AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

Adopted 20 September 2005

The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation’s K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.

Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.

In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design,” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Since “Intelligent Design” is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.

The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.

Let's hear it for the AAS for adding their name into the fight.

DEFCON - The Defense of the Constitution

A new on-line organization called DEFCON, for Defense of the Constitution has organized. I have added the link to their home page. The first post on their Community Page in the DefCon blog was a welcome and a question as to why new members are joining the fight. Here is my response to that question.

September 29th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Alencon Says:

I’m in the fight because I’ve become convinced that the Religious Right will be happy with nothing less than imposing their views on all of American Society. While these people are entitled to their beliefs, they ARE NOT entitled to force those beliefs on the rest on us nor are they entitled to mold America to match their definition of morality. They’ll have to excuse me, but I’d really rather not have biblical law imposed upon our supposedly secular society.

I used to think fundamentalists were silly, ignorant, insecure and a bit naive, but basically harmless. I don’t believe that any more. Now I’m convinced that these people are dangerous and need to be fought and, if necessary, destroyed, because what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the America we know and love.

Reluctantly I’ve had to accept that WE ARE in fact in the middle of a culture war. Worse, the powers of light are on the defensive at the moment and if we don’t get organized things are going to get rather unpleasant. We need to band together to defend freedom of thought and expression and the concepts of the Enlightenment. Specifically we need to defend science in general and the theory of evolution in particular, we need to defend the right of a woman to choose and to have control over her own body, we need to advance the right of gay couples to have the emotional and legal benefits of marriage, we need to insure that the United States is able to reap the benefits of embryonic stem cell research and we need to fight the incursion of religious symbols and icons into public buildings and public schools.

Let’s remember, WE didn’t start this fight, they did!

Quotes on the Dover School Board Case

A few selected quotes from the on-line media around the country relating to the proceedings in Dover Pennsylvania.

From Professor Robert T. Pennock of Michigan University testifying at the trial.

“As scientists go about their business they follow a method. Intelligent Design wants to reject that and so it doesn’t really fall within the purview of science.”

Yup, the whole push behind Intelligent Design is to side step the scientific method. The entire structure of ID is negative. Evolution can’t explain everything or this looks like it couldn’t have come about by evolution therefore you must accept my default theory of design. If ID were true science it would be presenting POSITIVE evidence as to why it explains the empirical observations better than evolution.

The reason it can’t do that is in order to present a positive argument, it would have to at least hypothesize about the intelligent designer and what methodology he (she? It?) used. This of course they can’t do because as soon as they are forced to identify the designer, the whole façade that ID is science rather than religion would come crashing down.

From the San Francisco Chronicle.

“Faith is one thing; ignorance is something else. To reject evolution in teaching biology is as inane as rejecting quantum theory or the theory of relativity in teaching physics.”

“For the Dover folks, the best evidence against human evolution might be themselves.”

LOL! That’s a little strong. What I think we really have here is the classic fear that somehow accepting the science of evolution means they have to abandon their faith in God. No matter how many times it’s pointed out that there is no conflict, the insecurity of the fundamentalist religious nutcase wins out.

From Valerie Munson, founder of the department of religion at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott law firm in Pennsylvania as reported in the Daily Tar Heel.

“Even if intelligent design is not found to be scientifically legitimate, it should be available as a secular purpose of fostering critical thinking.”

Why keep a nonsense theory around to teach critical thinking unless you're going to use it as a bad example? And I’m certain that's not what Ms. Munson is suggesting here. What's this strategy? Teach BAD science in a science classroom so we can get God a toe hold? Look, God has a lot more than a toe hold in the average science classroom. Just drop by during a pop quiz and listen to all the praying.

From Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Evolution is not controversy.”

Well, it may not be controversy among the scientific community or among the overwhelming majority of intelligent and educated adults, BUT it’s obviously a controversy other places. If it weren’t, this court case wouldn’t be necessary now would it?

According to the last Pew Research Poll, 42% of the country believed in creationism while 48% accepted evolution. When educational level is taken into account things break down like this.

Those with H.S. or less – Creationism 50%, Evolution 36%
Those with some college – Creationism 42%, Evolution 51%
Those with a College Degree – Creationism 27%, Evolution 66%

From Pat Gillan, the lead lawyer for the Dover School Board.

"It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form — a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory."

Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, BUT there is an awful lot of really BAD pure science out there. It’s the responsibility of scientific peers to review new hypotheses and determine whether or not they have merit and NOT the responsibility of rural school boards or 9th grade biology students.

From Kenneth Miller, a Brown University professor of biology testifying at the trial.

