[NOTE: This was the original version that was submitted to the newspaper, before it was heavily edited down to 2/3 this length.]
With the advent of great economic boosts such as the Thyssenkrupp mill and the Northrup Gruman / EADS tanker contract, Mobile is poised for better economic times ahead. Unfortunately, this has put a spotlight on a public education system in serious need of improvement if our children are to inherit and continue such prosperity. Sadly, Alabama public education is ranked close to the bottom among all the states. This is on top of an already distressing nationwide failure in providing science education on a par with other developed nations in the world.
If we want our children to have a shot in the globalized real world, we need to join forces to improve science education in our schools. If we are to do this, however, we should also recognize our own tendencies to inadvertently sabotage our science curricula: There are well-meaning people amongst us who support the so-called “intelligent design” movement – a group that has been trying to insert a theory of theirs known as “intelligent design” (or ID) into the science classrooms, as an “alternative” to widely accepted scientific principles on the origin and evolution of species. This is clear from the several letters and editorials that have regularly appeared in the Mobile Press Register in support of ID. Unfortunately these well-intentioned writings show that many of us might not be aware of the danger that the ID movement poses to the education of our children.
Discerning readers will notice that none of the authors of such editorials were scientists or science educators. I am both. Therefore, not only do I feel qualified, I also feel personally and morally bound to respond to misconceptions being actively encouraged by the ID movement.
First, let it be known that I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic Christian. My family and I are deeply religious, as are a great number of scientists across America and around the world who see no conflict between science and religion. ID proponents would have us believe otherwise. I am a scientist, and I believe in God who is both creator and designer, guiding the order and majesty of nature as well as the personal life of every soul. Yes, I believe there is intelligent design to everything in existence.
But I also believe there are appropriate venues for discussing intelligent design. This could be at our church seminar with my pastor, or in a religious-studies class, or perhaps philosophy class – but not in a science class. Why? For the same reason I would not use my physics classes as a venue for debating political beliefs and opinions with my students, or to proudly pass on to them my skills in the visual arts of pencil and ink.
In other words, ID does not belong in a science classroom simply because ID is not science – as was clearly confirmed in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania, case (Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area Public Schools). This is the infamous case where parents sued their school board for trying to sneak ID into biology classes at Dover High School. The ID movement sent down their attorneys, who tried to prove to the court that ID is on an equal footing with established biological principles. Not only did they fail: They ended up embarrassing themselves and the good people of Dover in front of God and country.
The Dover case decision – made by a conservative judge – can be downloaded in its entirety by going to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf . It sets a clear judicial precedent that ruled the attempted insertion of ID into a science classroom as illegal. Therefore, any notion that we in Alabama might have about teaching ID in our public schools would be an act of defiance that would pit us in an unwanted conflict with the federal government. The last thing we need here is another Dover. We have better things to do.
The Dover case brought public attention to the misconceptions that ID proponents have about science. ID proponents make broad statements about the scientific process as being biased – without actually describing what that scientific process is. As a scientist, I can provide such a description. How does a scientific principle end up in our science textbooks? ID proponents are correct in that it first starts with a proposition, a hypothesis. In fact, they are more than welcome to propose an alternative to the evolutionary model of the origin of species: After all, many such alternatives had been proposed over the centuries. Then the proposal goes through a rigorous process of “peer review” that I, Darwin, Einstein, and all scientists have had to go through: Basically, we make our case to the community of fellow scientists who are experts in the same particular field. To make a good case, the proposed model must be something that any of our peers could test through experiment: careful physical, quantitative measurements. The fact that Einstein, Darwin, and other icons of science proposed specific experiments for testing their proposals, is part of what helped their proposals to be taken seriously. The impartiality of physical data frees any proposed model from human bias. The more such experiments support the model, then the more accepted the model becomes. The standard criterion for such acceptance is the publication of papers about the model and its supporting experiments in peer-reviewed journals – so-called because publication proceeds only after an impartial review by fellow (peer) scientists. Depending on the scope of the model, the track record required for such acceptance could involve tens to hundreds of well-cited publications spanning anywhere from a few years to entire generations. Only after such success would a model naturally find itself in school textbooks. This rigorous and testing by scientists all over the world working independently of each other through many years is a system of checks and balances even more extensive than the American system of government. Rather than trying to prove how any biased, unsubstantiated theory could survive such a process, I suggest we have better things to do.
The Dover case brought public humiliation to the ID proponents’ so-called experts who publicly claim that the Darwinian model of the origin of species lacks evidence and validity, that nobody understands the mechanisms of evolution. The embarrassing irony in such statements become painfully apparent when one realizes how our centuries-old understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution have spawned entire fields of scientific knowledge which revolutionized medicine and agriculture, providing us liberation from plagues and disease, better overall health, a longer life span, a more stable food supply, and so on – thus making possible a quality of life that is enjoyed today by many people … including the very people who seek to discredit these very same fields of knowledge. Such is the legacy of centuries of tireless work by thousands of good people living and dead, many of whom sacrificed so much for their work, work that has filled thousands of peer-reviewed journal volumes and countless biology textbooks used in all levels of education. Now, if I wanted to dismiss all of these achievements and still be taken seriously, I would have to literally take down thousands and thousands of books off the shelves in all major university libraries throughout God’s good Earth, and then try to explain how every single page of those books is invalid. No ID proponent has ever tried anything remotely close. Neither should we: we have better things to do.
The ID movement would also have us believe that the Darwinian model is so full of holes that it ought to be dismantled. That is like proposing to dismantle the American model of democracy just because we made mistakes. Our Constitution is a work in progress – through the genius of Amendments – and so is science, through experiment and exploration. Science is, by definition, open-ended, and even its most valued principles are forever open for scientific testing and re-testing; it is these very “holes” that actually make it possible for our understanding to progress.
When one proposes to scrap entire sciences on the basis of imperfections, but at the same time could not produce a viable alternative, this is what is known as a “negative argument”. This was the tactic used for many years by the “creation science” movement – whose attempts to insert their theory into science classes had also been ruled illegal. The Dover case revealed that ID is, in fact, “creation science”, hastily repackaged by its lawyers.
Such desperate actions might come from a fear that science is trying to dismantle religion – which would be absurd. Science can not claim “intelligent design” to be “wrong” – remember, it would need experimental data to make such a claim. For the very same reason, however, we cannot accept ID as science. ID has no peer-reviewed, published experimental data to substantiate its claim as science. One could seek out the most prestigious journal in biological systematics and try to find at least one single article that gives quantitative proof of ID – something that would be easy if, as ID proponents claim, ID really is supported by many eminent scientists and Nobel Laureates.
You will not find a single one.
As confirmed by almost comical testimony in the Dover case, it turns out that ID proponents have zero experimental data in reputable journals; they do not even have credible descriptions of what such experiments would be. The science ID claims to have is nothing but a negative argument. This would probably explain why they have decided to short-circuit the peer review process – there is nothing for peers to review. So, instead of making a case to scientists, they had decided instead to make their case to the public. This is not how you do science; that is how you do politics.
In the end, Dover has exposed the ID campaign for what it is: an illegal, fringe movement that is not scientific, but political – one that has repeatedly tried but failed to gain legitimacy with educators, the scientific community, and our justice system. In their desperation, they have sought to exploit our religious sentiments to instigate a fictitious conflict between science and religion, thus trying to further divide an already divided America – which is the last thing we need now.
Instead of wasting time with groups of questionable credibility, I suggest that we just let religion be religion, let science be science, and move on to more important work: How about making sure our children are ready for the increasingly competitive, global economy by providing them a world-class science education? We are all too aware that, today, the rest of the world is beginning to overtake the U.S. in terms of economic strength and that other nations have the jump on us on science education. The more time we waste on unneeded distractions, the dimmer our children’s prospects become.
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Don't be distracted by intelligent design
Sunday, May 25, 2008
By ALBERT GAPUD
Special to the Press-Register
Mobile is poised for better economic times ahead. Unfortunately, this has put a spotlight on a public education system in serious need of improvement.
Sadly, Alabama's public education system is ranked close to the bottom among all the states. This is on top of an already distressing nationwide failure in providing science education on a par with other developed nations in the world.
If we want our children to have a shot in the globalized real world, we need to join forces to improve science education in our schools. If we are to do this, however, we should also recognize our own tendencies to inadvertently sabotage our science curricula.
There are well-meaning people among us who support the so-called "intelligent design" movement — a group that has been trying to insert a theory known as intelligent design into science classrooms as an alternative to widely accepted scientific principles on the origin and evolution of species.
This is clear from several letters and essays that have appeared in the Press-Register in support of intelligent design. Discerning readers will notice that none of the authors were scientists or science educators. I am both. Therefore, not only do I feel qualified, I also feel personally and morally bound to respond to misconceptions being actively encouraged by the intelligent-design movement.
I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic Christian. My family and I are deeply religious, as are a great number of scientists across America and around the world who see no conflict between science and religion.
Yes, I believe there is intelligent design to everything in existence. But I also believe there are appropriate venues for discussing intelligent design. This could be at our church seminar with my pastor, or in a religious-studies class, or perhaps philosophy class — but not in a science class.
In other words, intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom simply because intelligent design is not science — as was clearly confirmed in the 2005 Dover, Pa., court case titled Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area Public Schools. This is the case where parents sued their school board for trying to sneak intelligent design into biology classes at Dover High School.
The Dover case decision — made by a conservative judge — can be downloaded in its entirety by going to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. It sets a clear judicial precedent that ruled the attempted insertion of intelligent design into a science classroom as illegal.
Therefore, any notion that we in Alabama might have about teaching intelligent design in our public schools would be an act of defiance that would pit us in an unwanted conflict with the federal government. The last thing we need here is another Dover. We have better things to do.
The Dover case brought public attention to the misconceptions that intelligent-design proponents have about science. They make broad statements about the scientific process as being biased — without actually describing what that scientific process is.
As a scientist, I can provide such a description.
How does a scientific principle end up in our science textbooks? Intelligent-design proponents are correct in that it first starts with a proposition, a hypothesis.
After data are collected and analyzed the proposal goes through a rigorous process of "peer review" that I, Darwin, Einstein and all scientists have had to go through. Basically, we make our case to the community of fellow scientists who are experts in the same field.
To make a good case, the proposed model must be something that any of our peers could test through experiment: careful physical, quantitative measurements.
The impartiality of physical data frees any proposed model from human bias. The more such experiments support the model, then the more accepted the model becomes. The standard criterion for such acceptance is the publication of papers about the model and its supporting experiments in peer-reviewed journals.
Depending on the scope of the model, the track record required for such acceptance could involve tens to hundreds of well-cited publications spanning anywhere from a few years to entire generations. Only after such success would a model naturally find itself in school textbooks.
The Dover case brought public humiliation to the intelligent-design proponents' so-called experts who publicly claim that the Darwinian model of the origin of species lacks evidence and validity, that nobody understands the mechanisms of evolution.
The embarrassing irony in such statements becomes painfully apparent when one realizes how our centuries-old understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution have spawned entire fields of scientific knowledge which revolutionized medicine and agriculture, providing us liberation from plagues and disease, better overall health, a longer life span, a more stable food supply, and so on.
Now, if I wanted to dismiss all of these achievements and still be taken seriously, I would have to literally take down thousands and thousands of books off the shelves in all major university libraries throughout God's good Earth, and then try to explain how every single page of those books is invalid. No intelligent-design proponent has ever tried anything remotely close. Neither should we: We have better things to do.
The intelligent-design movement would also have us believe that the Darwinian model is so full of holes that it ought to be dismantled. That is like proposing to dismantle the American model of democracy just because we made mistakes.
Our Constitution is a work in progress — through the genius of amendments — and so is science, through experiment and exploration. Science is, by definition, open-ended, and even its most valued principles are forever open for scientific testing and re-testing. It is these very "holes" that actually make it possible for our understanding to progress.
When one proposes to scrap entire sciences on the basis of imperfections, but at the same time cannot produce a viable alternative, this is what is known as a "negative argument."
This was the tactic used for many years by the "creation science" movement, whose proponents' attempts to insert their theory into science classes had also been ruled illegal. The Dover case revealed that intelligent-design is, in fact, "creation science" hastily repackaged by its lawyers.
Science cannot claim intelligent design to be "wrong" — remember, it would need experimental data to make such a claim. For the same reason, however, we cannot accept intelligent design as science. It has no peer-reviewed, published experimental data to substantiate its claim as science.
In the end, the Dover case exposed the intelligent-design campaign for what it is: a fringe movement that is not scientific, but political — one that has repeatedly tried but failed to gain legitimacy with educators, the scientific community and our justice system.
(Dr. Albert Gapud of Mobile is a condensed-matter physicist who graduated from the University of Kansas and has worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His e-mail address is aagapud@yahoo.com.)
By ALBERT GAPUD
Special to the Press-Register
Mobile is poised for better economic times ahead. Unfortunately, this has put a spotlight on a public education system in serious need of improvement.
Sadly, Alabama's public education system is ranked close to the bottom among all the states. This is on top of an already distressing nationwide failure in providing science education on a par with other developed nations in the world.
If we want our children to have a shot in the globalized real world, we need to join forces to improve science education in our schools. If we are to do this, however, we should also recognize our own tendencies to inadvertently sabotage our science curricula.
There are well-meaning people among us who support the so-called "intelligent design" movement — a group that has been trying to insert a theory known as intelligent design into science classrooms as an alternative to widely accepted scientific principles on the origin and evolution of species.
