Comment #26448

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 23, 2005 10:20 PM (e) (s)

Chris Mathews fumbles the ball right off by asking Fox:

“…You could simply say this up front.. We all believe this, that this is how God did it, and then proceed from there, in a scientific fashion.”

as if it was perfectly logical to proceed in a “scientific fashion” from that point. 

Fox dropped the ball handed to him by that statement.  The fact that Mathews even made it to begin with makes me weep for journalistic integrity.

*sigh*

Comment #26449

Posted by JohnK on April 23, 2005 10:36 PM (e) (s)

…despite the tendency of Matthews to interrupt his guests.

…despite the tendency of sun to come up in the east.

Matthews’ next guest intoduction:

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and best-selling author Thomas Friedman has written a new book about globalization entitled “The World Is Flat.”  In it, he warns that the United States is in a state of quiet crisis for having fallen behind in education, science and engineering.

Comment #26452

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 23, 2005 10:41 PM (e) (s)

I’ve made some comments on a Friedman op-ed at the Austringer weblog, post “It’s the Economy”.

Comment #26470

Posted by Mike Walker on April 24, 2005 12:52 AM (e) (s)

Is there a set of “anti-creationist” talking points anywhere that people who go on these awful pundit shows can at least get across in the woefully short time they’re allowed?

We need a set of short, snappy, memorable phrases that can be used at a moment’s notice and deployed in full before the host or opponent has the chance to cut you off.

For example, when creationists like Fox claim that since the majority of people in America believe in creationism we should teach “both sides” of the issue, you should immediately be able to come back and ask if we should be teaching astrology in schools as well as astronomy since a vast number of people in this country read their horoscopes every morning.

I hate to say it, but we could learn a lot from the spinmeisters being employed by the current occupant of the White House in this regard.

Comment #26471

Posted by Mike Walker on April 24, 2005 01:03 AM (e) (s)

Oh, and how about a couple of visual aids to help put the point across how overwhelming the support for evolution is in the scientific community?

First one visual aid (a chart or preferably something solid, tactile, a model) that shows the number of creationist scientists vs the overwhelming number of evolutionists - i.e. a visual version of Project Steve.

I’m not the creative type, but you could hold up, say, three page pamplet in one hand and a four volume set of dictionaries in the other, or perhaps a pair of peas in one hand, and a huge sack of them in the other.

You get the idea - I’m sure someone else can do better.

And while we’re at it, I would love for someone to produce an effective visual representation of the sheer volume of scientific work (papers, books, etc) that have been published supporting evolution as opposed to the paltry amount supporting ID or creationism in general.

I don’t think the general public fully comprehends the huge advantage in numbers evolution has in this debate, be it scientists or their work, and an effective visual cue to clue them in could help sway the debate.

Think Ross Perot (yeah, I know he lost, but he got his point across).

Comment #26478

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)

The only disappointing aspect of that interview was Eugenie’s dodging of her own philosophical views.  Who cares about Eugenie’s philosophy?  Well, if you’re going to play politics, Ms. Scott, then we all do.  But given a veteran debater like herself, we should expect a much more eloquent response than “It is… [cut off].”

Let me see if I can help her out:

Chris, I don’t believe it was an “accident.”  I believe that life is an inevitable outcome of natural forces and contingent events that are no more accidental than the hurricane that swept through Florida or the asteroid that wiped out life during the age of dinosaurs.  I believe that the more we understand through scientific methods about our origins — the origins of life — the better prepared we are to have meaningful discourse about our place on this planet, shared with all other types of living organisms. 

Hell, we can try a less wordy approach:

Chris, I don’t know what to believe about our origins.  And I don’t think anybody else does either.  We just don’t have the facts.  We do know what is wrong, moreso than what we absolutely know is right.  Without the facts, it would be premature for me to express hard beliefs.

Or, let’s try a combative approach:

Chris, I believe that Reverend Fox is wrong.  My worldview can easily fall into one of many other belief systems that are incompatible with the Reverend’s.  I do not believe in perpetuating 2000 year old propaganda that the Bible is a science book.  I do not believe that the Reverend has the Consitutional right to force his close-minded views on others.

Comment #26479

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 07:54 AM (e) (s)

One more comment:  Please, Eugenie, find a Christian spokesperson for your group.  I am really not sure what to think of your preaching to Christians about what other Christians think, when you yourself are not a Christian.  Collect testimonials of Christians supporting evolution, if you have to.  Cite them.  Don’t just assert.

Comment #26482

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24, 2005 08:48 AM (e) (s)

One more comment:  Please, Eugenie, find a Christian spokesperson for your group.  I am really not sure what to think of your preaching to Christians about what other Christians think, when you yourself are not a Christian.  Collect testimonials of Christians supporting evolution, if you have to.  Cite them.  Don’t just assert.

As I have often said, it has long been a huge weakeness in the anti-creationist/ID movement that it is made up largely (at least verbally) of atheists.  By treating this as a “science v religion” fight, we only fall into the trap laid by the fundies, who use it eagerly to raise money and recruit new followers.  Most people in the US, rightly or wrongly, don’t give a flying fig about science or science education, but they DO care about their religious beliefs.  Ninety percent of the people in the US are religious, and it is patently stupid to begin a fight by alienating them by attacking or belittling their religious beliefs. 

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Chrisitans think ID/creationists are nutty, and do not support the theocratic political goals of the ID/creationists.  The vast majority of Christians also have no gripe with either evolution or any other part of modern science.  Theistic evolutionists are the natural allies of the anti-ID movement.  We should be moving them to the forefront, allowing them to counter all the ID bullshit about “science is atheistic!!”.

Comment #26483

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24, 2005 08:58 AM (e) (s)

Is there a set of “anti-creationist” talking points anywhere that people who go on these awful pundit shows can at least get across in the woefully short time they’re allowed?

We need a set of short, snappy, memorable phrases that can be used at a moment’s notice and deployed in full before the host or opponent has the chance to cut you off.

Here are the ones I have always used:

When asked why ID/creationism should not be taught alongside evolution:  Because it’s illegal.  Not just wrong.  Not just useless as science.  Not just an attempt to push religion into schools.  It is illegal.  As in ‘against the law’. 

When asked any question at all about ID “scientific theory”:  Let’s be clear about this — there IS NO scientific theory of intelligent design.  None.  At all.  And IDers are flat out lying to us when they claim there is.

When asked why ID shouldn’t be taught when so many people accept it;  Science isn’t a democracy.  We don’t get to vote on scientific truth any more than we get to vote on whether or not the earth is round.

When asked why we shouldn’t respect the religious opinions of IDers;  EVERYONE has a religious opinion.  ID religious opinion is no more authoritative than mine or my next door neighbor’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas, and they have no more right to have their religious opinions enshrined in law than anyone else does.

And the point that I try to bring up as often as possible;  The ID fight is not about science, and it’s not really about religion either — it’s about POLITICAL POWER.  IDers are ayatollah-wanna-be’s.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  What they want — ALL they want — is to “renew our culture” in accordance with their narrow religious dogma. That’s why neary all their money comes from a single whacko billionnaire in California who has preached an extremist theocratic political program for twenty years.

Comment #26488

Posted by luminous beauty on April 24, 2005 09:19 AM (e) (s)

RevDr Lenny;

I’d like to suggest that science is the perfect democracy.  The concensus view is based on informed consent within the given discipline.  If only electoral politics had such rigor.

Comment #26489

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 24, 2005 09:29 AM (e) (s)

Just curious:  How does one know that the current “spokesmen” for evolution are not Christian, or Jewish, or Moslem, or in some other faith tradition?  For example, we know for a fact that Ken Miller, co-author of one of the most-used biology textbook series, is a faithful Catholic, because he wrote a book about it.

Perhaps the issue really is that people who know about evolution, which is a topic appropriate to science, talk about science.  And perhaps others confuse that ability to stay on topic and speak intelligently as being “not Christian.”  I think it’s the bias of most people, creationists especially included, that lump intelligent, well-informed people as “not Christian.”

Comment #26493

Posted by Chip Poirot on April 24, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

Here is what I think is an effective “talking point” when asked about your own personal philosophy. It has the advantage I think, of being both honest and fair.

