Leading Young-Earth Creationist to Lecture at Elmhurst College

Readers in the Chicagoland region may be interested in the following announcement from Dr. A. Andrew Das, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Elmhurst College:

Please consider our invitation to attend an event on Sunday, March 2^nd at 7:00 pm that is open to the public. Dr. Kurt Wise, arguably the world’s leading young-age creationist paleontologist, will deliver a lecture in the Hammerschmidt Chapel of Elmhurst College . Dr. Wise received his Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University. His doctoral supervisor was the late, renowned evolutionary theorist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould. Dr. Wise is currently a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. His book, Faith, Form, and Time (Broadman and Holman, 2002) will be available for purchase and signing after the event. Dr. Wise’s presentation will be followed by responses from a panel. Dr. Alan Gishlick (Ph.D., Yale) is a professor of paleontology at Gustavus Adolphus College and represents the National Center for Science Education. Professor Mladen Turk of Elmhurst College specializes in the interface between science and religion. Dr. Wise will offer a rejoinder to the panel presentations and then take written questions from the audience.

If you have questions about the event, contact Dr. Das at (630) 617-3541 or adas@elmhurst.edu.

Technorati Tags: Kurt Wise creationism young earth creationism Darwinism evolution origins cosmology science apologetics Bible

Surprise!

Atheist author of The End of Faith, Sam Harris, reviews Francis Collins' (director of the Human Genome Project) new book, The Language of God, calling it The Language of Ignorance.

More about Collins in the LA Times: "Faithful to God, Science"

Kudos to Salvo!

Thanks to friends at the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (Thanks, Joe and Danielle!), I finally secured a copy of the premier issue of Salvo Magazine, a quarterly publication of The Crux Project. I first heard about it from Melinda Penner, whose description made me think it was the kind of magazine I'd enjoy. I'm not disappointed in the least. To say that I'm impressed by the quality of this magazine's layout and content is an understatement.

The publishers describe the magazine's mission as:

Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death.

Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle.

Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness.

Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence.

Recovering the one worldview that actually works.

The people who put this magazine together not only utilize artistic flair and intellectual sharpness but also hilarious satire. Part of the fun of reading this issue has been finding the mock ads strewn throughout. One of them (for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects) made me laugh out loud when I read it while waiting at the barber shop. "STOP THE INSECTICIDE!" reads the caption beneath a magnified picture of an ant. "One million ants are slaughtered every month by careless missteps, cruel young children with magnifying glasses, and newspapers wielded in ignorance and fear. Feeling bugged? To learn what you can do to help stop the insecticide, or to sponsor an orphaned pupae, call...." (It's like The Wittenberg Door meets Philosophia Christi on a popular level.)


In a letter to readers, founder and editorial director, Richard Moselle says something I've believed for some time. The culture war being waged in America cannot be reduced to conflicting political visions. It is the clash of diametrically opposed philosophies of life or worldviews, out of which particular political stances emerge. Here's how Moselle puts it:

About eight years ago, I came to realize that it was these two worldviews-as opposed to, say, political differences-that have led to our current cultural divide. Not that I wasn't previously cognizant of conflicts over "traditional morality" and the like; rather, I saw for the first time that such conflicts ultimately arise from two distinct ways of looking at reality: one predicated on belief in transcendent truth and the other committed to the notion that such truth is a myth.

Unfortunately, there aren't many media outlets for the discussion of the subjects that matter most. Philosophical and theological discourse don't make scintillating programming. Neither can they be easily condensed into talking points and/or sound bites.

Regrettably, it sometimes seems that Christians share this general impatience with and disinterest in such subjects, often preferring political activity over reflecting deeply on the underlying worldview issues. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether American evangelicalism's attitude might properly be summed up by the phrase, "You can tinker all you want with my theology and doctrine but don't go messin' with my politics!" That thought came to mind as I read the recent New York Times article about Greg Boyd's disowning of conservative politics. My reaction was similar to Russell Moore's at Mere Comments:

Evangelicalism has taken on a political identity while shedding a theological one. A thousand people left Boyd's church. They held a "conservative" stance on issues such as the church's role in society. And yet, for years, Boyd has taught that God does not know the future free actions of people. He has preached that the universe is a democracy rather than a monarchy, and that God's purposes are thwarted by human and angelic decisions he didn't anticipate and he can't overturn. He has articulated an egalitarian view of men and women fully in line with the feminist movement and fully out of step with the biblical canon. Where were the thousand "conservatives" then?

