Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 6
In the technological age of flat screens, jet planes, and heart surgery, perhaps stem cell research draws some of the most attention of controversial issues. The greatest myth perhaps is that religion condemns stem cell research while science encourages it. The only controversy existent concerns the stem cell research that involves perverting a woman’s eggs that have been fertilized by a man’s sperm into a stem cell. It is this topic that draws the attention of the media, the classroom, and politics.
Of many “political/religious” groups, I agree most clearly with Focus on the Family. This group encourages adult stem cell research, as I do completely. We both only contest the embryonic stem cell research, clearly seen here: “Focus on the Family opposes stem cell research using human embryos.” I differ from Focus on the Family, and many groups, as to why I reject the idea of human embryo research. Many groups, such as the Catholic Bishops, believe that the human is created at conception or very soon after. The Jewish people say that after around a month, the embryo becomes a human. I am not so bold as to wager when the human is actually created. This is not for me to say as I leave that up to a greater power than myself. The main issue at hand is not deterring if the embryo is a human. The issue is acknowledging that the embryo is part of the natural life cycle and process. The embryo is the root, the initial union between two sets of chromosomes that constitute the formation of a human being, the shell of a soul. The fact that this is part of the human life cycle separates it from simple matter such as a rock or a vegetable.
The ethical dividing line is not completely certain: some say to research with embryos, some say to not. The question is asked “who can know?” I think that this is such a sticky issue that it is “better to be safe than sorry.” Even if one doesn't believe embryo is a human, the fact is that it is developing into one. Destroying this development is a scary issue and wrong. I believe that human tendency is to break rules and thus I believe that researchers have and will continue to cross such ethical lines.
Speaking of scary issues, the idea of me setting any U.S. policy is insane. U.S. policy is not for me to decide. I do not represent the U.S. and cannot say what the policy should be. As the United States is a democracy, the country should decide as a people. If the people decide to research embryonic stem cells, I believe that most “God-fearing” groups would oppose this, as a variety of other groups. On the other hand, if the people decide not to research embryonic stem cells, a large majority of the “scientific community” and those apparently blinded to the beauty of the natural life process would be enraged with the ruling.
After this year, and previous study of embryonic stem cells, I have reached a point to desire science to stay away from the use of embryos. The reproductive process is natural, whether one believes that evolution by chance brought it about or that some High Power created it. Either way, this is a beautiful process and should not be perverted. To those who say life is a beautiful thing and sustaining it using human embryos is a good thing, even if the ends does justify the means, who is to say if the means, destruction of embryos, shall be justified? I do not think that this destruction of human life/pre-life should be considered even as research. Thus I agree with stem cell research completely as embryonic research does not deserve the title.
As a conclusive statement concerning stem cell research, I agree with the Hippocratic sense of healing rather than destroying and that adult stem cells should be researched for further cures to the ails of humanity. However, to end parts of the human life cycle can only be condemnable.

