Creation theory for classroom

Here is another unwebbed article in The West Australian (again I don't agree with the headline) in which the Australian Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson (a medical doctor), has reportedly given (presumably like President Bush in response to a journalist's question) his guarded support for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools:

"Education Minister Brendan Nelson gave the nod yesterday for a form of creationism to be taught in schools alongside the theory of evolution. ... Addressing the National Press Club, Dr Nelson said the controversial new theory known as intelligent design had enough merit to be included in the school curriculum. The theory is receiving growing support in the United States, with the blessing of President George Bush. But Dr Nelson said he didn't believe it should replace scientific lessons about the origins of life. `But do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes, I think that's fine,' he said.'"

The story is also in today's Sydney Morning Herald, under the headline, Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia, and in its sister paper The Melbourne Age as, "'Intelligent design' an option: Nelson."

However, it may not mean as much as it seems, because education in Australia is primarily the responsibility of the State governments. Nevertheless, it is a very important development in the history of ID. It is going to be interesting to see the reaction from the Australian anti-ID side.

An important difference between Australia and the USA is that while there is a similar clause in the Australian constitution (S. 116) about the Federal Parliament not making any law for establishing of any religion as in the USA, the High Court has interpreted that fairly literally and has consistently supported Federal funding of private religious schools, for example. The result is there is no strict judicail doctrine of the separation of Church and State as in the USA and there has never as far as I know been the equivalent of the USA's creationism trials to test it. It is for example, perfectly legal and normal for religious education to be taught in State schools and indeed for them to employ Christian chaplains.

There would seem to be therefore no legal impediment for ID to be taught in Australian schools, but of course the Australian science establishment, and presumably most science teachers, are scientific naturalists and would oppose (probably fiercely) ID being taught, or evolution criticised, in science classes. However, I cannot see how they could prevent the controversy being taught in other school classes, or out of hours on school premises. A factor in favour of ID being taught in State schools is that there has been a lot of criticism from the Prime Minister down of State school education being value-less, with parents increasingly sending their children to private Christian schools. If State schools teachers opposed the teaching of ID, then that would reinforce criticisms of State schools' `godless' lack of values.

There were some more letters, including my own, mainly supportive of ID, in the same paper, and I will scan and post them next.

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

---

THE WEST AUSTRALIAN THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 2005 9

NEWS

Creation theory for classroom

CHRIS JOHNSON CANBERRA

Education Minister Brendan Nelson gave the nod yesterday for a form of creationism to be taught in schools alongside the theory of evolution.

He also repeated his demand that parents must be given more extensive information about the schools their children attended, so as not to be forced to choose schools based on the colour of uniforms.

Addressing the National Press Club, Dr Nelson said the controversial new theory known as intelligent design had enough merit to be included in the school curriculum.

The theory is receiving growing support in the United States, with the blessing of President George Bush. But Dr Nelson said he didn't believe it should replace scientific lessons about the origins of life.

"But do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes, I think that's fine," he said.

Intelligent Design does not provide a literal interpretation of the Bible but does suggest the role of a creator.

Dr Nelson has met those advocating the theory and said he had no great problems with it being taught.

But talking tough over school funding, the Minister insisted that Federal money would be withheld unless more information about schools was provided to parents.

How schools and students were performing in comparison to each other was vital information parents should have, he said.

But he did not want to go down the path of the British education system which provides online information to parents about the ethnic and socio-economic make-up of each school.

"I certainly wouldn't want to go that far," Dr Nelson said.

"But we have put conditions on school funding because for the first time, before handing money over to government and non-government school providers, we've said that certain conditions must be met - and one of them is that the performance of the school actually has to be made available to the parents.

"Too many parents in this country are forced to choose a school on the basis of the colour of the uniforms and the tidiness of the grounds when what really counts is what happens in the classroom."

Dr Nelson stressed that in addition to the performance numbers of students being made available, teacher accountability must be recorded. "Teacher attendance is part of it,"

'Too many parents are forced to choose a school based on the colour of the uniforms.' he said. "They will also publish the qualifications of the teachers, their participation in their ongoing training and how much money is spent at the school level on that teacher-training."

The Government's conditions have set Dr Nelson at odds with his State counterparts, but he insisted there was no option if the schools wanted Federal money.

As a condition of funding, schools will have to make available information including literacy and numeracy performance in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 and how they compare with the previous year; how many Years 10 and 12 students don't finish; what proportion of students went on to university and what value-adding the school provides for a student's education.

Dr Nelson said he was determined to drive a policy of plain language in reporting to parents using A, B, C, D or E rankings.

[...]

(c) 2005 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved.

Intelligent design does not exclude evolution

Here are unwebbed letters to the editor in today's The West Australian. I don't necessarily agree with the title, but at least it makes the point that ID is not simply creationism, so it is a plus (although the block heading to distinguish these letters from other topics is "CREATIONISM").

When I bought the paper today and read such good letters, I thought that my letter had been rejected as either too long or not good enough. But when I got home there was a message from the newspaper on my answering machine asking me to confirm it was my letter, which I did. I later received another call from a sub-editor to clarify and change some wording and he confirmed my letter would be in tomorrow's paper! I had after the first phone call read the letters again and realised that they were all about the "Creationist DVD faces school fight" article that was before the opinion piece, "Creationists monkey with public education" which I had responded to.

The letters are 4 pro-ID and 2 anti-ID, which itself is interesting, if it reflects the proportion received. The two anti-ID letters sound arrogant, which will work in ID's favour with the public. The pro-ID letters are surprisingly good, which shows that ID thinking may be more widespread in Australia than I had previously thought. Even the sub-editor was sympathetic to ID in our telephone discussion. He said that his own view was that we were created by aliens a million years more advanced than us. I replied that if in fact that is what happened (of course I don't believe it did), then science would be in the position of ruling it out apriori.

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

---

THE WEST AUSTRALIAN
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005 29

Letters

CREATIONISM

Intelligent design does not exclude evolution
In relation to your report on evolution and intelligent design (Creationist DVD faces school fight, 8/8) I make the following comments. The theory of evolution (Darwinism) is the current paradigm which forms the framework for biological principles and research. However, like all paradigms in science it should not be immune from critical reassessment and review based on scientific research. Thus, Darwinism should not become dogma and unchallengeable.

The theory which proposes chance and accidental mutation to explain the origin of life and the complex and varied life we now see on Earth has some problems due to lack of fossil evidence with continuity in the field of macro-evolution at one end of the scale and the evolution of some microbiological process at the other.

In particular, proponents of intelligent design (ID) use the concept of "irreducible complexity" to suggest that it would be impossible for some microbiological processes, for example, to have evolved based simply on chance and mutation. Accidental causes need to be replaced in these instances by controlled input from an external intelligent source - whatever or whoever that might be.

ID does not propose the trashing of the theory of evolution but the expansion of the theory to include possible intelligent input rather than accident, particularly in cases where currently evolution by pure chance cannot explain some complex microbiological processes.

