Search News


Browse Archives

News

Darwin, From the Creationists

October 7, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

An anti-evolution group is getting ready to unveil a new tactic -- with college students as the target.

Living Waters, an evangelical group that argues for the literal truth of the Bible, is planning to distribute 175,000 copies of The Origin of Species on university campuses next month, just in time for the 150th anniversary of its publication. But these won't be ordinary copies. They will feature a "special introduction" to Darwin's classic.

Materials being used in fund raising by the group say that the introduction "gives a timeline of Darwin's life, and his thoughts on the existence of God. It lists the theories of many hoaxes, exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything, points to the incredible structure of DNA, and notes the absence of any undisputed transitional forms. To show the dangerous fruit of evolution, it also mentions Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, and his disdain for women. In addition, it counters the claim that creationists are "anti-science" by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe...."

The idea, according to the fund raising materials, is that top universities, which might not be thrilled at their students being given anti-evolution materials, will be unable to block the distribution of Darwin's writings. "Let's see if they try to ban Darwin's Origin of Species," it says.

Living Waters isn't as well known as other anti-evolution groups, but has captured attention in recent weeks because of a supportive video made on its behalf by the actor Kirk Cameron. The video endorses the efforts by Living Waters and denounces university faculties for having too many atheists.

Ray Comfort, the president of Living Waters, said in an interview that organizers plan to give out the books at about 100 universities to start -- aiming for those that are the most prestigious -- and that eventually the group hopes to give out the book to all college students. Comfort said that organizers plan to "just show up" and start giving out copies. If any universities bar the distribution -- as he acknowledged private universities might have the legal right to do -- Living Waters will simply go to a sidewalk "outside the gates" and give out copies there. He predicted that students would take the book, and that they would then reconsider support for evolution.

Comfort said he means no disrespect to Darwin, of whom he said "this man had a tremendous imagination."

Asked for his views on how the earth came to be populated as it is, Comfort said that "I believe God made everything as it is."

He said that universities need his edition of Origin of Species because professors today "are not allowed to mention God. If a professor believes in a creator, they are not allowed to mention it because it's religion." Asked if that was not an exaggeration, given that many professors of various faiths at a range of colleges and universities do talk about their belief in God, Comfort acknowledged that such discussion takes place, but said that it is banned as biology instruction.

Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that he would never advocate that Living Waters be barred from campuses.

"I believe in free speech, and people have the right to say whatever they want," he said. "But universities also have a right to comment, and if they see this as a distortion of science, they should say something. If I see it as a distortion of science, I will say that."

Leshner said that until he sees a final version of the book, he can't know how he would respond or what approach would make sense to speak out on these issues. But based on what he has read, he said: "Am I concerned? Absolutely."

He said he worried that the basis of evolution would be improperly described. "Our job is to protect the integrity of science and science education, and that's true of universities, too."

Leshner also said he was worried, based on materials used by Living Waters, that the group was trying to imply that scientists don't respect religion. This is unfair to scientists whatever their beliefs, he said. "Many, many scientists are religious and a very large majority of scientists I know are highly respectful of people of faith and understand that science and religion deal with different domains," he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Darwin, From the Creationists

  • Bring it on
  • Posted by Mark A. Wilson , Professor of Geology at The College of Wooster on October 7, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • I hope I can snag one of these books next month because I plan to use it in my History of Life course at Wooster. There is no better way to reveal the speciousness of creationists than to actually read and analyze their writings. Students are amazed at not only the hollowness of their arguments but also how they are deliberately misleading. I'm especially looking forward to seeing their support for the claim that there are no "undisputed transitional forms" in the fossil record. I'm pleased that Ray Comfort is the man behind this latest move because he is such a good example of his type.
    My only concern is that some may conclude that The Origin of Species is still the central text of the modern theories of evolution, and that Darwin occupies some sort of demi-god role in science. The book is a classic, of course, and Darwin one of the greatest intellectual heroes, but the science has, dare I say it, considerably evolved since 1859.

  • And in this corner..another distraction...
  • Posted by Diogenes on October 7, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Once again by putting their junk science and culture war polemics in a handy, easy to refute volume, the religious right again proves to be their own worse enemy. Most science faculty will slice it up and display its many defects as easily as a 7th grade science student shows off the organs of a dissected frog. Too bad so many trees had to die for a book destined to level tables and gather dust. Just keep that tax free tithe money rolling in folks! I don't dispute their right to distribute it. Just the common sense of spending so much money on a campaign of so little worth while millions starve, are jobless and homeless, or have no health care. Better the money spent there by these so-called disciples of Christ, who seem so ready to scream like banshees over Darwin but neglect the weightier matters of what used to be within living memory a compassionate faith.

  • Creationists select 100 most prestigious universities
  • Posted by Sol Gittleman , University Professor at Tufts University on October 7, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Who will be selected by Living Waters to be the 100 most prestigious institutions of higher education in the nation? This list could replace all those similarly reliable lists of US NEWS & WORLD REPORT. As we speak, public relations officers all over America are adjusting their data to make their colleges and universities more appealing in this new battle for status. Oh, I hope we're chosen!

  • Let There Be Light
  • Posted by 007 on October 7, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Logos. A moon rock is full of it: The Word, i.e. information.

    It this gets students into a conversation, why not? Raises interesting questions for them.

    "Asked for his views on how the earth came to be populated as it is, Comfort said that 'I believe God made everything as it is.'" Does that include social class? As in Alexander Pope: "Whatever IS is Right"? No need for people to bother changing social-political systems? Did Ray Comfort take, say, Hegelian dialectic into consideration? How God might've made the universe?

    My favorite illustration of the Bible's literalness (as opposed to literariness): "Spare the rod and spoil the child." How many times did I try to remind my parents that that commandment was to be taken literally. To no avail.

  • Bring it ME
  • Posted by Colin Purrington , Associate Professor/Department of Biology at Swarthmore College on October 7, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • I, too, cannot wait to see it, and I'd love to snag a copy. I'm assuming they aren't using the first edition--??

  • TOLERANCE
  • Posted by Sandra P on October 7, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • The Bible never says "Spare the rod and spoil the child"--- that was in a poem by Samuel Butler in 1664 and it was a bawdy reference to not producing children through abstinence.

    I don't know why the few professors that commented here seem so vitriolic against students being given information that refutes the theory of evolution. As far as I can tell, students thrive in an atmosphere where they can consider various viewpoints rather than simply have someone else's opinion the only framework of reference. And evolution is just an opinion, since, obviously, no one alive has had first-hand observation of the moment of creation. It is and always will be open to speculation.

    Lastly, the comment on this being "so little worth"--- you obviously don't understand the full implications and repercussions to a possible society that believes humans came from nothing more than some ooze and developed incrementally over a very long period of time. Where there is no believe in God and His creation, the sanctity (or holiness) of human life is meaningless. Chaos and discord would be the only force. This is not of "so little worth," but of utmost importance.

