Why Mike Huckabee Should Not Be President

We are well aware of the fact that there is no relationship between smoking and lung cancer ... or between dipping snuff and tongue cancer ... or between cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. At least we were aware of those “facts” as long as the tobacco industry went to great pains and even greater expense to employ “scientists” who confirmed them.

We are well aware of the fact that global warming is a natural cyclical phenomena that is only marginally affected by human behavior; in particular, by humans contributing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to our environment. At least we were aware of that “fact” as long as both the automobile and oil industries went to great pains and even greater expense to employ “scientists” who eagerly confirmed them.

Indeed, when it comes to evidence – either empirical or scientific – we are always able to find a tiny number of “scientists” who present and defend theories consistent with what some of us wish to believe, even if their perspectives are inconsistent with those of the overwhelming majority of scientists.

For example, according to a 1987 Newsweek survey just 700 of 480,000 life and earth scientists (0.14%) assign any credence at all to so-called creation-science, yet 87 million adult Americans (47%) support that perspective.

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

What has caused me to be concerned about these statistics is the extent to which religious belief plays essentially the same role as business-sponsored bogus science in the United States today ... not to mention the very negative impact it has on science education at almost every level. For example, here in America ...

* 64% of all adults believe human beings were created directly by God.

* 55% of adults believe God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years; 73% of Evangelical Protestants believe that.

* 61% of adults believe God created the universe in six “twenty-four-hour” days.

* 52% believe early man and dinosaurs coexisted on the Earth.

* 37 % of Republicans reject the possibility of simultaneously believing in both evolution and God.

* 31 % of adults believe there is a scientific basis for astrology.

* 34% of adults believe evolution should not be taught in public schools.

* 65% of adults believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools.

* 64% of adults believe Moses actually parted the Red Sea.

* 61% of adults believe the Devil exists.

See http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

While I doubt the existence of scientific evidence that will repudiate Moses parting the Red Sea while somewhere between 20,000 and 2 million (if any) Israelites made the crossing or disprove the existence of the Devil, that even a tiny fraction of Americans believe any of the other nonsense in the above list – and well over a hundred million of us do — is an evidential, scientific, and logical catastrophe of the first order. It is nothing less than embarrassing in a country that pays as much lip service as we do to mathematics and science education.

In the Republican presidential debate in May, three of the ten candidates quickly raised their hands when asked “I’m curious, is there anyone on the stage who does not believe in evolution?” Sam Brownback seemed to have the most difficulty with the question, writing an op-ed explanation in the New York Times the next day – no doubt based upon research by his staff – that supposedly outlined what was flashing through his mind when he heard the question ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31...1brownback.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Later, in the third Republican debate in June, Mike Huckabee, one of the three non-believers in May, made the quite bizarre statement, “the basic question was an unfair question because it simply asked in a simplistic manner whether or not we believe, in my view, there is a God or not.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

Ordinarily I would think “do you believe in God?” is a very strange interpretation of “do you believe in evolution?” but John McCain seemed to have the same problem. While he quickly affirmed his belief in evolution, he could hardly wait to add “I also believe when I hike the Grand Canyon and see a sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

I am inclined to ask “who are these guys?” But much more important is “Who were their K-12 and college science teachers?” ... and perhaps even more important than that, “What is the scientific background of the electorate to which these guys feel compelled to pander?” About the latter, we at least know that only 40% believe in evolution.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=286

In the June debate, Senator and Rev Huckabee went even further, stating “It is interesting that that question would even be asked of someone running for president. I’m not trying to write the curriculum for an eighth grade science book ...” When asked if he believed God created the Earth in six days and completed the job 6,000 years ago, the senator emphatically admitted “I don’t know ... I wasn’t there.” On the other hand, his not being there seems to have virtually no impact on his belief that God created the “heavens” and the Earth. He knows that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Perhaps organized religions in the United States are so disparate it is out of the question to expect them to do anything cooperatively, but it strikes me as being way past time for a collection of influential church leaders to sit down with scientists representing a consortium of respected scientific organizations for the purpose of reaching general agreement on various matters of scientific fact. Apparently a great many young people in the U.S. believe mastery of physics, chemistry, biology, the earth sciences, and mathematics, the queen of the sciences, is remarkably difficult ... and that perception stands in the way of our being a scientifically literate nation. Religious dogma, however, much of which could not possibly be literally true, is widely preached and accepted by millions of Americans and also constitutes a barrier to our being a scientifically literate nation..

