Barbara Forrest and Weekend Humor

If you are looking for this post, it is now here, with a new title.

Response to Wiesel 38

The Washington Post reports on a letter in response to the criticisms by 38 Nobel Laureates, led by Elie Wiesel, to the changes in the Kansas science standards. A press release with the full text of the letter can be found here.

The response letter points out several factual errors in the Wiesel letter, including the crucial fact that the proposed changes do not include teaching intelligent design, but only provide for presenting the scientific evidence and arguments for and against macroevolutionary theory.

What is most amusing is the fact that the Nobel Laureates unwittingly supported the definition of evolution contained in the proposals that they denounced. This is also the definition from which the Darwin Only lobby has been trying to distance itself, so that they can argue with a straight face that macroevolutionary theory has no inherent religious implications:

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Oops.

Kitzmiller: Pennock Direct and Comments

An article on the testimony of Robert Pennock is here.

Commentary on his testimony is here. Commentary on his "style" is here.

Miller's Explanation . . . Sort Of

I earlier commented on the strange testimony by Kenneth Miller, who is a professing Catholic, as quoted by MSNBC:

If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent-design creator was not very intelligent.

He has now sent an open letter to people who wrote to him about his testimony. He had this to say about those comments:

Many of you accused me of “mocking God” for pointing out that remarkable frequency of extinction would make an “intelligent designer” look ridiculous. In fact, it was exactly because I do not mock God that I pointed out how ridiculous this view of an “intelligent designer” would be. It is those who advance the opposite view, in favor of ID, who must actually argue that the “designer” isn’t competent enough to make organisms that would last.

He has somewhat satisfied my curiosity on his Catholic theology by seemingly clarifying that he does not think the God of Catholicism is unintelligent. But his explanation seems wholly illogical. He seems to be saying that the Catholic God creator is not unintelligent, but the ID designer is. But on what basis? The ID designer could be the Catholic God, Allah, or an extraterrestrial creature or culture. If he asserts that his Catholic God is not unintelligent, then there is no basis for asserting that ID proponents "must actually argue that the “designer” isn’t competent enough to make organisms that would last." If he can explain extinctions in a way that keeps his Catholic God all wise and all knowing (which, of course, is quite easily done by referencing the Fall), then so can the proponents of ID, whose designer is far less specific and broad enough to include his Catholic God.

This is such a basic and obvious logical flaw in his reasoning; I am frankly shocked that a Brown University professor could make it.

* * * *

Deuce at Telic Thoughts has other comments on Miller's explanation here.

Science? Religion? Philosophy?

Many people are delighted to insist hyper-simplistically that intelligent design is not science, but rather religion. For many, it is clear that they do not know more about ID than what they have read in a magazine article. Let's have a look:

Intelligent design theory involves scientific and philosophical concepts.

It is based on scientific data and evidence.

It has philosophical and religious implications. It is generally consistent with a theistic worldview.


Macroevolutionary theory involves scientific and philosophical concepts.

It is based on scientific data and evidence.

It has philosophical and religious implications. It is generally consistent with an atheistic worldview.

* * *

So, yes, intelligent design has religious implications, but macroevolutionary theory so obviously does too.

The ACLU wants to ban even a one minute mention of intelligent design from public schools, and promote a governmentally enforced Darwin Only requirement on science education. Is that what the US Constitution requires? My views are here.

For more on worldviews and evaluating the evidence, consider this.

* * *

Post Note: Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and an "ardent evolutionist," in his own words. His views on the religious implications and impact of macroevolutionary theory are discussed in this review of his recent book. For a discussion of the a priori philosophical/religious commitments of some scientists, you can read here.

* * *

Post Note #2: A more recent post on Michael Ruse's views of evolution as a religion is here.

Speaking of Selective Reporting . . .

And for a good laugh, see this. Thanks to William Dembski.

My previous post on Michael Powell's selective reporting is here.

The Harm, the Confusion, the Hard Choices

One report on the testimony of the named plaintiff:

Tammy Kitzmiller, one of the parents who sued the school district, also took the stand Tuesday and said that the district's intelligent design policy has absolutely harmed her family.

Lawyers for the parents argue that the reading of a four-paragraph intelligent design statement before they hear lessons on evolution amounts to a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

The Washington Post elaborates:

In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter chose not to hear the intelligent-design statement - an option given all students - putting her in an awkward position.

"My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused ... or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates," she said.

The entire one minute statement that is responsible for the harm, ridicule, singling out, hard choices, confusion and Constitutional rights violations is this:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

Unintelligent Catholic Creator?

Steve Petermann has this to say about some of Kenneth Miller's testimony, which also struck me as more than a little strange. I bring this up because Miller makes much of his Catholic faith and its relationship to his beliefs on evolution. MSNBC had this report on his testimony:

If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent-design creator was not very intelligent.