"No theory in science is ever regarded as an absolute truth and evolution is no exception."

When asked if there were "gaps" in all scientific theories.

"If you define an unanswered question as a gap, then that's true."

I certainly can’t argue with either of those two positions. If an acceptible response to saying “I don’t know” is GOD DID IT, then you’ll excuse me while I go locate some virgins for the next sacrifice.

But do you know what REALLY gets to me? Here are all these people testifying how school board members openly talked about balancing evolution with creationism and standing up for Jesus, if you look at the history of the “textbook” that was recommended as a reference for ID, it began life as a creationist text, the law firm defending the school board is one dedicated to defending Christian causes AND there are pictures of people PRAYING outside the freaking courtroom, YET with a straight face, the school board members and their law team say their actions AREN'T RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED!

These people ever hear of that commandment about bearing false witness? I don't agree with people that take a creationist view but at least those folks have the courage to stand up and proclaim their convictions to the world regardless of the consequences. To them integrity of conviction is more important than winning a point. This ID crowd however, seems to have the philosophy that's it's ok to "Lie for Jesus." Winning is more important than honesty or integrity. Somehow I find this more than a little ironic from a crowd that's also constantly whining about "moral values." What would Jesus do? I'll bet you he wouldn't lie. Not even a little.

Ok, if the court is looking for an excuse to allow some form of supreme being based teaching in science classrooms, I guess there’s enough camouflage here to allow it to do so. But there is NO WAY the motivation behind the Dover School Board’s actions isn’t religious even if the purpose behind Intelligent Design isn’t religious (which of course it is, just LOOK at the list of fellows of the Discovery Institute if you have any doubts!).

Why do we have a conscience?

Another example of creationists mixing biology and ethics is the essay “Why do we have a conscience” by John Adam and also from Dr. Dino’s site. Although perhaps in this case it would be more accurate to say mixing biology and cultural anthropology.

In his essay Adam asks the question “In a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder one's survival?”

He then proceeds to answer this question in the negative by asserting that the individual with no conscience is free to do whatever he pleases without constraint while the individual with a conscience is hesitant and soul searching. Therefore, “The conscience serves as a detriment to survival,… Unless the universe has been created by God who has established inherent values of right and wrong.”

Well, not really. First of all Adam needs to define what he means by a conscience. The most direct and to the point definition of conscience I’ve ever seen is “Conscience is the awareness that an action conforms to or is contrary to one's standards of right and wrong.”

The big question about conscience is whether it’s inborn or learned. Adam assumes that it’s inborn and each of us “seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong” which had to either “evolve” or “always exist.”

The reality is that a conscience is learned as is the definition of right and wrong. What Adam ignores is the development of society and the emergence of socialization. Socialization brings with it an understanding of acceptable behavior and often a set of penalties for unacceptable behavior. Over time this understanding becomes a moral code that carries with it a definition of right and wrong which is drummed into members of the society from a very early age.

That most societies have come up with similar definitions of right and wrong isn’t terribly surprising. Peace and co-operation tends to enhance a society’s chance of survival while conflict tends to reduce its chance of survival. Therefore things that would tend to cause conflict, such as murder and theft, would tend to be declared taboo while things that enhance peace and co-operation, such as respect for the elders and respect for the gods, would tend to be declared virtues.

At least this would be the case WITHIN the society. Extending ones moral code to outsiders has always been problematic in human society. If one reads the Tanakh carefully, one realizes that the code of conduct laid out in the laws and commandments applies to OTHER HEBREWS ONLY and not to members of other races.

That there have been significant variations in the codes of conduct developed by different societies indicates that there is no absolute definition of right and wrong instilled in mankind by a creator. The definitions must be learned from society. If an understanding of right and wrong is innate, why did Moses need those stone tablets?

Anyone who has raised a child knows that the very young have no moral conscience. A child does what is pleasurable without regard to right or wrong UNTIL its behavior is restricted by the imposition of penalties for unacceptable behavior and rewards for acceptable behavior.

As this idea of good versus bad becomes etched into the child’s brain, an understanding of right and wrong develops. If our conscience, our awareness of how well our actions line up with that understanding, is facilitated by certain genetic characteristics, such as intelligence, and if there is a survival benefit to a conscience, then natural selection would tend to favor those genetic characteristics that enhance our awareness of how well our actions line up with society’s code of conduct. In other words, we would evolve toward a stronger conscience.

This doesn't happen through gene intelligence or magic, it occurs simply because those that have a better survival chance, have a better chance of reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation. If a society decided that red haired children were the descendents of demons and immediately killed any children with red hair, you can bet that the number of red haired children born would approach zero within a few generations.