To give just one example, in 2007 it is nothing less than foolish to imagine patching together all of the Biblical “begats” for the purpose of proving the earth is less than 10,000 years old. In 1650, James Ussher used such an analysis to put the date of creation at noon on Sunday October 23, 4004 B.C. Apparently Sir Isaac Newton was convinced by that argument, although, in his defense, it was at a time when we knew very little about earth science and the “church” was quite willing and able to make it very uncomfortable for scholars to believe otherwise. Not to worry, a 2007 Gallup poll ascertained that more than 140 million Americans believe the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

As a consequence of the young earth “fact,” creation scientists, who are generally willing to accept what we know about the speed of light, are forced to explain how we can see distant stars that are millions of light years away. Some have suggested that the speed of light was much faster when God created the earth just 6,000 years ago. Others have postulated that light has “traveled” here through worm holes in the cosmos through which light (and everything else) can travel much faster than 186,282.397 miles per second. Others have suggested that God, being all powerful, simply created the universe essentially with light in its present state ... and apparently for no other purpose than our amusement.

In any event, anyone who is willing to believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old is stretching scientific knowledge and reason way beyond the breaking point. Anyone who has had a decent life science course and still does not understand and believe Darwinian evolution has been academically shortchanged. While it is apparently true of more than 110 million of us, there is no possibility anyone should believe man and the dinosaurs coexisted on this earth. A scientific basis for astrology? Teaching creationism alongside scientific principle? So-called intelligent design?

If organized religions in the United States are the slightest bit interested in the intellectual integrity of their various dogmas, it is time for them to cooperate with scientists in setting these issues straight.

I am haunted by Sen. Huckabee’s defensive “I’m not trying to write the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” Yet he is a would-be presidential candidate of a political party that in recent elections – and with more than a few truly important issues that should have defined the national debate – spent millions of dollars to make the salient issues abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the teaching of creation-science alongside Darwinian evolution in public schools. I am certainly not denigrating the brilliance of Republican strategists; I am merely wondering about the logical capabilities of the American electorate. Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea after all to elect a president in 2008 who is at least capable of writing an eighth-grade science book.

It is noteworthy that a recent Pew Research Center survey of 18-25 year-olds — they are called Generation N or the Gen Nexters — revealed that (1) approximately 20% either have no religious affiliation, are agnostic, or are atheist (that is double the number who responded thusly in PRC’s 1980 poll) and (2) the Nexters are much more likely to vote than were the 18-25 year-olds in the 1980 poll. It is also interesting that barely 4% of Gen Nexters checked off “becoming more spiritual” as their most important goal in life.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=300

So we have all of these 18-25 year-olds moving away from the concept of a personal God ... 63% happen to believe humans evolved over time, 89% see no problems with interracial marriage, 71% say school boards should not be allowed to fire gays, 58% believe homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted, almost half favor legalizing gay marriage.

If organized religion hopes to be a meaningful force in the lives of these young people, it is way past time for it to clean up both its scientific and social relevance acts, especially by revising all church dogma that is inconsistent with matters of fact. It is not my intention to be an apologist for “cafeteria believers,” but the more church dogma is revealed to be inconsistent with scientific truths, the more reasonable it is for organized religion to emphasize the metaphorical – not literal — nature of its literature. It is definitely time for the church to give Rev. Huckabee a system of beliefs that is consistent with scientific truths, thus precluding his seeming to be so foolish in future presidential debates.

R.W. Hoyer, at 8:00 am EST on January 11, 2008

An Imbalanced Academe

I think it a bit audacious to warn ALL professors of Governor Huckabee’s stance on the theory of evolution. Mr. Wiles assumes all professors are in agreement on this issue. This surely is not the case. Then again, another Insidehighered.com article (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/16/conservative) might suggest that, in fact, all professors might just be in agreement, which is an indictment in itself.

Mr. Wiles describes Governor Huckabee’s response to the evolution debate as “deplorably dismissive.” Interestingly, I asked myself this very question after reading the first paragraph of Mr. Wiles’ article, “What does evolution have to do with running for president?” I believe it has little to do with it, and surely not to the extent Mr. Wiles would have you believe. I urge the critical thinkers of this article to examine all of the issues and stances of the candidates, and not to use a litmus test of a single issue.

This article is another unfortunate example of the problematic imbalance of conservatives and liberals within academe. Mr. Wiles laces his article with a pompous political slant, while even providing a vain attempt to claim impartiality. Even the title is patronizing (Huckster?). Furthermore, Governor Huckabee has repeatedly stated that he will not impose his faith when he is in office, yet Mr. Wiles would claim that he will “inject religious doctrine into the public schools.” To make such a claim in the shadow of quoting the Constitution, is as false as it is melodramatic.