My own view of the world is X (if your view is purely naturalist then say so). But evolution as a scientific theory is compatible with many views on religion. It is perfectly valid to look at evolution and conclude that there is an intelligent force behind evolution. It is also valid to conclude the opposite. Scientists should not force either view into the science classroom and when they state their worldview, they should be careful to distinguish accepted theories from metaphysical speculation.

That’s probably a bit too wordy. It will never satisfy the fundamentalists. But we should not worry about satisfying them because we never will. We need to address our arguments to the broad middle of moderate to liberal christians, as well as conservative christians whose approach is compatible with a scientific world view.

Comment #26495

Posted by caerbannog on April 24, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

I don’t want to steer this thread off-topic, but it looks like a creationist lawyer by the name of Larry Caldwell may be threatening Eugenie Scott with legal action. According to a WingNutDaily article at  http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43953…, Caldwell claims that Ms. Scott libeled him by spreading falsehoods about his proposed changes to a local school-district’s science curriculum.

Does anyone have any information about what Caldwell really *did* propose to the school district?  I haven’t been able to find any specific information on-line (curious, given Caldwell’s eagerness to jump all over those who “misrepresent” him).

Caldwell is suing his school district for ignoring his proposals. (You can find his legal complaint on-line at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php…

I downloaded and read through Caldwell’s complaint, and even though he references his proposal (his so-called “Quality Science Education policy”) over 100 times, he provides no specific information as to what is actually *in* that proposal.  Anyone here have any info?

Comment #26500

Posted by Russell on April 24, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)

the Rev wrote:

As I have often said, it has long been a huge weakeness in the anti-creationist/ID movement that it is made up largely (at least verbally) of atheists.

I suspect that’s more the doing of the creationist propaganda machine. My personal experience is very different. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because I actually am an “atheist”.

Herein lies the genius of the Wedge Strategy. I would like to think that - even though I deem  unlikely the existence of an entity with the characteristics ascribed to the christian God - that Believers might be in some sense right. Some sense I don’t get. But it has to be some abstract sense, not a literal sense. If you insist on a literal sense, then I have to conclude the believer’s just mistaken. The wedgies would like to drive their wedge between the True Christians and the Whateverists - those of us who would be content to think there’s “some sense” in which they might be right, but whatever that sense is, it doesn’t work for me.

Comment #26503

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24, 2005 12:13 PM (e) (s)

Caldwell provided supplementary antievolution materials to the Roseville school board. This is reported in a number of different places. Caldwell objects strenuously to the claim that  the Sarfati and Watchtower antievolution books were part of set of materials that he provided.

What would be interesting to see is if there is really any wide mismatch in the content of what Caldwell must stipulate that he did provide to the Roseville School Board and the materials that he objects to having associated with him. It is very likely that the Sarfati and Watchtower books have some form of many of the arguments made in materials such as “Icons of Evolution” (the DVD) and “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” (another DVD). The only reason I see to objecting to those books in particular is that they don’t shy away from making the full argument (“Not evolution, therefore the God of the bible.”) that the DVDs only give the premises of. And that is only a concern given the consistent failure of “creation science” to make any headway in the US legal system.

If I could get some volunteers, this could be a good project to set up. What I’m envisioning is that each volunteer would take on a particular source item (either one of the books or DVDs) and provide a listing of arguments made in the source using Mark Isaak’s “Index to Creationist Claims” (with page references for the books). Then we simply can see which arguments are in both Caldwell’s materials and the materials that he wants no part of. Anybody who is up for this, please let me know.

Comment #26506

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24, 2005 12:30 PM (e) (s)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Dr Scott, file an immediate “discovery” motion to (1) obtain copies of all of Discovery Institute’s internal memos and documents, and (2) force Howard Ahmanson to release a list of everyone he’s given money to in the past 15 years.

Comment #26508

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)

From the article”

Larry Caldwell filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court against the Roseville Joint Union High School District and school officials in Sacramento, Calif., alleging his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated when he was prevented from introducing a curriculum that changes how the theory of evolution is taught, without introducing religious content.

So let me get this straight … .  preventing him from teaching something that he says has NO RELIGIOUS CONTENT somehow consitutes a violation of his RELIGIOUS FREEDOM … . . ?

<sigh>  No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are dumb as rocks.

Alas, all of this crap was already covered in the Peloza and Webster cases.  Dr Scott should easily be able to mop the floor with him.

Comment #26509

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

Eugenie Scott did a good job.  Let me break some of this down so we can learn from what she did well and what she could have done a little better.

Eugenie Scott:  Well, I think you put your finger right on the problem, Chris. 

You expressed one Christian position, which is called theistic evolution.  That‘s the view that God created through the process of evolution.  There are many forms of theistic evolution.  Reverend Fox expressed another Christian position, which is called special creation, which is, God created everything all at one time in its present form. 

Now, Reverend Fox was talking about teaching both.  There‘s more than two.  And we haven‘t even exhausted Christianity, much less all the other possible religions of the world.  And I think the question that we really ought to be asking is, what are we supposed to be teaching in high school science class?  Because that‘s what this issue is really all about.  And what we should be teaching in high school science class is the consensus view of science, which is that living things have common ancestors. 

And we know some mechanisms that bring this about.  And we have some ideas about the pattern, that this change through time took place.  This is what we should be teaching.

1.  She shouldn’t have even mentioned “Christianity” or “theistic evolution.” The best approach is to make clear that a cell, or cluster of cells, that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms, including humans, to have lived on earth.  Common descent is important.  It is almost impossible for most humans not to want to know the causes of the existence of organisms, including humans.  What good did it do for Scott to bring up “Christianity” and “theistic evolution?”  It’s not important in this context to try to help people to reconcile evolution and other beliefs that they might hold.  There is too much of that in this culture.  For instance, the documentary Evolution, which appeard on PBS, included an entire segment on “God.”  In fact, it included really two segments on evolution and religion, as much of the first segment revolved around Charles’ Darwin’s religious beliefs and how they affected his thinking on evolution.

When I’m presenting what I think happened, it is not my job to help other people reconcile that with their other beliefs.  I’m going to present what I’m justified in believing happened.  Otherwise, they may not learn.  And there is a limited amount of time available.  And I don’t know what series of events resulted in the onset of matter, space and time.  But humans and bacteria share common ancestors, which is important to recognize.

Scott should make clear what should be taught in the public schools, and that evolution occurred.  Or, if she wants to be more skeptical, she could say: “It is overwhelmingly probable that evolution occurred.”  Evolution is important, and scientists have determined — or are at least overwhelmingly justified in believing that — it occurred. 

2.  The point Scott brought up about “more than two” was superfluous.  We should teach what occurred — what we are justified in believing occurred.  In terms of what should be taught in the public schools, it is not important that lots of laypersons disagree about whether a given event occurred.  A lot of people don’t believe that electrons move around protons.  And clearly we shouldn’t teach in public schools that everything in the universe is made of earth, fire and water.  Or that stones fall to the earth because they want to be there. 

3.  It is very good that Scott brought up what the scientific consensus is.  Scientists, particularly biologists and life scientists, tend to understand best the data relevant to being able to determine what caused the existence of, and differences among, organisms.  So what the scientific consensus is — especially if it is as overwhelming as it is with evolution — should be important in terms of what is taught in the public schools. 

4.  It is important that Scott mentioned that we know some of the kinds of events that have contributed to the differences among organisms.  For instance, some organisms having produced more offspring than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the differences among all organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial self-replicators. 

5.  It is good that she brought the topic back to what should be taught in the public schools.  That is where her expertise is.  The issue is important.  And that is one reason she was on the show.

6.  When dealing with people who are skeptical that evolution occurred, it is often good to present some of the data that enable one to determine that humans and apes share common ancestors.  But Scott might not have had time for that in this interview.  Maybe she could have briefly mentioned the fossil record, and that every known mammalian specimen is very similar anatomically to at least one other known mammalian specimen that is older than it and relatively close in age to it. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Reverend Fox, is that—I don‘t want…

(CROSSTALK)

SCOTT:  Not religious views masquerading as science.

