problem is that there are procedures normally followed, as matters of both tradition and due diligence. One of these procedures is that science curricula should be vetted by actual scientists, to make sure real blunders are weeded out and that the material is kept current, etc. And the problem is, the scientists rejected the introduction of religiion into science classes.

So the hearings are layered onto the process in order to prepare a strong defensive position against the controversy sure to ensue when the creationists stick religion into the science classes. They cay say “Hey, we held a hearing and invited both sides, we were fair and equitable, we allowed all viewpoints to be aired, we based our decision on the arguments presented. We followed a democratic process.” The publicity is what matters, not the science. The old saying is that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. It does NOT say she can’t screw around; it says she can’t be suspected.

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.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 36, column 14, byte 1459 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

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.

Kathy Martin.

Oy.

As Ms. Martin drives her Ford Valdez blindfolded along that winding country road, she has no idea what is waiting for her around the corner.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr[…]0499,00.html

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.

God Bless Margo Lucero – a woman with the brains and guts to take a stand against the hypocritical hordes.

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

Her quote reminds me of the David Sedaris title, “Me talk pretty one day.”

A few notes:

1. Liked the photos–can’t help but smile. Nice touch.

2.

“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. He can get away with that stuff while “preaching to the choir” at a church like Plymouth, but if he ever shows up at the church I attend with such a claim, he will be respectfully provided with some very helpful information from the following well-known evolutionists, immediately after morning services:

“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.

Let’s stop there for a moment. Just from reading this relatively short trio of evolutionary explanations, you can very clearly see that there exists an extremely deep and very intractable, clash between evolution (above the micro level) and the Christian faith. Rev. Luckey is wrong.

Notice, for example, that even if you attempt to label the first three chapters of Genesis as pure allegory or parable (or whatever label you want to arbitrarily slap on ‘em to make ‘em sound ahistorical), you do NOT succeed in eliminating the problem as stated by these evolutionists. Why? because the Bible is chock full of ~teleology~, not to mention Mayr’s ~supernatural phenomena and causations~, from Genesis through Revelation. For example, even inanimate objects like “the heavens” (the sky, stars, planets, etc.) are said to possess a clear teleological purpose: “to declare the glory of God” (Psalms 19:1). Jesus clearly not only believed in “teleology” and “supernatural phenomena and causations”, he DID quite a few supernatural phenomena and causations on his own, ehh?

So, honestly, you’d have to sanitize and effectively deny Scriptural truth claims from stem to stern (including Jesus’ own acceptance of the existence of the supernatural and miraculous, his acceptance of Adam and Eve’s historical existence a la Genesis, the Noahic Flood, etc.) just to come up with a “Christian” faith that doesn’t pose any problems for the Darwinist faith.

In fact, regarding “supernatural phenomena and causations”, isn’t this exactly what the late evolutionist icon SJ Gould ~told you~ that you would have to do in his book Rocks of Ages? Give up your belief in miraculous interventions by God in the world as a condition of attaining peaceful co-existence between the realms of religion and science? Yep, you know he said that. Wave yo’ white flag, “Christians”, and nobody gets hurt. How very magnanimous of him to make the offer.

Therefore, merely attempting to neutralize Genesis 1-3 with “ahistorical-sounding” labels, as some “theistic evolutionists” try to do, would NOT be sufficient to make the Christian faith compatible with the Darwinist faith. Not even close, as you now can see. That’s how intractable the clash between evolution and Christianity really is.

And if you doubt this, don’t forget how book reviewer Prof. Frederick C. Crews slammed his fellow evolutionist Kenneth Miller as a “creationist” merely for ~attempting~ to find some place to let God back in (while still bowing his knee at the Darwinist altar) in Finding Darwin’s God (NY Review of Books, 10-18-2001). The clash runs just that deep, folks.

**********************

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.

(I’m not trying to be nasty here. I’d never deliberately disrespect a pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam. My focus here remains on the public position expressed by Rev. Luckey. THAT, is clearly incorrect. THAT, raises legitimate concerns as expressed in the previous paragraphs. THAT, is a position that professing Christians need to move away from.…and quickly.)

FL

Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers’ “lack of humility.”

I always find this hilarious. Science is very humble: it is willing to change its ideas when new evidence overthrows old theories.

Meanwhile no matter how uneducated or stupid an individual creationist is, he/she will still claim superior understanding of biology because “it says so in the Bible”. And no matter how much evidence supports evolution, and no matter how many times the creationists fail to come up with a proper scientific alternative, and no matter how often they cannot even agree on how to interpret the Bible, they will never change their minds. But that’s not arrogance, no sirree.

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.