This is clear from several letters and essays that have appeared in the Press-Register in support of intelligent design. Discerning readers will notice that none of the authors were scientists or science educators. I am both. Therefore, not only do I feel qualified, I also feel personally and morally bound to respond to misconceptions being actively encouraged by the intelligent-design movement.
I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic Christian. My family and I are deeply religious, as are a great number of scientists across America and around the world who see no conflict between science and religion.
Yes, I believe there is intelligent design to everything in existence. But I also believe there are appropriate venues for discussing intelligent design. This could be at our church seminar with my pastor, or in a religious-studies class, or perhaps philosophy class — but not in a science class.
In other words, intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom simply because intelligent design is not science — as was clearly confirmed in the 2005 Dover, Pa., court case titled Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area Public Schools. This is the case where parents sued their school board for trying to sneak intelligent design into biology classes at Dover High School.
The Dover case decision — made by a conservative judge — can be downloaded in its entirety by going to http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. It sets a clear judicial precedent that ruled the attempted insertion of intelligent design into a science classroom as illegal.
Therefore, any notion that we in Alabama might have about teaching intelligent design in our public schools would be an act of defiance that would pit us in an unwanted conflict with the federal government. The last thing we need here is another Dover. We have better things to do.
The Dover case brought public attention to the misconceptions that intelligent-design proponents have about science. They make broad statements about the scientific process as being biased — without actually describing what that scientific process is.
As a scientist, I can provide such a description.
How does a scientific principle end up in our science textbooks? Intelligent-design proponents are correct in that it first starts with a proposition, a hypothesis.
After data are collected and analyzed the proposal goes through a rigorous process of "peer review" that I, Darwin, Einstein and all scientists have had to go through. Basically, we make our case to the community of fellow scientists who are experts in the same field.
To make a good case, the proposed model must be something that any of our peers could test through experiment: careful physical, quantitative measurements.
The impartiality of physical data frees any proposed model from human bias. The more such experiments support the model, then the more accepted the model becomes. The standard criterion for such acceptance is the publication of papers about the model and its supporting experiments in peer-reviewed journals.
Depending on the scope of the model, the track record required for such acceptance could involve tens to hundreds of well-cited publications spanning anywhere from a few years to entire generations. Only after such success would a model naturally find itself in school textbooks.
The Dover case brought public humiliation to the intelligent-design proponents' so-called experts who publicly claim that the Darwinian model of the origin of species lacks evidence and validity, that nobody understands the mechanisms of evolution.
The embarrassing irony in such statements becomes painfully apparent when one realizes how our centuries-old understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution have spawned entire fields of scientific knowledge which revolutionized medicine and agriculture, providing us liberation from plagues and disease, better overall health, a longer life span, a more stable food supply, and so on.
Now, if I wanted to dismiss all of these achievements and still be taken seriously, I would have to literally take down thousands and thousands of books off the shelves in all major university libraries throughout God's good Earth, and then try to explain how every single page of those books is invalid. No intelligent-design proponent has ever tried anything remotely close. Neither should we: We have better things to do.
The intelligent-design movement would also have us believe that the Darwinian model is so full of holes that it ought to be dismantled. That is like proposing to dismantle the American model of democracy just because we made mistakes.
Our Constitution is a work in progress — through the genius of amendments — and so is science, through experiment and exploration. Science is, by definition, open-ended, and even its most valued principles are forever open for scientific testing and re-testing. It is these very "holes" that actually make it possible for our understanding to progress.
When one proposes to scrap entire sciences on the basis of imperfections, but at the same time cannot produce a viable alternative, this is what is known as a "negative argument."
This was the tactic used for many years by the "creation science" movement, whose proponents' attempts to insert their theory into science classes had also been ruled illegal. The Dover case revealed that intelligent-design is, in fact, "creation science" hastily repackaged by its lawyers.
Science cannot claim intelligent design to be "wrong" — remember, it would need experimental data to make such a claim. For the same reason, however, we cannot accept intelligent design as science. It has no peer-reviewed, published experimental data to substantiate its claim as science.
In the end, the Dover case exposed the intelligent-design campaign for what it is: a fringe movement that is not scientific, but political — one that has repeatedly tried but failed to gain legitimacy with educators, the scientific community and our justice system.
(Dr. Albert Gapud of Mobile is a condensed-matter physicist who graduated from the University of Kansas and has worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His e-mail address is aagapud@yahoo.com.)
Response to ID column: Correspondence with June S.
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:27:23 +0000
Greetings:
I saw your article in today's Press-Register, and I would like to ask you a question: Since you say that you are a Christian, and it is apparent that you are a scientist, what level of belief DO you have that the Bible is true, that God did create this world?
It seems to me that your gains in the academic world, while certainly important, pale in the face of a knowledge of and belief in the God, our creator, who after all did CREATE, and who IS there and WILL be there when we pass out of this life that is after all only a vapor, a nothing if you will compared with the eternity that follows.
I would love to see you with your intelligence and write-ability take the time/space to acknowledge God's vastly greater importance to those who will read your pieces, those who may be helped eternally by what you write.
I think of the verse in the Bible that tells us that we will answer for every idle word that we speak. That word idle can be translated useless; and when you think of the eternity your readers will spend in Heaven or in Hell, how great if you would use your platform to speak words that meet the greater need and usefulness.
Sincerely,
June S[.]
********************************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re:
Dear June,
Thanks for your feedback. I'm glad I have intrigued at least one person about my being a Christian. You are right to expect such a declaration to be backed up by witnessing and testimony. You might become more intrigued to know that I have already done quite a bit of evangelization, especially about my conversion from atheism -- now, you must admit, there's got to be an interesting story there.
However, unlike science or politics, my faith (and my past) is a more personal matter, and has been limited to discussion with my church groups and friends -- I appreciate that you think I might be an effective at more public evangelizing. I might be more moved to go more public if there was a local crisis that requires powerful testimony -- for example, if there were, say, a vocal group of atheist scientists publicly bashing Christians. At this present time, I do not perceive such a crisis here. In fact, there is already plenty of good testimony here in the Bible belt.
Instead, right now I feel that misconceptions about science threatening the education of our children is a much bigger crisis, one I felt qualified to respond to. Surely you don't think such a concern is "idle"? Are we not also supposed be good stewards of all that God has entrusted to us in this life?
Regards,
Albert
*************************************
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:38:37 +0000
Thank you for your reply.
I am thinking of those who were filled with the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) who were told by Jesus in the first chapter of the book that after they were filled that they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, all Judea, Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth. We are told repeatedly to be witnesses, and it is obvious from this one verse that He meant not to speak only to our close connections but to all of the whole earth. I have not been a missionary to other parts of the world, but by writing, praying, giving, I do attempt to reach others not of my close community.
I only see your great learning and intelligence as possibly more importantly useful to bring glory to God, but the way we honor Him has in the last analysis to be between Him and ourselves - I wish you well and hope that the question(s) regarding creation and "science" can more and more be answered in a way that does not detract from what God has said in His word. I fear this will not be happening.
Everything that is of an earthly, not godly or eternal, nature will come to naught and only what is of Him will stand at last. I will try to leave my comments at this for now.
June S[…]
*********************************************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re:
Ms S[…], I am glad to see that you do not distrust science completely. Then maybe you can trust that science is not on an active campaign to dismantle anyone's religious beliefs. I will comment no further on this because I have already explained it at great length. It saddens me so deeply that ID proponents have so mischaracterized biologists to the point of distrust and suspicion. ID is trying to close a door between science and the public. All I have tried to do is urge folks to keep that door open. If you are interested in what scientists are really saying, I suggest you check out the "evolution" links on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( http://www.aaas.org/ ).
As for the way you see me personally, as some kind of spiritually bi-polar person, it does sadden me but I have run out of words to plead myself "not guilty". Let me just say: I believe that God used evolution to create something that would eventually love Him back. I also believe that treating the Book of Genesis as a biology textbook is very demeaning. Genesis is so much more than that: it is a powerful and beautiful statement of our relationship to God and to everything He created -- and the fact that all of creation is good. I've drawn much inspiration from the Jesuit priest, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. If you want to see how it is possible for the science of evolution to actually deepen somebody's love for God, his writings are worth at least a glance.
**********************************
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:22:34 +0000
Just a short reply and I will try to "mind my own business"; I do not see talking to a scientist to see if my fears are valid or not - for that I will have to refer to the Bible, as it is my final authority - this is not to say that science is of no value to me - it certainly is and must be a part of our natural lives, and I do respect that.
I just cannot see that to teach creation as a totally godless occurrence could ever be right, since I believe with all my heart that God did create this world and all in it. I wish we could accept that science has its place and that God has His, and that in school we did not have to teach our children that God's creation did not exist.
I am still puzzled that a scientist who is a Christian could divide his beliefs and himself into two very separate parts, with the scientific part detracting from what God has revealed in His word to us.
Thank you for your polite responses. June S[…]
*****************************************
[NOTE: On 5/29, I sent the form letter.]
*****************************************
Subject: Re: From Albert Gapud: Thank you for your response
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:38:14 +0000
I have checked out some of these links and intend to look at more of them, but it seems impossible to me to have the intent to discredit and do away with the Biblical view of creation while at the same time saying one is a Christian - a growing and learning Christian, maybe (which after all includes any Christian); but in the day in which we live, we are warned in the Bible to guard against teachers of deception - everything we accept as fact needs to be proved by what the Bible says about any subject - otherwise, we can be deceived, and thereby put in a position of jeopardy.
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump" is a warning in the Bible to not allow anything in our hearts and minds which is hypocrisy (leaven is called hypocrisy in Luke 12:1) and is also called malice and wickedness in the book of 1 Corinthians - what all this shows is that one can be "mixed" in the sense that he or she has two sets of values, one godly and one ungodly. 1 Corinthians 5:l-8 describes a congregation with this mixing of values that they were warned against.
I MYSELF AS A YOUNG PERSON went through a period of time when I lived in and out at the same time - close to God and away from him...I had to make up my mind to be one or the other.
This does not mean that our mental capacities are not to be used in determining our path of life - but if we catch ourselves having allowed something in our lives that is plainly not according to what the Bible teaches, then we must make the decision to put God's will for our lives above our own and submit to what He tells us to do.
I wish you many blessings, including an increase of the knowledge of and superiority of God's words.
June S[…]
Greetings:
I saw your article in today's Press-Register, and I would like to ask you a question: Since you say that you are a Christian, and it is apparent that you are a scientist, what level of belief DO you have that the Bible is true, that God did create this world?
It seems to me that your gains in the academic world, while certainly important, pale in the face of a knowledge of and belief in the God, our creator, who after all did CREATE, and who IS there and WILL be there when we pass out of this life that is after all only a vapor, a nothing if you will compared with the eternity that follows.
I would love to see you with your intelligence and write-ability take the time/space to acknowledge God's vastly greater importance to those who will read your pieces, those who may be helped eternally by what you write.
I think of the verse in the Bible that tells us that we will answer for every idle word that we speak. That word idle can be translated useless; and when you think of the eternity your readers will spend in Heaven or in Hell, how great if you would use your platform to speak words that meet the greater need and usefulness.
Sincerely,
June S[.]
********************************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re:
Dear June,
Thanks for your feedback. I'm glad I have intrigued at least one person about my being a Christian. You are right to expect such a declaration to be backed up by witnessing and testimony. You might become more intrigued to know that I have already done quite a bit of evangelization, especially about my conversion from atheism -- now, you must admit, there's got to be an interesting story there.
However, unlike science or politics, my faith (and my past) is a more personal matter, and has been limited to discussion with my church groups and friends -- I appreciate that you think I might be an effective at more public evangelizing. I might be more moved to go more public if there was a local crisis that requires powerful testimony -- for example, if there were, say, a vocal group of atheist scientists publicly bashing Christians. At this present time, I do not perceive such a crisis here. In fact, there is already plenty of good testimony here in the Bible belt.
Instead, right now I feel that misconceptions about science threatening the education of our children is a much bigger crisis, one I felt qualified to respond to. Surely you don't think such a concern is "idle"? Are we not also supposed be good stewards of all that God has entrusted to us in this life?
Regards,
Albert
*************************************
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:38:37 +0000
Thank you for your reply.
I am thinking of those who were filled with the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) who were told by Jesus in the first chapter of the book that after they were filled that they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, all Judea, Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth. We are told repeatedly to be witnesses, and it is obvious from this one verse that He meant not to speak only to our close connections but to all of the whole earth. I have not been a missionary to other parts of the world, but by writing, praying, giving, I do attempt to reach others not of my close community.
I only see your great learning and intelligence as possibly more importantly useful to bring glory to God, but the way we honor Him has in the last analysis to be between Him and ourselves - I wish you well and hope that the question(s) regarding creation and "science" can more and more be answered in a way that does not detract from what God has said in His word. I fear this will not be happening.
Everything that is of an earthly, not godly or eternal, nature will come to naught and only what is of Him will stand at last. I will try to leave my comments at this for now.
June S[…]
*********************************************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re:
Ms S[…], I am glad to see that you do not distrust science completely. Then maybe you can trust that science is not on an active campaign to dismantle anyone's religious beliefs. I will comment no further on this because I have already explained it at great length. It saddens me so deeply that ID proponents have so mischaracterized biologists to the point of distrust and suspicion. ID is trying to close a door between science and the public. All I have tried to do is urge folks to keep that door open. If you are interested in what scientists are really saying, I suggest you check out the "evolution" links on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( http://www.aaas.org/ ).