I don’t like that sentence.  What did she mean by “religion” and “science?”  Those words have a vague meaning for most people.  Moreover, presumably it would be logically possible for someone to hold a “religious view” that was justified and/or a “scientific view” that was not.  What is important is that we teach important ideas that we are justified in believing.  Evolution is one such idea.   

MATTHEWS:  I don‘t want Eugenie to put words in your mouth.

Reverend Fox, do you believe that everything we see on Earth today, in terms of the species, the kingdoms, the families of animals, that all of them are as they were millions of years ago?  Do you believe that?

FOX:  I really don‘t.  And I think there‘s—I really don‘t believe that.  And I think a lot of people don‘t believe it.

There‘s a lot of discussion about how old the Earth is and different theories of that.  You know, it‘s bigger than that.  She talks about, well, there‘s different views of creationism.  What we‘d like to say is, let‘s present some of these views to the students.  I mean, when you look at evolution, you find 1,000 different views of evolution.  So, there‘s not just one view of evolution.  And so, I think her argument is unfounded. 

SCOTT:  Well, that‘s actually not…

I’m glad that Scott tried to interject.  There are not “1,000 different views of evolution.”  At least I don’t know what Fox meant by that claim.  All credible biologists in the world accept the idea that humans and bacteria share common ancestors.  Also, all credible biologists accept that the kind of event that scientists refer to as “Natural Selection” contributed significantly to the existence of, and differences among, all organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first self-replicators.  That is, some organisms having produced more offspring than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the differences among all organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial self-replicators. 

MATTHEWS: But, Eugenie, what do you think is the harm of teaching some religious theory, along with the scientific theory? 

SCOTT:  I think there‘s nothing wrong with teaching comparative religion.  I think we should know more about religion, just as we should know more about science.

But what we‘re talking about is, what do you teach in a science class?  People on my side of this issue are perfectly happy to have religion described.  But that‘s not what is going on.  They want to advocate a specific religious view and pretend that it‘s science.  That just simply is not good education.

Good response.  Excellent conclusion.  But she should have given at least one reason to try to show that we should teach evolution in science class.  She might have said: “Evolution is important, and it occurred.”  Or: “Evolution is important; and it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, which is the community that tends to understand best the data that would enable one to determine the causes of the existence of, and differences among, organisms.” 

MATTHEWS:  Do you believe that everything we live—do you think our lives, who we are, the world around us, was an accident of some explosion millions of years ago and it led to everything we see?  Do you believe it was all just natural selection or just an accident of scientific development? 

SCOTT:  Well, I‘m talking about what we teach in the high school science class.

MATTHEWS:  What do you believe?  What do you believe? 

SCOTT:  Who cares?  Who cares what Genie Scott believes?  That‘s, you know…

MATTHEWS:  I‘m asking you.  That‘s what…

SCOTT:  My own personal philosophy?

MATTHEWS:  I‘m curious.  I‘m curious.

FOX:  Chris, there‘s the point. 

MATTHEWS:  Do you believe it was all just one big accident?

SCOTT:  It is…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  I don‘t think most people believe it was one big accident.  It‘s hard to imagination the sophistication and dynamics and wonder of this world was just an accident.  Some grenade went off two or three million years ago and everything happened.  It just boggles the mind that it‘s the case. 

SCOTT:  And many Christians believe that God had a hand.

FOX:  Chris, that‘s exactly—exactly what you are saying.

(CROSSTALK)  

MATTHEWS:  I‘m sorry.  We have to continue.  This is worth a lot more than 10 minutes.

FOX:  But the question is, what do we teach in science class?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  I would love to get back to this.  We‘ll get back to this. 

Thank you both. I‘m sorry for keeping it short.  But I have to.

FOX:  Thanks, Chris.  It was good to be here.

MATTHEWS:  Eugenie Scott, thank you very much for coming in.

Chris Matthews’ line of questioning was not fair.  That is none of his business.  Scott’s beliefs on the matter is a private issue.  Scott was right to refuse to answer.  She should have stood totally firm.  I would have said: “No one knows the series of events that resulted in the onset of space, time and matter.  Moreover, it might be that, at that level, the whole notion of causation gets complicated.”

Suppose Matthews would have kept pushing me: “But, Longhorn, what do you think happened?” 

I would have said: “That is a private matter.”

Comment #26512

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

Lurker wrote:

One more comment:  Please, Eugenie, find a Christian spokesperson for your group.  I am really not sure what to think of your preaching to Christians about what other Christians think, when you yourself are not a Christian.  Collect testimonials of Christians supporting evolution, if you have to.  Cite them.  Don’t just assert.

Uh, Lurker… what do you think the religious groups section of Voices for Evolution was about? That work has been done and is well known. I guess it could be better known.

Then there is Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project. So far, 3,084 members of the clergy have signed a statement saying that evolution and faith are compatible and that the integrity of the science curriculum should be maintained.

There really is no “controversy” over whether many Christians can have their faith and support good science education, too. One need not be a Christian to read the numbers and speak their meaning. Places like “Hardball” don’t pause to allow you to make formal citations of work. Do you really believe that Chris Matthews would NOT interrupt an attempted citation of these projects that make clear that theistic evolution is a common Christian stance?

There are people of faith who speak for NCSE. Many recent news articles have featured Nick Matzke speaking for NCSE. In other places, Alan Gishlick has spoken for NCSE. Perhaps as time goes by I will do more speaking for NCSE. But one must also concede that Dr. Scott is NCSE’s most visible and high-profile spokesperson, and when shows like “Hardball” come calling, they are asking specifically for Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Comment #26514

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 24, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

“If I could get some volunteers, this could be a good project to set up.”

I seem to have way too much time on my hands these days.  count me in.

Comment #26517

Posted by Buridan on April 24, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

I watch the Hardball video and I think Eugenie Scott came off very well. The ramblings of Reverend Fox must have been extremely painful for ID folks to watch. Matthews of course made an idiot of himself as well. For instance:

MATTHEWS: I don‘t think most people believe it was one big accident.  It‘s hard to imagination the sophistication and dynamics and wonder of this world was just an accident.  Some grenade went off two or three million years ago and everything happened.  It just boggles the mind that it‘s the case.

No, it just boggles the mind that anyone could be so misinformed as to say that a “grenade went off two or three million years ago and everything happened.” Who claims this!? Matthews was obviously unprepared for this interview and misrepresented the issues throughout. Again, another example of Matthews’s confusion:

SCOTT: …Reverend Fox expressed another Christian position, which is called special creation, which is, God created everything all at one time in its present form.

MATTHEWS: I don‘t want Eugenie to put words in your mouth.

Reverend Fox, do you believe that everything we see on Earth today, in terms of the species, the kingdoms, the families of animals, that all of them are as they were millions of years ago?  Do you believe that?

Of course Reverend Fox doesn’t believe that. The world is only a few thousands years old for this idiot. Matthews can’t even get the positions correct! Did he even bother to research this beforehand or have one of his lackeys research it? The best line of the interview was Scott’s response to Matthews when he asked her what she personally believed.

MATTHEWS: What do you believe?  What do you believe?
 
SCOTT:  Who cares?  Who cares what Genie Scott believes?

Under the circumstances (Matthews’s interruptions and confusions) I think Scott did a masterful job. Well done Eugenie!

Comment #26518

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24, 2005 01:11 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank wrote:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Dr Scott, file an immediate “discovery” motion to (1) obtain copies of all of Discovery Institute’s internal memos and documents, and (2) force Howard Ahmanson to release a list of everyone he’s given money to in the past 15 years.

Gosh, Lenny, I’d love to have that information.

Now for the tough part: What is Dr. Scott supposed to give as a legal justification for being given these documents? I’ve missed some connection that seems to be obvious to you.

Comment #26519

Posted by Buridan on April 24, 2005 01:16 PM (e) (s)

I didn’t mean to repreat Longhorn’s play by play but there’s a delay in the server. Sorry about that.

Comment #26529

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 24, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Dr Scott, file an immediate “discovery” motion to (1) obtain copies of all of Discovery Institute’s internal memos and documents, and (2) force Howard Ahmanson to release a list of everyone he’s given money to in the past 15 years.

Gosh, Lenny, I’d love to have that information.

Now for the tough part: What is Dr. Scott supposed to give as a legal justification for being given these documents? I’ve missed some connection that seems to be obvious to you.

