Christian religions across America are concerned about the effects of education on religiosity, and with good reason – past research shows a negative correlation between level of education and religiosity. In other words, data show that as level of education rises, level of religiosity drops. Here’s some data for all Christian religions. However, there is one Christian religion that bucks this trend. For this religion there is a positive correlation, meaning that as education level rises, so does religiosity. That religion is Mormonism. This unusual positive correlation between education and religiosity among Mormons even made it into the Wiki article on “religiosity and intelligence”. Here’s some religiosity data for Mormons. Why does Mormonism buck the trend that exists among other religions? I think that latter-day revelation on the importance of learning plays a role. The Lord has instructed us to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study” (D&C 88:118). He is not just referring to scriptures here; He is referring to all good books. Christian religions that reject latter-day revelation have not accepted this instruction from the Lord - they have not gotten the message that the Lord wants us to continually learn.
The LDS faith is also unique in the sense that it lays all its cards on the table. It encourages people to thoroughly explore its doctrines of salvation and the lifestyle it engenders among its members. It encourages people to study the Book of Mormon and revelations from the prophets – go ahead and scrutinize the teachings, ask questions in church classes, and talk with others about church doctrine. With regard to the doctrines of salvation, there is nothing to hide.
The fact that educated Mormons score relatively high on measures of religiosity suggests that they are finding harmony between what they’ve learned in their studies of the gospel and in their studies of science, philosophy, arts, and literature. If this harmony did not exist, measures of religiosity would certainly be lower among educated Mormons.
I have found much harmony between my religious and secular studies; these have strengthened my testimony. At the same time, however, I have found some inconsistencies, particularly between science and religion. Inconsistencies have not created a faith crisis in my life, nor should they. Inconsistencies between secular and religious learning should not be shunned – they should be sought out and explored with the understanding that secular knowledge is continually evolving, as is our knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven.
Acknowledging inconsistencies between secular and religious learning is an important step in moving closer to the truth of all things.
Sources of graphs: Princeton Religion Research Center
Other sources: The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht; Secularization, Higher Education, and Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht and Tim B. Heaton.
 It's nice when a living apostle of the Lord reiterates something that you have been saying. I am talking about Elder Oaks' recent warnings of growing secularism in academia.For the past few years I have been raising a warning signal of rampant secularism. I have spoken out against this problem in my science classes at BYU to the delight of many students and, unfortunately, to the dismay of some. I also spoke on this issue at the Mormons and Scholars in Humanities conference in Spring 2009 to the delight of a few conference goers and, surprisingly, to the dismay of several others. I’ve also written on rampant secularism in this blog to the displeasure of a few, not surprising given that many who post comments on my articles disagree with my conservative views.Well now an apostle of the Lord is saying some of the same things I have been saying.In a recent talk to a group of Harvard University students and faculty, elder Oaks warned that our nation’s superficial attitude toward Christianity is being exacerbated by secularism in the American university system. He stated that “with but few exceptions, colleges and universities have become value-free places where attitudes toward religion are neutral at best. Some faculty and administrators are powerful contributors to the forces that are driving religion to the margins of American society.” Elder Oaks stated some points in his talk that I’ve made in my presentations, namely acknowledging belief in the reality of God and spiritual existence, and acknowledging God as an arbiter of absolute truth. This last point is especially pertinent to modern science. By failing to recognize even the possibility of a supreme fundamental arbiter of truth, science is becoming increasingly relativistic in its search for truth.
 I am not an evolutionist, but I like evolution. Some parts of the theory of evolution are really cool, like explaining variety within species and how bacteria become antibiotic resistent. At the same time, however, some aspects of the theory are on shaky ground and apparently inconsistent with mainstream LDS theology. The notion that mankind evolved from lower life forms is one example. But as is the case with most scientific theories, you take the good with the bad.
