Lauri Lebo v. David Klinghoffer! He didn't stand a chance.

Recently I had a post "Klinghoffer . . . Again!" concerning David's attempt to link Darwin and Hitler with his Huffington Post case of verbal diarrhea "The Dark Side of Darwin". In my response I did mention another HuffPo article castigating him by Eric Michael Johnson "Intelligent Design Creationists Abuse Science and Victims of the Holocaust".

Well Eric is not the only one who seems to enjoy 'correcting' David. Lauri Lebo also shows David David how to do research in "HuffPo Columnist Tries to Link Darwin to Hitler" and then seriously takes him down!

Lauri Lebo also wrote my favorite book on the Dover Trial "The Devil in Dover" which, in my opinion, is a must read for anyone interested in the contrived Creationism/ID v Science controversy.

We all should be extremely interested in what she says because of the potential negative impact folks like David can have on science education. You know, now that I think about it, we might also count David as having a negative impact on education in its entirety -- if his post is a representative example on how to research and support an article! I know his example would not pass muster during my graduate degree program.

I also discovered that she posts regularly on Religious Dispatches and it's been added to my RSS reading list. I recommend you keep an eye on her work as well. Always insightful, well supported, and interesting. Thanks Lauri.

South Carolina Textbook Controversy redux?

Over in the State of Louisiana the second string in the LFF bow has been fired, it's at the textbooks for teaching science classes. It sounded vaguely familiar so I dug up a couple of old posts and reviewed them. Remember South Carolina's issue with textbooks? Looks very familiar, but a slightly different tactic. Rather than recruit a couple of Creationists to do an . . . ill-advised review, the LFF is asking for parents and the public to make their pseudo-complaints known. I guess they figures numbers will count especially since they have no substantive complaints.

The story posted on The News Star called "Proposed Textbooks to be Scrutinized" is a little scary, especially since at least one of the people planning to do the 'scrutinization' has already gotten his mind made up. Here are several quotes from the article from West Monroe resident Mickey Cleveland and my comments in italics after each one:

• "We want evolution taught, but we want the fallacies in the theory taught as well," What fallacies is he talking about? I am not aware of any fallacies -- plus if there are any, who is the best people to identify them? Folks with the training and educational background in the subject, that's who!
• "There have been outright lies that have been perpetuated throughout the years." Cleveland said that as technology improves, more scientists and mathematicians are questioning Darwin's theories of evolution. This is straight out of the Discovery Institute marketing material -- and I have said numerous times there is not one shred of evidence to show there are many scientists or mathematicians questioning the theory of evolution!
• "Darwin said that if things can be proven against my theory, then my whole theory breaks down," he said. "Darwin didn't have the microelectronic microscope. We are able to see inside of atoms. The DNA is so complex that mathematicians are saying that there is no way that macro evolution occurred. Science is proving creation. The Darwin quote is correct and in fact many of the details of Darwin's work were later found to be incorrect-- but none of those details are taught. The modern theory of evolution does not rely on those details. The overall concept of Natural Selection is true and that was first put forth by Darwin and substantiated by many others. plus there are no mathematicians that have published one single solitary mathematical paper proving there is no way for evolution and speciation to have happened -- there is lots of opinion papers saying things like that, but not one mathematician has proven it!

Do any of his statements sounds familiar? Well let us not forget that this isn't the first attack on science textbooks, not even in Louisiana. As noted by Barbara Forrest in "Louisiana Creationist Textbook Addendum Rejected in Tennessee" the LFF, one of the writers of the anti-science legislation called the Louisiana Science Education Act, also publishes some 'guidelines' on how to review science textbooks. They went further and

"In September 2009, working with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), an affiliate of Focus on the Family, Charles H. Voss was instrumental in persuading the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to adopt a creationist-friendly procedure for reviewing complaints about the use of creationist supplementary materials in public schools."