I dunno — the guy has to have SOME connection with DI somehow.

Comment #26539

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)

Wesley,

I think it is great that we have someone like Eugenie being a spokeswoman for evolution and sound science education.  I really hope that no one would misconstrue my previous comments to suggest otherwise.  We would lose a considerable front in this skirmish if we didn’t have Eugenie.

But, what I do find unfortunate is seeing the most visible person of NCSE get caught a bit flat-footed when it comes time for her to talk about her philosophy.  I believe it is a bad day for all when a naturalist or an atheist need to resort to the same sort of insincere double-talk that DI and creationists employ when talking about their own worldviews.  Eugenie really ought to stop acting like her philosophy is somehow a liability for good science.  After all, she does believe her philosophy is immaterial to good science, no?  As I mentioned earlier, yes, people are going to ask her about her worldviews.  Yes people are going to wonder if she’s metaphysically biased.  No, she shouldn’t deflect those issues by speaking _for_ Christians as if she were a Christian.  No, she shouldn’t let anyone cut her off when given such a rich opportunity to demonstrate why such a question is in fact irrelevant.

Let me clarify what I mean about needing a visible Christian spokesperson for NCSE.  I realize that Matzke and you and Gishlick are all qualified candidates, and I do not mean to minimize your roles at the NCSE.  But making a single person the “highest profile” proponent of a good scientific theory seems to be self-defeating.  Frankly, it may be too much burden for one person to bear.  Eugenie should find someone to share air time with, and not let the DI make her into the iconic Darwinian.  Yet, the reality is that those who are the most knowledgeable about the subject, and most capable of providing testimony to lies and propaganda spread by creationists, are often those with the least amount of time to spend dealing with Creationists.  It is unfortunate.  But in the meantime, before those scientists figure out what’s at stake for themselves, I am simply advocating a bit of political savvy until the heavy hitters come to play.  And sometimes that means directing some of our critical energy towards ourselves.

Comment #26549

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

I posted:

1.  She shouldn’t have even mentioned “Christianity” or “theistic evolution.” The best approach is to make clear that a cell, or cluster of cells, that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms, including humans, to have lived on earth.  Common descent is important.  It is almost impossible for most humans not to want to know the causes of the existence of organisms, including humans.  What good did it do for Scott to bring up “Christianity” and “theistic evolution?”  It’s not important in this context to try to help people to reconcile evolution and other beliefs that they might hold.  There is too much of that in this culture.  For instance, the documentary Evolution, which appeard on PBS, included an entire segment on “God.”  In fact, it included really two segments on evolution and religion, as much of the first segment revolved around Charles’ Darwin’s religious beliefs and how they affected his thinking on evolution.

When I’m presenting what I think happened, it is not my job to help other people reconcile that with their other beliefs.  I’m going to present what I’m justified in believing happened.  Otherwise, they may not learn.  And there is a limited amount of time available.  And I don’t know what series of events resulted in the onset of matter, space and time.  But humans and bacteria share common ancestors, which is important to recognize.

There are contexts in which it is good for one to try to help others come to terms with an idea that may be unsettling.  For instance, I have friend who taught science in public schools to fifth or sixth-graders. My friend taught about evolution.  The father of one of her best students visited my friend after school. He asked her not to teach evolution anymore.  My friend made clear that she was going to teach evolution and why she was going to do so.  She was firm but sympathetic.  This particular friend of mine is adept at being both firm and sympathetic.  I got the impression from my friend that after making her point about what she was going to teach and why, she tried to work with the gentleman in a constructive way.  A lot of people reconcile evolution with other beliefs that are important to them.  I think the conversation made an impression on the man.  He kept his son in my friend’s class for the rest of the year.  However, he may have subsequently taken his son out of the public schools.  My friend handled the situation very well.

Moreover, after I present evolution to a person or group, I am willing to field questions from people who express antagonism toward evolution.  And I don’t dismiss their claims or questions as “non-science” or “religion.” And, frankly, some beliefs that are justified are logically inconsistent with other beliefs that are important to some people.  That’s just the way it is.  I make that clear.  The universe is not about 6,000 years old.  A deity did not turn dust directly into the first two elephants.  It is important for people to understand my position on the matter.  However, many beliefs are logically consistent with evolution.  For instance, it is logically consistent to believe that a being caused the Big Bang and that humans and bacteria share common ancestors.

But if I talk about evolution, I’m going to first talk about evolution.  I’m not going to lead my talk by trying to reconcile “evolution” and “religion.”  I’m going to lead with evolution.

It would have been better had Eugenie Scott not brought up “theistic evolution.”  She should talk about evolution and some of the data that has made it the foundation of modern biology.

When Chris Matthews asked her that final series of questions, she tried to avoid getting pushed in a certain direction.  Had Scott not led with the talk of “theistic evolution” maybe Matthews would have been
less apt to engage in the last flurry of questions.

Comment #26552

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

I posted:

Chris Matthews’ line of questioning was not fair.  That is none of his business.  Scott’s beliefs on the matter is a private issue.  Scott was right to refuse to answer.  She should have stood totally firm.  I would have said: “No one knows the series of events that resulted in the onset of space, time and matter.  Moreover, it might be that, at that level, the whole notion of causation gets complicated.”

Suppose Matthews would have kept pushing me: “But, Longhorn, what do you think happened?” 

I would have said: “That is a private matter.”

I want to elaborate on this point.  As far as I know, no human being knows which series of events resulted in the existence of the first space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe. 

However, there have been cases when it was not inappropriate for one to discuss his or her (for lack of better expressions) religious beliefs, lack of religious beliefs or ambiguousness on the issue.  Carl Sagan sometimes effectively discussed the issue of “religious belief.”  So did Einstein.  So did Martin Luther King. 

And, of course, it sometimes is important for a person to discuss the issue publicly.  As in the cases of Aristotle, Hume, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Thomas Nagel and Hilary Putnam. 

However, if Chris Matthews had asked me the kinds of questions he asked Eugenie Scott, I would have said: “For me, that is a private matter.”  The phrase “for me” is important here.  I would use that because it isn’t — or shouldn’t be — a private matter for everyone.  But it is for me. 

But what about Eugenie Scott?  Should it be a private matter for her?  That is where it gets more complicated.  She is representing an organization.  And members of her organization have diverse views on the issue of, for lack of a better expression, religious belief.  So, what should she do in a public context?  Part of it is: What is she comfortable with?  I don’t object to her discussing the issue if she is uncomfortable not doing so. But she should not lead with the issue.  Moreover, it would be best if she did not bring up the issue at all, especially on news show. 

And she did a good job of that in her interview with Matthews.  He pushed too hard.  He should have recognized that many people prefer to keep their religious beliefs private, that he was putting her in a difficult position and that she was there to discuss the teaching of evolution in the public schools. 

Lurker posted:

Let me clarify what I mean about needing a visible Christian spokesperson for NCSE.  I realize that Matzke and you and Gishlick are all qualified candidates, and I do not mean to minimize your roles at the NCSE.  But making a single person the “highest profile” proponent of a good scientific theory seems to be self-defeating.  Frankly, it may be too much burden for one person to bear.  Eugenie should find someone to share air time with, and not let the DI make her into the iconic Darwinian.

I disagree.  NCSE has no eobligation to have a spokesperson who makes a point of being Christian, or a member of any other religion.  In fact, as I’ve said, it is better for them to avoid bringing up the issue of “religion and evolution.”  Just talk about evolution.  Scott is a good spokesperson.  However, there have been times when she brought up the issue of “religion and evolution” when it would have been better had she not done so.

Comment #26557

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

Longhorn, I see your point, but I find it overly optimistic.  One cannot simply make the religious implications of evolution disappear by sticking with the science.  Matthews started off the show with an explicitly religious tone, talking about his experiences with Christian schools teaching evolution.  At that point, Eugenie should have switched gears and composed her message appropriately.  We might wish that Matthews had stuck with the science rather than religious abuse of science during his entire interview.  It ain’t happening.

You’re right that NCSE has no obligation in a Christian spokesperson.  But, I think it helps to have a credible voice when such matters arise.  In either case, we agree is that it is better to be prepared next time for such questions.  Let’s keep discussing how to be prepared.