As for the way you see me personally, as some kind of spiritually bi-polar person, it does sadden me but I have run out of words to plead myself "not guilty". Let me just say: I believe that God used evolution to create something that would eventually love Him back. I also believe that treating the Book of Genesis as a biology textbook is very demeaning. Genesis is so much more than that: it is a powerful and beautiful statement of our relationship to God and to everything He created -- and the fact that all of creation is good. I've drawn much inspiration from the Jesuit priest, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. If you want to see how it is possible for the science of evolution to actually deepen somebody's love for God, his writings are worth at least a glance.
**********************************
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:22:34 +0000
Just a short reply and I will try to "mind my own business"; I do not see talking to a scientist to see if my fears are valid or not - for that I will have to refer to the Bible, as it is my final authority - this is not to say that science is of no value to me - it certainly is and must be a part of our natural lives, and I do respect that.
I just cannot see that to teach creation as a totally godless occurrence could ever be right, since I believe with all my heart that God did create this world and all in it. I wish we could accept that science has its place and that God has His, and that in school we did not have to teach our children that God's creation did not exist.
I am still puzzled that a scientist who is a Christian could divide his beliefs and himself into two very separate parts, with the scientific part detracting from what God has revealed in His word to us.
Thank you for your polite responses. June S[…]
*****************************************
[NOTE: On 5/29, I sent the form letter.]
*****************************************
Subject: Re: From Albert Gapud: Thank you for your response
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:38:14 +0000
I have checked out some of these links and intend to look at more of them, but it seems impossible to me to have the intent to discredit and do away with the Biblical view of creation while at the same time saying one is a Christian - a growing and learning Christian, maybe (which after all includes any Christian); but in the day in which we live, we are warned in the Bible to guard against teachers of deception - everything we accept as fact needs to be proved by what the Bible says about any subject - otherwise, we can be deceived, and thereby put in a position of jeopardy.
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump" is a warning in the Bible to not allow anything in our hearts and minds which is hypocrisy (leaven is called hypocrisy in Luke 12:1) and is also called malice and wickedness in the book of 1 Corinthians - what all this shows is that one can be "mixed" in the sense that he or she has two sets of values, one godly and one ungodly. 1 Corinthians 5:l-8 describes a congregation with this mixing of values that they were warned against.
I MYSELF AS A YOUNG PERSON went through a period of time when I lived in and out at the same time - close to God and away from him...I had to make up my mind to be one or the other.
This does not mean that our mental capacities are not to be used in determining our path of life - but if we catch ourselves having allowed something in our lives that is plainly not according to what the Bible teaches, then we must make the decision to put God's will for our lives above our own and submit to what He tells us to do.
I wish you many blessings, including an increase of the knowledge of and superiority of God's words.
June S[…]
Responses to ID column: Correspondence with Joseph U.
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:48:20 -0700
Subject: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
To: Dr. Albert Gapud
From:Joseph U[.]
a Christian (Catholic) parentWinnipeg, Manitoba Canada
Phone […]
Hello Dr. Gapud,
In part of the article Don't be distracted by intelligent design Press-Register - al.com - Mobile,AL,USA you wrote:
I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic Christian. My family and I are deeply religious, as are a great number of scientists across America and around the world who see no conflict between science and religion.
I would like to bring to your attention an online article by other devout Catholic Christians who come to the ...
CONCLUSION: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
(see below).
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
(Partial quote)
- God created everything "in its whole substance" from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
-Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII) . . .
- The "beginning" of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
. . .- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
. . .
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.. . .- All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence.
. . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
CONCLUSION:
Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
Quoted from:What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation - http://www.kolbecenter.org/ Advisory Council - http://www.kolbecenter.org/KCAdvisorsforWeb8.htmSincerely,
Joseph
*************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject:Re: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
Thank you, Mr. U[…], for confirming the most important points of the essay.
When you listed the (outdated, out-of-context) statements from the Catholic Church, at least you actually cited some sources. When you listed what you took to be scientific statements, you did not cite any sources.
By the way, there is no biological principle that says humans evolved from chimpanzees. And the second law of thermodynamics deals with the NET entropy change of only one chemical cycle. These are just two examples of science misconceptions that intelligent-design proponents use to fool us into a distrust of science -- successfully, in your case.
Subject: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
To: Dr. Albert Gapud
From:Joseph U[.]
a Christian (Catholic) parentWinnipeg, Manitoba Canada
Phone […]
Hello Dr. Gapud,
In part of the article Don't be distracted by intelligent design Press-Register - al.com - Mobile,AL,USA you wrote:
I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic Christian. My family and I are deeply religious, as are a great number of scientists across America and around the world who see no conflict between science and religion.
I would like to bring to your attention an online article by other devout Catholic Christians who come to the ...
CONCLUSION: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
(see below).
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
(Partial quote)
- God created everything "in its whole substance" from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
-Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII) . . .
- The "beginning" of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
. . .- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
. . .
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.. . .- All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence.
. . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
CONCLUSION:
Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
Quoted from:What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation - http://www.kolbecenter.org/ Advisory Council - http://www.kolbecenter.org/KCAdvisorsforWeb8.htmSincerely,
Joseph
*************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject:Re: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
Thank you, Mr. U[…], for confirming the most important points of the essay.
When you listed the (outdated, out-of-context) statements from the Catholic Church, at least you actually cited some sources. When you listed what you took to be scientific statements, you did not cite any sources.
By the way, there is no biological principle that says humans evolved from chimpanzees. And the second law of thermodynamics deals with the NET entropy change of only one chemical cycle. These are just two examples of science misconceptions that intelligent-design proponents use to fool us into a distrust of science -- successfully, in your case.
Response to ID column: Correspondence with Lester V.
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:19:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
To: aagapud@yahoo.com
Subject: Reply to Intelligent Design article
An open letter to Albert Gapud and the readers of the Mobile Press-Register:
I would like to respond to the article published in the May 25, 2008 edition. For continuity, I will structure my response according to the sequence in the original article.
The article begins with an emotion-grabbing “straw-man” about the Alabama educational system, implying that the main subject of the rest of the article, the teaching of Creation/Intelligent Design, results in the “sabotage” of “our science curricula.” That is curious, since home-schooled children (who are not brainwashed in the evolutionary dogma) consistently score higher in math and science on standardized tests than do public school students. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
I do not claim any particular credentials as the article seems to demand. That does not mean that I am stupid or uneducated. I was an instructor in the Air Force for 15 years, and when I retired I taught high school for 13 years before falling victim to the same trouble facing local teachers today. “Discerning readers” also realize that it doesn’t take a PhD to recognize phony arguments, empty claims, faulty logic, and misrepresentation.
Can “a devout Roman Catholic” see that there is no Biblical basis for the selling of indulgences (documents that would absolve a person of guilt for any sin they committed), or the torture, mutilation, and murder of non-Catholics (as in the Inquisition)? Being a member of a particular church is no guarantee of being free from error. It is also important to remember that it was the “deeply religious” who betrayed, rejected, and crucified Jesus, and flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9-11. Again, it is no guarantee of perfection.
As far as there being “no conflict between science and religion,” let me cite more expert testimony than my own. (As with all of the quotations I will cite, I am omitting the references for the sake of space, but have them available for anyone who wants to verify them.) Microbiologist Richard Dawkins says, “Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions.” He sees evolution as a new religion in direct opposition to Christianity. Atheist G. Richard Bozarth says, “The whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. … Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death … and this is what evolution does, then Christianity is nothing!” Wolfgang Smith agrees with Dawkins when he says, “The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings create themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. This in itself implied, however, that the theory is scientifically unverifiable … . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.” George Johnston wrote, “It’s natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature – and hence a Designer.” The science referred to by these men is a science based in evolutionary humanism and naturalism that rejects any existence of, or participation by, a Creator. That brings evolutionary science into direct conflict with Christianity.
Anyone who reads Genesis 1 can see that the order in which God said He created the universe is diametrically opposite of that proposed by evolution; earth before the sun, light before the sun, water before an atmosphere, earth covered in water instead of being a molten mass, plants before sealife, birds before land animals, etc., just to name a few. Lest someone say, “That was only Moses’ opinion,” Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” That includes Genesis 1. That means God was speaking through Moses’ pen as he wrote what God wanted him to write. An even stronger verse is Exodus 20:11, where the Bible says that God created everything in six days. This verse is stronger because, in Exodus 32:1, God told Moses to carve two new tablets (to replace the ones he broke when he found the Jews worshiping a golden calf), and He would (personally) write in them the words that were on the first tablets. Therefore, while the description of the creation in 20:11 may have been dictated (and supposedly subject to error by Moses), 32:1 says the same things were written by God Himself the second time around. Anyone denying the creation is thus not only calling Moses a liar, but also calling God Himself a liar.
The article then says, “I believe there is intelligent design to everything in existence.” What is that belief based on? The statement implies that there is evidence in the created universe that it really was created. If so, then it is hypocritical and dishonest (as well as very poor instructional integrity) to refuse to provide students with that evidence. Professor G.W. Harper said, “For some time, it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination.” That’s what happens when material is censored from the classroom. W.R. Thompson (Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa) wrote, “It is … right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. … The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.” To that I would add that academic integrity has suffered as well.
Astronomer James Trefil wrote that “The distinguishing feature of science – the thing that makes it different from fields like literary criticism – is its unrelenting demand that all ideas and claims about the universe be checked by experiment on or observation of the universe itself. I don’t think it’s going too far to say that if a statement can’t be subjected to experimental or observational test, it simply isn’t a part of science.” I concur with this. However, by this definition, evolution is not part of science either. Biologists Green and Goldberger stated, “The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” Physicist H.S. Lipson said, “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Legitimate science cannot reject, a priori, any possible explanation of the data, yet this is precisely what evolution requires. That’s not good science, or good education.
The reference to the Dover court case should be considered irrelevant to the question of whether Creation/Intelligent Design is an appropriate topic for a science classroom. That case, as have been all other similar cases, was decided on the basis of the imaginary separation of church and state (which does not exist in the Constitution), and not on the weight of scientific evidence. The fear of a lawsuit is a powerful weapon that the ACLU and other atheist organizations use to browbeat people into stifling legitimate discussion. Silencing all opposition has been a tactic of totalitarian dictatorships for as long as men have sought to dominate other men. Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that the “dominion mandate” (see Genesis 1:26 & 28) gave man authority over virtually everything in creation except other men.
The subject of scientific bias is also legitimate. The article says, “The impartiality of physical data frees any proposed model from human bias.” That is simply not true. Facts do not speak for themselves at all; they must be interpreted, and that’s where biases come in. Niles Eldredge said, “In the real world, in the competitive fray that is science, data forging, plagiarism, and all manner of base and venal but utterly human failings make a mockery of the counterimage of detached objectivity.” Physicist H.S. Lipson said, “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” Atheist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said ”The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable)(pito-parenthesis in the original) robots, is self-serving mythology.” Stefan Bengtson (Institute of Paleontology, Uppsala University, Sweden) observed “Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) (pito) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat.” In other words, scientists frequently manipulate the evidence to fit their theories, or to satisfy the people who are supplying them with grants to fund their research. Although the possibility exists that Creationists might be guilty of the same dishonesty, I submit that they are much less likely to do so due to their recognition that they will have to answer to God for what they say and do – a “problem” the evolutionists do not believe they have.
Anyone who doubts that scientists lie, or allow biases to color their reality, should look at the history of evolutionary science. Piltdown Man, found in 1912, was the subject of hundreds if not thousands of doctoral theses, and provided evidence of man’s evolution at the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial,” until it was exposed, in 1953, as a deliberate hoax. Nebraska Man, also introduced into evidence in the Scopes trial, and based on a single tooth, was declared by Osborne (of the Museum of Natural History) to be a missing link in man’s evolution, until it was found to belong to an extinct pig. The “Lucy” model on display in several museums features human feet, when in fact no foot bones were found with the skeleton, and other fossils of the same kind of creature that “Lucy” was have been shown to have feet with opposing thumbs like monkeys and apes. Just after Darwin published his theory, Ernst Haeckel produced a series of drawings that supposedly showed that embryos of numerous animals were virtually identical, and that human fetuses retraced their evolutionary history as they developed in the womb. For more than 100 years it has been known that the drawings were frauds, but you can still find them in textbooks in use today. Abortionists use this same phony argument to convince pregnant girls (and women) that the “thing” growing inside them isn’t really human but is nothing more than a glob of tissue going through the “fish stage” or “amphibian stage” of evolution, and can be aborted without actually killing a person. Samuel Paul Welles wrote two articles for World Book Encyclopedia. In one, he said “Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.” In the other article, he said, “The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.” That is clearly circular reasoning, but is promoted as objective, demonstrated fact.
The discussion of “peer-reviewed publications” is a serious one. The fact is that creationists do not have huge numbers of published studies in the standard scientific journals is not due to the lack of scientific validity of their studies, but because of the strangle-hold evolutionists have on the journals, book publishers, academic institutions, and political power-brokers. This was clearly demonstrated by Ben Stein in his recent film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Evolutionists simply will not allow any scientist thought to be anti-evolutionary to be published. The article said that intelligent design “has no peer-reviewed, published experimental data to substantiate its claim as science.” Let’s look at some of the published data related to evolution that you won’t read in the textbooks.