So, does accepting a code of conduct and adhering to it have survival benefits? You’re damn right it does especially when there are penalties for violating it. In a complex society a conscience, rather than being a hindrance can be a benefit! Individuals that break the taboos of their society tend to be ostracized, ejected or even killed. Even those without much of a conscience might think twice about breaking the more serious taboos. Therefore those that break society's taboos can have their chances of reproducing, and thus passing on their genes, severely reduced or eliminated (it's a little hard to have offspring when you're missing your head). So over time, if there are genetic factors relating to how law abiding one tends to be, natural selection would tend to favor the more law abiding folks; the ones with the most well developed consciences or at least those most concerned about the consequences.

A wise man once said that the true measure of a man is how he would behave if he were absolutely certain no one would find out. This implies that our actions are controlled often by the fear of reprisals or humiliation rather than due to our conscience.

Therefore I would say that Adam is wrong on all accounts. First of all, the definition of right and wrong is learned and not innate. Since the definition is learned, until that foundation is established, what is called a conscience cannot emerge and must also be learned. Second, since there are very definite survival benefits in adhering to society’s code of conduct, if there are genetic factors relating to consciences, natural selection would tend to evolve stronger ones.

The Dover School Board Case

It's in Pennsylvania rather than the South that the first court battle over Intelligent Design will occur.

The Dover Pennsylvania School Board has decreed that Dover public schools treat Intelligent Design as a valid competing scientific theory. The board also requires the following statement to be read in ninth grade biology classes.

"Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being 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 to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

I find it interesting that the statement talks about "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution but is silent about any "gaps" (chasms?) in Intelligent Design.

"Of Pandas and People" is a textbook published by The Foundation for Thought and Ethics which has as its mission the purpose of "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective." Pandas was originally titled "Biology and Origins" and freely used the term "Creationism." The book was revised after the Supreme Court decision against the teaching of Creationism in the public schools, renamed "Of Pandas and People" and edited to remove all references to Creationism. The book hasn't been revised since 1993 which gives you a REALLY good idea how on the cutting edge of science it is.

The suit, by 11 parents supported by the ACLU, alleges that the board's directives are religiously motivated and are thus a violation of the principle of the seperation of church and state. Even the Discovery Institute, the main proponent of Intelligent Design, has distanced itself from the Dover School Board's position saying that they would prefer the diaglogue about Intelligent Design to be held in scientific circles and not school boards or high school science classrooms. Michael Behe from Lehigh however is planned to testify on behalf of the school board.

I suspect that the assault on Intelligent Design will be composed of three parts. The first, and probably the major, thrust will be that the school board’s directives are religiously motivated. The second will be that Intelligent Design is really warmed over Creationism and the third will be that Intelligent Design is simply lousy science. The school board will undoubtedly take the position that it’s simply doing its job ensuring that Dover students get a broad education and that religion has nothing to do with it.

It would be nice if the court would acknowledge that ID is creationism in disguise and lousy science, but that's extremely unlikely. The most one can hope for is a decision that, at least in this specific case, the directives are religiously motivated.

The prevailing precedent is the decision by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 by a 7-2 margin that the Louisiana Creationism Act “…impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind” and that creation science “embraces this religious teaching.”

This is what led to the editing of “Biology and Origins” into “Of Pandas and People.” This is also the rationale behind the Discovery Institutes absurd fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god. This fiction is why I don’t believe a word the Discovery Institute says. If they REALLY wanted to engage in a scientific dialogue among peers, what difference would it make if the “Intelligent Designer” were a supernatural god? Only if one is trying to get around Edwards v. Aguillard does it matter.

The fiction that the “Intelligent Designer” need not be a god simply shifts the question by a level of indirection. Now not only do we need to figure out who the “Intelligent Designer” is, but also where the hell he (she? It?) came from. And since the design is chock full of irreducibly complex systems as well as complex specificity, he (she? It?) probably also is composed of irreducibly complex systems and complex specificity. OY-VEH, that means an “Intelligent Designer” for the “Intelligent Designer!” Now where did I put my Russki Matrioshka dollies?

A decision in favor of the school board would be a disaster and probably appealed. I doubt the school board could afford to appeal a loss, but I’ve been wrong about that before.

Bible Based Museum Tours

I've heard about this before, but there was an article in a recent Denver Post with details. Apparently a gentleman by the name of Rusty Carter conducts "biblically correct" tours of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science pointing out the "scientific errors" in the exhibits.

