|
Freethought
Association of West Michigan
Meeting Minutes for October 10, 2001, #101
This was a special presentation jointly sponsored by FAOWM and
the Michigan
Scientific Evolution Education Initiative (MSEEI). Robert Pennock,
PhD,
Associate Professor of Philosophy, MSU and author of Tower of
Babel; The
Evidence Against the New Creationism was our special guest speaker.
This
meeting that was free and open to the public, was held in the
lecture hall of
the Grand Rapids Community College, Calkins Science Center at
the downtown
Grand Rapids campus.
Dr. Pennock was introduced by Dr. Gregory Forbes, FAOWM member,
on the
editorial board of Skeptic magazine, the director for the MSEEI,
and an
evolutionary biology professor at GRCC. The MSEEI is a program
set up to
provide Michigan teachers and pre-service teacher education students
with the
necessary content, pedagogy and support system to effectively
teach
evolution. Dr. Forbes outlined the many challenges facing quality
scientific
evolution instruction in the classroom, including the two anti-evolution
education bills (HB4382 and 4705) before the Michigan House of
Representatives, pending in the Education Committee. He also mentioned
the
ironic evolution of creationism and how it adapts to try to thrive
amid
Constitutional challenges. The most recent avatar being the strategy
of the
New Creationists, which brought us the topic of Dr. Pennock's
book and
lecture.
Jeff Seaver, co-founder of FAOWM also addressed the audience and
gave some
background on the 4- year old discussion group and what it provides
for the
interested public. He welcomed those who attended the presentation
and Dr.
Pennock.
During Dr. Forbes' introduction, he explained the format for this
lecture:
topic presentation followed by a Q&A time. Those in attendance
who wished to
address Dr. Pennock, would be able to do so via note cards read
aloud, going
up to a microphone, or, as Forbes said, with moderators doing
a "Phil
Donahue" approach of dashing over to questioners in the audience
with mics.
Dr, Pennock quipped that he certainly hoped that his presentation
would
elicit a more Donohue-like response and not that of "a Jerry
Springer show."
Dr. Pennock accompanied his talk with visual displays, outlining
the key
points. The first visual was titled "Blunting the Wedge"
which referred to
the "Wedge" tactic whereby the new creationists attempt
to bypass Church -
State separation issues by proposing that they are promoting a
scientific
alternative to evolution. This new breed of creationist is careful
to omit
terminology that smacks of the sectarian, religious basis that
is its
foundation. By misappropriating the terminology and giving the
impression of
doing scientific research, the new creationism no longer officially
speaks of
"creation science" but rather of "Intelligent Design
Theory." Instead of
employing Bible literalist claims for support in the efforts to
replace
evolution, they now use more sophisticated phrases like "Irreducible
Complexity" to attempt to refute the overwhelming evidence
for descent with
modification. The official centers for creationism tend to use
the word
"research" in their titles, though no actual scientific
research is ever done
at these places. The battle is ongoing, but each loss in the courts
for
creationism, only motivates them to adapt their strategies; to
sharpen the
edge of their wedge. This current wedge is the one Dr. Pennock
and all those
interested in quality education and a basic scientific literacy,
seek to
blunt.
In his book and lecture, Dr. Pennock was helpful in opening up
to his
readers/listeners the wide range of beliefs under the large umbrella
of
creationism. We often, it seems, tend to think of it in the old
formation of
fundamentalist Bible literalists claims only. A major strategy
of the
creationists is to implant this belief in a false dichotomy of
those who
believe in God on one side and a materialistic, atheistic godless
science on
the other, with everyone falling into one camp or another, exclusively.
The
main commonalities in the disparate creationist belief systems
are a separate
ancestry for apes and humans and fixed "kinds" of animals.
Speciation is not
the coin of creationist discourse. Factions within creationism
span the
"Day-Age" (the "days" of creation in Genesis
referring to vast ages)
creationists to the more literal interpretation ("Young Earth")
variety. Some
believe in micro- evolution (transmogrification within "kinds"),
while some
believe in Earth processes that are guided by an Intelligent Designer,
for
instance. This latter group being the "Theistic Evolutionists."
