Christianity Today: A New Creation Story

A reader was kind enough to pass this story on today.  Christianity Today has decided to follow the Atlantic's lead and has published a story subtitled Why do more homeschoolers want evolution in their textbooks?  Sarah Zylstra writes:

Christian homeschool science textbooks have long taught young earth creationism (YEC) almost exclusively. But observers say a growing number of parents want texts that also teach evolution.

"Homeschooling has broadened so much, and now includes many Christian groups who have never adopted [YEC]," said homeschool pioneer Susan Wise Bauer, a history professor at Virginia's College of William and Mary. "Also, there are a lot of younger evangelicals who have come to a different way of understanding Genesis, while still holding [on to their] evangelical roots.

Numbers on the trend are hard to pin down. Still, BioLogos president Deborah Haarsma says that it's "fairly common" for homeschooling families to request materials from her organization, which promotes theistic evolution. Some of these parents still believe in a young earth, says program director Kathryn Applegate, but they want their children exposed to different perspectives.

This is good news.  Although the magazine historically has not supported EC/TE, that they are tackling it at all is worth taking notice of.  Like the historical Adam issue, this will only increase in visibility within the Christian community.  The lock that YEC has on home schooling must be broken if there is to be any progress in this area.

What remains to be seen is if some of these curricula that address evolution do it honestly.  I already know that Abecka does not.  There is evidence that BJ does not either.  Still, this is a movement in the right direction away from the YEC gnostic perspective.

This magazine has come a long way from their anti-evolution diatribes of the 1990s.  I got fed up with it and canceled my subscription right around then and have not picked it up since.  I might have to.

Teachers and Evolution: Coming Through the Back Door

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an interesting editorial on the creation/evolution question as it pertains to science teachers and, in the process, points out an insidious back-door approach that some teachers take. The article chronicles the experiences of a woman who took an AP course in biology that gave evolution short shrift.  When she got to college, she realized that she had been under-educated.  David Templeton writes:

Her experience represents the ill-kept secret about public school biology classrooms nationwide -- that evolution often isn't taught robustly, if at all. Faith-based belief in creationism and intelligent design continues to be discussed and even openly taught in public school classrooms, despite state curriculum standards.

This is not new per se. This particular issue has been fought in Louisiana, Tennessee, and, of course, in Pennsylvania.  But this represents an additional facet of the problem.  Even though quite a few teachers are following the mandate to not teach creationism, that does not cover how they teach evolution:

But Mr. Berkman said their most alarming finding was that teachers need not introduce creationism in class to undercut interest and belief in evolution."You just have to throw doubt and downplay evolution," he said. "The idea that teachers are doing a really weak job -- many a really weak job -- of introducing evolution, we think, is because of reactions they get and maybe because of the lack of confidence in what they are teaching. That especially is the case with evolution, where many students have been primed by parents and youth groups to raise difficult and challenging questions."

This produces students who have little to no knowledge of evolution when they reach college. If they skip through college with minimal biology (engineering majors, let's say) and then end up in school boards later in life, they won't have the knowledge to make educated decisions about how evolution should be taught.  Thus, the cycle simply continues.

Another issue at work is that high school teachers differ from college professors in how they are trained.  High school teachers go through a curriculum that is heavily geared toward the facets of pedagogy and less, if at all, towards the particular subject they will be teaching.  Basically, they are taught to be teachers, not biologists, or chemists, or what-have-you.  We ask how, of those polled, 19% of science teachers can believe in young-earth creationism?  That's how.  

Pew Quiz on Science and Technology

The Pew Trust quizzed 1000 randomly-selected people about general knowledge of Science and Technology and then invited people interested in the report to take the quiz, themselves.  The quiz, as well as the report is here. The results tend to be all over the map and only one of them has to do with the history of the earth.  I think that if you structured a quiz around that topic, the results would be much worse. 

For the quiz, almost 80% of people knew that the main role of red blood cells is to carry oxygen to the cells, while only 20% of those quizzed knew that nitrogen makes up most of atmospheric gas.  The only prehistorically-based question: "The continents have been moving over millions of years and will continue to move" was good, with 77% of people correctly answering it. The sobering take-away message, though, is that if you got all of them right (I did), you did better than 93% of those quizzed.  I wonder how people would do on the Dinosaur quiz (yesterday's post)?

Internet Monk: "The Disney-ization of Christianity Continues Apace"

In his "Updates on the Creation Wars," Chaplain Mike airs his thoughts on the new Noah's Ark theme center at Cornerstone Church, in San Antonio, Texas.  He writes:

Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, famous for Pastor John Hagee and his over-the-top dioramic teaching on prophecy and the End Times, is about to treat us with a 28,400 square foot building portraying Noah’s Ark, complete with “true-to-size animatronics animals…to underscore the Bible’s authenticity.”...I guess if your goal is to sell a product, Disney is the way to go; after all, they’re pros at it.

If your goal is to follow Jesus, I’m not so sure.

Agreed.  Don't miss his definition of "Disney-ization."  This is the direction modern evangelical Christianity is headed. 

Urban Legend? Hopefully, But Probably Not.

A friend of mine sent this to me from Snopes.com.  It is, purportedly, a quiz given in a fourth grade science class at a school in South Carolina.
 

 

As Snopes points out:

The title of the quiz is the same as that of a DVD produced by the group Answers in Genesis and hews closely to the material presented therein, including the admonition that "if someone tells you the earth is millions of years old, what should be your reply? Were you there?" and the reference to the Bible as the History Book of the Universe.

Snopes does not come down either way on the authenticity of the quiz, but suggests that the source of the information is credible. They list it as "probably true." I think it probably is also, and is not far from what quite of a few of these private schools likely teach. I have no empirical evidence for that, however. If this is true, once again, this is what will kill the voucher program. All that the opponents of vouchers have to do is point out this kind of use and it is lights out. That is a shame.

Musings On Death and The Garden of Eden

I recently read a paper by John Lynch called “PREPARE TO BELIEVE”: The Creation Museum as embodied conversion narrative." The paper is behind a subscription wall so I cannot link it but I will post one paragraph. Lynch is discussing the young earth creationist penchant for disregarding modern scientific thought. He writes:

The amplifıcation of leveling into a disregard for all empirical observations creates a Manichean worldview. Part of this worldview is the Creation Museum’s problematic vision of human reason and sacred texts. Human reason, according to the museum, cannot function accurately or effectively when divorced from God’s Word as manifested in the Bible. Yet, which version of the Bible and what interpretation of the various biblical verses is appropriate? The Creation Museum offers no explicit answer, but its theological edifıce rests on the assumption that God’s Word—a collection of texts written in multiple languages and continually translated, retranslated, and revised in English as well as other modern tongues—is transparent and perhaps even self-interpreting. Human reason plays no role in interpreting or understanding the Bible. Any relationship between human reason and God’s Word is unidirectional. Human reason accepts the self-evident and transparent implications of the Bible and uses those ideas to understand the world. This assumption is the point where those concerned about or opposed to the worldview of the Creation Museum can make their stand. Given the diversity of biblical interpretations within Protestant Christianity, as well as Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, the assumption of transparency is not tenable.¹

I have been rattling around in my head for some time the notion that modern young earth creationism is not just off the rails but gnostic in thought.  They cannot be reached by the science because of what Lynch mentions in the passage.  Can they be reached theologically?  Dunno.  But this whole hermeneutic plays itself out in weird ways in my daily life.

Beispiel: I have been going to a series of sessions called GriefShare, which is a program that helps people deal with the loss of a loved one and, by and large, it has been helpful but something keeps nagging at me.  There is a repeated assertion that we really grieve in ways that we were never supposed to grieve because physical death was something we were never supposed to experience. Physical death was not part of the plan.  This particular hermeneutic keeps reappearing. 