How does he know the exhibits are wrong, well, the bible told him so. While I don't agree with Mr. Carter's take on things at least he's honest about the basis of his position. He accepts a literal interpretation of the bible as true so therefore everything else must, in some way, manner, shape or form, be consistent with that truth.

That's a lot more than I can say about the Intelligent Design advocates. These guys try to disguise the source of their position by wrapping things in pseudoscientific nonsense.

It does absolutely infuriate me though that kids are being subjected to this kind of indoctrination that flies in the face of virtually all of human scientific knowledge. I consider this a form of child abuse, but there's not much that can be done about it as long as society continues to look upon religion as something of value.

This quote from the story really got to me. "What do you guys think? Is the world really 4.5 billion years old?" Carter asked. "Nonsense!" one girl called out. The adults in the group smiled.

Note that the verb is "think" as if one's opinion can change geological facts. With this simple question all of geology, astronomy and cosmology gets tossed out along with biology and zoology. That is really pathetic.

It's Evolution or The Bible, not Both

I don't believe that, but apparently the chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education does. So that means this yahoo is willing to throw out anything that might be interpreted as contradicting what was written by a bunch of unwashed nomads four or five thousand years ago?

HE'S chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education? This is starting to get really, REALLY scary. What is wrong with these people? Aside from the fact that there isn't any contradiction between evolution and the bible, how can anyone ignore all the evidence that's been piled up over the years?

More Scientific Illiteracy

This example comes from a quote published in Northwestern University's "The Daily Northwestern."

In an article discussing a new evolutionary processes minor, a professor of religion was quoted as saying she was skeptical about both evolution and intelligent design theories because “Both of them are faith claims. It is a claim about a truth that cannot be proven scientifically.”

When ranking oxymorons, "proven scientifically" can be placed right up there near the top of the list. The illiteracy comes in not understanding that all scientific theories are provisional and must be continually validated against new information or a new understanding of old information. Therefore nothing can ever be "proven scientifically." Even the Theory of Gravity is provisional. The most science can say is that an accepted theory best explains the observations and evidence as they are understood. That could all change tomorrow.

The more consistent a theory is shown to be and the more evidence accumulated that substantiates the theory, the stronger becomes the presumption that the theory is accurate. However's it's like Zeno's Racetrack paradox; you can get closer and closer to the finish line, but you never quite make it all the way there.

That a university professor, even a professor of religion, doesn't understand this REALLY scares me!

Evolution has repeatedly been demonstrated as accurate in explaining biological diversity and science, through it's offspring technology, has repeatedly been demonstrated as accurate across a wide spectrum. Intelligent Design on the other hand doesn't even leave the starting gate. It explains nothing; it simply relies upon GOD DID IT. You will notice that I'm not buying the Discovery Institute's oft expressed disclaimer that the intelligent designer need not be a god. If not a supernatural entitity, then who the hell designed the intelligent designer?

Intelligent Design’s Science

So what exactly are the major claims put on the table by the proponents of Intelligent Design which they say demonstrates that ID is true science? Well, when last I looked they were Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity. So rather than simply dismiss ID as disguised Creationism, let's consider these two hypotheses.

Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity's main proponent is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe defines Irreducible Complexity as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

In his book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challange to Evolution,” Behe claims that many biological systems, including the bacterial flagellum and the human blood clotting system are irreducibly complex.

The idea of Irreducible Complexity undermining Darwin is not new. Darwin himself pointed out that an example of irreducible complexity would prove his theory wrong.

However scientists have consistently refuted Behe’s claims by pointing out that if a smaller set of parts from a supposedly irreducibly complex system can be used, the system is not irreducibly complex and then demonstrating how systems identified by Behe as irreducibly complex, in fact have subparts that are either useful in themselves or have clearly evolved from other useful parts.

Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, in his essay "The Flaw in the Mousetrap," makes the following observation about Behe's general premise "Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions."

Miller then addresses the specific systems suggested as irreducibly complex starting with the bacterial flagellum. "He [Behe] writes that in the absence of 'almost any' of its parts, the bacterial flagellum 'does not work.' But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection."

Finally Miller addresses human blood clotting. "The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system."

The fact is that Behe's Irreducible Complexity is little more than a modernized version of William Paley's Divine Watchmaker which predates Darwin.

The problem is that people can continue to put forward systems as irreducibly complex. How does one prove the negative that "no systems are irreducibly complex?" Well, perhaps one doesn't have to. If creation were in fact the result of an intelligent designer, there would be thousands, if not millions, of obviously irreducibly complex systems. Where are they all?

Specified Complexity
The second argument for Intelligent Design is Specified Complexity. The major proponent of Specified Complexity is mathematician William Dembski of the Discovery Institute.