    I suggest that people who are in the education field, who are supposed to be intellectual people with a respect for knowledge, should be more open-minded and tolerant of opposing views. In fact, true proponents of higher education should welcome the debate. The fact that this seems to threaten you and your way of thinking only gives further credence to it's apparent probability.

  • I want one too!
  • Posted by John Summerlot , Instructor, School of Education at Indiana University on October 7, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • I too wish there was more information on the "100 most prestigious". I hope we are one because ironically, I'm teaching a course this semester on Religious Issues in Modern Education and this would not only provide some timely class discussion but illustrate the dynamic that exists between higher education and religon. (i.e. Outside folks trying to influence "ungodly" higher education without bothering to examine the curicculum or find out how science and religion coexist in higher education.)

    On the flip side, the trouble maker in me has always wondered what would happen if the opposite were true and someone showed up outside of these folks church and started handing out books on science (something with dinosaurs or geology) and philiosophy (maybe some Nietzsche?) How would they handle it?

  • Posted by Brandon on October 7, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Interesting event... for those of you on both sides of the debate there is an excellent book, Thank God for Evolution.

  • Oh, Such Pious Tears.....
  • Posted by Diogenes on October 7, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • We are intellectual people. And we do care about knowledge. That's why such a god awful piece of religious/political propaganda has earned such scorn. You obviously don't understand the implications of allowing such nonsense to remain unchallenged. We are open minded. Just not empty minded. And this silly book, if its anything like earlier editions does nothing to "refute" evolution. It's just the usual package of pseudo-science hack writing and polemic that the tithe-bloated publisher is infamous for. Grow up!

  • Posted on October 7, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • FYI:

    Proverbs 13:24 (New International Version)

    24 He who spares the rod hates his son,
    but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

  • "Spare the Rod" Correction
  • Posted by 007 on October 7, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Thanks. Wish I'd reminded my parents of THAT! In any case, do you disagree with my noting the literariness of the Bible, complete with history (narrative) tropes, parables and such? My concern is whether God evolved the universe over what for humans seems an awfully long time: Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, as well as Darwin's materialism. I welcome Comfort's free speech because it raises questions for students. The universe is full of information (The Word) and it seems we humans--also made of information, DNA,etc. are "condemned" to interpret it according to the diverse epistemologies (science, philosophies, theologies, literatures) God allowed us. I'm especially interested in The Bible as Law, a kind of constitution and therefore its political implications. How and why did humans develop social hierarchies (gender, class, race, etc.)? Was that God's brilliant idea or the Devil's. Or just ours? Do humans invent their own institutions, then forget that, or attribute them to God or the Devil, so they will feel quite incabable of EVOLVING, democratically, a better world?

  • Book Freedom
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on October 7, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • It's rather hilarious that the creationists are afraid they won't be allowed to hand out the books on campus, and that they chose this angle because they feared that creationist propaganda would be banned. The truth is that at all public universities, and every decent private secular one, no one would ever dare to stop someone from handing out books or other information. The only places you have to fear that kind of censorship in America are conservative religious colleges, where the Vagina Monologues is banned. Now, if they want to expose censorship in America, they should try handing them out in shopping malls and the entryway to Wal-Mart, and see how quickly they get arrested.

  • The Rod as Discipline
  • Posted by 007 on October 7, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • It is also my understanding that the rod refers to the crooked rod by which the shepherd gently pulls the stray lamb back into the flock. It had nothing to do with violence (corporal punishment) as somehow demonstrating love for one's child. In any case, it's a metaphor for reasoning with a child, for asking the child, "What kind of person do you want to be? What kind of society do you want to live in?" Not "Do it because I said so." Or "Blindly obey authority."

  • They did their research...
  • Posted by Mike McKinley , AT - Access Office at Valdosta State University on October 7, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Scott,

     

    Enjoyed your article from url: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/07/darwin. I would encourage you to review the material in a future article. I discovered to my displeasure it is well researched and very academically sound. I have already discussed it with our faculty and we are excited at the challenges this research will bring and the added debate.

     

    I am hopeful that you will concur and would encourage to look at the material and actually research it. I am curious to your findings.

     

     

    Mike

  • What should we do?
  • Posted by John Farley , Professor of Physics at UNLV on October 7, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • When the creationists hand out free copies of Darwin's Origins of Species, perhaps the scientists should hand out copies of Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, which summarizes the evidence for evolution, and criticizes the creationists.

  • I Know I’ll Get Carried Away With This
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 7, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Two things ...

    I have just completed writing a very long essay titled “The Founding Fathers and a Christian America.” In the process of my “research,” I have spent a great deal of time examining the religious perspectives of ten of the “most important” Founding Fathers ... and they are a truly spectacular lot.

    In any event, at one point I have a photo matrix of children – I’d guess they’re between four and ten years old – from North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and the United States. The caption reads ...

    “I suppose it is the innocence that radiates in their faces, but whatever it is, I have a special affection for photographs of young children. I am always struck by the fact that children from around the world are almost identical. Then we adults start working on their brains – with heavy doses of politics and religion – and in short order we discover we’ve ruined something that was once almost perfect. Damn! ... they deserve better.”

    I tell you that tale because, as much as I’d like to be a “live-and-let-live” person, I just can’t shake the anger I feel toward the religious right vis-à-vis their contamination of the minds of young people ... especially kids.

    I suppose I’m not telling you anything new, but as we speak, the Conservative Bible Project is moving right along -- I think in conjunction with Conservapedia, the conservative version of Wikipedia -- with a new version of the Bible (starting with the New Testament) ...

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    The project is led by Andrew Schlafly, son of the famous prophet, Phyllis Schlafly, who once pontificated, “Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women.” And if you go to the Conservapedia link above, you will discover that ...

    “Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

    1. lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ.

    2. lack of precision in modern language.

    3. translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

    Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.”

    Omigod! ... translating a translation. Ouch! A few of Mr. Schlafly’s vocabulary clarifications (word changes) of note are ...

    1. “Pharises” are now “elitists”

    2. “Scribes” are now “intellectuals”

    3. “Die the death” is now “death penalty”

    Makes you feel good about higher education in these United States, doesn’t it? Truth be known, I would like to get these idiots in a room for one afternoon with Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine ... and with George Washington sitting in a corner, sipping whiskey from one of his two stills at Mount Vernon, and making wise cracks 1790-style.

    I suppose I should back off, but I must tell you that one of the things I did in my essay was create a timeline that put what the Founding Fathers could possibly know about physics, astronomy, geology, and biology in the context of a few of the great thinkers of the day ... for example, they were all dead by the time Darwin wrote “The Origin of the Species.” One of my paragraphs is ...