Okay, lets back that one out a bit.  Just for the sake of argument, let's say for a moment that Adam and Eve didn't sin and so, as this theological hermeneutic goes, didn't experience "death."   Say Adam and Eve decide to just have two children, and their children have two children (by some, as yet undiscovered spouses).  Assuming a generational time of twenty years, within a thousand years, you have well over fifteen billion people on the world because nobody is dying.  it becomes much worse if you place Adam and Eve back some ten thousand years.  One of two things is then true: 1). At some point, God would have had to say: "Quit having children right now!"  or 2). God never intended for Adam and Eve to ever have children, in which case, none of us were ever in the plan from the beginning and God's word is something we were never supposed to have.  When Adam and Eve sinned, God "improvised." 

Does this make sense??    Is this, in any way, theologically sound??  This is the fruit of modern fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, a theological construct whereby most of those that practice it don't think it all the way through.  Can they be reached theologically?  Dunno.

Somehow I think I should try...


¹Lynch, J. (2013). "Prepare to Believe": The Creation Museum as Embodied Conversion Narrative. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 16(1), 1-27.

Joe Barton, Climate Change and Noah's Flood: More Beclowning

U.S. Representative Joe Barton, of Texas (do I need to give the party affiliation?), has made the news based on his views on climate change. It is not just that he disagrees with the consensus about climate change, it is why he disagrees. As the Star-Telegram puts it:

Environmentalists have railed against the Keystone pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Canada to refineries in Texas.

"I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy," said Barton, chairman emeritus of the energy committee.

Barton's allusion to the Great Flood and, by extension, Noah's Ark, sparked lots of online commentary and a jab from 2012 Democratic opponent Kenneth Sanders.

"Joe Barton is a disappointment to Texans who count on him to represent their interest; his understanding of God's holy word is somewhat suspect as well," Sanders said in a statement. "As a person of faith, I'm personally disappointed that he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny any human impact on climate change.

I am always a bit suspicious when people use the phrases "person of faith" and "The Good Book" because it usually means they don't take much stock in either. However, Barton's interpretation of the scriptures is suspect and his understanding of climatology even more so. Here is what you find when a real geologist examines the geological record:

No geologic evidence whatsoever exists for a universal flood, flood geology, or the canopy theory. Modern geologists, hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent, and how fast the continents are moving apart (their rates can be measured by satellite). They also know how flood deposits form and the geomorphic consequences of flooding.¹

How do you make a reasonable assessment of climate change when you have Noah's Flood as your point of reference? The scientific problems in accepting that version of events are insurmountable. He has no basic understanding of modern geology or climatology. How do people like this get on science and energy committees in the first place? We need a basic science literacy test for these committees. As Glenn Reynolds would say "Faster, please."

¹Hill, Carol A. (2002) The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local? Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 54(3): 170-183

AAPA

Back from the conference!  Okay, so it was in my back yard.  I still didn't get a lot done while it was going on.  The American Association of Physical Anthropologists convention had some great papers, including a wholesale reevaluation of the Australopithecus sediba skeleton, in which it was suggested strongly that the hip was NOT built for running as was originally thought.  There were also some very interesting papers on the acquisition of complex language and a tie-in to the advent of complex stone tool construction reflected in the late Acheulean.  My friend Art Durband also gave a good poster on the evidence for discontinuity from the Ngandong archaic Homo sapiens remains to the modern-day Australasians.  All in all, a good set of papers.  The conference circular, with abstracts is here. 

More on Joseph Mastropaolo...

One of my readers posted a link to an earlier article, by Michael Zimmerman, on HuffPo about Joseph Mastropaolo, the creationist I wrote about yesterday, who is asking to debate the literal reading of Genesis. Zimmerman writes:

Almost a decade ago, on Valentine's Day of 2004, I was invited to participate. The rules were very similar to what The Guardian presented. In both cases, $10,000 would be put in escrow by the participants and the outcome would be determined by a judge. Rather than proving that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Life Science Prize challenge focused on the nature of science and creationism. Here's how the challenge was framed back then: "If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, he wins the $20 000. If the creation scientist proves that creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist collects the $20 000."

As I explained in an article I published in 2006, I engaged with Mastropaolo for about two months attempting to come to an agreement on terms for the contest. (If you read the article I wrote, you'll see that from the outset I had no belief that my interactions would be productive but I thought they would be both interesting and edifying, and they most certainly were.) Rather than making any progress, I was berated, abused and had complaints filed with the person I reported to at the university at which I worked at the time.

The rest of the article is a sobering account of how twisting the scriptures to make them fit a particular young-earth hermeneutic eventually leads to a completely warped view of science. Zimmmerman writes that Mastropaolo's views are "far from the mainstream." Judging from what emanates from AiG and similar sites, and what I have read and seen in homeschool textbooks, I am not so sure. It is what makes me think that young earth creationism is, at the very least, gnosticism, and quite possibly heresy.

Peter Hess: Science, Catholicism and the Papacy in the New Millennium

Peter Hess, the Director of Outreach to Religious Communities for the National Center for Science Education, has written a nice piece chronicling the acceptance of science in general and evolution in specific, with some very good quotes from the popes of the last decade or so. He writes:

John Paul II's principal theological advisor was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, whom he named prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote an insightful theological reflection on the early chapters of the Book of Genesis, in which he noted that "the Holy Scripture in its entirety was not written from beginning to end like a novel or a textbook. It is, rather, the echo of God's history with his people."

Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, was a clear supporter of evolutionary theory. All is not wine and roses, however, in Catholic-land.  Hess continues:

However, despite this solid support by recent popes for understanding of our ancient, dynamic and evolving universe, there remain within the Catholic Church elements that are intransigently opposed to modern science. The oddly-named Kolbe Center in Virginia is a young earth creationist group committed to defending "the literal and obvious sense of Scripture" as upheld by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (1893). Not only do the Kolbe Center rival Protestant fundamentalists in rejecting the evolutionary assumptions of modern biology, but they also pretend that "the modern 'anti-culture of death' grew out of the macro-evolutionary theory" -- a typical piece of bombastic creationist illogic.

That this organization relies on an out-dated encyclical is not surprising, since most of modern creationism is stuck in a 19th century understanding of science.

Although the article ends on a positive note, in the end, we still do not know anything about what Pope Francis thinks about evolutionary theory or about how best the Catholic church should interact with the world of science.  I guess we will just have to wait a bit longer.

In the Spirit of Kent Hovind...

A reader sent me a link to this story about a man who is daring anyone to "challenge the literal interpretation of Genesis in court." Eric Pfeiffer of Yahoo News writes:

And for a man wanting to debate the very nature of human existence, Joseph Mastropaolo is taking a decidedly happy-go-lucky approach, saying he hopes the contest will improve future discussions on both sides of the argument.

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo told the Guardian. "We can read the transcript and not have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

Mastropaolo’s plan is to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account. His debate opponent would be asked to do the same. They would then jointly agree on a judge based on a list of possible candidates. Mastropaolo said that any evidence presented in the trial must be “scientific, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated."

Although the trial would have no legal standing, Mastropaolo wants there to be a judge that would adjudicate matters and award the $10,000 to the winner of the trial. I am curious to see if anyone will step up. This is not so unlike the proposition that Kent Hovind put forth in the 1990s, except that Hovind defined the opposing side in such a way that the only person who could have marshalled the necessary evidence would have been God, Himself. That didn't stop Hovind from crowing that nobody would take up his challenge. That is, until the authorities hauled him off to jail.

What Did Thomas Nagel Write?

Thomas Nagel, a professor of philosophy, has written a book entitled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, a book that has been given the singular distinction of being the Most Despised Science Book of 2012.  I have not read this book but here is what one reviewer had to say:

So what caused the offence?

Several things, but consider one: the contention that evolution may tend towards consciousness. Nagel is explicit that he himself is not countenancing a designer. Rather, he wonders whether science needs to entertain the possibility that a teleological trend is immanent in nature.

There it is. The t-word – a major taboo among evolutionary biologists. Goal-directed explanations automatically question your loyalty to Darwin.