Dembski defines Specified Complexity as consisting of two components. The first is Complexity or Improbability. In order for something to meet this criterion its likelihood of occurring must be less than what Dembski calls the “Universal Probability Bound” which Dembski has set at a value of 1 chance in 10 raised to the 150th power.

The second component is specificity which is defined as conforming to an “independent detachable pattern.”

Dembski claims that nature has examples of patterns of information which meet both criteria and which he calls "complex specified information," or CSI.

For instance DNA has been used as an example of CSI as it is clearly very specific and admittedly complex. That CSI elements exist in nature is, according to ID proponents, evidence for design because intelligence is necessary to produce CSI.

Well maybe, and then again, maybe not. As a mathematician Dembski obviously understands the theory of large numbers; the most famous example of which is the idea that if enough monkeys beat on enough keyboards for a long enough period of time, it is almost certain they would produce Shakespeare’s play Hamlet.

But, 10 raised to the 150th power is a VERY BIG number. A billion monkeys hitting a billion keyboards for a billion years wouldn't make much of a dent in THAT number. Still consider this, 10 raised to the 150th power is equivalent to the odds of throwing a specific sequence on 150 dice with ten sides, yet some sequence will appear on every throw of the 150 dice.

Dembski argues that the appearance of less random sequences, with random roughly defined as the algorithmic complexity of the sequence, indicate design. For instance if my throw of the 150 dice resulted in all 7's or fifteen sequences of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9, this might be cause for rejecting the sequence as random because the number of sequences with such a recognizable pattern is tiny compared to the total number of sequences.

The problem with this approach is the assumption that all sequences, and all subsequences, are equally probable AND that one always has to reroll all 150 dice. Let's consider rolling 150 7's for a second. If you started trying to do that and rerolled all 150 dice, 7's and non-7's, every time, the universe would probably come to an end before you managed it. BUT, instead, save all the 7's and only reroll the non-7's and it wouldn't take all that long before you had 150 dice each showing a 7.

This is closer to how evolution works. Borrowing bits and pieces and tending to perpetuate "successful rolls" and successful sequences through natural selection. It doesn't go back to ground zero every time. It's a continuous process, often with multiple branches. Some of these branches succeed and others become evolutionary dead ends.

Also, by applying a Fisherian statistical significance analysis, Dembski is sort of trying to define design as the default solution simply by concluding that the random solution is unlikely. In other words, if you can't explain it through random or natural processes one must conclude that it was designed regardless of the fact that the existence of a designer MAY BE EVEN MORE IMPROBABLE. Dembski argues that he IS NOT putting forth an "argument from ignorance" but rather an "eliminative deduction" and like Sherlock Holmes, arrives at the improbable truth by eliminating all competing hypotheses. But he really doesn't eliminate any alternate hypothesis he simply tags one of them, a purely random solution, as improbable. As pointed out in the previous paragraph, no one ever said evolution is purely random.

Even the great Newton was stumped by the complex orbits of the planets and concluded that God must somehow guide their motions, a conclusion no longer necessary given modern astronomy. If we had followed the Intelligent Design approach, no one would have looked any further.

Another problem is that a corollary of the claim that since DNA is CSI and requires a designer, then no new gene conferring a new function can ever come into existence without that designer taking a hand.

As many people have pointed out that makes it difficult to explain the nylon eating bacteria discovered by the Japanese in 1975. Nylon is a synthetic fabric that didn’t exist prior to 1930, but now there are bacteria that can break down the fabric and digest it using an enzyme dubbed nylonase.

The enzyme appears to have developed from an existing enzyme as the result of what is known as a “frame shift” mutation. While most mutations of this sort are catastrophic, this one appears to have resulted in a new protein that, while only about 2% efficient, nevertheless provided a new function. Since this new function has resulted in a new food source, it has apparently been passed on to new generations.

Of course it’s also possible that the enzyme was always there and just happens to digest nylon or that the intelligent designer did some new creating, but scientists prefer the mutation option for a number of reasons. First, carrying around a nylonase gene before it could be used is at best inefficient and at worse harmful. Second, since the nylonase enzyme appears to be only about 2% efficient, if it was designed in by a Supreme Being, it wasn’t done terribly well.

So neither of the two major ID arguments has demonstrated much scientific merit nor is ID’s fundamental conclusion terribly profound. The idea that GOD DID IT has been around since the dawn of time.

ID provides NO PATH TO INTELLECTUAL GROWTH. It begins with perfection, a Supreme Being, and ends with the conclusion that there’s no reason to understand how the universe works because GOD DID IT. The so-called explanations provided by ID are in fact a declaration of surrender. The universe is so complicated that man can’t hope to determine how it all came about, so just chalk it up to God and stop trying.