I am not an intelligent designer, but I like Intelligent Design (ID). The thing I like best about ID is that its central theme is consistent with LDS theology. According to Intelligentdesign.org, “The 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.” This statement sounds really good to me. It is a welcome breath of fresh air in an increasingly secular and godless science. But as we shall see below, ID also has its problems.
Proponents of ID and evolution are currently in conflict with each other. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn might have called it a Revolution, but I am going to dispense with the academic jargon and use a more vibrant description: a boxing match. That right, right now there is a big slug fest going on between evolution and ID.
Here is a description of the boxing match thus far.
Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, let’s get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!
Welcome to the science battle royale! In the left corner we have evolution’s goliath. He weighs in at 150 years of hegemony in the natural sciences. In the right corner we have the upstart Intelligent Design. ID weighs in at 10 years of “can’t get no respect” in the natural sciences.
As the two boxers meet in center ring to receive instructions, evolution bounces up and down in anticipation. Evolution points at ID and tauntingly says: “I own you! You’re mine! You’re going down, punk!” ID looks up in stoic fashion and doesn’t respond.
After the opponents move back to their corners, evolution looks at the audience and shouts, “I pity the fool! He don’t belong in the same ring as me.”
(Bell rings) Ding Ding
Evolution comes out swinging with: “You’re not science! You’re repackaged creationism! Dover! Scopes! Monkey Trial! Pandas and People! Take that, you fool! Arrgh!”
Many of the punches hit their mark, but ID is still standing.
After the first round coach Dave says to ID: “You’ve got to publish in mainstream journals. Expunge creationist influences; they are not scientific. Don’t use legislation to gain access into schools. And above all, avoid embarrassing trials and text books! ”
(Bell rings) Ding Ding
Evolution comes out swinging with: “You say evolution lacks scientific rigor and should not be taught in schools? Well then you’re not getting into our universities! You ain’t even getting in BYU and Notre Dame, sucker! No grants! No tenure! No faculty positions! No research positions! No soup for you! Argh!”
ID took a serious beating during that round. His right eye is swollen and he has trouble seeing. “Cut me!” he begs. Coach Dave grabs a razor blade and reduces the swelling by cutting above the eye. After patching the wound, coach Dave turns to ID and says: “Stop trying to restrict evolutionary education. You are not going to get ahead by stepping on evolutionists. Prove your metal by producing solid, scientific work!”
(Bell rings) Ding Ding
Now ID comes out swinging with credible science methodology. It is deflecting evolution’s punches by not limiting evolutionary education. It is also avoiding embarrassing books and court cases. It has learned that if it is going to gain respect in science, it must do so through scientific means.
No one knows the outcome of this match. One thing is certain, however; it is going to be a difficult struggle for ID. Evolution is much larger and hits harder, but ID has one advantage that most evolutionists are unaware of; it is that most evolutionists have a prideful and arrogant attitude toward their theory. This pride among evolutionists may prove its downfall. In the Bible, Job teaches us that pride cometh before the fall, which you could say, in boxing terms, translates into "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."
We'll have to wait and see.
 The Good
Unlocking the secret of evolution, which is that natural selection acts on random genetic mutations, has greatly enriched our understanding of the natural world. This understanding has lead to scientific breakthroughs in genetics, medicine, pharmaceuticals, computer science, and in learning how variation arises within species. These breakthroughs have had a positive impact on our society, whether we realize it or not (Source: Scientific American, January, 2009 issue).
The Bad
The theory of evolution contains theoretical assumptions about the world that are inconsistent with the doctrines of the restored gospel. At a fundamental level, evolution is mechanistic. By mechanistic I mean that evolution makes two ontological assertions about the fundamental nature of the natural world, namely materialism and efficient causation.
Materialism is the belief that the fundamental nature of the world is physical material. Everything that truly exists is made up of matter. In a manner of speaking, what matters is matter. There is no such thing as the non-physical. Spirits are not real, neither are your thoughts, emotions, and personal sense of identity - these are nothing more than the actions of electrochemical processes in your nervous system.