KF, at 10:40 am EST on January 11, 2008

Response to T-Bone

T-Bone says “One of the great things about the United States is that people are free to make up their own minds — even if that contradicts what many scientist believe.” Freedom to make up your own mind does not guarantee that you will make it up in a rational way and reach correct conclusions. It is not a great thing about the United States if people freely make up their minds to reach irrational conclusions. Although authority ought not be the ultimate foundation for establishing one’s beliefs, the authority of scientists should be given reasonable weight in the discussion of issues related to scientists’ areas of expertise. It is absolutely shocking and unacceptable that such a large percentage of Americans do not believe evolution to be true when 99.9% of all the scientists who have devoted their entire lives to the study of life and who have dedicated themselves to the best method of seeking truth, have concluded that evolution is almost certainly true.

Thomas Branson, at 10:50 am EST on January 11, 2008

Pots and kettles

Let me start by saying that I believe that the “literal” interpretation of 7 day/24 hr per day creation and a rejection of evolution is flat out wrong. Not because of the science (I have tp take what scientists say on the basis of their authority and presumed integrity) but because the fundamentalist position is bad theology and worse biblical interpretation. I do think the evidence for evolution of all species over time looks pretty overwhelming. So, I am quite worried by the prospect of having a president who draws a different conclusion from that evidence. What other evidence could that person fly in the face of? Global warming?

My subject line comes from the general tenor of from Mr. Hoyer’s comments on religion. He is dismissive of it and seems to recognize only one type of “truth,” that which is verifiable by the scientific method. Toward the end of his comments, he states, “It is not my intention to be an apologist for “cafeteria believers,” but the more church dogma is revealed to be inconsistent with scientific truths, the more reasonable it is for organized religion to emphasize the metaphorical – not literal — nature of its literature.” The vast majority of church dogma does not interface with scientific truth at all, and the solution is not to emphasize religion as metaphor (all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is metaphorical, including equations) but using scientific information as a way of getting at the core of what religious language might be talking about and disentangling that core from the historical context of its language. For example, my notion of God has not been threatened by discoveries of the size and complexity of the cosmos but enlarged. The same goes for evolution, which I take to be a description of how God has acted in our world. Science can not talk about the validity of that last statement because what is inside the box of the universe cannot speak in scientifically verifiable sense about what is by definition outside the box.

Mr Hoyer also says “Later, in the third Republican debate in June, Mike Huckabee, one of the three non-believers in May, made the quite bizarre statement, “the basic question was an unfair question because it simply asked in a simplistic manner whether or not we believe, in my view, there is a God or not.” ... Ordinarily I would think “do you believe in God?” is a very strange interpretation of “do you believe in evolution?” but John McCain seemed to have the same problem.”

I think that the reason that conservative evangelicals, not to say fundamentalists, can make such mental connections is that many scientists have gone past their scientific evidence and said that “evolution” proves that God does not exist. This is a far cry from LaPlace’s rejection of God with “I have no need of that hyposthesis.” Rather it is active hostility. Scientists, particularly scientific popularizers have a lot to answer for as well as fundamentalist obscurantists. While many religious groups have taken a positive stance towards evolution, those groups have no control or influence on groups that don’t.

If progress is to be made, it will be with humility on both sides trying to understand what is at issue and not condescension or name calling. The celebrity debates between “scientists” and “believers” shed much more heat than light as each set up straw men.

phred, tenured librarian, at 1:20 pm EST on January 11, 2008

KF’s little rant

Heya, KF,

Check out this article in /Reason/ for more information about what evolution and other matters of science have to do with the presidency. You might click on the link to the editorial in /Science/ as well.

http://reason.com/news/show/124271.html

Bio Prof, at 1:20 pm EST on January 11, 2008

Kudos, Jason Wiles

Jason Wiles’ article is essential reading for any voter.

So too is Ted Rall’s recent statement about Huckabee and religionists.

“Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything.”

Almost everybody everywhere is born into one religion or another, aside from those born to agnostics and atheists. The pressures to conform are immediate (with baptism, etc., in infancy) and insidious. The penalties for nonconformity, presenting facts and asking questions that contradict religious dogma are serious, particularly in less diverse areas like the American South or the Middle East. They range from social shunning to loss of business, loss of jobs, violence and death.

Fact-based science is anathema to organized religion no matter how some scientists and religionists try to sugar-coat the conflict.

Anybody around the world can view Part One of the “Zeitgeist” film online (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com) and learn the factual origins of the world’s religions in thirty minutes — compared to the lifetime of research it once took to discover these truths. (The film has about an eight-minute audio visual intro: or you can hit the play button then move the cursor forward to the eight-or-nine minute mark to start Part One.)