Stem cell research is a difficult topic, but it is definitely the buzz word of today. I did not realize there were two types of stem cell research: adult and embryonic. Adult stem cell research is not causing nearly as much controversy as embryonic. In fact, most people accept adult stem cell research as ethical and it has already been used successfully to treat many different types of diseases. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because in order to get the stem cells the whole embryo must be destroyed. However, this embryo is seen to some people as a human being. I would have to agree with this viewpoint. Although it is not and never will be implanted into a uterus to grow into a baby, it is the starting point that everyone came from. I do not agree that human life should be destroyed to save someone else’s life. This brings in the issue of second class citizenship, which is something that America does not stand for. America and the people in America make sure that everyone has all of their rights. It is surprising that the Democrats are usually the group of people who fight for the “little man” and stand up for the people whose rights are usually suppressed yet they support embryonic research. If they really wanted to give everyone their rights, they should fight against embryonic research with all their might because the embryos are the ones without a voice.
The Episcopal Church states clearly that the embryos that we have now should be used for research to cure disease, but new embryonic lines should not be created for this purpose. I agree with this statement when it comes to what we should do with the embryos we have now. I also agree with the Christian Coalition which states that killing one human being to save another is never morally just and supporting embryonic research would be the first time America has supported a program that endorsed the killing of human life for research purposes. Embryonic research is not something that we should try to continue. If we have researched with adult stem cells and found cures through them, we should continue to use adult stem cells. While it may be more difficult to find the correct stem cells, it is more ethical and we know that it works. Embryonic research has not had success like adult stem cell research. While supporters of embryonic research say they need more time, this time should be spent continuing adult stem cell research. Groups which would oppose this policy would be the people who believe embryonic research could have saved a loved one who recently died. Christopher Reeves and Ronald Reagan are just two famous men who died from diseases that have no cure as of now.
Embryonic research is not ethical. It is not ethical because it kills a human life for research purposes. Killing people is not ethical, it is against the law. The problem today is that there is a difference between what different groups consider to be human life or not. Personally I think that human life begins at conception, like the Catholic Bishops. People who support embryonic research do not believe human life starts that early. Until we can resolve this issue, embryonic research will still be a point of major conflict. Once we decide as a country when human life begins not only can we decide about embryonic research we can also decide the abortion conflict.

I have been doing some more research about stem cell research and I want to share my findings and my opinion based from them. First, I have found 3 different articles stating that cloning of primates is likely impossible since cell division does not work properly in clones. These are the links to those three articles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3614
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030411070915.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2936401.stm
I had read similar articles and for this reason, my belief that research cloning of humans, or even of embryonic stem cell, will in the end be mostly fruitless.

This idea of the impossibility of human cloning is backed up from this story of embryonic cloning in Mass.  http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1605 This story talks about how cloning of embryos was done, but failure came about in developmental stages. Here is a quote from the article: “ Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep at the Roslin Institute, said ACT's results were "very preliminary". He said a human embryo is expected to double its number of cells every 24 hours, but even ACT's most developed embryo had not done this: "The furthest it got was to have six cells, at a time it should have had 60, so it had already died."” This supports the previous articles and statements about human (and monkey) cloning. The bottom of the article also mentions the Korean scientist and his research as unpublished and invalidated. Another article that mentions the possibility of serious scandal (greater than eggs of graduate students) is here: http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1843825,00.html

From viewing the above information, I speculate something about the Korean scientist. I think that his cells were very unsuccessful and he “destroyed” them for “ethical” reasons to cover up his failure of producing successful embryonic clones. Although this is just speculation, it seems very possible since privately well funded scientists in Mass, the same guy who cloned Dolly, had so much trouble. At least he admitted it.

All this to say that I think after this year, and previous study of embryonic stem cells, I have reached a point to desire science to stay away from the use of embryos. The reproductive process is natural, whether one believes that evolution by chance brought it about or that some High Power created it. Either way, this is a beautiful process and should not be perverted. It seems that either nature (or Nature) has limited us. If in 50 years cloning and embryonic stem cells become completely possible, I invite everyone in this class who disagrees with me now to write a long mocking letter to me and then ask for 20 dollars and I will give it to you. Deal?