Efficient causation is the belief that events or change result from natural laws acting on physical material. There are no supernatural, spiritual, or cognitive sources of change. Also there is no purpose or agency in events; there are just the unintentional forces of nature which determine how matter is to behave. Mother Nature is like a blind watch maker that creates a beautifully complex world without a purpose or goal in mind.
The Ugly
Unfortunately we cannot simply pay attention to the Good while ignoring the Bad in evolution because the Bad has ugly consequences. The Bad provides an impetus for people to not believe in God.
According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, 66% of all scientists surveyed said that they believed in God. Pretty good. But when the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found startling differences. Natural scientists are less likely to believe in God than are social scientists.
Other studies support these results.
According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists are either atheists or agnostics, much higher than all scientists in general! (SOURCE: Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)
Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading evolutionists, a whopping 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.)
And according to a 2007 national survey of faculty at colleges and universities, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics! (SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious are America’s College and University Professors? Feb. 6, 2007.)
The scriptures teach us that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” It appears that one of the fruits of the theory of evolution is atheism, or it may be that evolution biology attracts atheists. I expect that both are true, but given that, as President Ezra Taft Benson observed, “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” it is fairly safe to conclude that evolution is driving some people away from God.
So what should we do? Well we can’t just stop teaching evolution; it is an important part of science (look at the “Good”). As a scientific theory it has its faults, but that is no reason to stop teaching evolution either. If we start restricting science education to only theories that are perfect, soon there would be no theories left to teach. Science is not perfect. It is an ever progressing and self-correcting manmade endeavor.
From an LDS perspective, I think the key is to make LDS youngsters aware of the mechanistic assumptions underlying evolution. We commit a grave injustice by pretending that evolution is free from faults, especially those faults that are at odds with the gospel. More importantly, we need to help our youth develop a strong testimony of the gospel so that they will not be deceived by evolution’s atheistic allure. In other words, the perfect mix is a good understanding of evolution (including its underlying assumptions) and a strong testimony of the gospel. With a sound understanding of evolution and the gospel, we can celebrate the Good without fearing the Bad and the Ugly.
I have been unpleasantly surprised by intellectualizations among some mormon scholars. In the scholarly context, an intellectualization is using excessive reasoning to avoid anxiety that arises from confronting legitimate gospel arguments that challenge one’s secular, scholarly viewpoints.
Intellectualization is alive and well among the scholarly ranks.
Last month I gave a presentation at the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities conference on allowing recognition of God in science. A good article on my presentation appeared in the Deseret News (see previous post).
It seems that some mormon scholars are VERY concerned with what I had to say. In response to the excellent Deseret News article, some have mentioned the limits of including God in science. I wholeheartedly embrace many of their viewpoints (S. Faux’s blog is a good example). Unfortunately, others have overreacted, as evidenced by those who incorrectly assume that I was advocating a god-of-the-gaps or theocratic scientific movement. To these people I say: “You don’t know what you are talking about. You weren’t at my presentation where I clearly pointed out that I was not advocating theocratic science, intelligent design, or creationism. I am calling for a return to the way things were during the Scientific Revolution. If you don’t know what science was like during this time period, then read some history. Here is a hint – it was largely like science today with one exception, it was acceptable to acknowledge God.”
Those who are guilty of intellectualizing my topic are the conference goers who strongly opposed my presentation. They were there when I gave my talk, they don’t like what I had to say, and they are coming up with dumb rationalizations to justify their disagreement. Here is an example:
As an active Mormon I am uncomfortable with the thesis proffered by Mr. Collingridge. And from what I understand so were others at the MSH conference. According to my professor who attended the conference, another scholar asked what exactly a God-inclusive scientific discourse would look like to which Mr. Collingridge had no definitive answer, suggesting that it was his role simply to pose the idea and not to come up with examples of science/God discourse. Another scholar asked why Mr. Collingridge's examples of God-in-science discourse were limited strictly to the West given that science is an international discipline and asked if he would be comfortable with a scientist from India introducing Vishnu or Brahma discourse into science to which Mr. Collingridge had no answer other than he would not be comfortable with that. According to my professor, only about half of the audience clapped after his presentation.