    “I am off on this “tangent” for good reason. The display above demonstrates a disconnect between millions of Americans who have their own reasons for believing what they believe – and, truthfully, I think I’ve seen a lot of them on tv news shows lately – and our scientists. But there is one thing about which you may be certain – underline that, "about which you may be certain" – if any of the Founding Fathers in my photo matrix above were alive today, he would (1) believe the Universe is approximately 14.7 billion years old, (2) believe the theory of the Big Bang describes the origin of the Universe fairly accurately, and (3) believe Darwin’s theory is a superb description of the evolution of the species.”

    P.S. It is noteworthy that Jefferson had a general disdain for Christian dogma ... and occasionally referred to the Bible as “that dunghill.”. While he had a great deal of respect for Jesus as a philosopher and teacher, he was confident both that Jesus was not divine and the holy trinity was a hoax. In response to the request of a friend, he essentially cut-and-pasted the New Testament onto blank pages, removing all references to Christ’s divinity and his supposed miracles. In a letter to Joseph Priestly (English theologian, natural philosopher, and political theorist) Jefferson explained that he intended to describe the real Jesus, not the one whose life and times had been misrepresented – and with plenty of contradictions – by unscholarly men (granted Luke was a physician and a friend of Paul, but it is not likely that he ever met Jesus).

  • Theory or Fact: Be Open Minded
  • Posted by Stephen Allison on October 7, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Education's goal should be to teach students to think critically and not just gain a body of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with getting another perspective even if you disagree with. There are many intelligent educated people and scientist who do not accept evolution as the final explanation of the origin of the universe nevertheless the species. Evolution is a "theory" and we have to be open to other theories that may better explain the facts we sty in science. Evolution has become a sacred cow in education that cannot be challenged but just as other theories in the past there will come a time where we have to put it aside as flawed and erroneous. Just as in other schools of thought, people are locked in the evolution paradigm and can't see anything else or won't because they are afraid of where it may lead them. Consider the financial meltdown our nation and the world has experience this past year. Many couldn't imagine certain companies and banks experiencing problems they have, but it happened. So I believe it will be in science, there may yet be discoveries to be made that will burst our evolution bubble and the pride of those of you who look with disdain on those who question it or say are viable alternatives, even the explanation of those who believe in God and creation.

    Just as science needs interpretation, the bible needs interpretation. Proverbs 13:24 is not advocating child abuse. It is just giving the wise advise that parents are to correct their children when they see them doing wrong and acting in appropriately. It means more that just using the literal "rod" in circumstances that warrant it for the correction of rebellious child to give understanding of the seriousness of an offense and prevent certain children from becoming juvenile deliquents. We are to discipline, train and correct our children with age appropriate means if we love them to keep them from forming habits and pattern of behavior that will eventually destroy them or cause them and society heartache. In appropriate settings we may need to use the "rod". I know some of you will disagree but don't make the Bible and people who believe like I do to be idiots or extreme zealots.

  • Sure, give students another book...
  • Posted by Colin on October 7, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Most students read maybe half of the required reading for their classes, so this guy can give students all the books he wants...about 100,000 copies of this book will wind up being used as coasters for beer cans, and the other 75,000 will probably wind up in dumpsters.

  • Critical Thinking Exercise
  • Posted by Ann Cleveland , Ocean Studies at Maine Maritme Academy on October 7, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I agree that it is unfortunate that some of us display vitriol, as it does not forward anyone's argument. I also agree that this new text will present an excellent opportunity for students again to learn the difference between what science is and does, and what religion is and does. I take offense at the idea that college faculty are a "bunch of atheists". A good scientist will tell you s/he is an "agnostic", i.e. "without knowing" because at this point it time, no one is capable of designing an experiment to test the presence of a god. Data is everything!

    I also take exception that human societies who think they descended from ooze will be rudderless. Many societies have deities quite different from the "God" of the bible, and yet they show great compassion and morality. Perhaps understanding that we all (by all I mean plants, animals, bacteria, you name it) are related would increase our compassion! I do not believe in any story proposed by any organized religion, and I do believe I am descended from "ooze", but I also believe in the sanctity of all life, and I don't place humans on any pedestal.

    I welcome the publication of this book, because I would love to read it and bring it into a discussion in my freshmen biology course -- this is the perfect demonstration of how science and religion are two separate entities.

  • What? ... Be Open Minded About Creation “Science?”
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 7, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I can’t resist responding to Stephen Allison.

    Of course we should be “open minded” and tolerant ... but we should not be stupid.

    Everything I believe or know in life has a subjective probability associated with it (indexed with my name). For example ...

    Pr[I’ll be home for dinner] = 0.86.

    Pr[1+1=2] = 0.999999999999999999999.

    Pr[Fermat’s Last “Theorem” is true] = 0.9999999999237 (the proof – depending on how you look at it – is hundreds of pages long).

    Pr[Sarah Palin will be elected president in 2012] = 0.0000061.

    You get the point.

    Now I am willing – even eager – to be open minded about the statement p if Pr[p is true] is greater than 0.15. Otherwise, forget it.

    One of the very depressing tables in the essay I mentioned in a previous post – I’m sorry I can’t show it here in formatted form – contains the following information ...

    Scientific Knowledge of Adult Americans

    Question 1: Did God create humans -- essentially as we are today – within the past 10,000 years?
    Scientists: 97.3% say No
    American Adults: 45% say No ... 102 million of us are wrong

    Question 2: Do you believe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is accurate?
    Scientists: 99.6% say Yes*
    American Adults: 39% say Yes ...113 million of us are wrong

    Question 3: Did man and the dinosaurs coexist on Earth?
    Scientists: 100% say No
    American Adults: 48% say No ... 96 million of us are wrong

    For me ...

    Pr[Young Earth theory is true] = 0.000000000000026

    Pr[Big Bang theory is accurate] = 0.999936297

    Pr[Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisted] = 0.0000000000000000014

    So, Professor Allison, when it comes to being open-minded about so-called creation “science,” don’t count on me.

    * In a survey, only 700 of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists gave any credence at all to creation-science.

  • Ann Cleveland
  • Posted by 007 on October 7, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Yes. Pagan creation stories are quite interesting as well, and no less valid.

    Any text is subject to what we call reading. Our present historical situation must inevitably affect how we read, as it always affected the writing and subsequent readings of the Bible. (For instance, was Job written in two parts, the second in response to social unrest?) The resonance of the term "hybris" or "hubris" changes during the Renaissance, taking on a certain moral quality that it well may not have had for the ancient Greeks. In short, the historical, rhetorical situation is always in flux. What political needs get met by the present urge to select this or that aspect of a given sacred text for special emphasis while de-emphasizing others?

    Frizbane: My question. Is there maybe something about our expericence of late-stage capitalism that is driving this particular debate in just this way? What drives us all into our particular compartments and communities, intolerant atheisms, this or that flavor of scientific agnosticism, fundamentalist Christianity? Is this a historical dynamic? Does history generate culture? What would happen to culture if the distance between rich and poor were closing rather than growing? If there were increasing democracy rather than its ongoing diminishment? What "need" is being met by Ray Comfort's theology? By the belief system any of us holds?