Voss' Text add-ons sounds a lot like Mr. Cleveland's objections. Which should be no surprise since these add-ons have been brought up any number of times. The bottom-line question is who are the best people to review curriculum material? In my opinion it is certainly those people training in the discipline. Biologists should be reviewing and suggesting material for the biology classroom. English majors should be doing it for English, Math for Math, and so on. These are the best people for determining what is appropriate for a particular subject area, what areas of the subject should be taught at what grades, what textbooks should be used and how well do they cover the subject area, and what are the qualifications for people who are going to teach a subject. These folks are the best source of information on a particular subject area!

Please read up on Barbara Forrest's "Combating Creationism in Louisiana Public Schools" is addresses many of the common objections and it a great way to be prepared when these pseudo-objections come up. It might seem a little dated, being from 1997. But then Creationists arguments haven't changed much since William Paley in 1802 now have they?

Now some folks might be upset that I am not giving parents and the public their due in textbook selection. They are right. Yes, parents and even the public should be involved in the education process. But there reaches a level of specialized knowledge to properly evaluate textbooks that most folks are not going to have. I have reviewed many textbooks in my own specialty of Information Technology, but I would be a poor choice to evaluate biology textbooks even though I am extremely interested in the subject. My insights would probably cause more damage than harm.

I hope the Livingston Parish school district does the smart thing, but I am worried that the organization of the pseudo-complainants might overwhelm them. It will be certainly something to keep an eye on! The State, in the form of Jindal signing the bill, and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education have caved into Creationist interests groups, specifically the LFF and the Discovery Institute. These people should not be driving science education, hell they shouldn't even be driving the school bus taking kids to school! But that is the first you are facing, good luck!

I have done the unprecendented, at least for me.

I dropped someone from commenting. I know, I know . .I pledged to allow dissenting views . . . but this person started going off in a direction that demonstrated extreme prejudice and discriminatory comments. So starting this afternoon if I see a post from that one particular poster, I will delete it . . . without reading it. I know someone might make a complaint about free speech . . . but there are few things I will remove from my blog and leaving them in made me feel like I was enabling that sort of behavior. So I'm sorry if I lose anyone over it!

Dover redux?

Louisiana, more specifically Livingston Parish, LA, is exploring the possibility to teaching . . . wait for it . . . Creationism. I guess the allure of Intelligent Design is wearing off because they didn't even bother with hiding behind it's pseudo-lab coattails. 2theadvocate reports "School Board might OK teaching creationism". How many folks have been predicting this ever since Bobby Jindal pandered to conservative voters and signed the poorly named "Louisiana Science Education Act". I find it telling that members of the school board are making comments very similar to comments made by former members of the Dover PA school board. Here are a few quotes from the article -- italic emphasis added is mine.

Jan Benton, director of curriculum: said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.

Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, “I agree … you don’t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”

Board President Keith Martin, while reminding the members that a decision had been made in the past not to teach creationism, suggested that now might be the time to re-examine the issue.

I guess Louisiana has completely forgotten Edwards v. Aguillard, (1987), a case heard by the US Supreme Court that ruled a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. So one question that comes to mind is the creationism they are talking about different from the creationism they wanted to teach in 1987? I don't think so!

So what is the go ahead plan? They are going to appoint a committee to look into it. Gee! What's next hiring Alan Bonsell or William Buckingham as consultants? After all their time on the Dover School Board was so . . . helpful.

The majority of the comments to the article call it 'disgraceful', I would agree, but I think their behavior is moving much more toward 'criminal'. What worries me the most is that how expensive this may get for the parish -- and it shouldn't be! The Board Members are pushing their religion, and that was already declared unconstitutional in 1987. this is completely unnecessary. I hope their committee looks at things clearly -- but since the move was accepted unanimously, I am afraid they are already seeing what they want to see rather than the realities of what they are trying to do.

A couple of other comments by Board President Martin make me think he doesn't really know what he is doing. Here is the first:

“You don’t want two different teachers teaching two different things.”

So what does he mean? Will biology teachers be forced to teach creationism? Or will the teaching of biology be shifted to someone with a more theistic-friendly background? I know, let's hire a Muslim to teach the Muslim version of Creationism! Yea, that will go over big!