Ironically, religions arose from scientific observations in antiquity, still observable today. Scientific observations and measurements responsible for the construction of the Sphinx and the Pyramids, for instance. The Precession of the Equinoxes. The sciences of astronomy, archaeology and the deciphering and translating of ancient texts (up through contemporary texts) all support each other. These are facts. Like evolution, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity are facts.

The ultimately irreconcilable clash between science and religion comes down to this: the facts expose all religions to be myths. Timothy Freke, Richard Dawkins (to name but two contemporaries) and Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason” (to cite one of our country’s founders), along with centuries of factual scientific proof, conclude there is not one shred of evidence for the existence of an historical figure known as Jesus Christ. Nor an historical Zeus or Thor or Xenu.

Religionists refuse to accept ANY facts that threaten the foundations of their “beliefs” (hence their social, political and economic power). They yell and scream that the scientific techniques used to investigate the Shroud of Turin, for instance (and proved a 1300 A.D. forgery), but not their own mindsets, are faulty.

But this thread has to do with a religionist politician, like Huckabee or Romney, running for President.

“A nonpartisan coalition, which includes 11 Nobel laureates and the editors-in-chief of Science and Nature among its impressive list of signatories, believes that such issues [religious beliefs] have a great deal to do with the office of the chief executive. In fact, they are calling for a debate between presidential candidates on science and technology,” says Jason Wiles.

Huckabee, more than any Presidential candidate in contemporary history, has made religion a litmus test for POTUS. He’s taken us down this road, so let’s join him.

People who’ve unquestioningly accepted their birth (or other) religions all their lives are deeply, even violently, upset to learn they’ve been worshipping and tithing to a myth. Outside the dogmas and rituals of their particular cult, they’re clueless as to whether there actually IS a God, or, if there is, how to experience it directly without paying some man in a dress to tell them how.

Millions of people around the world, and millions more throughout human history, have known how to experience The All That Is, or God, directly. But it takes a willingness to ask questions and seek answers and go within, repeatedly, rather than going to a brick-and-mortar building once a week and meekly accepting whatever one is told – accepting hearsay.

The danger of the religious mindset is this: Organized Religion is not “like” insanity, it is the very definition of it. Belief in magical-thinking, to use the psychologists’ term du jour, rejects rationality and factual evidence. It surrenders oneself to outside authority rather than personal experience.

If this or that religion were true, the facts would be self-evident and eventually adopted universally. But the facts AREN’T self-evident, whether the cult is Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Moroni, Thor, Zeus or Xenu. The facts aren’t THERE. These are myths – lies. And when liars are caught and exposed, they turn increasingly vicious.

The Church’s influence in Europe, for instance, draws fewer than 20% of the population. 80% just don’t believe it anymore, and don’t go to church. It’s dying, in other words. In Africa, by contrast, historically one of the most tragic and backward of earth’s continents, religion’s thriving. As usual, it’s thriving through violence and genocide. Religion always thrives among the least educated, least informed, least scientific, most superstitious and downtrodden.

In America, those are precisely the groups most resentful of the “elite” and the “creative” and the “moneyed.” They resent education, information, facts, innovation and wealth. God spoke to some sheepherders 2,000 years ago and then shut up forever. It’s in the Bible. If you don’t believe it, they’re gonna make you pay.

So it’s no surprise that that very demographic, which has been taught all its life to feel one-down, powerless, inferior, the butt of jokes – increasingly seeks to exercise its vengeful sense of powerlessness by voting for candidates like George Bush or Mike Huckabee. Marginally informed faux good-ol’-boys who perpetuate the dumbing-down of America and who, particularly in the last seven years, have brought America to its lowest rung of global respect and economic peril (and their own profit) in our history.

“Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything,” Ted Rall says.

Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened – please: read the news), a lie that resulted in 56,000 American deaths in Vietnam. Or the lies of 9/11, which resulted in 2,000-3,000 deaths at the WTC, perhaps a million in Iraq, and (so far) 4,000+ deaths of American soldiers.

No. These deaths were not for a “good cause.” They were in service to corporate and political lies, cloaked in the aura of “patriotism” and “religion” exactly as was Nazism.

Which does not make the sacrifices of these men and women less important.

Sinclair Lewis warned 70 years ago, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”

Mike Huckabee wants to lead America down a road where the Bible is “inerrant” and “literal.” In which the earth is 6,000 years old, homosexuals should be killed, adulterers stoned, shrimp-cocktail eaters gassed and non-believers and their children converted or exterminated, just like the Bible says.