When the
Wedge strategy is used, Earth's physical features are explained
by
catastrophism but geological formations are no longer as openly
attributed to
"Noah's Flood." Dr. Pennock pointed to how everything
from deep-time concepts
such as the Big Bang Theory all the way down to simple processes
of natural
erosion (!) are held suspect by various creationist groups, depending
upon
the camp.
Creationists, Dr. Pennock pointed out, see this not as skirmishes
over
mechanisms within a scientific theory, nor their beliefs as adding
beneficial
information to the only actual scientific theory for life's history
and
descent. To them, this is a battle for the hearts and minds of
children; part
of a larger "Culture War." It is not a battle within
the confines of
scientific investigation for them, but a political, moral and
worldview
conflict. Since actual scientists, no matter their core beliefs,
simply do
not deal in the stuff of creationism-the underlying mythologies,
the
supernatural underpinnings and the philosophical implications
of data that is
generated by their research-- they have been easy prey for unsubstantiated
creationist attacks. They are frequently too busy with valid science
to
counter this inexorable bludgeoning regarding issues not of their
purview.
Since the creationists present virtually no positive data in support
of their
"scientific theories" there is simply nothing for working
scientists to
grapple with and until recent times, they were seen as merely
a pesky
nuisance, not a legitimate threat.
Now, however, powerful, influential contacts, including major
politicians who
are sensitive to the polls showing 47% of respondents (their constituencies)
believing in life originating (as abiding in "fixed kinds")
as it is
recounted in the Genesis myth and a whopping 68% thinking that
some form of
the oxymoronic "creation-science" should be taught along
with the
redundantly-expressed "evolution-science," the threat
to education is a very
real one. The new creationists' agenda is assisted by popular
opinion makers,
those working on the legal front, and even Congressional staff.
They set up
"Challenge Conferences" to deal specifically with defeating
the teaching of
evolution and the insertion of creationist concepts into the classroom.
While the creationists have suffered set backs in the form of
legal defeats,
they have managed to make very deeply incised inroads into the
classroom as
well. They are successfully manipulating the colloquial use of
the scientific
term "theory" (often thought of as a sort of guess or
hunch in the lay
vernacular usage) to portray evolution as "just a theory"
or "just another
theory" to be chosen from by students of the life sciences.
There now appear
disclaimers inside textbooks on biology as veritable warning labels
to
caution students of the contents. These stickers explain that
evolution is "a
theory, not a fact," and a "controversial" one
at that, that "some
scientists" believe explains life's history. There is even
one sticker in
textbooks in Oklahoma that goes so far as to write of life "created
by the
one God of the Universe." There is a push that is gaining
ground to include
"theories that do not support evolutionary claims,"
though there is yet to
emerge any such scientific theory. In Michigan, there appear phrases
that
alert students to "any reference to evolution or how species
changed through
time" to be considered "an unproven theory." "Darwinism"
as many
creationists term scientific evolution, would seem to be ubiquitous
and
drummed into the heads of public school students, judging by the
creationist
reaction. However the Fordham Foundation findings showed that
evolution
simply was not taught at all in many schools and where it was
referenced, it
was abysmally taught. What this shows is that even when the standards
are
brought up to what they should be, such as was seen in the about
face in
Kansas after the turnover in that state's board of education members,
this
does not mean that those standards will be met.
Besides the intrusion of disclaimers and alterations and omissions
in the
actual texts of schoolbooks, there are also a number of creationist
textbooks
to promote their agenda. They are published by such organizations
as "Answers
in Genesis," "The Institute For Creation Research"
and the "Creation Research
Society," among others. One such textbook that Dr. Pennock
brought up was "Of
Panda's and People" which continues the dichotomy of those
who believe in a
Darwinian frame of reference and those who believe in intelligent
design (the
more slippery way of expressing "Divine Creator.") As
with nearly all of
their writings, this book serves only to try to poke holes in
the scientific
evidence for evolution, while providing no positive alternative
data in
support of its claims. The idea, said Dr. Pennock, is to cast
doubt upon
evolution, paving the way for students (and scientifically illiterate
adults)
to see creationism as a more viable alternative. The only reference
Dr.
