Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker? #1

The New York Times' religion correspondent Laurie Goodstein's `obituary' on ID, with my comments, bold and in square brackets. Because of its length, I have split this into three parts.

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum. [There is no "seems" about it - by any reasonable standard, intelligent design as a challenge to Darwinian evolution is building momentum!]

In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project." [Indeed! That is "building momentum", for a movement that few would have even heard of, only ten years ago.]

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy. [Again, this is simply false that ID "posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work." Unless she has not done her homework (which should be inexcusable in a New York Times journalist), Goodstein must know that the ID movement has specifically stated that "Intelligent design theory does NOT ... claim that the intelligent cause must be ... a `higher power' (emphasis original):

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design? The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a `divine being' or a `higher power' or an `all-powerful force.' All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence." ("Top Questions and Answers About Intelligent Design Theory," Discovery Institute, September 8, 2005. Emphasis original).

So either Goldstein is incompetent in not having done her homework, or else she is deliberately setting up a straw man caricature of ID in order to knock it down. There in fact evidence for the former, in part 2. But if the latter is the case, then when a position's opponents can only attack a straw man caricature of it, instead of the real thing, then that shows that the true position is too strong to be attacked. So, far from "Intelligent Design ... Meeting Its Maker," the reports of ID's impending death are greatly exaggerated!]

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. [Far from "failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for," ID is having to restrain its supporters:

"MARK RYLAND (DI): Sure, I'd be happy to respond. Let me back up first and say: The Discovery Institute never set out to have a school board, schools, get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it, we've never promoted it. We have, unfortunately, gotten sucked into it, because we have a lot of expertise in the issue, that people are interested in. When asked for our opinion, we always tell people: don't teach intelligent design. There's no curriculum developed for it, you're teachers are likely to be hostile towards it, I mean there's just all these good reasons why you should not to go down that path. If you want to do anything, you should teach the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. Teach it dialectically. And despite all the hoopla you've heard today, there is a great deal of - - many, many problems with Darwin's theory, in particular the power of NS and RV to do the astounding things that are attributed to them. .... So that's the background. And what's happened in the foreground was, when it came to the Dover school district, we advised them not to institute the policy they advised. In fact, I personally went and met with them, and actually Richard [Thompson] was there the same day, and they didn't listen to me, that's fine, they can do what they want, I have no power and control over them. But from the start we just disagreed that this was a good place, a good time and place to have this battle -- which is risky, in the sense that there's a potential for rulings that this is somehow unconstitutional." (Ryland M., "Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center Squabble in AEI Forum," National Center for Science Education, October 23, 2005).]

It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. [ID has long since realized that most "academics" (even those in Christian colleges) have so internalized naturalistic ways of thinking, that they are more likely than not to be opposed to ID:

"Ironically, while my critique of Darwinism and scientific naturalism has gained a hearing in secular academic debates, it has met with surprising resistance from theistic evolutionists in the Christian academic world. That many Christian college and seminary professors are ardent defenders of Darwinism may seem astonishing, but it is true. There are many reasons for this, including the powerful indoctrination aspiring professors receive in graduate schools. Perhaps the most important factor is that the reigning assumption among Christian intellectuals in recent years has been that, given the futility of fighting a war with science, the best hope for saving Christianity in modern culture is to show that Christian theism can coexist with scientific knowledge, including the theory of evolution. This assumption gave theistic evolutionists an enormous stake in believing that what the rulers of science tell us about evolution is true (and hence unbeatable), and that it is religiously neutral (and hence acceptable). Neither of those beliefs is correct. What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over `facts' but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible-description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not `theistic evolution,' but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error." (Johnson P.E., "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today, Vol. 38, No. 12, October 24, 1994, pp.22-26).

Like other scientific revolutions (including Darwin's), ID mainly looks to the next generation of scientists to be more open to its evidence and arguments:

"Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all. How, then, are scientists brought to make this transposition? Part of the answer is that they are very often not. Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin of Species, wrote.. `Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume .... I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. ... [B]ut I look with confidence to the future,-to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.' And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that `a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.150-151).]

And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility. [Not really. As Goodstein must know, the Discovery Institute (representing the ID movement) made it clear well before the Dover trial that it regarded the Dover board's policy as "misguided" and called for its withdrawal:

"SEATTLE, DEC. 14 - The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called `misguided' today by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. `While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it,' said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). `Dover's current policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten.' Apart from questions about its constitutionality, West expressed reservations about the Dover School Board's directive on public policy grounds. `When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design,' explained West. `Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. `What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory,' added West, `which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public." ("Discovery Calls Dover Evolution Policy Misguided, Calls For its Withdrawal," Discovery Institute, December 14, 2004).

So even if the Dover board does lose the case, it would not be a major setback for ID, unless the judge made a very wide ruling that ID is not science and/or should not be taught in science classes. But I think there is little likelihood of that. If the Dover board does lose the case, it will most likely be because of their being motivated by Christianity/creationism. Indeed, given the strong testimony for ID by the defence witnesses: Mike Behe, Stephen Fuller and Scott Minnich, I think that if the judge does rule on ID, it will be that it has a clear secular purpose and so there is no constitutional reason why it could not be taught in schools as science.]

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. [Being "publicly denounced by their own colleagues" is hardly scientific (indeed it sounds like what used to happen in the Soviet Union or China in the 1950s!), and in fact it is a version of the argumentum ad baculum (appeal to fear) fallacy, e.g., "You don't want to be a social outcast, do you?", or "faculty members who [come out in support of ID] ... will discover their error at the next tenure review":

"The fallacy of appeal to fear [As the Latin word for stick or staff is baculum, this argument is known in Latin as argumentum ad baculum] is an argument that uses the threat of harm to advance one's conclusion. It is an argument that people and nations fall back on when they are not interested in advancing relevant reasons for their positions. Also known as swinging the big stick, this argument seldom resolves a dispute. This argument should be distinguished from an all-out threat. If someone should hold a gun to your back and say, `Your money or your life,' it would not do to reply, `Ah ha! That's a fallacy!' It is not a fallacy because it is not an argument. Although the gunman is appealing to your sense of fear, and even offering a reason why you should do what he tells you, he is not offering evidence in support of the truth of some statement. He is not arguing with you; he is simply ordering you. ... An appeal to fear therefore offers fallacious evidence. In some cases the evidence will be brief and implicit ... in other cases it may run to pages or even volumes. ... We may encounter the appeal to fear in language like the following: ... Don't argue with me. Remember who pays your salary. ... You don't want to be a social outcast, do you? Then you'd better join us tomorrow. ... This university does not need a teacher's union, and faculty members who think it does will discover their error at the next tenure review. These arguments are crude forms of the fallacy. They are explicit about the threats being issued. The fallacy also lends itself to veiled threats. ... Appeals to fear tend to multiply during periods of stress or conflict, both among nations and among individuals. ... As in all fallacies of irrelevance, the object of the argument is an appeal to emotion rather than to reason." (Engel S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, Fourth edition, 1990, pp.216-220. Emphasis original).