But he’ll lie to your face when called on it, and issue some folksy “quip” that he assumes will disarm you because he’s a Baptist preacher used to appearing before worshipful flocks.

Folksy, schmolksy. The man (and he’s not alone) is clinically insane and a danger. It’s your vote.

Norma Bates, at 2:20 pm EST on January 11, 2008

worst thing

the worst thing about people like this politician is that he has no grasp on the Scientific Method. I would be happy to teach Creationism if I could put it through the rigors that Evolution has been through. I am talking about show that there is no evidence for creationism and overwhelming natural evidence for evolution. Maybe what we should be pushing for is the Scientific Method in schools so people have the tools to learn for themselves instead of thinking that Theories are opinion based

RH Gutierrez, MD, at 3:45 pm EST on January 11, 2008

It’s OK to scrutinize creationism — but let’s play fair

There are some scary accusations and much gross conjecture and hyperbole here. All that aside, if supporters of evolution want to have a debate with us creationists (all of whom are not necessarily young earth, six-day creationists) then at least play fair and permit a level playing field. Remember, none of us was there when life emerged or was created. So both views require a measure of faith.

At least the creationists are willing to admit their fundamential assumptions at the outset (i.e. that there could be a God / intervenor in history who created the world and its inhabitants). The evolutionists I’ve talked to and read seem to dismiss, a priori, that such could ever be the case. So they begin what they call their “scientific” process with a fundamental bias.

Solid science pursues observations to their conclusions wherever the evidence may lead. I’m happy to consider evolution and have done so. There are significant holes in the theory — which indeed it is, for we don’t see full-fledged transitioning between species today nor do we observe complex life emerging from non life.

Frankly, there are some very strong scientific arguments for intelligent invervention in our universe. I’ve read rigorous science and critical thinking that supports both sides of the issue. Creationism can indeed hold its own in the marketplace of public debate when evolutionists play fair.

The majority of Americans may still embrace creationism because it flies in the face of common observance that something (i.e. the universe) could arise from nothing. We see cause and effect relationships all the time. We must also ask the question: “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” Indeed, that question may be better handled through the discipline of philosophy or religion / faith practice. But atheism and evolution are faith-based too. They’re just based in different fundamental assumptions. Let’s play fair, admit our basic assumptions from the outset and have a real debate, with a real desire to get to the truth.

Unfortunately, each side finds it far too easy to demonize the other. I admit that we creationists are just as guilty.

B. Stuart, at 5:45 am EST on January 12, 2008

B. Stuart’s lack of response, and a couple more quibbles.

I am not at all surprised by B. Stuart’s silence in response to my request for peer reviewed scientific research in support of his claim that “rigorous science” provides “strong” “arguments for intelligent [supernatural] invervention [sic] in our universe.” In case you’re still searching the literature, B., you can stop. There is none. That’s not merely my assessment though. Take it from Michael Behe, “scientific” champion-in-chief of the Intelligent Design movement. This is his sworn testimony from the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial:

Lawyer:"And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?”

Behe: “That is correct, yes.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html

I’m sorry, B. Stuart, ID is just not science. In the fair playing field of science, in which evidence in the form of empirical data is all that matters, ID has nothing to offer.

I think it’s also necessary to address another erroneous point you made in your post. You wrote, “At least the creationists are willing to admit their fundamential [sic] assumptions at the outset (i.e. that there could be a God / intervenor in history who created the world and its inhabitants), whereas “evolutionists…dismiss, a priori, that such could ever be the case.”

First, creationists don’t merely admit that there could be a God / intervener, rather, they believe that there is one. They believe in a creator. That’s why they’re creationists. Science, however, does not assume that there is or that there is not a God…merely that we cannot manipulate, test, measure, affirm the presence/absence of, etc., whatever “intelligent” entities might exist outside of the natural, physical world, if there is any such supernatural “space” outside our nature. Supernatural = outside the realm of science.

Second, not all people, not even all scientists, who accept evolution are atheists, as your statement above would assume. If you will but read the article which this thread is discussing, you will see that the author decried Huckabee’s “egregious equation of acceptance of evolution with necessary rejection of the existence of God”. There are many scientists who accept evolution who are also people of religious faith. Try Ken Miller; a scientist at Brown University, a devout Christian, author of Finding Darwin’s God, and scientific expert witness against the Dover Intelligent Design policy. Or, for an example of a deeply religious (also Christian) scientist who is often praised by evangelicals as a sincere man of God, try Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, who accepts evolution and recognizes the wholly non-scientific nature of Intelligent Design. A very good summary of Collins’s position on science/religion and evolution/Intelligent Design can be found in this transcript: http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm.