Biochemist Klaus Bose wrote, “At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field (of chemical and molecular evolution) either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said “There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an inorganic soup here on the Earth.” Biophysicist Hubert Yockey says “One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.” Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote “In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate,’ ‘ancestral,’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any sign of their supposed intermediate status.” Geneticist N. Takahata said “None of the hypotheses seems compatible with the observed DNA variation.” Wolfgang Smith said “It can be said with the utmost rigor that the (macroevolutionary) doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. … Given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Biologist Pierre Grasse said “The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved.” Jeremy Rifkin wrote “What the (fossil) ‘record’ shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the missions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution.” Microbiologist Michael Denton declared “It was not only his general theory that was almost entirely lacking in any direct empirical support, but his special theory was also largely dependent on circumstantial evidence. A striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of a new species.” George Johnston said “No one has ever seen one species change into another either in the fossil record or in breeding experiments. Darwin himself was unable to come up with a single indisputable case of one animal changing into another via ‘natural selection.’ His case was entirely theoretical; it rested on a chain of suppositions rather than empirical observation; the ‘facts’ that he mustered were either made to fit the theory or were explained away.” Geologist James H. Shea stated “Much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism … has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources, as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.” Gareth V. Nelson (Ichthyologist, American Museum of Natural History) said “The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure … this search is an exercise in futility.” D.V. Ager (President of the Geological Association) said “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student … have now been ‘debunked.’” Mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe testified “From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. … At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for God. … We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation – and not accidental random shuffling.” Mathematicians/Astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe concluded that “Life cannot have had a random beginning. The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts (zeros) after it. … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. … If the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” So much for the “centuries-old understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution.”
Another “straw-man” is the idea that “thousands and thousands of books” would have to be discarded, and we would have to “try to explain how every single page of those books is invalid.” No one has suggested such an extreme measure. Such an “all-or-nothing” position is illogical, inaccurate, and unnecessary. The only thing that would have to be changed is the unfounded claims made by the historical evolutionists, since their theories are not subject to scientific examination. Still another “straw-man” is the statement that “the intelligent-design movement would also have us believe that the Darwinian model is so full of holes that it ought to be dismantled.” I disagree. I believe that the best thing scientists and science educators could do would be to present evolution – with all its holes clearly exposed – along with the solid experimental evidence that demonstrates the overall inadequacy of the evolutionary theory to explain anything of real merit. Then encourage people to think for themselves.
Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History) said “Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. … It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge.”
In terms of the “entire fields of scientific knowledge” that evolution supposedly “spawned,” Paul R. Ehrlich & L.C. Birch wrote “Some biologists claim that an understanding of the evolutionary history of organisms is prerequisite to any comprehension of ecology. … Since the level of speculation (rather than investigation)(pito) is inevitably high in phylogenetics of any kind, a preoccupation with the largely unknown past can be shown to be a positive hindrance to progress. Professor G.W. Harper summarized the situation this way: “It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology; on the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality.”
It should be remembered that majority opinion, even among the intelligentsia, is no guarantee that the topic under consideration is correct. America lost one of, if not the, most important figures in its history because of the false belief among doctors that patients should be “bled” to treat fevers and other ailments, and George Washington was bled to death. Less than 200 years ago doctors practiced none of the sanitation and disinfecting procedures that are essential to saving life. It was the elite in what was arguably the most erudite and intelligent nation on earth that set the stage for the holocaust in Nazi Germany. As long as students continue to be bombarded with the message that they are nothing more than glorified pond scum, it should come as no surprise when they act like the wild animals they are told they are related to, and strike out, killing each other. In examining what evolution has truly “spawned,” Nazi Germany, Marxist Communism, and other such atheistic regimes are testimony to the kind of fruit Darwin’s tree produces. They are simply trying to make certain that they are the “fittest” to survive, by eliminating those they see as “unfit.”
In Genesis, the first thing the Bible reveals about God is that He was the Creator. In Revelation 4:11, describing the worship in heaven, the Bible says God is worthy of worship, and the first reason it gives for Him being worthy of worship is that He is the Creator. Numerous times in between, the Bible calls God our Maker. In Romans, chapter 1, Paul lays out the charges against sinful mankind, “who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” He said “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God” (giving Him credit for His creation) “nor gave thanks to Him. But their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” They refused to acknowledge God as Creator, and began to worship themselves (atheistic humanism) or other created things (paganism and pantheism). I don’t think a more accurate description of today’s scientific establishment, or the culture at large, could be made.
The article comes across as a regurgitation of the “party line” promoted in schools. Like the lessons in scientific atheism or evolution, it is totally lacking in hard evidence, but is replete with gross generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. I challenge the reader(s) to check the facts for themselves, rather than mindlessly swallow these empty claims.
Lester V[.]
Daphne, AL
**********************************************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Reply to Intelligent Design article
Thank you for your letter, even though it filled me with such despair. The ID group has been exposed time and again as a group with highly questionable motives, but their extensive propaganda has succeeded in convincing you to treat anyone associated with science with distrust and suspicion. It is ironic that the ID movement claims to be in favor of giving all sides equal time, but anyone who questions THEM is dismissed as being part of some cult or some grand conspiracy. Are you aware that you have prejudged and categorized me? You don't even know me.
Your thoroughly written statements are such faithful regurgitations of ID rhetoric, that it is obvious you have not made independent checks on their claims. This cult-like devotion is something I just do not understand. Based on all the evidence that proves what the ID movement really is, how could you trust them so completely? Because they use the Bible? Well, so have other groups that have wrought awful atrocities.
Let me put it another way: The ID movement is on an active campaign to discredit entire fields of science. So how can you trust them to provide reliable information about those sciences? Is it not like trusting a Nazi to give an "alternative" description of a Jew?
To: aagapud@yahoo.com
Subject: Reply to Intelligent Design article
An open letter to Albert Gapud and the readers of the Mobile Press-Register:
I would like to respond to the article published in the May 25, 2008 edition. For continuity, I will structure my response according to the sequence in the original article.
The article begins with an emotion-grabbing “straw-man” about the Alabama educational system, implying that the main subject of the rest of the article, the teaching of Creation/Intelligent Design, results in the “sabotage” of “our science curricula.” That is curious, since home-schooled children (who are not brainwashed in the evolutionary dogma) consistently score higher in math and science on standardized tests than do public school students. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
I do not claim any particular credentials as the article seems to demand. That does not mean that I am stupid or uneducated. I was an instructor in the Air Force for 15 years, and when I retired I taught high school for 13 years before falling victim to the same trouble facing local teachers today. “Discerning readers” also realize that it doesn’t take a PhD to recognize phony arguments, empty claims, faulty logic, and misrepresentation.
Can “a devout Roman Catholic” see that there is no Biblical basis for the selling of indulgences (documents that would absolve a person of guilt for any sin they committed), or the torture, mutilation, and murder of non-Catholics (as in the Inquisition)? Being a member of a particular church is no guarantee of being free from error. It is also important to remember that it was the “deeply religious” who betrayed, rejected, and crucified Jesus, and flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9-11. Again, it is no guarantee of perfection.
As far as there being “no conflict between science and religion,” let me cite more expert testimony than my own. (As with all of the quotations I will cite, I am omitting the references for the sake of space, but have them available for anyone who wants to verify them.) Microbiologist Richard Dawkins says, “Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions.” He sees evolution as a new religion in direct opposition to Christianity. Atheist G. Richard Bozarth says, “The whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. … Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death … and this is what evolution does, then Christianity is nothing!” Wolfgang Smith agrees with Dawkins when he says, “The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings create themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. This in itself implied, however, that the theory is scientifically unverifiable … . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.” George Johnston wrote, “It’s natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature – and hence a Designer.” The science referred to by these men is a science based in evolutionary humanism and naturalism that rejects any existence of, or participation by, a Creator. That brings evolutionary science into direct conflict with Christianity.
Anyone who reads Genesis 1 can see that the order in which God said He created the universe is diametrically opposite of that proposed by evolution; earth before the sun, light before the sun, water before an atmosphere, earth covered in water instead of being a molten mass, plants before sealife, birds before land animals, etc., just to name a few. Lest someone say, “That was only Moses’ opinion,” Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” That includes Genesis 1. That means God was speaking through Moses’ pen as he wrote what God wanted him to write. An even stronger verse is Exodus 20:11, where the Bible says that God created everything in six days. This verse is stronger because, in Exodus 32:1, God told Moses to carve two new tablets (to replace the ones he broke when he found the Jews worshiping a golden calf), and He would (personally) write in them the words that were on the first tablets. Therefore, while the description of the creation in 20:11 may have been dictated (and supposedly subject to error by Moses), 32:1 says the same things were written by God Himself the second time around. Anyone denying the creation is thus not only calling Moses a liar, but also calling God Himself a liar.
The article then says, “I believe there is intelligent design to everything in existence.” What is that belief based on? The statement implies that there is evidence in the created universe that it really was created. If so, then it is hypocritical and dishonest (as well as very poor instructional integrity) to refuse to provide students with that evidence. Professor G.W. Harper said, “For some time, it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination.” That’s what happens when material is censored from the classroom. W.R. Thompson (Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa) wrote, “It is … right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. … The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.” To that I would add that academic integrity has suffered as well.
Astronomer James Trefil wrote that “The distinguishing feature of science – the thing that makes it different from fields like literary criticism – is its unrelenting demand that all ideas and claims about the universe be checked by experiment on or observation of the universe itself. I don’t think it’s going too far to say that if a statement can’t be subjected to experimental or observational test, it simply isn’t a part of science.” I concur with this. However, by this definition, evolution is not part of science either. Biologists Green and Goldberger stated, “The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” Physicist H.S. Lipson said, “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Legitimate science cannot reject, a priori, any possible explanation of the data, yet this is precisely what evolution requires. That’s not good science, or good education.
The reference to the Dover court case should be considered irrelevant to the question of whether Creation/Intelligent Design is an appropriate topic for a science classroom. That case, as have been all other similar cases, was decided on the basis of the imaginary separation of church and state (which does not exist in the Constitution), and not on the weight of scientific evidence. The fear of a lawsuit is a powerful weapon that the ACLU and other atheist organizations use to browbeat people into stifling legitimate discussion. Silencing all opposition has been a tactic of totalitarian dictatorships for as long as men have sought to dominate other men. Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that the “dominion mandate” (see Genesis 1:26 & 28) gave man authority over virtually everything in creation except other men.
The subject of scientific bias is also legitimate. The article says, “The impartiality of physical data frees any proposed model from human bias.” That is simply not true. Facts do not speak for themselves at all; they must be interpreted, and that’s where biases come in. Niles Eldredge said, “In the real world, in the competitive fray that is science, data forging, plagiarism, and all manner of base and venal but utterly human failings make a mockery of the counterimage of detached objectivity.” Physicist H.S. Lipson said, “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” Atheist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said ”The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable)(pito-parenthesis in the original) robots, is self-serving mythology.” Stefan Bengtson (Institute of Paleontology, Uppsala University, Sweden) observed “Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) (pito) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat.” In other words, scientists frequently manipulate the evidence to fit their theories, or to satisfy the people who are supplying them with grants to fund their research. Although the possibility exists that Creationists might be guilty of the same dishonesty, I submit that they are much less likely to do so due to their recognition that they will have to answer to God for what they say and do – a “problem” the evolutionists do not believe they have.
Anyone who doubts that scientists lie, or allow biases to color their reality, should look at the history of evolutionary science. Piltdown Man, found in 1912, was the subject of hundreds if not thousands of doctoral theses, and provided evidence of man’s evolution at the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial,” until it was exposed, in 1953, as a deliberate hoax. Nebraska Man, also introduced into evidence in the Scopes trial, and based on a single tooth, was declared by Osborne (of the Museum of Natural History) to be a missing link in man’s evolution, until it was found to belong to an extinct pig. The “Lucy” model on display in several museums features human feet, when in fact no foot bones were found with the skeleton, and other fossils of the same kind of creature that “Lucy” was have been shown to have feet with opposing thumbs like monkeys and apes. Just after Darwin published his theory, Ernst Haeckel produced a series of drawings that supposedly showed that embryos of numerous animals were virtually identical, and that human fetuses retraced their evolutionary history as they developed in the womb. For more than 100 years it has been known that the drawings were frauds, but you can still find them in textbooks in use today. Abortionists use this same phony argument to convince pregnant girls (and women) that the “thing” growing inside them isn’t really human but is nothing more than a glob of tissue going through the “fish stage” or “amphibian stage” of evolution, and can be aborted without actually killing a person. Samuel Paul Welles wrote two articles for World Book Encyclopedia. In one, he said “Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.” In the other article, he said, “The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.” That is clearly circular reasoning, but is promoted as objective, demonstrated fact.
The discussion of “peer-reviewed publications” is a serious one. The fact is that creationists do not have huge numbers of published studies in the standard scientific journals is not due to the lack of scientific validity of their studies, but because of the strangle-hold evolutionists have on the journals, book publishers, academic institutions, and political power-brokers. This was clearly demonstrated by Ben Stein in his recent film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Evolutionists simply will not allow any scientist thought to be anti-evolutionary to be published. The article said that intelligent design “has no peer-reviewed, published experimental data to substantiate its claim as science.” Let’s look at some of the published data related to evolution that you won’t read in the textbooks.