Indeed it shows that these anti-ID "colleagues" don't have any adequate scientific evidence and/or arguments against ID, otherwise they would use them!]

Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. [The anti-ID/Darwinist argument used to be that "Design proponents have published" no "papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals", so a "few" is progress! But this is a disingenuous argument anyway because it implies that the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals invite design proponents to publish papers in their journals but the design proponents decline to do so. But this is the exact opposite of the truth. The fact is, as surely Goldstein must know, that the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals refuse to publish papers from ID proponents in their journals. See Mike Behe's experience in his "Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to Critics Concerning Peer-Review." Editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals are now even less likely to publish articles on ID, after Dr Richard Sternberg, editor of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was hounded from his job at the Smithsonian Institution by Darwinists, because he published in it an ID-based article on the Cambrian explosion by geophysicist- philosopher Stephen Meyer, which was then deleted from the webbed archives, even though it is in the paper journal. Significantly even NPR has sympathized with Sternberg in an article and audio report, "Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom."]

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [I will simply quote Bill Dembski's response to this:

ID Meeting Its Maker? ... The Templeton Foundation promotes, as Stephen Jay Gould used to criticize (see here), a form of syncretism between science and religion. I frankly doubt that there is one research paper published in the natural sciences (I'm not talking about medical journals that discuss the efficacy of prayer in healing) that acknowledges the Templeton Foundation as having provided essential research support (e.g., in the form of salaries for lab techs, lab equipment costs, etc.) for that project to be completed. Templeton supports research in that fuzzy new discipline that it has largely invented, known as science-religion, and not in science per se. I know for a fact that Discovery Institute tried to interest the Templeton Foundation in funding fundamental research on ID that would be publishable in places like PNAS and Journal of Molecular Biology (research that got funded without Templeton support and now has been published in these journals), and the Templeton Foundation cut off discussion before a proposal was even on the table. What has disillusioned Templeton about ID is not that it failed to prove its mettle as science but that it didn't fit with Templeton's accommodation of religion to the science of the day and Templeton's incessant need to curry favor with an academic establishment that by and large thinks religion is passé.

So the very reason that what the Templeton Foundation's idea of "proposals for actual research ... never came in" from the ID movement is precisely because ID is science and therefore is not interested in "projects seeking to reconcile science and religion"! Indeed, ID's refusal to be seduced by the Templeton Foundation's millions, should be commended by Goodstein!]

[Continued in part 2]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Mirecki hospitalized after beating

As the subject line says, Prof. Paul Mirecki has reportedly been beaten up by two men unknown to him. My comments are bold and in square brackets.

Mirecki hospitalized after beating,
The Lawrence Journal-World,
Ron Knox, Eric Weslander
December 5, 2005

[Also at ABC News, Kansas City Star, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Wichita Eagle, and no doubt many more to come.]

Douglas County sheriff's deputies are investigating the reported beating of a Kansas University professor who gained recent notoriety for his Internet tirades against Christian fundamentalists.

[While I condemn this resort to physical violence against Prof. Mirecki, it should be a wake-up call to those in positions of authority and power like him, who launch into "tirades against Christian fundamentalists" (i.e. anyone who thinks that the Bible and Christianity really is true). Mirecki's own university's Chancellor described his comments as "repugnant and vile", and there inevitably are going to be a tiny minority of real "fundamentalists" out there who are so outraged at a perceived injustice not being addressed that they decide to take matters into their own hands.]

Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.

[Initially I was hoping against hope that it was unrelated to Mirecki's inflammatory comments. ]

Mirecki "I didn't know them, but I'm sure they knew me," he said.

Mirecki said he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

"I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind," he said. "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."

He said the men beat him about the upper body with their fists, and he said he thinks they struck him with a metal object. He was treated and released at Lawrence Memorial Hospital.

"I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he said.

[At least Mirecki was thankfully not badly hurt. I must say that I am surprised that after two "men beat him about the upper body with their fists, and ...struck him with a metal object" that all he has to show for it "is some bruises and sore spots." I therefore would not be surprised if there are some who question whether it really happened. However, I assume it did.]

Douglas County Sheriff's Officials are classifying the case as an aggravated battery. They wouldn't say exactly where the incident happened, citing the ongoing investigation

The sheriff's department is looking for the suspects, described as two white males between ages 30 and 40, one wearing a red visor and wool gloves, and both wearing jeans. They were last seen in a large pickup truck.

Anyone with information is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 843-TIPS or the sheriff's office at 841-0007.

[I have just prayed that the police will be able to find and then prosecute these men. If they are in fact Christians, then their resort to violence against perceived persecution is not Christian. Jesus command is for us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us:

Matthew 5:43-48 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. .]

Mirecki recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a "nice slap" in the "big fat face" of fundamentalists.

[The term Mirecki used was "fundies":

"Critics: E-mail reveals intent, The Capital-Journal, Ric Anderson, November 24, 2005 ... The fundies want it [intelligent design] all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology,' " the message said ...

which was deliberately derogatory. As Kansas Senator Kay O'Connor observed, Mirecki's comments were "hateful" and revealed that Mirecki "obviously has a hatred for Christians":

"If a person has hate in his heart and says something hateful and later apologizes, do you think the hatred in his heart has been mended?" State Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, said Tuesday. "I'm surprised that something more severe isn't happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians."

O'Connor's "I'm surprised that something more severe isn't happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians" seems in retrospect almost prophetic! It may be that this physical attack (reprehensible though it is) on Mirecki is motivated by a feeling of injustice and outrage that "something more severe isn't happening to this teacher" for what he said.]

The remarks caused an uproar, Mirecki apologized, and KU announced last week the class would be canceled.

[But unfortunately, as Mirecki has found out too late, inflammatory words once spoken, cannot be unspoken, and they have consequences. As Senator O'Connor pointed out, "You can't kick sand in someone's face and then expect a positive":

"Why poke a stick in somebody's eye if you don't have to?" she said. "If you're going to have an intelligent design course and call it mythology, I think in the very least it's a slap in the face to every Judeo-Christian religion that's out there. ... "You can't kick sand in someone's face and then expect a positive." ...

It is going to be very important how this is handled by leaders and spokesmen on both sides and by the media that this doesn't spiral out of control. But since there are zealots on each side who are quick to blame the other side, while not accepting any blame for their side, I don't hold out much hope of that. The University of Kansas has a crucial role to play here in diffusing this situation. If it had taken more tangible action against Mirecki (instead of merely criticizing him and cancelling a course of his that never existed) then maybe this would not have happened. But again, in case there is any misunderstanding, I condemn this resort to physical violence against Prof. Mirecki.]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

`Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise'

Here is a reply of mine to a comment made to one of my posts, which I consider to be worth posting. I have substituted "AN" for the person's name, added quotes and made other changes.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen E. Jones
To: [...]
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:37 PM

[...]

AN>Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise.

Thanks for your comment above, but I disagree with it.

