Since when are scientists forced to make a choice?

From a recent Discovery Institute 'press' release.

"There was a time when most scientists were also deeply religious men. When scientists were not forced to choose between belief in God and the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. But that all ended with Charles Darwin.

In his stunning new book, The Darwin Myth, CSC fellow Benjamin Wiker cuts through the politically correct lies and cultural misconceptions to reveal the true Charles Darwin: the man who separated God from science."

Since when are scientists forced to choose between belief in God and rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge? The real answer is that they are not! Most scientists I know are also deeply religious people. They attend church and are part of their community, like most folks! They hold different religious beliefs and some do not hold to any particular religion at all. You know pretty much like any other group of people.

This 'requirement to choose' is nothing but an artificial dichotomy created for the express purpose of dividing people along lines chosen by the Discovery Institute. The problem is scientists are not the ones falling for this line, but ordinary folks who think you have to make a choice. The reality is you do not!

Jonnie Wells, another one of the less-than-stalwart-fellows over at the DI made it pretty clear, according to the DI you do have to make a choice. Faith and Evolution? And of course THEIR idea of the right choice is to choose God and by the way they have this neat little idea called Intelligent Design that has God's Stamp of Approval! Gee, he is sounding more like an infomercial today, isn't he?

Here is how I see it. The Theory of Evolution in not incompatible with belief in God. Science doesn't address the metaphysical aspects of any form of spiritual belief. What I find most striking is that after years of the DI trying to divest itself of those vestments is still claiming this dichotomy is true. How can an idea like Intelligent Design, one whose supporters claim is 'non-religious', mandate such a divide? The only way it can is if it is inherently a religious proposition!

To be sure, evolution is incompatible with a literal form of Christianity usually called Evangelical. Yes, Science does refute the specific claims made by those who insist that the Bible is absolutely historically and scientifically accurate. Like hte age of the Earth, Noah's world-wide flood, and the like. But since when does conflicting with one very narrow interpretation of a religion mean there is an issue with believing in God? In my opinion many religions only have a passing acquaintance with God anyway, but that is neither here nor there in this post.

As for The Darwin Myth, I would be more than a little hesitant to trust anything written, published, or even publicized by the Discovery Institute. They are the ones pushing this artificial dichotomy and lo and behold they have books supporting it. In my opinion the only thing that might be stunning about Wiker's book is if it didn't support the party line set for by the Discovery Institute. But then look at the publisher as well, Regnery Publishing, one of the, if not the, leading Conservative publishing company. I guess the Discovery Institute Press was outr of paper that day.

One last word on the Darwin myth. I really don't care that much about Charles Darwin. I mean yes, he was a great man who put things together and came up with a evolutionary idea that has become the bedrock of biological sciences today. But in reality, the theory of evolution has progressed well beyond him. The focus on Darwin will not change what he did nor change what has been going on now for the past 150 years.

What this really is, to me, is nothing more than another tactic of the Discovery Institute. They try and refute the man with 'Charles Darwin: the man who separated God from science' and at the same time create phony connections between Evolution and the Nazi's. I think they need to go back to their labs and start actually doing some science. All this rhetoric is getting a bit long in the tooth for them to think it actually makes a difference. I mean how many States has the DI's 'strengths and weaknesses' campaign been swallowed? One, Louisiana! How long did their victory last in Kansas, Ohio, and Dover PA? Exactly right up until the next election in each place. Wonder how Louisiana lawmakers will fare in the future?

Are we picking on the DI too much?

The Washington Post reached a new low and published a diatribe by John G. West, one of the Senior Fellows over at the Discovery Institute. Now before looking at the article, I have one tiny, little point to make. How many years has the Di claimed not to be a religious point of view? How many times have we heard that intelligent Design is not religion? How unfair we are being by drawing such a connection? Well guess which section was Johnnie's little missive in? Well he was the 'Guest Voice" in the "On Faith" column. yes, you heard it here first, On Faith!

yes, the DI's carefully crafted attempts to keep from being properly identified with religion seem to be a thing of the past.