  • We won't bow down and worship the Creationist Idol.
  • Posted by Diogenes on October 7, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • This "debate" is so amusing. Calling this book "well researched" produced a sputtering laughing fit. Yes you managed to quote every pro-Creationists publication out there and studiously ignored things like...evidence. Enjoy the echo chamber. Maybe you can bundle this barker with the spanking new "Conservative Bible." They are equally obscene.

  • Whatever happened to Genesis 2?
  • Posted by Quester , Prof, psychology at Eastern Michigan University on October 7, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Creationists seem not to understand that a scientific theory is limited to material explanations. This results in people being able to cooperate no matter where they are and what their religious orienation is.

    In addition, Creationists seem to read the Bible very selectively. They refer endlessly to Genesis 1 and ignore that Genesis 2 provides a completely different account of creation. Why is it ignored?

  • Creationism Book
  • Posted by Jeff Olson , VP - college acquisitions on October 7, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • My objection to Rush Limbaugh on one end of the spectrum and Michael Moore on the other is that they are always trying to tell us what to think rather than trusting people to arrive at a logical conclusion. Universities should welcome the book being distributed. The few copies that don't get tossed or used as beer coasters (as suggested) will no doubt bring debate. That debate will clearly end with a vast majority dismissing the material as fairytale-ish and then the readers and debaters can move onto other more important matters.

    I do agree that the money wasted by this group could have been used better to forward their Christian beliefs by helping others in the name of Christ.

  • Why Can't You Be Open to Creation Science?
  • Posted by Stephen Allison on October 7, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • This is in response to Frizbane Manley's post.

    In all do respect sir, your probability numbers are absolutely subjective to your view. If you seek the truth, you have to admit that in the real probability of a computer or watch coming together by themselves from nothing is near to zero (in my subjective probability I don't put anything as impossible), so it is with the complex universe with everything in it coming into being from nothing (The Big Bang Theory).

    Since true science depends on honest examination of evidence and facts, it doesn't matter how many people hold a particular viewpoint or opinion it doesn't make it right. This goes for creationists who may use the same argument of how many people support their view. We can agree that many honest intelligent people hold very different opinions and views of the same evidence.

    Although, I question your numbers that only 700 of 480,000 U.S Earth and life scientists surveyed give credence to creation science, if I use it, it proves that the scientific community is very closed and has made belief in the "Theory of Evolution" almost religious dogma. Even if you don't want to call it creation science or accept the belief in the God of the Bible and there are many people and scientists who don't, but they believe in intelligent design of the universe.

    There is no honest scientist who is going to say he accepts the evolutonary theory 100% and are not open to theories and explanations based on evidence and facts. It's sad that so much of the scientific and education community has such great misunderstanding, ignorance, and hatred of the Bible, the God of the Bible and religion in general. They've made their opinions and views blind them to the unbiased approach they are to take in science and various subjects. I agree that some Christian and religious people give reason for some of these views through their inappropriate behaviors, and arguments but please "don't through the baby out with the bath water".

    There is a lot that can be discussed by open-minded people on both sides of this debate.

    Peace.

  • How about a Bible with a corresponding introduction?
  • Posted by CRM on October 7, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Not that this would actually help matters...

    But the 'fair' response would be to distribute a Bible to church-goers, which included an introduction that discussed the impossibility of various events described in the text, the connection of Christianity to the Inquisition, the crusades, etc. It could also acknowledge that writers of the Bible had tremendous imagination.

  • You Can’t Fool Me Ann
  • Posted by Frisbane Manley on October 7, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Okay Ann, five things ...

    First, I know the point of the questions in the second paragraph of your second post are for no other purpose than to goad me into writing the longest post in the history of InsideHigherEd. Well, as much as I loved that – it was very clever -- I’m not going to take the bait. It wouldn’t surprise me if you had a wager about that with one of your colleagues. But I’m no sucker. Maybe a blowfish, but not a sucker.

    Second, I’m just guessing what your interests might be – so I might be missing the mark here -- but I’ll bet you, and perhaps some of the others who have responded to this article, would enjoy reading “The Evolution of God” by Robert Wright ... terrific thesis, lots of wonderful information, and wonderfully written. Buy it for yourself for Christmas ... it’s a whale of a book.

    Third, in my opinion, scientists should never use the phrase “critical thinking” ... and you used it in both of your posts. If you go to ...

    http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/02/05/griffin

    and fish around a bit, I think you’ll understand. If you do use that phrase, you’ll only be encouraging those who teach composition, philosophy, political science ... oh, it’s a long list.

    Fourth ... can I get a job at the Maine Maritime Academy? I’m a terrific teacher, and I have always wanted to cast my lot with colleagues who, when describing themselves, say something along the lines of “And if I am teaching students about fish, well, it can’t get any better than that.” What a great line!

    Finally, your department’s “Autobiographical Sketches of Women in Oceanography” is nothing less than spectacular. On a daily basis I send scientific information (mostly about math, astronomy, and geology) – and xkcd cartoons – to a long list of friends, more than a few of whom are young girls. I am always looking for information about women in science – and isn’t that great about Elizabeth Blackburn – and the Autobiographical Sketches are great.

    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/18_1/18.1_sketches.pdf

    Anyway, thanks, but I won’t be taking the bait!

  • RE: Whatever happened to Genesis 2?
  • Posted by Gabe , Development on October 7, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Quester,

    Genesis one is the historical overview of God creating the earth. Genesis two is focusing in on God creating Man. In other words, chapter one is the big picture and then chapter 2 is the detailed picture of day 6. It is like looking at a picture of the globe and then zooming in on Dallas, Tx. This happens all the time in history books. Hope that clarifies. Cheers!

  • Creationism and Equivocation
  • Posted by CC Prof on October 8, 2009 at 1:15am EDT
  • Stephen Allison wrote in response to Frisbane Manley: "In all do respect sir, your probability numbers are absolutely subjective to your view. If you seek the truth, you have to admit that in the real probability of a computer or watch coming together by themselves from nothing is near to zero (in my subjective probability I don't put anything as impossible), so it is with the complex universe with everything in it coming into being from nothing (The Big Bang Theory)."

    Mr. Allison seems to be equivocating a bit here. He is arguing in earlier posts that evolutionary theory is incorrect and that creationism should be taken seriously. But that sort of creationism holds that God created organisms in their present forms, etc. In the quote above, he makes a reference to Paley's design argument. That argument was meant to support that sort of creationism. But, then, in the same quote, he argues that the universe must have a creator because something can't come from nothing. That sort of argument is best characterized as some sort of cosmological argument akin to what one would find in Leibniz or Clarke.

