Missing Shades of Grue

I know I'm abnormal, but it's worth confirming every now and again.

You Are 40% Abnormal

You are at medium risk for being a psychopath. It is somewhat likely that you have no soul. You are at low risk for having a borderline personality. It is unlikely that you are a chaotic mess. You are at low risk for having a narcissistic personality. It is unlikely that you are in love with your own reflection. You are at high risk for having a social phobia. It is very likely that you feel most comfortable in your mom's basement. You are at medium risk for obsessive compulsive disorder. It is somewhat likely that you are addicted to hand sanitizer.

A Richard Pimentel essay on Darwinian Evolution and Atheism can be found over at Philosophy News. It's a short introductory discussion on the relationship between evolutionary theory and atheism. Though ID attacks on evoutionary theory seem to be motivated by christian conservatives, many evolutionists have responded by defending a consistency between certain scientific and religious beliefs. Pimentel cites Mark Vuletic and his essay In Defense of Evolution in support of such a position. On the other hand, W. Harland Dilbeck argues in his essay, Theistic Evolution or Atheism?, for the incompatibility of belief in evolution and belief in God. Both presentations are rather weak in that they depend heavily on pointing out what famous people have believed or what the majority believe. Not much of an argument in that. But then Pimentel leaves us with this:

The book, Darwin's God, written by Cornelius Hunter in 2001, adds an interesting twist to this issue. Hunter claims that Darwinism not only relies on scientific observations but on religious presuppositions as well. Hunter states, "Darwin's theory goes far beyond scientific observations, interpretation, and experimentation. It includes religious presuppositions outside of science.... It is important to understand that evolution relies on religious premises, but it is even more important to understand that evolutionists do not acknowledge this reliance on metaphysical ideas." Throughout his book, Hunter offers evidence for the religious dimension of Darwinian evolution because, as he claims, Darwin's theory was hatched not just from observation and experimentation but from Darwin's concern with natural evil. Hunter claims that evolution was Darwin's solution to the problem of evil. If Hunter is correct, then maybe evolution is not just about common ancestry, genetic mutations, and natural selection but maybe, as Hunter wrote, "Ultimately, evolution is about God."

Many scholars have debated Darwin's motivations for developing and promoting evolutionary theory, but this is clearly irrelevant to the content of the theory, its predictive power, and the evidence we have for accepting it. Whether evolutionary theory could be used as a solution to the problem of evil is an interesting question--though I don't see much promise there. But whether Darwin used "religious presuppositions" to "hatch" the theory is irrelevant to the power and accuracy of evolutionary theory. In short, to suggest that "evolution is about God" is just wrong, even if it can be used to generate a solution to a problem posed by theism.

Like any scientific theory, evolutionary theory is about a limited range of phenomena. Darwinian evolution, in particular, is about speciation--how does nature produce to number and diversity of species? It has nothing to say about where the stuff of life came from and in that sense it is compatible with a theistic response to some questions. If we think of evolutionary theory more broadly, however, as a "universal Darwinism' or algorithm for change, then we will see that we can use evolutionary principles (in conjunction with other theses) to explain phenomena that are not merely biological. The origin and nature of mind, morality, and meaning might be explained in naturalistic terms without reference to a mind-first (theistic) metaphysics. Or at least these explanations look promising. So promising, I would suggest, that while evolutionary thinking is compatible with theism, it makes the god-hypothesis obsolete. Remember that theism doesn't explain mind, meaning and morality very well at all, so the potential of a naturalistic explanation is welcome (or should be). Evolutionary theory does not prove or require atheism; it just makes for a very hospitable environment.

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

So how does the brain work? This video explains it all.

from http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=142

This is the Ernie Fletcher response to Jeanne Harris of the Kentucky Acadamy of Science that was forwarded to me via email. It is most bizarre, and many have wondered whether it is legitimate. It is dated February 13, the day before Fletcher went in for gallbladder surgery. Perhaps he was heavily medicated. But given his wildly incoherent endorsement of ID in the State of the State address, my fear is that this represents his considered opinion.