And, it’s not just scientists who understand the non-scientific nature of Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism. Try a look at The Clergy Letter (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm), a strongly worded statement affirming the validity of evolutionary science and insisting on keeping religious doctrine out of the public school science curriculum. Over 11,000 Christian priests, preachers, pastors, etc. have signed on. I’ll close with an excerpt from the Clergy Letter, with which these learned people of faith agree:

“Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth….We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children….We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Bio Prof, at 1:35 pm EST on January 12, 2008

Best to agree to disagree

Hmmm. A lot of this depends on how you define science. I agree that ID can’t be proven scientifically. But neither can evolution. These process are simply not directly observable today. I’ll drop the term creationism because ID tends to carry less emotional baggage. The existence of a personal God and his / her characteristics is fodder for a different discussion in a different forum. By “intelligent design,” I mean the belief that the universe is an effect of a particular quality that seems to indicate intelligent intervention.

I still contend that both evolution and ID are faith-based. Both ID supporters and evolutionists study what’s directly obervable and how processes unfold today – and then come to different conclusions based on a measure of conjecture. None of us were there at the time of origins and we can’t replicate exact conditions at that time. So both camps make faith-based assertions. That’s what I mean by my original complaint that evolutionists should play fair and admit that ultimately they’re faith-based too.

Here’s an example of where I think faith comes into play for the committed evolutionist and the committed ID proponent. The ID supporter looks at shared traits among species and commonalities in life’s fundamental building blocks and concludes: “life shows evidence of a common creator.” The evolutionist considers those same facts and concludes “life shows evidence of a common origin.” One sees “evidence” of an outside intervenor. The other sees “evidence” of self-emergence. Another example. The ID proponent sees the apparent sudden emergence of different species in the fossil record and concludes: “diverse life was created all at once.” Certain evolutionists have looked at the same fossil record and concluded: “evolution is sometimes characterized by punctuated equilibrium.” Same observation. Different faith-based conclusion.

It doesn’t bother me that Behe could find no peer-reviewed articles by ID advocates that supported their theory with “pertinent experiments” or calculations with rigorous accounts of how ID occurred. And it’s not because I’m narrow-minded and refuse to consider evidence contrary to ID. It’s because the evolutionist’s conclusions (at least the ones I’ve read) could not honestly stand up to the same scrutiny. Hard science, mathematical proofs and quantifiable results only go so far. The rest is conjecture / faith. Just because someone confidently states that evolution has stood up to rigorous scrutiny doesn’t make it true. And just because a large group of clergy signed a certain letter doesn’t make evolution a fact. It’s just consensus of opinion by folks who (like ID proponents) can only take observable evidence so far – and then take a step of faith.

I know there are people far more educated and intelligent than I am on both sides of the issue. I’m not a scientist (I’m in academia, but I don’t teach in the life sciences) and the most I’ve done to study the issue is to conduct a lot of reading of both sides. I’d like to think that I started with “a blank slate” and considered both sides. My upbringing includes both atheism and fundementalism. I wrestled to try to discover the basic worldview that corresponds most accurately to reality. I would not have been content to merrily go through life as a “wishful thinker” so I think my conclusion is evidence based without presuppositions. And I’m willing to continue to consider the arguments of evolutionists. I have no animosity and frankly I’m surprised at the level of vitriol in some of these posts. I’m tempted to digress onto the topic of tolerance!

My personal conclusion, in a nutshell, is that evolution simply has more holes – as a theory — than ID. I know that evolutionists have heard all the ID arguments before … cosmological constants, irreducable complexity, law of entropy, effects demand causes, statistical probabilities, etc. I know evolutionists have their answers to each of these. I’ve not found them satisfying. I read part of the Francis Collins piece and he states “biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye.” That’s fine. I’ll consider that evidence when it’s presented. I’m also disturbed by the fact that some evolutionists have used a handful of bone fragments and then made a giant leap of faith to construct transitional ape-men. Some, like “Peking Man” and “Nebraska Man,” were proven hoaxes, as far as I’ve read. Darwinist Ernst Haeckel even distorted data to prove his point. On a more basic level, until the day a tornado strikes a pile of scrap metal and yields a Boeing 747, the average person is going to struggle with an explanation for origins that dismisses an intelligent designer. Where I can’t find answers to origins, I’m far more comfortable using my faith to assert a “god of the gaps.” At least I’m honest that I must apply faith to reach my conclusions. That’s what I mean by playing fair.

