mormonsandscience

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Explosion using intelligent design, and which appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was not peer reviewed nor was it subjected to review by an associate editor according to the rules of the biological society.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.

Post #2 on Intelligent Design (ID) (see below) argues that ID is scientific, as long as it focuses on natural processes and approaches these in an empirical and rational fashion. But perhaps the more important question is: “Is ID science rigorous?” Let’s take a look at how well ID satisfies commonly accepted criteria of scientific rigor.

Testable Predictions – A good theory allows us to frame testable hypotheses.  Does ID allow us to make predictions about what is going to happen or what has happened in the past, and are we able to investigate these phenomena in an empirical manner? 

Sure. The theory of ID can produce hypotheses that may be tested in an empirical manner.  For instance, a common ID hypothesis is that there are systems that are irreducibly complex. (Irreducible complexity is the idea that some living mechanisms are too complex to have arisen through the gradual process of natural selection because each part must be in place for the structure to function.) We can test this hypothesis by looking for irreducibly complex systems in nature.  In time more complex hypotheses such as “biological systems smaller than size X designed to carry out functions of sophistication Y are irreducibly complex” may be possible.

However, to the best of my knowledge irreducible complexity (IC) is currently limited to “let’s go out and find evidence for IC.” What is lacking is some sort of manipulation of the IC process in the laboratory that would allow conclusions like: We manipulated biological system X in our laboratory and, true to our prediction, the system evolved irreducibly complex mechanism Y because of our manipulation.  In my opinion, this limitation puts IC on the same level as macroevolution – there is plenty of evidence in the real world supporting both hypotheses, but currently neither is capable of being subjected to crucial tests in a controlled laboratory setting. Two limiting factors are (a) in the case of macroevolution, a very long time is required for new life forms to supposedly evolve, and (b) in the case of IC, we know very little about the intelligent design language and whether or not we can influence it.  

Presently evolution has the upper hand on testability and predictability because we are able to manipulate genomic and environmental events in a way that allows us to test and predict microevolutionary events. If ID is to become a viable competitor, it will need to generate the same level of testability. According to influential historian of science Thomas Kuhn, new, competing scientific theories gain credibility when they offer fruitful alternatives to explaining existing phenomena and predicting new phenomena.  Anyway, ID is a relatively new science; we’ll see what happens in the next few decades. 

Falsifiability – A good theory is falsifiable. Does ID allow for risky predictions that will allow us to prove that it is false?

Sure. In fact, opponents of ID are hard at work falsifying the irreducible complexity (IC) hypothesis. This is a good thing because it means that a major hypothesis of ID is falsifiable. So has IC been falsified? Scholars like Ken Miller say yes. He claims that the creation of the bacterial flagellum (a complex, multi-part propeller system) can be explained by natural selection and is thus not irreducibly complex. He has pointed out that if we remove 40 of the 50 separate parts in a bacterial flagellum and left the 10 protein parts connected to the membrane of the cell, those remaining 10 parts may function as a Type-III secretory system. So this discovery refutes IC, right? 

In a strict Popperian sense, the answer is yes, but Popper’s theory of scientific progress is too idealistic - the correct answer is no. Science does not progress according to the strict falsificationist doctrine, and for good reasons which I will not go into here, but here are three important points to consider.  

First, scientific hypotheses are rarely in final form straight-out-of-the box, so to speak. At the first sign of contrary evidence, proponents don’t outright reject their hypothesis, much to the chagrin of their opponents. Advocates of a hypothesis usually modify the hypothesis to save it from rejection (called ad hoc explanations). As the evidence against a hypothesis builds and the hypothesis becomes overly complex due to constant modifications, then the possibility of outright rejection by the scientific community becomes a reality. Some say evidence against IC is mounting, so we will have to see what happens. 

Second, a crucial test of the secretory system is needed to provide more definitive evidence, yet no such test has been done.  Such as test might include taking the 10 genes that produce the part of the bacterial flagellum that connects to the cell membrane and replacing them with the corresponding 10 genes in the secretory system to see if a working flagellum results, and vice versa. This sort of test would establish whether or not the two mechanisms are truly similar.  

Third, by themselves, individual disconfirming tests rarely provide sufficient evidence to disprove a theory. Theories rely on several hypotheses and rejecting one hypothesis does not bring the whole theory crashing down. If research on the secretory mechanism ends up disproving IC, will this disprove ID? Well, it usually takes several disproved hypotheses to disprove a larger theory so the answer is ‘no’, that is, unless the theory rests on ONE major hypothesis. In this case, IDers would be wise to not place all their eggs into the irreducible complexity basket. If this is the case and IC falls, then ID will fall too.

