Christian Apologetics (SWBTS #PHILO 4373 – Fall 2009)
<> New as of 09.16.09!Dear Class, I want to share with you a few things: (1) For extra credit I’d like you to go to SMU on September 24th. On that day there are two back-to-back events at SMU celebrating Darwin — go to smu.edu/smunews/darwin/events.asp and scroll down to September 24th. I don’t want you going there merely as spectators but will indicate in class how you might actively participate and engage the Darwin-lovers you’ll find there.
* * * * *
Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution (SWBTS #PHILO 2483 – Fall 2009)
<> New as of 09.16.09!Dear Class, I want to share with you a few things: (1) For extra credit I’d like you to go to SMU on September 24th. On that day there are two back-to-back events at SMU celebrating Darwin — go to smu.edu/smunews/darwin/events.asp and scroll down to September 24th. I don’t want you going there merely as spectators but will indicate in class how you might actively participate and engage the Darwin-lovers you’ll find there.
You gotta wonder just what would happen if one of those abused students were to actually pay attention to the science, turn honest, and become a defender of science and Darwin. SWBTS students are not required to swear to honesty, however, so it’s unlikely they will turn (not at the tuitions they pay!).
SMU’s Year of Darwin programs feature the NOVA episode on the Pennsylvania trial on evolution and intelligent design. The NOVA piece will be screened, and discussions will include the Honorable John E. Jones, the federal judge who presided over the trial and has since been maligned unfairly by Dembski and other religionists who reject the views of science. Other lecturers include reporter Laurie Lebo and the team that produced the NOVA episode:
Sept. 24, 2009
Reception 10 a.m.
Lecture 10:30 a.m.
DeGolyer Library
The Friends of the SMU Libraries/Colophon and The Friends of KERA Invite the public to a special event in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species and the 200th birthday of its author, Charles Darwin. Featured speakers will be Paula Apsell, senior executive producer of NOVA, and Melanie Wallace, senior series producer of NOVA. Please RSVP to 214-768-3225 or cruppi@smu.edu, Complimentary Valet Parking.
Sept. 24, 2009
4-6 p.m.
O’Donnell Hall
Owen Art Center
Screening of “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial,” a NOVA documentary. Introduction by Paula Apsell, senior executive producer of NOVA, who received an honorary degree from SMU in 2008.
Sept. 24, 2009
Reception 6-7 p.m.
Panel 7-8:30 p.m.
Caruth Auditorium
Owen Art Center
A panel discussion on the legal, ethical and journalistic issues surrounding the making of NOVA’s documentary film, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Participants include John E. Jones, the federal judge who barred a Dover, Pa., public school district in 2005 from teaching “intelligent design”; Paula Apsell and Melanie Wallace, NOVA producers of the documentary; plaintiff’s council Eric Rothschild; and Laurie Lebo, author of The Devil in Dover.
Sept. 25, 2009
10:30 a.m. – noon
Karcher Auditorium
Storey Hall
“Intelligent Design in the Classroom,” a panel discussion on First Amendment issues featuring Judge John E. Jones III, Eric Rothschild (Pepper Hamilton, LLP), Hiram Sasser (Liberty Legal Institute) and Lackland Bloom, SMU’s Dedman School of Law.
Sept. 25, 2009
10-11:30 a.m.
3531 Garson
Owens Art Center
Master class on Documentary Film Making, taught by Paula Apsell and Melanie Wallace of NOVA. Strictly by RSVP (to Teri Trevino, trevinot@mail.smu.edu)
Sept. 25, 2009
2-3 p.m.
Hughes-Trigg Forum
Lauri Lebo will speak on “From Dover to Texas: Reporting on Extremist Views in a Fair and Balanced World” followed by a book signing of her book, The Devil in Dover.
I have attended sessions around Dallas where Dembski and other ID creationists were the featured speakers. We know one thing for certain: Dembski’s students will be given a more polite and mannerly reception at SMU than Dembski and his crew give scientists and critics at their own sessions. For years, since 1991 at least, SMU has allowed Dembski and his accomplices to use the facilities and good offices of SMU to promote their anti-science screeds, though Dembski’s views are not shared by Methodists, and are contrary to positions taken by the Methodist General Assembly.
It is impossible to imagine that SWBTS would allow Methodists to do the same thing, teaching and promoting science and especially evolution theory, at the seminary.