Galileo and his trial are mysterious things, just as all historic people/events are. While he seems very arrogant and selfish in literature and lectures, I cannot judge him as if he is some fictional character in a novel. However, I do believe that he could have presented his work concerning the stars in a better and more amiably was to infuse it into the society of his day. From a human perspective, I think that the Church’s response to Galileo is understandable, as he might have treated them wrongly at one time of another.
Galileo had a right theory, but he presented it in the wrong manner. I cannot say I admire Galileo as I mistakenly did before. I have greatly changed my views from the beginning of the year as I am more informed now. In my first journal entry, I only mentioned Galileo in this sentence: “I . . . admire Galileo for dying with confidence and pride, comforting his disciples and embracing death.” Clearly, I was ignorantly confusing Galileo with Socrates. This is because he seems to be driven by wrong motivations. Again, I cannot judge him, I can only speculate. However, it seems that throughout his life, he cared more about promoting Galileo than the Truth about the natural world. For example, according to Professor Anderson, Galileo accused Grassi of plagiarism and maliciously attacked him. If Galileo were more concerned about science, would not he be joyful in more publications of Truth? Perhaps if Galileo had been more concerned with science than his ego, his findings might have been accepted and infused into the social and scientific community with much more grace and ease.
Some people are angry at the Church and point fingers at it during the trial of Galileo to say that science and religion are in warfare. However, in light of human nature, the fact that the people of the Church aligned themselves against him is understandable as a selfish and sharp tongue causes strife in all people. The reason behind their condemnation of his teachings was perhaps they saw Galileo as selfish and judged whatever he might teach as wrong. The fact that Galileo’s theory was right is luck as no one had complete proof of the Copernican system until 1728 when the aberration of starlight was seen. This was 86 years after his death, according to Professor Anderson. Yet the people of the Church did not have this proof during Galileo’s trial and I do not believe that people should think “this means war!” for science and religion.
I think that if he went about showing his theory in different manner, he might have conveyed Truth in a better way, doing a service to both his and future generations. Yet I cannot say that I unraveled the mystery of this man and/or his trial.

Reading a trustful source concerning the Scopes trial, Summer of the Gods by Edward Larson, and acting out the Dover trial have helped me in my search for Truth and also have shaped my view of Western culture’s portrayal of science and religion. I am also more aware of the “players,” or people, involved in the ongoing relationship between the two. Due to heightened awareness, I am frustrated with the past and current situations, although I see beacons of light such as Michael Behe who are trying to split the “log” of modern and natural “science.”
Studying the Scopes trial enriched my understanding of it. Thus, the proceedings from both the defense and counsel of the Scopes trial are irksome to me. The defense was and is especially foolish in “protecting rights.” This trial represented a conflict in the fight for rights. According to Professor Macosko, Bryan joined the prosecution because he wanted to give people the rights to decide what theories are taught in school. This represents the rights of the people. Darrow was also fighting for the rights of people, but for the people of minority who wanted to hear about what the majority wanted. This represents the ACLU in general.  The ACLU turns the majority into a minority. Minority rules and this is the true deviance from the Democracy of the USA and the American Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, but the interpretation of the ACLU is not what that separation means. Why would the founders have included “Under God” in the Constitution if people should have to separate their faith and their life completely?
The prosecution also bothered me. Local lawyers were foolish and fought as if this were a case for Christianity. They did not allow Jews or others who believe in God to use their wisdom in the matter (Larson 132). This type of religious fighting is destructive as seen throughout history. Pushed to the extreme for example, the Crusades involved a group of people who thought they were God’s people and fighters. This premise caused destruction, death, and hate across the lands. In a similar fashion, many “Christians” did not demonstrate love in the Scopes trial. Even though the prosecution bothered me, I respect Bryan more than I respect the other prosecutors. The fact that Bryan had intentions to discuss science is interesting. He actually wanted to use it to the advantage. He was not as ignorant as some believe him to be (129). Bryan took the case seriously and was not prideful in going about it as he sought wise counsel to use all possible assets.