Biochemist Klaus Bose wrote, “At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field (of chemical and molecular evolution) either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said “There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an inorganic soup here on the Earth.” Biophysicist Hubert Yockey says “One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.” Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote “In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate,’ ‘ancestral,’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any sign of their supposed intermediate status.” Geneticist N. Takahata said “None of the hypotheses seems compatible with the observed DNA variation.” Wolfgang Smith said “It can be said with the utmost rigor that the (macroevolutionary) doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. … Given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Biologist Pierre Grasse said “The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved.” Jeremy Rifkin wrote “What the (fossil) ‘record’ shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the missions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution.” Microbiologist Michael Denton declared “It was not only his general theory that was almost entirely lacking in any direct empirical support, but his special theory was also largely dependent on circumstantial evidence. A striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of a new species.” George Johnston said “No one has ever seen one species change into another either in the fossil record or in breeding experiments. Darwin himself was unable to come up with a single indisputable case of one animal changing into another via ‘natural selection.’ His case was entirely theoretical; it rested on a chain of suppositions rather than empirical observation; the ‘facts’ that he mustered were either made to fit the theory or were explained away.” Geologist James H. Shea stated “Much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism … has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources, as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.” Gareth V. Nelson (Ichthyologist, American Museum of Natural History) said “The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure … this search is an exercise in futility.” D.V. Ager (President of the Geological Association) said “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student … have now been ‘debunked.’” Mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe testified “From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. … At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for God. … We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation – and not accidental random shuffling.” Mathematicians/Astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe concluded that “Life cannot have had a random beginning. The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts (zeros) after it. … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. … If the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” So much for the “centuries-old understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution.”
Another “straw-man” is the idea that “thousands and thousands of books” would have to be discarded, and we would have to “try to explain how every single page of those books is invalid.” No one has suggested such an extreme measure. Such an “all-or-nothing” position is illogical, inaccurate, and unnecessary. The only thing that would have to be changed is the unfounded claims made by the historical evolutionists, since their theories are not subject to scientific examination. Still another “straw-man” is the statement that “the intelligent-design movement would also have us believe that the Darwinian model is so full of holes that it ought to be dismantled.” I disagree. I believe that the best thing scientists and science educators could do would be to present evolution – with all its holes clearly exposed – along with the solid experimental evidence that demonstrates the overall inadequacy of the evolutionary theory to explain anything of real merit. Then encourage people to think for themselves.
Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History) said “Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. … It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge.”
In terms of the “entire fields of scientific knowledge” that evolution supposedly “spawned,” Paul R. Ehrlich & L.C. Birch wrote “Some biologists claim that an understanding of the evolutionary history of organisms is prerequisite to any comprehension of ecology. … Since the level of speculation (rather than investigation)(pito) is inevitably high in phylogenetics of any kind, a preoccupation with the largely unknown past can be shown to be a positive hindrance to progress. Professor G.W. Harper summarized the situation this way: “It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology; on the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality.”
It should be remembered that majority opinion, even among the intelligentsia, is no guarantee that the topic under consideration is correct. America lost one of, if not the, most important figures in its history because of the false belief among doctors that patients should be “bled” to treat fevers and other ailments, and George Washington was bled to death. Less than 200 years ago doctors practiced none of the sanitation and disinfecting procedures that are essential to saving life. It was the elite in what was arguably the most erudite and intelligent nation on earth that set the stage for the holocaust in Nazi Germany. As long as students continue to be bombarded with the message that they are nothing more than glorified pond scum, it should come as no surprise when they act like the wild animals they are told they are related to, and strike out, killing each other. In examining what evolution has truly “spawned,” Nazi Germany, Marxist Communism, and other such atheistic regimes are testimony to the kind of fruit Darwin’s tree produces. They are simply trying to make certain that they are the “fittest” to survive, by eliminating those they see as “unfit.”
In Genesis, the first thing the Bible reveals about God is that He was the Creator. In Revelation 4:11, describing the worship in heaven, the Bible says God is worthy of worship, and the first reason it gives for Him being worthy of worship is that He is the Creator. Numerous times in between, the Bible calls God our Maker. In Romans, chapter 1, Paul lays out the charges against sinful mankind, “who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” He said “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God” (giving Him credit for His creation) “nor gave thanks to Him. But their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” They refused to acknowledge God as Creator, and began to worship themselves (atheistic humanism) or other created things (paganism and pantheism). I don’t think a more accurate description of today’s scientific establishment, or the culture at large, could be made.
The article comes across as a regurgitation of the “party line” promoted in schools. Like the lessons in scientific atheism or evolution, it is totally lacking in hard evidence, but is replete with gross generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. I challenge the reader(s) to check the facts for themselves, rather than mindlessly swallow these empty claims.
Lester V[.]
Daphne, AL
**********************************************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Reply to Intelligent Design article
Thank you for your letter, even though it filled me with such despair. The ID group has been exposed time and again as a group with highly questionable motives, but their extensive propaganda has succeeded in convincing you to treat anyone associated with science with distrust and suspicion. It is ironic that the ID movement claims to be in favor of giving all sides equal time, but anyone who questions THEM is dismissed as being part of some cult or some grand conspiracy. Are you aware that you have prejudged and categorized me? You don't even know me.
Your thoroughly written statements are such faithful regurgitations of ID rhetoric, that it is obvious you have not made independent checks on their claims. This cult-like devotion is something I just do not understand. Based on all the evidence that proves what the ID movement really is, how could you trust them so completely? Because they use the Bible? Well, so have other groups that have wrought awful atrocities.
Let me put it another way: The ID movement is on an active campaign to discredit entire fields of science. So how can you trust them to provide reliable information about those sciences? Is it not like trusting a Nazi to give an "alternative" description of a Jew?
Responses to ID column: James M.
Subject: Your article 'don't be distracted'
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 07:35:49 -0500
Dr. Gapud,
I read your article on 'intelligent design' where you stated that "none of the authors were scientists or science educated'. Please contact http://www.reasons.org/ if you really want the names of scientists who believe God indeed created the heavens and the earth as the Bible (Catholic and Protestant) declares. Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, Dr. David H. Rogstad, Dr. Jeff Zweerink and Dr. Fazale Rana are some of the science educated Phd's who lecture at universities throughout Canada and the United States on Creation and the Bible account.
I'm sure they would to discuss their views with someone with the background like you.
Sincerely,
James M[.] [Mobile]
***************************************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your article 'don't be distracted'
Mr. M[…],Thank you for your feedback. However, I think you may have missed important points in the essay. When I said that "none of the authors are scientists or science educaTORS"(not "educated"), I was referring only to the folks who wrote to the Press Register. The RTB movement targets non-believers (atheists); I wrote that I am a believer. However, we should be suspicious when they make claims of "scientific evidence" without citing articles in peer-reviewed journals -- an important criterion used by scientists. Regards,Albert
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 07:35:49 -0500
Dr. Gapud,
I read your article on 'intelligent design' where you stated that "none of the authors were scientists or science educated'. Please contact http://www.reasons.org/ if you really want the names of scientists who believe God indeed created the heavens and the earth as the Bible (Catholic and Protestant) declares. Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, Dr. David H. Rogstad, Dr. Jeff Zweerink and Dr. Fazale Rana are some of the science educated Phd's who lecture at universities throughout Canada and the United States on Creation and the Bible account.
I'm sure they would to discuss their views with someone with the background like you.
Sincerely,
James M[.] [Mobile]
***************************************************
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your article 'don't be distracted'
Mr. M[…],Thank you for your feedback. However, I think you may have missed important points in the essay. When I said that "none of the authors are scientists or science educaTORS"(not "educated"), I was referring only to the folks who wrote to the Press Register. The RTB movement targets non-believers (atheists); I wrote that I am a believer. However, we should be suspicious when they make claims of "scientific evidence" without citing articles in peer-reviewed journals -- an important criterion used by scientists. Regards,Albert
Response to ID column: Correspondence with Dave C.
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dr. Gapud,
I am writing this letter in response to your article that appeared in the Press-Register on May 25th. I would like to respond to a few of the assertions you made. First of all, the last time I checked, evolution was still listed as a theory. Certain people in the scientific community seem to think that it has been proven as fact. If you look at evolution in the true light of what it is, you would see that it is actually “a belief system”. Religion can also be classified as a “belief system”. We all want to know where we came from. People tend to think that “origins science” is on the same level as “observation science”. I can use “observation science” to see the beginning and the outcome of an experiment, but I wasn’t there in the beginning of time to know what happened. Therefore, we rely on artifacts, geological evidences and other things to give us the clues to the past. Both sides have the same evidence; we just come up with different outcomes based on our presuppositions.
You mentioned that none of the articles were written by scientists or scientific educators. I assume you believe that all scientists agree with you when it comes to evolutionary beliefs. There are plenty of reputable scientists that don’t agree with Darwin. Just because none of them wrote a letter in our paper is not proof that you are correct. A scientist that speaks out in favor of intelligent design is risking having future grant money for their projects removed as well as not getting their papers published. In other words, they are blackballed.
You said that you are a devout Catholic Christian and that “intelligent design” should only be discussed in the church or a philosophy class. This type of statement leads me to think that you believe it is a “fairy tale” with no truth and should be relegated to the church were they teach other “fairy tales”. At the same time you say you believe there is intelligent design in everything. If you believe there is intelligent design in all things, why do you not believe that we should use “good science” to determine the feasibility of this theory? I don’t see where someone having a belief, that intelligence was involved in our creation process, is going to negatively effect cures for diseases, longer life spans, revolutionizing medicine and agriculture, and so on. On the same hand, I don’t see where believing that I came from a primate is going to help the previously mentioned items to come about.
You used the statement “God’s green earth”. If there wasn’t intelligent design, why are you giving God credit? You talked about not having time to dispute the intelligent design books and said, “We have better things to do”. You apparently have time to write a half page article on why science is a closed box and that nobody can question the theories that were brought about over a hundred years ago.
Our judicial system is not perfect, and a court decision against the intelligent design community does not mean that it is proven to be wrong. Courts once decided that it was okay to own another human being as property, but I am glad that decision was proven wrong.
The last comment is in reference to your statement that all data that makes it into the textbooks is tested and proven. If this is true then why are the textbooks always changing? They remove things that were once “proven”, but are now found not to be true. The other thing that is done is to leave things in the textbooks that were proven wrong years ago and are still used as propaganda. One example is Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of certain animals and a human embryo. His drawings have the fish, turtle, chicken, rabbit and the human all looking the same; leaving us with the impression that we all are closely related. In realty, the real embryos hardly look anything alike.
In conclusion, if the scientific community is truly interested in the truth, they should allow all points to be examined. Those who seek to oppose the truth always try to subdue it.
Sincerely,
David C[.]
Mobile, AL
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dear Mr. C[.],
Thank you so much for your letter. I am very interested in the issues you raised.
However, I feel that many of the statements in your letter reflect a simple misunderstanding of most of my statements in the essay, which can be easily cleared up if you would just please do a careful re-read of the essay.
For now, please allow me to comment on something clearly important to you and to me: Truth.
You seem to think I equate “science” with “truth”. Let us make something perfectly clear – and this is something the intelligent-design folks do not want you to know: No self-respecting scientist would ever equate “science” with “truth”. (Please re-read the part of the essay that says science can not claim intelligent design to be “wrong”.)
As you know, science is just one aspect of humanity’s search for truth. Art is another aspect. Religion is also another. Science deals only with what our five senses can tell us – no more, no less. Therefore, science cannot tell us what “beauty” is – and this is why we need Art: music, dance, cinema, paintings, and literature. For the same reason, science cannot tell us what “love” is, or what our “purpose” is, or what things we “should” or “should not” do – and this is why we need Religion.
In short, science is not the whole picture because we humans are much more than just five senses, more than just what measurements and data can say about us. There is no data that can back up my claim that Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” is one of the most beautiful ballads ever made. There is no equation that can prove my claim that I love my wife more than life itself. I also claim that Jesus Christ is my King and savior – but I cannot show you any statistics to back up this claim. Does that mean that all of these claims are “wrong”? Of course not.
Therefore, I hope you would not feel uncomfortable when I say that religious beliefs do not belong in a science class. When I say that something is “not science”: I am not saying it is “wrong” or “not true”, I’m just saying it is something that cannot be proven using scientific measurements. And when you cannot use scientific measurements in a discussion about something, then you are no longer having a scientific discussion; instead you have something outside of science class. Does this mean we are now in the realm of fiction, or fantasy, or “fairy tales”? Of course not.
I hope that you now understand how I differentiate between “science” and “truth”. It is with this understanding that I hope you will re-read the essay. Afterwards, I would be happy to discuss further with you.
Respectfully yours,
Albert
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
After re-reading your essay, I have come to the conclusion that I understood it the first time. I feel that you are still not accepting the analysis that evolution is “a belief system”. There are more evidences ( scientific and historic) to prove the accuracy of the Bible than there are to prove the theories of Charles Darwin. If this is the case, then why is evolution still being taught as fact and the science of the Bible banned from the classroom? The changes we see in natural selection are often referred to as “evolving”. In order to evolve you must have new information added. We just don’t see that happening.
People like you who are opposed to intelligent design often say that we are trying to throw out conventional science. We only want to have all points laid out on the table to examine. When you try to suppress other alternatives, you are like a salesman that hides the other competitor’s goods in order to make sure people buy your item. Given the opportunity to examine things on a level playing field, people will come up with the right answers.
You mentioned that we need religion to tell us what love is, or what our purpose is, or what we should or should not do. I on the other hand think that religion is the problem with the world today. We have gotten away from what the Bible says and have started believing what infallible man has to say. The Bible has been repeatedly proven to be historically and scientifically accurate. Just because we refuse to believe the truth does not mean it is not true. We have established our “religions” based upon what we want truth to be. We all go the church that makes us feel better about our lifestyle. What we really need is to have a relationship with God. I have a problem with people that believe that Jesus wants us to love each other, but yet they don’t believe the part in John 1:1 were he says he is God. With a statement like this, he was either telling the truth or he was a liar. He also claimed to be the only way to Heaven (John 14:26), and yet we still want to say there are many roads to Heaven. If you only believe part of God’s word, how do you know which part is true. I believe things are true after I test them. I have studied the Bible’s statements on historical, geological, scientific and astrological things and have found them to be accurate.