By the way, I wish to reiterate.  It is a good thing that Eugenie is a spokesperson for sound science education.  It is not necessarily a good thing that Eugenie be painted as the _only_ spokesperson for a scientific theory.  I see a tremendous risk in having NCSE be associated by the media as the source of all things Darwinian, and even then, to have Scott be its official spokesperson.  The NCSE is not nearly as alone as the DI is — they are not simply mirrors.  Even the DI does not have a recognizable “official spokesperson” per se.  For instance, we often refer to the DI as a whole for ID political activities, not to a single person who represents all of DI.

Comment #26559

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24, 2005 06:37 PM (e) (s)

Lurker wrote:

It is not necessarily a good thing that Eugenie be painted as the _only_ spokesperson for a scientific theory.

AFAICT, the only person “painting” in that fashion is you. So kindly put down the brush. Dr. Scott speaks for NCSE, not all of evolutionary biology.

Comment #26561

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 24, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

I’ve started a thread on the AE discussion board for the “tallying the arguments” project. If you are interested in volunteering to analyze a source document, please come over to that thread and say so.

Comment #26564

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 07:03 PM (e) (s)

Lurker, thanks for the thoughtful post.

Lurker posts:

Longhorn, I see your point, but I find it overly optimistic.  One cannot simply make the religious implications of evolution disappear by sticking with the science.

Whether that is the case or not, Scott shouldn’t have said what she said about “Christianity” or “theistic evolution.”  Or, at least it would have been much better had she not brought that up.  And it would have been fairly easy for her not to.  

Matthews started off the show with an explicitly religious tone, talking about his experiences with Christian schools teaching evolution.  At that point, Eugenie should have switched gears and composed her message appropriately.  We might wish that Matthews had stuck with the science rather than religious abuse of science during his entire interview.  It ain’t happening.

But that doesn’t mean that Scott should have said what she did in her opening communication.  Here is Matthews’ first question to Scott: “Eugenie C. Scott, what is your view about including this religious information in a science class?”

Here is what I hope I would have said if Matthews asked me the same question in the same context:  “We should teach evolution in the public schools.  It is overwhelmingly well-supported, incredibly interesting and hugely important.”

Say Matthews responds with the following: “But should we also teach creationism along with evolution?”

Longhorn: “No.  Evolution occurred.  Creationism, at least as I think you are using the word, did not.”

Matthews: “But couldn’t God have caused the universe?  Could there be some divine intelligence behind the whole thing?”

At this point, there are a couple of ways one could go.  I’ll provide both.  I’m not sure which one I would employ.  It would depend partly on my mood.

Option 1: “At this point, no person knows the series of events that resulted in the existence of the first space, matter and time that we associate with the know universe.  And our ordinary notions of causation may not apply to the onset and expansion of the known universe.  But self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms to live on earth, including humans.  Moreover, what Darwin referred to as “Natural Selection” has been a hugely important part of evolution.  That we don’t know the cause of every event (for instance, the so-called Big Bang) does not mean that we don’t know the cause of any event.  For instance, I know I was born by my mother.”

Option 2: “Evolution occurred.  Evolution should be taught in the public schools.  I am not an expert on cosmology.”

Let’s say Matthews is unsatisfied with second approach.  Let’s say he pushes me:

Matthews: “But, Longhorn, what do you think happened?  Do you think this all could be one big accident?”

Longhorn: “First, what do you mean by “accident?”

Matthews: “Could this have happened without some divine intelligence involved?”

Longhorn: “First, that is beyond the scope of what I’m hear to discuss.  I’m hear to make clear that biological evolution should be taught, and taught well, in the public schools.”

Matthews: “But what do you think happened?  I’m curious.”

Longhorn: “For me, that is a private issue.  I’m not going to discuss that now.”

You’re right that NCSE has no obligation in a Christian spokesperson.  But, I think it helps to have a credible voice when such matters arise.  In either case, we agree is that it is better to be prepared next time for such questions.  Let’s keep discussing how to be prepared.

In this context, I just don’t think one should talk about the issue of evolution and religion.  If someone pushes the issue like Matthews did, I personally would avoid answering the question.  And I think Scott should avoid the question.  She did a good job at the end.  Matthews just wouldn’t let it drop.  My criticism of Scott is not how she handled the last series of questions, but how she started the interview. 

By the way, I wish to reiterate.  It is a good thing that Eugenie is a spokesperson for sound science education.  It is not necessarily a good thing that Eugenie be painted as the _only_ spokesperson for a scientific theory.  I see a tremendous risk in having NCSE be associated by the media as the source of all things Darwinian, and even then, to have Scott be its official spokesperson.  The NCSE is not nearly as alone as the DI is — they are not simply mirrors.  Even the DI does not have a recognizable “official spokesperson” per se.  For instance, we often refer to the DI as a whole for ID political activities, not to a single person who represents all of DI.

I agree that Scott is a good spokesperson.  Ernst Mayr twenty years ago probably would be better.  But I don’t know for sure.  Mayr was one of the great biologists to ever live, but he didn’t know much about U.S. law and political issues.  Moreover, sadly, Mayr passed away.  Richard Lewontin would be good.  So would Lynn Margulis and Bruce Alberts.

And I don’t think one’s being openly religious is something that should count for or against a person in terms of whether he of she should be a spokesperson for evolution.  That should be a non-issue.  However, I feel strongly that when talking about evolution, one should talk about evolution.

Comment #26565

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 24, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)

Comment #26509
Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)
“Evolution is important, and it occurred.”

Longhorm,
a minor quibble, but one that I think adds a great deal more power to your statement.  Add one word and change another.  And don’t forget to emphasize it with gusto.

“Evolution is important, PRECISELY BECAUSE it occurred.”

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #26567

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 07:11 PM (e) (s)

I posted:

Ernst Mayr twenty years ago probably would be better.

One interesting point: It is conceivable that Mayr twenty years ago would not have been better than Scott today, because we understand more today than we did 20 years ago.  For instance, there has been a lot of important work done at the genetic level.

Scott is a good spokesperson.

Comment #26580

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 09:05 PM (e) (s)

Longhorn,

I don’t see avoidance as the ultimate solution to this problem.  Integration of ideas requires confrontation.  But it also requires picking the appropriate forum for such an exchange. 

It may be that Eugenie brought the last exchange upon herself by dwelving into the nuances of theistic evolution from the start of the program.  I don’t know how Matthews had intended the interview would proceed.  But, I believe a clever interviewer will always be able to find a way to bring up a question he wants asked.  If that’s the case, then Eugenie was caught off-guard.  Where we differ, consequently, is what we perceive this interview to be about.  I think this interview was not about evolution, per se.  It was about how to teach evolution.

Still, the controversy of evolution teaching is, however you cast it, a religious problem, not a scientific one.  We really wouldn’t want Eugenie out there if it were truly a scientific issue.  There are just that many more qualified individuals to speak to the present controversies and the hottest areas of research in evolutionary biology.  Thus, Eugenie really was expected to speak to the religious aspects of evolutionary theory.  Perhaps, she even expected to do so herself.

This is where politicizing science gets complicated.  And there should be no doubt that when it comes to education, politics enacted in front of lay audiences is unavoidable.  We see this problem all the time.  Why, just the other day, we had university researchers chastised for being “amateurs” or being excessively rude.  When it comes to a message of how evolution is compatible with religion, I am afraid that we proponents of evolution really do not have as coherent a platform as we hope.  Can we simply rely on the so-called professionals?  Meanwhile, the opposing close-minded message is simpler: they simply denounce any form of reconciliation between evolution and religion.

So what happens when the professionals that are at the frontlines of this cultural fight get ambushed by non-scientific, politically charged questions?  When you are already knee-deep in the politics, can you simply run for the higher ground of science and scientific facts?  I am skeptical

Look, I think this is a complicated issue.  All I am saying is that in politics, the message is affected by the messenger. Eugenie obviously thinks that the message of compatibility between science and religion (especially Christianity) is important.  I think most people who are interested in this debate would agree.  But I wonder if she may be the wrong messenger for some of these issues.  We who are insiders in this controversy may know that she is the spokesperson for the NCSE and not all of evolutionary biology, but does the rest of the public necessarily see this difference?  If not, how should they react when they see the director of the NCSE attempts to dodge a question about her personal worldview, especially when “they” are already suspicious about the atheistic materialist agenda to brainwash their children?