This year, when I first thought about the Scopes, I referred back to viewing Inherit the Wind. As seen in an earlier journal entry, I was deceived into thinking that fact and fiction are “basically the same.” The film/play focused my attention on the “rigidness of western religions.” I believed that the real Bryan was a complete ignoramus who did not care about science. In fact, he did look like an ignoramus after Darrow’s interrogation of him, but the author of Inherit the Wind took liberties that he did not have. The movie director did not try to present the truth; instead, he presented his opinion. He inserted acting directions and lines that made Bryan look like a complete buffoon. This perversion of history reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984. In this dystopia, the media is controlled and the past is changed to whatever tyrants want the public to believe. Inherit the Wind did the same to the pubic on behalf of the scientific natural tyrants.
I agree with Ronald Numbers when he says in Summer of the Gods,
“Inherit the Wind dramatically illustrates why so many Americans continue to believe in the mythical war between science and religion. But in doing so, it sacrifices the far more complex historical reality” (242). I do slightly disagree with the quote as the character that represents Clarence Darrow combines Origin of Species and the Holy Bible at the end of the film: but this clip is fictional as Darrow was an agnostic/atheist. This distortion of the Scopes Trial perverts history in the mind of many people.
Fast-forwarding to the Dover trial, it was also a truly frustrating event. Not only was the defense unorganized, it was divisive. A historical figure that has great weight in many faiths of the Intelligent Design proponents once said that a house divided against itself will not stand, and his words rung true in this case. In my opinion, the defense lawyers were foolish to disallow the Discovery Institute to function as it desired. This was a prideful and detrimental decision. In addition, the fact that most of the research done for Intelligent Design was not shown in court is also very upsetting. If the trial is to determine if Intelligent Design is religious in nature, why was not the nature of Intelligent Design taken into account by in depth study of written things rather than orally transmitted information.  The judge was limited in his decision due to the lack of solid data from the Intelligent Design theory. If an evolutionist would like to say that the lack of evidence is a cause for dismissal, I would expect evolution to leave the schools as well as Intelligent Design. This limitation of information and division between the defenses was frustrating to me.
Studying this trial helps me understand my annoyance with the scientific community at large. If the science community were actually searching for the truth, it would view the Intelligent Design theory with respect and spend some time and money into its research. Instead, it limits itself to the natural world. This truly is a mixture of philosophy and evidence as Michael Behe suggests.
One of my biggest perplexions deals with those that call themselves Catholics and Christians that were witnesses for the prosecution. I do not understand what their motivation is in trying to keep the idea that there is a metaphysical world out of science. I would like to ask them some questions: “Why should there be such a strong separation of science and religion to a point of war? What are you trying to do?” I do not understand how their separation of science and religion coincides with their beliefs.
The Scopes and Dover trial are nearly identical yet also different to the degree of opposites. They both focus on the scientific teaching in a classroom, but the driving mechanisms between them are antithesis. The fact that the “religious” side was divisive against itself is almost exact from the past and the present. In contrast, the fact that the “religious” group was in defense in the Dover trial, rather than on the offense, is different. This represents the shift over time in the separation of Church and State. The ACLU had a heavy hand in switching the tune of the American dance. I find it ironic that the Intelligent Design proponents were trying to agree that their theory is not religious when, whether they admit it or not, the whole purpose of introducing Intelligent Design into schools is to expose youth to the possibility of a metaphysical world. I think Intelligent Design proponents should have argued in court that science can include more than what one can see. As I am sure that Michael Behe and Bill Dembski would agree, proving this would allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.
Overall, my general attitude towards the Scopes trial, its representation, and the Dover trial is frustration. I do not understand the need for the antagonist separation of science and religion. I think I do not understand because there is no good explanation, or else I am yet to find it. I hope that more knowledgeable scientists can help me in my, and everyone’s, search for Truth.
Works Cited
Larson, Edward J. Summer of the Gods. Harvard Univ. Press. 1998. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pages 132-242.