You are right when you say, “religious beliefs do not belong in a science class”. We don’t need to teach religion; we need to teach all possibilities of origins based on proof from scientific evidences. Until the scientific community is ready to open their eyes to the mass amount of evidences, that an intelligent designer had to be involved in the process, we will continue to stay at the same crossroads in science ( Please read Romans 1:20-22).
We have the bible’s history on origins that can easily be measured through science, but those that refuse to believe in God don’t want to go down that path for fear that if it is proven to be true will know they have to answer to the creator God. I believe this is the real reason that intelligent design is opposed.
David
***************
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[.],Science is not a "belief system", but part of what made it so reliable is that we have followed a certain procedure for advancing our knowledge. If you want to do science, you have to follow the procedure. It's like trying to make a new federal law. Let's say you're a muslim and you want to outlaw the eating of pork across America -- after all, pork is an impure food. Well, you don't go straight to the speaker of the house and to the senate president and try to insert this new law into the books, it has to go through rigorous scrutiny, using tried and true standards. If your proposal does not become law, even with the checks and balances between both houses, between executive and legislative, etc., especially after several tries, then one should accept that outlawing pork is not a proper law. Well, ID proponents have never even gone this far; they have not even tried to do step ONE of the scientific process. (This is described in the essay as a process that has even more extensive checks and balances -- and actually predates the US government.) If they really have a viable "alternative" to evolution, then that means it has gone through the same process as all other scientific proposals and survived. If the proposal did not go through, then that means they failed and should accept that ID is not a scientific principle. And if it's not a scientific principle, then it cannot be an "alternative". At that particular point, the ID proposal is no threat to science. NOW, when the ID folks try to INSERT their theory without going through the proper procedure, then that is a total disregard of the scientific process. It is in that sense that they are attacking science. Going back to that pork law example: If I try to circumvent congressional procedure, I will not attract sympathy from congressmen -- I'll land in jail!No disrespect, sir, but your characterization of science and scientists reflects an inadequate understanding of how science is really done. But this is easily remedied simply by finding out more. Just because ID folks do not understand, that does not mean you have to be the same. I strongly suggest you speak to different scientists, including those not listed by the ID folks. Have you done this? Have you tried to find out a typical day/week/month/year in the life of a scientist? Have you even surveyed the other side of ID's arguments? Did you do your own checking into their claims? Don't be fooled when they use the Bible -- remember that entire cults have used the Bible to excuse some of the worst atrocities of history.Here's an even better question: the ID folks are actively trying to discredit entire sciences: Can you honestly trust such a group to give you reliable information about the science they are attacking? That's like trusting Nazis to give you an "alternative" description of a Jew. --Albert
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
If you would read my letters closely, you would see that I am not trying to say that science is a "belief system. I am saying that the concept theory of evolution is a belief system. It is the theory of origins to an evolutionist in the same way that the chronicles in the book of Genesis is to a christian. If you would read the bible and go through the scientific methods you keep talking about,you will be able to prove many of the claims in Genesis 1-11 as feasable alternatives. What evolutionist need to understand is that their belief in origins is not "science". It may use science to try to prove their claim, but it is not science itself. We are not attacking science, but are attacking false claims by science. It is no different that trying to get rid of bad laws.
You suggested that I talk with non ID scientist; well I have been listening to them for years and it wasn't until I started looking into other options that I really started to learn the truth about origins. I was shown that the science of the bible can be trusted (yes, the bible is a science text book). I would sugggest that you go to a website www.answersingenesis.org to find good information on
the origins. They have an excellent museum in northern Kentucky that I have visited. If scientist
were open to the truth, like they say, they would not try to hang on to old theories that are so full of holes.
I agree with your comment on false use of the bible. We shoud never try to use a verse here or there to try to determine what God is saying to us. God gave us the entire bible. The letter(books) that were chosen all went through the test of canon in order to be included (similar to the scientific tests you refer to) in the bible. We must read the entire thing to understand it. I would wager to say over 95 percent of the population has never read the entire bible but yet they are all experts on how to live and where they are going when they leave this life.
In conclusion, I don't think IDs have ever tried to discredit "entire sciences". This goes back to our belief that the evoltionary theory is a science.
Thank you for your responses.
David
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[...],
I respect your opinions and appreciate your willingness to respond.
However, I think I will always be baffled by the logic of ID arguments. ID singles out one scientific principle as non-science while acknowledging all other scientific principles as being OK. This does not make any logical sense. The fact is, evolution has been accepted as science because it has followed the same exact process and criteria as do all of the other branches of science (remember the "peer review" process). This is the reason why calling evolution as a "belief system" is like calling all of science a belief system. Questioning one established scientific principle basically questions all of established science. Also, as I said before, evolution has pointed us to useful knowledge about life processes that have made a positive impact on our quality of life, just like all other significant principles like Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
When you use adherence to scientific procedure as a criterion, evolution is really on an equal footing with all other important principles in science. And yet this one principle has been singled out for no other apparent reason than some folks just don't like the sound of it. Is it because it violates Biblical text? I don't think so. There are many discoveries and principles in physics and in chemistry that used to be seen as a violation of Biblical text -- and one could probably find even more -- but you don't see the ID folks trying to introduce "alternative" physics or chemistry. So ID is not really a fundamentalist group (one that takes Biblical texts very literally).
Speaking for myself, it seems to me that ID represents people who simply cannot accept the notion of humans evolving from less complex organisms. Why is it difficult to think that maybe God used evolution to execute His creation of life? (Remember, you can't say it's because it violates Biblical text because then you have to explain why physics / chemistry is not being attacked even though they violate many Biblical texts.)
If the reason is not scriptural, then clearly it is just an arbitrary personal distaste of the idea. They just don't want to believe we have so much in common with other animals. Why is this a bad thing, when these animals do not commit selfish suicide, or murder their families, or commit genocide, or wage war on its own species? Also, just because we are evolved from other animals, obviously this has never diminished the fact that humans are capable of great love and heroism, can design and build the most amazing things, and can organize the greatest campaigns of kindness. So, what's the problem?
Albert
***************
[NOTE: No response as of 5/29, when I sent the form letter.]
Subject: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dr. Gapud,
I am writing this letter in response to your article that appeared in the Press-Register on May 25th. I would like to respond to a few of the assertions you made. First of all, the last time I checked, evolution was still listed as a theory. Certain people in the scientific community seem to think that it has been proven as fact. If you look at evolution in the true light of what it is, you would see that it is actually “a belief system”. Religion can also be classified as a “belief system”. We all want to know where we came from. People tend to think that “origins science” is on the same level as “observation science”. I can use “observation science” to see the beginning and the outcome of an experiment, but I wasn’t there in the beginning of time to know what happened. Therefore, we rely on artifacts, geological evidences and other things to give us the clues to the past. Both sides have the same evidence; we just come up with different outcomes based on our presuppositions.
You mentioned that none of the articles were written by scientists or scientific educators. I assume you believe that all scientists agree with you when it comes to evolutionary beliefs. There are plenty of reputable scientists that don’t agree with Darwin. Just because none of them wrote a letter in our paper is not proof that you are correct. A scientist that speaks out in favor of intelligent design is risking having future grant money for their projects removed as well as not getting their papers published. In other words, they are blackballed.
You said that you are a devout Catholic Christian and that “intelligent design” should only be discussed in the church or a philosophy class. This type of statement leads me to think that you believe it is a “fairy tale” with no truth and should be relegated to the church were they teach other “fairy tales”. At the same time you say you believe there is intelligent design in everything. If you believe there is intelligent design in all things, why do you not believe that we should use “good science” to determine the feasibility of this theory? I don’t see where someone having a belief, that intelligence was involved in our creation process, is going to negatively effect cures for diseases, longer life spans, revolutionizing medicine and agriculture, and so on. On the same hand, I don’t see where believing that I came from a primate is going to help the previously mentioned items to come about.
You used the statement “God’s green earth”. If there wasn’t intelligent design, why are you giving God credit? You talked about not having time to dispute the intelligent design books and said, “We have better things to do”. You apparently have time to write a half page article on why science is a closed box and that nobody can question the theories that were brought about over a hundred years ago.
Our judicial system is not perfect, and a court decision against the intelligent design community does not mean that it is proven to be wrong. Courts once decided that it was okay to own another human being as property, but I am glad that decision was proven wrong.
The last comment is in reference to your statement that all data that makes it into the textbooks is tested and proven. If this is true then why are the textbooks always changing? They remove things that were once “proven”, but are now found not to be true. The other thing that is done is to leave things in the textbooks that were proven wrong years ago and are still used as propaganda. One example is Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of certain animals and a human embryo. His drawings have the fish, turtle, chicken, rabbit and the human all looking the same; leaving us with the impression that we all are closely related. In realty, the real embryos hardly look anything alike.
In conclusion, if the scientific community is truly interested in the truth, they should allow all points to be examined. Those who seek to oppose the truth always try to subdue it.
Sincerely,
David C[.]
Mobile, AL
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dear Mr. C[.],
Thank you so much for your letter. I am very interested in the issues you raised.
However, I feel that many of the statements in your letter reflect a simple misunderstanding of most of my statements in the essay, which can be easily cleared up if you would just please do a careful re-read of the essay.
For now, please allow me to comment on something clearly important to you and to me: Truth.
You seem to think I equate “science” with “truth”. Let us make something perfectly clear – and this is something the intelligent-design folks do not want you to know: No self-respecting scientist would ever equate “science” with “truth”. (Please re-read the part of the essay that says science can not claim intelligent design to be “wrong”.)
As you know, science is just one aspect of humanity’s search for truth. Art is another aspect. Religion is also another. Science deals only with what our five senses can tell us – no more, no less. Therefore, science cannot tell us what “beauty” is – and this is why we need Art: music, dance, cinema, paintings, and literature. For the same reason, science cannot tell us what “love” is, or what our “purpose” is, or what things we “should” or “should not” do – and this is why we need Religion.
In short, science is not the whole picture because we humans are much more than just five senses, more than just what measurements and data can say about us. There is no data that can back up my claim that Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” is one of the most beautiful ballads ever made. There is no equation that can prove my claim that I love my wife more than life itself. I also claim that Jesus Christ is my King and savior – but I cannot show you any statistics to back up this claim. Does that mean that all of these claims are “wrong”? Of course not.
Therefore, I hope you would not feel uncomfortable when I say that religious beliefs do not belong in a science class. When I say that something is “not science”: I am not saying it is “wrong” or “not true”, I’m just saying it is something that cannot be proven using scientific measurements. And when you cannot use scientific measurements in a discussion about something, then you are no longer having a scientific discussion; instead you have something outside of science class. Does this mean we are now in the realm of fiction, or fantasy, or “fairy tales”? Of course not.
I hope that you now understand how I differentiate between “science” and “truth”. It is with this understanding that I hope you will re-read the essay. Afterwards, I would be happy to discuss further with you.
Respectfully yours,
Albert
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
After re-reading your essay, I have come to the conclusion that I understood it the first time. I feel that you are still not accepting the analysis that evolution is “a belief system”. There are more evidences ( scientific and historic) to prove the accuracy of the Bible than there are to prove the theories of Charles Darwin. If this is the case, then why is evolution still being taught as fact and the science of the Bible banned from the classroom? The changes we see in natural selection are often referred to as “evolving”. In order to evolve you must have new information added. We just don’t see that happening.
People like you who are opposed to intelligent design often say that we are trying to throw out conventional science. We only want to have all points laid out on the table to examine. When you try to suppress other alternatives, you are like a salesman that hides the other competitor’s goods in order to make sure people buy your item. Given the opportunity to examine things on a level playing field, people will come up with the right answers.
You mentioned that we need religion to tell us what love is, or what our purpose is, or what we should or should not do. I on the other hand think that religion is the problem with the world today. We have gotten away from what the Bible says and have started believing what infallible man has to say. The Bible has been repeatedly proven to be historically and scientifically accurate. Just because we refuse to believe the truth does not mean it is not true. We have established our “religions” based upon what we want truth to be. We all go the church that makes us feel better about our lifestyle. What we really need is to have a relationship with God. I have a problem with people that believe that Jesus wants us to love each other, but yet they don’t believe the part in John 1:1 were he says he is God. With a statement like this, he was either telling the truth or he was a liar. He also claimed to be the only way to Heaven (John 14:26), and yet we still want to say there are many roads to Heaven. If you only believe part of God’s word, how do you know which part is true. I believe things are true after I test them. I have studied the Bible’s statements on historical, geological, scientific and astrological things and have found them to be accurate.
You are right when you say, “religious beliefs do not belong in a science class”. We don’t need to teach religion; we need to teach all possibilities of origins based on proof from scientific evidences. Until the scientific community is ready to open their eyes to the mass amount of evidences, that an intelligent designer had to be involved in the process, we will continue to stay at the same crossroads in science ( Please read Romans 1:20-22).
We have the bible’s history on origins that can easily be measured through science, but those that refuse to believe in God don’t want to go down that path for fear that if it is proven to be true will know they have to answer to the creator God. I believe this is the real reason that intelligent design is opposed.