One other reported comment is a real head-scratcher:

"Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.”"

So what is he advocating? Bringing back good old-fashioned religious discipline? How will teaching Creationism improve discipline in Louisiana public schools? What is he thinking? I sure don't know -- but if I were a student in Louisiana I would be concerned for my academic future. There are only so many slots at Falwell's lamented Liberty 'University' and the rest of you might not be eligible for other colleges. I bet we will see many Louisiana colleges offering remedial science classes to bring their student up to some acceptable standard of knowledge. Such a further waste of resources.

It might take a while, but I see a lawsuit in their future. I really don't see any good coming from this other than several board members patting themselves on the back for their attempt to bring their good-old religion into the public school -- or maybe I should say former board members if history does repeat itself.

Is ID 'middle ground'?

In the little town of Dayton TN . . . . OK, without re-iterating, or worse, rewriting history, you all know about the Scopes Monkey trial. Sort of interesting article over on Tennessee.com "Fight over evolution still simmers 85 years after Scopes trial." Aside from the typical pandering for votes when the three candidates for governor whose comments were included, one other line really caught my eye.

"some prefer the middle ground of intelligent design, which claims God designed how life evolved"

By 'middle ground' Bob Smietana, the author, is repeating a common misconception about Intelligent Design. Is it really a middle ground between science and evangelical creationism? Well if that is what Bob thinks, he really needs to do his research better! Even the Discovery Institute doesn't seem to think it is a middle ground, more of a stepping stone. Of course Judge Jones ruled that it's not middle ground, it's clearly well on the same side as Creationism. My perspective, as you may have read in many posts is ID is Creationism-lite, at best Creationisms little brother.

Now folks like Bob aren't the only one who really need to examine their characterizations. A Bruce Barry responded to the article and said some of the same things I am saying. That one makes an interesting read as well. "This Morning's Jesussean: The "Trojan Horse' of Intelligent Design Gets Inside 1100 Broadway". He does have a nice way with words

"Earth to Bob: Intelligent design is not "a middle ground" between science and faith. That is the propaganda that creationists would like feckless school boards and undereducated science teachers (not to mention gullible journalists) to believe."

and

"The fatal flaw in Smietana's piece in the Tennessean is use of the reporter's voice to frame intelligent design as a mainstream scientific alternative, a position that carries significant weight only among true-believer creationists. A piece of genuine journalism would accurately reflect scientific experts' views of the proper role of ID in science education (that role being nil) rather than legitimize the perspective of religious zealots (and gubernatorial candidates!) who seem to neither understand nor value science."

Now his point of view is fine, but one of his commenter's need to work on his. His post:

"I am a scientist. I think the best approach to the ID people is to ignore them. ID isn't science. They can teach it all they want in divinity school but it will never be compatible with a scientific curriculum."

My other point of this blog post is that the tactic of ignoring ID proponents is no longer a viable one. For years they were treated the same way as the fortune tellers and astrologers. I think it was the right decision. But the ID movement has evolved and we have to evolve as well. Remaining silent is no longer a viable tactic because silence seems to imply agreement, especially with folks like Bob, the author of the original article. We shouldn't knee-jerk a response to everything they say, but when they are doing things like testifying in front of school boards -- we have to be there as well. When gubernatorial candidate say foolish things, we have to be there to correct them and make sure the voters understand exactly what they are standing for -- because I still firmly believe any comment supporting ID or creationism is nothing more than pandering for voters.

One side note about Bob. It was also interesting that one of the other comments identified Bob as something other than an unbiased journalist -- so I googled him . . . anyone else think it's funny that Google is a verb? . . . well anyway, one of the many bios about him says:

"Bob Smietana is an award winning journalist and features editor for the Covenant Companion magazine, a correspondent for Religion News Service (RNS), and freelance religion writer whose stories have appeared in national and regional US newspapers (including the Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune) and national religious magazines, such as Christianity Today, the Christian Century, Sojourners, and US Catholic."