"Creation Science" (as commonly understood- e.g. the definitions in the Arkansas `balanced treatment' Act 590 of 1981):

"If the defendants are correct and the Court is limited to an examination of the language of the Act, the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools. Section 4 of the Act provides:

Definitions. As used in this Act: (a) `Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

... The evidence establishes that the definition of `creation science' contained in 4(a) has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis. Among the many creation epics in human history, the account of sudden creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, and subsequent destruction of the world by flood is unique to Genesis. The concepts of 4(a) are the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis. Section 4(a) is unquestionably a statement of religion, with the exception of 4(a)(2) which is a negative thrust aimed at what the creationists understand to be the theory of evolution. Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(2) describes `sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.' Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God." (Geisler N.L., "The Judge's Decision Against the Creation-Evolution Act," in "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation- Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, pp.172-173)

is, as the judge in the Arkansas trial pointed out above, based on the Bible. That is, it "has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis."

That is why Creation Science tries to present scientific evidence for an Earth only ~10,000 years old, and that the fossil record was laid down by a worldwide Noah's Flood (not that the Bible requires either of those two interpretations). As the judge pointed out, the definition of "Creation Science" in the Arkansas Act, "are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical [to it]" and "The facts [are] that creation science is inspired by the book of Genesis":

"Defendants argue that: (1) the fact that 4(a) conveys ideas similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis does not make it conclusively a statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is not necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence, and a sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion, and justice; and (3) that simply teaching about the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the student is required to make a commitment to the concept of a creator. The evidence fully answers these arguments. The ideas of 4(a)(1) are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story of creation. ... The leading creationist writers, Morris and Gish, acknowledge that the idea of creation described in 4(a)(1) is the concept of creation by God and make no pretense to the contrary. ... The facts that creation science is inspired by the book of Genesis and that Section 4(a) is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis leave no doubt that a major effect of the Act is the advancement of particular religious beliefs." (Geisler, 1982, pp.173-174).

You won't find anything like that in ID, which is based only on the evidence for design in nature, not the Bible. Some IDists are not even theists, e.g. Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, David Berlinski:

"As I have many times remarked, I have no creationist agenda whatsoever and, beyond respecting the injunction to have a good time all the time, no religious principles, either." (Berlinski D., "A Scientific Scandal," Commentary, July 8, 2003).

Also some IDists accept universal common ancestry (e.g. Mike Behe and myself). There are no advocates for Creation Science who are not theists or who accept universal common ancestry. Indeed, the latter follows by definition of "Creation-science" above as including: "(3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; [and] (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes".

To be sure, one can believe in both Creation Science and Intelligent Design but they are two different things. Not all who believe in Creation Science, believe in Intelligent Design, and not all who believe in Intelligent Design, believe in Creation Science.

However, if after this you still maintain that "Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise", then we must agree to differ.

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

It's Mars, Jim, but not as we know it, etc

News excerpts, all about the decreasing likelihood of there having been an ocean on Mars (and therefore of there having been life on Mars), at least in the last 3.5 billion years, with my comments bold and in square brackets:

It's Mars, Jim, but not as we know it, ABC/Discovery News, Larry O'Hanlon... 1 December 2005 ... Everything you knew about Mars is wrong, or nearly everything, say European and US space scientists studying compelling new data from the Mars Express spacecraft. .... Mars Express is ... uncovering mineralogical signs that are making it much harder to argue that the Red Planet ever had large lakes or seas, and certainly not within the past 3.5 billion years. "We may have to revise some of the previous views," says Mars Express investigator Professor Gerhard Neukum ... "It wasn't so warm and not so wet in much of its time." ... Among the evidence against Martian seas is the now-confirmed absence of any telltale spectral signatures of water-formed carbonates on Mars' surface. Stranger, however, is the discovery that even in Mars' water-carved canyons there is no sign of water-made minerals, says Mars Express investigator Dr Jean-Pierre Bibring ... Instead, such minerals as clays, which require water to form, are found on odd patches in the cratered landscape, where rocks from Mars' earliest history may be exposed, says Bibring. ... [This lack of surface carbonates on Mars had been explained by the theory that, "If the seas of Mars were moderately acidic ... then carbonates could not have formed :

Mars, Once Warm and Wet, Left Some Clues, SPACE.com, Robert Roy Britt, 22 September 2004 ...A new theory about ancient Mars puts some fizz back in the idea that the red planet was once warm, wet and potentially habitable. Many studies have suggested that early Mars was covered by large oceans and blanketed by a thick atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide -- the stuff that puts the bubbly zing in soda. But if that's all true, then when the oceans evaporated a lot of the carbon dioxide should have turned into what scientists call carbonates, which should be strewn all over the place. Problem is, the carbonates aren't there. One recent study found trace amounts in Martian dust, just enough to conclude that Mars probably didn't have vast oceans. The new model provides a way around this problem. It suggests the chemistry of Martian seas was different than has been assumed, so the clues have been missed. If the seas of Mars were moderately acidic -- in scientific terms, a pH under 6 instead of the pH of 8 common to terrestrial oceans -- then carbonates could not have formed ...

But "the discovery that even in Mars' water-carved canyons there is no sign of water-made minerals", makes that explanation even more implausible.]

Radar sees ice deep below Mars, BBC, 30 November 2005 ... Two radar passes revealed a buried Martian impact basin Mars Express has become the first spacecraft to detect reserves of water ice deep beneath the surface of the Red Planet, experts have announced. The Marsis radar experiment carried onboard appears to have discovered water ice more than 1km below ground. It is thought the greatest reservoir of retained water on Mars could be found beneath the surface, perhaps providing a habitat for microbial life. ... [Jim Lovelock (of Gaia fame), showed in the 1960s why there is no existing life on Mars, its "atmosphere ... is inert and must therefore ... signify a dead planet" so "there was no need to go to all the trouble and expense of sending a probe to Mars [in the 1970s] to make these subtle tests":

"Lovelock tells how the realization came to him as a flash of insight in 1965, when he was working for NASA, designing instruments that would eventually be used by the Viking Mars probes to sniff the Martian air and look for traces of life products. He saw that there was no need to go to all the trouble and expense of sending a probe to Mars to make these subtle tests, because astronomers already knew that the atmosphere of Mars is inert and must therefore, he reasoned, signify a dead planet ... The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere rich in oxygen, full of chemical potential energy and highly reactive, is a sign that something out of the ordinary, in chemical terms, is happening on our planet. If the atmosphere of Mars resembles exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine, the atmosphere of the Earth resembles (in fact, in large measure it is) the mixture of gases that goes into such an engine. But this is only possible because plants can steal energy from the Sun. ... So a visitor from another star, entering our Solar System, could use a simple spectroscope to investigate the atmospheres of the planets, and conclude that while Venus and Mars, which both have carbon dioxide atmospheres, do not have life, Earth, with its oxygen-rich atmosphere, must have life. In the mid-1960s, Lovelock's view met with a cool response. If it had been taken seriously, it would have pulled the rug from under the whole Viking project. After all, the main purpose of the project was to look for life on Mars, and Lovelock confidently asserted that there was no life on Mars. ... In 1977 the Viking landers confirmed that Mars was indeed as lifeless as Lovelock had predicted more than ten years previously." (Gribbin J., "In The Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe," [1993], Penguin, London, 1994, reprint, pp.118, 120-121).

