Driving the wedge into Christianity

Back in 1999 Phillip E. Johnson, the godfather of intelligent design (ID), declared a strategy of labeling evolutionary science, and therefore by implication all of science, as atheistic.

“The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs evolution to the existence of God vs the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”

In essence this is the same strategy as that outlined in the Wedge Strategy document.

ID spokespeople have constantly pushed this argument. Recently their efforts have become more extreme. For example, the message in ‘that silly movie’ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that “Darwinism” led directly to Nazism and the holocaust. And these spokespeople have become more open in widening their attacks from “Darwinism” to all of science.

Ben Stein declared during a recent TV interview that “science leads to killing people.” David Berlinski in The Scientific Embrace of Atheism also attacks science in a manner John Derbyshire shows to be ridiculous (see Getting It Wrong about Atheism and Science). Denys O’Leary has written in similar nasty way with her references to “Darwinist” thugs (see Expelled: “Denormalizing” the Darwin thugs and Expelled: “Denormalizing” the Darwin thugs 2 - PZ Myers and friends).

Anti-science message aimed at Christians

Of course, none of these are really attacks on atheism (few atheists would object to being associated with scientific knowledge). It is an attempt to convince fellow Christians that science is somehow harmful. Scientific knowledge shouldn’t be accepted by Christians - it should be seen as unreliable. And scientists themselves are somehow evil.

In effect these attacks undermine Christianity because Christianity divorced from scientific knowledge will retreat to superstitious beliefs and be discredited. These anti-science messages are aimed at driving a wedge between conservative, fundamentalist Christians and pro-science Christians. The latter will be associated with atheism and evil. And Chrsitianity itself then becomes identified with the conservative, fundamentalist groups.

This tactic is obvious in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which covers up the fact that many Christians accept evolutionary science and that many evolutionary scientists are in fact Christians. (See, for example, Why Ken Miller isn’t in Expelled, Why Christian scientists Were Expelled from “Pro-Religion” Expelled! Film and Ken Miller: Expelled from Expelled for his religious views).

Concern about anti-science messages

Such hostile and malicious attacks have no place in scientific debate. In fact they only promote a dogmatism which is completely alien to scientific inquiry. So scientists are rightly concerned. This is indicated by the recent statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It says in part:

“For more than a decade, the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has been working to build a constructive bridge between scientific and religious communities through its Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion and other programs. There also have been many efforts by religious leaders to accomplish the same goal. For example, more than 11,000 clergy have signed an open letter supporting the view that faith and science should be seen as complementary, not competing. The leadership of the United Church of Christ recently sent out a pastoral letter expressing a similar position.

We were therefore especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called “Expelled” are inappropriately pitting science against religion. This production badly misrepresents the scientific community as intolerant of dissent, when, in fact, respectful disagreement and questioning based on physical evidence represent the core of the scientific process. AAAS further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort. The movie includes interviews with scientists who report that they were deceived into appearing as part of such a production, and advance segments broadly depict those who accept evolution as racist and sympathetic to Nazis. Such generalized insults are untrue and grossly unfair to millions of scientists in the United States and worldwide who are working to cure disease, solve hunger, improve national security, and otherwise advance science to improve the quality of human life.”

See also:
Plagiarize? You’ll Get EXPELLED!
Roundtable Discussion with Mark Mathis
Science Talk Podcast: Expelled Explained
Ken Miller’s Evolution Resources
Framing in action in Expelled
Trouble ahead for science - Ken Miller’s review of Expelled.

Related articles:
Expelled - no integrity exhibited
Expelled Bingo
Should Dawkins have been Expelled?
So what does Dawkins think of “Expelled”?
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
Expelled - the movies

Auras

Some people claim to see auras - halos of colour - around people. Other’s don’t believe them.

Many believers in auras attribute the to supernatural forces, “leaky Chakras” or “pure life force” emanating from living beings. Non-believers will sometimes ridicule these explanations and point to the complete absence of evidence for such “energy fields” or life forces.

I think these arguments are often dogmatic and actually unscientific. There may be no evidence of energy fields etc., but that does not mean that auras don’t exist, or that those who claim to see them are lying or deluded. It is dogmatic to deny a phenomenon just because we can’t explain it with current knowledge. We can’t make scientific progress with that attitude.

On the other hand the existence of a phenomenon without any current rational explanation is not evidence for the supernatural. These arguments are also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge because they rely on untestable explanations. Just imagine where we would be if we still thought that thunder and lightning was caused by the anger of gods!

Of course, things like auras can be investigated scientifically. Sandra and Mathew Blakeslee describe such investigations in their book The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better.

They relate how a women who genuinely sees auras was investigated and found to have emotion-colour synesthesia. Synesthesia is a condition where awareness in one sense produces a response in another sense because of overlapping mind maps. Numbers have colours. Tastes have shapes. Sounds have a visual effect. This women reported colours associated with people and their names - presumably because of her emotional reaction to individuals.

So, it could be that some people really do see auras and these could be a natural construction of parts of their brain.