But, I digress. Back to Salvo. I showed my copy to our youth pastor a few minutes ago and he agreed that the format and content would be inviting to high school students who might not otherwise engage these topics. From what I've seen of the first issue, I've decided to get a personal subscription and urge our church's library to subscribe as well. I assure you, I have no affiliation with the magazine nor am I on commission to boost sales. I'm just excited about a new resource that has the potential to promote critical reflection about the ultimate issues of life on the part of both Christians and non-Christians. I encourage you to check it out for yourself.

Audios from Alister McGrath and Other Christian Thinkers Across the Pond

Last month Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, gave St. Paul's Theological Centre's inaugural annual lecture: "Has Science Killed God? Richard Dawkins and the Meaning of Life." Listen here.

Another version of the lecture is available from the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion (HT: New Humanist) whose lecture archive is well worth checking out.

Good Questions in the Aftermath of Dover

In the National Review Online, David Klinghoffer asks some very good questions in response to yesterday's Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling; questions like:

"If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support." 


and


"Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?"

Klinghoffer notes that one of the expert witnesses whose testimony Judge Jones found persuasive is on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association as well as a member of the Atheist Alliance International. In addition, Klinghoffer includes some very telling quotes from proponents of Darwinism revealing what can only be called an antipathy for religion, especially Christianity. Here's a sample:

There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."

Apparently, one's motivation for advancing a position is only relevant when it opposes Darwinian dogma.
 
The day before yesterday, I read a lecture given by Michael Goheen called "The Power of the Gospel and the Renewal of Scholarship" (HT: Prosthesis). The following excerpt is timely in light of the Pennsylvania court's decision.

[The] belief in a secular or pluralist society is an illusion however. The claim to religious neutrality is a myth, and a dangerous one at that, because it masks its own ultimate commitments. In fact, all human societies embody all-encompassing truth claims about the world that are based on ultimate commitments. These faith commitments are often below the level of conscious understanding yet they shape and form the whole of our social life. Western culture is not a secular society but a society that since the time of the Enlightenment has been shaped and formed by a deep religious faith in progress, human autonomy, scientific reason, technology,and social planning. While these idols are under attack these days, and a multitude of new spirits are rushing to fill the vacuum of the central core of culture that is being swept clean, the fact remains the same: Ultimate commitments lie at the foundation of our shared social life and shape every part of it. . . .all human societies including secular or pluralist societies are shaped in their entirety by a shared understanding of the universe and humanity’s place in it.

That being so, the question is not whether religion will be permitted in the classroom but which religion will gain admission.

Einstein on God and Ethics

Last week American Public Media's weekly radio program Speaking of Faith began a two part series called Einstein and the Mind of God. "Part one...takes Einstein's science as a starting point for exploring the great physicist's perspective on ideas such as mystery, eternity, and the mind of God. Part two[to be aired Dec 15]...delves into Einstein's Jewish identity, his passionate engagement around issues of war and race, and modern extensions of his ethical and scientific perspectives." Visit the site to listen to part one and preview part two.


I'm grateful to the member of our congregation who informed me of this weekly program and I look forward to listening to future shows. If you're in the U.S., check the station guide to find out where and when you can listen too.

Mechanics, Scientists, and Intelligent Design

Today's New York Times has an interesting article in the Science section about the recent Kansas Board of Education decision to define science in such a way that it is not limited to naturalistic explanations. Prior to this the state's standards defined science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" and restricted science to "explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause" because "science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes." The new definition calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." 

According to the Times, the old definition reflects the traditional view of science that the political right now wants to change. However, David Wells's research of other states' educational standards (HT: Jason Engwer) reveals that Kansas was the only state to define science primarily as "seeking natural explanations." Wells says:

The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result. This shift is out of step with modern science education, which gives priority to the activity of formulating and testing hypotheses."

As expected, the article contains a number of alarmist quotes from scientists desirous of defending the philosophical precommitment to naturalistic philosophy. A physics professor at the University of Kansas says, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations" and a Harvard professor of history of science says that the deletion of "natural explanations" means that now, "anything goes."

One comment that struck me as particularly interesting was that offered by Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas. In support of understanding science as being confined to the search for natural explanations, Weinberg states that a scientist's seeking natural explanations is analogous to a mechanic who searches for mechanical reasons for a car's malfunctioning. I don't think this is a good analogy at all. First of all, an auto mechanic searches for mechanical problems because he or she knows how automobiles were created (or more appropriate for this discussion - "designed"). A mechanic is justified in restricting his search for answers to why a car isn't working to mechanical explanations because he knows that cars were built by other humans using mechanical principles. But in the case of the debate over the legitimacy of intelligent design theory, the question of origins is exactly what is at issue. Scientists are not justified in restricting themselves to natural explanations unless they, like the mechanic, know how the objects of their study were produced.