Here is why this is an empty rationalization: this person says he is uncomfortable, but fails to provide a rigorous justification for his discomfort. The arguments he gives lack rigor. He attempts to "reason away" his discomfort with a gospel truth that contradicts his secular beliefs about science.
Here is what I mean.
Yes, someone at the conference asked me what a God inclusive science should look like. That person used superconductivity as an example. I replied that I did not know what a God inclusive science in superconductivity should look like – I am not a superconductivity scientist! Superconducting scientists who believe in God should decide for themselves how to recognize the Creator. Who am I to constrain what they should or should not say about God? I have no problems figuring out how to acknowledge God in my own discipline, namely psychology.
Yes, someone sitting next to me on the panel asked my how I would feel about recognizing gods from eastern religions. I replied that I would not feel comfortable with it. Here is why: I worship the one true God of heaven and earth, not Vishnu or Brahma! I am not completely comfortable with people acknowledging dumb idols and mythical gods. Are you?
Yes, it sounded to me like only half of the people applauded when I sat down. I said in my presentation that several of them would not feel at ease with what I was saying, so their lack of enthusiasm just proves my point, which is that the wave of secularism that has swept over science has succeeded in making us think that science must preclude God. Those who withheld their applause have fallen prey to this grand deception.
What are the sources of these dangerous intellectualizations? Pride in one’s abilities and learning come to mind. The scriptures teach us that to be learned is good, if one hearkens unto the counsels of God. There were plenty of learned people at the conference. Are they failing to hearken unto the counsel of God to give thanks and recognize His hand in all great blessings by opposing the idea that science should be more God friendly? Just a thought. I am not judging.
We recognize God in government because He gave us the Constitution. (This recognition does not impede our ability to govern in a rational and sound way.) We recognize God in the legal profession because He gave us our laws. (This recognition does not impede our ability to judge in a rational and sound way.) Why not more fully recognize God for the great blessings He has given us in science? (Recognizing deity need not impede our ability to carry out science in a rational and sound way.)
I believe that we no longer acknowledge God in science because of the “false spirits which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world” into believing that science is completely devoid of God.
 Most scientists would agree that there are numerous mysteries about the natural world yet to be discovered. Most would agree that the way to discover those mysteries is with rigorous scientific research. And most would also agree that God has nothing to do with uncovering the mysteries of the natural world. On this last point they are wrong.
The best scientist is someone who carries out rigorous research AND honors the Creator. All too often God’s role is given short shrift in our increasingly secular society. I am certain that humanity would have advanced far beyond its current level of understanding if science had more fully reverenced the Creator and petitioned His help.
What diseases might have been cured or what laws of nature might have been uncovered? If the scientific community had moved toward God rather than away from Him, we might have cured ravenous diseases like Cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis. We might have solved our energy problems with the discovery of Cold Fusion. And we might have unlocked the hidden secrets of the subatomic world and been on our way to uniting the forces of nature (e.g., electromagnetism, gravity, and strong & weak atomic forces) into one Grand Unified Theory (GUT), a discovery that would bring endless possibilities.
Instead we wander around in darkness with only frequent, small bursts of light to show the way. We could turn on the flood lamps of discovery if the scientific community reverenced the Creator and sought His guidance, but this will not happen because science has made a conscious decision to preclude God. Yes, science has rejected the greatest source of truth and light.
Here is what the prophet Joseph Smith promised to those who turn to God in righteousness:
“He will endow you with power, wisdom, might, and intelligence, and every qualification necessary, while your minds will expand wider and wider, until you can circumscribes the earth and the heavens, reach forth into eternity, and contemplate the mighty acts of Jehovah in all their variety and glory.”