David
***************
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[.],Science is not a "belief system", but part of what made it so reliable is that we have followed a certain procedure for advancing our knowledge. If you want to do science, you have to follow the procedure. It's like trying to make a new federal law. Let's say you're a muslim and you want to outlaw the eating of pork across America -- after all, pork is an impure food. Well, you don't go straight to the speaker of the house and to the senate president and try to insert this new law into the books, it has to go through rigorous scrutiny, using tried and true standards. If your proposal does not become law, even with the checks and balances between both houses, between executive and legislative, etc., especially after several tries, then one should accept that outlawing pork is not a proper law. Well, ID proponents have never even gone this far; they have not even tried to do step ONE of the scientific process. (This is described in the essay as a process that has even more extensive checks and balances -- and actually predates the US government.) If they really have a viable "alternative" to evolution, then that means it has gone through the same process as all other scientific proposals and survived. If the proposal did not go through, then that means they failed and should accept that ID is not a scientific principle. And if it's not a scientific principle, then it cannot be an "alternative". At that particular point, the ID proposal is no threat to science. NOW, when the ID folks try to INSERT their theory without going through the proper procedure, then that is a total disregard of the scientific process. It is in that sense that they are attacking science. Going back to that pork law example: If I try to circumvent congressional procedure, I will not attract sympathy from congressmen -- I'll land in jail!No disrespect, sir, but your characterization of science and scientists reflects an inadequate understanding of how science is really done. But this is easily remedied simply by finding out more. Just because ID folks do not understand, that does not mean you have to be the same. I strongly suggest you speak to different scientists, including those not listed by the ID folks. Have you done this? Have you tried to find out a typical day/week/month/year in the life of a scientist? Have you even surveyed the other side of ID's arguments? Did you do your own checking into their claims? Don't be fooled when they use the Bible -- remember that entire cults have used the Bible to excuse some of the worst atrocities of history.Here's an even better question: the ID folks are actively trying to discredit entire sciences: Can you honestly trust such a group to give you reliable information about the science they are attacking? That's like trusting Nazis to give you an "alternative" description of a Jew. --Albert
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
If you would read my letters closely, you would see that I am not trying to say that science is a "belief system. I am saying that the concept theory of evolution is a belief system. It is the theory of origins to an evolutionist in the same way that the chronicles in the book of Genesis is to a christian. If you would read the bible and go through the scientific methods you keep talking about,you will be able to prove many of the claims in Genesis 1-11 as feasable alternatives. What evolutionist need to understand is that their belief in origins is not "science". It may use science to try to prove their claim, but it is not science itself. We are not attacking science, but are attacking false claims by science. It is no different that trying to get rid of bad laws.
You suggested that I talk with non ID scientist; well I have been listening to them for years and it wasn't until I started looking into other options that I really started to learn the truth about origins. I was shown that the science of the bible can be trusted (yes, the bible is a science text book). I would sugggest that you go to a website www.answersingenesis.org to find good information on
the origins. They have an excellent museum in northern Kentucky that I have visited. If scientist
were open to the truth, like they say, they would not try to hang on to old theories that are so full of holes.
I agree with your comment on false use of the bible. We shoud never try to use a verse here or there to try to determine what God is saying to us. God gave us the entire bible. The letter(books) that were chosen all went through the test of canon in order to be included (similar to the scientific tests you refer to) in the bible. We must read the entire thing to understand it. I would wager to say over 95 percent of the population has never read the entire bible but yet they are all experts on how to live and where they are going when they leave this life.
In conclusion, I don't think IDs have ever tried to discredit "entire sciences". This goes back to our belief that the evoltionary theory is a science.
Thank you for your responses.
David
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[...],
I respect your opinions and appreciate your willingness to respond.
However, I think I will always be baffled by the logic of ID arguments. ID singles out one scientific principle as non-science while acknowledging all other scientific principles as being OK. This does not make any logical sense. The fact is, evolution has been accepted as science because it has followed the same exact process and criteria as do all of the other branches of science (remember the "peer review" process). This is the reason why calling evolution as a "belief system" is like calling all of science a belief system. Questioning one established scientific principle basically questions all of established science. Also, as I said before, evolution has pointed us to useful knowledge about life processes that have made a positive impact on our quality of life, just like all other significant principles like Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
When you use adherence to scientific procedure as a criterion, evolution is really on an equal footing with all other important principles in science. And yet this one principle has been singled out for no other apparent reason than some folks just don't like the sound of it. Is it because it violates Biblical text? I don't think so. There are many discoveries and principles in physics and in chemistry that used to be seen as a violation of Biblical text -- and one could probably find even more -- but you don't see the ID folks trying to introduce "alternative" physics or chemistry. So ID is not really a fundamentalist group (one that takes Biblical texts very literally).
Speaking for myself, it seems to me that ID represents people who simply cannot accept the notion of humans evolving from less complex organisms. Why is it difficult to think that maybe God used evolution to execute His creation of life? (Remember, you can't say it's because it violates Biblical text because then you have to explain why physics / chemistry is not being attacked even though they violate many Biblical texts.)
If the reason is not scriptural, then clearly it is just an arbitrary personal distaste of the idea. They just don't want to believe we have so much in common with other animals. Why is this a bad thing, when these animals do not commit selfish suicide, or murder their families, or commit genocide, or wage war on its own species? Also, just because we are evolved from other animals, obviously this has never diminished the fact that humans are capable of great love and heroism, can design and build the most amazing things, and can organize the greatest campaigns of kindness. So, what's the problem?
Albert
***************
[NOTE: No response as of 5/29, when I sent the form letter.]
Monday, November 19, 2007
Another reason why creationists just don't get it : LAWYERS.
I just had a light bulb moment, and want to put it out there as a hypothesis. This is with regards to creationists (and that's what they are, whether they are proponents of "intelligent design" or whatever other label they come up with next), who are trying to barge into our public school system, and why they keep misunderstanding the concept of a scientific "theory".
Like most people, you would probably think of a "theory" as a guess that still deserves to be proven or tested. If so, then you would be absolutely correct! What most people do not realize is that, even after after a theory is proven or tested to be a good explanation of how something in nature works, even after we've been able to use the theory to make technological advances and make predictions of other things -- even after all that, scientists continue to call it a "theory". Now there are exceptions to this; you're probably familiar with scientific "laws": law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. etc., but don't let the word fool you: these "laws" are still theories. It's just that these theories have proven reliable and accurate for so long that they are sometimes elevated above all others -- but they are all theories.
So, why continue calling it a theory if it has worked so well? Because we want to keep it still open for testing and proving (or disproving). It is this openness that has allowed science to progress to the level of understanding that we have today. As a result, many theories have fallen by the wayside after failing the unblinking scrutiny of physical measurements in scientific experimentation. One example is the theory of "spontaneous generation" in which we used to think that infections were spontaneously generated within our bodies; this theory had to be abandoned once we discovered germs and other micro-organisms that carry disease. If it had not been open for debate, we might not have developed antibiotics or vaccines; instead we would continue bleeding people to release bad "humours".
Continuing to keep a theory open for testing made it possible for Einstein and many other scientists to question even Newton's immortal "laws". As a result, we were able to discover that Newton's laws are actually just a small part of a bigger picture. Meanwhile, Einstein's new theories have been confirmed by numerous experiments and are therefore now widely accepted as well.
Now, the principle of biological evolution is another example of one such scientific "theory". Even though it has been confirmed, proven, and supported by experiments; has successfully predicted new discoveries; and has made possible many advancements in medicine, medical health care, and agriculture which have developed our quality of life as a species -- even after all that, it is still referred to as a "theory". It's just that no experiment has been able to support a better, alternative theory.
Now, let us contrast this concept of scientific "theory" with a legal theory -- for example, the theory regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unlike a scientific theory, this is a kind of theory that must be proven absolutely correct -- correct beyond a "reasonable doubt". This is understandable: When it comes to people's lives, you cannot afford a theory that is open for testing. The whole idea of reasonable doubt is that if there are any gaps in a theory, then the theory cannot be believed. A scientific theory, on the other hand, even after multiple proofs and confirmation by experiment, welcomes the possibility of gaps.
The point is: lawyers may have a difficult time accepting or understanding the nature of scientific theories. If they see any holes or gaps in a scientific theory, their instinct would be to dismiss all the proofs and achievements of this theory and focus on getting some minimal "reasonable doubt" enough to discredit the theory altogether. If they find at least one person with an advanced degree that has criticisms against a theory, they would even consider the theory to be "controversial".
Why am I even talking about lawyers? Well, this is the light bulb moment: The people pushing the ID movement are lawyers. The founder, Phillip Johnson, is a lawyer. The Thomas More Law Center which funds the publication of ID textbooks is a group of lawyers. None of these people are even scientists.
This explains a lot. Consider:
(1) Lawyers are also accustomed to a bi-modal form of thinking: guilty or not guilty, ruling against or in favor of, and so on. If a theory posits that the defendant is guilty, and this theory is dismissed, then there is only one other theory that can be considered: innocent. By contrast, in science, the failure of a scientific theory in an experimental test does not automatically "prove" another alternative theory: that alternative theory must also be tested and proven first! Instead, the sole argument that proponents of "intelligent design" present is this: since evolution has gaps that are unexplained, then ID must be a suitable alternative theory. But when you ask them for experimental tests or proof of this alternative theory, they have nothing. That is why ID can not be taken seriously by the scientific community. (In fact, ID will never have anything because the theory can not even be tested!) Apparently, to these lawyers, evolution is the one "on trial", and so ID does not have the "burden of proof"!
(2) Another note: while scientists think inductively -- conclusion arrived after presented with much evidence -- lawyers tend to think deductively: they start with a conclusion and gather much evidence to support it). Well, creationists always start with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story and, according to their "Wedge" manifesto, are currently trying to find "scientists" who can gather the physical evidence. This is another reason why most scientists can not take ID seriously.
Bottom line: ID is not science; it is a bunch of lawyers making a negative argument.
Like most people, you would probably think of a "theory" as a guess that still deserves to be proven or tested. If so, then you would be absolutely correct! What most people do not realize is that, even after after a theory is proven or tested to be a good explanation of how something in nature works, even after we've been able to use the theory to make technological advances and make predictions of other things -- even after all that, scientists continue to call it a "theory". Now there are exceptions to this; you're probably familiar with scientific "laws": law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. etc., but don't let the word fool you: these "laws" are still theories. It's just that these theories have proven reliable and accurate for so long that they are sometimes elevated above all others -- but they are all theories.
So, why continue calling it a theory if it has worked so well? Because we want to keep it still open for testing and proving (or disproving). It is this openness that has allowed science to progress to the level of understanding that we have today. As a result, many theories have fallen by the wayside after failing the unblinking scrutiny of physical measurements in scientific experimentation. One example is the theory of "spontaneous generation" in which we used to think that infections were spontaneously generated within our bodies; this theory had to be abandoned once we discovered germs and other micro-organisms that carry disease. If it had not been open for debate, we might not have developed antibiotics or vaccines; instead we would continue bleeding people to release bad "humours".
Continuing to keep a theory open for testing made it possible for Einstein and many other scientists to question even Newton's immortal "laws". As a result, we were able to discover that Newton's laws are actually just a small part of a bigger picture. Meanwhile, Einstein's new theories have been confirmed by numerous experiments and are therefore now widely accepted as well.
Now, the principle of biological evolution is another example of one such scientific "theory". Even though it has been confirmed, proven, and supported by experiments; has successfully predicted new discoveries; and has made possible many advancements in medicine, medical health care, and agriculture which have developed our quality of life as a species -- even after all that, it is still referred to as a "theory". It's just that no experiment has been able to support a better, alternative theory.
Now, let us contrast this concept of scientific "theory" with a legal theory -- for example, the theory regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unlike a scientific theory, this is a kind of theory that must be proven absolutely correct -- correct beyond a "reasonable doubt". This is understandable: When it comes to people's lives, you cannot afford a theory that is open for testing. The whole idea of reasonable doubt is that if there are any gaps in a theory, then the theory cannot be believed. A scientific theory, on the other hand, even after multiple proofs and confirmation by experiment, welcomes the possibility of gaps.
The point is: lawyers may have a difficult time accepting or understanding the nature of scientific theories. If they see any holes or gaps in a scientific theory, their instinct would be to dismiss all the proofs and achievements of this theory and focus on getting some minimal "reasonable doubt" enough to discredit the theory altogether. If they find at least one person with an advanced degree that has criticisms against a theory, they would even consider the theory to be "controversial".
Why am I even talking about lawyers? Well, this is the light bulb moment: The people pushing the ID movement are lawyers. The founder, Phillip Johnson, is a lawyer. The Thomas More Law Center which funds the publication of ID textbooks is a group of lawyers. None of these people are even scientists.
This explains a lot. Consider:
(1) Lawyers are also accustomed to a bi-modal form of thinking: guilty or not guilty, ruling against or in favor of, and so on. If a theory posits that the defendant is guilty, and this theory is dismissed, then there is only one other theory that can be considered: innocent. By contrast, in science, the failure of a scientific theory in an experimental test does not automatically "prove" another alternative theory: that alternative theory must also be tested and proven first! Instead, the sole argument that proponents of "intelligent design" present is this: since evolution has gaps that are unexplained, then ID must be a suitable alternative theory. But when you ask them for experimental tests or proof of this alternative theory, they have nothing. That is why ID can not be taken seriously by the scientific community. (In fact, ID will never have anything because the theory can not even be tested!) Apparently, to these lawyers, evolution is the one "on trial", and so ID does not have the "burden of proof"!