Tentative Stance – scientists must recognize that their theories may one day be proven false. Are proponents of ID willing to accept that their theory may one day be proven false?

The idea that ID may be proven false is a HUGE problem here, folks. What sincere believer would be willing to consider that there is no God, or be willing to accept that there is no evidence of divine design in nature when the scriptures say otherwise? Here we see the real danger of tying up theology with science. If you bet your religious beliefs on a scientific idea being true, what happens when that scientific idea is eventually proven false, as so often happens? You could go into a faith crisis tail spin. 

I believe that ID proponents will hang onto their theory in a dogmatic fashion if disconfirmatory evidence builds. They will do this because of their religious convictions in God, but it is not very scientific to hold onto a theory that has been disproven. In the past, those who have held onto dead theories are often viewed as nonconformists who are unwilling to accept scientific progress. Thomas Kuhn says that these people often go to their graves holding onto dead theories. 

I have been fairly hard on ID with this last point, but I believe that it is risky to tie-up religious beliefs with science. I consider my religious beliefs infallible and my scientific beliefs to be fallible. Yes, I am more confident in the reality of my faith-based experiences than I am in the reality of scientific theories about the natural world.  

Now, to level the playing field on this issue, it is fair to say that evolutionists are equally dogmatic about evolution. This claim is evidenced by the way the evolutionary community has attacked ID from the get-go. I am not talking about the legitimate concerns with religious creationism; I am talking about the “you are crazy and unscientific to challenge evolution” attitude. This dogmatic attitude, which was effectively portrayed in Ben Stein’s film Expelled, is unscholarly. 

Concluding Thoughts 
ID can be scientific.  It is anti-scientific to deny a legitimate endeavor like ID a voice in the scientific marketplace of ideas. If ID has legitimate ideas to bring to the table, then let’s hear them out and then allow debate, refutation, and criticism. ID will live or die; either way, let the scientific process, not the political process, decide its fate. 

ID should not be rejected outright just because it presents a theory that challenges evolution. One of the virtues of science is that it is a democratic institution in the sense of encouraging an open and free exchange of ideas. It should never prematurely foreclose on legitimate ways of viewing the natural world. This, I believe, is the main message of Expelled.

Well, I finally had a chance to watch Expelled, Ben Stein’s movie on anti-intelligent design sentiments in academia.  

This movie was a major undertaking for Stein.  It was not a major undertaking in the sense of production costs etc - in fact, it was a fairly basic production in the sense of including mostly shots of Ben walking around interviewing scholars.  It was a major undertaking in the sense of launching a frontal assault on evolutionary dogma in higher education.  It is good that Ben is an actor and not an academician.  If he were an academician he would have been completely ostracized by the academic community for making this film.

I was not surprised by anything in this film.  As a university and college instructor for the last 8 years, I know the hostility facing proponents of intelligent design.  But this hostility is not limited to intelligent design.  There is an undercurrent of hostility and intolerance towards scholars who espouse conservative views contrary to the liberal agenda dominating higher education.  The godless liberal agenda is firmly entrenched in academia and science.  This means that people who question evolution and bring intelligent design into the classroom run the risk of being ostracized and denied tenure because they are seen as operating outside of “true science.”  

The opponents of intelligent design that Stein interviewed for the movie basically stated that they could never accept intelligent design as scientific.  For them anything that points to God is not science.  Like 17th century scholastic scholars who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope for fear of seeing anything that might make them question an earth-centered solar system, the atheistic scholars in the video refuse to consider evidence suggesting that intelligent design might be at work in the universe.  The thought that we might be able to scientifically evaluate the merits of an intelligent designer is revolting to them.  

Some of the anti-intelligent design scholars who agreed to be interviewed for the movie are Mike Schumer, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.  I have read books by Schumer and Dennett – they are accomplished scholars.  I respect what they have achieved and I think they are generally good people, that is, until they start trash talking believers.  Their harsh attitudes toward intelligent design are, I think, a result of feeling as though science is under attack by religious fanatics.  They fear that if anything resembling God makes it into science then we will regress to the Dark Ages.  I have even heard these sorts of arguments from Latter-day Saints - interesting, indeed. 