    The design argument and the cosmological argument are different sorts of argument arguing for different sorts of creationism. In my opinion as a professional philosopher (sorry Frisbane, but philosophy does come in handy sometimes), the design argument is terribly weak while the cosmological argument is intellectually serious and requires effort to understand and refute.

    Also, the cosmological argument for God's existence (the existence of a creator) is perfectly compatible with the evolution of species. Perhaps God created the universe out of nothing and set in motion all of the evolutionary changes, including those to species, that have occurred since. To deny that this is possible is to deny God's omnipotence. That is a problem for a theist. Basically, Mr. Allison is using an argument for one kind of creationisn to reach a conclusion about another kind of creationism. That involves the fallacy of equivocation.

    Finally, I think that if Leibniz had lived long enough to encounter Darwin's theory of natural selection and the geological evidence for evolution he would have thought they they were rigorously scienfitic and quite cool.

  • Also Kant
  • Posted by 007 on October 8, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Kant may not have proven God. But his system makes room for God? Question: Is God a capitalist? Did human history evolve to capitalism as telos? Or are human economic systems still evolving? Toward more, or less, economic democracy? What say ye?

  • Creationism: The Better Idea?
  • Posted by Diogenes on October 8, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Sure. Few scientists are 100% certain that evolution is a "fact". After all, it is a tiny bit less certain than. lets say, gravity. But most are 100% certain the a literal six day creation and the very thoughts of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs and other such Creationist bunk are ludicrous.

    Scientists are open to better ideas and theories, not worse ones long ago assigned to the dust bin of history. As I said before, open minded is not empty minded. We won't trade better for worse! However, you and your religious reich friends are welcome to do so in the comfort of your own cult centers and home schools. Just not in our secular schools. We're not in a flat earth theocracy!

  • Love, Faith, Science
  • Posted by James Pakala , Library Director at Covenant Theological Seminary on October 8, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I'm glad Frizbane mentioned Andrew Schlafly and the Conservative Bible Project because as someone helping to educate future clergy I'm now aware of still another challenge our alumni face. This Project strikes me as anything but conservative, both textually and theologically. I'm tempted to rail at such people, but perhaps compassion if not pity is better. Railing at them only confirms (to them) that their "adversaries" are hostile and have closed minds. Calm and careful engagement may not be possible with unpleasant people whose views are threatened, but there are millions of religious people for whom love, faith, and science are precious. What bothers me most is that people like Schlafly and young earth creationists can influence others in the wrong direction, and whatever I can do to prevent that is an important part of preparing those who can be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves," winsomely confronting and refuting "right-wing" (or "far-left") political, religious, and pseudo-scientific positions. Oh, and let's leave distant centuries out of all this. E.g., the Crusades are infinitely more complex than today's derogation of Christianity would make them out to be. Giving roving rogues something to do and sending them out of your locale was one reason for the Crusades, as was a view that the good times couldn't come until the Holy Land was recovered. And how different the "Children's" Crusade was than I was taught though years of secular education.

  • For the Johns – Summerlot, Wilson and Farley
  • Posted by Monica Metzler at IL Science Council on October 8, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I love the idea of passing out science books as a counterpart to this! But I don’t think it’s a “trouble maker” idea but rather an appropriate and complementary action to a group that claims it wants to get more information out there.

    It would undoubtedly increase the media attention for their effort – which causes me slight hesitation, but only slightly. Because it would also shine a spotlight on the extraordinary flaws in their attempts to discount evolution. The event logistics part of my brain has kicked in and the fantasy works like this: Smart science lovers put their research skills to work to figure out what universities will be targeted and when;Immediately after someone gets their hands on the first copies, individuals (maybe the hard-core types like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, et al could work together and with the more conciliatory types like Ken Miller, Neil Shubin and Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education) to jointly craft a point-by-point refutation of the claims made in the “special introduction.” The refutation is immediately made available on line. Ideally, copies of it would be printed in similar format and size as the book. That way it could be passed out to those receiving the books on the targeted campuses.

    Standing right beside the Living Waters book distributors and handing them out to students so they get both. Students can then read the Living Waters introduction, read the scientists refutation of that introduction, and then continue on to read The Origin.Simultaneously, the “most influential” conservative Christian schools or churches are identified. Volunteers stand – on public ground just outside their property of course – and pass out copies of books on evolution. Personally, I’d avoid Richard Dawkins’ books – he’s just too antagonistic – and go with Ken Miller’s “Only a Theory.”With the proper announcement in press releases of the refutation itself along with the schedule of what schools/churches it will be distributed at (only very few would be required to make a big impact), it might have the wonderful effect of throwing the “teach the controversy” back in the faces of the religious zealots and biblical literalists. Oooh, if only I had the time and a little money to execute this….

  • Frizbane's potentially longest post in IHE history
  • Posted by DFS on October 8, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • I actually did exhale the longest exhalation in the history of reading IHE posts when you stated that you would not take the bait, only because I'm tired.

    Since yesterday was my 15-hour day of working, I had no chance of reading any IHE until today, so -- as a waivering agnostic I only ask your opinion of one thing: what was going on in the universe before the big bang?

  • Don't show up at Christian Schools
  • Posted by Karl Giberson , President at BioLogos Foundation on October 8, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • The irony of this half-baked project is that these books would be unwelcome even at Christian Colleges. The number of accredited Christian Colleges in the country still interested in these 18th-century ideas is probably in the single digits.

    But, because somebody is bank-rolling a nonsense project in the name of Christian belief, people will continue to think that this is what Christians think. The truth is that Christians who think, think this stuff is crazy. The idea that pointing out flaws in a 150 year old book could possibly undermine a contemporary science is seriously off the rails.

    For a better idea of what thinking Christians think about evolution see the website www.biologos.org, which was started by Francis Collins.

  • Distributing The Origin
  • Posted by Julio Ozores, M.D. , University Health Services at UC Berkeley on October 8, 2009 at 10:45pm EDT
  • Other than the canards against Darwin, one might even see this effort by Living Waters to distribute The Origin as honorable. Go ahead and distribute it and introduce it any way you want.

    Living Waters should know their effort may backfire. Anyone who actually bothers to go past their introduction - and who simultaneously possesses any will whatsoever to not delude himself/herself - will see what a monument of scrupulously fair argumentation The Origin of Species remains.

  • Just a quick note . . .
  • Posted by Brian Ondrusek , Graduate Student/Chemistry Departmen at Florida State University on October 8, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT
  • I haven't got much time to spend here, but I would like to clarify something.

    It has been said several times on this board thusfar that no one has been around to witness the origin of the universe. I just want to point out that the evolution as a subject doesn't so much deal with "how" everything came to be, but rather what has been happening since. Evolution does not state either way if God put everything into motion, it simply observes the transitions that have been made in the meantime.

    Truthfully, in today's academic community there is very little debate left on the subject. Regardless of one's position on the topic, virtually everyone you will meet has realized that the both religion and evolution are reconcilable, and that neither is out to attack the other. This debate is brought on by a small group of people who simply refuse to look with an open mind at both sides of the argument. Ironic, really.