Discovery Institute Bails Out on Dover School Board

The Discovery Institute has declined to support the Dover Pennsylvania School Board in its upcoming trial related to its mandate to present Intelligent Design in Biology classes as an alternate theory to Evolution.

An associate director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, called the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."

Yeah, I think that accurately describes the situation. Now if they would just articulate the "merits" of Intelligent Design.

Another officer of the institute said the Discovery Institute is "not trying to hinder their case in court," but the organization wants intelligent design to be debated by the scientific community, not school boards.

That sounds like what I've been saying doesn't it? Only one problem, the Discovery Institute hasn't presented all that much evidence to debate. What it has presented has been pretty much dismissed by the scientific community as little more than a thinly veiled equation to the effect that IGNORANCE = GOD. If science can't explain it in minute detail, then GOD DID IT! Wasn't this the explanation for lightning and thunder at one time? Shall we begin locating virgins for the next sacrifice?

While the Seattle "Think Tank" may be taking the position that the debate should be among scientists and not in a 9th grade science classroom others, such as Michael Behe from Lehigh University, don't seem to feel the same way and are expected to testify on behalf of the defense.

Which reminds me, how the hell does a prestigious engineering school such as Lehigh justify providing a pulpit for Behe? They can't seriously believe he's engaging in real research can they?

Let's hope that this is an example of rats leaving a sinking ship shall we? A precedent that Intelligent Design IS camouflage for Creationism is just what's needed at the moment.

Concepts Have Consequences

For some bizarre reason Creationists like to mix ethics and science as if somehow one's moral viewpoint has any relationship whatsoever to how the universe works.

"Concepts Have Consequences" is an essay that can be found on Kent Hovind's (Dr. Dino) site. It was authored by a gentlemen named Bruce Malone and addresses the relationship between Evolution and Morality. Now to be honest my initial reaction was there is no relationship, but decided that perhaps Mr. Malone knew something I didn't, so I proceeded to read his essay.

"Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which only allows evidences which neatly fit into a naturalistic explanation of life, we will increasingly become a society which looks only to itself for answers to life's questions."

Indoctrinated through a public school system? Now do you suppose that Mr. Malone is knowledgable enough to realize the double meaning here?

INDOCTRINATE: transitive verb, 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments, 2:to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.

Perhaps clearer would be to say educated if the first definition is intended and simply ignore the implication if its the second that is intended.

EDUCATE: verb, 1:to provide schooling for, 2: to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction.

Becoming a society that looks to itself for answers sounds like a good thing to me! Where should we look? Is there a Jovian Help Desk I don't know about? Or could Mr. Malone be refering to the gods? Seems to me a wise man once said that the "gods help those that help themselves."

Is there even such a word as "evidences?" I always thought the plural of "evidence" was, well, "evidence."

"If we have evolved from apes, if we are just another animal...then who sets the rules? Whose standards should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful?"

Hey, I've got a great idea. How about WE set the rules. Don't you think the human race has matured to the point where it can begin to take responsibility for itself? Gee, I mean, we cross the street all by ourselves and everything.

"Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these antithetical concepts becomes blurred."

You need to learn a little about ethical systems. While Divine Command Theory requires a source of absolute moral values, other ethical systems do not. For example:

ETHICAL RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.

UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each person's happiness is equally important.

DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If it’s not OK for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis is on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means.

"Acknowledgement of creation provides answers to these foundational questions of life which are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If evolution is true, then only a leap of faith provides answers."

Only if "Acknowledgement of creation" implies also accepting the rules you have put into the mouth of God.

Just out of curiousity, how can an ethical or moral answer be based upon scientific and historical evidence?

I might point out (for the 2,000th time at least) that evolution and God are not incompatible. Only the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is incompatible. Even if evolution implied that we need to supply our own answers to these questions, what's wrong with that? Don't all parents, at some point in time, want to see their children making their own way and their own decisions?

I seriously wonder if a lot of these creationist types are just folks that are insecure and uncomfortable about being out in the cold cruel world on their own. They need to have a wise and kindly father figure looking out for them and telling them how to behave.

Well guess what? Those of us that have grown up would rather forego that pleasure. Especially since we have some issues with the creationist source of morality.

But what is really absurd here is the glaring logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. The general form of the fallacy is X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences or X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

The CLASSIC EXAMPLE, invariably used to illustrate this fallacy, is "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

This of course is precisely the fallacy Mr. Malone and every other creationist that mixes ethics and science falls into. The fact that you may not like the implications of the truth, doesn't affect the truth one iota!

