Locus Medius

Didn't They Already Do This?

Scientific American's blog has a posting about the upcoming "trial" of intelligent design — actually a panel discussion — to take place at Biola University on May 12th.

From Biola's press release:

Critics of intelligent design will cross-examine intelligent design by asking its leading proponents the difficult questions in a Q-and-A format.

In his posting, John Rennie, Sciam's editor-in-chief, walks us through all aspects of this "trial", including the venue (evangelical bible university), the framing (opportunity to answer the "many questions still left unanswered about ID theory" — according to the sponsors) and the specific critics who will ask questions (only one of whom is a scientist).

I find it hard to disagree with Rennie's basic conclusion that

ID was literally given its day in court in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it lost. The tough questions were asked there — as they were in other places at other times.

But here's my prediction:

Expect a self-congratulatory press release after the "trial" claiming a rousing and convincing defense of ID. If only Judge Jones could have heard this evidence Kitzmiller v. Dover would have had a different outcome. (That's sarcasm in cased you missed it.)

In a way, though, it is good that this is happening at a bible college, and not anywhere else. Religious discussions belong in religious venues. The more ID is discussed in such venues, the more people will see that it is a religious, not scientific, construct.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this May 13th.

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

While I was busy not blogging, Bobby Henderson released his book The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I haven't had a chance to read it but it seems to have gotten pretty good reviews.

See the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's site if you're not familiar with all of this.

Evolutionism? — Nah, No Such Thing

John Rennie at Scientific American posts a critique of Judith Shulevitz's review of Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle.

The main gist of Rennie's critique is an objection to Shulevitz's support of the concept of "evolutionism" — "the part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science".

I did not realize there was a "part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science". There is a train of secular modernist thought that utilizes evolution as part of its philosophical basis, but that has nothing to do with science.

The misnamed Theory of Evolution — it really should be Law of Evolution, since its as fundamental and well-tested as any other physical "law" — is a robust, accepted, logically consistent theory of the origin of species. It is not a belief system. Science is not a matter of belief. Science is a process which produces, at any point in time, an explanation that best fits the currently known observations. It does not rely on blind faith or revelation. It is not religion. It is not even philosophy. It is merely an algorithm which produces useful results.

If you want to know how the world works, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "science" ... if you want to call a friend on the phone, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "dialing the phone". Neither requires any religious or philosophical underpinnings, they are merely methods that have historically achieved good results. As soon as science stops effectively explaining the world, we will try something else. As soon as dialing the phone stops effectively calling a friend, we will also try something else.

Someone doesn't love the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

John Rennie, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, has posted a blog entry asking the question:

Ladies and gentlemen, does it make me a bad person if I don't love the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is actually an important discussion because as John points out

... The FSM makes me smile. It's good pointed satire in service to an important cause, and it drills home what's wrong with the dumb arguments that I.D. should be taught as an alternative to evolution out of "fairness." ...

But my misgivings are essentially the same ones that I have about the famous Darwin fish insignia: the FSM may antagonize many religious people to whom it registers primarily as a slap at their faith, not at I.D.

Is the humorous, but snide, Flying Spaghetti Monster widening the divide between religion and science?

Rick Santorum — "Soylent Green is People?"

Intelligent design is religious? Soylent Green is people? Everyone loves Jell-o? What else does Senator Rick Santorum not know?

Santorum, perhaps the biggest Nutjob of them all, recently announced he was resigning from the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center — the "Christian Answer to the ACLU" which defended the Dover Area School Board of Directors in their recently lost case regarding the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom.

Santorum stated "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."

Santorum also indicated that "he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."

Um, HELLO! He didn't realize that intelligent design is fundamentally religious? He's either an idiot or a bald faced liar. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which one I think.

The Philadelphia Inquirer notes:

In a 2002 Washington Times op-ed, Santorum wrote: "Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

But in recent interviews, including one in August on National Public Radio, Santorum said: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

The Moderate Voice has given Santorum its coveted Plastic Wrap Political Transparency of the Year Award 2005 — "A politico who earns it must demonstrate an ability to twist a political position so abruptly and sharply that he/she/it could win a retro twist contest."

Americablog makes the extremely valid points that "If you're going to be a fundy, at least the have the balls to admit it" and "If you think you represent the majority of the country then why are you so damned afraid to admit your views and stand behind them publicly?"

Jefferson's Wall Still Stands

In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to the President of the United States describing their concern that “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights”. They acknowledged his powerlessness to affect the laws of Connecticut, but hoped that his sentiments would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth”. In his 1802 reply, which has indeed shined and prevailed through the years, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, III affirmed that Jefferson’s wall yet stands, ruling that the Dover, Pennsylvania school board's Intelligent Design (ID) policy fails to pass constitutional muster, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

This ruling should be applauded by everyone along the political spectrum. There is no place in our society for government to teach religious dogma to our children. It is for each child’s parents alone to decide what religious ideas to teach their children.