Now the cynic in me comes out and I have to question whether the original article is a reporter not doing his homework, or something worse! I can't make up my mind at this point, but I do know I am going to watch anything written by Bob very carefully. Either way, he blew a call and his background, as a religion reporter, makes me wonder because he really should know what ID is and what ID is not -- and it certainly is not 'middle ground!'

So there you have it, we cannot remain silent on the subject because no matter how many times ID proponents lose, they evolve and we cannot afford to ignore them. We need to keep taking to battle to them in from of school board meetings, state legislatures, and even in the press -- especially when the press fails to do it's homework.

So what does the American Academy of Religion think?

Just a few words from the American Academy of Religion (AAR) on Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States. Here are just two paragraphs I found very interesting. The bold-face is my emphasis.

Are religion and science incompatible?

No, not categorically. Most religious traditions and worldviews can function in concert with scientific worldviews and are, indeed, complementary with them. Furthermore, there are many scientists who are people of faith and many people of faith who are devoted scientists. Within traditions, however, there are some theological beliefs that are in tension with certain scientific assertions. The most publicized example of these tensions in the US is between some Christian communities and the biological theory of evolution. Though these tensions are real for the communities involved, it is wrong to assume, for example, that all Christians experience a contradiction between their theological beliefs and evolutionary theory or, by extension, that religious and scientific worldviews are fundamentally incompatible.

Can creation science or intelligent design be taught in schools?

Yes, but not in science classes. Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.

Any of this sound familiar? Well I do disagree with referring to religions a "another important and relevant form of human inquiry", mainly because I don't think religion spends much time in inquiry and more time fund-raising and tell you how to behave -- but the bottom-line here is that even the AAR agrees that it should not be taught in science class -- 'nuff said!

Transitionial forms re-visted

Over on Topix I have been listening to a creationist try and sound all scientific on transitional fossils. It’s a pretty common argument usually stemming from a misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil really is. The argument usually comes in one of two forms:

1. There are no transitional fossils
2. Transitional forms could not survive, so would not be possible under evolution – therefore evolution is obviously false.
3. While there may have been fossils found that might be transitional, there isn't any evidence linking them to modern forms.
   

There may be more arguments against transitional fossils, but these seem to be the main themes. Other arguments tend to be more offshoots of these.

Kennie ham is an example of that. His other abortion, Answers in Genesis, tends to lean on the first argument -- although they no longer word it this way. I guess they had problems denying all of the transitional fossils so they sort of claim that it is an argument that should not be used (AiG arguments that should not be used). Now read it carefully, because it really is nothing more than a minor 'adjustment' in the 'there are no transitional fossils argument. Instead of targets transitional fossils as a whole, they are targeting the relationship between species by using the Biblical 'kind'.

Does this sound just a wee bit familiar? How about the whole micro v. macro argument. You know the one where anti-evolutionists quit arguing that evolution was impossible and now argue that speciation is impossible. Well actually they claim that speciation has not been proven. This is nothing more than another transitory face-saving gesture. Can't deny, evolve the argument into something else. Well at least they are consistent.

"We find variant transitional fossils for animals within the same kind—horse to a horse for example but that is expected in a biblical worldview."

Rather than dwelling more on kennie's delusions, let's talk about transitional fossils. What is a transitional fossil, also known as a transitional form. Oh, and biology also calls them 'intermediate' forms. I looked up ‘transitional fossil’ in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil) and saw that they defined it as simply the remains, such as a fossil, that exhibit an evolutionary transition. In other words it displays certain characteristics from earlier ancestors and contain, usually in a more primitive form, the attributes of species that come later. Here is a pretty impressive list of some of the transitional fossils that have been found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. Wikipedia also has a nice long list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