SMU’s program is open to the public (go to the SMU site above to see more events set over the next few months).
Dembski is teaching apologetics. Creationist apologists are not licensed, and generally cannot be sued for pedagogical or theological malpractice, even by their students. Standards for apologetics don’t exist. Scientists, on the other hand, are subject to peer review, and if using federal funds, prosecution should they tell falsehoods.
Texas’s ACLU chapter’s convention on August 1 featured a lively and informative session on intelligent design. It might seem like it was set up as a debate, but as the video shows, the two views complemented each other surprisingly.
Presenters were Liberty Legal Institute’s Hiram Sasser and Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, the premier chronicler of the creationism wars in the U.S.
My sin? I dared call their hand as they post false bloviations from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer in Meyer’s national anti-science campaign. Adams claims I violated his guidelines. Since I was polite, but sharp, I assume that they regard any dissent as “ad hominem” or discourteous.
And, since they banned me, they wiped out my posts. No need to answer the difficult questions if they can just pretend the questions don’t exist.
They especially do not like my noting creationism and intelligent design as voodoo science, and the bizarre accounts creationists tell of the origins of evolution theory as voodoo history. Truth hurts too much, I guess.
Creationism might be on its last legs, when otherwise Christian people are driven to totalitarian actions like this, baby camel nose that it is. Christianity generally flourishes when it’s oppressed. When Christianity is the basis of oppression, however, the faith falters. There is a darker possibility: It may be Christianity that totters with creationism gnawing at the legs and tunneling through clay feet of the Christian monolith.
You may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get patently offensive. One, their inability to muster rational arguments to defend their unholy War on Science always exposes them. And two, there is always some hope that they might see the light, open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears — at least there is hope on my part.
Both Groothuis and Adams are otherwise edified philosophers (which only makes their actions more amusing). What is it about philosophers that makes them try to philosophize away the world they do not like?
On principle I am open to Groothuis or Adams trying to defend their assault on science in comments here, if they can. This is an invitation to them to discuss their claims. I ask them to keep it clean and polite. Since there is no rational or factual basis to their claims of intelligent design, they will have little to say. Nor will they bother, I predict. Creationism, including intelligent design, can only function in a fawning, unquestioning atmosphere filled with ignorance of science.
If you want some good clean fun and you can stand a little aggravation when they get all huffy about it, Dear Readers, stroll over to Groothuis’s inaptly named Constructive Curmudgeon or Adams’s In Christus, and post the facts of science that Stephen Meyer wishes to ignore. Be aware, they are likely to censor comments and ban commenters who assault them with science. Even Christians with Ph.D.s fall victim to RayMummert’s disease.
These are two men who should know better. These are two men whose faith claims should prevent them from supporting voodoo science, junk science, and the War on Education.
Vampires of fiction and cockroaches of reality are negatively phototropic. They avoid light generally, they cannot stand sunlight, the light of day. Oddly, creationists share that trait.
Update: Adams, whose philosophy appears to include neither manners nor good science, will not do me the courtesy of saying why he banned me despite two e-mails, but he will respond at his blog when a fellow totalitarian writes in, leaving off any evidence of what he claims is true. Adams said today:
I spent some time crafting my guidelines and intend on holding to them, expecting everyone to do same.
They’re not optional. Perhaps I should change to “Rules.”
In my estimation, Mr. Darnell committed the ad hominem fallacy violating guideline #2 when speaking to Doug’s inability to respond, rather than addressing the content/substance of Dr. Meyer’s presentation.
How convenient that is. Adams can claim that I posted nothing of substance against Meyers’ unscientific diatribe, and then Adams doesn’t have to answer. As best I can figure it, when I note Meyer’s errors, Adams regards that as “ad hominem.” If Adams were consistent, he’d take down Meyer’s piece. Meyer cannot talk without ad hominem, especially since he has no science to back his claims. Don’t take my word for it. Go look at Adams’ blog — warning, he’s unlikely to leave your post up if you point out any of Stephen Meyer’s many errors, or rudenesses, or ad hominem claims — and see for yourself. If you think for a moment or two that Meyer starts making sense, keep that thought and go look at a serious review of his claims by professionals, here. Adams can’t tell you why he completely disregards Dr. Gotelli, nor will he explain why a link to Gotelli’s critique of Meyer is unacceptable on his blog. There is no good reason other than Adams’ bigotry against science. Gotelli, of course, is a practicing scientist in the field in which Meyer polemicizes about.