That nature would have some sort of direction and purpose has a distinct air of not just “intelligent design.” He is clear that he is not invoking a god of any sort, which leaves EC out in the cold.

The funny thing about the criticism that I can tell is that by just suggesting that there may be a direction in nature, he is drawing evolutionary biologists into the realm of philosophy where they are not as comfortable. In that realm, there is no logical reason for arguing that nature cannot have direction and purpose. When it stays within its own realm and is properly practiced, evolutionary biology has no say in whether or not nature has direction and purpose. That is the purview of the philosophers and theologians. Nonetheless, it has been the impulse of atheists like Dawkins and Myers to cross into the realm of philosophy in evaluating the role of evolution in the world around us. Consequently, when Dawkins released The God Delusion, it was not universally well-received and many critics argued that he had overstepped his bounds.

Darwin provided a mechanism for which evolution could be understood within a naturalistic perspective.  He did not, however, write anywhere that nature was inherently godless and admitted a reluctance to jettison his own beliefs in God, even if they did not take the form of Christianity. Whether or not one believes in God should have no bearing on the acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory, nor should one's acceptance of evolutionary theory necessitate rejection of belief in God. 

An Intelligent Design Murder Mystery

The Chattanooga Times Free Press has profiled a writer of murder mysteries who has centred one around Intelligent Design.  The book, titled Murder Intelligently Designed (Grit and Grace Mysteries) has the following tagline: “When atheistic biology professor, Brenda Blechard, is found flattened under a bust of Nietzsche, Grit Griffin, Grace Willis, and fellow "Deep Water" members must solve the crime and exonerate a friend.”  Being a pastor's wife, she has accepted the propositions of intelligent design but has this to say about other views:

Christians unabashedly should be able to accept proven scientific theory and still conclude there is a God, Wooley says.

"Those who insist on Earth being created in six 24-hour days -- you're not going to change their minds," she says. "But they're doing a disservice to Christians who want to pursue science" and a God who wouldn't allow the revelation of so much scientific information if it were false.

Wooley, 65, a minister's wife and former church secretary, also can't help putting her experiences and her frustrations in the book.

One of her characters, for instance, recalls being forced to attempt to speak in tongues as a child. That mirrored the author's childhood, when she was "frightened to death" by an occurrence at a Pentecostal Bible camp.

"At that age," she says, "nobody should be told they'll be unable to be a Christian and won't be loved by God" if they can't perform on demand.

It should be a good read.

More Trouble for the Complete "Out-of-Africa" Model

Science Daily is reporting on research done on migration patterns involving early anatomically modern humans.  They write:

The team, led by Johannes Krause from Tübingen University, was able to reconstruct more than ten mitochondrial genomes (mtDNAs) from modern humans from Eurasia that span 40,000 years of prehistory. The samples include some of the oldest modern human fossils from Europe such as the triple burial from Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic, as well as the oldest modern human skeletons found in Germany from the site of Oberkassel close to Bonn.

The researchers show that pre-ice age hunter-gatherers from Europe carry mtDNA that is related to that seen in post-ice age modern humans such as the Oberkassel fossils. This suggests that there was population continuity throughout the last major glaciation event in Europe around 20,000 years ago. Two of the Dolni Vestonice hunter-gatherers also carry identical mtDNAs, suggesting a close maternal relationship among these individuals who were buried together.

It was also suggested that the split between non-Africans and Africans was much later in time, between 62 and 95 ky BP. This would mean that the window of hybridization would be much larger than originally thought and that archaic and modern hybridization was a good deal more common until a later time than thought.  The first moderns that we have are from the site of Bouri, in the Afar Triangle, and date to around 160 ky BP.  Maddeningly, what we are lacking is good material between that time and around 100 ky BP, when the Near Eastern Skhul and Qafzeh material are found.  A friend of mine and I argued that the archaic traits in those skulls represent African archaic traits and not hybridization with Neandertals.  This would seem to support that.  They suggest that there are discrepancies between these results and previous ones but, critically, that these results tend to support both the palaeoanthropological and archaeological evidence.    Here is the citation:

Fu et al., A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes,
Current Biology (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.044

Io9 Misses the Point

George Dvorsky at io9 thinks that the new Pope believes in evolution, but then gives us absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. He writes:

The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science." But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point.

He then proceeds to document the church's position on evolution all the way up through Pope Benedict VI. Consequently, we know no more about Pope Francis then we did. That is not the principle problem with this post, however. The principle problem is a maddening inability to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes. About theistic evolution, he continues:

But it's here where the Church falls flat. This is the classic argument made by all reconciliationists — the idea that religion and Darwinian natural selection can work in harmony together. It’s a “want my cake and eat it too” proposition that largely ignores the potency of Darwin’s dangerous idea as a God killer.

Darwin’s theory provides for a stand alone system. Evolution is fully autonomous process that does not require any guiding “rationality” (Benedict’s term) to function. It’s an agonizingly slow, brutish, and insanely methodical process, but it works.

Moreover, it has given rise to the concept of scientific naturalism — the idea that the material world and all the phenomena we see around us can be explained without having to invoke an architect or overseer. All the evidence currently points to this conclusion, and until science reveals any hint of supernatural meddling — which it has not – we will continue to have to accept naturalism as the ongoing scientific paradigm.

Here is has invoked Daniel Dennett's argument that acceptance of evolution necessitates a rejection of belief in God, something that Darwin himself never wrote or said at any point in time. The idea that it might be a "God Killer" is unique to modern atheism. He is correct that Darwinian evolution explains past and present biodiversity very well but so what? Modern cosmology explains the universe quite well too and yet there are Christians who practice it. The same is true with geology (Davis Young, Carol Hill) where known laws set out by Lyell and others are the basis for the modern understanding of how the earth behaves. These are no more or less self-contained than evolutionary theory.

By invoking a "Cake and eat it too" dichotomy, Dvorsky has practiced a philosophically naturalistic reductionism that sees the belief in God and evolution as a zero-sum game, which it is not.

Science Teachers Express Frustration

Science teachers are beginning to express frustration about having to get around legislation that requires them to add ID-tinged education to their classrooms.  As Bob Fowler, of the Knoxville News Sentinel writes:

Teachers today face daunting, sometimes scary challenges, a trio of Oak Ridge High School educators said Thursday.

“We’re teaching science in a climate of denial,” biology teacher Beth Adler said. “We have legislated denial.”

From the theory of evolution to climate change, teachers are becoming wary of teaching basic scientific consensus because of the potential backlash they can face, she said.

“This leads to intimidated and capitulating teachers,” she said. “We need courage. It is scary,” Adler said. “We need to hear ‘Thank you for teaching the scientific consensus.’”

Adler said she’s faced 14- and 15-year-old students, some of them in tears, “ready to argue basic scientific principles,” and other students “thinking that climate change is a liberal hoax.”

This is what happens when people who have no basic scientific knowledge get into positions of power in legislatures and then can wreck havoc on educational policies. You need to have a policy in place so that people who are appointed to education committees or who run for state education boards have to pass a basic test in the understanding of modern science. Those who cannot or will not try to understand it should not be on education boards.

Another "Noah's Ark" Opens

Reuters is reporting that a replica of Noah's Ark has opened at a church in San Antonio, Texas.  According to the press release:

Approximately 20,000 people attended the unveiling of the newest addition to Cornerstone Church, a 28,400-square-foot Noah`s Ark inspired building on Saturday, March 16.

And then down a bit...

The Ark boasts true-to-size animatronics animals, custom-designed wall murals, synthetic trees and grasses, LED shooting stars, custom wood-plank carpeting and more. The building will host the church`s Sunday school, Mother`s Day Out and other children`s programs. With its unique, stimulating and larger-than-life elements, the Ark experience truly brings to life the famed Bible story.