So how do some groups continue to make such a ridiculous claim? By redefining what a transitional form is. You have no idea how many times someone mentions the cat-dog, or used a nonsense phrase like ‘true transitional form’. What they are doing is changing the goal posts. They cannot argue against the evidence of the hundreds, even thousands, of transitional fossils, so they change the definition and claim that the fossils are not ‘really’ transitional mainly because they don't look like something out of the late-late show. AiG does this by inserting the word ‘kind’ and ignoring the evolutionary evidence. It goes something like this : Within the Horse kind you have horses, zebras, and donkeys. In the Cat kind you have lions and tigers. In the Bear kind you have polar, grizzly, and brown bears. Now let us not forget that kennie ham is a biblical literalist . . . and yet this concept of 'kind' for horses, bears, and cats is an invention of the 'mind' of kennie ham – thereby immediately suspect. He uses this idea to explain things like mules, hinneys, zorses, polar-brown bears, ligers and tigons. In other words, hybrid species. He completely ignores the evolutionary studies that show why these hybrids can exist and hybrids of species that are further away from their evolutionary relationship cleft point do not exist. But that’s a stock in trade, ignoring the evidence.

So argument number one is bogus, there have been transitional forms, there will continue to be transitional forms – in fact we are all transitional forms from the past and into the future. The ones we identify as 'transitional' are the ones that more clearly demonstrate the past and future. Who knows some future biologist may list homo sapien as a transitional form. There would be a hit to kennie's ego! Of course none of his ideas are supported by the evidence, only a denial of the evidence and a fanciful tale of how he sees the world. So much for the Biblical Literalist when he has to invent explanations to support his viewpoint..

Well since that denial tactic doesn't work at all, some creationists have started a more targeted argument. They have taken the idea of transitional forms and claimed that they would not be workable or survive in the real world. Now they point to the fact that the transitional forms that we have found in fossils so obviously the forms didn’t survive. Not true! Many of the forms exists for even longer than homo sapiens have been around. They were here and now they are not, but many were around for millions of years. We have yet to hit our first millennia let alone 10, or 100.

Here is the problem for creationists, the fossil record is not the only support for the transitional forms. There are the comparative studies of modern organisms that draw the parallels between species, past and present. This is easily illustrated by the adaptive radiation of the forelimb of mammals. All conform to the basic pentadactyl pattern but are modified for different usages. Or you can look at the pelvic relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Geography also plays a part in supporting the idea of transitional fossils. As we look at both ancestral forms and modern forms you have to look at the geography and where they are located! As you go back in the fossil record, geology also supports transitional forms because we are not just looking at the fossil, but the geological strata they are found in. This indicates the timeline for the changes. It’s when you take ALL the evidence into account you can see the picture that folks like kennie ham are doing their best to ignore. They challenge some of the pieces, ignore the others, and never look at the entirety of the evidence.

So the second argument is also bogus, so where is a creationist to go? Well recently another whine, represented by the third argument, that the relationship between forms is not supported, that many of the forms are not in a direct relationship with modern forms, has been popping up, the confusion between a transitional form and an ancestral form. I was tempted to write this one up, but another poster on Topix beat me to it. Here is Feklahr’s post: (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/asheville-nc/TFA47A72UBQ0T364O/post34739).

Regarding Transitional Fossils

I thought it would be wise to address some of the confusion surrounding the term "Transitional Fossil".

First, some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Second, a paragraph from the second link regarding transitionals:

Transitional vs ancestral

"A source of confusion is the concept that a transitional form between two different taxinomic group must be directly ancestral to one or both groups. This was exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy was the attempt to identify taxa that were ancestral to other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the record is actually a direct ancestor of any other. In fact because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder like progression, and the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasized the concept of one taxonmic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the concept of identifying sister taxa that share a common ancestor with one another more recently than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to another later population, but in general transitional fossils are considered to have features that illustrate the transitional anatomical features of actual common ancestors of different taxa rather than to be actual ancestors."

In closing:

What I am trying to demonstrate here is the misnomer surrounding transitional fossils. If we use the Archeopteryx example, it is listed as a transitional because it exhibits features of both dinosaurs and birds. It is not posited that it is the "middle form" in the transition of dinosaurs to the modern bird features. In other words, it is not an "ancestral" form to the modern bird, simply a species that exhibits both dinosaur like and bird like traits during a geological period between the proliferate life of dinosaurs and the proliferation of bird life.