Deric Davidson, Bunbury.

Misleading mix
The debate about creation versus evolution will not go away just because we push anything that does not give glory to man's reason into the realm of religion and
personal faith.

I was brought up in a secular education system and I remember some excellent science teachers enlightening my mind about the marvels of scientific discoveries and evolution. I therefore assumed that everything I was taught about evolution was based on scientific facts.

However, basic assumptions of the evolution theory are very much a matter of faith. Darwin himself would recognise this if he were still alive. Scientists with intellectual and moral integrity will teach evolution as a theory and will make the distinction between scientific facts versus theories. Alternative theories do exist and should be heard.

I hope the time will come when the simple words "according to the theory of evolution" will be added to the countless public assertions in museums and tourist places which are at present misleading the public by mixing facts with theory.

Madeleine Goiran, Thornlie.

True science
It's unfair to label the creationist theories as religion. It is true that the "intelligent design" theories are pinned on the belief that has a religious premise - but one mustn't forget that evolutionists are forced to do the same thing themselves. It still takes a huge leap of faith to accept.

OK, so I've shown my hand, but really, I don't mind the presentation of the evolution argument at school - there's certainly merit in it. However, the education industry is so committed to this theory that it is afraid to have another view presented.

If it was committed to the true study of science, surely its theories might stand examination and comparison to alternatives - or is its brand of science just another pursuit of a myopic, untested faith in its own right?

What is it afraid of- students actually forming a different conclusion, based on objective evaluation rather than the Darwinism it is spoon feeding?

True science is the pursuit of truth, regardless of where that truth takes you. Are you ready for the journey?

Steve Marshall, Kelmscott.

Fair hearing
The idea that creationism is a religion and evolution is science is a furphy. There are only two ways that life could have come about on this planet. One is by the act of an intelligent designer and the other is by blind chance. Those on either side of the divide take their initial stand by faith since neither theory can be tested by scientific means (it cannot be repeated and tested in a lab.)

To say "there is no creator" is to make a faith statement and evolution is its creed. Scientists have to deduce from observation which hypothesis is more likely to be true. Since many highly qualified scientists have written books and put out DVDs even a single cell, is statistically and chemically impossible, those scientists have a right to be heard. Give qualified scientists on both sides a fair hearing and let students make up their own minds.

J.K. Phillips, Katanning.

Chaos theory
Primitive tribes have always invented gods to explain things they misunderstood and to whom placatory sacrifices were made. We now have a group of evangelical fundamentalists attempting to brainwash schoolchildren into believing the theory of evolution is wrong "because life is so complex there must have been a higher intelligence involved".

Chaos theory would suggest otherwise. Had a "higher intelligence" been involved, it would have arranged things along much simpler lines. Except for the dictates of scientific laws, there is no rational need for such complexity.

David Pridhard, Geraldton.

A fairy tale
The problem with the "intelligent design theory" (editorial, 9/8) is that it is a story similar to other fairy tales. It has no scientific basis since it has no scientific proof. I have no problems with it being taught as part of religious instruction. However, it should never be presented as part of mainstream education.

It is not correct to say that "students should be told about both views of life to help them make up their own minds" because they will assume that both ideas have merit. One is a story and one is a fact.

David Abbott, Mt Lawley.

© 2005 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved.

Creationists monkey with public education

Here is the letter to the editor of "The West Australian" that I sent tonight. Below the letter are scanned copies of the unwebbed opinion piece by a columnist critical of ID and a short editorial opinion supportive of ID!

I don't know if the letter will be published, so I am posting it here now. I will mention if it is published.

BTW "9/8" in Australia means 9th August (not September 8, as in the USA).

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

---

Letters to the Editor
The West Australian

---------- For publication begins here ----------
Thanks to Andre Malan for his "Creationists monkey with public education" (Opinion 9/8) and for the accompanying editorial "Let's be intelligent about design theory."

However, as a member of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement since 1995, and a recently graduated biologist, I wish to point out that it is simplistic for Mr Malan to equate ID with creationism. Creationism is based on the Bible but ID is based only on the evidence of nature. There are members of the ID movement who are not even theists and there are creationists who are opposed to ID.

ID is a scientific theory that there is empirical evidence of design in nature. ID makes no claim as to who or what the designer was, leaving that question to philosophy and theology. The argument that there is design in nature goes back at least as far as the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who incidentally is widely regarded as the father of the science of biology.

If the proposition that there is no design in nature (as Darwinism maintains) is scientific, then the counter-proposition that there is design in nature, must also be scientific. It is special pleading by Darwinists to claim that the "no" answer to the question, "Is there empirical evidence for design in nature?" is science, but the "yes" answer to the same question is religion.

The ID movement's rapid growth in recent years is based on two main lines of scientific evidence. The first is the many problems with the evidence that the
reigning Darwinian theory of evolution has increasingly experienced over the last 140 years, and the second is the fantastic complexity that biology itself has unexpectedly revealed of the molecular machinery of the cell.

So strong is this latter evidence for design that one of the world's leading atheists, British philosopher Antony Flew, has recently abandoned atheism, citing evidence presented by ID theorists, and claiming that God must have created the first living organism.

The ID movement is not asking for ID to be taught in science classes. All it asks at this stage is for the controversy to be taught in schools. That is, students should be exposed to the problems of the theory of evolution, as well as the scientific evidence for design in nature. Both can be read at ID's two main websites,http://www.arn.org/ and http://www.discovery.org/csc/ .

As The West's editorial put it, "It stands to reason that students should be told about both views of life to help them to make up their own minds."

Stephen E. Jones
Warwick
---------- For publication end here ----------

Stephen E. Jones
[Address]

---

The West Australian

14 TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2005

Opinion

Creationists monkey with public education

ANDRE MALAN

In our feeble attempts to understand the mysteries of life, most of us construct some sort of belief system to cling to. Some embrace the inherited faith of the great religions, others latch on to cults or eccentric theories, like the one proposed a few years ago by a respected Ukrainian scientist, Dr Andrei Arkhipov, that humans were created from DNA dumped overboard as sewage from alien spacecraft.

In his book The God Gene: How Faith is Hard-wired into Our Genes, leading geneticist Dr Gene Hamer makes a convincing case that spirituality is one of our basic human inheritances. He believes that while religion is based on culture, beliefs and traditions, spirituality is a genetic instinct that we all share.

For me, more than half a century of constant thought and inquiry has led to a conclusion that is very similar to what has become known as the theory of intelligent design. In other words, I believe in God.

I'm still as confused as the next person, and don't have the faintest clue as to who or what God is. But I do have an unshakeable belief that life in all its exquisiteness and complexity is more than the result of some cosmic accident or chemical evolution. I also believe that even though our lives occupy no more than a blink of an eyelid in time, there is some purpose to them. I accept that I will never see absolute proof that will either confirm or dispel my beliefs, but the comforting part is that I realise I'm not meant to have such a decisive revelation.