The ACLU and Intelligent Design

Well at least the ACLU is taking this seriously. The latest news letter is focused on the Dover School Board case.

"Once again, the ACLU will be defending religious freedom against those who want to force creationism into our public schools. The underlying conflict has been going on at least since the Scopes trial, a famous ACLU case from an earlier era."

God Bless the ACLU! Errr, no, wait a minute that doesn't sound right. Interesting how these news letters always assume the recipient is as ignorant as cold toast.

"...the creationists have a new ploy. It's called "intelligent design" -- an "alternative" to the scientific theory of evolution that religious extremists have cooked up as a way to sneak religious proselytizing into our public schools."

Gee, ya think? Glad they told me or else I might not have noticed.

"It is all too clear that powerful political forces are not just tinkering around the edges of our religious freedom -- they have set their sights on transforming our country from a constitutional democracy to a thinly veiled theocracy. They want to turn America into a country governed by their interpretation of the Bible, serviced by faith-based, taxpayer-funded institutions and guided by religious doctrine against which neither citizens nor judges should dare to speak up."

Yup, people are finally beginning to "GET IT." This is precisely what the Christian Right has on its agenda. Notice the phrase "their interpretation of the Bible." I hope the Roman Catholic, Eastern Othodox and Mainline Protestant folks in the country understand that this is the Fundamentalist Protestant interpretation which, trust me on this, no one else is going to care for, especially the Catholics. You'll be lucky if they let you "Papists continue to practice your religion of the anti-christ." Don't believe me on this one, just research "Dominionism" on the web.

Updated information, including information about the Dover Pennsylvania court case, can be found at the ACLU site http://www.aclu.org/evolution/.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSMism) is rapidly making inroads on the religious front. Well, not really, but it is a pretty neat idea.

The "religion" is the result of a "revelation" to the Holy Prophet Bobby Anderson who has demanded from the Kansas School Board that equal time be allowed for the "scientific theory" of FSMism alongside evolution and Intelligent Design. The full text of the letter can be found on the Prophet's web site at http://www.venganza.org/index.htm.

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing.

And, what's really kind of cool is the religious regalia of FSMism.

Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

All that's being asked for is equal time for equal theories (*cough, cough*).

We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world;

Oh my goodness, I think I'm feeling divine inspiration wash all over me! Yes, yes, YES! I see the light, I SEE THE LIGHT!

If you're wondering if FSMism is right for you, consider these points.

WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM

• Flimsy moral standards (actually NONE that I've been able to detect).
• Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
• The heaven is WAY better. They've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.

Even the scientific community has embraced FSMism. Some quotes.

"As a scientist, I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid."

"Letting the religious right teach ID in schools is like letting the Marines teach poetry in advanced combat training. As a scientist, I see the relevancy between the two sets to be equal. If Kansas is going to mess up like this, the least it can do is not be hypocritical and allow equal time for other alternative "theories" like FSMism, which is by far the tastier choice." Our spaghetti who art in the bowl, tasty be thy name, thy sauce be red, thy cheese be spread, oft for dinner, but at times for lunch, Amen. (*burp*)

One Side can be Wrong

Another excellent article by Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago this time co-authored with Richard Dawkins and published on September 1 in The Guardian. Some highlights.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.

If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish.

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution.

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it.

Get it? While demanding detailed evidence for evolution the ID folks ask us to accept ID with absolutely NO evidence other than a barely disguised equation that IGNORANCE = GOD. If science can’t explain it TODAY, then it must have been God. I shudder to think where mankind would be if everyone in the past had taken that view. Probably still living in mud huts and sacrificing virgins.

The View from South Africa

These are excerps from an article by George Monbiot in the Mail & Guardian of South Africa.

Evolution + life with no purpose

All is not lost in America. When George W Bush came out a couple of weeks ago in favour of teaching “intelligent design” -- the new manifestation of creationism -- the press gave him a tremendous kicking. The Christian Taliban have not yet won.

But, they are gaining on us. So far there have been legislative attempts in 13 states to have intelligent design added to the school curriculum. In Kansas, Texas and Philadelphia, it already has a foot in the door. In April a new “museum of Earth history” opened in Arkansas, which instructs visitors that “dinosaurs and humans did coexist”, and that juvenile dinosaurs, though God forgot to mention it, hitched a ride on Noah’s Ark.

Similar museums are being built in Texas and Kentucky.