OK, now on to the article. Why I asked if we might be picking on the DI too much is because of one of the things he had to say:

"Dawkins and Collins are often put forward as the two alternatives in discussions over faith and evolution, but since they both embrace Darwin's theory, they represent only a thin slice of the overall debate. Largely shut out from current media coverage are the growing number of scientists, as well as the vast majority of Americans, who view Darwin's theory with skepticism."

OK, so the Pope didn't invite them to the Vatican to discuss Religion and Evolution. OK, so the Templeton Foundation now considers them pariah. OK, so their 'Strengths and Weaknesses" has failed in every State except Jindal's playground of Louisiana. But have we really shut them out? I wish! Look. Johnnie is in the Washington Post. Behe has his own blog over on Amazon. Wild Bill still dabbles over on Uncommon Descent, which bills itself as 'Serving the Intelligent Design Community' which is fairly hilarious to me. In fact one of his contributors posted a fairly innocuous definition of Poe's Law:

Note: Poe’s law states that some people or situations just cannot be parodied because you couldn’t make up stuff that is further along the continuum. (here)

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. (here)

Of course the second definition isn't nearly as flattering toward Dembski and his friends as the first, since it specifically targets Fundamentalism.

OK, but back to Johnnie and his article. I have a question for him, who are all these scientists he, and others, keeps talking about? When pressed the Di simply waved their little petition and the 700 signatures of scientists that it took them over 9 years to collect. Wow, just looked at the list and they haven't published an update in nearly a year. But then we also know a few things about the list and how most are not biologists, many are not PhD's, some aren't even scientists, and how the clear majority dissent for evangelical reasons and how the Di misrepresented the list here in Ohio and even on their own website. So who are all these scientists that dissent from Darwin? No one seems to know.

He also repeats the standard DI mantra on how life

"developed through a blind and undirected process of natural selection acting on random variations. "

How many times does someone have to tell they that Natural Selection is not an unguided process. He only seems to believe that guidance must and can only be based on intelligence. Why can't a natural process provide guidance? Why can only intelligence produce a result that succeeds? Well it can and it does every day. No intelligence required. But he can't accept that as an answer.

Next he goes off the deep end and over sells himself and the DI.

"Experiments with bacteria, where evolution can be tested in real time, are showing just how little undirected processes like natural selection can actually accomplish."

I have to think he is talking about Lenski's experiments and I think a bacteria that can metabolize a new food source is a pretty big accomplishment, and it happened with no guidance in sight. Then he tries to tease us by making us this that there is some evidence supporting fine-tuning of protein sequences.

All in all, nothing new to offer. Vague comments, no support, just the usual DI fair. So are we being to hard on them? Nope, I think they deserve every set-back, even derisive comment, every laugh at how untenable they make their own position.

Faith and Evolution website funnies

I was reading a pdf file from the Discovery Institute's new "Faith and Reason# website, the one they set up to combat Francis Collin's BioLogos website. Well the pdf is titled "The Roots of Intelligent Design" and I was contrasting it with Barbara Forrest's paper "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" ad I realized the paper is one big smokescreen.

Basically the paper is an effort to claim that Intelligent Design does not have it's roots in Creationism. It tries to show how the design argument has been around for centuries and quotes Plato and a few others. Actually it makes an interesting read -- but it doesn't address the root issue. It's not the Design argument, which many have voiced over the years . . . but the current modern Discovery Institute-led Intelligent Design Movement that is nothing more than the Design argument wrapped in Creationism underpinnings!

When looked at in that light the "Roots" paper is nothing but more grist for the rumor mill that is the Discovery Institute. Rather than addressing the 'cdesign proponentists' discovered during the Dover Trial, rather than address the obvious Creationist statements of the Wedge Strategy. Rather than address Dembski, Behe, and others, who claim the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. In fact rather than address the actual reason why the Faith and Evolution website was stood up . . . they take us down a well disguised path full of historical discussions about the argument of Design and try and leave us thinking that the 'argument' and the 'movement' are the same thing, when they are not!