This argument that life is so complex that there must have been a higher intelligence involved is once again being used to counter Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory that all life descended from common ancestors and developed through natural selection and random mutation.

Supporters of intelligent design theory received a boost recently from a controversial statement by United States President George Bush that schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design side-by-side.

Now a Sydney group, the Campus Crusade for Christ Australia, is gathering support from educationists, churches, politicians and scientists for intelligent design to be taught in Australian high schools. It could become a hot issue.

It's really nothing more than the re-emergence of the perennial creationism debate that has been dividing educators and communities for decades, most vociferously in the US. However this time the supporters of creationism are likely to find more receptive ears in view of the growing clout of what is becoming known as the Religious Right.

I agree that children should be exposed to different schools of thought, as Mr Bush suggests, and that should include instruction about Christianity and the other religions.

But to teach intelligent design theory as legitimate science in the same way as evolution would be a backward step and a contravention of the principle of separation of church and state.

It leaves people like me in the unusual situation of having to argue against something in which I believe. But to be honest I don't think the answer to the biggest question of all is to be found in the realms of pseudo-science. I happily accept that for me or anyone else to believe in God requires a leap of faith, and that's how it always will be.

It is possible to come to such a belief without literally accepting the story of creation as told in the Bible. In fact, it is not uncommon for scientists to be drawn closer to a belief in God through knowledge and insights gained from science.

andre.malan@[...]

---

Let's be intelligent about design theory

The heat in the long-running battle between creationists and evolutionists has been turned up in the debate on the theory of intelligent design which has surfaced in Australia.

The theory is that life is so complex it must have had a designer of higher intelligence, which is by no means a new idea.

It stands to reason that students should be told about both views of life to help them to make up their own minds.

And whether the intelligent design theory is taught in science or religion courses doesn't really matter.

(c) 2005 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved. [...]

Creationist DVD faces school fight

Here is an unwebbed article (with links added) that I scanned from yesterday's "The West Australian" (my State's main daily), on the ID movement's video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." A similar story appeared in The Melbourne Age newspaper. This may be the biggest news story on ID to date in Australia!

I won't comment on this article, because I am immediately following it with a post here of a letter to the editor which I have just sent, responding to an opinion piece today by a columnist criticising ID (and the DVD), and a short editorial supporting ID's "teach the controversy" position.

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

---

The West Australian
MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2005 3

New science or religion debate has split the United States - now it's Australia's turn

Creationist DVD faces school fight

SYDNEY

A Sydney-based group is gathering support from educationists, churches, politicians and scientists to distribute a DVD on the controversial theory of intelligent design to every Australian high school for inclusion in the curriculum.

Intelligent design, which is supported by US President George Bush, an evangelical Christian, argues that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong because life is so complex there must have been a higher intelligence involved.

To its supporters, the theory is a hard science which should be taught to high school students in their ordinary science class.

To its critics, who include most scientists, it is a religious belief and properly belongs in a religion or philosophy course.

The evolution-intelligent design debate has split the US in recent years but has gained significant support. Mr Bush says schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design side by side.

The Campus Crusade for Christ Australia, which claims to have 130 staff, is pushing the theory here.

Its chief, Bill Hodgson, has been busy meeting scientists to try to convince them that intelligent design deserves support in schools.

The Crusade has had one big coup so far - the inventor of the bionic ear, Professor Graeme Clark, says he is impressed with the arguments. Monsignor Peter Elliott, who oversees religious education for the Melbourne Catholic archdiocese, also says he is a "great supporter" of intelligent design.

The group has presented a copy of the DVD, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, to Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson.

Already, more than a thousand copies have been circulated in Australia, with its Christian distributor Focus on the Family saying most have gone to university students and churches.

The Campus Crusade for Christ has been operating in Australia since 1967, an offshoot of the founding group in the US. With a mission to spread the gospel, it originally had a university focus, but has extended its reach to high schools and the wider community.

Mr Hodgson said the plan to distribute the DVD to schools was in the early stages. His group was talking to interested people to see if there was a groundswell of support to make it available as a curriculum resource for high schools. The Australian Education Union firmly believes teachers have "an absolute commitment to scientific principle and evidence", national president Pat Byrne said.

"There shouldn't be any confusion between science and religion," she said.
"Within the context of religion, students are exposed to different religious views, different religious theories. It needs to be very clear that that's what this is - a particular religious theory."

(c) 2005 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved.

"The Evolution Wars" (TIME, August 15, 2005) #1

This is part #1 of a planned multi-part critique of the articles under the cover story, "The Evolution Wars," in TIME magazine, August 15, 2005, pages 52-59. Over the coming weeks, I will work my way through the entire series of articles (interspersed with posts on other topics), and in so doing should cover many of the issues in the modern evolution vs intelligent design (ID) controversy.

But before considering the first article, the cover poses the following question:

EVOLUTION WARS
The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place
in science class?

This is an example of how evolutionists often resort to logical fallacies, in this case a form of the fallacy of false alternative (or false dilemma), that "intelligent design" is necessarily equivalent to "God". But clearly the question, "is there empirically detectable evidence of intelligent design in nature?", is a separate question from "who (or what) is the designer(s)?"

For example, if it is shown that the origin of the minimal self-replicating cell far exceeds the unintelligent natural process resources of the universe, which former atheist philosopher Antony Flew in fact now does accept:

"First, a substantial case of agreement. Richard Dawkins has famously asserted that `Natural selection the blind automatic process which Darwin has discovered we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life.' Against that claim I pointed out, after quoting a significant sentence from the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species, that one place where, until a satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been developed, there would appear to be room for an Argument to Design is at the first emergence of living from non-living matter. And, unless that first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically, there will still be room for a second argument to Design until a satisfactory explanation is found for its acquisition of that capacity. You have in your book deployed abundant evidence indicating that it is likely to be a very long time before such naturalistic explanations are developed, if indeed there ever could be." (Flew A.G.N., "Full Review by Anthony Flew." Review of "The Wonder of the World : A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God," by Roy Abraham Varghese, Tyr Publishing: Fountain Hills AZ, 2004. Tyr Publishing, News Release, December 10, 2004)

then that does not of itself prove who the designer was. In Flew's case, he regards the designer as the deistic god of Thomas Jefferson:

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain ... There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" ... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August- September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote. ... Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe." (Ostling R.N., "One of the world's leading atheists now believes in God, more or less," San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 2004)

whereas a Christian IDist like me would assume (but could not prove) that the designer was "the God of the Christian" and a Muslim IDist would likewise assume the designer was "the God of Islam."

Indeed, an agnostic IDist like Michael Denton rejects an actual personal designer and instead he regards design as being an inherent property of the laws of nature, stating that his "teleological argument ... and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world":

"Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science-that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called `special creationist school.' According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world-that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview." (Denton M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.xvii-xviii. Emphasis in original)

So the charitable assumption is that those journalists and/or editors who claim that "to teach `intelligent design'" is to give "God ... a place in science class" are simply ignorant of the subject that they are writing about and need to do their homework. The other alternative is that they know all the above but are being less than honest with their readers. But in the case of ID, it is hard to believe that the presumably top-flight journalists and editors of TIME are ignorant of that subject (especially since the articles in this very issue shows they are not)!