In politics, I find that perceptions are on par with the facts.  We know Dr. Scott to have honorable intents with regards to teaching evolution.  But how do we get others to see what we see?

Comment #26583

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 09:17 PM (e) (s)

One more for tonight.  I think our opponents know about the role of perceptions very well, especially in this matter of religion and science.  Consider a recent entry in Dembski’s blog: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/16… :

“I don’t think any of us should be promoting (or at least going along with) the canard that John Paul II accepted “evolution” in some inappropriate sense. The 1996 Message on evolution was, indeed, a weak document, but it was also the least important thing JP II ever said about the topic. From the perspective of Catholic doctrine, an informal letter like that has basically zero magisterial authority. Most likely the letter was drafted by an accommodationist on the staff of the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, vetted (but not properly vetted) by the staff theologians of the papal household, and then signed by the Pope, possibly without his even reading it. Then it seems that the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences did a major press release, and the world’s media obliged by turning a trivial event into a front-page story. But degree of play in the New York Times has no theological significance…”

This is the sort of zero concession game that is typical of dirty politics.  When it comes to matters of religion, maybe we should let those within the religion sort it out, before anybody else tries to?

Comment #26597

Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 10:45 PM (e) (s)

Lurker, I appreciate your willingness to try sort through these issues.

I don’t see avoidance as the ultimate solution to this problem.  Integration of ideas requires confrontation.  But it also requires picking the appropriate forum for such an exchange.

I don’t see what you are getting at here. 

It may be that Eugenie brought the last exchange upon herself by dwelving into the nuances of theistic evolution from the start of the program.  I don’t know how Matthews had intended the interview would proceed.  But, I believe a clever interviewer will always be able to find a way to bring up a question he wants asked.  If that’s the case, then Eugenie was caught off-guard.  Where we differ, consequently, is what we perceive this interview to be about.  I think this interview was not about evolution, per se.  It was about how to teach evolution.

I agree with at least the last part.  The interview was “about” how to teach evolution in the public schools.  That is what Matthews was expecting, that is the way he introduced the segment and that was the focus of his initial line of questioning. 

Still, the controversy of evolution teaching is, however you cast it, a religious problem, not a scientific one.

I don’t like using those words.  I think I know what you mean.  You are saying that evolution happened.  Any “controversy” is not among credible scientists.  All of them think evolution occurred.  And there is not an epistemic controversy.  That is, it is not as if the claim that evolution didn’t occur is about as plausible as the claim that it did occur.  We might say that there is an epistemic controversy about who murdered Jonbenet Ramsey. 

But a significant percentage of U.S. citizens do not believe that evolution (cells to elephants) occurred.  We can agree on that.

We really wouldn’t want Eugenie out there if it were truly a scientific issue.  There are just that many more qualified individuals to speak to the present controversies and the hottest areas of research in evolutionary biology. Thus, Eugenie really was expected to speak to the religious aspects of evolutionary theory.  Perhaps, she even expected to do so herself.

She shouldn’t have made some of the points she made in her initial comments.  She should not have said the following: “You expressed one Christian position, which is called theistic evolution.  That‘s the view that God created through the process of evolution.  There are many forms of theistic evolution.” 

The following sentence is actually kind of interesting: “Reverend Fox expressed another Christian position, which is called special creation, which is, God created everything all at one time in its present form.”  It suggests an important point, namely that what Fox believe occurred didn’t occur.  And it should not be taught in the public schools.  I would have made the point differently.  I might have said something like  the following: “Mr. Fox seems to be suggesting that everything in the universe was basically created all at once.  That didn’t happen.  Scientists estimate the age of the known universe to be about 14 billion years.  Planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  The first things on earth that we would associate with cells were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago.  Modern humans evolved about 150,000 years ago.”

I also think she should have left out the following: “Now, Reverend Fox was talking about teaching both.  There‘s more than two.  And we haven‘t even exhausted Christianity, much less all the other possible religions of the world.”  I touched on the issue in a previous post.

Maybe we should put the biologists up there who are doing the most important research and/or who are the most influential.  A couple years ago, we could have put Mayr up there.  Who would you put up there now?     

This is where politicizing science gets complicated.  And there should be no doubt that when it comes to education, politics enacted in front of lay audiences is unavoidable.  We see this problem all the time.  Why, just the other day, we had university researchers chastised for being “amateurs” or being excessively rude.  When it comes to a message of how evolution is compatible with religion, I am afraid that we proponents of evolution really do not have as coherent a platform as we hope.  Can we simply rely on the so-called professionals?  Meanwhile, the opposing close-minded message is simpler: they simply denounce any form of reconciliation between evolution and religion.

Here is my position.  Talk about evolution and the data that enables one to determine that it occurred.  If someone brings up the issue of whether evolution is compatible with religion, make clear that it is compatible with some beliefs and not others.  And maybe indicate a couple beliefs that evolution is not compatible with.  For instance, the universe is not 6,000 years old.  A deity did not turned dust directly into the first two organisms to live on earth that were very similar anatomically to me.  They were born. 

So what happens when the professionals that are at the frontlines of this cultural fight get ambushed by non-scientific, politically charged questions?  When you are already knee-deep in the politics, can you simply run for the higher ground of science and scientific facts?  I am skeptical

It is not an easy situation.  I agree.  Try to talk about evolution.  It is good that Scott went on Hardball.  For one, it probably helps educate people.  It would be neat to have Richard Lewontin on someday.  But try to talk about evolution.  If the host won’t let you, I’ve tried to lay out some ways of handling the situation. 

Look, I think this is a complicated issue.  All I am saying is that in politics, the message is affected by the messenger. Eugenie obviously thinks that the message of compatibility between science and religion (especially Christianity) is important.

It is not important for us to talk about it.  That’s not our job.  Talk about evolution.  If someone else steers the conversation in another direction, try to make the kinds of distinctions that I’ve suggested.  The universe is not 6,000 years old.  The first organisms similar to modern elephants were born. 

One thing I’m not going to do, and that I think people try to avoid, is to dismiss a claim as “non-science” or “religion.”  I touched on this earlier.  What I am comfortable with — and what we should be comfortable doing — is telling people that they are mistaken.  The universe is not about 6,000 years old.  I don’t have a problem telling people that it is not.  I’ll be civil.  And I’m not going to take gratuitous shots at people.  But I will make clear that the universe is not 6,000 years old.  Of course, there is the issue of Cartesian certainty.  Am I certain that the universe is not about 6,000 years old?  But putting that issue aside, the universe is not about 6,000 years old. 

There is nothing wrong with telling someone that they are mistaken.  It is, of course, important to be aware of the context.  And sometimes it is better just to let things lie.  But sometimes it important to make distinctions and show why you are justified and the other person’s is not.

Comment #26615

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 25, 2005 07:09 AM (e) (s)

Still, the controversy of evolution teaching is, however you cast it, a religious problem, not a scientific one.

Not it’s not —- it’s a POLITICAL issue.

Most religious people have no problem at all with evolution.  The only ones who DO are the tiny lunatic fringe of fundamentalist Christian ayatollah-wanna-be’s.

Comment #26617

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 25, 2005 07:31 AM (e) (s)

Comment #26539
Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2005 03:32 PM
…As I mentioned earlier, yes, people are going to ask her about her worldviews.  Yes people are going to wonder if she’s metaphysically biased….No, she shouldn’t let anyone cut her off when given such a rich opportunity to demonstrate why such a question is in fact irrelevant.

Lurker and Longhorm,
And calling for the relevancy of the question immediately is just such a way to inveigle the point in atleast two different ways.  Someone cleverer than I might even be able to weave the two together into a single talking point.

Matthews:  What do you believe?
Scott:  What is the relevancy of that question to teaching proper science in the classroom?
Matthews:  Well, your worldview, your bias, will surely affect… …cut off by Scott
first possible responce by Scott:  It is good that you bring up bias because the creationists are obviously biased by their religion and they are projecting their bias onto their opponents in this legal fight.
second possible responce by Scott:  It is good that you bring up bias because there are many good…good Christians in the country who, by your logic, should be biased against evolution because of their religious views, yet they are wholehearted supporters of the effort to teach proper science in a SCIENCE classroom.