Order! Order!: Conversing with an Atheistic Evolutionist

KP: Would you say that all knowledge is founded on faith?
 
Nihil: No. I would say that all knowledge is to some extent uncertain, although in some cases that uncertainty is so small as to be negligible.

KP: But isn't all knowledge founded upon certain basic beliefs that are incapable of being scientifically verified?

Nihil: Depends on what you mean by verified, and your criteria for accepting something as "verified." Almost any statement you can make about the world is based on some presupposition. Even the idea of making a statement assumes that it is somehow meaningful and useful to do so.


KP: OK, let's take your means of verification. Can the foundations of science be verified empirically?

Nihil: Prediction, when it is possible, says something about the underlying foundations of the scientific method. It does not verify them absolutely, but it certainly suggests that science is, in some cases, on to a "real" phenomenon.


KP: What of the principle of induction, however. Can you offer a rational justification for it? Or what of the laws of logic - are they empirically verifiable?

Nihil: The rational justification is in the results we get by applying the method. Logic...yes, it can be empirically verified in some aspects. We can search for cases of observable phenomenon that do not follow ordinary logic whether we find them or not is a different question. 

KP: That the principle of induction works is not the same thing as offering an explanation for why it does, is it?

Nihil: Ah! I see. You want to know why? That's another question. Demonstrating that something works does not tell you much, by itself, about WHY it works. 

KP: So science believes that induction will work in the future because it has done so in the past. But this is simply to assume the principle.

Nihil: It is reasonable to expect that what has worked well, consistently and specifically in the past will continue to do so, unless something obvious has changed. Of course, we cannot prove that what "worked" in the past will do so in the future. That would be a logical fallacy of some sort.

KP: But why is it reasonable to expect that what has worked well, consistently and specifically in the past will continue to do so? 

Nihil: Because most of the time that is exactly what happens. The best guess about the future is that it will have a high degree of consistency with the observable present and known past. Why would we expect something that has worked consistently and specifically to suddenly fail?

KP: You really haven't answered my question by saying that most of the time that is what happens. All you've done is again assume the inductive principle. I'm asking for a rationale for believing in it. 

Nihil: The reason to believe it is because it gets results, it yields specific and consistent knowledge. The result is what matters. To me, a method which is capable of explaining observed events, in some cases well enough to make absolutely accurate predictions, is as proven as proven gets. The principle of induction may or may not apply, or may apply to some things and not others, I guess...but it produces the results we need. By using it, we generate valid knowledge. That's the rationale, more or less....

KP: And why do you think it yields results? Why does it work so well?

Nihil: I think it works as well as it does because it is somehow in accord with the actual material world...scientific methods provide a way for our brains to study the world systematically....maybe it "translates" between the external world and our internal world of thoughts, feelings, etc. I think it works because it's really onto something about the natural world.

KP: And why do you think the natural world is like that?

Nihil: I have no idea, and I cannot imagine what the "why" question means in this context. Actually, I do not think there is a "why."

KP: What don't you understand about the question?

Nihil: I cannot see how the question "why is the natural world the way it is" has any meaningful referent....I don't really understand what it is asking. My guess is that it's somehow based on the idea that here is purpose and intent in the natural world, or on an analogy between daily human experience and the larger natural world.

KP: Doesn't science concern itself with offering explanations for what is observed in the natural world?

Nihil: Yes, it does. 

KP: So is it outlandish to ask why it is that the natural world operates in a seemingly orderly fashion?

Nihil: No, it's not outlandish at all - and physicists can give you an explanation, of sorts, but I suspect that it would not answer the question to your satisfaction. The explanation will generate another "why" question. Why this explanation of order and not another? And why is there any order at all?

KP: I know there are physicists who would offer an explanation but I was really interested in your particular thoughts.

Nihil: It's actually pretty complicated, of course, because there are two questions at work. First, why is there order (assuming there is, which is a fairly safe assumption) and second, why do we perceive order. (It is at least arguable that order is something created or synthesized by the brain and "mind." I don't take that view myself, but the idea that perceived "reality" is a transaction between the nervous system and some essentially unknowable "external" reality is worth considering.)

KP: And then the question of why there is order in the brain could be asked. But what position DO you take?