[To be continued in part #2]

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

Bush’s neocon friends shocked as he backs the Darwin-doubters, etc

Here are excerpts from news articles, with my comments in square brackets:

The Sunday Times [London]- World August 07, 2005 Bush’s neocon friends shocked as he backs the Darwin-doubters THE theory of intelligent design, which emphasises the role of a creator in the development of the universe, has received a boost from President George W Bush. He has called for it to be taught alongside evolution in schools, writes Sarah Baxter. While Bush’s conservative Christian fundamentalist base is delighted by his pronouncement, it has opened a split with neoconservatives and other secular allies on the right. In Texas, where the president likes to spend August reconnecting with his heartland, Bush said last week: "Both sides ought to be taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." The teaching of Darwinism is a controversial issue in Kansas and other patches of middle America, where legal and political challenges are being mounted to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum. Many fundamentalists believe that the world is only 6,000 years old and that atheistic theories are being foisted on children. The teaching of intelligent design advocates a divine - or "intelligent" - creator and is regarded by many scientists as mumbo-jumbo. "With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better word," said Gary Bauer, a leading Christian activist. "It’s not some backwater view. It is a view held by the majority of Americans." Some of the president’s greatest supporters in the war on terror are shaking their heads in disbelief at his remarks. Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative commentator, said the idea of teaching intelligent design - creationism’s "modern step-child" - was "insane". "To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of a religious authority," he wrote. "To impose it on the teaching of evolution is ridiculous." Krauthammer’s scathing article appeared in the current issue of Time magazine before Bush expressed his opinion. He believes it prompted a reporter to ask the president where he stood. Caught off-guard, Bush gave an unrehearsed answer. "It is very clear to me that he is sincere about this," Krauthammer said. "He is not positioning." However, he added: "If you look at this purely as a cynical political move, it will help in the heartlands and people of my ilk care a lot more about Iraq than about textbooks in Kansas." ... [More spin from the evolution side. President Bush did not "call... for it [Intelligent Design] to be taught alongside evolution in schools". As the actual transcript shows, President Bush merely answered a reporter's question, reiterating what has been his position since he was Governor of Texas:

Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as ... governor [of Texas] ... Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, ... so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and ... [if] you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

[So all that President Bush actually said in respect of the "debate over evolution versus intelligent design", was: 1) "that decision should be made ... [by] local school districts;" 2) "both sides ought to be properly taught"; and 3) "people ought to be exposed to different ideas". It was as the article itself says, "an unrehearsed answer." Baxter's pejorative dismissal as "fundamentalists" those who think that design in nature is real, will only confirming to more and more of the general public that there must be something seriously wrong with evolution that its defenders need to resort to the argumentum ad hominem abusive fallacy (note the example of "that's what I'd expect a fundamentalist Christian to say"!), rather than consider the evidence and arguments for intelligent design in nature on their merits. Krauthammer appears to be a political "neoconservative" whose opposition to intelligent design (I cannot see where he uses the word "insane") is based on political considerations. He does not seem to consider the possibility that "intelligent design" could be true and evolution false.]

Evolving argument creates new battle, The Age, Shane Green, August 6, 2005. Graeme Clark says he has always had a bias to thinking beyond the box, a view that became critical in his struggle to develop the bionic ear. "If I had stayed within the box with the bionic ear, I would have been frightened off by my scientific colleagues, who said that physiology at the time said that it was impossible," Professor Clark says. "So I must confess a sort of rogue element in me that likes to see if there are other ways of thinking things through." Professor Clark is bringing this approach to the theory of intelligent design. He argues that life's complexity cannot simply be explained by Darwin's evolution theory, but is the result of design by a higher intelligence. Professor Clarke has looked at the works of US scientists who have developed the theory and is reading Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology, by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. He says the theory should not be confused with creationism. "One of the early points he makes in his book is there is no a priori reason why you must start with what has been accepted by science as a closed box," Professor Clarke says. Of the scientists behind the theory, including Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe, Professor Clarke says: "They are thoughtful, intelligent people trying to push the boundaries of knowledge." The pair were among scientists and philosophers who in 1993 formed the basis of the intelligent design movement. The theory has become part of the intense creationism versus evolution battle that has been played out in the US over the role each should play in schools. For many Christian groups advocating the teaching of creation, intelligent design has an appeal. While the mention of God is avoided, the theory has been decried as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Yet the movement is scoring victories. It received a significant fillip this week when US President George Bush backed teaching it alongside evolution, "so people can understand what the debate is about". Professor Clark has talked openly about his Christian faith. Yet he says it does not influence his thinking on intelligent design. "I want to put a scientific hat on, I want to be fair to the discussion," he says. The theory has also found support within the Catholic Church in Australia. Monsignor Peter Elliott, episcopal vicar for religious education in the archdiocese of Melbourne, declared his strong backing. "It doesn't push a particular religious line, and it's certainly not creationist," he said. Monsignor Elliott, who edited the religious texts used by Catholic schools in Victoria and NSW, thinks the theory should be welcomed in Catholic schools. ... [This is good news to me as an Australian, seeing Intelligent Design starting to take root `down under'!]

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

Common ancestry and common city

AN (copy to CED blog, minus personal identifying information and with minor changes)

Thanks for your message. When I was running my recently terminated Internet discussion list, CreationEvolutionDesign I used to `kill two birds with one stone' and copy private messages I received on creation, evolution and design topics to my list, after removing the sender's personal identifying information and replacing his/her name with "AN" (for ANonymous). I had thought that would not work with my blog of the same name that replaced my list, but I have had second thoughts and will give it a try. I imagine that a lot of readers could be interested in basic questions. You are welcome to make comments to the blog post, anonymously if you wish.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:45:35 +0800, AN wrote:

AN>Hi Stephen
>
>My name is AN, I came across your internet article on common ancestory while I was doing a Google search for something else. I was very interested in your views. It's still an open question for me, but I do appreciate the distinction you make between common ancestry and naturalistic evolution. I wonder if there were muliple ancestors, as opposed to a single common ancester, which were the precursors to the Biblical kinds.

And an especial thanks that you can see "the distinction" that I "make between common ancestry and naturalistic evolution." Most (both creationist and evolutionist) in my experience cannot (or will not) see that distinction.