  • there must be two Ann Clevelands!
  • Posted by Ann Cleveland , Corning School of Ocean Studies at Maine Maritime Academy on October 9, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Frisbane: It wasn't me trying to "fool you", but rather a subject line "Ann Cleveland" posted by a writer named "007". That being said, I certainly do enjoy your posts...

    To all of you: I have definitely enjoyed the exchange. I have read many of the suggested books. I believe in critical thinking. I believe in the theory of evolution. I believe someone misrepresented scientists -- I believe most of us believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection, but may not all agree on the fine points. That is an entirely different argument to say we are quibbling on the little things. I believe in the theory of gravity, and of relativity, and of quantum mechanics. Why is theory such an ugly word to some when it is attached to evolution, but completely accepted when applied to gravity, anyway?

    I also applaud the comments of Brian Ondrusek, the grad student at Florida State, because he has cogently summarized the whole shebang....

  • Relieved, disgusted, and surprised
  • Posted by Beth on October 9, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Relieved -- that I went to a Catholic university (Notre Dame) where my belief in God and my ability to reconcile that with my scientific acceptance of evolution were allowed to be compatible.

    Disgusted that the "Christian" designation never includes Catholicism... Catholic education is Christian education, and Catholic education supports the teaching of evolution.

    Surprised that the excellent documentary refuting intelligent design and creationism,"A Flock of Dodos," has not been mentioned here.

  • Helping Professor Allison
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 10, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • For starters, a person who places hir trust in science, logic, and reason should never spend too much time communicating with a person of faith – except for playing golf or working at a Habitat for Humanity site – because the person who frames arguments in terms of science, logic, and reason doesn’t have a chance ... faith trumps science, logic, and reason every time. And, by the way, even if the person of faith knows something about science and logic, that additional factor of faith skews rational discourse until such time as issues of faith are set aside. There is no argument against a statement of faith.

    Second, Professor Allison, you made the very insightful observation that “[my] probability numbers are absolutely subjective to [my] view.” On second thought, maybe it wasn’t very insightful after all, because, before I made my statements, I announced, “Everything I believe or know in life has a subjective probability associated with it (indexed with my name).”

    Allow me to give you a little lesson in probability. There are – except for quibblers – three kinds of probability in this world. There is “theoretical probability” ... which is irrelevant to this discussion. Then there is “relative frequency probability” ... let’s see, since only 700 out of 480,000 earth and life scientists give any credence at all to creation “science” it follows that ...

    Pr[Earth and life scientists give credence to creation “science”] = 0.00146,

    just a wee bit more than one-tenth of one percent ("Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23). That’s an illustration of the determination of a probability as a relative frequency, and it is only marginally relevant to this discussion.

    Then there is “subjective probability” ... and, in fact, there are as many “systems” of subjective probability as there are conscious people on the face of the earth ... roughly 6,706,993,152 of them. The only trouble is (1) a gazillion of us are pretty much unaware of the fact that we go through life making decisions based on our personal, ever-changing, subjective probability measures, (2) another gazillion of us make decisions based on our own subjective probabilities, but without making sure our probabilities satisfy the theoretical laws of probability (which they must if you’re going to qualify as a rational person), and (3) there are just too many bone-headed individuals in our midst for whom virtually every one of their subjective probability estimates is either 0 or 1. For example, for my good friend, Clifford ...

    Pr(for Clifford) [Barack Obama was born in Kenya] = 1.0

    Pr(for Clifford) [Yahweh drowned between 20,000 and 2,000,000 Egyptians in the Red Sea] = 1.0

    Pr(for Clifford) [An unbeliever who does good works will spend eternity in Heaven] = 0.0

    Here’s a little joke of mine: “What is a Cafeteria Christian?” Answer: “A Christian who spends too much time worrying about his subjective probability estimates.”

    Third, Professor Allison, you ask, “Why can't you be open to creation science?” For starters, as a young person I was a very conservative Christian; subsequently, was a pre-ministerial student; and, all along, was a devout believer in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth” ... and all the rest of it. But, over the years, I have studied waaaay more than my share of religion, philosophy, mathematics, logic, statistics, physics, geology, anthropology, astronomy, biology ... lots of stuff. Somewhere along the way, Christian dogma -- and every other religious dogma I encountered – seemed to make less and less sense. For many years, I was comfortable being what I called a terminal agnostic” ... i.e., “I don’t know, and, for me, it is unknowable.”

    It was not by virtue of the vote of the previously-mentioned Earth and life scientists that I decided to reject the idea that Yahweh created the Heavens and the Earth, although having that information caused me to decrease my probability estimate that He should get the credit from 0.000000000214 to 0.000000000000927. Knowing you as I do, I conjecture ...

    Pr(for Stephen Allison) [Creation Science is true] = 1.0

    Fourth, Professor Allison, of all those things I’ve spent a good bit of time studying, it is logic that pushed me over the edge. I think there are very compelling physics, astronomy, geology biology, and anthropology reasons for believing a literal translation of the Bible is bizarre ... and if you’re going to argue that it shouldn’t be taken literally because so much of it is allegory, then not knowing where the tall-tales stop and the really serious content begins causes me to lose interest fairly quickly.

    Anyway, the questions that always drove me crazy were, “Why in the world would God do that? ... create this Universe? ... single us out as His special animals (SAs)? ... single out the Israelites as His extra-special animals (ESAs)? ... imbue us with original sin? ... punish even one of his SAs with eternal damnation, swimming around in the infamous Lake of Fire? ... and why would He do that to some of His SAs who happened to live wonderfully kind, benevolent, and productive lives, but were unwilling to suspend reason and believe strange, extremely low-probability tales that have no basis in experience? I could go on and on and on. Indeed, take the so-called Ten Commandments, four of which are nothing but the requirements of an ego-centric, rather insecure, and admittedly jealous being ... not that He wasn’t up to killing tens of thousands of his SAs, and even his ESAs – and occasionally killing thousands of innocent women and children in the process -- when they failed to take just those four Commandments seriously. I would say only three of the ten qualify as “essential rules by which to live.” And by the way, virtually every explanation of why a kind, generous, loving, and thoughtful unbeliever will not spend eternity behind the Pearly Gates is tied up, not in the other six Commandments, but in the magic four ... the ones that are apparently most important to that jealous and often angry Yahweh. Why? ... I kept asking why? Obviously 78% of us Americans [Christians and Jews] know why ... and are apparently quite comfortable with the answer.

    So there you have it Professor Allison ... my five-cent answer to your question, “Why can't you be open to creation science?” Really, when it comes right down to it, it’s because God creating the Heavens and the Earth is an ancient fable invented and preserved by personkind when we didn’t have sufficient knowledge to get at the real explanation ... just like James Ussher spending much of his life counting up all of those Biblical begats to set the data of the creation at nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BCS. It would be a joke except at the time neither he nor anyone else knew anything at all about geology or astronomy ... and even Sir Isaac Newton believed Ussher’s numbers for a period of his life.