Does this reflect the theology of a branch of the Catholic Church of which I am unaware?


* * *

Post Note: follow up comments on Miller's explanation of his testimony is here.

Kitzmiller Update 1

The latest from the Washington Post is here and here.

Michael Powell seems to be holding to the traditional selective-and-therefore-unreliable reporting that characterizes much of the mainstream media. Based on the reporting of Powell, the Plaintiff's are scoring all the points and the Defense is striking out. If the mainstream media keep it up, they will end up like the dinosaurs. Maybe Powell will top off his reporting by writing a sequel to Inherit the Wind.

Therefore, I will again point readers to the updates by Jonathan Witt and others.

Scrappleface Strikes Again

Don't miss this report of Darwinian fulfillment of the ethical requirement to represent one's client zealously.

Kitzmiller: You Be the Judge

The issue in Kitzmiller v. Dover is pretty simple at its core: does the Dover school board policy violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution?

The Dover policy requires that the following statement (which takes one minute) be read once at the beginning of the school year in high school biology classes, either by a teacher or school administrator:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based
assessments."

The following is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which the ACLU claims is violated by the above policy (because of its religious nature). The Establishment Clause is in bold:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So does the Dover policy "establish religion," that is, does it set up an established state or national religion as in European countries? Does it even tend to do that? It seems to me that the policy is completely consistent with the purpose of the 1st Amendment, which is to keep government neutral towards religions, philosophies and worldviews (and between theistic and atheistic philosophies and religion and non-religion), and to maintain a fair, free market of ideas. One might even argue that the 1st Amendment requires the Dover policy to avoid an establishment of Darwinian philosophy.

Fun fact: several states had established state religions at the time the 1st Amendment was ratified. The 1st Amendment was not applied to the states until 1925, which is the same year as the Scopes trial. I think it should apply to the states, but I point this out because I think this fact adds to the absurdity of the ACLU's position.

* * * *

Updates:

For Jonathan Witt's day two update, go here.

For the latest from the Washinton Post, go here and here.

* * * *

Post Note: To clarify, and to make the fun fact above even more fun, in 1925 the Supreme Court began the practice of applying the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The Establishment Clause was not actually applied until even later.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Miller Direct

The latest update by Jonathan Witt on Kenneth Miller's testimony is here. His follow up commentary is here.

The latest article from the Washington Post is here.

It is unclear from the reports whether Miller has been cross-examined yet. That will be the interesting part, since the Darwin Only scientists refused to testify in Kansas, and thereby conveniently avoided being cross-examined. I would sure love to ask him a few questions.

Post Note: Apparently the cross examination had just begun yesterday, and will continue today. See Miller's inconsistencies noted in Jonathan Witt's second post above. The defense will have all night to go over it and prepare more cross.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: the Darwin Only Enforcement Trial

Please, students, do not keep an open mind. Please do not think for yourselves. Please just accept the beliefs of a majority of American scientists. Please do not ask difficult questions. Please do not question the philosophical assumptions supporting macroevolutionary theory.

That is how we will keep our country great and ensure that we lead the world in science.

* * * *

For the Discovery Institute's links page, go here.

For the Washington Post's article previewing the trial, go here.

For Court schedule and filings, go here.

More Amusement From Cornelia

Cornelia Dean articles never cease to amuse me, and her latest is no exception. The article discussed how museums deal with visitors who question Darwinian theory on "religious grounds":

Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.

They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.

After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."

That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.

However, note the nature of the questions. They were on the techniques for dating fossils and the second law of thermodynamics- hardly religious in nature. Thus Dean's bias shines through: she cannot conceive of objections to Darwinian theory on anything other than religious bases.

She at least acknowledges that acceptance of evolutionary theory is a matter of "belief":

Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.

I find it humorous that these supposed advocates of the Enlightenment should be so condescending towards those who merely doubt unproven theories and do not adopt the "faith" of mainstream scientists. Voltaire would be more than a little disappointed. Doubting received dogma is what leads to new knowledge, not simplistic acceptance of it. But evolution is, of course, different. It must be protected by the mainstream media because it is so important to their philosophical worldview.

She does not repeat Cornelia's Creed, but she comes close:

"There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful," he said.

A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")

She throws in the obligatory quote from the Discovery Institute:

John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, "It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically."

No elaboration, but it is well-known how horse evolution exhibits have been inaccurate and misleading over the years. The American Museum of Natural History currently has an exhibit devoted to showing the old, misleading version and the new, "correct" version. We are supposed to trustingly "believe" the new and improved version, I guess. Then there is Piltdown man- a really big oops.

Overall, I find the article humorously condescending. She adamantly refuses to acknowledge the scientific problems with macroevolutionary theory, and, as always, seems blissfully unaware of her own philosophical or religious bias in approaching the issue.