Creation of Christian Soldiers a Chilling Sidelight of Darwin Bashing

Confusing Issues and False Caricatures

Paul,

You must be confusing Richard Dawkins with the real issue. While Richard Dawkins and those like him may at times fit your caricature below, the real issue certainly does not. And that real issue is fundamentalist Christians attempting to push their religious beliefs into the science classroom where they do not belong. And educated and informed Christians know this full well, and that is why they support maintaining a vigilance against religious fundamentalism and fanaticism in all of its forms, and that would include militant atheism as well, for it too does not belong in the classroom.

Where your little caricature below misses the mark is that it actually ignores the real issue; what ID-Creationists are trying to PUSH INTO the science classroom, not some fictitious high school biology teacher that is attempting to drive religion out of the hearts and minds of students. Of course, if some mis-educated fundamentalist Christian learns in the science classroom that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and not 6,000 years old like his fundamentalist pastor told him, indeed, the truth might just crowd out some error with truth and bring about for some a crisis of belief.

Let us be clear what the real issue is; it is not one of 'atheistic scientists' denying religious belief, but of fundamentalist religious fanatics attempting to drive their religious beliefs into the science classroom and public education.

"I am sure there are many Christians who are scientists so please do not use your position or opportunity to belittle those that see the whole and believe."

The reason that enlightened and intelligent religionists (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike) support keeping ID-Creationism out of the science classroom is that ID-Creationism is one narrow interpretation of the bible; it is a religious or philosophical belief, not science. And the attempt by ID-Creationists to claim their religious/philosophical beliefs are science and PUSH them into the science classroom is the REAL issue.

And these same Christians, Jews, and Muslims who oppose ID-Creationism in the science classroom celebrate the Creation and worship the Creator of it all. But they do it in the proper context, and they intelligently respect the limitations of science the fact that one's religious beliefs do not belong in the science classroom.

Slinging off at Christians is this scientist's self justifying agenda

Awe, intrigue and wonder, with the humble appreciation of what is increasingly the power and tapestry of the big picture that delivered us out of the chaos of life. Well there is no room for that in science it seems.

No that's right it has to be ground out of the proven evidence of our being. Proven facts probability not just the only thing but on of the cornerstones built on reason and expounding the doubts. Proof but unmistaking the logic, in the end explanations for our being beyond God beyond religion its just that we evolved and that's it there is no creation.

Yet tell that to the couple who just have had their first baby. Tell that to the kid who has interest in a crab scurring along the beach. Tell that to a young Charles Darwin and you may never have had him as a thinker for what became his theory.

That's what is killing Science today, atheists and others in their dogmatic use of evidence to stomp out belief and wonder storm the chapel of the youngs intrigue and beliefs to chase out God chase out wonder. Shout out over those peering up at the stars its all evolution nothing is created. There they justified their stand their non belief by destroy others.

I am sure their are many Christians who are scientists so please do not use your position or opportunity to belittle those that see the whole and believe. Whether they are scientists or future scientists or just those that regularly marvel and wonder at the world its processes no matter how mathematicians or scientists try to explain it away.

Some call it creation, but sometimes things just happen and there is no explanation. Isn't that what evolution is? something is created that just has the combination of characteristics that suit that niche with success.

Some people believe in God because it gives their life meaning. They do not need to prove whether the Cambrian period was an explosion or not. Atheism is the new cult.

But their not satisfied with their beliefs, they have to attack Christians in all walks of life, belittle and isolate them in the process.

Self-Correcting Nature of Science

"I think we can both agree that science is an everchanging, self-correcting process that is governed by the quality of the hypotheses tested and the data collected."

Agreed.

"Intelligent Design advocates like Mike Behe and Bill Dembski ... have held steadily to their principles and 'hypotheses', even when their ideas have been substantially refuted by both mathematical simulations and experimental evidence."

In my encounters with ID-Creationists I have come to appreciate Reid's quip, "Evidence is a weak siege-weapon for storming a belief-system." (Reid, Robert G. B. Evolutionary Theory: The Unfinished Synthesis. New York: Cornell University Press; 1985; p. 202.)

Science teaches man to speak the new language of mathematics and trains his thoughts along lines of exacting precision. And science also stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it purifies religion by the destruction of superstition.

re: Thanks Again.....

Rob,

I think we can both agree that science is an everchanging, self-correcting process that is governed by the quality of the hypotheses tested and the data collected. Since you own a copy of Don's book, you may find some useful references there.

In my case, I was for many years, strongly opposed to the asteroid impact hypothesis as the "smoking gun" for the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction which wiped out much of Earth's biota, most notably, the nonavian dinosaurs. However, I could not refute it when I saw the substantial data from several different geological lines of evidence that a team - which included a graduate school colleague of mine - was collecting (In fact, he was primarily responsible for collecting much of that data.). So not only did I change my position completely, but I strongly endorse that research now as the best explanation we have for the "prime suspect" responsible for causing that mass extinction.