Pennock was able to find as to any explanatory mechanism promoted
in
creationist texts was where the peacock's flamboyant tail plumage
was
"explained" as evidence for the "whimsy" of
God! Understood concepts of
sexual selection are never entertained in these writings.
Further ignorance as to how science works is seen in the creationist
cry that
science can't explain everything. As each problem is tackled and
processes
and mechanisms are understood, newer ones arise that are not as
yet fully
known, or that contain aspects that are not universally agreed
upon within
the scientific community. An example of this being evolution itself.
Life
scientists understand evolution to be the cornerstone and foundation
of
biology but there are squabbles over mechanisms, etc. The provisional
quality
of scientific findings and the constant attempts to rigorously
test and
falsify data generated-signs of robust investigation-- are seen
and
promulgated by creationists to be failings. Ironically, since
creationists
generate none of their own data, they have to use the scientists'
own
research to attempt to undermine the process that created it.
Their only
"explanation" for any example is that an "Intelligent
Designer" (God; a
concept that cannot be scientifically tested) made it happen.
How? By
supernatural processes that we cannot know or test. There is also
the
circular argument that the reason life forms are as they are is
because they
are designed that way. As Pennock, who has a degree in biology,
pointed out,
science simply cannot and does not work that way. Though, as he
further
stated, it would make the job of the scientist a whole lot easier
if s/he
could avail him/herself of such rhetoric.
Our speaker addressed the main proponents of the new creationism
and their
tactics. Dembski, P. Johnson and M. Behe are chief among those
spearheading
the disingenuous strategies of the new creationism-never mentioning
the "G"
word, pushing untenable but plausible sounding (to the layperson)
concepts,
and striving to undermine evolution as just another belief system-
to better
get creationism past the courts and into science classes. Of these
people,
biochemist Michael Behe has become a celebrity among them for
his so-called
"Irreducible Complexity Theory." ICT states that important
structures and
biological processes, such as flagellum transport, blood clotting,
etc.
cannot be explained adequately by science, using the evolutionary
model. He
proposes that structures in given organisms could not arise gradually
and be
effective-they had to, like the mythic Athena, be suddenly created,
fully
formed and immediately useful to the current purpose. That he
completely
misses the point that Nature has routinely throughout life's history
pressed
a structure used for one purpose into the service of another,
different,
function as a selective, adaptive strategy, is lost on Behe's
flock. Dr.
Pennock showed us "Behe's Mousetrap" whereby the biochemist
attempts to show
a clear example of irreducible complexity. Behe's conjecture is
that if you
take any part away, what remains is a non-functioning mechanism.
All parts
are essential and all must be fully expressed. Pennock , however,
showed us
several examples of mousetraps with a step by step reduction of
parts, yet
remaining quite functional. He also introduced counter examples
to many other
Behe ones of Nature that supposedly contradict not an evolutionary
trajectory. One example, he termed "Pennock's Arch"
had photos showing arches
in nature that were, in fact, formed slowly over time. One arch
depicted was
even being used as a bridge by some modern Homo sapiens. During
the question
and answer period, one person accused Pennock of using these examples
to deny
a God and therefore being guilty of the same fallacy as those
who would deny
evolution in the creation of forms. Pennock responded that his
examples went
to counter Behe's claim that such structures cannot arise through
gradual
Darwinian processes, not whether these natural processes were
superintended
by a divine being.
One maddening outcome of this unnecessary Culture War in the creationists'
campaign, is attributing evolution to every societal illness,
real or
imagined. Dr. Pennock displayed images and text from creationist
literature,
showing evolution as serving or creating feminism, Communism,
Nazism, racism,
pornography, bestiality, child abuse, drug use, and so on. The
root of this
tree is seen being nourished by none other than Satan! On the
opposing side
of this Holy War, are all the things the fundamentalist mentality
perceives
as "good" and "right." At the source of all
this is Christianity and God.