Presumably this latest generation of Mars probe scientists know all this? And if so, presumably now as then, "Lovelock's view [again met with a cool response" because "If it had been taken seriously, it would have pulled the rug from under the whole ... project"! So if now, as then, in order to extract the billions of dollars from the taxpayer to fund these latest Mars probes, the public is told that "the main purpose of the project was to look for life on Mars" and yet the scientists know (because of Lovelock's discovery ~30 years ago), "that there [is] no life on Mars", then how is that not a continuing massive fraud on the taxpayer?]

Reservoirs of Ice, but No Water, Found Deep Within Mars, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2005, John Johnson Jr. ... Using sophisticated radar aboard the European Mars Express spacecraft, scientists have for the first time peered into the heart of Mars, uncovering ancient geological structures and reservoirs of ice more than a mile beneath the arid surface. "We're looking at the third dimension on Mars, something no other mission has done before," Agustin Chicarro ... said ... But the craft's radar, known as the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding, did not uncover any evidence of liquid water underground. "We certainly can say we observed a significant amount of subsurface water in the form of ice," said team member Jeffrey Plaut .... "But there's no current evidence yet for subsurface liquid water." The question of liquid water on Mars is key to determining whether some form of rudimentary life could have, or still might, exist on Mars. ... But polar temperatures plunge to minus 200 degrees Fahrenheit, too cold for any melting, even at great depths, and much too cold for any kind of life similar to that on Earth. But in the more temperate mid-latitudes, "you don't have to go too deep to have temperatures that would allow liquid," Plaut said in a telephone interview from Paris. The team's findings were presented in series of papers released this week by the journals Science and Nature. .... In the next year, controllers on Earth will be looking for the radar signature of liquid water in the temperate areas, where the atmospheric temperature can rise to 32 degrees. Other instruments aboard the spacecraft ... [are] depicting a planet that appears much less friendly to life than previously thought. ... "There was a very dramatic climate change from an early cold and wet planet to a colder and drier one," Chicarro said ... [That "in the temperate areas [of Mars] ... the atmospheric temperature can rise to 32 degrees [F]" is not as important for the survival of life on Mars as what it falls down to. If the last remaining possibility of life on Mars is deep below the surface, the cost of a drilling program to discover it would seem to be prohibitive. Anyway, if there still was existing life on Mars, even below the surface, there would be unmistakable evidence of that in its atmospheric gases, and it isn't.]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"Our observer would further also reflect, that the maker of the watch before him, was, in truth and reality, the maker of every match produced from it; there being no difference (except that the latter manifests a more exquisite skill) between the making of another watch with his own hands by the mediation of files, laths, chisels, &c. and the disposing, fixing, and inserting, of these instruments, or of others equivalent to them, in the body of the watch already made, in such a manner, as to form a new watch in the course of the movements which he had given to the old one. It is only working by one set of tools, instead of another. The conclusion which the first examination of the watch, of its works, construction, and movement suggested, was, that it must have had, for the cause and author of that construction, an artificer, who understood its mechanism, and designed its use, This conclusion is invincible. A second examination presents us with a new discovery. The watch is found, in the course of its movement, to produce another watch, similar to itself: and not only so, but we perceive in it a system of organization, separately calculated for that purpose. What effect would this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon our former inference? What, as hath already been said, but to increase, beyond measure, our admiration of the skill, which had been employed in the formation of such a machine?" (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, p.13. Emphasis original)

Ocean changes 'will cool Europe', etc

News excerpts, again all on global warming, with my comments bold and in square brackets. After my last two posts on this topic (here and here), I did not expect to post again on it for a while, but the news items on global warming just keep on coming!

As I have said in previous posts, my Amillennial interpretation of the Bible:

"As regards future eschatology, amillennialism affirms the following: 1. The `signs of the times' have both present and future relevance. Amillennialists believe that the return of Christ will be preceded by certain signs: for example, the preaching of the gospel to all the nations, the conversion of the fullness of Israel, the great apostasy, the great tribulation and the coming of the Antichrist. These signs, however, must not be thought of as referring exclusively to the time just preceding Christ's return. They have been present in some sense from the very beginning of the Christian era and are present now. This means that we must always be ready for the Lord's return and that we may never in our thoughts push the return of Christ off into the far-distant future. Amillennialists also believe, however, that these `signs of the times' will have a climactic final fulfillment just before Christ returns. This fulfillment will not take the form of phenomena which are totally new but will rather be an intensification of signs which have been present all along." (Hoekema A.A., "Amillennialism: Part III - A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology," Grace Online Library)

is that we are in the period predicted by Jesus in Luke 21:24-28, between v.24b "Jerusalem" no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles", which happened in 1967:

"Political events too have been urged as the fulfillment of some of the prerequisites laid down by Scripture for the return of Christ. There are many prophecies about the return of the Jews to their homeland. Frequently, it was expected that these events would be inaugurated by the Messiah him self, but it was also held that they would precede his return. At just about the time we have proposed for the end of the Chalcedonian era in theology, the fifteen-hundredth jubilee of 1951, the Jews finally did return to political power in the Holy Land. The state of Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled: `Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (Luke 21:24). Between 1948, when Israel was established, and 1967, when Jerusalem was recaptured, the `times of the Gentiles' were brought to an end-at least for the present-in the Holy Land. ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ? Christians have been warned by Jesus himself to be cautious about trying to discover the time of his return, yet he also advised them to `watch.' It is in the light of this admonition that we must consider the apparent collapse of Chalcedonian theology. Is this also a sign? Can it be the beginning of the `falling away' foretold by Paul? ... The geographical city of Jerusalem had already endured many shocks before the Six-Day War transferred it into Jewish hands once again in 1967. ... When the calendar stood at one thousand years since the birth of Christ, hundreds of thousands of Christians took it for a sign of the end, but it was not. Neither were the calendar dates 1200 and 1260. But Jerusalem is more important in the timetable of history than calendar dates. And so is Chalcedon." (Brown H.O.J., "Epilogue: Signs of His Coming?" In "Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present," Doubleday & Co: New York, 1984, pp.448-450. My emphasis)

and v.27 "At that time they will see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." That will be an intervening period characterized by "signs in the sun, moon and stars" with "nations ... in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea" (v.25); when "Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken" (v.26). That increasingly sounds like today's daily newspapers! It is against that background (and the three ecology units I did in 2002-2004 as part of my biology degree) that I regard global warming as real and expect it to get far worse than is generally thought.