My "conversion" stands in stark contrast to Intelligent Design advocates like Mike Behe and Bill Dembski who have held steadily to their principles and "hypotheses", even when their ideas have been substantially refuted by both mathematical simulations and experimental evidence.

All the best,

John

Thanks Again ... Further References Appreciated

Any further references on this issue would be much appreciated. But what position one takes on this issue is not my point; rather my point is that there are certain questions within science that are open to honest differences of opinion, and it would be in my estimation an error to dogmatically assert one position as THE correct one and another as “myth” when there actually does exist an honest and legitimate difference of viewpoints based upon reasonable interpretations of the evidence (data).

Why is this issue important to me? Because I take science very seriously, and I am taking a hands on role in education my two daughters in science. While I am frustrated with the continued onslaught of the ID-Creationist camps attempt to insert religious beliefs into the science classroom, I am also becoming troubled by the narrow hardening of another extreme position that is quick to lash out with uncivil rhetoric and to dogmatically assert claims that in my view misrepresent the true nature of science as a human enterprise. ID-Creationists want to create pseudo-controversies they claim refute the fact of biological evolution and then say science should teach the “controversy.” I think the way forward to is to raise the bar of science education, and take seriously Sarkar’s admission there are “legitimate debates,” then teach our children how to actually think critically and do real science as it is really done, and along the way enlighten to the vacuous nature if ID-Creationist’s pseudo-controversies:

It is instructive here to quote from a statement signed by a large number of biologists: while "there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence." (....) If high school curricula include mention of the neutralism-selectionism debate, or the promise of the new evolutionary developmental biology, and the challenges posed by the structure of the genome, and the relevant teachers are conversant enough with contemporary biology to discuss these topics accurately, so much the better. It would be a major achievement, at least in the United States, if high school science instruction achieved such a level. However, in contrast, ... the criticisms leveled against evolutionary biology by ID creationists are vacuous and driven by their theological agenda. Moreover, the "controversy" within biology allegedly over evolution versus ID creationism is an artificial controversy generated by the claim that evolution is controversial. (Sarkar, Sahotra. Doubting Darwin? Creationists Designs on Evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2007; p. 166.)

re: Molecular Clocks and Assumptions

Rob -

I was quoting from Levinton's 2008 paper, which, I agree, does present a very good overview of the contending hypotheses. However, I believe - and this is an opinion which has been enhanced somewhat after hearing a couple of relevant talks last spring at Rockefeller University - that the data is more consistent with a "Slow Fuse". Clearly the best "signal" is from the molecular data.

Another aspect you need to consider is exactly how large species diversity was at the time of the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale Fauna. In stark comparison to other - and later - Paleozoic faunas - its overall species diversity was still relatively low. So that's yet another valid reason why I think Don is correct in asserting a "Cambrian Slow Fuse".

Hope this helps.

All the best,

John

Good Science Considers the Full Context

My theoretical wagon is not hitched to either the “slow fuse” or the “explosion” hypothesis; the outcome does not change one iota the FACT of biological evolution, except in that it might raise some interesting questions regarding intrinsic/extrinsic causes around tempo/rate questions and theoretical mechanisms. But that is an entire different can of worms, one which, by the way, Prothero addressed brilliantly in his chapter “The Evolution of Evolution” in the section of “The Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis” pp. 92-103.

My problem is the way he devolved into polemics by characterizing the real legitimate scientific debate around the Cambrian explosion as a “myth,” rather than debunking the ID-Creationist claim that if there was a real event this somehow undermines the fact of biological evolution or implies the legitimacy of ID-Creationism. This did not serve what is otherwise (with perhaps your note below) a wonderful book that is a great resource for educating the public about the real issues and many fallacious arguments put forward by ID-Creationists. He goes on to paint a false caricature of the situation regarding the current diversity of views regarding the Cambrian explosion within the scientific community by calling it the “clueless” hypothesis (p. 170). Well, that means a rather substantial number of world-class scientists are very clueless, or he has allowed his zeal to override reason and a balanced presentation of the evidence, including the contra-evidence to his preferred hypothesis the “slow fuse” model, and the rather substantial body of legitimate literature that takes the view it is a real event and not an artifact of the fossil record.

ID-Creationists misrepresent the full body of facts and evidence when they attempt to claim there were “no fossils preceding” (Prothero 2007: 161) the Cambrian Period in an attempt to imply that the Cambrian explosion is evidence of “special creation.” Some know what they do, and are deceivers; some simply parrot naively and ignorantly what they are being told. Prothero misrepresents the full body of evidence regarding the status of the Cambrian explosion hypothesis within the scientific community (i.e., that it is considered a “real event” by a non-trivial number of world-class scientists) in an attempt to counter the ID-Creationists fallacious claims about the Cambrian explosion. Both, it seems miss the mark, in that good science takes the full picture into consideration. Either way, on both accounts, it is bad science.