"There is no greater investment that can be made than that of building a foundation in the life of a child that will keep them the rest of their days," said Pastor Matthew Hagee. "The Congregation at Cornerstone has once again demonstrated its deep desire to be certain that every child has a refuge in the Ark of God`s loving embrace. To God be the Glory. Great things He has done."

One might reasonably argue that a much better way to make sure that every child has refuge is to feed more of the hungry and take care of more widows and orphans than an ostentatious live-size Noah's Ark.  I get the need for a new church building.  We built one a decade or so back but we kept it as inexpensive as possible so we could use more money for mission purposes.  

Perhaps what I am reacting to in this story, however, is that it is yet another fundamentalist church veering off in a direction that is, I think, antithetical to the original mission of the church, and doing so in a way that reflects a particular view of scripture that, more every day, I am coming to believe, is gnostic. 

Duane Gish Has Died

I missed this when it happened last week.  One of the grand old men of young earth creationism, Duane Gish, has died at the age of 92.  There is an obituary on the Answers in Genesis page. Mark Looy writes:

On this website earlier today, we shared the sad news that famed creationist debater Dr. Duane T. Gish had passed away this morning. This great defender of the Christian faith was a tireless and bold defender of the book of Genesis. The same courage that marked his service during WWII in the Pacific Theater of the war was seen in later years as he appeared about 300 times at venues around the world as he took the stage to debate prominent evolutionists, sometimes facing a hostile audience who jeered his defense of Genesis.

I saw Gish in the late 1990s, when he came to the University of Tennessee. He did, indeed, have a compelling presentation, even if most of it was either wrong or based on out-dated information. The interesting thing about Gish and other traveling debaters is that, as they moved from town to town and university to university, their presentations didn't change, even in the face of devastating rebuttals. This problem seems to characterize young earth creationism in general.  The same discredited arguments keep popping up, although there are exceptions to this pattern, Todd Wood, for example.

The statement that he often faced hostile audiences may only be partly true.  One of the complaints that many scientists have about debating creationists is that they bus in huge crowds from local churches to bolster their cases.  Additionally, whether or not Gish received hostile treatment at other universities, he certainly did not at UT.  The one thing that did characterize the festivities is that the audience was very polite.  So much so that some of Gish's arguments that obviously did not hold water, were not adequately challenged. 

Nonetheless, he has now gone to be with the Lord.  Rest in Peace, Dr. Gish.

Attention-Grabbing Ad

Here is the advertisement that 23andMe runs. It certainly got my attention.

Another Ersatz Science Bill Fails

NCSE reports that the time limit on the reading of Oklahoma House Bill 1674 was allowed to lapse.  According to the story:

Along with Senate Bill 758, which died in February 2013, HB 1674 was one of two proposed laws that would have undermined the integrity of science education in Oklahoma. If enacted, HB 1674 would have encouraged teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." HB 1674 specifically mentioned "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as subjects which "some teachers may be unsure" about how to teach.

Funny how these bill always emphasize just these subjects, as if the science is settled on all of the other subjects being taught.

Science and the Catholic Church

Tanya Lewis of LiveScience has penned a short refresher on the history of the Catholic church's relationship with science.  She reminds us that it's relationship with evolution has been a rocky one, writing:

The church's views on evolution have themselves evolved over the years. For the first hundred years or so after Charles Darwin first put forth his theory, the church took no formal stance on evolution, though some church figures rejected it. As late as the 1950s, the church maintained a neutral position on the subject, but by the end of the 20th century the Catholic Church showed general acceptance of 'theistic evolution,' which states that God created a universe where cosmic and biological evolution occurred.

"The theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge," former pope John Paul II said in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican in October 1996.

It is known that Pope Benedict's views on evolution seemed to be in flux during his pontificate. There has been no word about what the views of Pope Francis I are in this matter. I will see if I can find any writings.

News Looking Up For Accurate Science in Homeschooling?

The Atlantic has an excellent article on changes that are happening in the homeschool market that suggest that many homeschoolers are getting disgusted with the bad science.  David Wheeler writes:

For homeschooling parents who want to teach their children that the earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution is a lie, and dinosaurs coexisted with humans, there is no shortage of materials. Kids can start with the Answers in Genesis curriculum, which features books such as Dinosaurs of Eden, written by Creation Museum founder Ken Ham. As the publisher's description states, "This exciting book for the entire family uses the Bible as a 'time machine' to journey through the events of the past and future."

It's no secret that the majority of homeschooled children in America belong to evangelical Christian families. What's less known is that a growing number of their parents are dismayed by these textbooks.

Take Erinn Cameron Warton, an evangelical Christian who homeschools her children. Warton, a scientist, says she was horrified when she opened a homeschool science textbook and found a picture of Adam and Eve putting a saddle on a dinosaur. "I nearly choked," says the mother of three. "When researching homeschooling curricula, I found that the majority of Christian homeschool textbooks are written from this ridiculous perspective. Once I saw this, I vowed never to use them." Instead, Warton has pulled together a curriculum inspired partly by homeschool pioneer Susan Wise Bauer and partly by the Waldorf holistic educational movement

If you will recall, it was the whole "dinosaur-with-a-saddle" problem that got Ken Ham into hot water, recently.The sad thing is that the biblical stories have been twisted so far out of proportion that they are barely recognizable for what they are and pictures like this, which should strike any student of the Bible as ridiculous, are simply accepted. 

Wheeler writes that many people homeschool not for religious reasons but because they don't like what is being taught in the public schools. That is partly so and partly not. One of the principle reasons that many do not like the public schools is that God has been summarily removed from the picture and it is hard to instill biblical values over the secular ones that the kids are pummeled with every day.

Part of the reason that some of us do not have our kids in public schools is because of the progressive dumbing-down not just of the students but of the administration, as well. Witness the recent problems resulting from lack of rudimentary common sense on the part of teachers and administrators involving children with pastries and toy soldiers. In the first case, the common sense was evident to everyone except the school officials, who suggested counseling for kids (rather than themselves) who were troubled by the incident. Most homeschoolers look on at these stories with a mixture of disbelief, horror and amusement and think, "There but for the grace of God, go we." But for those of us who despair of the lack of critical thinking in the sciences, hope is on the way:

The rising number of homeschool families striving to reconcile belief in God with today's scientific consensus has attracted the attention of at least one publisher -- Christian Schools International in Grand Rapids, Michigan...The CSI science curriculum clearly presents science from a Christian perspective, but does not attempt to discredit the theory of evolution. The content presents God as the author of all of creation, no matter how he did it or when he did it."

This is welcome news for those of us that just watched a child slog through It couldn't Just Happen, which does no better a job than Of Pandas and People in getting the biological and evolutionary sciences right. For both of these books, the emphasis is single-minded: the destruction of evolution. There is no other objective.  If conventional, accurate science is trod upon in the process, so be it.

I don't expect miracles overnight but this is a good first step.  There will be backlash from groups like Answers in Genesis, Abeka and Bob Jones, however.  I just hope that these "underdog" publishers stay true to their mission.  We will all benefit from it. 

Jonathan Merritt: Why conservative Christians should oppose teaching the Bible in public schools

Jonathan Merritt of the Religion News Service suggests that it would be a very bad thing for public schools to teach the Bible.  In the wake of Mark Burnett and Roma Downey's History Channel miniseries The Bible, he writes:

Two days before the first episode aired, however, the couple penned a controversial opinion column in The Wall Street Journal titled, “Why Public Schools Should Teach the Bible.” They argued that public schools should encourage or perhaps mandate teaching courses on the sacred book. This should apparently top the list of priorities in a time when America’s educational system is faced with depleting resources and failing to keep up with the rest of the world’s students.

Christian pastors and leaders in social media lauded Burnett and Downey’s article as wise and appropriate. And while the timing of publication could not have been more perfect—the article reads like a thinly veiled marketing piece with a commercial for the television show inserted as the seventh paragraph—the  arguments are worth considering.