Now, we couldn’t make that advancement in understanding by taking up a dogmatic position. By claiming that auras don’t exist because they don’t fit in with current knowledge. Or by claiming that they do exist but have a supernatural or paranormal explanation.

By the way, The Body Has a Mind of Its Own is well worth reading. It’s a fascinating and fast moving area of science.

See also:
Brain Podcast Interview with Sarah Blakeslee about The Body Has a Mind of Its Own.
Brain Science Podcast #21: Body Maps: Dr Ginger Campbell discusses The Body Has a Mind of Its Own.

Similar articles:
Exercising your brain - physically
Exercising your brain
Using your brain
Why do we believe?

Dissent from Darwinism list - further analysis

I have commented before on the dissenters from Darwinism list. It is often used by creationists/intelligent design proponents as evidence for opposition to evolutionary science among scientists. (Sometimes scientists on the list are referred to as “brilliant”, or even “modern day Einsteins!”)

Of course, closer investigation shows that this list is not credible evidence for real opposition to evolutionary science (see Scientific dissent from . . . science? and Dissenters from Darwinism in context). And the motives of the signatories are usually religious rather than scientific (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?).

This video from DonExodus2 provides further useful analysis of the list. It shows that as evidence for scientific dissension it is really very pathetic.

List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really? (10 min)

Similar articles:
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
Dissenters from Darwinism in context
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?

Evolution - a theory or a fact?

I don’t think it is either.

It’s not just that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of theory.

Here’s a handy definition of scientific theory by T. Ryan Gregory: “a theory in science, again following the definition given by the NAS, is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Science not only generates facts but seeks to explain them, and the interlocking and well-supported explanations for those facts are known as theories. Theories allow aspects of the natural world not only to be described, but to be understood. Far from being unsubstantiated speculations, theories are the ultimate goal of science.”

However creationist/intelligent design proponents use the “it’s just a theory” argument as if evolution was nothing more than a vague passing idea in someones head. Perhaps they should be told that aerodynamics and aircraft engineering are “just theories” whenever they travel by air - preferably in the first hostess announcement after takeoff!

Some people react to the “just a theory” dismissal of evolution by claiming it to be a “law” or even a “fact.” I think this is inappropriate for describing the whole body of knowledge described by the word evolution.

Evolutionary science

Our knowledge about evolution includes facts (e.g., fossil records, genetics, molecular biology of DNA), theories (e.g, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift) and speculation (e.g., much of evolutionary psychology). Just like any other body of scientific knowledge. Consider atomic science. This includes facts (e.g, brownian motion, atomic spectra, nuclear and chemical reactions), theories( e.g, quantum theory, standard atomic model) and speculation (e.g., string theories).

This mixture of facts, theories and speculation is quite normal for any living science. And that is what evolution is.

So I consider evolution to be more that theory. It also includes facts, hypotheses, ideas and speculation.

I prefer to refer to it as “evolutionary science.”

Similar articles:
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
Intelligent design and depression
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Intelligent design and scientific method

Lets say the sun is pulled around the earth by horse-drawn chariots

In a very brief post on Uncommon Descent (Let’s say Darwin was necessary for the holocaust) Dave Scott revealed the fundamental problem that intelligent design (ID) has in its approach to science.

“Let’s say that Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor for the holocaust.

Now class, what science journal should we try to publish this in? Anyone? Anyone?”

Well, class, can you see the fallacy here?

Scott starts with an assertion (”let’s say”) and then thinks that this is worthy of acceptance and publication in a science journal - without any evidence! He will the go on to call “foul” when his submission is rejected and claim that it is due to “intolerance,” “dogmatism” and “Darwinism” in the “science establishment.” He will then demand that the whole approach of science is changed so that such submissions become acceptable.

This is completely in line with arguments by the Wedge people that science based on inference alone (e.g. irreducible complexity) without the need for evidence and testing is acceptable.

Similar articles:
Intelligent design and scientific method
Intelligent design/creationism I: What is scientific knowledge?
Intelligent design/creationism II: Is it scientific?

Helpful applications for blogging

Everybody who blogs picks up tips or applications which they find helpful.

What applications do you find useful in blogging?

I give a list below of some that I use and recommend. Give me some feedback on these or others you use.

File and website management

Personal Brain (see Using your brain) is a non-hierarchical system of storing links to web pages, email, documents and other files, as well as applications. It’s the first thing I go to when a boot-up in the morning. I am continually using it to bookmark useful blogs and websites, and to provide easily accessible links to spreadsheets, documents and applications I use. In many ways it has replaced windows explorer for me

Google’s iGoogle is useful for collecting together all those often used web sites (e.g. Wikipedia, library, banking) feeds, news, searches (constantly updated), etc. It’s like a home page. I particularly like the ability to have continuously updated links.