As for "Biblical kinds" , the Bible doesn't means anything scientific by it. The Hebrew word "min" just means kinds, like someone would say in English (e.g. "there are different kinds of trees and flowers in that forest"), without meaning anything about their taxonomic classification:

"min. Kind. The word min occurs in thirty-one passages (chiefly Gen 1, 6, 7; Lev 11; Deut 14), thirty of which belong to Moses' Pentateuch. The other one is Ezk 47:10. The etymology of min cannot be established with certainty. ... Some have argued that when God created min, he thereby fixed the `species.' This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word min with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists. In light of the distinctions made in Gen 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term min may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, 22 (four times), min appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus. However, Lev 11:4 `the falcon after its kind,' and 11:16 `the hawk after its kind,' refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called min. Likewise, as Payne points out, the locust, bald locust, cricket*, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called min (genus?). God created the basic forms of life called min which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order." (Kaiser W.C., "min. Kind," in Harris R.L., Archer G.L. & Waltke B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," [1980], Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, Vol. I, pp.503-504).

* This does not make it clear that while they are in the same order (Orthoptera) of insects (class Insecta of phylum Arthropoda) as locusts and grasshoppers, crickets are in a different family (Gryllidae) from them.

AN>I was quite surprised to find that you are a fellow Perth resident. I live in […] and fellowship at [church] in […]. I've been a YECer most of my Christian life until a few years ago when I got involved on the discussions boards at [...]. Needless to say I was greatly challenged and a lot of my thinking changed. I would now describe myself as OEC with ID as a key foundation of my scientific understanding of origins.

OK. I have never been a YEC, even though I was converted to Christ (at age 20) in a fairly conservative evangelical Baptist church. I think there are yecs and there are YECs. The former (yecs) are those who believe the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hours as a default position, because they know of little or no scientific evidence to the contrary. That would describe the vast majority of Christians up to the 18th-19th century. The latter (YECs) are those who believe the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hours, *despite* knowing the evidence to the contrary.

Denyse O'Leary, of the Post-Darwinist blog makes this point (see tagline quote).

AN>A few months ago I was considering whether I should/could do a science degree so that I could have some credible input into the creation/evolution debate. I was encouraged by the fact that you have done that. I still don't know when or how I will be able to do this, but your example has encouraged my to keep it before God in prayer and to trust him for whatever his will is.

I would heartily recommend creationists doing "a science degree so that [they] ... could have some credible input into the creation/evolution debate." However, it is a big (and expensive) commitment and you probably would need strong motivation to do it. In my case it was a combination of: 1) wanting to know the truth; 2) feeling the need for credibility to write a book on the problems of evolution; 3) a vague idea about getting a job as a science teacher (which I later decided against); 4) not being able to think of anything better to do! and 5) a feeling that that is what God wanted me to do. I nearly forgot 6) an excuse to buy great books!

>Regards
>
>AN

PS: Again, thanks for your message, but my long-standing policy is not to get involved in extensive private discussions about creation/evolution/design topics as: 1) I don't have the time; and 2) I believe that such discussions should be public. So if you have any follow-up questions, please make them as comments to my blog posts. Thanks.

Steve

---------------------------------------------
"Were the famous scientists of long ago young earth creationists? William Provine; a prominent Darwinist, thinks so. In a recent online review, he complained that a National Academy of Sciences publication on how teach evolution is flawed. He questioned the Academy's decision to cite Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton as examples of thinkers whose views on physics and astronomy were vindicated because, as be put it: `Why would the National Academy have chosen this example in a book about evolution when all four were young-earth creationists? 34 Well, prior to about 1750, everyone was, in one sense, a young earth creationist! For example, the Venerable Bede (672?-735) wrote a history of the world, and so did Sir Walter Raleigh. (1554?-1618}. Both men began with `Creation,' the origin of the universe, as described in Genesis 1 and 2. They assumed that Creation took place about 6000 years ago. But the two men could hardly have been more different! Bede was an English monk in the Dark Ages, and Raleigh was a skeptical English adventurer who lived nearly a thousand years later in the Elizabethan Renaissance. Raleigh was rumored to be an atheist, holding forth in taverns, but his religious views had no impact on where he would begin his account of history. Prior to the development of geology as a scientific discipline in the 18th century, there was no widely accepted source of information about cosmic or human origins apart from the Bible. Raleigh would have to either begin with Genesis, or take the risk of resurrecting an account of origins written by a classical Greek philosopher. But the philosophers' accounts were not science-based; they were simply accounts that were not based on a Christian understanding of the universe. So Copernicus and the others were not young earth creationists in the sense that Provine assumes. They accepted a traditional account of origins as an alternative to no account." (O'Leary D., "By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, p.129)
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). "Problems of Evolution"
---------------------------------------------

Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution, etc.

Here are excerpts from news articles, with my comments in square brackets:

Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolution, Washington Post, Jon Hurdle, August 4, 2005. PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design." Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes. Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about." "I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio [Real Player]. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause." Santorum ... is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections. The controversy over intelligent design is a hot topic in Pennsylvania, where the Dover Area School District in south central Pennsylvania has included the theory in its biology curriculum. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to block the policy, calling it a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. Most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools. ... Critics, including many science teachers, say intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested and has no place in a science curriculum. Santorum sided in part with intelligent-design proponents in saying that there were gaps in the theory of evolution. "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview. "As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution." Santorum had proposed an unsuccessful measure in 2001 that would have required discussing the "controversy" of evolution when the theory is taught in classes. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was quoted in The New York Times this week as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes. ..."
[I have just listened to what Sen. Santorum said at the above NPR link, and he did not say that "intelligent design ... lacked scientific credibility." What he said was what the Discovery Institute said (which I agree with), that: 1) ID is not yet ready to be taught in schools as a scientific theory; but 2) the problems of evolution should be taught. This is virtually identical to the Discovery Institute's position:

"President Bush's Support for Free Speech on Evolution and Intelligent Design Draws Praise from Discovery Institute, Staff Discovery Institute, August 2, 2005 ... Discovery Institute opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design, but it supports requiring students to know about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory. ..."

According to the Dover Area School District's February 2005, "Biology Curriculum Update," the claim that "Dover Area School District ... has included the theory [of intelligent design] in its biology curriculum", is false:

"Are Dover students taught the theory of intelligent design? No. Perhaps the most widely misreported fact is that Dover school district requires the "teaching" of intelligent design. Students are only made aware of the theory of ID during the one minute statement read prior to the ninth grade biology course ... Students interested in learning more are able to do so by viewing books and materials available in the library."