Good points:  You answer accusations with the counteraccusations.  Never allow accusations to a stand unanswered.
You get to bring in Christians who support good science.
You’re not allowing the interviewer to harass you about your beliefs.

Comment #26597
Posted by Longhorm on April 24, 2005 10:45 PM
Of course, there is the issue of Cartesian certainty.  Am I certain that the universe is not about 6,000 years old?  But putting that issue aside, the universe is not about 6,000 years old.

And when the canard that science does not know anything with absolute certainty, and therefore we shouldn’t be teaching it, is raised it can be retorted that religion can’t either and therefore shouldn’t be taught at all.

Sincerely,

Paul

Comment #26620

Posted by Lurker on April 25, 2005 08:29 AM (e) (s)

Thank you all for the responses.  As the work week begins, I just want to leave a few thoughts and hope the discussion may continue in my intermittent absence.

Longhorn,
I respectfully suggest that your strategy is what biologists do now.  They talk about evolution.  That’s all they talk about, as far as the public can see.  It’s not like whenever there is a major breakthrough, the biologist goes on record with the media, “Oh btw, this is another piece of evidence supporting evolution.”  Or “Oh, while I am at it, we made this amazing discovery guided by evolutionary thinking.”  The strategy of talking evolution does not appear to work.  That does not mean, however, that it is not important.  I am simply recommending that we be prepared to answer the kulturkampf material.

Lenny,
I think you make my argument for me.  That some religions do not find issues with evolution is besides the point.  The point is that those fundamentalist Christian ayatollah-wanna-be’s are in fact religious elements subverting good science.  When poll after poll shows that a _majority_ of Americans believe in a 6000 year old Genesis account, I really do not see how this political issue is not inherently religious.  It is not as if there is a diversity of non-darwinian accounts for the origins of man.  It is predominantly of one sort.

We are in trouble when the media/the public perceives or portrays only atheists to have a stake in this controversy, more so than the Christians who have found that balance between science and religion.  We have to identify the problem before we present a solution.  So the first question to ask is this: Is the issue of teaching evolution inherently a problem with some Christian sects?  If so, then the solution must be tailored to the problem.  It is my view that getting atheists to speak for Christians about Christian issues on national TV does not cut it.  Equally bad is having no one speak about the religious elements.  So what do we do?

Comment #26623

Posted by bill on April 25, 2005 08:58 AM (e) (s)

Although I dislike cutting and pasting, I’ll make an exception today.  I came across this at the National Science Teachers Association website:  www.nsta.org

On April 25 in 1953, Nature publishes the structure of DNA. The one-page article by James Watson and Francis Crick begins modestly, “We wish to suggest a structure … for the salt of DNA.” They were awarded the Nobel Prize nine years later. Once its structure was known, the process that DNA uses to pass hereditary information from cell to cell and from generation to generation became obvious. [from The Illustrated Almanac of Science, Technology, and Invention]

In spite of the deadweights like the Discovery Institute, Behe, Johnson and all the IDiot hangers on, Science advances step by step.

Comment #26628

Posted by Longhorm on April 25, 2005 10:32 AM (e) (s)

Lurker posts:

I respectfully suggest that your strategy is what biologists do now.  They talk about evolution.  That’s all they talk about, as far as the public can see.  It’s not like whenever there is a major breakthrough, the biologist goes on record with the media, “Oh btw, this is another piece of evidence supporting evolution.”  Or “Oh, while I am at it, we made this amazing discovery guided by evolutionary thinking.”  The strategy of talking evolution does not appear to work.  That does not mean, however, that it is not important.  I am simply recommending that we be prepared to answer the kulturkampf material.

I agree that biologists usually talk about evolution when making their points to the larger public.  And that it is good.  But Scott didn’t.  The first things she talked about were “Christian positions.”  She talked about “theistic evolution.”  She talked about Christianity.  She should not have done so.  She should have said that we should teach evolution in the schools and teach it well. 

This isn’t the only time that, in a public context, proponents of evolution have emphasized the issue of evolution and religion.  I mentioned the documentary Evolution, which aired on PBS.  The whole final episode was entitled something like “Evolution and God.”  That was a terrible idea.  Who gave that advice?  And much of the first episode was a reenactment of Charles Darwin coming up with the ideas he wrote down Origin of Species.  And the segment often hit on the general theme of religion.  For instance, it made a big deal of Darwin not going to church when his daughter died.  Give me a break.  Talk about evolution.  It’s interesting.  It happened.  It’s important.

However, when we bring up evolution, some members of the larger public are going to want to talk about the following: “Science and Religion: Are they compatible?”  And if, after I’ve talked about evolution in a public context, people bring up the religious issue, I will address their questions and/or comments.  And I don’t think we should say that their points are “theological,” “non-science” or “religious.”  If the person says something that is inaccurate, I will say that is inaccurate.  Even if it is a belief that might be important to a person.  They can take it.  I’ll also be civil and courteous. 

In some cases, one does not know for certain whether a given event occurred.  For instance, I don’t know for certain whether Mayor Daly had the votes of dead people counted for JFK in the famous 1960 Presidential election.  But I imagine that some beliefs on the matter are more plausible than others. 

Moreover, sometimes people believe that a event occurred, and it didn’t occur.  And there is nothing wrong with telling people that it didn’t occur, at least in many contexts.  Stephen J. Gould had this idea of “non-overlapping majesteria.”  He said that “science” and “religion” are simply different conceptual spheres.  Does that make sense?  The idea is problematic.  For instance, sometimes people believe that a given event occurred, and it didn’t.  That is just the way it it.  It happens frequently.  Some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens.  They haven’t been.  Some people believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.  He didn’t.  Some people believe that the universe is about 6,000 years old.  It’s not. 

We shouldn’t see all beliefs as equally plausible.  That’s absurd.

Comment #26633

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 25, 2005 10:57 AM (e) (s)

Lurker

It is my view that getting atheists to speak for Christians about Christian issues on national TV does not cut it.  Equally bad is having no one speak about the religious elements.

The ideal spokesperson would be a sorta cute blonde Christian homemaker, mother of two, with a soft Southern accent who is articulate and brutally honest about the fact that the ID peddlers and their ilk are full of crapola.

On the other hand, did anyone else notice in the Sunday New York Times that a certain beloved artist referred to Catholic school as a “not-too-subtle form of brainwashing”??

Just who was this brave individual, who dared to make the sort of statement that ID peddlers love to quote when their fiduciary relationship to ultra-extremists is pointed out?

Answer:  The Boss.

So we’ve got that going for us.

Comment #26634

Posted by Longhorm on April 25, 2005 11:09 AM (e) (s)

I posted:

The following sentence is actually kind of interesting: “Reverend Fox expressed another Christian position, which is called special creation, which is, God created everything all at one time in its present form.”  It suggests an important point, namely that what Fox believe occurred didn’t occur.  And it should not be taught in the public schools.  I would have made the point differently.  I might have said something like  the following: “Mr. Fox seems to be suggesting that everything in the universe was basically created all at once.  That didn’t happen.  Scientists estimate the age of the known universe to be about 14 billion years.  Planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  The first things on earth that we would associate with cells were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago.  Modern humans evolved about 150,000 years ago.”

I want to elaborate on this.  I pointed out that that sentence by Eugenie Scott is kind of interesting.  And maybe it is.  But she shouldn’t have brought it up.  Here is the kind of thing she should have said instead: “We should teach evolution in the public schools.  It is overwhelmingly well-supported, incredibly interesting and hugely important.”  I’ve tried to show why the latter approach is better. 

On a different note, on the website idthefuture.com, Bill Dembski includes the following:

The myth that anti-ID proponents are religiously neutral is one that the anti-ID proponents like to play up. And yet they are as eager as any side in this debate to use religion to their advantage.