Here is what Joseph Fielding Smith said about scientific truth and righteousness:
“The Lord has held in reserve for those who obey Him this great blessing of the fullness of truth, and through obedience it is received and in no other way. So with all their searching, with all their delving into the earth and examining of the heavens, man cannot discover the fullness of truth without submission to the principles of the gospel and placing their lives in harmony with the Holy Spirit and walking in obedience to the commandments of the Lord. There is no other way in which all truth may be obtained.”
Rather than embracing these principles, science has rejected them, and by so doing has forfeited blessings of knowledge and truth. But wait. There's more. By purging all recognition of the Creator from its theories and discoveries, what has secular science invoked? A Creator who is displeased with science.
Joseph F. Smith wrote:
“In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the art, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of any age, the world says, “We have done it.” The individual says, “I have done it,’ and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth, but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.”
Indeed, to be skilled in scientific and scholarly endeavors is good, if one hearkens unto the counsels of the Lord. Those of us who are learned but do not hearken unto the counsels of the Lord, are ever learning without coming to a knowledge of the truth.
 Mormon Scholars in the Humanities is an association that explores the relationship between religious and secular scholarship. Last year their annual conference was held at Southern Virginia University. This year’s conference will be held on May 8th and 9th at BYU Provo and Aspen Grove, Utah.
The theme of this year’s conference is Religions and Critical Practices: Prospects for Scholarship in the Humanities. I will be a presenter at this year’s conference. The title of my presentation is From the Inspired Scientific Revolution, to the Spiritually Unenlightened Enlightenment, to Atheistic Secular Humanism in Science.
Here is a brief outline of what I'll have to say:
The 16th–17th century Scientific Revolution has long been recognized as the period that ended the scientific dark ages and ushered in an era of rapid discovery. Pioneers of the Scientific Revolution, scholars like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton were instrumental in breaking the bands of apostate religious dogma that hung over people’s minds. Some of their greatest contributions include encouraging free-thinking societies, preparing the earth for the Restoration, and laying the groundwork of modern science. They were devout believers in God, yet notwithstanding their theism, they demonstrated that it is possible to accept and recognize deity while producing rigorous scientific work. These pioneers would be uncomfortable with the atheistic secular humanism that arose during the 18th century Enlightenment and is now endemic in science today. The commonly held belief that science must avoid any recognition of God is a grand deception. By rejecting God, secular humanists are turning the blessings of modern science into a curse - as the apostle Paul prophesied, they are ever learning without coming to a knowledge of the truth.
If you are looking for interesting presentations and engaging discussions on issues exploring the crossroads of LDS theology, philosophy, history, and science, I recommend attending this year’s conference. If you wish to join the association, memberships are only $10 per year.
For a synopsis of presentations by Latter-day Saint scholars during previous conferences, visit here and then click on current newsletters.
Ciao!
 In aviation it’s called a “course correction”. When a flight crew realizes that they’ve deviated from the pre-established direction of flight, they correct their course.
It seems the BYU Biology department needs a course correction.
The biology department’s mandate is to teach the science of biology, including evolution, within the light of the gospel. I am sure they are doing an excellent job of teaching the principles of biology and evolution, but when it comes to integrating the principles of biology with the principles of the gospel, they’ve goofed. They are way off course. That’s right; if they were NASA, the Mars rover would have crashed landed on Venus.
A faculty member recently said, “We [the biology department] spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible” (Feb. 9, 2009 BYU newspaper, The Daily Universe). In other words, they are teaching that the doctrines of evolution and religion are in complete harmony. I can only assume that this statement includes the restored gospel.
Can someone please tell me how a godless and directionless theory of the descent of mankind is in harmony with a purpose-driven and divinely-directed theology of creation? BYU biology professors who do not recognize these inconsistencies between the evolutionary and gospel accounts of the creation of mankind need to do some reading. Those who avoid the conflict by compartmentalizing dissimilar gospel and evolutionary teachings and then tell their students that the two are compatible are being disingenuous. In either event, a course correction is needed.
Apparently I am not the only member of the church who has pointed out the glaring inconsistencies between gospel and evolutionary accounts of the origin of mankind.