Nihil: As to why there is order...I will have to give that some thought. I still don't think that the question is quite right. I'm not sure what a meaningful answer would be. There's order in the brain because the brain evolved to process information and it evolved to process information because information processing had survival value.

KP: I wonder why that question is so bothersome to you.

Nihil: Which one...why is there order, or why is there order in the brain? "Why is there order in the brain?" can in principle be answered, I think. Why is there order anywhere in nature? That's a different kind of question. The physicists answer it, and yet they do not because one can always say that they have explained how order works without explaining why it works that way. 

KP: I meant the question of order in the natural world. Inquisitiveness has survival value as well yet there are some questions that you think are not worth asking.

Nihil: Not all questions are meaningful. Not all questions can have meaningful answers. Because it is possible to think of a question does not mean there is any answer.

KP: Can you give me an example of such a question?

Nihil: Inquisitiveness has survival value, but that does not mean it will be efficient.

KP: Can you give me an example of a question for which there may not be an answer?

Nihil: "Why is the world the way it is?" might be a good example. "What is god?" might be another. "How should we live?" might be yet another, though as much out of too many answers as too few.

KP: You say "might." Are you uncertain?

Nihil: Of course. How can anyone possibly rule a question out as "absolutely meaningless"? Besides...meaningful to whom? And in what context? And it is possible that a "meaningful" answer could come along at some later point?

KP: So when you said that not all questions are meaningful, you were speaking only in terms of yourself?

Nihil: No, not only myself. I think some questions are in fact not meaningful at all. I cannot prove that contention, either in logic or by empirical investigation. It is probably true. Probably. 

KP: And what is the basis for your belief that that is probable?

Nihil: I have to sign off for the night. See you tomorrow, I hope?

KP: Sure, I should be on at some point. Good night.

Nihil: See you then. Good night.

Methodological Materialism & The Slippery Slope

Here are some excerpts from yet another post by Jonathan Witt:

The third morning of Kitzmiller vs. Dover found philosopher of science Robert Pennock testifying for the plaintiffs that science is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena--a limitation known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).

Pennock presented this as the definition of science, and said proponents of intelligent design are “trying to overturn" it, but later he conceded that there was a controversy among philosophers of science concerning whether methodological naturalism was essential to the definition of science.

Interestingly, Miller and Pennock each invoked a counterfactual in their defense of methodological materialism, so in the interest of aesthetic balance, let’s consider their argument. They said an omnipotent designer could have made the universe a few minutes ago and given us all false memories to make us think it was old. Thus, someone could entertain any sort of design scenario for anything and everything. But where would science be if everybody thought that way. The solution they offered? Methodological naturalism.

But this is the slippery slope fallacy: If we let a designing foot in the door, then before you know it our brains will turn to jelly and we’ll be invoking design at the least drop of a hat.

The best cure for one form of irrationality isn’t to flee into the opposite irrationality. The founders of modern science--e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Newton--were open to evidence of design, and clearly their brains didn’t turn to jelly. Between the unreasonable extremes of hyper-skeptical illusionism on the one hand and unbending methodological materialism on the other lies the path of reason. One can remain open to the possibility of design and go right on being rational and measured, go right on looking hard for new and more elegant regularities in nature that were previously a mystery. In some cases, the researcher will do both at one and the same time, as when astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards elucidated a cosmic correlation between habitability and discoverability, and from this inferred intelligent design.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

For an even more recent example of the slippery slope at work, check out this post by CelticBear, who accuses proponents of I.D. of "attacking natural sciences" and adds:

We already have a battle of pseudo-science in the public arena with crystals and ESP and UFO’s and Ouija boards and Tarot cards and astrology and other crap. Any of these things which base themselves on non-naturalistic concepts prove to advance science at all? Oh, how’s that Christian Science based belief of prayer is all you need working out? Save a lot of kids with leukemia has it? How’d you like to fly in a plane designed by someone who based his knowledge of aerodynamics on prayer? Or used Biblical knowledge to create an antibiotic? Or trusted in God to give him the knowledge to understand the effects of gravity, solar flares, cosmic radiation, and space vacuums when designing that spacecraft? If all knowledge should be revealed by God as it has been from 4000 BC, then there’s no reason to explore space at all in any case. Nothing out there that can’t be known through prayer and reading the Bible.

Intelligent Design Follow-Up

My post on Good Morning America's coverage of the Dover, PA intelligent design case prompted the following comments (in italics) which I decided to respond to here. Time will not allow me to get into a protracted debate so this may be my last word on the subject. I appreciate all who take the time to read and respond but I can't reply to each comment so please don't feel bad if your comment doesn't become a blog post. 