See also the Dover School District's response to the ACLU's lawsuit. This will only confirm to the Dover area public (including the students) who know this is false, that there must be serious problems with evolution when its proponents have to keep resorting to misrepresentations and untruths to defend it! See also my previous post "Bush reaffirms teaching of both evolution and ID"]

"Earth's Air Trapped in Moon Dirt, Scientist Speculates," Robert Roy Britt, SPACE.com, 3 August 2005. Scientists speculated today on a solution to a longstanding mystery of why the Moon is overloaded with nitrogen. It came from Earth, they say. If the idea is correct, then the Moon could serve as an attic of information that could reveal when Earth's magnetic field was jumpstarted shortly after the planet formed. Let's go back 4.5 billion years. The Moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-sized object slammed into Earth in a glancing blow that kicked up a bunch of superheated material. The stuff orbited Earth, cooled, and condensed into a satellite. It was all so hot that nitrogen and other so-called volatile elements didn't survive, theoretically leaving the Moon bereft of them. But examinations of lunar soil brought back by Apollo astronauts finds plenty of nitrogen. Some would have arrived on the solar wind, but there's more than the Sun ought to have contributed. It's possible the lunar nitrogen arrived via interplanetary dust. But that idea hasn't been proved, nor are the potential quantities pinned down. The Moon was closer In the Aug. 4 issue of the journal Nature, Minoru Ozima of University of Tokyo and colleagues put forth an intriguing alternative. The new scenario is based on the possibility that Earth's magnetic field was not born with the planet 4.5 billion years ago, but developed sometime thereafter when the molten iron core took on a "differential rotation," meaning the outer and inner parts of the core rotate at different rates. Nobody knows exactly how or when all that developed. The magnetic field serves as a protective shield, blocking many (but not all) of the charged particles that stream in from the Sun and keeping cosmic rays largely at bay, too. It also helps prevents Earth-bound particles from escaping willy-nilly into space. Before the magnetic field formed, nitrogen molecules in Earth's atmosphere broke down into nitrogen ions, and ions in the outer atmosphere escaped freely to the Moon, Ozima's team figures. Back then, Earth and the Moon were much closer than they are today, so it would have been easier for the satellite's gravity to lure the ions in. If that's the case, then scientists should be able to find out when the magnetic field turned on by checking if the amount of nitrogen is significantly higher in lunar soil of a particular age. ..."
[See also: Moon has Earth 'air', ABC, 4 August 2005. It sounds like the Earth's magnetic field was yet another beneficial byproduct of "when a Mars-sized object slammed into Earth in a glancing blow" combining their cores and formed the Moon. If so, this will be yet another unique fine-tuned parameter of the Earth for life. I will add this to my "Problems of Evolution," book outline, PE 6.3.5.2.1 "Solar System's fitness for life ... Moon ... Effect ... Earth's magnetic field?"]

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

The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism, etc

Here are excerpts from news articles, with my comments in square brackets:

The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism , The American Spectator, June 2005. By Dan Peterson, August 5, 2005 ... "IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide -- far smaller than can be seen by the human eye. Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance -- we said appearance! -- of being designed. As you may have guessed, these astonishingly complex, tiny, and efficient engines exist. Millions of them exist inside you, in fact. They are true rotary motors that drive the "bacterial flagellum," a whip-like propulsion device for certain bacteria, including the famous E. coli that lives in your digestive system. Oddly enough, this intricate high-speed motor is at the center of a controversy that has been kindling in scientific circles for a decade, and is now igniting hot debate outside those circles. That's because, even more oddly, the implications of whether this little engine was designed are incalculably profound. They involve questions such as: What constitutes science? Did living things "just happen" by natural causes or were they designed by an intelligence? And what follows from those two competing alternatives -- in morality, education, culture, and science itself? ... Of course, if the hypothesis that the universe and life are designed is true, the ready inference is that this designer has to be an incomprehensibly potent and awesome Intelligent Agent. A lot of influential people in science, the media, the schools, and other institutions don't much like the notion of the Big Intelligent Agent. Hence the controversy over ID, and the slanted treatment of it that is often seen. ... [Be sure to read the rest of this great article!]

Evolution and Christianity, Dennis Brown, University of Notre Dame, July 18, 2005. A renowned philosopher from the University of Notre Dame supports recent comments by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that belief in evolution as accepted by some in science today may be incompatible with Christian beliefs. "Cardinal Schönborn has it right," said Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy and one of the world’s leading scholars in the philosophy of religion. "Evolution means different things to different people. Some of these things are perfectly consistent with Christian belief, but others are not. "Some think of evolution as the theory of common ancestry: Any two living things share ancestors, so that we and the poison ivy in our back yard, as well as other living creatures, are cousins. This is surprising, but compatible with Christian belief." Problems arise, according to Plantinga, when "scientists and others take evolution to be a process that is wholly unguided and driven by chance, so that it is simply a matter of chance that rational creatures like us exist. This is not compatible with Christian belief, according to which God has intentionally created us human beings in His own image. He may have done so by using a process of evolution, but it isn’t by chance that we exist." Plantinga adds that the idea that "human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design, is also not a proper part of empirical science. How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance. That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools." ... [Plantinga has (as usual) hit the nail (or rather, hit Cardinal Schönborn's `wedge') right on the head! The right place to insert Christianity's (and ID's) `wedge' is not between ex nihilo/de novo separate creations and "common ancestry", but between "common ancestry" and evolution's claimed mechanism of "a process that is wholly unguided and driven by chance."]

On Solid Ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design, Breakpoint, Chuck Colson, August 4, 2005. President Bush sent reporters into a tizzy this week by saying that he thought schools ought to teach both evolution and intelligent design. Students ought to hear both theories, he said, so they "can understand what the debate is about." Well, the usual critics jumped all over the president, but he’s absolutely right. Considering all competing theories was once the very definition of academic freedom. But today, the illiberal forces of secularism want to stifle any challenges to Darwin—even though Darwin is proving to be eminently challengeable. Take biochemist Michael Behe’s argument. He says that the cell is irreducibly complex. All the parts have to work at once, so it could not have evolved. No one has been able to successfully challenge Behe’s argument. In fact, the scientific case for intelligent design is so strong that, as BreakPoint listeners have heard me say, even Antony Flew, once the world’s leading philosopher of atheism, has renounced his life-long beliefs and has become, as he puts it, a deist. He now believes an intelligent designer designed the universe, though he says he cannot know God yet. I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C.S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible. ... [Read more of this article too. BTW, AFAIK Behe doesn't say "the cell is irreducibly complex" (I would like to be wrong on this), although I do - see my "The Minimal Cell: A Problem of Evolution 1/2" and 2/2]

Astronomers detect '10th planet', etc

Here are excerpts from science news articles, in assumed order of interest, with my brief comments in square brackets:

Astronomers detect '10th planet', BBC, 30 July, 2005, Dr David Whitehouse. Astronomers in the United States have announced the discovery of the "10th planet" to orbit our Sun. The largest object found in our Solar System since Neptune in 1846, it was first seen in 2003 ... Designated 2003 UB313, it is about 3,000km across - a world of rock and ice and somewhat larger than Pluto. Scientists say it is three times as far away as Pluto, in an orbit at an angle to the orbits of the main planets. Astronomers think that at some point in its history, Neptune probably flung the small world into its highly inclined 44-degree orbit. ... It is currently 97 Earth-Sun distances away - more than twice Pluto's average distance from the Sun. ... Its discoverers are Michael Brown of Caltech, Chad Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii, and David Rabinowitz of Yale University. ... David Rabinowitz [said]... "It has been a remarkable day and a remarkable year. 2003 UB313 is probably larger than Pluto. It is fainter than Pluto, but three times farther away. "Brought to the same distance from the Sun as Pluto, it would be brighter. So today, the world knows that Pluto is not unique. There are other Plutos, just farther out in the Solar System where they are a little harder to find." It was picked up using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory and the 8m Gemini North telescope on Mauna Kea. ... Chad Trujillo [said] ... "I feel extremely lucky to be part of a discovery as exciting as this. It's not every day that you find something Pluto-sized or larger!" "The spectra ... shows that the surface of 2003 UB313 is very similar to that of Pluto." .. The discovery of 2003 UB313 comes just after the announcement of the finding of 2003 EL61, which appears to be a little smaller than Pluto. The discoveries will once again ignite the debate about the qualifications of an object to be called a planet, an issue the International Astronomical Union is wrestling with ... Modern techniques have revealed several far-off objects that approach Pluto's size, such as Quaoar (detected in 2002) and Sedna (found in 2004); and the promise of Brown and his colleagues is that more will soon be detected. Some researchers suspect there could even be Mars-sized objects lurking in this region of the Solar System known as the Kuiper belt. ... Planet casts new light on solar system, Daily Telegraph, Robert Matthews, 3 August 2005 ... According to Professor Mark Bailey, the director of the Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland, the discovery is likely to cast new light on the formation of the sun's family of planets about 4,500 million years ago. "It may be that the sun was once part of a cluster of stars, and these scattered the bodies making up the early solar system into the strange orbits we see today," he said. [A great achievement! But if astronomers cannot be sure that there are not "Mars-sized objects lurking in this region of" our "Solar System", then what hope have they got of detecting Earth-sized planets in far more distant exoplanetary systems? The last comment by Prof. Mark Bailey about our Solar System's "strange orbits we see today," indicates that it and Earth may be unique. See also: 'New planet' found in solar system, ABC, July 30, 2005; Scientists Claim Discovery of 10th Planet, ABCNEWS/Associated Press, Alicia Chang, July 31, 2005;
Astronomers claim discovery of solar system's 10th planet, CNN, July 31, 2005.]

Scientists Deem Saturn Moon Titan Dry Scientists Find No Signs of Hydrocarbon Oceans on Titan, Saturn's Planet-Sized Moon By Alicia Chang ABCNEWS/The Associated Press Aug. 3, 2005 - Scientists peering through a ground-based telescope say the surface of Saturn's planet-sized moon Titan appears dry and not awash in oceans of liquid hydrocarbons as is commonly believed. ... telescopes and orbiting spacecraft have yet to turn up evidence of a global ocean of methane on Titan. In the latest study, scientists using the Keck II telescope in Hawaii failed to see any reflections of sunlight that would indicate a body of liquid on the frozen moon during several viewings in 2003 and 2004, said lead researcher Robert West of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. Results appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. ... Scientists believe Titan's smoggy atmosphere may be similar to that of the primordial Earth and studying it could provide clues to how life began. ..." [Another problem for the Oparin-Haldane primordial soup origin of life hypothesis?]

How Lowly Bacteria Froze Earth Solid, Livescience, Robert Roy Britt, 1 August 2005. Earth has been through many cold spells since its birth 4.5 billion years ago. Scientists say some drastic episodes froze the planet all the way to the equator. Yet these "snowball Earth" scenarios expose a gaping lack of understanding: What caused them? Lowly bacteria, according to a new study. In the first and worst snowball episode, 2.3 billion years ago, bacteria suddenly developed the ability to break down water and release oxygen. The influx of oxygen destroyed methane in the atmosphere, which had acted as a blanket to keep the planet warm. ... The idea is presented in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at Caltech. In modelling the scenario, the scientists say Earth's exact position from the Sun is the only thing that saved the planet from a permanent deep-freeze. ... Before the first snowball event, the Sun was only 85 percent as bright as now. But the planet was temperate, much like today. Scientists believe that's because the atmosphere was loaded with methane, a greenhouse gas. ... Then along came cyanobacteria, which evolved into the first organisms to use water in photosynthesis, releasing oxygen as a byproduct. Scientists had thought the shift might have occured perhaps as far back as 3.8 billion years ago. But the Caltech scientists searched ancient rocks for clues and found no evidence for the change prior to 2.3 billion years ago. Here's what they think happened: A regular old Ice Age set in, and glaciers advanced to middle-latitudes as they would many times in geologic history. When the glaciers retreated back toward the poles, they scoured the land and released abundant nutrients into the oceans. There were no plants or animals back then. The cyanobacteria, with their newly developed ability to make oxygen, fed off the fresh flow of nutrients, the thinking goes, and their numbers exploded. And things, well, they snowballed from there. ... "Their greater range should have allowed the cyanobacteria to come to dominate life on Earth quickly and start releasing large amounts of oxygen," said study team member Robert Kopp, a Caltech graduate student. ... Global temperatures plummeted to minus 58 Fahrenheit (-50 C). Ice at the equator was a mile thick. Most organisms died. Biology clung to hydrothermal vents or survived underground, Kopp and his colleagues say. Even today, life has shown itself to be incredibly resilient, eating rocks, swimming in boiling water and enduring thousands of years in the deep freeze. Then evolution pulled another trick, the scientists figure. Some of the organisms that did survive adapted to breathe oxygen, now that there was a lot of it. It was this ability to use oxygen that allowed life to evolve to more complex forms, the scientists say. ... That leaves the question of how we got out of that frozen mess the bacteria got us into. Eventually, the scientists say, the changed biology and chemistry caused carbon dioxide to build up enough to generate another greenhouse period. Temperatures climbed to perhaps 122 Fahrenheit (50 C) around the globe, evidence indicates. "It was a close call to a planetary destruction," says Kopp's supervising professor, Joe Kirschvink. "If Earth had been a bit further from the Sun, the temperature at the poles could have dropped enough to freeze the carbon dioxide into dry ice, robbing us of this greenhouse escape from snowball Earth."[Another fine-tuned parameter for life on Earth! I have added this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 6.4.1.1 "Earth's fitness for life ... Distance from Sun ... Just right to escape `snowball Earth'"]