We talked a lot about different beliefs concerning stem cell research in class today. However, I don't think that one point was made very clear. Even though some people believe a blastocyst is not a human being and we can destroy it for research, other people do believe a blastocyst is human life. The people who do believe it is human life do not want them to be destroyed at all. So even if the scientist doesn't believe it to be human and does research on it, the person who does believe it is human is still not happy. Having a system that lets people do what they believe is right only agrees with one side. The side that is against embryonic stem cell research is still mad because embryos are still being destroyed, even if the system tells them that they do not have to do embryonic research if they do not wish to. Before we can decide as a country what is allowed or not allowed, we need to decide what is considered human or not. This is what we should be arguing first and then we can worry about what to do with stem cell research.

In my first journal entry I did not understand the reason for the trial of Galileo. The only thing I knew about it was his conflict with the religion of the time; however, I did not even know what the conflict was. Now, after reading several passages and listening to several discussions and lectures over his trial, I understand why there was a controversy with Galileo. In a way, he created this controversy and pushed his limits.
Galileo’s trial accused him of breaking the rules of a law that stated one could not defend, hold, or teach the Copernican theory in any way, shape, or form. Galileo knew this law, however he was not told he could not teach the theory, only that he could not hold or defend it. The Pope gave him a lot of leeway when it came to the Copernican theory. He told Galileo that he could think about it as long as he made sure it was hypothetical. However, in Galileo’s book, “Dialogues”, he writes about the Copernican theory as more than hypothetical, as if it were what he believed.
The legend of the trial is that Galileo was mistreated and named as a heretic for having viewpoints that differed from the church. Obviously, if this were true, the trial would be a black point in history. After learning about the details of the trial and what actually occurred, I would say that the trial was fair. He did break a law that he was well aware of and received the punishment for this, even though he did not confess to it. Whether the law that he broke was just or not is another question. We also learned from the reading that Galileo never spent a day of his life in jail. They took his old age into account and treated him with respect.
My view of the trial of Galileo has definitely changed from my view at the beginning of this class. I know the details of the trial and can see that it was a fair trial and Galileo was treated justly. Before this class I did not know the exact accusations given against Galileo. I also learned that the trial did not come as a surprise to Galileo. He knew the law and he knew what he was doing when he wrote his book. However, I do not think he knew how much trouble he could get into with his book. Fortunately for Galileo, his friends were sympathetic to him and he was able to get a minimal punishment. Galileo, although he broke the law, was able to live relatively freely and with few restrictions.

In my first journal entry, I did not really know what the Scopes trial was about, however I guessed correctly. While I did not comment on the Scopes trial itself, I did comment on the issues it faced. I did not see a problem with teaching evolution as a theory in science class. As long as the teacher prefaced the lesson with a statement mentioning that the theory of evolution is controversial and not yet proven, then the teachers are able to present the different ideas and let the students decide which they believe.
Now I know what the Scopes trial is about, however I do not think my viewpoint has changed much. Basically, John Scopes was sued for teaching evolution to his biology class. To teach evolution in a science class in Tennessee was against the law. I still agree with my thoughts at the beginning of this class, that all legitimate theories should be taught to students and that the students should be the ones to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. Legitimate theories should be theories that have significant backing and recognition. However it should be made clear that these ideas are theories and not yet proven. Even evolution has its holes and those should be taught as well as the evidence that supports it. Regarding the trial as a whole, I think it was too much of a publicity stunt and a public show. Everything was publicized and it was not run the way a usual trial was run. I do not agree with the way the judge ran his courtroom. He let the questioning of Bryan get out of hand. He was not able to control the emotions traveling through the courtroom and he allowed the feel of a carnival to travel from the outside inwards. However, I do believe that in the end he came to the correct conclusion. The allowance of evolution into the classroom gave the students of America the chance to learn a different point of view about the creation of life. This is important because it allows students the freedom to choose their own beliefs and know the other options available. By not allowing the mention of evolution in the classroom, teachers make their students ignorant to the subject as a whole because they do not know all of the options available. The first step towards making a decision begins with being familiar with all of your options.
The Dover trial is very similar to the Scopes trial. Obviously it includes the same dilemma of what to teach in science class about creation. The main difference is the sides are flipped. Instead of arguing for the teaching of a non-religious theory in the classroom, it is arguing for the teaching of a supernatural theory in the classroom. Evolution is already taught in the classrooms but now some people want to teach Intelligent Design also. I think the whole trial started out on the wrong foot. The parents should not have gotten as offended as they did from the reading of the statement. With freedom of speech comes the necessity of listening to other’s points of view. If everyone says what they believe it does not benefit the society in any way until others listen to what you have to say. Expanding someone’s knowledge by providing them with the viewpoints of others or reading this statement about Intelligent Design in class should not violate anyone’s rights. It is part of growing up and being a good citizen by learning what other people believe and why they believe it. However I also think there is fault with the school board. The statement they chose to read did not explain what Intelligent Design is. If the school board’s intent was to broaden the minds of its students, it needs to include an explanation of Intelligent Design and facts that support it. Another fault was the prohibition of discussion. Students will not be able to learn all the facts if the teacher is not allowed to discuss the issue. Both sides are at fault and I think the students are entitled to know about all the ideas out there, be they accepted or not.
Both the Scopes trial and the Dover trial deal with the same issue: which theories are appropriate for the classroom. In order to have a learning environment I think that all the issues need to be presented. Both evolution and Intelligent Design should be presented in the classroom with the controversy that exists between them. When students are presented with the whole story they can learn all the facts and draw their own conclusions. On another note I find it interesting how the levels of prominence differ between the two trials. The Scopes trial was a huge ordeal with lots of fanfare. However the Dover trial has not gotten as much press, yet people are still calling it “the trial of the century”. Maybe it’s because I’m in college and I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper as much as I did at home, but I have not heard anything about the Dover trial outside of this class. From the descriptions of the Scopes trial, had it happened today, I’m sure I would have heard of it and everyone would be talking about it. This is not the case for the Dover trial today. I do like studying both of the trials together because it is interesting to see their similarities and differences. These trials show us how hard it is for us to look outside of our own viewpoints and see things from another perspective. Even during the years after the Scopes trial we still have the Dover trial and are still having trouble accepting different points of view.