Last comment. R.W. Hoyer may simply be expressing his personal view on origins, history and destiny in his post. But I sense a touch of derision. I don’t want to head down a rabbit trail on religion and wordviews. I just want to state that someone could apply the same derisive tone to the theory of origins proposed by evolutionists (e.g. “a bolt of lightning struck the primodial soup…a fish decided to be a frog…the frog thought he’d go a step better and become a fetus...” etc.). It’s all very entertaining. But I repeat my plea. ID proponents should play fair and listen to evolutionists and consider their claims without demonizing them. Evolutionists should play fair and admit that what they hold as fact is really, at its core, a theory. Some find it satisfying. I find it lacking. That’s why the debate gets so contentious. Either evolution is true or ID is true. I all comes down to two divergent religious camps each trying to prove its mutually-exclusive worldview. Perhaps the most we can hope for is to be able to disgree without being disagreeable to each other.I’ve sincerely enjoyed the exchange.

B. Stuart, at 5:20 am EST on January 14, 2008

Separation of Powers

Interesting argument, Pyre.

However, in the paragraph to which you refer, the author listed several anti-evolution debacles which fall under the executive end of Arkansas’s government (i.e. the curriculum problems which fall under the DOE and the advertisment of the creationist mueseum by the state’s Department of Parks and Tourism).

And, if separation of powers prevents a governor from influencing (deterring or supporting actions) education law and policy, then why has no one ever brought this into a debate where a governor, Huckabee for example, extolls their success in improving education in their state?

Executives can have a great deal of influence on legistlature regardless of separation of powers. G. W. Bush often vows to veto bills proposed in the House and the Senate, and this may very well influence the way the bills are written/ammended and whether they progress. Exectives often push legislative agendas of their own, which, although it must be carried out in the “separate” congress, does suggest that they can deter or support the actions of the houses.

Why else would the people and the media repeatedly ask presidential candidates about their opinions or potential agendas regarding say, an ammendment to ban same sex marriage? Is drafting and voting upon ammendments not the province of the congress, separate from the office of the president?

Executives are leaders with influence. Huckabee could have spoken out against pushing religious ideology on the public schools, whether it was by act of the legislative bodies or by executive departments, however, he apparently does not agree with notion of the “separation of powers” between religion and government (nor, it would seem, between science and religion.)

Bio Prof, at 9:45 am EST on January 14, 2008

This thread of comments bothers me. As much as strict creationists who bend backwards to fight any scientific inquiry bother me, it bothers me even more when scientists and academics try to make people of faith conform to THEIR idea of truth. People of faith are not stupid. They are not illogical. They are not irrational. They choose to take on faith that which science can not explain. If you believe that God created the world (however which way that may be), that does not mean that your views and your thoughts are thus unacceptable in any venue. Shame on academia for stereotypically lumping together all people of faith. You are in the minority. Have you ever thought that perhaps the minority has it wrong instead of the other way around?

EW, at 3:45 pm EST on January 14, 2008

Seven Things:

First I’m dismissive (phred); then I’m derisive (B. Stuart). Quit calling me names and tell me what part of the story I distorted. Perhaps it’s not WHAT I said, but HOW I said it.

Second, about “theory:” B. Stuart, you’re using the term incorrectly ... as if evolution is a theory in the sense that it’s a conjecture that may or may not be correct, and we’ll have to wait to sort things out. That’s not the case at all, but I’ll let Stephen Jay Gould explain it to you ... he describes the issue quite well in this short blurb ...

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

Face it B. Stuart, evolution is a fact, not a theory in the sense that you’re suggesting it is.

Third, when you talk about evolution in terms of the bone fragments of apes — and mentioning “Peking Man” and “Nebraska Man” is completely irrelevant to this discussion – you’re waaaay off base. In fact you’re not just off base, you’re even in the wrong ball park. In fact, you’re going to have to read some “biology” to understand evolution as Charles Darwin proposed it; i.e., at the genetic level. If you’re really serious about understanding this, “reading part of the Francis Collins piece” is not going to hack it. Apparently the evolution / intelligent design conflict is a big issue in your life. If so, just stick with the objectionable Richard Dawkins: I would encourage you to read in sequence, “The Selfish Gene” (get the 30th Anniversary Edition), then “Climbing Mount Improbable,” then “River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,” followed by “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design,” and wrap it up with my favorite, “The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution.” Granted you will encounter much that is redundant, but at least you won’t be inclined to make silly statements like “in a nutshell, evolution simply has more holes — as a theory — than ID.”

Fourth, your statement “Hard science, mathematical proofs and quantifiable results only go so far. The rest is conjecture / faith” reveals either an unfortunate ignorance of how hard science and mathematics work or constitutes an effort to inaccurately distort the “playing field” about which you apparently care so much. Granted that religion – let’s take Christianity for example – and mathematics are based upon postulates that are unproved – and unprovable – that’s where the similarity ends.

