> eric brunsell

Chuck Norris wants to be the voice of reason in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate.  In this well written essay, he bemoans schools that are isolating students from a diversity of opinions on the origin of life.  Chuck and his wife are here to save the next generation! Read it here.

Go get ‘em Chuck.  Yes, I said it was well written, but it is also very flawed.

 Exhibit A:

“Why can’t creationism or intelligent design be taught in public schools? Naturalists answer by saying that ID is not a science. Rather than debate classifications, however, I would ask further, Why can’t variant theories of the origin of life be presented even outside science courses?”

“Naturalists” is clever.  Why couldn’t you say, “Scientists?” Chuck, the legal rulings say that Intelligent Design can not be taught as a scientific theory in a science classroom.  However, it would be legal (and interesting) for ID and other versions of creation to be taught in a comparative religion or philosophy class.  This could even be done in a public school.

 Exhibit B

“Since when does science own the market on how life began? “

Evolution does not claim anything related to how life began.  Evolution explains the diversity of life since that origin.  Also, science is a specific way of looking at the world based on the use of natural evidence (not supreme beings, magic, gnomes, etc.).  Therefore, science does not claim to own the market for any explanation.  If you want to say the that the Hand of God is pushing things to the ground instead of gravity, fine -  Just don’t call it science (Thanks, Onion).

Exhibit C:

“If it is based largely upon empirical investigation of present, repeatable data, then the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life stands upon no more solid ground than ID”

Oh Chuck, you didn’t!  Please, get a clue about what science is before you write about it!  Here is a primer for you.

Exhibit D

“no branch of science can prove how inorganic matter produced organic cellular life. And evolution, even if accepted as factual, does not dispel a Creator”

Chuck, you did it again.  Evolution doesn’t even pretend to explain how inorganic matter produced life.  Here is a primer on evolution for you too.

Exhibit E:

“ID deserves a seat in classrooms across America.

Again, dissenters of creationism answer this question by classifying ID as a religion and further say that religion belongs exclusively in homes and churches.”

No, the argument is that ID is not scientific and does not belong in a science classroom.  Perhaps you should check out the trial in Dover PA.  Evolution doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t say you can’t believe in God. Also, I think you should really take a look at your faith.  I wouldn’t connect Biblical creationism with Intelligent Design.  Intelligent Design specifically states that an intelligent designer (not God) created the Universe.  My guess is that God wouldn’t like you believing in ID.  You see, if it is God that designed the universe, then ID becomes a religion and can’t be taught in a science classroom.  ID is nothing more than a legal manipulation to get around the word “God.”

 Exhibit F:

“That is why my wife, Gena, and I are on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has helped 443 public school districts in 37 states to implement a course on it.”

Here is the web address for that organization. http://www.bibleinschools.net/  “The curriculum for the program shows a concern to convey the content of the Bible as compared to literature and history.”  I would love to take this class.  Do you think they promote an honest critique of the Bible…like how you would critique any other piece of literature?”  It would be interesting to discuss this:

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

OR

The math behind this — How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22) 

(from here)

So Chuck, do you still want to be the voice of reason?  If so, you should start doing some better research.

P.S. I’m not anti-Bible or anti-Religion, just anti-Chuck.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802200326

So, the pro-evolution politicians are upset because they compromise and call evolution a scientific theory (which it is) and the anti-evolution politicians are upset because they want people to realize the evolution is only one theory of the origin of life (which it isn’t).  Aaargh!  They don’t even know what they are arguing about!

Evolution IS as scientific theory.  Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life.  Did they even bother to ask a biologist (or a science teacher)?