S Korea unveils first dog clone, BBC, 3 August 2005. Scientists in South Korea have produced the first dog clones, they report in Nature magazine this week. One of the puppies died soon after birth but the other, an Afghan hound named Snuppy, is still doing well after 16 weeks, the researchers say. ... "The dog has characteristics similar to human beings," lead researcher Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University, South Korea, told the BBC. "Some of their diseases are almost the same as human diseases. "So [dog clones] could be very valuable in finding technologies useful for curing human diseases. This is our main research call." ... Snuppy, whose name stands for Seoul National University puppy, was made from a cell taken from the ear of a three-year-old male Afghan hound. ... and placed ... into an empty egg cell. This egg was then stimulated to start dividing and develop into an embryo. Once growing, it was transferred to Snuppy's surrogate mother, a yellow labrador. ... Although many other animals have been successfully cloned, dogs are notoriously difficult: the South Korean team only obtained three pregnancies from more than 1,000 embryo transfers into 123 recipients. Of these, one miscarried and one died soon after birth; only Snuppy remains. ... Some people are concerned about the ethical implications of this research. "Canine cloning runs contrary to the Kennel Club's objective 'To promote in every way the general improvement of dogs'," Phil Buckley, spokesman for the Kennel Club [said]. "Cloning cannot be used to make improvements because the technique simply produces genetic replicas of existing dogs. "Also, will these cloned dogs end up being used in the laboratory? That opens a whole new can of worms." ... Dr Freda Scott-Park, President Elect of the British Veterinary Association, is concerned about the likely reaction of dog lovers. "This report demonstrates just how fast the world of genetic manipulation is moving and no one should underestimate the far-reaching consequences of this work," she said. "Sadly however, the media interest is likely to attract pet owners keen to re-create their much loved pets. ... cloning animals raises many ethical and moral issues that have still to be properly debated within the profession." However, another member of the cloning team, Dr Gerald Schatten from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, US, said they are not in the business of cloning pets. "The overall objective of this programme is to learn about the root causes of diseases," he told the BBC. "We believe it is possible, if you can responsibly develop the ability to derive stem cells from cloned dog embryos, that our very best friends may turn out to be the first beneficiaries of stem cell medicine. "And as we treat naturally occurring diseases in dogs, we'll learn about whether it is effective in our pets and we'll also learn whether it's safe and effective for our loved ones." ... [That out of "more than 1,000 embryo transfers ... only Snuppy remains", shows the enormous expense, ethical repugnance and therefore practical uselessnes in the real world, such cloning is. See also: Scientists announce world's first cloned dog, ABC, August 4, 2005; Cloning's gone to the dogs, The Australian, Leigh Dayton, August 04, 2005.]

Bush reaffirms teaching of both evolution and ID

What President Bush actually said

In an interview of President Bush by a small group of Texas print reporters on August 1, the following exchange took place between one of them, Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder Newspapers (Q:) and the President (A:):

"Q:[In] ... what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?"
A: "... harking back to my days as [Texas] ... governor ... I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught."
Q:"Both sides should be properly taught?"
A: "Yes ... so people can understand what the debate is about."
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?"
A:"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought ... you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Note that Hutcheson was digging for President Bush's "personal views" on the "debate over evolution versus intelligent design" and "the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution." Note also that the part of President Bush's answer, where he pointed out that his position now was the same as when he was "[Texas] ... governor" and "that decision should be made to local school districts", was just ignored by Hutcheson.

The reaction to what President Bush said

The first `cab of the rank' was Hutcheson himself, who wrote (my emphasis):

"President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life. In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools."

I would have no problem (to put it mildly!) if President Bush did endorse the teaching of ID, but quite frankly I find it difficult not to regard this as dishonesty by Hutcheson. The transcript above makes it clear that the President was just answering Hutcheson's questions and if anything was trying to avoid endorsing ID, by just restating his long-standing position. That this is President Bush's long-standing position is evident in this excerpt from this 2000 Phil Johnson interview about then Governor Bush's position in the 1999 presidential campaign when the Kansas Board of Education issue first erupted:

"The media and the scientific commentators cooperated in making the Kansas action a national issue that found its way into the presidential campaign, and the candidates were all asked to take a stand. Of course the Republicans said, Local control good; national regulation bad. George W. Bush, for example, said that it's fine if local authorities want to teach both creation and evolution; that would be better for education, in his opinion." (Johnson P.E., "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4. My emphasis)

and as a one who "covered George W. Bush's presidential campaign ... and covered Texas and presidential politics for more than two decades" Hutcheson must have known that.

Hutcheson's article set the tone for the rest of the media, with headlines reflecting a mounting `feeding frenzy'. Compare these August 2 headlines: "Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught" (San Francisco Chronicle); "Bush Backs ... 'Intelligent Design'"(Washington Post); "Bush backs teaching of intelligent design along with evolution" (Chicago Tribune); "'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod" (Los Angeles Times); "Bush: Teach 'Intelligent Design'" (CBS), with the New York Time's August 3 headline, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution," which was also repeated in the San Francisco Chronicle under the headline, "Furor erupts over Bush's remarks on intelligent design"!

However, the Discovery Institute pointed out that:

"President Bush's most recent comments are consistent with what he told Science magazine in the fall of 2004. When asked whether "'intelligent design' or other scientific critiques of evolutionary theory [should] be taught in public schools?," Bush responded that "it is not the federal government's role to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom" but "[o]f course, scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum." (Science, October 1, 2004)."

To be fair, there were some like MSNBC's Alan Boyle who actually read the transcript and realised that "Bush said he thought "both sides ought to be properly taught" and "that's about as close as the president came to endorsing intelligent design ... he said education should `expose people to different schools of thought'- without ever mentioning Darwin or his detractors."

Finally, the scientific materialists weighed in with their "science" vs "belief" false dichotomy: "Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief" (LiveScience). As if "science" has no "belief" (what about "belief" in materialism-naturalism for starters?) and as if "belief" (i.e. Christianity), has no "science" (i.e. facts) it is based on! Indeed, as Daniel's 70 `weeks' shows, it is "belief" in materialism-naturalism that is false and "belief" in Christianity that is true!

I don't know what Hutcheson's agenda was, pro-ID, anti-ID, or just trying to sell newspapers by stirring up a latent controversy, but the `genie is now out of the bottle' (or Pandora's Box has been opened), and there is no doubt this is going to be a very interesting development. President Bush's "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about. ... part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought ... people ought to be exposed to different ideas" will resonate with most Americans and the scientific materialsists will have difficulty countering that, without sounding like arrogant, close-minded dogmatists - the very antithesis of what science is supposed to be. Watch this space!

References
"Bush and Kerry Offer Their Views on Science," Science, Vol 306, 1 October 2004, pp.46-52.

Bush backs teaching of intelligent design along with evolution," Chicago Tribune, August 2, 2005.

"Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught," San Francisco Chronicle, August 2, 2005.

"Bush: Teach 'Intelligent Design'," CBS, August 2, 2005.

"'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod," Los Angeles Times/Associated Press, August 2, 2005.

"President Bush's Support for Free Speech on Evolution and Intelligent Design Draws Praise from Discovery Institute," Discovery Institute August 2, 2005.

"Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief,"
LiveScience Staff/Associated Press, 02 August 2005.

"Transcript of Roundtable Interview," Washington Post, August 2, 2005.

Baker P. & Slevin P., "Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate," Washington Post, August 3, 2005; p.A01.

Boyle A., "President Bush’s comments add to controversy," August 2, 2005.

Bumiller E., "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution," The New York Times,August 3, 2005.

Bumiller, E., "Furor erupts over Bush's remarks on intelligent design," San Francisco Chronicle, August 3, 2005.

Froomkin D., "Bush Backs Rove, Palmeiro, 'Intelligent Design'," Washington Post, August 2, 2005.

Hutcheson R., "Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools'," Knight Ridder Newspapers, August, 1, 2005.


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