Reeaaalllyyyyy. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

She’s shy about the fact that she’s really one hot ani-babe.

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/2[…]/01/cassini/

Manweiler’s bio at his company Fundamental Technologies.

Fundamental Technologies?

Too funny.

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

Oh dear, so now we’ve got two of the most popular songwriters in history making statements that can easily be envisioned as insulting to Christians (the other is Bruce Springsteen who recently stated that Catholic school is “brainwashing”).

Will Frank Beckwith start beating up on simple and direct statements by figures such as Lennon and Springsteen in addition to those relative unknowns whose quotes he loves to distort – i.e., Dennett and Dawkins?

Surely Lennon and Springsteen have a greater presence and influence on our children than Dennet and Dawkins (along with other world-famous deity-wary figures such as Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut).

Given the overwhelming fame and influence of the aforementioned characters (Lennon, Springsteen, Twain and Vonnegut) one has to wonder: why the obsession with these “who the hell are they” characters, e.g., Dennett and Dawkins???? Why doesn’t Beckwith and the Disclaimery Institute target John Lennon, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Page and Ozzy Osbourne, whose writings and utterances are much more well-known to most young Americans.

After all, was any teenage boy on earth ever motivated to smoke a joint or drop acid or find a chick to “drive his car” after listening to a recording of a Dennett lecture, or reading about the bacterial flagella?

Gosh, you almost start to think that Beckwith beats up on no-names like Dennett and Dawkins simply because no has heard of them! They’re ridiculously easy to scapegoat because hardly anyone is familiar enough with their work to readily jump to their defense, especially in a real-time “debate”.

GWW Wrote:

I’ve explained elsewhere on this blog why the term “worldview” is a vague meaningless term that serves only one purpose: to perpetuate a myth that there are “fundamental” differences between the way different people “perceive the world”, where those “perceptions” (aka “beliefs”) are immune to challenge from those with different “worldviews”.

While a dialog relating to “worldviews” may help to understand the behavior of people under the influence of powerful psychoactive drugs or suffering from mental illness, it is not useful for justifying statements such as “telekinetic Sasquatch control the stock market”

Yikes, GWW! This is both funny and true. My favorite combination.

Okay, so I’m thinking after I read this… how to convey one’s commitment to pluralism–without falling prey to specious ideas regarding worldviews. Or, to paraphrase Dawkins: How to keep our minds open without letting our brains drop out?

I think that one feature of the ID “worldview” that should be pointed out when disabusing said “worldview” proponents of their worldview view, is the coat of grease they tend to smear over good ol’ fashioned reality. And that, in continuing to inflict this smear campaign, they are sliding headfirst into the very relativistic nihilism that they pretend to decry. For all of their “moral” piety they are, in fact, Social Darwinists par excellence.

On the other hand, a commitment to science AND pluralism would acknowledge that there are different ways of getting reliable knowledge about the world. This is, however, a much different observation than the typical ID talking point conveys re. “worldviews.”

This is because different ways of getting knowlege about the world still refers to the same world, the world we share. Most importantly, we can compare our ways of knowing and decide which is more appropriate, which seems best “adapted” for any given form of action. I take much comfort in knowing that so many scientists acknolwedge no ultimate conflict between the practice of the hardest science and the practice of thier religion.

(An interesting aside would be to investigate which styles of religious expression seem most/least congenial when it comes to dealing with the truths revealed by scientific method. I suspect there is a significant pattern here.)

In any case, the assumption that facts and values are unconnected is highly a questionable one. Why is this important? Because the implications are absolutely contrary to the accusations made against science by fundamentalist ID proponents; namely, that science (in the form of Dawinism) has ejected all meaning and morality from the world. Quite the opposite, pluralism in context of good science implies that knowledge about the world, and our place in it, and (ethical ) action are all connected, intimately connected.

PM

I think that one feature of the ID “worldview” that should be pointed out when disabusing said “worldview” proponents of their worldview view, is the coat of grease they tend to smear over good ol’ fashioned reality.

That is my preferred approach. For every purpose except transcendental purposes, all humans share the same “worldview” because (drum roll) we live on the same planet.

The important point is to (1) DO NOT USE THE TERM because it’s a rhetorical trap that favors the party promoting the idea that science and religion serve the same purpose and (2) if the creationist uses it (and they almost always do) trash the notion QUICKLY, explaining that it is a nothing but a divisive rhetorical tool which attempts to do an end-around the science=atheism=religion claim, and QUICKLY move on to trash the sick anti-science agenda of the ID peddlers.

Don’t let slick smooth talking peddlers like Frank Beckwith lure you onto their putrid metaphysical stomping grounds.