Ms. Jeanne Harris
Kentucky Academy of Science
10 1 UKMC Annex 5
Lexington, KY 40536

Dear Ms. Harris:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the teaching of "intelligent design." My educational background provided me with thorough understanding of science and the theory of evolution. Our nation, however, was founded on self-evident truths. Among these truths are inalienable rights "endowed by their Creator." From my perspective, it is not a matter of faith, or religion, or theory. It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge. For example, 2 + 2 =4. It disappoints and astounds me that the so-called intellectual elite are so concerned about accepting self-evident truths that nearly 90% of the population understands. In fact, this acknowledgement led to the intellectual curiosity Einstein spoke of that, in turn, led to the exploration of new knowledge.

To deny this understanding of our nation's beginning, and prevent it from being taught to American students. is to undermine the foundation of our nation. Schools should be able to approach this subject from a historical prospective, not a religious one, without offending anybody. I have not suggested any new legislation, and none is needed. Since 1970, state law specifically allows public schools to teach "creationism" in conjunction with the theory of evolution. In 1990, under the landmark Kentucky Education Reform Act, control of curriculum now rests with local districts. I urged school districts to utilize this freedom and empower students with all possible considerations regarding the origin of matter and species. It will be up to the teachers and local school officials, however, to make this decision.

Our nation's founders gave credit for our inalienable rights to a Creator. Among our rights are your liberty to disagree with government officials and my liberty of free speech. Those who laid the foundation for our country knew this would be the greatness of America. Although you may question the intelligence of raising this issue, the computer, which is state-of-the-art, and less sophisticated in function than this writer, was built by an intelligent designer.

Sincerely,

Ernie Fletcher

So someone with a "thorough understanding of science and the theory of evolution" would never question what are alleged to be "self-evident truths." Especially if the source is a founding father...and if 90% of "the population" agrees (which population is the population?). Now, that's the kind of "intellectual curiosity that Einstein spoke of that, in turn, led to the exploration of new knowledge."

And this Governor had an intelligent designer? They should have left his gallbladder alone and replaced his brain!

We know that all theists are presented with certain anomolies: the problem of evil, the problem of ignorance, and the problem of superfluous body parts. Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who recently endorsed ID in his state of the state--which left us wondering about his state of mind--, has recently faced the latter issue. This, from David Hawpe of the Louisville Courier-Journal:

The designer must be very intelligent; no one else can explain gallbladders.

Apparently, the gallbladder is not one of those must-have things. Given that it concentrates and stores bile, most politicians would be better off without one. Gov. Ernie Fletcher had his removed yesterday, and that wasn't expected to present any problem. The public was advised that, even without a gallbladder, he could continue to give this state the same kind of leadership he has provided the past couple of years.

Thus reassured, I began to consider all the other expendable and/or superfluous body parts: appendixes, tonsils and adenoids, wisdom teeth, human tailbones, male nipples, muscles with which to wiggle the ears.

Why, I wondered, would an all-knowing, all-wise Creator waste so much effort on expendable parts?

I'm aware of the Governor's past service as a minister, but I have to point out that, when he gave up his gallbladder, he gave the evolutionists fresh ammunition to support Charles Darwin's version of the origin and evolution of species.

How is it possible to defend the currently popular opposing notion -- intelligent design -- when it's so obvious that humans are constructed with body parts they can do without?

We can't say about gallbladders that, like ignorance and evil, we bring them upon ourselves. One would assume we had the organ before any fall from grace. So, what is so intelligent about this design?

The Courier-Journal ? Louisville, KY ? David Hawpe

Some good news this morning.

"The Ohio Board of Education voted 11 to 4 Tuesday to toss out a mandate that 10th-grade biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan, dealing the intelligent design movement its second serious defeat in two months."

The Board revered its position out of fear of lawsuits following the recent Dover decision. The reaction from the Discovery Institute was wonderfully ironic:

"It's an outrageous slap in the face to the citizens of Ohio," said John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the [Discovery] institute, referring to several polls that show public support for criticism of evolution in science classes. "The effort to try to suppress ideas that you dislike, to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike, has a failed history," Mr. West said. "Do they really want to be on the side of the people who didn't want to let John Scopes talk or who tried to censor Galileo?"

No, they don't. They want to be on the side of those who aren't being sued. But it's a win for those who care about progress in open-minded, objective science.

Ohio Board Undoes Stand on Evolution - New York Times