    P.S. “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.” ... Thomas Jefferson

  • A Little Explanation for Professor DFS …
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 11, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Okay DFS, three things …

    First … what? Fifteen hours is a long day? For an educator like yourself? Cut me some slack.

    Second, I communicate (by e-mail of course) with one of my friends at least once a day. He asks me one-line questions like “Do you think President Obama deserved to get the Nobel Peace Prize? Why?” or “Which will be solved first, The Goldbach Conjecture or the Riemann Hypothesis? Why?” or “If a genie popped out of a bottle and said ‘I’ll give you one wish … any talent you want.’ What would you choose?”

    So he gets away with a fifteen second note, and I spend the rest of the day answering his questions.

    Third, so here you are asking, “I only ask your opinion of one thing: what was going on in the universe before the big bang?” Jeeese!!!

    Well, you’re in for a treat, but before I tell you, you must know that there are some things I sort of believe … but I’m really not sure … but I’m working on it … but I may not get to know it in my lifetime … but I’m confident that one day it will be known, just as certainly as we understand planetary motion and human reproduction and gravity, and yes, even evolution. By the way, I believe the Riemann Hypothesis is true (although I wouldn’t hazard a guess about when it will be proven), but as much as I’ve read about string theory – and I even watched that supposedly spectacular NOVA series about it –I still don’t know. I can’t figure it out.

    Pr(for Manley) [Riemann Hypothesis is true] = 0.99924388

    Pr(for Manley) [String theory provides an accurate description of quantum gravity] = 0.26215

    Okay, now for your question. But before we get started, make yourself a Reuben, fix yourself a drink, and watch the following videos. Altogether that will take about 45 minutes and it will be well worth it. I’m giving you only Part 1 of five. Just click on the (n+1)th part when you’ve seen the n-th.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZWtrvxyow

    Terrific, weren’t they … and didn’t you get a kick out of Professor Lawrence Kraubb? Okay, here are some things I’m fairly confident about …

    1. We don’t really don’t know what happened AT the so-called Big Bang. It’s a mystery. Some conjecture it was an explosion from nothing (a singularity); others think it was the action of something that was “already there.” Unfortunately, I’ll probably never know.

    2. Starting at a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a minute after the Big Bang and trucking along for the next 13.7 billion years, however, we know a Hell of a lot about what was going on with the Universe … and what we’ve learned during just the past 80 years is simply mind boggling.

    3. I, personally, would not guess how big the Universe was at the moment when our information began, but some guesses are (i) smaller than a proton, (ii) it would fit inside the palm of your hand, say, like a marble or (iii) about the size of a basketball. In truth, I don’t think that matters too much; the point is that it was damned small … and very, very dense … and very, very hot.

    4. The Universe, small as it was, was expanding to beat the band … and it still is … and, if I’m not mistaken, both the first and second derivatives are positive.

    5. This is really exciting … the Universe is not expanding into “open space;” it is completely self-contained. There is nothing outside the Universe, because there is no “outside the Universe.”. Everything in it (in the big picture) is moving away from everything else in it, not that some things won’t “collide.” For example, in about 3 million years, we (the Milky Way galaxy) will collide with the Andromeda galaxy, the two galaxies will dance around in space for another million years, and at the end of that we’ll be one big, happy spiral galaxy. It happens all the time.

    6. Oops, I almost forgot to tell you … the Universe has no center. I know, I know, you thought it was Earth. What? … Las Vegas is the center of the Universe?

    7. I’m certain this won’t surprise you, DFS, but a very significant, behind the scenes (to everyone but the scientists) contributor to our knowledge of the Universe is mathematics. Einstein’s General Relativity Theory fed into the theory of the BB, and as the mathematicians kept chunking out answers, the experimental physicists just hung onto the tail. Surprisingly, the mathematics was almost always right. And when it was “wrong,” it was so because this or that factor had not been built into the model or it was in the model but had been miscalculated. Once corrections like that were made, the mathematicians were off to the races again.

    For example, a trillionth of a second after the Universe began expanding, it contained no matter whatsoever; it was entirely made up of energy. And where did the matter come from? m= e divided by c squared. … and since there happened to be more available energy, e, than you could possibly imagine, the matter created from that energy was just enormous.

    Okay, I’ve stalled enough. The answer to your question, DFS, is that nothing happened before the Big Bang, because there was no “before the BB.” There is plenty of theoretical “evidence” about the space-time continuum that suggests that time began with the Big Bang. I make it a practice to never write about science when I’m drinking; and it’s 3:30 p.m., time to uncork my afternoon bottle.

    Not to worry though, Paul Davis – you may remember him from “God and the New Physics” – has an excellent article about “What Happened Before the Big Bang.” Check this out …

    http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

    I do have several post scripts. First, the notion of infinite time (including eternity) presents us with more than a few logical difficulties, not the least of which is that any proposition you can state that has non-zero probability – and no matter how bizarre the proposition or small the probability -- will happen with certainty in infinite time. Start writing down your own ridiculous propositions that have minuscule probabilities. You may be certain they have either already happened or will happen in the future. Ridiculous, huh? Notwithstanding the Bible’s promises about eternity, just don’t count on it. The Universe had a beginning and it will have an end, and time is constrained by those two events.

    Second, there is nothing I have written above that denies the existence of God, aka Yahweh. Indeed, suppose that, even in the millisecond before all our evidence started accumulating, there was an explosion of something smaller than a proton that started the ball rolling. Who lit the fuse? Well Yahweh, of course, an all-powerful God could choose to orchestrate creation any way He wanted. Very ingenious, clever, and even artistic I’d say.

    Of course I’m not buying that. Do me this favor. Spend next week reading the Old Testament. There, according to the theologian, Phyllis Trible you will see that the Bible overflows with “texts of terror,” moreso even than the Quran.

    Just for example, in the wonderfully poetic 137th Psalm, we have (v1) “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.” By the time you reach v8 you will read, “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us … he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” You will find in your reading next week that Yahweh is very big on that sort of thing. In fact there’s so much of it, it gets old after awhile.

    Now get on-line and go to the Astronomy Picture of the Day …

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html,

    the site I access and peruse first thing every morning. There’s an Archive there … so just open a file at random and click on and on and on. It’s literally glorious. You’ll love it.

    Now tell me, could Yahweh have done that? Could all of this have been part of His grand plan? Not a chance! … not in 13.7 billion years! Let Him go back to worrying about His petty first four Commandments and killing and condemning to Hell all those who disobey them while the rest of us enjoy what the world’s scientists are telling us about the Universe … and while we enjoy those images in APOD, many captured by thousands of back-yard astronomers all around the world.