Stein’s movie adequately portrays the state of conflict in science today.  There are the non-believers who feel that they must defend science against religious fanaticism, and then there are the believers who feel they must defend their faith against scientific atheism which is overstepping its bounds.  There is more to this conflict, but that about sums it up.  True to his humorous side, Stein manages to capture this conflict in an entertaining manner.  The entertainment comes from brief clips portraying conflict, censorship, and dominance.  I had some good laughs watching these.  

With the intelligent design (ID) debate raging, I think that now would be a good time to discuss the merits of ID.  In the next three posts I will address three questions: (1) What is ID?  (2) Is ID any more or any less scientific than evolution? and (3) Should ID be permitted in education?  I will attempt to answer these questions in an objective manner, but first I have a little reading to do.

Here we go again with more monkey business regarding evolution.  Another article presenting arguments in defense of evolution has appeared on a pro-evolution LDS blog (here).  Only this time the article is by a high octane researcher from Berkeley.   They have pulled out the big guns with this article.  The article defends the science behind evolution using both recent scientific discoveries and comments from prominent Latter-day Saints.  

There is much in the article that I agree with, especially the fact that the church has not issued a formal statement against evolution; this is true.  In fact, to the best of my knowledge the church has never issued any formal scientific statements, and for good reason.  The church is in the business of saving souls, not making scientific discoveries.  Galileo said it best when he told the Catholic Church, which was meddling in scientific affairs during the 17th century, that the purpose of religion is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Notwithstanding the mounting evidence in favor of evolution, I want to be clear about one thing – God did not use evolution to create mankind.  I don’t have elaborate scientific evidence to support this claim nor do I have a quote from a prominent general authority.  What I do have is the plain and simple truths of the gospel and the basic definition of evolution.

By definition, evolution refers to changes in the genome through (1) environmental selection a’la survival of the fittest, and (2) random mutations in the genome.

Regarding the first point, it is conceivable that God could have manipulated environmental circumstances that caused lower life forms with desirable genomic qualities to survive while others died.  In fact, I personally believe that He did this to prepare the earth for other species.

Regarding the second point, it is NOT possible that God allowed random mutations in the genome to evolve to the point of creating mankind.  There are way too many changes and possible combinations for Him to leave this to chance.  His house is a house of order, not randomness.  Moreover, we are created in His image which means that there was ONE possible outcome to the creation of mankind, not billions through random events.

By definition, evolution requires randomness and God did not use randomness to create mankind.  Those who advance the idea that God used evolution to create mankind are thus no longer talking about evolution; they need to come up with some other name or stop calling it evolution.

Finally, the article assails some beliefs held by YEC (young earth creationists).  It asserts that YECs embrace beliefs that are inconsistent with church teachings (Note: I am not a YEC).  By attacking YECs in this way, the evolutionists are leaving themselves open to similar criticisms. One such criticism may be: believing that God used evolution to create mankind is inconsistent with a fundamental tenet of evolution, namely that the existence of mankind is to explained without referring to the supernatural.  Darwin wrote to his friend Charles Lyell, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions [from God] at any stage of descent.”

Based on the content of my previous posts dealing with evolution, you can tell I am not a fan.  I like to point out the weaknesses in the evolutionists’ arguments and show everyone that it is not the infallible theory that many would have us believe.  I don’t need to look at the so-called facts to accomplish this; it is done with basic principles in the philosophy of science.  Those principles allow us to ascertain whether some truth claims comprise certain or uncertain knowledge, based on the nature of the evidence.  

My disdain for evolutionary dogma has largely been fueled by atheistic, biological determinists who argue that there is no supreme creator and no spiritual existence; there is only matter-in-motion.  According to these folks, what is real in the world is physical matter that obeys the laws of nature – there is nothing else.  Humanity evolved through random, undirected processes, and because the mounting evidence seems to support the notion of common ancestry, there is no need for God.  They have filled all the gaps (questions) in nature and completely removed God from consideration.  

This sort of doctrine offends my Christian sensitivities.  It goes against what I have been taught and felt about the world for most of my life.  And it does not help that whenever I communicate with these people, I am accused of being an irrational “IDiot” (ID stands for Intelligent Design).  Many of them are so blinded by their dogmatic adherence to evolutionism that they are not willing to consider seriously opposing viewpoints.  Not very scholarly, is it?

Well, it seems as though there is some positive change in the evolutionary community – not a questioning of evolutionary beliefs, but an acceptance of deity.  A few are discovering that there is no joy and happiness in atheistic evolution.  They are longing for something more, something meaningful and lasting.  They are longing for God.  This longing for God among evolutionists has created a new belief system called “Theistic Evolution” or TE, for short.

