> eric brunsell » Science Illiteracy

Chuck Norris Gives Science the Smackdown

brunsell — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:18:40 +0000

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.

Only in Florida

brunsell — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:27:41 +0000

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)?

A Designer Universe?

brunsell — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:43:01 +0000

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-

“It is a core belief of the world’s major religions – and specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – that man occupies a privileged place in God’s creation. I their view, the universe was made with us in mind – or even for our sake. How can these traditional beliefs be reconciled with the discovery that we live in a vast universe with innumerable other planets and galaxies, and hundreds of billions of stars, some of them so far away that they have completely burned out b the time their light reaches Earth?

In recent years, physics has given this question a resounding answer that affirms man’s special place in the cosmos. It turns out that the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are indispensable conditions for the existence of life on Earth. In other words, the universe has to be just as big as it is and just as old as it is in order to contain living inhabitants like you and me. The entire universe, with all its laws, appears to be a conspiracy to produce the human race. Physicists call this incredible finding the ‘anthropic principle.’

Physicists stumbled upon the anthropic principle by asking a simple question: Why does the universe operate according to the laws it does? They arrived at a remarkable conclusion. In order for life to exist – in order for humanity to exist – the gravitational force has to be precisely what it is. The Big Bang had to occur exactly when it did. If the basic values were even slightly different, our universe would not exist and neither would we. Fantastic though it seems, the universe is fine-tuned for human habitation.”

With this argument, D’Souza has firmly attempted to place humans back at the center of the Universe…the reason for the universe’s existence. Well, let’s start with a simple nit-picking. He claims that the Big Bang had to occur exactly when it did. Since we set a time for the Big Bang by counting backwards from the present, then I guess that is true….just like I HAD to be born in 1972 in order to be 35 years old on my birthday in September 2007.

The anthropic principle says nothing about the universe being created for humans. Instead, it postulates that there is an anthropic bias. We can only observe this universe because if things would have been different, we would not be around to observe it. Is that “proof” of an intelligent designer? I don’t think so. Advances in quantum theory of gravity provide some hints that what we call the “big bang” may be just a portion of a greater universe that contains “big bangs” going off all of the time, each with its own set of physical constants…and therefore unique evolution that is not conducive to humans? In this case, Steven Weinberg (1979 Nobel Prize in Physics) is on target when he says this, “Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot.”

Religion and science are two different way of knowing the world. They have different criteria for what is acceptable evidence. By definition, science attempts to use natural evidence to explain the natural world (no gremlins, magic or deities!), while religion uses faith – an acceptance of a mystery (deity) without natural evidence. For a religion (For example, the Catholic Knights of Columbus) to fabricate a scientific rationale for God is no different than Thomas the Apostle demanding physical proof (touching the wounds) in order to believe in the resurrection of Christ. The Bible says this: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:219). My modern day translation: Blessed are they that do not try to prove their faith.

I want to close with the author. Why would the Knights want D’Souza to write this article? The Knights of Columbus use this phrase to open the membership page of their website “Imagine being part of an organization that fills your heart and your mind with the joy of giving to others and the feeling that comes with making a difference.” D’Souza, although a Roman Catholic, is an interesting person for the Knights to support through three (paid, I’m sure) essays. Why wouldn’t they have a Vatican Astronomer write this article about the relationship between Catholicism and Cosmology? Obviously, many of them are much more credible than a conservative journalist with and English major and a past romantic relationship with Ann Coulter. More importantly, the following quotes from D’Souza’s sound distinctly out of step with the mission of a charitable organization. In fact, it is quite disgusting that this Christian organization would support someone that profits (quite handsomely) by sowing hatred and divisiveness.

“The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.” (from D’Souza’s book, The End of Racism)

“If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?” (from The End of Racism)

“[f]or many whites the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization.” (from D’Souza’s book The End of Racism)

“What disgusts [Muslims] is not free elections but the sights of hundreds of homosexuals kissing one another and taking marriage vows. The person that horrifies them the most is not John Locke but Hillary Clinton.” (from The Enemy at Home)

The Church was nice to Galileo?

brunsell — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:30:25 +0000

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?

Science, politics and smoking.

brunsell — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:49:56 +0000

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.

Global Warming & Risk Management — Pass it On!

brunsell — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:52:59 +0000

I originally saw this video here.

Science and The Presidency II

brunsell — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:48:03 +0000

In an earlier post, I included a link to a SEED article about why science matters in the presidential race. Here is an article that discusses why a president’s views on evolution are important.

Here is more on the candidates views on science –

Hot Science Topics Avoided by Presidential Candidates

There really are no surprises in this story. Clinton probably takes the strongest pro-science position. Romney and Huckabee are both against Stem Cell Research. McCain isn’t as clear. Giuliani apparently doesn’t want the press to know his views on science.

Unlike most Republicans, McCain is strong on the need to reduce CO2 levels. However, his stance on teaching of evolution is questionable.

…on the teaching of evolution, telling the Arizona Daily Star that “there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought [on] … how the world was created.

This is nearly the same language President Bush used in 2005 when he promoted teaching alternative theories.

Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both ideas, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

“I think that part of education is to expose people to diferent schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.” (08/02/2005)

The Clergy Letter Project

brunsell — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:21:24 +0000

In 2004, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Science at Butler University worked with clergy from Wisconsin to draft a letter supporting the teaching of evolution in the science classroom. The effort was in response to anti-evolution policies adopted by the Grantsburg School District. Since then, more than 11,000 clergy have signed on to the letter.

Here is my favorite line – “We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

The Clergy Letter Project

“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

Huckabee, the Anti-Science Candidate

brunsell — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:17:19 +0000

“Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution.”

—- Mike Huckabee (read here)

Anti-Evolutionists in Florida

brunsell — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:18:26 +0000

“Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County’s School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ‘’We’re opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,’’ Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum….” Read more at Florida Citizens for Science

If you haven’t read it yet, check out the anti-evolutionists “Wedge” strategy. As you can see, they are moving along quite well in their “plan.” They even got their “PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications.” However, I don’t think this is what they meant!

Here is my question… Why don’t Biblical Literalists have faith in their beliefs? If they had faith, they wouldn’t need pseudo-scientific proof.