Ocean changes 'will cool Europe', BBC, 30 November 2005, Richard Black ... Changes to ocean currents in the Atlantic may cool European weather within a few decades, scientists say. Researchers from the UK's National Oceanography Centre say currents derived from the Gulf Stream are weakening, bringing less heat north. Their conclusions, reported in the scientific journal Nature, are based on 50 years of Atlantic observations. They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future which may be cooler rather than warmer. The findings come from a British research project called Rapid, which aims to gather evidence relating to potentially fast climatic change in Europe. ... The key is the Gulf Stream. After it emerges from the Caribbean, it splits in two, with one part heading north-east to Europe and the other circulating back through the tropical Atlantic. As the north-eastern branch flows, it gives off heat to the atmosphere, which in turn warms European land. "It's like a radiator giving its heat to the atmosphere," said Harry Bryden .... "The heat it gives off is roughly equivalent to the output of a million power stations,".... By the time it reaches the northern latitudes around Greenland and Iceland, the water has cooled so much that it sinks towards the ocean floor, a process known as "overturning". This cooler water heads south, forming the return stream of a conveyor belt. The complete cycle sees warm water coming northwards on the ocean's surface, and the cold water returning hundreds or thousands of metres underwater. .... The NOC researchers concentrated on the colder water flowing south; and they found that over the last half century, these currents have changed markedly. "We saw a 30% decline in the southwards flow of deep cold water," ... What happens is that as Arctic ice melts and Arctic rivers flow faster - trends which have both been documented - the northern oceans become less saline. Less salinity means a lower density; the waters then cannot sink, so the conveyor weakens. Computer models have predicted that if it turned off completely, Europe would cool by perhaps four to six degrees Celsius. ... [A "four to six degrees Celsius" drop in average temperatures in Europe could be catastrophic. The last time it happened ~11,000 years ago, Europe had a ~1,000 year mini ice-age, which affected not just Europe but the entire Northern Hemisphere (if not the whole world). Indeed, without the Atlantic Conveyor, European civilization may not have arisen!]

Europe's warming current has slowed: oceanographers, CBC, 30 Nov 2005 ... The ocean currents that keep northern Europe warm have weakened, scientists say. A system of currents called the Atlantic Conveyor carries warm upper water north from the Gulf Stream, while cold water is pushed to the bottom and travels south. Scientists have theorized that the Atlantic Conveyor could slow if warming causes ice caps to melt, making the water less salty, less dense and unable to sink and flow back south. Researchers in Britain found the conveyor has slowed about 30 per cent since 1957. "What we find is that more of the Gulf Stream is recirculating southward and less is going into far northern latitudes," said Harry Bryden ... [As the Arctic and Greenland ice melts under global warming, so will the Gulf Stream slow and even cease, as happened when Lake Agassiz melted ~11,000 years ago. Presumably it all depends how rapidly the melting occurs? If "the conveyor has slowed about 30 per cent since 1957" and indeed "over the past 12 years" (see below) then that would seem to indicate that it is indeed happening rapidly? ]

Study: Current that warms Europe weakening Change could cause dramatic temperature drop, CNN, David Williams, December 1, 2005 ... Bryden said that change in Europe's climate could be substantial but would not be the sudden shift depicted in last year's blockbuster disaster film "The Day After Tomorrow." "I mean the dramatic, rapid climate that occurred over maybe 10 days is not realistic at all," he said. "Whether that time scale of climate change could occur over 20 years is, I think, not outrageous. But it is not going to happen catastrophically within a week.".... If the Atlantic conveyor belt were to break down, many scientists say it could trigger an ice age in which northern Europe comes to resemble Siberia. The data in this study suggest the conveyor belt is not breaking, but it is slowing down. ... [Of course "slowing down" may precede "breaking ... down." Even if it is "not ... the sudden shift depicted in ... "The Day After Tomorrow" (which I have not seen) nevertheless, if "northern Europe comes to resemble Siberia" then that will be bad enough!]

Global Warming Trends Are a Current Affair, Study Finds, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2005, Usha Lee McFarling, ... The powerful ocean currents that transport heat around the globe and keep northern Europe's weather relatively mild appear to be weakening - a likely and problematic consequence of global warming - a new study by British scientists has concluded. The currents, like mighty rivers flowing at different depths of the ocean, act as radiator pipes to carry warmth from the tropics to northern latitudes. The best known is the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the coasts of Britain and France. .... the currents warm the climate of much of Europe by several degrees. .... "The result is alarming," Detlef Quadfasel ... wrote .... The findings provide "worrying support for computer models" predicting that global warming could disrupt the way the planet regulates heat, he said. Computer models have long predicted that warming of the oceans and "freshening" of the seas with water from melting glaciers and increased precipitation - all linked to warming of the Earth by greenhouse gases - could slow down the currents. But scientists did not expect to see such changes so soon. Scientists differ on the potential effect. Some say weaker currents would cool Europe by several degrees, causing problems for agriculture and ecosystems and ushering in far more severe winters. Others say the cooling would probably balance out the effect of global warming in Europe, which is expected to raise temperatures globally by several degrees over the next century. "My personal guess is there would be no overall cooling, just a slowdown of the warming," Quadfasel said ... [The "cooling" no doubt will to some extent "balance out the effect of global warming in Europe", but note also that "The result is alarming" and "scientists did not expect to see such changes so soon."]

Scientists: Key Atlantic current slowing: Long-forecast result of warming may portend chill for Northern Europe. MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2005 ... LONDON - The Atlantic Conveyor, a life-giving ocean current that keeps Northern Europe warm, is slowing down, scientists said Wednesday. If the 30 percent slowdown seen over the past 12 years is not just a blip, temperatures in Northern Europe could drop significantly, despite global warming, they added. Scientists have long forecast that the Atlantic Conveyor that carries warm surface water north and cold deep water back to the equator could break down because of global warming. According to the theory, rising air temperatures cause ice caps to melt, making the water less salty and therefore less dense so it can’t sink and flow back south. ... The scientists on Wednesday said this was the first time that observations had put flesh on the bones of the theory. "This is the first time we have observed a change in the current on a human time scale," oceanographer Harry Bryden said, noting that the current had completely shut down during the ice ages. ... [See also Washington Post. Note this "30 percent slowdown seen over the past 12 years" and "This is the first time we have observed a change in the current on a human time scale" indicates a rapid slowing down of the Atlantic Conveyor, which presumably could even indicate a coming breakdown of it?]

Most Destructive Hurricane Season on Record: Season Brought Most Named Storms, Major Hurricanes, ABC News, Nov. 29, 2005 - At the beginning of summer, as forecasters began to notice there had already been a lot of hurricanes, they predicted this would be a rough year. They had no idea how right they would be. This morning, Tropical Storm Epsilon took shape in the Atlantic Ocean -- the 26th storm this year strong enough to have a name. .... "I would like to be able to stand up here and tell you that next year will not be any more severe than this year but I can't do that," said Adm. Conrad Lautenbacher, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ...

Record storm season a taste of the future, The Australian, December 01, 2005 ... MIAMI: The busiest Atlantic hurricane season on record ends today, but as thousands of people in New Orleans and elsewhere still struggle to rebuild their lives, experts warn next year could be just as bad. And with more hurricanes likely to hit increasingly populated coastal areas in coming years, their deadly impact could increase. ... [While no one can predict whether "next year could be just as bad" (or worse), this sudden jump in one year into hurricane names starting with letters of the Greek alphabet, is evidence for a rapid global climate change.]