Behe

• Bacterial flagellum is like a machine.


• Behe separates religion and science but he makes sure that they are able to mix in logic since he is searching for truth.


• Intelligent design is not essential for Christianity. Yet it works well with the Christian worldview.


• Immune system is so complex that is could not have come about by natural selection. Immune system is irreducible complex, like the blood clotting system.


• The “simple cell” is not simple at all. Chances that natural selection determined every single change are negligible.


• Archeology uses the inferences to design in finding tools or bowls or anything that looks designed. I.D. extends this identification process to biology.


• Just because the designer is not known does not mean there is no designer.


• Evolution of cells is not published at all.


• Publication of I.D. is also absent which is a drawback.


• Behe’s book was very intensely peer-reviewed. The peers did not agree, but the book was still published.


• There should be more than option for students to believe when it comes to theory.

Fuller

• Fuller is not an expert in science; instead, he is a philosopher of science (?). I.D. has not had enough investigation to throw it out of the school system.


• Fuller believes that evolution is more convincing than I.D.


• Scientific theories should be taken into scientist’s community prior to being taught in high schools.


• There has not been probing of I.D. to throw it out.


• However, that happens in scientific community, not schools.


• There is and could be a natural process to bring about change.

[The following is an email exchange between Jan and me. I have Jan's permission to post this. We both welcome comments.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

I’m not sure Behe would be all too thrilled to have this guy supporting him.

Jan

Dear Jan,

I'm sure he would be pretty sad that MSNBC puts this up as one of their top 5 stories. I wonder why they thought this is more newsworthy than the following NPR report on Rick Sternberg at the Smithsonian (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508)

Imagine how much MSNBC would have covered this NPR story if Sternberg had helped publish an article on the biological basis for homosexuality, or a study of the discrimination of women in science. And if the Smithsonian had worked with an evangelical Christian non-profit to devise ways to discredit and hamper Sternberg, by taking away his master key, his access to research materials, etc., imagine the outrage of all the major media outlets. But as it is, not one news outlet has picked up the story since NPR published it 9 hours ago. In that same time, 229 stories have been reprinted about Robertson.

To me it's not newsworthy at all that some preacher will say something stupid about God's wrath. What is shocking is how our tax-funded research institutes are allowed to blatantly discriminate against someone who's only crime was to allow a peer-reviewed article that advocates an alternative scientific viewpoint to be put on the table.

All the best,

Prof. Macosko

P.S. Thanks for the MSNBC link, though. I had fun voting along with the 80% majority that felt Robertson's comments were "pure idiocy". :)

Prof. Macosko,

I think the thing that makes this story newsworthy is this line:

“The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around 1 million.”