So the bottom line on these particular arguments are more mischaracterizations of evolution. Evolution is not a straight line process and just because a fossil is identified as transitional doesn't require that it be in a direct-line relationship with a modern form. When cladistics traces something like the evolutionary line of the modern horse, they could be wrong on some of the details -- but what they are showing is the best evidence based on current knowledge that we have. A new fossil might change our understanding -- that's how science works. What we end up with is not just a different explanation to some degree, but a better explanation, a more complete explanation! Things are supported, not proven, and new knowledge can change the support. Nice job Feklahr, thanks!

So not only do transitional forms exist, but there are thousands of them. There is no 'missing link', but there are many links between different species. We are engaged in finding them and the work continues. Each new discovery tends to send the creationists scrambling for some new rationalization. It certainly is fun to watch. Just like the Discovery Institute tried about Tiktaalik in an post by that simplistic mouthpiece little casey luskin titled "Tiktaalik blown out of the water by earlier terapod fossils". See what I mean, rationalizations!

Species I

Once of the common argumentative themes from anti-evolutionists, is what constitutes a species. While it seems like a simple concept, in reality is more a very blurry line than a hard fast definition. Generally accepted a species is a population group that is easily capable of breeding within the group.

That sounds pretty cut and dried, but the reality is there is no absolution definition. It's more a rule-of-thumb. The main reason is that the idea of a species, or any of the other taxonomic ranks (genus, family . . .) is a man-made concept used for classification. Which means that there is no absolute hard-fast rule. This sounds like the waters are muddied, but the reality is that Nature doesn't have this concept built-in, so it doesn't make any mistakes. So the issue is not definitional, but our ability to classify organisms.

Here is an example I have used several times, the London Underground Mosquito. It evolved from an above ground species Culex pipiens, and is called Culex pipiens molestus to highlight that relationship. The namers used the term molestus because of its extremely aggressive behavior. Now, is it a different species? According to our classification system it certainly is. However can it breed with Culex pipiens? Genetically yes; however the difference in behavior, temperament and location, the two groups do not interbreed. So the classification makes sense.

Another example, Polar and Brown Bear. They are also listed as two different species, and yet like the mosquitoes discussed above. They are capable of interbreeding, and in fact a number of polar-brown hybrids exist and, unlike mules, they are not sterile. The dividing line is environmental. Neither bear could survive long in it's others environment so breeding between them is a rare event, but not an impossibility.

There are many other examples where the line between species is a bit blurred, but this is not a negative, as stated frequently by anti-evolutionists. I find this sort of funny because the defense frequently used is based on the biblical use of the word 'kind', which is never defined as to what it is in any sense -- but seems to be defined based on the argument-de'jure depending on whether the anti-evolutionist is arguing against species, genus, family, order . . ..

Remember it's our ability to classify rather than some hard and absolute rule of nature. One day Chihuahuas and Great Danes might be seen as separate species because of the challenge in breeding, but they are currently classified as both being breeds of the species Dog. You should also remember as well that the label of species is usually applied after a great deal of time, and after careful study. There is no one standing there with a label-maker as soon as a new species is born. But that seems to be the only standard an anti-evolutionist wishes to accept. It's nothing more than a demand for some level of absolute in a scientific explanation and a refusal to accept or understand the reality of scientific study. Species exist, but they are classifications and subject to change as we learn more and more about a specific species. No absolutes exist in nature, so no absolutes are going to exist in scientific explanations. We tend to leave absolutes to theists.

Accomodationalists [is that a word?] Unite!

Here's a little funny aimed in your direction:
Brought to you by the irreverent Jesus and Mo. Those who insist on forcing God into explanations of natural happenings -- you are simply BS'ing yourself. OK, that's a paraphrase of St. Augustine, but that's pretty much what he said.

Another response to poor Rory

Here is Rory's response to my post called "In response to a comment". His response was:

"Dear Ted,

Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. We can agree to disagree.