The crux of the problem is, as Merritt sees it (and I fully agree with him) how would the Bible be taught? He suggests that it would not likely be the Bible that most evangelicals want taught. For example:

Those who teach these courses will most likely be non-literalists trained at secular state universities, not homeschooled conservative evangelicals or Bible college graduates. They may believe that the many “seeming contradictions” of the Bible are actual ones. If asked, they may teach students that the stories of “Jonah and the Whale” or “Noah’s Ark” are mythic allegories, rather than historical accounts of miraculous events.

Do the Christians crying for a reintroduction of Bible courses want their children taught, for example, that the creation account in Genesis is little more than pretty poetry? It’s safe to assume they do not. But most haven’t thought this deeply about the issue.

I have used this argument against the teaching of young earth creationism in schools. Typically, when Christians advocate this kind of thing, they are unaware of the insurmountable scientific problems associated with these views.  Aside from the fact that it is ersatz science, teaching these arguments in a public school setting would paint a target on those cherished beliefs and open them up to complete ridicule when it is discovered that they don't hold up to even rudimentary scientific examination. If Christians thought this one through, they would not want this.

Sorry about the lack of posts.  My mother passed away this last week and I have been preoccupied with that. 

New Scientist: Is Extinction Really Such a Bad Thing?

A new exhibit at London's Natural History Museum asks just that question and concludes that, no, it is not.  Shaoni Bhattacharya at The New Scientist's Culture Lab writes:

The five mass extinctions in Earth's history wiped out swathes of life, but out of the devastation new species rose - shaped and honed by evolution - to inherit the Earth. More than 99 per cent of species that ever lived are now dead, and the exhibition hammers home the point that extinction drives evolution, which results in life in all its wondrous forms.

But it tempers this message strongly with a second sobering one: human actions are causing extinctions in a way never before seen. "If we don't do anything about it, make no mistake - it will hugely affect the world we live in," says Adrian Lister, a palaeontologist at the museum whose work on the extinct Irish elk forms part of the exhibition. "It would take the biosphere millions of years to recover."

It's not all doom, though. There are upbeat stories on display - animals we drove to the brink but then saved through conservation efforts: the Californian condor, the Arabian oryx, and China's Pere David's deer.

We have many, many tales of extinction in our own "bush." The robust australopithecines, who got out-competed by early Homo and the Neandertals come to mind.  The case of the Neandertals is peculiar, however, because it looks like they interbred with modern humans before they got gene-swamped.  Regardless, it is out of their stock and those like them that we came.

As far as conservation goes, I certainly hope we learn to understand how important it is to have our great apes around. 

The John Freshwater Case Continues...

ABC News is carrying a story on the case of John Freshwater, the science teacher who was let go after complaints by students and parents that he was teaching creationism and branding arms with crosses.  His case has gone to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Julie Carr Smyth and Andrew Welsh-Huggins of the AP write:

In his dismissal case, Freshwater is getting legal backing from the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group. Science education and humanist and secular groups have joined the side of the school board.

The school board argues that as far back as 1994, a middle school principal told Freshwater to stop distributing an "Answers in Genesis" pamphlet, which contained information about a creationist organization's seminar, according to a filing by board attorneys asking the court to uphold Freshwater's firing.

Freshwater also used a handout titled "Survival of the Fakest" to teach his students to doubt science, the board's attorneys said.

Two lower courts previously upheld Freshwater's dismissal.

I am sort of surprised that the court offered to hear this case because Freshwater had been so thoroughly trounced by the lower courts and this does not represent compelling interest. I am curious to see how they rule.

23 And Me

For her birthday, the husband of one of my friends here at the library gave her a complete genetic profile from the company 23 And Me. Among the findings: she is 2.7 % Neandertal.  There's nothing like being able to trace your ancestry back 70 to 80 thousand years. 

She is going to check to see if there are any genes linking her to the Denisovan group.  They may or may not have included that information. 

Karl Giberson: Praise For Pope Benedict

Karl Giberson has written a piece that appears in HufPo about the friendship between Pope Benedict and the scientific community.  He writes:

An underappreciated achievement of Pope Benedict has been his consistent support for science. At time when the gulf between science and Christianity is widening in the United States -- polls show support for young earth creationism is on the rise -- Benedict was a quiet and powerful voice calling for Christians to embrace science.

Just over a year ago Benedict even founded a new organization -- The Science and Faith Foundation -- at the Vatican to continue and enlarge the task of building bridges between science and theology, and to ease concerns of Christians that their faith demands the rejection of science. The executive director Father Tomasz Trafny describes the mission as the search for a "coherent vision of society, culture and the human being," arguably the most important quest we confront today.

However, it should be remembered that it was not always the case that Pope Benedict supported evolution (sorry, the regular link is no longer active) and that he went through a "conversion" of sorts.  This seems to have occurred somewhat quickly, although it is not possible to ascertain that for sure.  In August of 2006, he fired the royal astronomer for his support of evolution but by early September, 2006, USA Today reported that, in published minutes, the pontiff had changed his mind.

The minutes, to be issued later this year, will show how Catholic theologians see no contradiction between their belief in divine creation and the scientific theory of evolution, participants said after the annual closed-door meeting ended Sunday.

Now that he is abdicating, I wonder what the new pope will think about evolution.  

Barbara Cargill Backpedals

A bit back, I wrote an open letter to Barbara Cargill, who sits on the Texas State Board of Education, and asked her what she found objectionable in the theory of evolution.  She, of course, never wrote back but in the last week, we have the peculiar story that she is backpedaling on her comments.  Ben Kamisar of The Austin Statesman writes:

Watson’s questioning ultimately spurred a debate over teaching intelligent design in public schools, when he asked about Cargill’s comments last week at a Senate Education Committee hearing where she was quoted stating that there could be “another side to the theory of evolution.” She said the statement was taken out of context and clarified that she meant for teachers to teach all sides of scientific evidence, not matters of faith. “In biology class and in science class, I want to stick just to the science, like I did when I was teaching,” Cargill said. “The other needs to be taught at church or in the home.”

If you go to Cargill's web site now, there is no mention of creationism or intelligent design anywhere that I could find. If she still openly supports either, she is hiding it very well on her site. She may not think any differently, but given what happened to McLeroy, she may want to keep it completely off the radar. Wise move.

Barry Fagin: Darwin Day reminds us of intellectual integrity

Barry Fagin reminds us of why evolutionary theory is such a good one and why it has withstood the test of time. He writes:

Evolution is a fact, but it is also a theory, in its most beautiful, scientific sense: A unifying set of ideas that withstands challenges from alternative explanations, connecting with existing knowledge in a consistent and powerful way.

There are maybe half a dozen or so truly great Theories in the history of humanity. These bold ideas are not only supported by an unimaginably vast quantity of evidence, but are also stunningly beautiful. Isaac Newton gave us the Theory of Gravitation in Principia Mathematica. Two centuries later, Albert Einstein made it even more beautiful with his Theory of General Relativity. In between the two, Darwin gave us Origin of Species.

Evolution predicted that genetic information should be transmitted through a discrete, copying process that should be almost exact but with some errors. Scientists later discovered DNA, the molecule that did exactly that. It has accurately predicted what certain fossils should look like and how old they would be when found. Today, it identifies the most fruitful paths for new drug development. Without the knowledge produced by the Theory of Evolution, advanced genetic medical therapies would not be possible.

He is quite correct. Even creationists such as Todd Wood recognize the power of this theory as an explanatory framework and the evidence behind it. It is evident, even from the comments, though, that there are many who hold on to outdated or wrong conceptions of the theory. That is a shame.

The Basics of Evolution

Dennis Venema is launching a series of posts at BioLogos on the basics of evolutionary theory.  Given the quality of Dennis' work so far, this should be an extremely good resource.  I may even avail some of my Christian friends of it.  He writes:

The goal of this course is straightforward: to provide evangelical Christians with a step-by-step introduction to the science of evolutionary biology. This will provide benefits beyond just the joy of learning more about God’s wonderful creation. An understanding of the basic science of evolution is of great benefit for reflecting on its theological implications, since this reflection can then be done from a scientifically-informed perspective.