Molecular Clocks and Assumptions

I am not unaware the molecular clock data, and do appreciate your sharing this information John. And really, I don’t have a problem with the line of argument based upon this data that you are presenting below. But did you read Levinton’s 2008 article I provided the link for below? He really does a nice job presenting the diversity of hypotheses and what data they are based upon, and addresses the pro and con issues surrounding the idea that the molecular clock data can solve this issue definitively. He notes that the idea that molecular clock hypothesis rests upon the presumption that rates of “genetic divergence were at the same constant rate for all genes over the time scale since the split,” which of course would make this a rather easy straight forward issue. But that is not how the data has turned out, and to leave this fact out would leave a less the complete picture of why there does exist more than one working hypotheses at this time. This is not the place to go into this, but I could amass no small armada of evidence on scientists (geneticists) addressing just this issue. But this is hardly the place to do that, so I will leave off with Levinton’s 2008 comments on this topic. After addressing the question of whether rates are consistent or not, and how this question impacts the use of molecular clocks regarding the Cambrian explosion, he states:

“More recent studies have used more genes but have yielded a wide variation of dates. Consistently, however, these dates are Precambrian…. There is still great disagreement over methods and approaches….. (Levinton 2008: 857) [A]lthough the large range of divergence time estimates does not inspire confidence, w must still face the current conclusion that molecular estimates do not square with the fossil occurrence data, which places the great radiation between approximately 540 Ma and 520 Ma. At the present, it is unlikely that the assumptions of the models of molecular evolution may influence the outcomes too strongly to allow any significant confidence in estimates of molecular dates for divergences of the Bilateria…. (Levinton 2008: 858) “

In summary, he states:

“Will molecular clocks pave the way? At present [October 2008], molecular evidence points to a Precambrian divergence for the bilaterian animal phyla, but the pointer is rather shaky…. At present, it is fair to say that the assumptions behind the methods appear to strongly affect the results, which should heighten skepticism about the power of molecular clocks to resolve the question of the timing of the divergence of the Bilateria. (Levinton 2008: 862-863)”

There are many a great historical lessons in the history of science regarding those who made overconfident claims about data that depended upon the assumptions behind methods, which when those assumptions were tweaked significantly change the outcome of the data. It is indeed, a reason to be cautious and to take into consideration within the larger picture.

re: Science Not Threatened By Mutiple Working Hypotheses

Rob,

I agree that Chamberlin's paper outlines a methodology that most scientists would claim that they use. Though I know of at least one prominent example - the discovery of the terminal Cretaceous impact crater off the coast of the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico (or rather re-discovery) back in the late 1980s - which didn't follow it at all.

I think you may have missed my point stated earlier that Levinton reminds readers that molecular divergence times point to a time hundreds of millions of years prior to the earliest Cambrian for the divergence of the two main metazoan groups:

"All major studies consistently produce a date of divergence for the protostomes and deuterostomes considerably before the beginning of the Cambrian (Smith 1999, Levinton 2001). More recent studies have used more genes but have yielded a wide variation of dates (figure 2). Consistently, however, these dates are Precambrian. If all of the major phyla diverged in a very short period of time, we might expect the problems in reconstruction that have been encountered, since closely spaced nodes hundreds of millions of years old would be nearly impossible to resolve (Levinton et al. 2004)."

Assuming that this molecular data is correct, the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" could be more an artifact due to the coincidental, almost simultaneous, acquisition of durable hard-part skeletons, not the result of a genuinely rapid radiation that would indicate a genuine "explosion" of biological diversity. I can assure you that Prothero did take this into consideration when he wrote his chapter on the "Cambrian Slow Fuse".

John

Fundamental Issue

This is my point. No matter how legitimate the differing views of scientists are on some subject such as the Cambrian explosion hypothesis (pick some other issue), some ID-Creationists are going to misunderstand it (some knowingly and some out of honest ignorance), but that is no reason for scientists to hide the real issues where honest multiple working hypotheses exist. Yes, ID-Creationists misuse even the concept of multiple working hypotheses when they attempt to claim ID-Creationism is just another scientific hypothesis when it is nothing more than religious belief masquerading as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. But what a loss for science if we through the baby out with the bath water, or retreat into defensive dogmatism and obscurantism. This is the same old ID-Creationist misleading argument that evolution is “just a theory,” when intelligent philosophers of science and scientists know that evolutionary theory is composed of both facts and theories, and that the fact of biological evolution is supported by so many different lines of evidence (facts) that the idea that life has evolved from a common ancestor by common descent is take as virtually a fact by all educated persons today. The theory of the underlying causal mechanism of this evolutionary transformation of one species into another species has over the last 200 years since Darwin’s Origin undergone change, with natural selection no longer viewed as the only mechanism, to wit, “In biology, evolution is the inference that living things share common ancestors and have, in Darwin's words, "descended with modification" from these ancestors. The main--but not the only--mechanism of biological evolution is natural selection.” (Scott 2004: 23) Yet, despite this the evolving nature of the theory aspect (i.e., theory of mechanisms) the FACT of organic evolution has never been in doubt. It is important to make this distinction it seems. And if further discoveries should be forthcoming within theoretical evolutionary biology that uncover other new mechanisms that account for morphological transformation in species, these too will not in the least threaten the indisputably established fact of biological evolution.