If you read my article, you probably noted that The Wall Street Journal article I quoted said:

“Scientists ... often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal 'Nature'. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God — and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Jim Holt, Science Resurrects God, The Wall Street Journal, December 24, 1997, Dow Jones & Co.

This was based on a poll published in Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, "Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith," Nature 386 (1997): 435; and Larry Witham, "Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution," Washington Times, April 11, 1997, p. A8. Edward J. Larson is an American historian and legal scholar. He is University Professor of history and holds the Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, he was formerly Herman E. Talmadge Chair of Law and Richard B. Russell Professor of American History at the University of Georgia.

The Nature article can be referenced on Nature's site at Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith.

I also quoted Science, which is the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States. Its August 1997 issue featured an article entitled Science and God: A Warming Trend? which said:

“The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.”

Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, the leading nonprofit science advocacy group, says:

"The growing strength of the movement to discredit evolution and promote the teaching of intelligent design and other non science-based views of biological diversity in public science classrooms is of great concern. Please see the UCS position statement on this alarming trend."

Ref. Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Regarding your comment on 'quote mining', this a typical accusation by those who simply don't want valid but revealing information exposed that damages their position, but have no other rationalization to dismiss it. The definition of 'quote mining' includes distortion of intended meaning of those quoted, which does not occur in this case. It is perfectly valid to quote anyone as long as intended meaning is conveyed accurately. There is no quote mining, distortion or misinformation in the article.

I hope people will take the time to check the sources I quote, which will simply verify I quoted them accurately. It's pretty obvious from the abundance of quotes that the context and conclusion is clear, and there is no possible distortion. These kinds of false accusations come with the territory on this issue, unfortunately.

The considered testimony of many eminent scientists I quoted remains clear and consistent, and should not be lightly dismissed.

Best Regards,

Rory"

Rory, you really don't want people to research your quotes, do you? Because in doing so you make a case that opposes your premise. Intelligent Design is junk science and there is no increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life. Well here is a little fun. I know I enjoyed it, but I am not sure you will.

1. Your quote " 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God" . . . so what? I don't care if 100% believed in God -- that is a long distance from supporting Creationism or Intelligent Design as scientific theories. Just ask the over 13,000 clergy members who have signed a letter supporting Evolution and the teaching of Evolution to our children. These clergy folks believe in God and still support evolution, what do they know that you do not?

Here are a couple of quotes and references for you:
From the Christian Clergy Letter (http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm)

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. "

From the Rabbinical Clergy Letter (http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/Jewish_Clergy/JewishClergyLtr.htm)

"As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination."

From the Unitarian Clergy Letter (http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/Unitarian_Universalists/UnivUnitarianClergyLtr.htm)

"While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."

2. Your second reference actually says pretty much the same thing . . . there is some percentage of scientists who believe if God. Again, SO WHAT? At no time does this reference support some dramatic increase in the number of those scientists. It also does not support your contention of Intelligent Design -- yet you seem to think it does. Just a reminder the title of your original piece was "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design" So far you haven't seemed to provide any support. Don't worry, it gets worse.

3. Have you ever read the Science Digest? I have. I read it in the 60's and 70's and you know what? If you wanted the latest on Bigfoot or UFO's, that is the magazine for you. It was not a scientific journal, but more interested in the junk-science to increase circulation for decades. That's not to say all of Science Digest was junk science, but it was rarely a reference for a serious scientist. It's certainly not one used often in support of actual scientific research. Did you know it's been out of print since the late 80's? It made an effort to renovate its image, but it was too little, too late. Here is a review of the 1980 revamping -- still not something a scientist would use very often: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p218y1981-82.pdf. You might also look at Pub Med and see how often Science Digest was listed? After 50 years in print it was listed 36 times in Pub Med, and only works from the last few years of it's life. Pretty pathetic for a science magazine. In contrast over 4000 for Scientific American.