Looking forward to it. 

Montana "Strengths and Weaknesses" Bill Dies in Committee

The Great Falls Tribune is reporting that the ID-themed “strengths and weaknesses” bill promoted by Clayton Fiscus tothe Montana state legislature has died in committee.  Matt Gouras writes:

A lawmaker’s proposal protecting “alternative viewpoints” during the teaching of evolution and science in schools came under fire Friday from opponents who argued it would pave the way for teaching of creationism.

Rep. Clayton Fiscus, R-Billings, said evolution isn’t settled science and called it a “monumental leap” to believe it is true. His bill would allow teachers — if they want — to address perceived weaknesses in evolution studies in the classroom.

How anyone with a college education can say that evolution is “not settled science” is beyond me.  I guess 150 years of in-depth investigation and hypothesis testing is not enough.  This is best summed up in another paragraph from the story:

“There is no controversy within the scientific community with regard to evolution. None,” said Dr. Phil Jensen, a Rocky Mountain College professor. “Any controversy there is, is a social one fueled by people outside the scientific community.”

The problem, of course, is that these people outside the scientific community have an army of supporters and the money to fund their campaigns. At least, for now, the skirmish has been won in Montana and folks might be getting weary of this kind of legislation.  A reader who testified at the Montana hearings said that no supporters of the bill showed up to promote it. 

Missouri's ID Bill or keping misooree stupit

Here is the text of the Missouri Standard Science Act,  which was linked from a Missouri blog called Show Me Progress, who posted it under the title “keping misooree stupit.” As ID bills go, it is quite a bit more blatant than most. None of this “academic freedom” or “truths and weaknesses” nonsense. It gets right to the point:

(2) "Biological evolution", a theory of the origin of life and its ascent by naturalistic means. The first simple life was developed from basic elements and simple molecules through the mechanisms of random combinations, naturally occurring molecular structures, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. From the first simple life, all subsequent species developed through the mechanisms of random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. The theory is illustrated by the evolutionary phylogenic tree. Theory philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life;
(3) "Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence. Since the inception of each original species, genetic material has been lost, inherited, exchanged, mutated, and recombined to result in limited variation. Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules or making sufficient new genetic material to cause ascent from microscopic organisms to large life forms. The hypothesis does not address the time or sequence of life's appearance on earth, time or formation of the fossil record, and time or method of species extinction. The hypothesis does not require the identity of intelligence responsible for earth's biology but requires any proposed identity of that intelligence to be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation. Concepts inherent within the hypothesis include:

(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;

(b) All original species on earth are inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no significant mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic development of earth's species from microscopic organisms;

If you read between the lines, however, you can see the standard language in the whole ‘evolution cannot lead to increased information’ language. Credit the bill's organizers for reading their Dembski.  It is clear that the writers don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory but most of the organizers of bills like these aren't interested in learning about it in the first place.

The bill also reflects the usual bogus dichotomy between evolution and belief in God by defining evolution a priori as denying the role of God completely, as if, somehow, the backers know this. In one fell swoop, they also deny the validity of the evolutionary creation model, which makes one wonder if there are young earth creationist sympathies at work. 

It is difficult to see how this is going to fly in the legislature or if it does, how it would survive a constitutional challenge. It is almost as if the bill's promoters have never heard of Dover, Pennsylvania.  I would expect this to die in committee. 

Update From Todd Wood

Todd Wood is now actively trying to save CORE and, even though he is still in the proposal and fundraising stages, it looks like his efforts may pay off.  He writes:

If you pray to the one true God, please pray for us now that these proposals will be well received and that God will guide us as we make even BIGGER plans for the future. If you don't pray to the one true God, well... keep watching, because I think He's going to do something amazing.

Because of his attention to the data and his honesty and integrity, his presence on the scene can only benefit the entire search for the truth in these issues and I pray that his efforts will succeed.

Letters of Alfred Russel Wallace Online

The collected letters of Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, have been put online by the Natural History Museum.  Wallace was the subject of a chapter in the David Quammen book The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction. The chapter was called "The Man Who Knew Islands." Where Darwin used the Galapagos Islands and the terrain of South America to devise his theory, Wallace used the islands of Indonesia.  The site is billed as having:

• iconic correspondence between Wallace and Charles Darwin about evolution by natural selection
• important observations and discoveries made when in the Malay Archipelago (1854 - 1862)
• fascinating discussions on a variety of subjects, scientific and social such as glaciology, anthropology, epidemiology, astrobiology, socialism, land reform and spiritualism

Wallace was a spiritualist and began to infuse his scientific writings with spiritualism, a development which dismayed Darwin, who had gone to great lengths to show that natural selection could be thought of in scientific terms, alone.

Open Letter to Arizona Senator Judy Burges

Recently, Judy Burges of the Arizona senate, along with some senatorial colleagues, put forth an “strengths and weaknesses” bill for passage by the legislature. The bill, SB 1213, reads in part:

The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher in this state from helping pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

This is classic language from the Discovery Institute. The idea is to contrive “weaknesses” in evolution and other related disciplines and then promote the idea of teaching alternatives to them. In all of the cases of which I am familiar, the “weaknesses” turn out to be incorrect interpretations of data, such as “No transitional fossils” or “natural selection cannot increase genetic information.” I have drafted a letter to Senator Burges. It reads:

Dear Senator Burges,

Although not a resident of the state of Arizona, I am concerned by the text of the bill being promoted in the legislature (SB 1213) that has, as its intent science instruction. For one thing, I assumed that it was axiomatic that one of the primary purposes of the public schools was to, in the words of the bill "help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens." Consequently, the promotion of this bill seems redundant and, unless you are concerned that this is not happening in the Arizona public schools, I am curious why such legislation is necessary.

Additionally, I am concerned that, of all of the scientific disciplines that would fall under this kind of legislation, only certain ones dealing with the life sciences are being singled out for special treatment. If the purpose of this bill is to produce scientifically literate students, then surely such a bill would strive to be comprehensive, including other disciplines for which there are theoretical constructs such as Newtonian and quantum physics. I am further concerned that such a bill will give cover to the teaching of scientifically unsound concepts such as young-earth creationism, as has happened in Texas.

As I indicated at the beginning of my letter, I am not a resident of Arizona but I also know that properly educated students coming out of Arizona affect the scientific enterprises of the country as a whole. Therefore, I ask that you either rethink the wording of your bill to include other scientific disciplines or withdraw the bill as being unnecessary. Thank you for your time.

-Sincerely,

James Kidder, Ph.D.
Knoxville, Tennessee

I never received a response to a letter I wrote Barbara Cargill of Texas. I doubt I will get one from Senator Burges. We shall see.

Ken Ham Alters His Testimony

It seems that Ken Ham recently had a Google+ Live chat and was asked by a caller about people riding dinosaurs in the Bible.  Here is the exchange:

Q: The last question we have here tonight Ken, they ask: “How did men get the dinosaurs to not buck them off of their saddles when people rode them? Were the dinosaurs more domesticated and well behaved because there wasn’t as much sin back them? I’ve always wondered.”

Ham: (pause) Well, I need to get paid overtime for this question… I seems we’re a bit over our time.

I don’t know where people get the idea that people rode dinosaurs. I mean, there’s no evidence in the Bible that that is so. When Job was looking at Behemoth, the description there… there’s nothing to do with people riding dinosaurs. We don’t know how people interacted with dinosaurs.

As Fatlip over at Leo Weekly amply demonstrates, this is in sharp contrast to what he has previously written. Out of the images that Fatlip provides, this one is the best. It is from Ham's book Dinosaurs of Eden: Tracing the Mystery Through History:

Those are, in fact, Noah's descendents riding dinosaurs.