I wonder, if "biology" is the natural science of biological entities, where does a non-natural alternative fit in? Perhaps in church, or the home, but not in a science class. Call it arbitrary if you like, but limiting the definition of what is "scientific" to "natural explanations" has been what has helped us create medicine and antibiotics, treat cancer, create airplanes, safer cars, disease resistant food, flame retardant clothing, etc ad nauseum.

When we call biology a natural science we mean that the object of study is the natural world. However, one can engage in fruitful study of the natural world without subscribing to a naturalistic philosophy. To suggest, as you do, that materialistic presuppositions are necessary for technological and medical advancements is mistaken. Skeptics frequently charge that theistic belief would somehow bring all scientific exploration to a screeching halt because "God did it" would be offered as the answer for every imaginable problem but the history of science does not support this accusation. 

Far from being an impediment to research, the conviction that the natural world was the work of a transcendent intelligence, and therefore rational and orderly, motivated many of the founders of modern science to investigate nature. Copernicus, for example, who is frequently presented as the poster boy for faith's hostility toward science, went in search of better cosmology motivated by the belief that the universe was "wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator." This, along with countless other examples of how the doctrine of creation spurred, rather than stifled, exploration of the natural world, can be found in The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton. I also recommend J. P. Moreland's Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation , Del Ratzch's Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective, and Stanley Jaki's The Savior of Science.

One of the hallmarks of science is that a theory must be disproveable. It must be ABLE to be disproved. ID can not, because it would require trying to prove a negative.That is why while many scientists, believe it or not, are faithful and religious, as a scientist they understand the difference between naturalistic evidence and hypothesis and supernatural, and which belongs in the realm of "science" and which belongs in the realm of faith and religion.

I'm curious. How would one go about disproving Darwinism? What evidence would sufficiently demonstrate its being false? For that matter, how would one go about falsifying the claim that the complexity and diversity of organisms is due to completely naturalistic causes? And if that claim is not falsifiable then are we to conclude that it is not scientific?

As to the assertion that ID cannot be falsified, it would appear that one of the expert witnesses testifying on behalf of the ACLU in Dover, disagrees with you. Earlier this week Jonathan Witt at Evolution News & Views reported that leading Darwinist Kenneth Miller (one of those "religious evolutionists") testified both that ID is non-falsifiable AND that it has been falsified:

In friendly questioning from the plaintiff, Miller asserted that the theory of intelligent design was not a testable theory in any sense and so wasn't science. Later, however, Miller argued that science has tested Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum argument and falsified it, by pointing to a micro-syringe called the Type III Secretory System, and arguing that it could have served as a functional step on the gradual, Darwinian pathway to the full flagellar motor.

Did the journalists covering the trial notice the contradiction? Miller tried to provide a fig leaf for it, but the fig leaf was itself a misrepresentation. Miller said Behe's argument was in every respect a negative argument (and, further, that ALL the leading design theorists' arguments he was aware of are purely negative, with nothing positive anywhere). Miller conceded that Behe's irreducible complexity argument was testable, but said Behe's inference to design doesn't follow from irreducible complexity because Behe was committing the either/or fallacy--If not A (Darwinism), then it must be B (design). Miller said there were, in principle, an infinite number of other possible explanations, so jumping from a refutation of Darwinism to design was illegitimate.

Witt goes on to demonstrate the positive argument for ID and concludes his worthwhile post with the following paragraph:

Miller has conceded that Behe's irreducible complexity argument is testable. And we see that Miller's assertion that scientists have tested and falsified Behe's argument is itself false. Finally, we see that Behe and other design theorists like Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer have offered positive evidence for the design of the flagellum based on standard uniformitarian reasoning, reasoning well established in science. Darwinists like Miller quarrel with these claims and arguments. Behe, Minnich, Meyer and other design scientists respond. It's called a scientific controversy, something Darwinists claim doesn't exist. Now that's what I call faith-based.

(By the way, for those interested in keeping track of the Dover case, Evolution News & Views will be offering select trial transcripts in addition to their analysis of the proceedings.)