TE combines belief in an active and caring God (theism) with evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.  One of TE’s biggest advocates is Francis Collins, a leading DNA researcher and former chair of the Human Genome Project.  He accepts the ‘compelling’ evidence for evolution.  Evolution, he believes, was used by God to create humanity.  He also claims that there is compelling evidence to believe in God.  His evidence for God comes from the moral code (Light of Christ) that is in all of us and the universal desire to seek out God.  Because of a recent spiritual experience, he has also come to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.  His is a wonderful story of atheist turned believer.

Despite our vastly different opinions of evolution, I consider Collins and others like him, brothers or sisters in the faith.  I would gladly sit down to lunch with a TE.  I feel the same way toward Latter-day Saints who embrace opinions on creation that differ from mine.  I believe that Mormon evolutionists, LDS creation literalists, and others like me who fall somewhere in between can all enjoy full fellowship with the saints.  This is only possible if we respect each other, notwithstanding our different views.  Respecting each other in spite of our differences is the Christian way.

What is the difference between a fast talking salesman and an evolutionary spin doctor? Not much lately, and here’s why.

For decades the evolutionists have enjoyed a monopoly on scientific explanations regarding the origins of humanity.  However, recently this monopoly has encountered stiff opposition from believers.  Believers are publishing books, articles, speeches, websites, and documentaries to show the world that the emperor has no clothes – in other words, that evolution is not the perfect, untouchable theory of science that some would like us to believe.  There are also ongoing efforts to dethrone the emperor and put it on par with competing theories of science such as the new intelligent design movement.  (Intelligent design is using science to show that the world was created by an intelligent and purposive entity.)  

This backlash against evolution has many evolutionists in a tizzy, and they are fighting back.  Like a spoiled kid who wants to be the only one at the top of a dirt pile, evolutionists are kicking and screaming to maintain their position of prominence in science and education.  They don’t like it when other people challenge their positions and they don’t want to go head-to-head with a competing theory.  As far as they are concerned, they are right and everyone who opposes them is wrong.  The spoiled kid on top of the dirt pile has even resorted to name calling; occasionally calling those who embrace intelligent design (ID) and reject evolution, “IDiots.” 

In their exclusive club there is no room for believers who accept intelligent design.  Yet with the majority of Americans believing in God, they are finding that it is lonely at the top, which is why they are seeking converts and attempting to justify their position.  To win people over to their side they have resorted to aggressive tactics of persuasion resembling those used in sales.  Yes, in a way the evolutionist is just like the door-to-door salesman – both are trying to sell you a bill of goods that you don’t want.  Here’s how.

1.  Like a fast talking salesman they are throwing around facts and specialized jargon to add legitimacy to their claims.  To prove that evolution can create a new species, someone might claim that “Polyploidization from hybrids resulted in speciation within the Tragopogon genus through a hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis.”  Only someone with a background in botany could appreciate this statement, so how can others dispute it?  They can’t.  If we do not understand statements like this then the evolutionists expect us to just trust what they are saying because, after all, they are the “experts”.

2.  Like a salesman they are telling us that we should accept what they are saying because an important person has bought into the program.  A typical example is the papacy in the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church has formally recognized evolution as a true principle of science.  If the leadership of the Catholic Church can accept evolution, then so can you.  Yet believers who accept evolution don’t seem to realize that a core tenet of evolution is random change in the genome.  God did not leave humanity’s creation to chance because His house is a house of order and we are created in His image.

3.  Finally, like a salesman they try to get you to accept something small, and when you accept, they raise the stakes to a higher commitment (a technique called “low-balling” in sales).  Specifically, after getting people to commit to lite evolution, they raise the stakes and tell them that they should also accept high stakes evolution.  Here’s how it works.  The fundamental definition of evolution is random change in the genes or genotype – no problem there.  And microevolution refers to minor change within a species – no problem there.  Now, they say, if you accept these types of evolution then you should also accept macroevolutionary change across life forms, the kind of evolution that turns a sea going fish into a land going salamander.  Not so fast!  The first two definitions have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the third has not.  Yet they claim that all evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and so you should accept the entire program.     

Learn to recognize these tactics and you will be better equipped to withstand the fiery darts of atheistic dogma.  Regardless of the scholarly arguments and famous people who accept evolution, remember that, on a general level, evolution is a straight forward and easy to understand concept – random genomic mutations and undirected environmental selection (survival of the fittest) turned simple molecules into complex human beings.  If this bill of intellectual goods opposes everything you believe about the origins of humanity, just smile and confidently say, “No sale!”