So, faced with one of the most preposterous of his young earth creation claims, Ken Ham waffles.  It is doubtful that he simply forgot what he wrote, nor is it credible that he didn't see the proofs of the book before it was published and “missed” the pictures of people riding dinosaurs.

It is quite possible that he simply realized how ridiculous it sounded and couldn't bring himself to agree with it. Given his evasive and somewhat-less-than-truthful statements about AiG's involvement in the Ark Encounter, however, I remain skeptical.  

Just as astounding is the question, though.  This just shows up the fact that people who might otherwise be reasonable, believe absolutely fantastic things in the pursuit of this young earth hermeneutic. 

New Web Site: Say No To Creationist Vouchers

You knew that once the Loch Ness Monster story hit the airwaves, this was not far behind.  A new site has popped up, Say No To Creationist Vouchers, which lists the school districts across the country that are participating in school voucher programs and teaching young earth creationism.  The list is quite something.  Having said that, it is not clear that all of the schools fall afoul of bad science.  Some are obvious:

Lakewood Christian School, in Auburn, says in its mission, “creation: we believe the Genesis account of a literal six-day creation; we believe man was created directly in God’s image and after His own likeness, and not by evolution (man did not evolve from other life forms).”

Others, not so:

Denver Christian Schools (3 schools, 2 in Denver, 1 in Highlands Ranch), say in their statement of faith that they teach “God reveals himself in all aspects of creation; therefore, all aspects of God’s creation are worthy of study. At Denver Christian, students learn to see this magnificent creation through the “lens” of Scripture.

I tend to view creation through the lens of scripture as well. It is not clear that these guys teach creationism. One can view the creation through the lens of scripture and still teach evolution. BioLogos does that.  I think these guys need to ferret out the ones that are actually teaching creationism (quite a lot of them do) from the ones that simply focus on teaching things from a biblical perspective.  That I have no trouble with.

What does worry me is that, if this really gets a head of steam going, it may spell doom for the voucher programs as a whole, which would be a shame because unless the public schools have competition, they will not improve.  The private schools are over a barrel because they want to provide kids good education but the public schools have the wealth (such as it is) of the U.S. government behind them and aren't, so to speak, on a level playing field.  By funneling money to the private schools in the form of vouchers, it creates the incentive for the public schools to improve.  Young earth creationism could kill that. 

Bobby Jindal, Stupidity and Creationism

Joanna Weiss has a column in the Boston Globe about Bobby Jindal and his recent comments on the stupidity of the Republican Party (no disagreement here). The article is really more about Zack Kopplin than it is about Jindal but that is her lead-in. She writes:

The first time Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said that the GOP needed to “stop being the stupid party” — in an interview with Politico last fall, a few days after the presidential election — I got an e-mail from Zack Kopplin.

I had just written that Jindal was an intriguing potential face of the GOP: young, smart, Indian-American, with Southern roots and a background in health care wonkery. Kopplin, a 19-year-old college student from Baton Rouge, wanted to remind me that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, the Orwellian-named law that permits creationism to be taught in Louisiana public schools.

Jindal is sort of between a rock and a hard place. He has made a name for himself by declaring what is fast becoming self-evident—that the Republican party is losing touch with its base and implementing policies that are self-serving rather than people-serving—and gained some of the national spotlight as a result. The catch is that he is also on record as having signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which has been pilloried as being anti-science and has already led to flirtations with creationism that have made the news and probably countless cases that have not. It was only when a close study was done on neighboring Texas that it was revealed that numerous school districts were teaching creationism as science. Gov. Jindal cannot have it both ways. If he wants the Republican party to be more intelligent, it must divorce itself from laws such as these.

Live Science: Four New "Anti-Science" Bills

Live Science has a post on the spate of “anti-science” bills that have been promoted recently.  Larry O'Hanlon writes:

Anti-science bills are popping up like daisies after a spring shower. Five bills in four states have been introduced with the opening of state legislatures across the United States. All of the bills are aimed at undermining the teaching of biology and physical science — specifically, evolution and climate change — in public schools. Oklahoma has two bills in the hopper, Colorado, Missouri and Montana have one each.

If you look closely, you discover that these bills are not really anti-science bills, they are anti-evolution bills. The promoters could care less about physics or chemistry or even biochemistry. The promoters are also getting them from one place: The Discovery Institute.  When we underestimate this organization, we do so at our own peril. 

Donna D'Errico and The Quest For the Good Ship Noah

I saw this story a bit back and didn't get a chance to post on it.    It seems that Baywatch star Donna D'Errico has shed her wild ways and has had a change of heart, deciding to pursue her lifelong interest: finding Noah's Ark.  Nicki Gostin writes:

“Baywatch” beauty Donna D’Errico made news recently when photos of her battered face, injured climbing Mount Ararat in her search for Noah’s Ark, went viral. The 44-year-old blonde was on a quest taking her even further from her past as the ex-wife of Motley Crue wild man Nikki Sixx and the September 1995 Playboy playmate. Today D'Errico is deeply committed to her Catholic faith, a mother of two... and searching for Noah's Ark?

Yes, apparently so. She wishes to join the untold countless individuals that have gone trekking up the mountain. The interview continues:

FOX411: So you don’t see Noah’s Ark as a legend but a literal event.

DD: Of course. Yes I believe what the Bible says. Plus over the years throughout history there’s historical records of people throughout history seeing the ark on Mount Ararat, so it’s not like it’s just a fable and I’m only just going on the Bible. There’s been historical records by respected people who have gone and seen it.

FOX411: Do you consider yourself a religious person?

DD: Absolutely. I don’t like the term spiritual because I think that’s a cop out. Either you’re religious or you’re not. There’s no spiritual, it’s a silly term that’s become a catchall phrase. If you’re not religious you’re not religious. What does spiritual mean? I go to Mass every Sunday and I pray the rosary every night with my kids.

She is wrong about the first part.  None of the records have ever been verified and wood brought back from the area has always been too young to have been part of the ark.  Additionally, if the ship really is there, it is unfathomable that the vast number of people who have gone up looking for it have come away with nothing.  It is also instructive to remember Carol Hill's admonition:

The ark has been assigned to at least eight different landing places over the centuries including Saudi Arabia, India, and even the mythical Atlantis. One reason for this ambiguity is that the Bible does not actually pinpoint the exact place where the ark landed, it merely alludes to a region or range of mountains where the ark came to rest: the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4). Ararat is the biblical name for Urartu (Isa. 37:38) as this area was known to the ancient Assyrians. This mountainous area, geographically centered around Lake Van and between Lake Van and Lake Urmia, was part of the ancient region of Armenia (not limited to the country of Armenia today). Mountain in Gen. 8:4 is plural; therefore, the Bible does not specify that the ark landed on the highest peak of the region (Mount Ararat), only that the ark landed somewhere on the mountains or highlands of Armenia (both Ararat and Urartu can be translated as highlands.

This is an area of over 190 thousand square miles that is almost entirely mountainous. Even if the Ark really is there, it might be anywhere within that area. One would have to find it almost by accident.  Why don't these Christians read their Bibles carefully?

Saxby Chambliss to Retire

Saxby Chambliss has announced that he is going to retire from office.  At 69, he would be unusual to do so—there have been many congressmen and senators that nobody could seem to get rid of until they kicked the bucket.Kyle Trygstad of Roll Call writes:

In a statement, Chambliss denied that his decision had anything to do with the likelihood that he would draw a challenger from the right in 2014. Instead, he insisted that the partisan gridlock in Congress, particularly surrounding fiscal issues, was the reason for his retirement. Chambliss has been a key member of the bipartisan “gang of six,” which sought to forge a bipartisan solution to the nation’s debt and deficit problems.

Why is this important, you ask?  Because of this:

Some of the top prospects in the GOP primary were already considered potential Chambliss opponents: Reps. Tom Price, Paul Broun and Tom Graves. GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey, who has a substantial war chest but earlier said he would not challenge Chambliss, could also run.