Sometimes these are shown as trees and sometimes as warring towers,
which
Pennock employed as an analogy to his tower theme in his book.
Dr. Pennock
did not, however, in this presentation dwell upon the theme in
his book of
scrutinizing linguistic evolution, as a less emotionally charged
area of
study than biological evolution. This is an approach designed
to get past the
knee-jerk anti- (biological) evolution sentiment. This is where
the title of
his book, "Tower of Babel," springs from.
Dr. Pennock stated that full-blown creationism, as a movement
to supplant
science from school curricula with one group's religious faith
is essentially
a provincial, home- grown American phenomenon, with virtually
all of its
chief proponents being Fundamentalist Protestant Christians. So
the problem
arises of who's creation myths are to replace science studies.
If the new
creationists claim is that theirs is a non-religious, scientific
alternative
to the evolution model, yet it employs none of the features of
the scientific
method, can they exclude any of the other "alternatives"
to evolution such as
Native American, Hari Khrishna, even Raellian (biogenesis and
change via
extra-terrestrial involvement?) The rub is that the new creationist
must
pretend to be providing an objective alternative to evolution,
freed of
religious inculcation, but with the objective of just one religious
creation
myth being taught and adhered to.
A couple of the resource organizations that can be tapped to assist
in good
scientific evolution teaching that Dr. Pennock mentioned were
the National
Center for Science Education, a clearinghouse of information,
headed by
Dr.Eugenie Scott, and the MSEEI. Pennock believes that the challenges
posed
by the creationists can actually work to better science education.
They can
be brought up to show how science and the scientific method actually
work and
give an impetus to show how we know what we know; the processes,
testing and
procedures involved in gathering information. The recent PBS television
series on evolution was mentioned, but also the creationist
response-interestingly, put together before the series even aired!
The
problem of inadequate instruction in evolution is not just felt
in the lower
grades. Dr. Pennock provided us with anecdote of a major university
he was at
where students were instructed to leave if a professor refers
to evolution.
In a front row seat at this same university, a Bible-clutching
student read
aloud for the sacred writings, interrupting the lecture as well
as
punctuating said lecture by saying "liar" throughout.
Among the questions during the Q&A portion was that of whether
forbidding the
teaching of alternatives to evolution smacks of totalitarianism
or not. In
part, our guest speaker responded that while there still remain
devoted
members of the Flat Earth society, and that there are alternatives
to all
scientific discoveries-geocentrism, rather than heliocentrism,
for instance,
all other non-scientifically-derived concepts simply cannot be
entertained in
a science classroom. It is not a matter of censorship to omit
discourse on
Zeus' role in fashioning lightening bolts, when studying meterology.
Dr. Pennock responded to a question about the book "Summer
of the Gods" that
relates to the Scopes ("Monkey") Trial of 1925. Being
a philosophy professor,
Pennock dwelled on the underlying philosophical questions, and
having a
background in the history of science, he spoke about it from that
aspect as
well.
Dr. Pennock was asked if evolution, prima facie, discounts the
possibility or
presence of a god. He responded that this was not a question for
science.
Some people, indeed, see it as negating faith claims for a Divine
Creator,
while others reconcile their religious beliefs with the overwhelming
evidence
for the evolutionary model. Even the Pope was quoted as seeing
no conflict
and further stated that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
But, Pennock
pointed out, one's faith is a private matter, and not for public
schools to
deal with in science classes.
There was a question of whether the Big Bang Theory is at the
center of
evolution. Dr. Pennock said that even Darwin was not investigating
biogenesis
but rather the changes in organisms after the fact of origin.
Cosmology uses
evolution as change over time as well but, while cosmological
findings are
consistent with an ancient universe, and support an Earth of billions
of
years in age, these matters employ evolution as transmogrifications
in a
non-static reality, not for the ultimate causality for life.
Regarding the PBS series on evolution, Dr. Pennock said that the
creationist
response was interesting to look at for strategies employed but,
once
critically examined, only highlight the "bankruptcy of their
position."
Secretary: Charles LaRue
|