In mathematics, we almost don’t care about the abstract truth of the postulates ... certainly not universally and often not even in specific instances. What we try to do is build a logical structure on top of a very parsimonious set of independent statements. That’s the beauty of it.

In Christianity, however, the truth of the postulates is what matters most. The “logical” structure – and you may be certain logic plays a very minimal role in the development of most systems of religious belief – is of little consequence. And parsimony? Forget it! In Christianity there are so many postulates it’s mind boggling ... and many of them are even contradictory. And when a need arises ... well, more postulates. That’s the beauty of faith. When, within a certain context, you need to believe the truth of something – or even two things that are contradictory — faith always does the trick. It’s quite wonderful.

Fifth, B. Stuart, your reference to evolution preceding the eye – which is apparently so complex it needs an Intelligent Designer — is the standard canard of the ID crowd. I’m not claiming this is the last word on the evolution of the eye, but it’s a Hell of a good start ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related

Sixth, your reference to the “level of vitriol in some of these posts” and your plea for tolerance can only be directed at yours truly. I have read all of the comments, and I congratulate the other posters for their reason and civility. You’re right, I’m the one who is pissed off. I entered this discussion only because I care deeply about mathematics and science education in this fair land ... and I am infuriated that many of the churches in this country – by virtue of various church dogmas — are complicit in building and maintaining barriers to effective science education. By your own admission, B. Stuart, you are an academic – therefore an educated if not necessarily an intelligent individual – who has weighed the pro and cons of evolution and intelligent design and has discovered the “intellectual” superiority of ID. Please forgive my vitriol and my lapse of tolerance and civility, but neither you nor Mike Huckabee should be in an influential position vis-a-vis the education of young people of this country.

Finally, your concluding comment, “Either evolution is true or ID is true. I (sic) all comes down to two divergent religious camps each trying to prove its mutually-exclusive worldview. Perhaps the most we can hope for is to be able to disgree (sic)without being disagreeable to each other” is so absurd, I cringe knowing you are in a position to influence the young people of this country whom I desperately want to be mathematically and scientifically literate.

R.W. Hoyer, at 11:20 pm EST on January 14, 2008

Response to BS

You say “I agree that ID can’t be proven scientifically. But neither can evolution". Science does not prove anything, it is the process of testing and disproving theories.The theory of evolution is widely accepted because there is no evidence that has been found to disprove it. There have been many attempts to find alternatives to support creation, including blaming God or the devil for confusing geologists, biologists, physicists, and a number of the prophets of God.

It is not creation that I question, it is your interpretation of creation and understanding of God that I question. By asking for creation to be taught in schools as science, I would then ask you if you would like to give me equal time to teach my views of creation? If your views of creation are faith based (and experiential), as are mine, why are your revelations from God more correct than mine? I believe God “created” man (gave us souls) from then existing primates sometime around 6,000-100,000 BC (i.e. when Eve ate the apple she understood right and wrong), which was the point in evolution where our species became able to reason at this level. God directed evolution by controlling life, death, and successful reproduction. So far so good? Would you really want me to teach creation to your kids? Science tries to provide support for one theory versus another — my theory of creation versus yours can not be tested using the scientific method.

The problem isn’t with creation, it is in confusing creationism with science. Let’s teach religion in the home and church/temple/etc., not in a science class. If you must have creation taught in public schools, remember that your version of creation and mine may not be the same — and they may differ from the Government’s who you seem to want to teach Creation. And, you can not prove my understanding of creation is less valid than yours (except through a political process).

If your version of creation does not fit the facts of science, then there is a high likelihood that you have it wrong. Even if science can not prove evolution, the scientific evidence is very strong that some views of creation are incorrect.

The problem with a president that denies the scientific process and uses a political process to determine truth and validity should be clear. It is the relative emphasis in terms of funding real science or the pseudo-science of creationism. By rejecting the scientific process and turning educational content into a political game, funding of science and education becomes a political process by which the politicians gain a constituency, build coalitions of voters, and reward their supporters. How would anyone feel if the U.S. Government paid me millions of dollars to provide the one and only approved creationism education to your children? I know I don’t want you to teach your version of creation to my kid. Keep your religion out of my public school.

Creationism is religion. Huckabee doesn’t understand or respect my religion, views of creation, or understanding of God, and believes the religious views of his supporters should be funded by requiring them to be taught in public schools. Someone who advocates subverting our Constitution by “spinning” creationism as science hardly seems to be a worthy presidential candidate. Creationism is religion, not science.

BH, at 7:45 pm EST on March 6, 2008