Rate of oceans' rise doubles over 150 years, The Australian, November 26, 2005 LONDON: Ocean levels are rising twice as fast as they were 150 years ago, providing further evidence of man-made global warming. A study has shown that world sea levels are rising at a rate of 2mm per year; double the speed at which levels rose for 5000 years before the start of the industrial age. ... Kenneth Miller ... and his colleagues produced a new sea level record that spans 100 million years. They took five 500m-deep core samples from sediments along New Jersey's coastline. ... These measurements were correlated with others from around the world, enabling sea levels to be calculated. ... the findings [were], published in the journal Science. ... "Our record therefore provides a new and reliable baseline to use in addressing global warming. "Without reliable information on how sea levels had changed before we had our new measures, we couldn't be sure the current rate wasn't happening all along. Now, with solid historical data, we know it is definitely a recent phenomenon."... [With "a new and reliable baseline" to measure sea-levels, the rate of onset of global warming can now presumably be more accurately determined?]

Snows fail to fall in Arctic tundra, CNN Tuesday, November 22, 2005 ... HARSTAD, Norway (Reuters) -- Life is harsh on the freezing tundra of the Arctic Circle where Anna Prakhova lives. But it can be much harder when snows do not fall. In recent years, snows have failed to fall as normal across large parts of the barren land dotted with low birch and pines. "We are experiencing the reality of climate change," Prakhova, who leads a group representing indigenous people in Russia and the Nordic nations, said on a snow-free day in Harstad, a Norwegian Arctic port of about 15,000 people. Evidence that humans are pushing up global temperatures is growing ever stronger, ranging from a shrinking of ice in the Arctic to a warming of the Indian Ocean, many experts say. The scientific panel that advises the United Nations looks likely to issue sterner warnings in its next report in 2007 that emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, factories and cars are disrupting the climate, they say. And mounting conviction among experts may add pressure on governments, who next meet for climate talks in Montreal, Canada, from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, to do more about a problem that could cost trillions of dollars to fix in coming decades.... [A warmer Arctic leading to less snow will mean less solar heat will be radiated back into space, but absorbed by the land and sea, which will in turn lead to even more warming and less snow, "in a vicious cycle of global warming." This would all be very depressing, except that I remember what Jesus said in v.28, "When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (my emphasis)! As one of my commentaries says, "Jesus commands His followers ... [that] when they see the beginning of these predicted things, to be inspired with courage and faith in the knowledge that His second advent, and with it their redemption, are at hand. ... the predicted events will be a sign to the faithful believers when His coming is at hand, so that they will not be taken unawares by that day":

"[Luke 21:25-28] In the previous portion Jesus foretold the dreadful fate awaiting the people of Jerusalem in the destruction of their city and temple. It will be so terrible (and actually was so) that the Saviour held it up as a clear foreshadowing of the Last Days and the Final judgment, as appears from Mark xiii, where the predictions concerning the fate of the city Jerusalem are constantly expanded into prophecies concerning the Last Days. In Luke's shorter report of the prophetic discourse the predictions are far more clearly marked off from each other. After referring in verse 24 to the period when the times of the nations will be fulfilled, i.e. to the end of the present age ... there is in verse 25 an immediate transition to the predictions concerning the Last Things before and at Jesus' second advent. 25, 26 While before the fall of Jerusalem there were only a few miraculous signs (cf. verse 11 ` in divers places `), before the end of the age all creation and the whole of the human world will be plunged into dreadful commotions-in the sun, the moon and the stars there will appear miraculous and alarming signs, the whole life of the nations on earth will be disrupted through the anxiety and terror that will overwhelm the people and render them desperate. 27 In the midst of these circumstances of utmost distress the Son of Man, the exalted Christ, will come in His divine power and majesty, and in such a manner that every eye will see Him. 28 While the onset of the great oppression of the Last Days; throwing the impenitent into terror and despair, will be the sign that the judgments of God are finally visiting the rejecters of His Son, it will be to believers the signal that their full redemption (in soul and body) is at hand. So Jesus commands His followers (He addresses the disciples as representing the faithful of all ages, including those of the Last Days), when they see the beginning of these predicted things, to be inspired with courage and faith in the knowledge that His second advent, and with it their redemption, are at hand. Although they do not know the precise day and hour of His coming, they will know that His coming is no longer far off. 29-31 Just as, when the trees in nature begin to bud, one knows that spring is near, so assuredly Christ's followers must know that when the prophesied events begin to occur His second advent and likewise the visible and full revelation of the sovereign dominion of God are close at hand. His coming will indeed be like a thief in the night (xii. 40) and no one will be able to determine beforehand when it will be, and unbelieving mankind will indeed be engaged in their ordinary secular activities in spite of all the portents of His coming (xvii. 26-30), but none the less the predicted events will be a sign to the faithful believers when His coming is at hand, so that they will not be taken unawares by that day (xxi. 34)." (Geldenhuys J.N., "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," [1950], Marshall Morgan & Scott: London, 1961, reprint, pp.537-538).]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty further back, i.e. by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition, nor dispensed with. ... There is no difference in this respect (yet there may be a great difference in several respects) between a chain of a greater or less length, between one chain and another, between one that is finite and one that is indefinite. This very much resembles the case before us. The machine, which we are inspecting, demonstrates, by its construction, contrivance and design. Contrivance must have had a contriver; design, a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded from another machine, or not. That circumstance alters not the case. That other machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor does that alter the case: contrivance must have had a contriver. That former one from one preceding it: no alteration still: a contriver is still necessary. No tendency is perceived, no approach towards a diminution of this necessity. It is the same with any and every succession of these machines; a succession of ten, of a hundred, of a thousand; with one series as with another; a series which is finite, as with a series which is infinite. In whatever other respects they may differ, in this they do not. In all equally, contrivance and design are unaccounted for." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.9-11)

Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail, etc

News excerpts, all about the Mirecki email fiasco, with my comments bold and in square brackets:

Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail: U. of Kansas Professor Apologizes for E-Mail Making Fun of Advocates for Intelligent Design, ABC News/AP ... LAWRENCE, Kan. Nov 29, 2005 - A University of Kansas religion professor apologized for an e-mail that referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." In a written apology Monday, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department, said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an [sic] manner that respects all points of view." [As I said, I would rather this course did go ahead (but now it will not-see below), since I would have liked to have seen Mirecki justify, "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view", that both Christian creationism and ID were mythologies. But even if the course had gone ahead, it would have lacked credibility, given the public knowledge of Mirecki's anti-Christian emails.]The department faculty approved the course Monday but changed its title. The course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies," will instead be called "Intelligent Design and Creationism." [I have no problem with "creationism" being taught in a "Religious Studies Department" since it is based on the Bible. But as for "Intelligent Design", since it claims to be science, based only on the evidence of nature, not the Bible, to teach it in a "Religious Studies Department" is already prejudging it as not science, but religion. BTW, this course title "Intelligent Design and Creationism" (my emphasis) shows that they are two separate subjects, i.e. not "Intelligent Design Creationism"!] The class was added to next spring's curriculum after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in its standards for science teaching. The vote was seen as a big win for proponents of intelligent design, who argue that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power. [Again it is false to claim that "intelligent design... argue[s] that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power." ID's claim is that there is empirically detectable evidence of design in nature.] Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation camouflaged in scientific language. [Again, this is patently false-ID says nothing about "the Bible", let alone it's "story of creation."] Mirecki's e-mail was sent Nov. 19 to members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, a student organization for which he serves as faculty adviser. [This so-called "Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics" (my emphasis), is still selling its T-shirt with "MYTHICAL CREATURES", and under it a list starting with "Frankenstein's Monster" and ending with "GOD"!] "The fundies (fundamentalists) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology." [This obviously was a payback for the KBoE standards decision.] Mirecki addressed the message to "my fellow damned" and signed off with: "Doing my part to (tick) off the religious right, Evil Dr. P." [With an attitude like this, Mirecki is not fit to be a Professor (let alone the Chairman) of a university "Religious Studies Department", and I would not be surprised if he is demoted or even dismissed. He certainly has lost all credibility as an objective scholar and now is an embarrassment to the University of Kansas.] During the weekend, Chancellor Robert Hemenway began a review of Mirecki's e-mail, which resulted in Mirecki's apology, issued Monday night. [Sounds like Mirecki was forced to apologise by Chancellor Hemenway!] He called it "an ill-advised e-mail I sent to a small group of students and friends." [But "ill-advised" by who? Mirecki is the Chairman of the university's "Religious Studies Department" and the members of his forum seem to have been mostly his students. No one advised him to post his email-it was his own deliberate action and shows what he really thinks! The wording is so that Mirecki can continue to avoid admitting that what he wrote (and thought) was wrong.] The university on Monday defended the teaching of a class on such a timely subject, but some legislators said withholding funding from the school remained a possibility. [There is nothing wrong with "the teaching of a class on such a timely subject" but it should be done "as a serious academic subject and in a... manner that respects all points of view." Quite clearly, by his email, Mirecki has forfeited any credibility he may have had to meet those criteria.] Rep. Brenda Landwehr, vice chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, called the e-mail "venomous," adding, "He's not sorry he wrote it. He's sorry it became public." ... [Well put! Nowhere has Mirecki retracted what he said, so presumably he still believes it. It will be interesting to see if the Kansas House of Representatives Appropriations Committee decides to review the funding of Mirecki's department, which would involve calling Mirecki before it to explain his attitude.]

University cancels class on creationist `myths': Professor apologizes after sending e-mail criticizing fundamentalists, MSNBC, Dec. 1, 2005 TOPEKA, Kan. - A University of Kansas course devoted to debunking creationism and intelligent design has been canceled after the professor who planned to teach it caused a furor by sending an e-mail mocking Christian fundamentalists. [This news media outlet realized that the course was "devoted to debunking creationism and intelligent design" and not "as a serious academic subject and in a... manner that respects all points of view"! Therefore, even without Mirecki's email, the course should not have proceeded under his jurisdiction.] Twenty-five students had enrolled in the course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies," which had been scheduled for the spring. [Again, I would have liked to have seen Mirecki justify his claim that both "Intelligent Design" and Christian "Creationism" are "Religious Mythologies." That would necessitate him demonstrating that "Intelligent Design" is "Religious" (when it is based on the evidence of nature, not on the Bible or any other religious text), and that Christianity is false (when in fact it is true)!]Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies, canceled the class Wednesday, the university said. Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." He later apologized, and did so again Thursday in a statement issued by the university. "I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner," he said. [Again, the "mistake" that Mirecki is admitting to is not what he thought or said, but just his posting it on a "student organization e-mail forum". What was a Professor even doing on a "student organization e-mail forum". Let alone a Chairman of a "Religious Studies Department" on an "e-mail forum" of a "Society of ... Atheists and Agnostics"?] Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Mirecki's comments were "repugnant and vile." "It misrepresents everything the university is to stand for," Hemenway said. [This is very strongly worded by Chancellor Hemenway. So how can Mirecki now continue as the Chairman of KU's Religious Studies Department when his "comments were" not only "repugnant and vile", but also "misrepresents everything the university is to stand for" (my emphasis)? It is BTW interesting that the Chancellor wrote, "is to stand for" rather than "stands for". This sounds like elements within the university do in fact stand for Mirecki's position, but Hemenway wants to change that?]The class was added to the curriculum after the Kansas Board of Education decided recently to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for public school students. State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said the university did the right thing. "I'm glad they decided to listen to the public. The public response was so negative because of what seemed to be so hateful coming from the KU professor," said O'Connor, a Republican. "I am critical of his hatefulness toward Christians."... [This hits the nail on the head. Mirecki's email was "hateful ... toward Christians". So how can he now have any credibility as Chairman of a university "Religious Studies Department"?]

KU pulls intelligent design course: State legislators still want hearings on alleged anti-religious bias at university level, The Kansas City Star, Dec. 02, 2005, David Klepper and Laura Bauer ... LAWRENCE - The University of Kansas withdrew its course on intelligent design Thursday, but it failed to satisfy critics who say e-mails from the class professor show him to be anti-religious. [See above. How can Mirecki credibly continue as KU's "Chair and Associate Professor, Religious Studies Department" when he is anti-religious?] The course was pulled from the spring semester at the request of Paul Mirecki, head of the university's Religious Studies Department, who proposed the course and was to teach it. Mirecki came under fire last week after e-mails he sent to an Internet discussion site for student atheists were publicized. Thursday's decision to pull the class came after more e-mails surfaced this week. [Sounds like after the first email Chancellor Hemenway only asked for an apology from Mirecki and the deletion of "Religious Mythologies" from the course title. But then after the other emails from the KUsoma Yahoo group surfaced, Hemenway demanded that Mirecki cancel the course altogether.] In the latest e-mails, Mirecki repeatedly criticized fundamentalist Christians and Jews and mocked Catholicism. He urged students to aggressively take on proselytizers. He also made references to attending students' parties and often referred to himself as "Evil Dr. P." [This will help members of the public see that the Darwinists' carefully crafted "Inherit the Wind" stereotype is almost the exact opposite. Remember that Mirecki is a Professor and Chairman of a major university's "Religious Studies Department", attacking both "Christians and Jews"! It is going to be interesting to see how significant the fallout from this will be over time - if Mirecki is not demoted or dismissed.] KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway on Thursday condemned Mirecki's e-mails as "repugnant and vile." He said Mirecki "insulted both our students and the university's public, and he misrepresented beliefs of KU's faculty and staff." [That's pretty strong. I don't know what the situation is regarding his tenure, but I would not be surprised if Mirecki is demoted as Chairman or even as a Professor, if not dismissed altogether.] The university's decision to pull the class pleased conservative leaders who criticized it and then reacted with outrage at Mirecki's e-mails. But some lawmakers said the incident has caused them to question the biases of other professors. Some vow to hold hearings on the matter next year. [Kansas "lawmakers" have good reason "to question the biases of other professors" since Mirecki claimed to have "received more than 250 e-mail messages and phone calls since news of the course broke earlier this week" and that "The vast majority were supportive". Presumably many, if not most, were from "other professors"?] In one of the new e-mails, Mirecki wrote: "I don't think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms and some of them beat their wives and husbands." Mike Scherschligt of the St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center at KU said that when he initially heard about the e-mails making fun of Pope John Paul II and Catholicism, "I felt sadness." "What he said is wrong," Scherschligt said. ... In a written apology released by the university, Mirecki acknowledged that the e-mails had created a toxic learning environment. "Students with a serious interest in this important subject matter would not be well served by the learning environment my e-mails and the public distribution of them have created," Mirecki wrote. " It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility." [This sounds like a good apology, except that Mirecki is only apologizing for the effect of his words, not for the words being wrong.] Mirecki, who has a doctorate of theology degree from Harvard University, has taught at KU since 1989. He specializes in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions, and has uncovered and researched lost writings from early Christianity. [They were not "lost writings from early Christianity" but Gnosticwritings (who saw "orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by the evil creator of the material universe"):