Evolution 2009 kicks off Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at the University of Nebraska atKearney.
In honor of Darwin’s birth bicentennial and the sesquicentennial of his most famous work, the program is dedicated to evolution in different fields of biology.
High school instructors can get in for $75. World class scientists like Jack Horner, Brad Davidson, Shannon Williamson and Randy Moore will present — along with world class evolution and legal evidence expert, Nick Matzke.
The main hotel will be the Ramada Inn in Kearney, where I spent a cold, snowy night in November 1979 after a kindly truck driver from Consolidated Freightways rescued me from certain hypothermia a few miles out of town, where my car had spun into nearly six feet of snow.
Now, can I find some excuse to get to the conference?
I predict: For the 21st consecutive year since the field of intelligent design was proposed, there will be no new research supporting intelligent design, even in the poster sessions. This is a science conference, and intelligent design supporters will quietly boycott the entire affair.
But critical evaluation? Just try to post a comment critical of intelligent design.
Why are ID advocates almost to a person such supreme hypocrites, and unintentional clowns? Is there a law that says one must be a noob to be an ID advocate?
____________________
Update, May 3: Here’s my challenge to you, dear reader: See if you can post a comment at all at Wintery Knight’s rant. Post a copy of your comments here, too, and let’s count to see whether this fellow is just one more supreme, Pharisaical hypocrite, or just an incompetent blogger.
WJCT TV and FM in Jacksonville, Florida, has a televised discussion on evolution in the state science standards set for April 23. It’s set for 8 p.m. — Eastern Time, I’m guessing.
First Coast Forum – Schools, Science, and the State – Thursday, April 23rd at 8pm on 89.9 FM and WJCT TV
The Florida Board of Education recently revised its science standards to require the teaching of evolution. The state legislature has met twice since then, and both times lawmakers have proposed bills requiring a “critical analysis” of this scientific theory. The latest bill— sponsored by Jacksonville Senator Steven Wise—didn’t get far in this year’s session, but this controversial debate is likely to continue. Senator Wise says it’s important to expose students to other ideas such as intelligent design. Critics argue that challenging evolution could open a door for religious doctrine in science classes.
What should our students learn and who should decide? We’ll discuss these issues with local lawmakers, religious experts, teachers, and parents on our next First Coast Forum Schools, Science, and the State, April 23rd at 8pm only on WJCT.
Panelists:
Steve Goyer – pastor representing OneJax
Dr. Marianne Barnes, UNF Education Professor
Stan Jordan, Duval County School Board, former state legislator
Rachel Raneri, Duval County District School Advisory Council Chair
David Campbell, Orange Park Ridgeview H.S. teacher
Quinton White, JU
Paul Hooker of the Presbytery of St. Augustine
Viewers can participate in First Coast Forum
Email questions and comments to firstcoastforum@wjct.org or by calling (904) 358-6347 during the program.
Once in a while I get a physicist who argues biologists ought to teach intelligent design and “let the kids decide.” I always ask whether they teach cold fusion “and let the kids decide,” and they always say there isn’t time to teach unproven science, or crank science. I then point out to them that cold fusion’s advantage over intelligent design is that there are more than 100 times the scientific papers supporting or explaining cold fusion that there are for intelligent design.
4. COLD FUSION AT 20: IT WILL BE ON 60 MINUTES THIS SUNDAY.
The faithful, who regard themselves as martyrs, have endured the scorn of skeptics for 20 years. An appearance on an evening entertainment program won’t make it science, and it’s unlikely to change the minds of many scientists, but it’s the most they’ve had to cheer about. At least three well-known scientists who were interviewed by CBS will not appear on the show. I don’t know who will.
You can go read this at P. Z. Myers’s Pharyngula, but I’m going to pirate most of his post here to reiterate the point for Texas: Intelligent design doesn’t belong in Texas science classrooms, and intelligent design’s attacks on evolution don’t belong there either, because they are not backed by science.
ID’s propaganda tank, the Discovery Institute, invited a biologist from the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, to debate one of their spokesmen. The biologist declined.