And:

What follows is a story from Science on the controversy in Kansas over the teaching of evolution. Notice how the story is framed in terms of “Science” versus “Intelligent Design.” One thing it might interest you to know is that the meeting in question took place at a church (it was held at the Plymouth Congregational Church — Diane Carroll writes about it here in the Kansas City Star). I’m presently an expert witness in an ID case where one of the charges made by the opposing expert witnesses is that ID is religion-based because its proponents have been seen to speak about ID in churches. The other side is just as happy to press their cause in churches. By the way, check out the staff directory of the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE): http://www.ncseweb.org/ourstaff.asp…. The first photo you’ll see is of Josephine Bergson in a white clerical collar. In the caption we are told that “audiences appreciate her ability to demonstrate the compatibility of neo-Darwinism and Christianity.” The point to appreciate is that this debate is anything but religion-neutral for the other side.

I’m not sure how Dembski is using the term “religion.”  But given how I think he is using the term, he is right that many proponents of evolution talk a lot about the relationship between evolution and religion.  Most biologists don’t.  But a lot of others do so.  And the leadership at the National Center for Science Education seems to bring up the issue a lot.  They don’t have to.  They shouldn’t do so.  Talk about evolution.  At least lead with evolution.  And if someone brings up the issue of “the compatibility of evolution and religion,” I’ve outlined some ways of dealing with the situation.  For instance, it is often good to indicate that what we understand about the universe and organisms is logically consistent with some beliefs and not others.  For instance, the universe is not about 6,000 years old.  And a deity did not turn dust — poof! — directly into the first two elephants (one male and one female). 

The word “religious” has a vague meaning for many people.  But given given how I think Dembski is using the word, many people who realize that evolution occurred are religious, and many are not religious.  But that is not important in terms of whether I am justified in believing that evolution occurred.  I am justified in believing that it occurred.

Comment #26663

Posted by Shenda on April 25, 2005 01:33 PM (e) (s)

Mike Walker wrote:

“Oh, and how about a couple of visual aids to help put the point across how overwhelming the support for evolution is in the scientific community?”

I’ve always though it would be interesting to compare a copy of the single peer reviewed paper in support of ID and then compare it to a printed list of the titles of all the scientific peer reviewed papers of the last 15 years that have the words evolution or evolved in their titles or abstracts.

Comment #26674

Posted by Keanus on April 25, 2005 03:16 PM (e) (s)

Evolution vs. religion is a false dichotomy but one that is flogged for all its worth by most promoters of ID because it captures ears and plays to the martyr complex so prevalent among fundamentalists. Fundamentalists love to believe they are persecuted by a vast, nefarious and evil conspiracy of “evilutionists.” For that reason alone the issue of evolution and ID should always be first addressed as a question of science alone, leaving religion entirely out of the debate. If the “debate” in question is like Scott’s on Hardball, where there is an outside moderator, religion will be brought into the debate by that moderator—always—there is no need for Scott, or anyone else in similar shoes to introduce it. If brought in like Matthews did, with a question addressing Scott’s religious views, the answer should be that biologists are as diverse in their religious views as the American population and that any one’s particular religious views, such as Scott’s, are irrelevant. The validity of evolution is about cold, hard data. The invalidity of ID is about its total lack of cold, hard data.

That said, there are political implications arising from evolution, primarily because certain fundamentalists see it as conflicting with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Debating that is meaningless. The fellows at the DI, of course, don’t want to debate that since they maintain ID is science and not religion, but out in the real world, the religion side of the debate is very, very real and accounts for 99% of the public unease and opposition to evolution. And it’s the facet they want to discuss. So it must be addressed, but only after the point about ID’s lack of scientific creditials is made.

Comment #26708

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 25, 2005 06:22 PM (e) (s)

I think you make my argument for me.  That some religions do not find issues with evolution is besides the point.  The point is that those fundamentalist Christian ayatollah-wanna-be’s are in fact religious elements subverting good science.

With respect, that is NOT the point.  The fundies don’t give a rat’s behind about science, and they don’t really care about “subverting science”.  What they want is a theocracy, and ID is simply the “wedge” they have chosen to begin the process of “renewing our culture”.

That is why scientists and sciecne education will never have much impact on the fundie agenda.  Fundamentally (pardon the pun), it’s simply not about science.

Comment #27190

Posted by Lurker on April 29, 2005 05:50 AM (e) (s)

More recent news making my points above:
“Scott, who is perhaps the nation’s most high-profile Darwinist, is frustrated by the scientific community’s inability to grapple with the issue. “The point here is that Americans don’t want to be told that God had nothing to do with it,” she says. “And that’s the way the intelligent-design people present evolution.” Scientists need to do a better job of explaining that science makes no attempt to describe the supernatural and so has no inherent conflict with religion, she argues. “College professors need to be very aware of how they talk about things such as purpose, chance, cause and design,” she says. “You should still be sensitive to the kids in your class.”
What do you say, Wesley?  Kindly drop the brush, Nature magazine?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062…

Perception is key in politics.  And if you guys can’t even take the heat from fellow evolution supporters, then I am afraid things are looking dismal indeed.  Once again the DI knows this strategy very well.  Consider the following trend amongst all of their recent “debates.”

Dembski — Lee Silver
Meyer — Provine
Dembski — Niall Shanks
Wells — Pigliucci
Meyer — Shermer
Rev. Fox — Scott

See the pattern people?  And this all happened in the last couple of months or so.  So, what’s the reality here?  Am I just painting a dreary picture that proponents of evolution should dismiss, or am I reporting something that the evolution proponents should be aware of?  What do the professionals say?

Comment #27191

Posted by Lurker on April 29, 2005 05:58 AM (e) (s)

Rev Dr. Lenny Flank,

You continue to make my points.  I completely agree it is not about the science.  I completely agree it is about fundamentalist Christians.  And my conclusion is that this is a religious problem.  I am not saying it is a religious problem for all.  I am saying it is a religious problem for a particular sect of Christianity.  But sticking together on all controversial messages has been the hardest part about Christiantiy, hasn’t it? 

In any case, let me be blunt.  Intelligent Design is not an atheist/materialist problem.  It is a theistic problem (and as Rev Dr. Lenny Flank points out, it is particularly a Christian problem).  But the smartest move is to make it into an atheist/materialist problem.  Once again, if this perception is not there, then there would not be an issue with my portrayal.  But I suspect that there is some truth to these observations.

My view follows then, that we shouldn’t be asking atheists to shoulder the burden of explaining the intricacies of Christian theology to Christian audiences.  Ever.  This includes making tame and ineffective observations about what Christians do or do not want to hear.  It is a Christian problem.  Get your house in order, folks.

Comment #27195

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 29, 2005 07:24 AM (e) (s)

But the smartest move is to make it into an atheist/materialist problem.

Umm, over 90 percent of the people in the US are non-atheists and don’t particularly LIKE atheists.

So how does it help us to immediately alienate 90% of the people we need to help us win a political fight?

The vast majority of Christians, in addition, think creationists/IDers are just as nutty as everyone else does —— the majority of Chrisitans accept evolution as well as all the rest of modern science, and see no conflict at all between science and religion.  One such Christian is Barry Lynn, the director of People for the American Way.

How do you think it helps us to attack the religion of these allies and help drive them away?

Do you think we should ask only atheists to join the anti-ID movement?  Do you think non-atheists such as Barry Lynn (and me) should just go away and not help fight the IDers?

With all due respect, it sounds to me as if you are every bit as much a martyr-wanna-be for your beliefs as are the IDers.  <shrug>

Comment #27196

Posted by Lurker on April 29, 2005 07:37 AM (e) (s)

Rev Dr Lenny Flank,

I apologize for not being clear in my post to you.

If you are right that 90% of the American population do not like atheists, then the smartest thing for ID and Creationism advocates to do is to portray evolution proponents as hardcore atheists.  The trend of recent DI debates I cite support this theory.  That the media considers Eugenie of the highest-profile “Darwinist” supports this theory.

I am not attacking religion.  I am saying that Christians need to be more active than atheists in the perception of the public.  I am saying that there should be more people like you.  Lots more. 

If most Christians indeed think creationists/IDers “nutty”, I don’t understand why the media isn’t saturated with them decrying their politics and, more importantly, their misshapen religious doctrine when it comes to teaching evolution.  They are out there decrying just about everything else th