Researchers say Coptic fragments reveal lost gospel, The Nando Times, 12 March 1997 ... KANSAS CITY ... In a rare finding that could shed light on the origins of Christianity, an American professor said Tuesday that he and a colleague have identified fragments of a "lost gospel" that contains conversations between Jesus Christ and his disciples. Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Kansas, said he is confident the text is an authentic early account of the teachings of Christ. If true, this would mark the first time since 1945 that a so-called lost gospel has been identified. Mirecki said that apart from the New Testament's four Gospels, scholars recognize approximately six other lost gospels that detail Christ's teachings. The gospel of Thomas, discovered in Egypt in 1945, was the last such text to be identified, Mirecki said. .... It was probably the work of a Christian [sic] minority group called Gnostics .... "It's a non-orthodox text ... Salvation comes to these people through knowledge rather than faith," Mirecki said. "They see orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by the evil creator of the material universe. They had a very different mythology ... "]

Administrators stood by the course Thursday and Mirecki's past scholarship but sharply condemned the e-mails. The faculty senate adopted a resolution at Thursday's meeting in support of academic freedoms and the responsibility that comes with them. "We want to remind the public, it's not a part of university's mission to avoid conflict, to refrain from addressing controversial issues in an academic setting," said Joseph Heppert, chemistry professor and chairman of the faculty senate executive committee. "Our concern is that it be done in an academic and appropriate, respectful manner. Making fun of individuals is not part of the way we as a faculty want to conduct ourselves." [That's good, but if ID is to be "address[ed] ... in an academic and appropriate, respectful manner" then it should not be caricatured as merely "creationism" and its leading proponents should be invited to present their side of the issue.] The course, initially titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies," sparked criticism as soon as it was announced last week. Already, 25 students had signed up for the course. Administrators were quick to say the decision to pull the course was prompted by Mirecki's comments and had nothing to do with pressure to cancel the course. "That was the turning point for everybody here," KU spokeswoman Lynn Bretz said of the latest e-mails. [Then why was the course name first changed, deleting "Religious Mythologies" before it was cancelled altogether?] Administrators said the course would be taught in future semesters, though it was uncertain when or who would teach it. [That's the dilemma. To teach ID fairly "in an academic and appropriate, respectful manner" would require either anti-IDists presenting ID's evidence and arguments accurately or, better still, inviting leading IDists to present them in person. But either would be unacceptable to most anti-IDists.] The university's action wasn't enough for conservative lawmakers, who said they want to know whether professors teaching other courses are letting their biases get in the way. "This may show a bigger problem than just Professor Mirecki," said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican. "It may show we're not providing fair and balanced opportunities to our students." [Presumably Landwehr and other conservative members of the legislature know that Mirecki is just the tip of an unfair and unbalanced iceberg at the University of Kansas?] Landwehr has called for hearings when the Legislature resumes next month. She said she wants to know whether professors are exhibiting any intolerance, whether it's religious, political or any other kind. Landwehr also questioned whether Mirecki should be allowed to teach religious studies courses. "It's hard to teach religion if you don't believe in it," she said. [This is a good point. Why should the Chair of Religious Studies be an atheist, who thinks Gnostic writings are on a par (if not superior to) the New Testament? At the very least, there should be representation of conservative evangelical Christianity in Mirecki's Department, since that presumably is the majority religious viewpoint in Kansas.] Sen. Kay O'Connor, an Olathe Republican, said public universities should not condone anti-Christian talk by professors. "We're not in the taxpayer-funded hatred business," she said. "Why should taxpayers give him an opportunity to profess his hatred for Christians?" [This is another good point. Why should the ~80% who are theists, provide their taxes to the ~10% of atheists, so they can teach the latter's private anti-religious philosophy?] The Rev. Thad Holcombe of the Ecumenical Christian Ministries at KU said Thursday that the religious studies department is full of qualified, intellectual professors. "I think some will raise questions over the department, but the department is not one faculty member," Holcombe said. "You can't evaluate and judge a department based on one member." [They might be "qualified, intellectual professors" but the question was, do they "condone anti-Christian talk" (i.e. are they opposed to historic, orthodox, Christianity)? Mirecki himself has answered that:

The Descent of the Straw Man, Denis Boyles, National Review, November 30, 2005 ... Religious conservatives say they hope both Mirecki and Hemenway will retreat to doing what they were hired to do and leave political theater to the drama department. But the religious-studies department may not be the healthiest environment for any kind of retreat: "The majority of my colleagues here in the dept[ment] are agnostics or atheists, or they just don't care," Mirecki wrote in explaining, correctly, that it wasn’t the job of the department to make converts. "If any of [the other professors] are theists, it hasn’t been obvious to me in the 15 years I've been here."]

Andrew Stangl, a KU student who leads the atheist group, said Mirecki is a target because he was critical of fundamentalist Christians and intelligent design. He said his group is made up of open-minded and tolerant students. "Any reasonable person can see right through this," he said. "Since Dr. Mirecki is critical of some aspects of religion, then they say he must be anti-religious. That's really not the case." [Stangl is right in one point at least, that "Any reasonable person can see right through this"!] John Altevogt, a conservative writer from Johnson County, discovered and publicized Mirecki's e-mails. The debate has never been entirely civil as the state Board of Education considered and adopted last month new science standards that call for criticism of evolution in public schools. Steve Case is a KU science education professor who worked on the state science standards and stood up for evolution when they were changed by the board. He said Mirecki's comments, while protected by free speech, didn't do any favors to those opposed to the acceptance of intelligent design as a scientific theory. Case, who said he engaged in "a lot of tongue-biting" during the board debate, said Mirecki's comments were not all that different from some made by the other side. "That was his (Mirecki's) big mistake," Case said. "He dropped to their level. We moved out of education and into politics some time ago." ... [Case is at least right about "Mirecki's comments ...didn't do any favors to those opposed to the acceptance of intelligent design as a scientific theory"!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"Though it is now no longer probable, that the individual watch which our observer-had found, was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in any wise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the colour of a body, of its hardness, of its heat; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to an use, that relation to an end, which we have embarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose; without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an ends relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe, that the insensible, inanimate watch from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it; could be truly said to have constructed- the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, deter mined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for, as they were before." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.8-9. Evidence original)