Joseph Fielding Smith, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding McConkie, and Boyd K. Packer also recognized the inconsistencies. Here is what they said:
Joseph Fielding Smith
“This idea that everything commenced from a small beginning, from the scum upon the surface of the sea, and has gradually developed until all forms of life, the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea, and the plants upon the face of the earth, have all sprung from that one source, is a falsehood absolutely. There is no truth in it, for God has given us his word by which we may know.”
John Taylor
According to gospel doctrine, “The principles [of creation] do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from their Maker. There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and its operations can go no further.”
Joseph Fielding McConkie
"Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall? No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall. Some have argued for a form of theistic evolution—that is, a God-inspired evolution—in which lower forms of life progressed over great periods of time to the point that God could take the spirit of the man Adam and place it in an animal and declare it to be the first man. The argument is at odds both with scripture and with an official declaration of the First Presidency on the origin of man."
Boyd K. Packer
"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded them in the Creation. They reproduce after their own kind. They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that. Every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. . . . Each is a child of God. He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors."
It is time for the BYU biology department to change course on their approach to evolution and Mormonism. First, they need to stop spreading the myth that Mormon theology and evolution are in complete harmony. Second, they should study the underlying differences, acknowledge that differences exist, tell their students about the inconsistencies, and let their students make up their own minds on the matter.
 Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, who is the head of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Culture, recently affirmed the church’s full fledged acceptance of neo-Darwinism as the mechanism by which God created the world and mankind. He wrote, “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God.”
How did they goof up again?
They overstepped their religious boundaries by making formal scientific assertions. (Steven Jay Gould, the late biologist who argued for a vigorous separation of religious and scientific domains, might be turning in his grave right now.) You see, the Catholic Church made the same sort of mistakes with Galileo in the 1600s. He said that the earth and all the planets move around the sun; the Catholic Church said he was wrong and they locked him up. The church claimed the sun and all the planets revolve around the earth. It turns out Galileo was right and the church was wrong.
There are 2 good reasons why churches should refrain from making such statements.
First, as Galileo pointed out to the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, churches are in the business of saving souls, not scientific theories. Hearing the Catholic Church make scientific truth claims is a bit like going to the butcher shop and being given legal instruction on how to write a binding contract, or going to the bank and being given medical instructions on how to treat a sports injury. I am pleased that the LDS church has refrained from making formal statements about scientific issues. It seems to understand better than other religions that its purpose is to bring souls unto Christ.
Second, science is an ever changing enterprise. It is a bit hard for us to realize that well-accepted theories come and go because so many of us don’t have the benefit of living long enough to see this happen. Here are a few recent examples. The once widely accepted scientific theory of Phlogiston is now debunked. The once widely accepted theory of Luminiferous Ether is now debunked. Even several of Newton’s “irreplaceable and irrefutable” ideas have now been replaced by Einstein’s Relativity. The geocentric (earth-centered) theory of the universe which dominated science for over 1400 years was eventually replaced, and, yes, one day evolution may also be replaced by a superior theory of the diversity of life forms. Hard to believe?! That is what the advocates of ether and Newton’s mechanics once thought.
What happens when a scientific theory changes or is debunked, as history has shown? This is an important question for religions to consider. If a religion thoroughly embraces a scientific theory, what does it say when that theory changes or is debunked? If it claims inspiration from God, how will its leadership appear to others when it says, “Uh. Umm . . . We made a mistake, guys”? It will appear foolish. This is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church in its handling of the Galileo affair.
American philosopher George Santayana wrote “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” The Catholic Church would be wise to consider this sage advice.
 The only thing worse than a complete lie is a lie mixed with truth. A lie mixed with truth is more likely to deceive people than a simple lie.
Expelled Exposed is basically a movement to expose the supposed lies in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled. I recently read two sources spearheading this endeavor: a website attacking the movie that is sponsored by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and a blog posting by Michael Shermer on the website for Scientific American (SA). These two sites present harsh accusations towards Ben Stein, accusing him of completely misrepresenting the truth in his portrayal of scholars who were expelled from institutes of higher learning for embracing intelligent design.