I don't think there's any debate whether ID can be presented, even in schools, in the realm of sociology and certainly in homes and churches, but since it holds no qualities of scientific principle, it does not belong in the science classroom. "Science" is just a word that humans have created, as are ALL words, to define a concept. The word "science" is used to define the realm of study of the natural world, and as a believer in God myself, I understand that since God can not be proven or disproven, matters of God do not belong in the realm of science as are ALL non-naturalist studies.Now if ID'ers who adamantly suggest that ID is not Creationism in disguise because it doe not specifically state "God" but just "unknown intelligence," want to agree to focus on that intelligence being extraterrestrials as their definition of ID includes, then it may be of a scientific nature. What do you think?

I think I've said enough already. Thanks for writing.

UPDATE: Thanks to Melinda Penner I just found out about this article about the history of intelligent design theory also by Jonathan Witt.

Homosexual Flies?

The New York Times reports that researchers have identified a master sexual gene in fruit flies. Males artificially given the female variation of the gene exhibit female sexual behavior directed toward other males. Likewise, females given the male version of the gene attempt to mate with other females. According to the study's lead author: "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior."
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University expressed optimism that "this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
I find it interesting that Dr. Weiss is only hopeful that human sexual orientation might be accounted for biologically. If the findings of the fly study were applied consistently, sexual behavior of all kinds could be accounted for in terms of genetic determinism in which case it would be inappropriate (might we say "wrong?") to offer any moral evaluation whatsoever.

All The News That's Fit to Survive

Today's New York Times is a virtual cornucopia of Darwinian entertainment:

An editorial not so cleverly refers to the intelligent design movement as "The Evolution of Creationism."

Harvard professor of cognitive science Steven Pinker speculates as to the evolutionary explanation for both homosexuality and opposition to it in his op-ed contribution. Here's an excerpt:

Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionary maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.
Just as puzzling is the existence of homophobia. Why didn't evolution shape straight men to react to their gay fellows by thinking: "Great! More women for me!" Probably the answer lies in a cross-wiring between our senses of morality and disgust. People often confuse their own revulsion with objective sinfulness, as when they dehumanize people living in squalor or, in the other direction, engage in religious rituals of cleanliness and purification. An impulse to avoid homosexual contact may blur into an impulse to condemn homosexuality.

Finally, the Science section features a new book by philosopher of science and biology professor Elisabeth Lloyd in which she rejects 20 leading theories concerning the evolutionary function of a certain aspect of female sexuality.

I Believe in Matter Almighty

World Magazine's Marvin Olasky interviews Alvin J. Schmidt, author of How Christianity Changed the World (originally published as Under the Influence). Responding to the question of how Christians can counter the widely held belief that Christianity and science are incompatible Schmidt says:

Alfred North Whitehead (a non-Christian philosopher of science) said that without Christianity's "insistence on the rationality of God" there would be no science. The first experimental scientists, beginning with the 13th century, were all confessing Christians (Roger Bacon, Occam, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Boyle, Simpson, Pasteur, etc.). They related their scientific findings to biblical theology. Not until the 18th century, when many scientists bowed to philosophical materialism, were Christianity and science defined as incompatible.

If Christians don't understand how to identify and refute the materialistic faith that underlies much of what goes by the name of science, we'll be running down a myriad of rabbit trails, arguing over particulars while overlooking core worldview considerations. As Phillip Johnson observes in The Right Question: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate: "Christians often think the controversy is primarily a dispute about scientific facts, and so they become trapped into arguing scientific details rather than concentrating on the fundamental assumptions that generate the evolutionary story."

Surprisingly, many adherents to the materialistic faith are ignorant of their faith commitments. They claim to be just following the facts wherever they lead, unencumbered by philosophical precommitments. This is why Cornelius Van Til insisted that one of the primary tasks of apologetics is to make unbelievers "epistemologically self-conscious," that is, aware of their own presuppositions about the nature and extent of knowledge.

The following online exchange with a self-professed "scientific materialist" (SM) illustrates the "faith" of a materialist at work:

KP: I've been thinking...although you say that you and other scientific materialists would willingly alter your position given enough counter evidence or the inability (in principle) of naturalism to account for observed phenomenon, haven't you really posed the issue in such a manner that it is practically unfalsifiable? I mean, at times you appeal to what you believe is evidence in favor of your position but when faced with information that appears to counter it, you can always retreat to the claim that a naturalistic, though currently unknown, explanation exists.
SM: I don't think so. Science has undergone some remarkable changes in thinking...from the Newtonian universe to the Einsteinian, for example...Paradigms change in response to an accumulation of evidence that cannot be explained under the present system, and which points to phenomenon outside the present knowledge.
KP: But again, I'm speaking specifically of the naturalistic presupposition. I still maintain that that is the most strongly held belief of contemporary science. I'm not denying that there are in the field of science.
SM: Because there's nothing that has yet been unexplainable. I am not going to give up a system that works very well all over the place lightly or happily and certainly not unless there is positive evidence that falsifies it, or at least that points clearly to things beyond the paradigm. I think most scientists do indeed make naturalistic assumptions although the trend towards theories of information, complexity, and so forth makes the assumptions of today much less mechanistic and much less reductionist then has been the case in the past.
KP: You sometimes speak as though science and Christianity are incompatible. Why is that? I fail to see what it is about the Christian worldview that would make the scientific enterprise impossible. Science would "work" just as well under a Christian theistic framework.
SM: That's true. And that's why many scientists are able to maintain religious beliefs, often strongly held and sincere, from what I can see. The scientific method can be applied at work, without falsifying one's commitment to Christianity.
KP: Then it's kind of misleading to speak as though science only works well or even best with naturalistic assumptions.
SM: Ah...but one must make the assumptions of science in one's work, otherwise, one is doing something other then science. But science does not entail a set of ultimate commitments. Certainly, it does not need to. Anyone who can apply the standards and methods of their particular field can practice science. And, if they wish to have religious beliefs beyond that, I see no problem there. If religious beliefs determine the science, well, that is a problem.
KP: And is it a problem if science makes religious/theological assertions? And what do you mean by "the assumptions of science"? Is naturalism a necessary assumption for the application of the scientific method?
SM: If you make supernatural assumptions about things, your work won't go very far in modern science. What a person believes in their private, personal life is irrelevant to their science so long as it conforms to the standards of their field. If it does not, then their work will need to be good enough to overthrow the dominant paradigms or they will not get far.
KP: No doubt about that. If one adheres to a supernatural worldview, he/she won't go far in modern science because of the naturalistic bias. Those who are vocal about their religious convictions are ostracized as pseudo-scientists. There is an "in-house" pressure to conform to scientific materialism but this says nothing about the truth of that position. You see, what you're saying? You're saying that religion is to be privatized but has no bearing on anything beyond the subjective experience of the one who holds to a particular faith.
SM: The difference between science and other fields of study is that science checks itself against an objective/physical reality which actually exists. The option to ignore someone because you do not like his views (i.e. if he is religiously inclined) is limited by the "reality check" function. If someone's science is good, it will win out...not necessarily at once, but it will win out in the end.
KP: I really don't understand you. You talk about this objective reality as though there is no interpretation involved on the part of those doing the observing. The naturalistic viewpoint is not the result of scientific inquiry unless of course one assumes it prior to making his observations. We're talking about the philosophical, non-empirically verified, assumptions that we bring to our experiences. Mind you, I'm not denying that there is an objective reality that exists apart from our minds. What I am saying is that this reality check you speak of seems to overlook the philosophical dimensions I'm speaking of.
SM: Science is not about ultimate commitments. It's a practical and opportunistic attempt to make descriptions and models of the world. I don't think practicing scientists worry much about the ultimate assumptions of science. The scientific method is really a method - a collection of methods, even and certainly not something to be seen as timeless truth.
KP: And again, your saying that science is different from all other disciplines in that it is referring to an objective reality is to again assume materialism, not conclude it. You assume that the ethicist is not dealing with an objective standard of ethics and that the theologian is not dealing with an objective reality because they are not dealing with physical entities.
That scientists may be unconscious about their ultimate commitments, is really "immaterial" (pun intended). The fact is that they have them and they make pronouncements about them that are received authoritatively. Sagan's comment that the cosmos is all that exists, all that ever existed, and all that will ever exist is not a scientific statement but a philosophical/religious one.
SM: That is definitely a philosophical comment on Sagan's part, perhaps an aesthetic observation even. Sagan was quite a romantic, and a bit of a dreamer. Many scientists are, in some sense. Physicists seem almost addicted to romanticizing their subject.
KP: Your original comment was not that science tests physical objects but rather that what distinguishes it from other studies is that it has an "objective reality" to check against. Do you see that you assume that objective reality = physical existence and physical existence alone? And that is not a scientific conclusion but an a priori.