Unfortunately, there are close to 1 million people who hang on this guy’s every word, especially when he tells them “go out and vote for…” or “do as I say.” I do find it interesting, however, that this person doesn’t seem too far removed from pure creationism, yet now many will probably see him as the leader of the ID movement. As I’m sure you know, the support of a group like this is akin to the support of any other radical group; moderates would rather not be on their side. If I were a lawyer planning to take on an ID vs. Evolution case, I would be ecstatic to know the possibilities this story brings. To be able to say something like, “But Dr. Behe, didn’t one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that if you do not support ID, God will smite you?” Clearly, if the whole of the United States spent the time to read Behe, Dembski, Haught, Miller, etc, we’d probably have a better representation at the polls of what this country’s beliefs on the topic are. In the meantime, general ignorance reigns supreme.

From the NPR article, I thought this line was great:

“The secular perspective of most scientists, however, is sharply at odds with the religious perspective of most Americans. And that's adding passion to the debate…”

It’s the classic problem, isn’t it? Those who spend the time and money to educate themselves are snubbed by those who don’t. Those who don’t are inevitably going to be the majority. So the mainstream fight isn’t between the labeling of the bacterial flagellum as a designed motor, and the result of a long series of natural selections, but it’s between those who don’t think deeply enough to look much beyond their religion, and those who are proponents of evolution. Unfortunately, Behe (who I thought made some interesting arguments) gets drowned out because his argument isn’t TV-friendly.

Jan

p.s. I also voted “It’s pure idiocy,” but I contemplated “It's justifiably righteous anger” just for the gag. Righteous anger coming from a Christian. How people can distort the meaning and purpose of a religion in front of 1 million people should go down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest close-magic trick ever played.

A few comments about class yesterday:
Towards the end of class yesterday we heard a quote talking about how Newton's scientific theories and religious beliefs could not be separated and if you believed one of his scientific theories you believed in his religious beliefs as well. Our whole class except for one person disagreed with this statement, including myself. I can see the speaker's point of view and how he might think that Newton's religious beliefs influenced his scientific theories. However, I do not see how this is possible. All of Newton laws are backed by physical evidence and do not use religion or a supernatural being as part of the explanation. It is true that he believed God created these laws because they were so perfect and beautiful, but Newton did not use God as part of how things worked. I think many people who do not share Newton's opinions about religion, especially trinitarianism, still use his laws when calculating physics problems. If you do believe in the Trinity you can still use Newton's laws and not have conflicting interests. In fact, I would guess that many physicists who use Newton's laws, but have not studied Newton himself, would never know he had radical religious viewpoints. I do not see how the speaker could say Newton's religion affected his science.

Miller

• The gaps in the theory of evolution do not disprove it. We don’t now everything concerning history but we guess them to be true since we know the “basics.”


• While neither theory (evolution or I.D.) is proven, evolution has stood the test of time. Thus it is more credible.


• While one does not have to be a “fundamental Christian” to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design, I.D. is still inherently religious and therefore it is a violation of Church and State to implementation it in schools.


• If irreducible complexity was proven true, evolution could not stand. However, discoveries, such as TTSS, have poked holes through this theory. Because of this theory, I.D. and evolution cannot coexist.


• I.D. is not a science. Irreducible complexity is false.


• I.D. is theology. Evolution is a science and leaves room for religion. I (Miller) am not a materialist yet I am an evolutionist.

Pennock

• To believe in the theory of I.D. does not make one a Christian, and to believe in the theory of evolution does not make one an atheist. Miller’s theistic evolution is OK, and does not make evolution religious.


• Big Bang theory is not religious. Scientists came up with this theory. Atheism is not a scientific theory. If a scientist mixes in his or her personal beliefs, this is no longer science.


• Evolution is thought through by scientific method and thus is a scientific theory. One can believe in one theory and have his own personal beliefs.


• A computer program that generates a swift self-replicating “organism” lets us see evolution on its course. The program is design to see evolution go, not to find the origin of life, since the first organism must be programmed by a person.


• Mythological naturalism is the basis of science. Science is about ideas based on logic and nature. Once we try to fit God or some supernatural power into the scope of practice, we will get caught up into the mysterious black hole and cannot ever get out.


• Some believe that naturalism in science is out of place.