4. Please learn to read for comprehension. In the link from the Union of Concerned Scientists the phrase "movement to discredit evolution". Since when does a 'movement' imply a group of scientists who now believe in God? What the article was addressing is the political and marketing campaign by groups like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis (AiG), Access Research network (ARN), and Institute for Creation Research (ICR). These groups have been attempting to discredit evolution. Look at the membership for those groups and you will find very few scientists -- lots of philosophers and lawyers, but few scientists. If you dared to do your own homework you would have also discovered that the majority of members have a theistic issue with science, not a scientific one. The only reason it has become an issue for scientists, like the UCS, is because of the success they have had with school boards, politicians, and the popular press. What the UCS has not had to comment on was any actual scientific work . . . because there has not been any! You certainly failed to reference any in your little paper. Instead of discrediting evolution, why aren't you and your philosophical compatriots spending time supporting ID with real work? Are you unable, unwilling, or incapable of doing so?

5. As for quote mining -- One of the ways you can identify a quote-mine is when you see a quote taken out of context. Have you actually read "A Brief History of Time"? If you did then taking a quote in an attempt to convince anyone that Dr. Hawking is a supporter of ID is ludicrous! How about Richard Dawkins . . . are you serious? Even the quotes you lifted don't show any support for ID, only that the biology and chemistry work is hard . . . well luckily scientists aren't afraid of hard work. Can you say the same? You haven't even done the homework on the quotes you mined -- or did you just copy these from some creationist website and let someone else do the work for you? Try reading "The God Delusion" or "The Blind Watchmaker" instead of mis-using quotes -- you might have learned something -- like:

"Natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker."

And Francis Crick, so you ran out of living scientists you have to bring one back from the dead. I guess it's easy because it's hard for them to refute you. Well here is a quote from his 1988 work, What Mad Pursuit,

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

But this wasn't the first time Dr. Crick was so used. Just a few years ago a part-time soccer coach in California tried to get the approval to teach a 'philosophy' class called "The Philosophy of Design". The class consisted of having the students was 25 videos put out by Creationist organizations. When it was suggested that her curriculum was a little to far to the evangelical right she added several speakers -- including her husband -- an evangelical minister, and Dr. Francis Crick. Dr. Crick was to offer a counterpoint. One small problem, he had died a few years earlier. The class was canceled after the lawsuit was settled! Can't you people leave the man alone! (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2007/12/coexistence-iii.html)

Your quote of Hoyle was even more fun. You do realize that it was from a book called "Evolution from Space " -- well you should realize it since you mentioned it in your little article. But did you do more than copy to quote from some creationist website? Have you actually looked up the source material? This is one of the publications in which Sir Fred put forth the hypothesis of Panspermia -- that the building blocks of life came from outer space in for form of organic molecules in comets. So attempting to use him to support ID is nothing more than a quote-mine, as I already pointed out to you -- but you failed to take the hint. You also called him an 'evolutionist' which is a lie. He was a Mathematician and an Astronomer. What, did calling him an 'evolutionist' give his words a greater impact? Like I said, you aren't much of a researcher, are you?

6. The rest of your 'paper' is still a poor exercise of scholarship. You imply the appearance of design is the fact of design and you mis-used the quotes from other people to sell your idea. As a college paper in any class but a Creative Writing class you would receive an 'F' mainly because you failed to support your premise. In Creative Writing you might squeak by with a 'C' but only if the professor gave you extra credit for the creative use for your quotes. I would still flunk you because the original portion of your paper was pretty minimal.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. but my advice is to keep Creationism, and its latest incarnation Intelligent Design, far from the science classroom. Right now it is not a scientific premise because of the lack of any scientific support. If that changes in the future, then it can be re-evaluated -- but until the actual work is done, it does not belong in science class.

I doubt you liked reading all this , but I had fun anyway. You might look at your own motivations. Your interest in ID does not seem to stem from an interest in science, but because of your theological leanings. Look at thelast line of your little paper or the first line of your own description:

"If you have not already done so, don't wait, but reconcile yourself to Christ now."

"Rory Roybal is the author of Miracles or Magic?, and has over 10 years of experience leading in-depth church and home Bible studies."