SM: That's what distinguished it. Where is the physical or external reality against which ethics might check itself? Theology...metaphysics....I do think that the difference between such systems of knowing and scientific knowing is exactly that ability to check against a physical world which exists in and of itself. Whether there's a non-material "reality" somewhere is...well....it does not seem a useful postulate to me.
But we have already established that assumptions must be made before any investigation of any sort...certainly as true of theology, ethics, sociology, as it is of science. Perhaps...science simply concerns itself with things that can be checked against external physical reality?
KP: And are the assumptions of science themselves known scientifically?
SM: I would say that every time an airplane is able to take off the ground, the "materialist/naturalist" assumptions that went into designing that airplane are validated just a little bit more.
KP: And a theist could not have discovered and applied the laws of physics and aerodynamics without adopting a naturalistic worldview?
SM: I suspect a theist could have done so, but only up to a point. A theist, depending of the type of theistic beliefs we are talking about, would have no necessary reason to go beyond theistic assumptions about how nature works. As science has advanced, it has progressed towards greater and greater tendency to explain natural phenomenon in natural terms.
KP: Modern science was founded upon theistic presuppositions. Does that, according to your reasoning, validate theism?
SM: In fact, much of physics has been developed by theists, certainly classical physics. Modern science has been successful largely to the degree that it abandoned theistic assumption. Science was founded by theists but it was founded by people who looked to nature to validate their hypotheses.
KP: You're not making a very good case here. Of course a theist would have reason to explore the working of nature. That is exactly why modern science was born in the context of Christianity.
SM: Science has been successful largely because it abandoned theistic explanations and substituted explanations of natural phenomenon in natural terms.
KP: And what theistic assumptions are threats to the progress of science? One doesn't have to presume naturalism to look to nature to verify claims about nature. The theist isn't bound to deny the validity of empirically derived knowledge, is he?
SM: The power of scientific explanation has grown in almost direct proportion to the degree that the role of "god" as a practical explanation has declined.
KP: And is it conclusive that that growth is due to the abandonment of theism or could it not be the result of time? One doesn't want to commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
SM: Conclusive? It is a pretty strong historical phenomenon. History does not generally provide "conclusive" proof of anything, but that doesn't at all mean that we can't understand what's going on. All history risks post hoc fallacies.
KP: Well, I think you're committing it now. You're saying that science has advanced BECAUSE theism has largely been abandoned and I don't think you can substantiate that claim. If what you are saying is true, we would not have expected science to have been founded by and flourishing among Christian theists.
SM: Really? How does theism yield knowledge of nature? If it's possible to invoke god at some point as an explanation, then why investigate at all? It seems to me that the history of science is a long and difficult attempt to overcome such thinking as applied to nature.
KP: Why investigate? Reformed theologians see the investigation and harnessing of nature as a fulfillment to the divine command to subdue the earth. Also, the classical theistic scientists set out to investigate the natural world because they believed that it was the product of a rational mind and therefore had an order to it. They also believed that we are created in the image of this God and therefore could, as Kepler said, "Think God's thought's after Him". The idea that theism is somehow hostile to scientific inquiry is simply unsubstantiated.
SM: The association between declining use of theistic assumptions and rising explanatory power of scientific knowledge is clear. The matter of which is cause and which is effect, or whether there might be no association at all, is one of judgment, like most historical problems (at least those spanning such a long and complex period.) But is that not theism reflecting the influence of what are really non-theistic ways of seeing things? That's theism exhibiting some flexibility, which I certainly think is a good thing.
KP: You have consistently created a straw man of the theistic position and have sought to make Christian theism an enemy of real science. That's not so. Granted, there have been Christians who have been hostile to science but such a stance is in no way inherent within the Christian worldview. The Christian can only be said to be hostile to science unless one identifies science with naturalistic philosophy.
SM: If theism invokes supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon, I don't see how it can be accommodated in science.
KP: What non-theistic way of thought is that reflecting?
SM: Any viewpoint that is bound up in revealed wisdom and absolute truth, which theism certainly is, is going to be very hard to reconcile with scientific exploration. The view that hypotheses should be checked against the world, and that when they conflict with revealed wisdom, revealed wisdom loses. I can't see the value of making supernatural assumptions about the universe. Where do such assumptions lead us? What kind of knowledge comes from them? How is it to be validated? That's pretty much all I'm saying.
KP: But why? You have yet to show any substantive conflict. And, as I've pointed out, if what you say is true, then science would have never been born in the bosom of Christianity.
SM: I don't think I understand your point about the development of science from Christianity and I really don't think science was born in the bosom of Christianity at all. Seems to me that science came about despite massive and systematic resistance from orthodox Christian churches.
KP: This has been very stimulating and I appreciate your willingness to take this time with me. Right now, though, I have to go. I'd love to pick this up with you soon.
SM: OK...see you later. Have a good weekend, if i don't see you again.. : )