Darwinism and that dreaded E-word

A strong feature of the current “war on evolution” by Christian conservatives and other creationists is avoidance of the dreaded E-word - evolution. Every chance they get intelligent design (ID) proponents and other creationists try to replace “evolution” with “Darwinist,” “Darwinism”, etc. The nearest they seem to come to acknowledge the E-word is when they use the term “Darwinian evolution.”

Their use of “Darwinism” is innapropriate for three reasons:

1: If you mean evolution why not use the commonly agreed word. Google Trends shows that “evolution’ is the preferred word used in searches. In this figure the red plot shows usage of “evolution” and the blue plot “Darwinism.”

2: More precisely, “Darwinism” should only be used to describe Darwins contributions to science - his theory of natural selection. After all the concept of evolution preceded Darwin and evolutionary science today includes a lot more than natural selection.

Many people (including most scientists) do use “Darwinism” to describe “natural selection” rather than evolution in general. So the blue plot in the above figure obviously overestimates the use of “Darwinism” in the ID/creationist way. Despite this, I have found creationists will sometimes justify their use as being the culturally accepted one!

3: Evolution deniers are obviously using the term “Darwinism” with the express purpose of demonising evolutionary science. They attempt to limit the whole science to the theory of natural selection. They imply that evolution is an old theory, advanced 150 years ago, and therefore no longer valid. And they wish to paint Darwin himself as somehow evil, that Darwinism is a social or political movement (an -ism) and thereby taint the science.

Hence there is a conscious strategy to never use the E-word, unless Darwinism is somehow attached.

Despite their best efforts they have not been able to supplant the E-word with “Darwinism,” as the first figure shows. Even when we compare the usage of “Darwinism” with “natural selection” (which “Darwinism” really means) the latter term is still more commonly used. In this second figure the red plot shows usage of “natural selection” and the blue plot “Darwinism.”

Considering many people use “Darwinism” honestly (to mean natural selection rather thane evolution) I think the evolution-deniers have not yet been successful with their strategy of changing the way we use words.

Similar articles:
Is “Expelled” successful?
Expelled - no integrity exhibited
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
Intelligent design/creationism: Postscript

Judgement & compassion

I’ve been watching the uncut videos of interviews made for the TV series “The Root of all Evil?” (They are all now available on DVD). The interview with Michael Bray (from the Army of God) raised an interesting point for me. There seems to be two attitudes towards knowing - one is based on evidence and provides a basis for good moral decisions. The other is based on authority and can lead to some very immoral conclusions.

In this interview Bray interprets natural disasters, such as the effect of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans or the tsunami in South east Asia, as acts of God. He see these disaster as God’s punishment for the sins of mankind. Specifically he saw them as punishment for the “sins” of homosexuality and sexual promiscuity.

So what is the outcome of such an interpretation? To minister humans to repent and turn away from sin or expect further natural calamities as punishment?

This may have been some consolation to primitive humanity which didn’t understand the causes of these calamities. But not for modern humanity!

Today we understand the natural causes of flood, storms, tsunamis and earthquakes. We may not be able to stop them but our knowledge enables us to prepare for them. We can set up early warning systems, build storm protection or establish stingent building codes. We can lessen impacts, save lives and more adequately help survivors.

I find Michael Bray’s interpretation of these events immoral. He seems more interested in making an extreme judgement of others and punishing them, rather than helping. This may feed his own feelings of ‘Christian’ virtue but it does nothing to change the real world. It doesn’t prevent the death and suffering of a single person in future natural disasters. And these will, of course, occur whatever the sexual practices of humanity.

Only real knowledge and a world view based on evidence, reason and compassion saves people.

Similar articles:
Moral viagra
Putting the Bible in its place
Christian problems with morality
Solution to climate change?

Is “Expelled” successful?

The pre-launch promotion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is over. But has the film been successful?

We can only be judge this in relation to the motivations behind the film. It is clearly just another step in the programme declared in the creationist document The Wedge Strategy. This declares the intention to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

The strategy goes further than an attack on science. It aims “to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.” In particular it sets modern Christianity as a target - aiming to impose a “traditional doctrine of creation” on “major Christian denominations.” It also seeks to get Christian seminaries to “repudiate naturalistic presuppositions.”

Putting aside the emotional arguments has Expelled been, or will it be, successful in it aims of undermining science and the “renewal” of society? We can judge this in three areas:

Psychological and religious abuse of children

We are very conscious of violent physical abuse of children because of the publicity around resulting deaths. However, neglect and psychological stress can be at least as important, or even more important, a problem as physical and sexual abuse. We also seem to be unaware of the long-term psychological results of child abuse.

Our ignorance of non-physical child abuse and its long-term psychological effects means we often don’t acknowledge the harm done to many children.

Child abuse survivors suffer from long-term post-traumatic stress disorder. Symptoms such as flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive negative thoughts, low self-esteem, compulsive behaviour, anger, disturbed sleep, hyper-vigilance, shame, guilt, etc. are common.

Persistent psychological abuse of children can result from continual disparaging comments or continual exposure to physical and verbal violence between adult care-givers and parents. Psychological stress can also result from the controlling behaviour of care-givers.