This isn’t good…two rants related to Catholicism in a row.  As the “science guy” in the department, I often get handed things from the news that are science related.  Yesterday was no different.  A colleague gave me an article, “A Designer Universe: Physics provides evidence that we are here for a purpose,” by Dinesh D’Souza. The article is in the February 2008 issue of Columbia, published by the Knights of Columbus.  I want to respond to the article first, but I will close with a note about the author. I was quite surprised (perhaps I shouldn’t have been) to see D’Souza in a Catholic magazine.The opening few paragraphs-

I’m a Catholic.  I even go to Church frequently. Lately, I have started playing a little game…I try to predict how long it will take for my Priest to say secular or secularist. He has a curious obsession with “secular society,” and all the ills it brings.  Anyway, I wasn’t disappointed. This past Sunday it was the first word in his Homily, “Secular scientists…”  Woo hoo, this should be interesting!  A few sentences later, he said, ”So, if those secularists and atheiests want to pick a fight with the Church about being anti-science, they’re picking a fight with the wrong people.”

 Let me get this straight?  Secular scientists are picking a fight with the Catholic Church?  Since when? The Catholic Church has been pretty consistently pro-science over the past 30-40 years.  Now, if we are talking about Biblical Literalists, that is a different story.  Even then, I would say that it isn’t the scientists trying to pick the fight, it is the literalists.  Anyway, now I was REALLY curious to see where he was going with this.  Here are a few of the points that he made -

1. The Catholic Church did not persecute Galileo for his scientific beliefs. According to the Rev., Galileo wasnt’ the first to propose a Copernican model for the Solar System. Galileo was persecuted because he promoted the Copernican model as the truth instead of a theory…even when there was no evidence. 

He’s right there…that is why it is named after Copernicus, not Galileo! Galileo was persecuted because he referred to the Copernican model as the truth…instead of just a theory.  He was persecuted because he didn’t have enough evidence to support his claim.  I beg to differ on this point.  Galileo DID have evidence, just not the piece that the Church wanted.  They wanted proof of parallax, but technology wasn’t good enough.  However, Galileo did have proof in the form of phases of Venus.

2. If the Church was anti-science, give one other case besides Galileo.  ”You Can’t!” he challenged the congregation. 

I almost shouted back, ”Giordano Bruno.” Since Homilies are generally not participatory events, I just leaned over and whispered it to my wife…loud enough for all of our neighbors to hear.  Bruno, while obviously not right about everything, was executed in a rather gruesome way in part because of his claim that life on Earth was not unique.  We still don’t have evidence of life beyond Earth today, but to many contemporary scientistis, it wouldn’t come as a surprise.

3. Science has its roots in Christianity.  

I have not gotten my hands around this one.  Science and Christianity did both evolve out of Western civilizations, but is it fair to say that science wouldn’t have happened without Christianity?  Also, the beginnings of scientific thought did arise out of pre-Christian Greek thinking.  Eratosthenes of Cyrene designed and confirmed aa way to calculate the circumference of the Earth about 200 BC. It is quite possible that he also determined the distance between the Earth and Sun within 1%.

4.  This claim drove me crazy.  “Scientists have never created anything, they just discover the order that God put in place.” 

Let’s get this straight, scientists “discovered” the integrated circuit? On the 8th day did God create television?  Scientists apply underlying principles to create new things.

5. He concluded by saying that science without Christian belief lacks wisdom. 

 I’m sure there are scientists in many other places in the world that would disagree with this.  What is true is that society (secular, Christian, or other) determines if science is used ethically or unethically.

 I can’t figure out why he went with this Homily on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday. Any ideas?   

The Democratic leadership in the Wisconsin State Legislature is trying to pass a statewide smoking ban in restaraunts and bars. However, at least one Democrat is strongly against it.  When State Senator Roger Breske (D-Eland) was asked about Health and Human Services support of the smoking ban (based on scientific research into the dangers of second hand smoke), how do you think Breske responded?

 As an educated public servant, did he acknowledge the science and explain that policy needs to be a balance between the science, economic issues, and personal liberties?  Nope, he said this-

“…that’s hogwash. I was born and raised in a bar since I was that high, and I was tending bar since I was that high (holding hand four feet above the ground.) And there was only one light bulb in the bar. There was no fans, and everyone smoked. It was blue in there. Come on, I’m still alive, and I’m 69 years old. It’s sickening.”

So, because his single data point is still alive, the science is wrong? My hope for 2008 is that we can get some politicians that understand and respect science.

video – comments start around the 19 minute mark.