Unable to perform in science venues, the Discovery Institute is working to get Texas high school students to take Dr. Gotelli’s place. That’s why Texas scientists and educators are up in arms against the proposals from the Texas State Board of Education — Texas high school kids cannot do the work of science, and shouldn’t be called on to be the patsy for the Discovery Institute in classrooms, for grades.
Here’s the invitation; be sure to read Dr. Gotelli’s response, further below.
Dear Professor Gotelli,
I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.
Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.
I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.
A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”
On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.
Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?
With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
Gotelli wrote back:
Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:
Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.
Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded
institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.
So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.
In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.
Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Of course, that’s what Judge William Overton told creationists to do way back in 1982, in the Arkansas trial. Just do the science, and it will be in the textbooks as if by magic.
If creationists won’t listen to a federal judge, why would they listen to Vermont biologist?
On Darwin’s birthday, two Texas legislators wrote about the stakes in the tussle between creationists on the one side, and educators, scientists and economic development on the other, in the Houston Chronicle.
Somebody gets it! Will Gov. Rick Perry and SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy get the message? McLeroy was reappointed as chairman a week ago — but the appointment must be approved by the State Senate. Is a fight possible?
[Can a newspaper copyright the words of public servants doing their jobs?]
Feb. 12, 2009, 12:14AM
As scientists and educators across Texas and the nation mark the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin with calls for a renewed commitment to science education, the State Board of Education continues to engage in narrow theological debate about the validity of evolution. If Texas schoolchildren are to succeed in the 21st Century economy, the SBOE must focus less on internal philosophical differences and more on improving science instruction.
Last month, the board once again got bogged down in a bitter dispute over this issue. Members tentatively approved new science curriculum standards that protect teaching of evolution in one area, while creationists succeeded in watering it down elsewhere. Sadly, it was just the latest battle in the “culture war” being fought by a board that decides what more than 4.7 million Texas children learn in their public schools.
Families should be the primary educators on matters of faith, not our public schools. Regardless of board members’ personal beliefs on creationism and evolution, science classrooms are not the place for resolving such disagreements about faith. Those classrooms should focus on science.
Despite one’s personal stance on evolution, its teaching is critical to the study of all the biological sciences.
Scientists from our state’s universities have expressed this to the board, and have warned that watering down science education would undermine biotechnology, medical and other industries that are crucial to our state’s future.
Last session, the Legislature committed to investing $3 billion over the next 10 years in making Texas the global leader in cancer research and finding cures. This historic investment is certain to bring economic and academic opportunities to our state.
Sadly, even as our state takes one step forward, the SBOE moves us two steps back by continuing to support a diminished standard for science education. Texas’ credibility and its investment in research and technology are placed at risk by these ongoing, unproductive debates.
This is a critical issue and a critical time. Study after study has demonstrated that states which do well in science education have the brightest long-term economic future. According to Gov. Rick Perry’s Select Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness, despite improved scores in math and reading, Texas’ students continue to lag alarmingly behind other states in science proficiency.
The National Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only 23 percent of Texas 8th graders achieved proficiency in science, compared with 41 percent of students in the top-performing states — the states with which we compete for jobs.
Yet the board continues to undermine high-quality science instruction, allowing our students to slip further behind.
To ensure that the SBOE works as it should, we have filed legislation to place the board under periodic review by the Sunset Advisory Commission and hold them accountable for their performance, just as we do the Texas Education Agency and other state agencies.
The decisions of the SBOE not only impact millions of young lives on a daily basis, but impact the economic progress of our state as well.
For these reasons and many others, the public has a right to full disclosure and oversight.
The board has escaped such scrutiny for far too long. The disregard for educators, instructional experts and scientists can’t continue. It’s time to take a closer look at the operations and policies of the State Board of Education.
Our state, and especially our kids, deserve better.
Ellis represents the Houston area and parts of Fort Bend County; Rose represents Blanco, Caldwell and Hays counties.
Why not teach our children the best we know, rather than junk we don’t know at all?
Mr. Bratteng’s 13 Questions
Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections?
Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?
Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as sharp does not have these flaws?
Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States?
When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?
Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?
Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn’s disease and asthma?
Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?
Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year?
Why do people given anti-diarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?
Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?
Close to home: Why do older men often have urinary problems?
And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?
Of course, I don’t have the list of all the answers! (Can you help me out, Dear Reader? List what you know in comments.)
We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Stumble It!