(2) Another note: while scientists think inductively -- conclusion arrived after presented with much evidence -- lawyers tend to think deductively: they start with a conclusion and gather much evidence to support it). Well, creationists always start with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story and, according to their "Wedge" manifesto, are currently trying to find "scientists" who can gather the physical evidence. This is another reason why most scientists can not take ID seriously.
Bottom line: ID is not science; it is a bunch of lawyers making a negative argument.
Notes: NOVA's Judgment Day: I.D. on trial
This was a retelling of the dramatic legal suit filed in 2004 against the school board members of Dover, PA who had tried to insert “intelligent design” into the science curriculum. Here are just some of my impressions and reactions.
THE HYPOCRISY OF SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
I found it shocking (but not too surprising) how un-Christian these so-called Christians in Dover, PA can be – from making shameless death threats against other people (the plaintiffs AND the Judge), destroying school property, and lying under oath. Creationists were caught trying to get around the Constitution and circumventing Supreme Court rulings – and rather ineptly, as it turns out. While zeal can be a great thing, a lack of restraint can also make you forget the most basic teachings of your religion. If we let this happen, then we are no better than the “religious” people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Or, at best, we will look like damn fools.
LET THESE MORONS BUILD THEIR FANTASY WORLD...AND GO EXTINCT.
I feel so sorry for these people. In a time when Americans desperately need to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy, these idiots are handing out death sentences to their children. Unless these kids catch on to the errors of their parents (like that one reporter who fought with her dad), they will never have access to professional careers in medicine, agriculture, chemistry, or any field that requires a recognition of the validity of the biological sciences – not to mention science in general. So they will keep on fighting this ridiculous “war” while their children find themselves unable to find decent jobs in the real world. In turn, succeeding generations will be even less educated, and so on, caught in a downward spiral of ignorance. Already the show revealed signs of their pitiful lack of intellect, in their pathetic attempts to get away with perjury and rationalize such actions. So in the end, it is exactly their self-imposed, destructive ignorance that gives me comfort. These guys are correct about one thing: In the end, the truth indeed will prevail, and these deluded people will simply get left behind while the rest of humanity marches forward as it always has. Isn’t it ironic, that natural selection would be the very downfall of this moronic sub-species?
EMBARRASSING AMERICA WHILE THE WORLD WATCHES
It struck me that a descendant of Charles Darwin himself was present at the trial, watching along with the rest of the world – watching Americans make asses out of themselves. This was one rare moment when I felt ashamed to be associated with this country. While the rest of the world flies toward the future on the wings of science, they must be laughing at us Americans for being so backward and ignorant.
INTERESTING: INTELLECTUAL MODESTY OF SCIENCE
Another thing I found striking is a huge world of difference between creationists and scientists in terms of humility. While the scientists repeatedly admitted that there is so much that they do not know, the creationists strongly believed themselves to have all the answers, placing themselves as intellectually superior over science teachers, scientists, and of course the judge who ruled against the creationists. How anyone could get fooled by these pathetic losers is simply beyond me.
REFUSAL OF FUNDAMENTALISTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LINKS TO NATURE
I’m beginning to see a possible common thread in the attitudes of fundamentalists towards nature, and it is this: In general they seem determined to disavow any close link between humanity and the natural world. I have always felt it spiritually uplifting to realize our commonality with all life – life that God had created and called “good”. This concept is sickening to these fundamentalists, and frankly I will never understand why. I don’t know where they got the idea that acknowledging such intimate connection to other living things makes us less human, less rational, less moral, or less ethical, although I can guess that it might come from the ignorant notion that animals are all mindless and “savage”. Sadly, I think this might explain their refusal to support environmental conservation (even if their food supplies are threatened), and, more seriously, their refusal to acknowledge the possibility that humans could cause global warming. It would be consistent with their denial of our interconnectedness with the rest of nature. Ironically, it is recognition of this interconnectedness that underscores God’s charge that humans be responsible stewards of all creation, while turning a blind eye to the reality of human’s ecological footprint totally shirks this duty. One can only hope that there will never be enough of these idiots to tip the balance towards environmental collapse. It may be tempting to go ahead and let their ignorance destroy their part of the world, but our connectedness to them will mean destruction for everyone – this interconnectedness is actually the point.
SCHOOLS YOU SHOULD NOT SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO:
The episode mentioned the schools where these ID proponents are faculty members. If these institutions have any concern for their reputation, they would can these idiots:
• Lehigh University (Michael Behe)
• University of Warwick (Steve Fuller)
• University of Idaho (Scott A. Minnich)
• UC Berkley School of Law (Phillip Johnson – the founder of ID: a lawyer! He’s not even a freakin scientist!!)
THE GOOD NEWS:
The judge (who was appointed by conservatives) ruled against the creationists, and the citizens of Dover have successfully elected an entirely new school board, and not one member supports the introduction of ID in the science curriculum; basically ID has no more chance of infiltrating the school. So even though Pat Robertson has condemned Dover to eternal damnation, Dover High might actually be an OK place for science education, precisely because of this crucible they went through, and may end up producing young people who will continue advancing the human quality of life – a quality of life even the creationists probably could not live without.
THE HYPOCRISY OF SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
I found it shocking (but not too surprising) how un-Christian these so-called Christians in Dover, PA can be – from making shameless death threats against other people (the plaintiffs AND the Judge), destroying school property, and lying under oath. Creationists were caught trying to get around the Constitution and circumventing Supreme Court rulings – and rather ineptly, as it turns out. While zeal can be a great thing, a lack of restraint can also make you forget the most basic teachings of your religion. If we let this happen, then we are no better than the “religious” people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Or, at best, we will look like damn fools.
LET THESE MORONS BUILD THEIR FANTASY WORLD...AND GO EXTINCT.
I feel so sorry for these people. In a time when Americans desperately need to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy, these idiots are handing out death sentences to their children. Unless these kids catch on to the errors of their parents (like that one reporter who fought with her dad), they will never have access to professional careers in medicine, agriculture, chemistry, or any field that requires a recognition of the validity of the biological sciences – not to mention science in general. So they will keep on fighting this ridiculous “war” while their children find themselves unable to find decent jobs in the real world. In turn, succeeding generations will be even less educated, and so on, caught in a downward spiral of ignorance. Already the show revealed signs of their pitiful lack of intellect, in their pathetic attempts to get away with perjury and rationalize such actions. So in the end, it is exactly their self-imposed, destructive ignorance that gives me comfort. These guys are correct about one thing: In the end, the truth indeed will prevail, and these deluded people will simply get left behind while the rest of humanity marches forward as it always has. Isn’t it ironic, that natural selection would be the very downfall of this moronic sub-species?
EMBARRASSING AMERICA WHILE THE WORLD WATCHES
It struck me that a descendant of Charles Darwin himself was present at the trial, watching along with the rest of the world – watching Americans make asses out of themselves. This was one rare moment when I felt ashamed to be associated with this country. While the rest of the world flies toward the future on the wings of science, they must be laughing at us Americans for being so backward and ignorant.
INTERESTING: INTELLECTUAL MODESTY OF SCIENCE
Another thing I found striking is a huge world of difference between creationists and scientists in terms of humility. While the scientists repeatedly admitted that there is so much that they do not know, the creationists strongly believed themselves to have all the answers, placing themselves as intellectually superior over science teachers, scientists, and of course the judge who ruled against the creationists. How anyone could get fooled by these pathetic losers is simply beyond me.
REFUSAL OF FUNDAMENTALISTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LINKS TO NATURE
I’m beginning to see a possible common thread in the attitudes of fundamentalists towards nature, and it is this: In general they seem determined to disavow any close link between humanity and the natural world. I have always felt it spiritually uplifting to realize our commonality with all life – life that God had created and called “good”. This concept is sickening to these fundamentalists, and frankly I will never understand why. I don’t know where they got the idea that acknowledging such intimate connection to other living things makes us less human, less rational, less moral, or less ethical, although I can guess that it might come from the ignorant notion that animals are all mindless and “savage”. Sadly, I think this might explain their refusal to support environmental conservation (even if their food supplies are threatened), and, more seriously, their refusal to acknowledge the possibility that humans could cause global warming. It would be consistent with their denial of our interconnectedness with the rest of nature. Ironically, it is recognition of this interconnectedness that underscores God’s charge that humans be responsible stewards of all creation, while turning a blind eye to the reality of human’s ecological footprint totally shirks this duty. One can only hope that there will never be enough of these idiots to tip the balance towards environmental collapse. It may be tempting to go ahead and let their ignorance destroy their part of the world, but our connectedness to them will mean destruction for everyone – this interconnectedness is actually the point.
SCHOOLS YOU SHOULD NOT SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO:
The episode mentioned the schools where these ID proponents are faculty members. If these institutions have any concern for their reputation, they would can these idiots:
• Lehigh University (Michael Behe)
• University of Warwick (Steve Fuller)
• University of Idaho (Scott A. Minnich)
• UC Berkley School of Law (Phillip Johnson – the founder of ID: a lawyer! He’s not even a freakin scientist!!)
THE GOOD NEWS:
The judge (who was appointed by conservatives) ruled against the creationists, and the citizens of Dover have successfully elected an entirely new school board, and not one member supports the introduction of ID in the science curriculum; basically ID has no more chance of infiltrating the school. So even though Pat Robertson has condemned Dover to eternal damnation, Dover High might actually be an OK place for science education, precisely because of this crucible they went through, and may end up producing young people who will continue advancing the human quality of life – a quality of life even the creationists probably could not live without.
My single pet peeve
I am normally very centrist or neutral over many issues. But at my very core I am an educator, and my heart literally breaks at the sight of ignorance being actively spread by ignorant people. Also at my very core, I love this great country. Christ himself said that more is expected from those who receive more blessings. Because I believe this country to be especially blessed, I expect more from her citizens. I expect the citizens of this country to be less ignorant and more educated.
So imagine my distress to witness campaigns actively teaching Americans to reject mainstream scientific principles, like biological evolution. The perpetrators are influencing school boards, publishing and selling textbooks, and building million-dollar museums -- all to hawk their own version of "science". Ironically, these very same people are probably benefiting from genetic science -- it's only the cornerstone of evolution, hello! The achievements of genetics have armed us with abilities we now take for granted, such as creating vaccines to fight disease and gene therapy for cancer and other illnesses. These same people would also probably trust DNA testing that confirms the guilt or innocence of a convict, the identity of a corpse, or the paternity of a child. And then they turn around and reject DNA tests that routinely give proof of the evolution of species. But that's the point: they are ignorant.And yet they are crafty enough to use our greatest vulnerability: our religiosity. As a Christian, I am especially offended by this. They make us believe that their campaign is a religious one, but it is NOT. They try to portray science as a "threat" to our religion, but a great majority of scientists are members of mainstream religions, and many great religious writers are also prominent scientists. I myself recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, from memory, from the heart. No, this is a POLITICAL agenda, and they are the threat. It's about ignorant people who are USING our religious sentiments to actively force their own narrow views and opinions upon others. And, because of the poor state of science education in our public schools, many Americans are easily duped into embracing quackery -- especially our children! (How in God's name can any decent parent allow this death sentence upon their future?!)
So what do we do? As an educator, I know what I must do, and my work will probably never be done. College students, as students of higher education, I say have a moral responsibility to champion the achievements of centuries of learning and discovery, achievements that are now helping them to improve the quality of their life and the lives of others. As parents, I say we are bound to provide our children the kind of education that will help them succeed in the real world. As Americans, I say we have a civic duty to SPEAK OUT against anything that threatens our pursuit of happiness, and that includes ignorance.
Want to learn more?
Read "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
Read American Physical Society News articles: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/backpage.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/creationmuseum.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/study.cfm
So imagine my distress to witness campaigns actively teaching Americans to reject mainstream scientific principles, like biological evolution. The perpetrators are influencing school boards, publishing and selling textbooks, and building million-dollar museums -- all to hawk their own version of "science". Ironically, these very same people are probably benefiting from genetic science -- it's only the cornerstone of evolution, hello! The achievements of genetics have armed us with abilities we now take for granted, such as creating vaccines to fight disease and gene therapy for cancer and other illnesses. These same people would also probably trust DNA testing that confirms the guilt or innocence of a convict, the identity of a corpse, or the paternity of a child. And then they turn around and reject DNA tests that routinely give proof of the evolution of species. But that's the point: they are ignorant.And yet they are crafty enough to use our greatest vulnerability: our religiosity. As a Christian, I am especially offended by this. They make us believe that their campaign is a religious one, but it is NOT. They try to portray science as a "threat" to our religion, but a great majority of scientists are members of mainstream religions, and many great religious writers are also prominent scientists. I myself recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, from memory, from the heart. No, this is a POLITICAL agenda, and they are the threat. It's about ignorant people who are USING our religious sentiments to actively force their own narrow views and opinions upon others. And, because of the poor state of science education in our public schools, many Americans are easily duped into embracing quackery -- especially our children! (How in God's name can any decent parent allow this death sentence upon their future?!)
So what do we do? As an educator, I know what I must do, and my work will probably never be done. College students, as students of higher education, I say have a moral responsibility to champion the achievements of centuries of learning and discovery, achievements that are now helping them to improve the quality of their life and the lives of others. As parents, I say we are bound to provide our children the kind of education that will help them succeed in the real world. As Americans, I say we have a civic duty to SPEAK OUT against anything that threatens our pursuit of happiness, and that includes ignorance.
Want to learn more?
Read "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
Read American Physical Society News articles: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/backpage.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/creationmuseum.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/study.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