At the end of the 'Roots' pdf are several discussion questions under the heading of 'Conclusions'. I do have a philosophical objections to asking a series of questions rather than drawing an actual conclusions. But I will try and answer them for myself.

24. What are the most important things you have learned from these readings?
25. What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature?
These discussion questions are © 2009 by Discovery Institute; they may be freely downloaded, printed, and used for noncommercial purposes.

What are the most important things you have learned from these readings? Not much, I was already familiar with much of the design argument's history.

What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Not much other than a blurring between the movement and the argument.

Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Yes, the modern Intelligent Design movement is an evolution of the design argument based on Court decisions and most certainly related to Christian Fundamentalism. This paper did not address this issue, hence my 'smokescreen' comment.

Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? The design argument is not dependent on the Bible, mainly because the Bible doesn't address the design argument itself. However Christian Apologetics have been using the Bible in support of the Intelligent Design Movement for years and therefore should be considered a source document for the movement.

How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature? For a long time, but this question still doesn't address the relative youth of the modern ID movement. Plus the author of this paper needs to take a good psychology course on Teleology and the well documented human bias toward seeing design in nature.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the pdf was a short decent read on the roots of the Design Argument, but it never addresses the issue of the fundamental Christian ties and support for the Intelligent Design Movement, which I feel is disingenuous of the Discovery Institute.

Faith and Evolution?

I think the Discovery Institute has finally come out from under their 'not a religion' banner. Why else would the Discovery institute's Science and Culture group, the marketeers for Intelligent Design, put out a website called "Faith and Evolution". If ID has nothing to do with theology, why do they need this particular site?

According to an opinion piece in the New Scientist this site is a direct response to Francis Collins new site "The BioLogos Foundation". Amanda Gefter titled her article "Christians Battle each other over Evolution". So what we have two sites, what is the difference? The difference may be subtle, but it comes down to the DI protecting one of their main strategies, and one I have felt has been a deliberate lie for years. Basically the DI gets both financial and marketing support from people who believe that you either believe in God or you support Evolution. This false dichotomy has been one of their basic strategies. Francis Collins believes otherwise, as his website states:

"We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation."

According to Jonathon Wells, Senior Fellow over at the DI's Science and Culture group:

"Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps."

I really do love this, Wells accusing someone else of an argument from ignorance! My irony-meter just screamed it's last breath. As Ms. Gefter put it:

" . . . can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, is a resounding: No."

"I think it's interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. "

"The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. "

There you have it, the gloves are off and why, you might ask? I think it's pretty simple. Francis Collins' target audience are not atheists or agnostics, but Christians, the same market as the Discovery Institute. Funny how non-'non-religious' the Discovery Institute really is when they stand to lose their core supporters!

The Bible is NOT an economics text!

OK, in the past I have blogged against what I consider mistreatment and even disrespect to the Bible. I have frequently stated that the Bible is NOT an astronomy textbook and it certainly is not a Biology textbook and treating it as such does a disservice to the whole concept of God!

Well now I can add a new one. The Bible is NOT an economics textbook either, but I guess NY Times columnist Stanley Fish would disagree with me. In his latest column, "Faith and Deficits", Stanley concludes that not only is the Bible apparently an economics textbook, but that the only thing that will fix the economy is Faith.

So I guess Stanley has an inside track to not only understand God, but predict God's interest in all things economic and how God plans to intervene. What happened to God helps those who help themselves, there Stanley?

OK, you can read it for yourself, if you are interested. To me it's nothing more than another example of someone trying to use people's faith to help solve their own financial worries! I mean how do various televangelists afford those expensive suits?

No I am not anti-Bible, and neither am I anti-God, but I am certainly becoming more and more anti-religion as people like Stanley seem to want to use peoples beliefs to some purpose of their own, even if it means misusing the Bible. Sorry, not my cuppa tea!