After reading the shocking accusations against Stein’s movie at the NCSE and Scientific American websites, I had to find out if anyone has posted a reply to the accusations. That is when I came across a pro-Expelled article by lawyer Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. After thoroughly reading all the aforementioned material in an objective manner, I have come to a most unfortunate conclusion.
The National Center for Science and Education and Scientific American have unfairly labeled Ben Stein as being a deceptive, anti-scientific, religious fanatic. These entities have attempted to do this by adding a pinch of truth to a large portion of falsehoods. Shame on them!
I shall give you a sampling in this post. The following are falsehoods perpetuated by the NCSE and SA, and truths of the matter from Corey Luskin. (Note: All quotations come from Luskin’s article titled “Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled”)
Falsehood #1 – Stephen Meyer’s article which explained the sudden appearance of life forms during the Cambrian Explosion using intelligent design, and which appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was not peer reviewed nor was it subjected to review by an associate editor according to the rules of the biological society.
Truth of the Matter – Meyer’s article was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers. It is true that Richard Sternberg, the editor who processed Meyer’s article, did not send the article to an associate editor for final review. However, it is a fact that editors working for the biological society are permitted to use their own discretion when deciding whether to forward an article to an associate editor. Dr. McDiarmid, president of the biological society, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper.
Falsehood #2 – Scholars at the Biological Society did not treat Richard Sternberg poorly because of his pro-intelligent design viewpoints. No pressure was put on Sternberg to leave his position at the Smithsonian.
Truth of the Matter – Emails from staff at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History where Richard Sternberg worked clearly indicate that he was dealt with harshly because of his pro-ID leanings. Consider the following conclusions from a congressional investigation into Mr. Sternberg’s case. The Congressional Staff Report states:
“Officials at the Smithsonian created a hostile work environment intended to for Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as research associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights”
“In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, Smithsonian officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.”
“Smithsonian officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”
Falsehood #3 – Pro-ID Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzales was denied tenure because his publication record “tanked” while at ISU.
Truth of the Matter – Gonzales has published numerous peer-reviewed articles. Indeed his publication rate slowed when he started to investigate and write a book about ID called the Privileged Planet. Even still, as of 2001, Gonzales led ALL TENURED FACULTY who voted against his tenure in normalized publications and citations. According to Luskin, ‘Dr. Gonzales has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for.” A majority of external reviewers who reviewed Gonzales’ tenure application agreed that he deserved tenure. One external reviewer wrote: “Dr. Gonzales is eminently qualified for the promotion according to [ISU’s] guidelines of excellence in scholarship.”
Falsehood #4 – There was no conspiracy at ISU to deny Gonzales tenure based on his intelligent design leanings.
Truth of the Matter – ID played a major role in denying Gonzales tenure at ISU.
“ISU Physicist John Hauptman explicitly admitted in an op-ed that he voted against Gonzales’ tenure because of ID.”
“Dr. Gonzales’ department chair Eli Rosenberg devoted a full third of his chair’s statement in Gonzales’ tenure file to discussing intelligent design.”
“Two tenure-voting faculty in Gonzales’ department had links to an anti-ID petition publicly denouncing intelligent design as creationist pseudoscience.”
Other ISU faculty were intent on sending a message to Gonzales that “his efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty.”
Conclusion
The anti-Expelled lobby has unfairly accused Ben Stein of misrepresenting the truth. It appears that they will stop at nothing to besmirch Stein’s work. They have even gone so far as to criticize him as being “dishonest” for using extras in the opening scene where Stein gives a speech to students. Hmmm? A Hollywood production using extras. How is that dishonest?!
In my opinion, aggressive attacks on Expelled from the National Center for Science Education and Scientific American are exposing their hidden atheistic agenda – to completely secularize our society and drive any mention of God out of science.
|
RSS Feed