The controversy fascinates me, partly because of its similarity to the dispute about climate change. Like the climate-change deniers, intelligent-design adherents cherry-pick the data that appears to support their case. They ask for evidence, then ignore it when it’s presented to them. They invoke a conspiracy to explain the scientific consensus and are unembarrassed by their own scientific illiteracy.

Why pick on Darwin?

It is surely because, as soon as you consider the implications, you must cease to believe that either Life or life are affected by purpose. As G Thomas Sharp, chairperson of the Creation Truth Foundation, admitted to the Chicago Tribune, “If we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period.”

The full article can be found here.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=250103&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/

I like the observation about being "...unembarrassed by their own scientific illiteracy," but they don't view it that way. Here's a quote from Bob Jones University Press which publishes "Christian Textbooks."

The battle for our students’ hearts and minds is ongoing, and textbooks filled with the errors of secularism, humanism, and materialism are—at best—dangerous. It’s important for Christians to understand that Christianity is reality, not a part of it. Therefore, any education which tries to explain reality apart from Christianity is ultimately false.

In other words secularism and humanism are BY DEFINITION false regardless of the evidence. The Bible is revealed truth and anything, including science, which may contradict the Bible must be rejected. What they fail to understand is that the conflict is not between the Bible and science, but rather between their interpretation of the Bible and science. The average fundamentalist Christian has elevated the dogma developed by men, through the interpretation of the scriptures, into divine infallibility. Worse, now they're trying to force feed this nonsense to the rest of us.

These people are dangerous. I used to think that they were just ignorant and silly, but I realize that I was wrong. These people are dangerous and incompatible with a modern world based upon tolerance, science and the concepts of the Enlightenment.

More on the Pew Research Report

First rule, always go directly to the source if possible.

That being my philosophy, I went to the Pew Research Council and downloaded the survey about views on Creationsim versus Evolution. It has all kinds of interesting information including the relationship of education to views.

While overall 42% of those polled believed in Creationism while 48% said they accepted Evolution, when educational level is taken into account things break down like this.

Those with H.S. or less – Creationism 50%, Evolution 36%
Those with some college – Creationism 42%, Evolution 51%
Those with a College Degree – Creationism 27%, Evolution 66%

So it’s pretty clear that the more education you have, the less likely you are to hold creationist views.

The only region of the country where the majority held a Creationist view was the South (Why doesn’t this surprise me?).

South – Creationism 51%, Evolution 38%
Midwest – Creationism 42%, Evolution 45%
West – Creationism 36%, Evolution 57%
Northeast – Creationism 32%, Evolution 59%

I wonder where those 32% in the Northeast are because there sure aren't that many in my neck of the woods.

There is still a tremendous misconception about the opinion of scientists with fully 33% saying that no scientific consensus exists while 54% realize that there is significant consensus. One hopeful note is that 46% of those saying they believe in Creationism think there is no consensus among scientists, while 41% realize there is, but apparently don’t care! On second thought, maybe that’s NOT so hopeful.

Another rather interesting finding, although not terribly surprising, was related to what people considered the most important influence on their views on the Development of Life.

Those who believed in Creationism – Religion 60%, Education 9%, Don’t Know 31%
Those who believed in Evolution – Religion 26%, Education 47%, Don’t Know 27%

On a REALLY SCARY note fully 38% felt that the teaching of Creationism should REPLACE the teaching of Evolution!!! Although something doesn’t make a lot of sense here, how the hell (as reported in the survey) could 22% of the folks that accept Evolution think the teaching of Creationism should replace the teaching of Evolution?

In some encouraging notes, the number of people that think Dubyah mentions faith and prayer too much has doubled since July of 2003 from 14% to 28% while support for Faith Based Initiatives, while still pretty strong, has dropped from 75% in March of 2001 to 66%.

New Survey on Creationism vs. Evolution

In a recent Pew Research Center Poll 42% of Americans stated that they held strict creationist views while 48% said they believe that humans had evolved over time. Of the 48% that supported evolution 26% said that evolution was the result of natural selection while 18% felt that evolution had been guided by a supreme being. Fully 64% felt that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school.

A spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education questioned whether the poll was an endorsement of the teaching of creationism as much as a endorsement of fairness in American culture. That's sort of the dumbest observation I've seen in a while. The NCSE spokesperson is confusing "what" and "why." What 64% of the polled support is the teaching of creationism alongside evolution; the tradition of fair play in American culture may be why they support it. Again we have an example of wishful thinking, "nah, this survey isn't as big a disaster as it appears, it really means something I can live with."

Well at least 48% of the country has accepted evolution. That's a step in the right direction. I wonder if there was a correlation with education in this survey? That would have been interesting to see I think.