    “The Bible has noble poetry in it … and some good morals … and a wealth of obscenity … and upwards of a thousand lies." … Mark Twain

    P.S. Now you know why I’m extremely angry at President Bill Clinton and his Democratic Congress for canceling the Superconducting Super Collider in Waxahachie, Texas, the total, inflated cost of which would have been less than the cost of one month of our war against the people of Iraq. We never needed a manned space station or a program to send a man to Mars ... macho stuff with very little dollar-to-science payoff. Let’s be much wiser with our science expenditures in the future.

    P.P. S. Oh yes, the talent I’d choose? … to be able to sing like Elvis.

  • Does Homeland Security Know about This?
  • Posted by WPT on October 13, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • "[In} about 3 million years," Frizbane Manley writes, "we (the Milky Way galaxy) will collide with the Andromeda galaxy, the two galaxies will dance around in space for another million years, and at the end of that we’ll be one big, happy spiral galaxy."

  • Posted by RickK on October 13, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I can only shake my head sadly at the display of ignorance whenever someone refers to evolution as "only a theory".

    There is a video image I've seen - an atomic explosion filmed from a distance. As the mushroom cloud rises, the shockwave approaches visibly and fast, tearing up dust and ripping up trees as it races toward the viewer.

    Underneath the image is the caption "Don't worry, it's ONLY A THEORY!"

    Atomic theory, general and special relativity, the germ theory of disease, tectonic plate theory and evolutionary theory - these are all models whose fundamentals are supported by so much evidence, and which have such tremendous explanatory and predictive power, that they are proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

    The only remaining doubt is unreasonable. In the case of evolution, the unreasonable doubt is fueled by the fear that humans may not be the entire purpose for the creation of life on Earth. People who are certain that they are the product of a divine plan cannot accept that they were formed by the same process that created the lowly life around them. Indeed, it is inconceivable to some people that they might not be the ultimate end purpose for the creation of the entire cosmos.

    It is difficult to know, when confronted with such galactic hubris, whether to laugh or to weep in pity.

    Ray Comfort knows that he can only gain stature by directly associating his irrational, anti-science, fear-mongering nonsense with Darwin's masterwork. What is next? Perhaps a Russell Humphreys preamble on White Hole Cosmology as introduction to a new printing of Newton's Principia? The whole affair is a marketing stunt that will further polarize the naturalist/supernaturalist debate, and more people will be backed into a corner where they are forced to renounce their faith, or side with the intellectually dishonest creationists.

  • Response to RickK
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 13, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • I hope you won’t mind my adding something to your excellent post, but I addressed the point you are making right here at InsideHigherEd some time ago.

    See ... http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/28/science.

    You have to read the entire post to know that my calling someone “ignorant” was not an insult, but I wrote ...

    “I’m guessing, however – and based on your statement, “I view the theory of evolution as just that, a theory” -- that you are ignorant. Let’s find out.

    If it is your belief that Darwin’s theory is generally true, but there are yet-to-be-known details to be worked out as we learn more, then I have no argument with your perspective. But I get the impression from your reference to “just that, a theory” that you think the theory is basically flawed. I admit I’m also hoping against hope that you are not an advocate of so-called “intelligent” design.

    In particular, I cannot possibly imagine that someone with your background would disagree with the 99,85% of American earth and life scientists who believe all empirical evidence supports the validity of Darwin’s theory.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

    In addition, I must warn you that you are clearly using “theory” incorrectly. Biologists, for example, use “theory” in a manner that is unlike the manner in which mathematicians use it. Mathematicians almost invariably use theory as a synonym for conjecture ... the implication being ‘I’ll put a high probability on its truth, but it has not yet been proved.’ Biologists, on the other hand, use it in contexts like “genetic theory” where there may be a few details yet to be worked out, but what we will know when we know “everything” will not be too different from what we know at the moment. That is what “theory” means when we say Darwin’s “theory.”

    You clearly need to spend some time learning what “theory” means in this context, but I’ll let Stephen Jay Gould explain it to you ...

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

  • Professor Frizbane
  • Posted by DFS on October 13, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • This reply was more quickly written than yours, but I'm still thinking.

    1. You are correct. I take note that: why do we presume it was an 'explosion'? More on this later.

    2. We will never learn enough to become 'God.' We can only improve our condition by learning. Else, why do we try to learn?

    3. 'Big' is not a parameter if the universe is the actually (almost) set-defined universe. (One can always construct the abstract universal set -- I'm only talking about reality here.)
    Neither is temperature, since temperature is only relative -- yes, I'm discarding all Kelvinites here, since I see nothing in the literature which actually precludes 0 Kelvin, or 'less.'

    4. That expansion derivative must be positive, in the realm which we perceive. In some other realms, it may or may not be positive. If one really wants to bend their mind, one must first, perhaps, entertain a negative derivative. My instincts point toward a 0 derivative, but then my 'waiver' would be revealed.

    5. Here is my humble attenuation towards the BB dogma. I have no problem with a BB (since I haven't been there, and I won't be at any future such mash pits); I have only the problem with the denial that some things will not temporarily attract towards each other, while eventually providing momentum somewhere. I blame this kind of phenomena on our paucity of absolute knowledge. If velocities can change, they can they change again. I suppose it only takes enough time. Perhaps their initial velocities depended only upon their initial momentum, and since mass was still being constructed from the energy -- or from something else first (again, ahead of myself), perhaps this is one other view. I can believe in absolutism of counterexample, but I still am predominately suspicious of the paucities in the predicates for such 'counterexamples.' And we all should be so suspect, until we know enough.

    6. The 'universe' does have a 'center,' if only because it possesses time. Mathematics can be constructed around any particle movement, if all initial data is known. It can be constructed by someone.

    If there was 'nothing' before the BB, then I agree. BTW, let me just construct one probability: If A = A, then A = A. (I know, that's a cheap shot -- but it's the crux of the biscuit (I know you are well-versed, but I'm talking in the vein of Frank Zappa's Apostrophe. It's the best bass riff ever yet attained by human-kind.) The probability there is 1. But, as denied before, it is based on the sample space (universe) which is abstract, only.

    Here is why I waiver: as many times as I've read the Old Testament (at least once per year over the last 30 or so years) (and, kudos for scrying that I was raised Christian), I am still pleased -- and yet still pissed off -- that I can't find the answer to my questions. You, however, have engaged me yet again.

    Damn! (I must still keep reading the Old, as well as Gould, Azimov, Sagan, and Muller, etc.) Thanks also for the daily link.

    Oh, BTW: the answer to you I was dodging around? Not the equal-stasis theory, but some "zero-sum" result. We have not as yet parameterized that. I suspect that, in some future discussion of the unified field, we will have something called ('blank)' simply because energy equals mass times the square of the 'speed' of light. There is nothing like the absolutism of 'equals.' Doesn't this mean they are the same thing? (I don't know this "same thing" is.)

    I look forward to the 'something.'