Most of the names I do not recognize, but one leaped right off the page at me.  Paul Broun, if you will recall, said some alarming things a few months back:

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.

We do not need yet another scientifically illiterate GOP senator in office. It would be very bad news for Georgia science if this man were elected to Chambliss' seat. This is especially true since he has a post on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.  I do not know anything about the other candidates.  I do know that they can't possibly be this bad. 

"Academic Freedom" Bill in Colorado

Of all places, I did not expect this to occur in Colorado.  The NCSE has a piece on a new “academic freedom” bill that has been proposed. They write:

House Bill 13-1089 (PDF), introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives on January 16, 2013, and assigned to the House Committees on Education and Appropriations, would create "Academic Freedom Acts" for both K-12 public schools and institutes of higher education in the state of Colorado. If enacted, the bill would, in the words of the summary, "direct teachers to create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning."

This should be a reminder that the influence of the Discovery Institute is alive and well and that they will continue to employ useful idiots who can be easily convinced that “academic freedom” seems like the fair and just thing to legislate, not realizing that it opens the door to attacks on evolution. Some, of course, do realize exactly what they are doing and know that this is a backdoor way of getting creationism taught in the schools.  I don't know how well the legislation is going to fly at the higher levels.  I am betting the learned biologists and palaeontologists won't give it the time of day.

Hat tip to The Panda's Thumb.

CORE is Defunct

Todd Wood has been ruminating about this on his blog for some time and now it looks like a reality: financial support for the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College is being withdrawn.  He writes:

On January 11, 2013, I had a meeting with Stephen Livesay, president of Bryan College. He informed me that due to a significant budget shortfall, the college would be discontinuing support for the Center for Origins Research effective June 30. He has offered to continue housing the CORE facilities, but there will no longer be any salary support for CORE faculty or staff. Since we have very little regular donation support, his decision basically means the end of CORE as we know it. You can read the official college statement on this closing at their website

I like reading Todd's work and, even though I have grave philosophical concerns about the fact that he can understand the immensity of the evidence for evolution and yet still reject it based solely on modern creationism theology, he always treats the evidence fairly and honestly. Nick Matzke, writing for Panda's Thumb has this to say about it:

Wood was almost the sole representative of critical thinking in the creationist movement. He also had the virtually unique trait of understanding what modern evolutionary biology actually said before opening his big mouth about it. I can’t think of a time when he quote-mined Gould’s punctuated equilibrium quotes or blamed Darwin for Hitler or used the other careless, bottom-of-the-barrel tactics ubiquitous with creationists of the ID or AIG varieties. And I can think of many times when he called shenanigans on creationists engaging in those sorts of sins.

Indeed, I remember his takedown of Fuz Rana's interpretation of the chimpanzee genome data. One particular quote was memorable:

I would recommend that no one accept any of RTB's arguments without fact-checking their claims first. I do not know whether these problems are due to lazy scholarship, ignorance, intentional deception, or ideological blinders. What I do know is that you cannot trust Reasons to Believe.

For a creationist to say that about an ID organization is quite something.  I hope that Todd continues to write and to post blog entries.  Whatever I think about his theology, he is a joy to read. 

An Evolution Resource For Teachers

Len Eisenberg has launched a web site that seeks to help teachers and students who may be unfamiliar or intimidated by evolution.  The site can be found here and looks like it has quite a few good items.  The opening paragraph reads:

This website seeks to promote the teaching and acceptance of the biological theory of evolution by emphasizing one of its great lessons: that life on Earth is one big extended family, and therefore we are related in an exact way to not only every other living thing, but also to every thing that ever lived.

Be sure to check out the "Tree of Life," which is quite something. 

New BioLogos Post: The Rise of Archaic Homo sapiens

My newest BioLogos post is up, called The Rise of Archaic Homo sapiens.  Comments are welcome.

They Are Popping Up Everywhere

Hot on the heels of the Ark that has been built in Dordrecht, is the news that a Colorado group is intent on building a life-size ark. Amanda Miller of the Colorado Springs Business Journal writes:

Honor Hands, a Christian organization, is working on a project of biblical proportions.

Honor Hands Jerry Vinnola said that is finalizing a Southern Colorado land purchase build the Biblical ark according to measurements and directives in the Bible.

Plans include a taxidermy museum accessible to the blind so they could touch and feel the animals. There would also be an amphitheater and office space for other Christian outreach organizations, a science center and restaurant. Vinnola said he also plans to eventually build a water park on the site.

Vinnola said he would not reveal what city or even what county in southern Colorado could be the future home of the project until the land purchase is final because he’s afraid people would begin speculating about where it could be built and start buying up neighboring properties.

“We want to make a difference in the world with this project,” Vinnola said. “And we believe people will come from all over the world to see it.”

That means it will be a boon for nearby businesses and will likely create hundreds of jobs, Vinnola said.

According to the story, the ark will cost $70,000 dollars to build. Really? Then why is Ken Ham having a hard time raising the funds necessary to build his?

Coppedge Loses Discrimination Suit

The judge has finally ruled in the David Coppedge wrongful termination suit and it did not go Coppedge's way.  Brian Charles of the Pasadena Star-News writes:

JPL officials applauded Hiroshige's decision.

"We are very pleased with the decision reached by the court," JPL officials said in a statement Thursday. "As we've stated from the beginning, the allegations raised by Mr. Coppedge were without merit. After weighing the evidence in this case, the court has agreed."

During the civil trial, attorneys for JPL painted Coppedge as a difficult employee who pushed his views upon his co- workers. JPL said Coppedge's layoff was in line with agency policy.

The court agreed.

"The evidence shows that Caltech has a detailed layoff policy, incorporating a layoff ranking process, which (Coppedge's supervisor) carried out. The evidence clearly shows that (Coppedge's co- workers) were more qualified than Coppedge regarding the skills needed on the project going forward, such as SCO/ ITL, web servers, and Linux, and that Coppedge had a history of poor customer relationships, particularly in comparison to the other System Administrators," the judgement said.

I expected this result and am sorry that he lost his job but it looks like, again, the Discovery Institute backed the wrong horse.

Meanwhile, Back in Texas...

A report has just come out that indicates numerous failures to properly implement the state guidelines for the study of the Holy Bible in public school classrooms. The report generally focuses on the lack of biblical knowledge of teachers who are tasked with these classes. In the middle of the list of deficiencies, however, is this little nugget:

- A number of courses and their instructional materials incorporate pseudo-scholarship, including claims that the Bible provides scientific proof of a 6,000-year-old Earth (young Earth creationism) and that the United States was founded as a Christian nation based on biblical Christian principles. At least two districts' Bible courses include materials suggesting that the origins of racial diversity among humans today can be traced back to Noah's sons -- a claim that has long been an important element of some forms of racism.

Detailed in the actual report are these observations:

Dalhart ISD [Independent School District] features a slide show arguing for a 6,000-year-old earth, and Eastland ISD shows videos produced by the Creation Evidence Museum, a Glen Rose-based organization famous for its defense of a 6,000-yearold earth and claim to possess a fossil of “a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint” from the Paluxy River bed

Never mind that the Paluxy River tracks have been so thoroughly debunked that even the mainstream creationists don't advise using them. Another:

The Noah story also prompts appeals to pseudoscience. In the Boys Ranch ISD, students watch “various videos from You Tube that present different views of the flood in coordination with account from Genesis.” A workbook used in Dayton ISD suggests that biblical characters’ life spans declined “due to major environmental changes brought about by the flood.”

The major environmental changes were, apparently, so widespread that there exists no evidence for them whatsoever. Not to mention that traditional understanding of those lifespans was that they encompassed entire family generations, not individual people.

The findings in this report are probably not unique and, I daresay, could be found in many other states.  How many creationist-oriented courses that fly under the radar is not known but it is probably pretty high in some areas of the country.