Like “God,” “worldview” is a hard word to use because it has too many meanings, not too few. Is a world view comprised of the axioms from which we reason? the defaults in our program? our aesthetic preferences? our favorite categories? a little poetic speech we’ve learned to make on special occasions?

I knew a guy who was writing a doctoral dissertation on the world views of educated Americans. I don’t know if he ever finished his degree, but when I talked to him he was having a terrible time pinning down anything specific even though his informants were quite willing to help. He was all too aware that the world views he elicited from his subjects were mostly just a reflex of the questions he asked them. At best, they recited some bit of philosophy, literature, or theology they picked up at school. As cultured middle and upper class people, they knew they were supposed to have a world view; but it was obvious that they were just making one up as they went along.

On another note, over the years I’ve followed with great interest much of Dawkins’ speech and writing regarding religion, and I must admit that he has become more harshly critical about religion in general after the events of 9-11.

Well, you can kind of understand why. Before the conversation veers off again, though, I’d like to renew my request - especially to any affronted Christians that might be reading this:

Could someone point me to one of these Dawkins quotes* that is particularly objectionable? Specifically, one that “uses science to push atheism”?

*Not just one where he expresses his opinions about religion, but where he makes dubious assertions of fact and/or invokes scientific authority to “push atheism”.

Yes, Russell. I can understand why. That’s why I mentioned it, so that we can more easily cut Dawkins some slack.

Re. Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins Wrote:

Dawkins’s Law of Divine Invulnerability

God cannot lose.

Lemma 1

When comprehension expands, gods contract—but then redefine themselves to restore the status quo.

Lemma 2

When things go right, God will be thanked. When things go wrong, he will be thanked that they are not worse.

Lemma 3

Belief in the afterlife can only be proved right, never wrong.

Lemma 4

The fury with which untenable beliefs are defended is inversely proportional to their defensibility.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 16, column 2, byte 855 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Also I couldn’t help but notice the term “worldwide” in your paragraph. Not quite comfortable with the U.S. numbers, are we? Mmph!

A very good point and, alas, one that helps ME a lot more than it helps YOU.

Please by all means, go ahead and epxlain to me WHY Chrisitans “worldwide” think creationism is a loaf oof cow-crap. After all, if evolution is scientifically bankrupt and creation ‘science’ or its latest avatar ID ‘theory’ is so good, we should see scientists WORLDWIDE rushing to condemn evolution and embrace ID/creationism.

Why don’t we?

Why is creationism as a political movement almost exclusively American? Why are ALL of the tiny anti-evolution “movements” in other nations founded and funded by Americans?

Why is that?

Why is ID/creationism’s support almost exclusively from the ranks of Christianity (and then, only a certain subset of Christianity)? Why don’t we see Buddhist scientists in Japan examining the data and concluding that evolution is wrong and there must be a designer?

Why is that?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 13, column 18, byte 775 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Re “Why don’t we see Buddhist scientists in Japan examining the data and concluding that evolution is wrong and there must be a designer?”

Going by comments I’ve read on an on-line BB religion forum from a Buddhist, they believe in paying attention to reality.

Henry

“and … neither last nor least, let’s not forget …

pig ignorant”

Hey! that’s an insult to pigs! Pig’s are far more ammenable to learning than some folks i have met.

Biological reality is solely determined by evidence — the nitty gritty details of how biology works.

If only that one statement were true, Flint—-how very different the science of biology would be. However, the clear philosophical baggage that continues to accompany evolution (and thus continues to perform a measure of hijacking regarding the science of biology), guarantees that your statement isn’t yet true. Nevertheless, it’s a goal worth shooting for.

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, but Jonathan Wells later wrote (much more accurately, btw) that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.”

Also sincere thanks to the other posters for their additional replies as well; I read them all.

FL

“However, the clear philosophical baggage that continues to accompany evolution (and thus continues to perform a measure of hijacking regarding the science of biology), guarantees that your statement isn’t yet true.”

Indeed. Ever consider that maybe folks like yourself ARE the baggage?

Why is ID/creationism’s support almost exclusively from the ranks of Christianity (and then, only a certain subset of Christianity)?

Why don’t we see Buddhist scientists in Japan examining the data and concluding that evolution is wrong and there must be a designer?

Why is that?

Yes, good question.

Alas, though – one we seem fated to never get any intelligible answer for . …

Then do what I did. Go to the phone book. Look up “churches”. Write to all of them and ask what the position of their church is on evolution.

Tell us what you find out.

Well . …. ?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prof. Steve Steve published on April 24, 2005 5:36 PM.

Intelligent Design creationism in the Star Tribune was the previous entry in this blog.

Message from Bob Collins of Alabama Citizens for Science Education is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter