Unsolicited Opinions

I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable guy. I try not to make snap judgments or let my anger get the better of me. I try to think things through and draw conclusions based on the facts as I see them. I'm always willing to admit I could be wrong about the facts, that I might have made a logical error, or that I let my prejudices blind me to the truth. I'm also willing to say "I don't know" when I don't have all the facts and haven't done enough research on a subject to come to a conclusion. But, once in a while, something really gets under my skin, and I just have to respond. Few things can set me off, but Ann Coulter just makes me see red.

Never have in my life have I encountered such a combination of disregard for facts and truth coupled with towering arrogance and self-righteousness, with a dollup of extreme hate-mongering thrown in for good measure. But this isn't what really rankles me. There are lots of odious people spewing lots of lies, distortions, and hateful rhetoric all over the place. And they have the right to do so. Freedom of speech is a concept I wholeheartedly endorse. Even when the speaker is Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or even the execrable Fred Phelps (the link goes to his Wikipedia entry; I can't bring myself to actually link to his hate-filled website).

The problem with Ann Coulter, and what personally frustrates me, is that she is treated with kid gloves by the "liberal media" and regarded as a mainstream pundit, when her views and rhetoric put her to the far right of Pat Robertson. Coulter's rhetoric should be marginalized, ignored, and dismissed by the media and the public in the same fashion that hate groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are ignored. Her writing is just as offensive and filled with untruths, but no one calls her on it. And any righteous indignation directed at her just adds fuel to her fire. Which is why I'm conflicted about writing this post. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that very few people read my blog anyway, so I can safely vent in relative obscurity.

Well, looking back at what I've written so far, I guess it's not really Ann Coulter than makes me so mad. It's the state of rational public discourse in America. We've become so polarized that people will support a horrible demagogue regardless of whatever outrageous lies they tell, as long as that demagogue can convince them that he or she is on "their" side. The fact that Ann Coulter's latest book is a bestseller is a symptom of the disease afflicting American politics.

Journalist David Neiwert has insightfully identified Coulter as one of several right-wing "transmitters;" someone who can take the outrageous views of the extreme far right, package them up and put a nice pretty bow on them, and present them to the mainstream as normal, reasonable "conservative" views. This has the effect of radicalizing the right more and more, since "mainstream" conservatism becomes increasingly extreme. This also creates a polarizing effect which contributes to radicalizing the left as well, as Coulter surely generates as much, if not more, contempt as she does admiration.

The net effect is that we're left with an untenable catch-22 situation. Sure, I can ignore Coulter and dismiss her rhetoric, but a significant portion of the population is swallowing her crap like it's filet mignon, and the media is giving her national TV coverage. If no one speaks out against her propaganda, she stands completely unchallenged to reach as many people as she can with her "arguments." On the other hand, if we refute her work and call it the hate-mongering BS that it is, we're feeding into her notoriety and will be marginalized simply as "Coulter-haters." Is there any way out of this?

Well, maybe, just maybe, if we can refute her work with the facts alone, calmly, rationally, even dispassionately, that may convince enough people that she's not worth listening to. Stick to all the errors, distortions, and half-truths she spins, and refrain from name calling or speculation about her gender traits and/or sexuality, and these rebuttals might just be able to get through to some people. I know, I'm dreaming right?

Currently, all the press is reporting on her vicious statements about the 9/11 widows. While this is another lovely bit of hateful rhetoric from Ms. Coulter, her critics' indignation is still just feeding her fire. I can't believe some New Jersey lawmakers didn't realize how much they played right into her hands with that talk of banning her book in New Jersey. Now she can claim she's a "victim" of liberal censorship!

A better avenue of attack may be what the folks at the Panda's Thumb are doing; they're shredding the third of her book she's devoted to "debunking" evolution. I have little direct familiarity with Coulter's work, but my observation of her past attacks is that she's limited herself to political targets. Thus, she may distort the truth and misrepresent people's views and political agendas, but she doesn't directly challenge objective reality and call it a "liberal myth." Well, it seems now that's exactly what she's doing with her screed on evolution. And the evolution guys aren't calling her names or getting pissed off; they're calmly, rationally, and dispassionately dissecting her statements one by one and exposing the crapload of errors and distortions to the light of day. In the wake of the Dover decision outlawing the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes, this has to put at least a little bit of a dent into her credibility with her fans, right? I know, I know, I'm still dreaming. But go read the rebuttals to her writing on evolution. They're very informative with links to several resources on the science of evolution.

Labels: Ann Coulter, craziness, evolution, intelligent design

And the drama continues. The war of words between dlamming and Ed Brayton continues to get more heated. Since my last post covering their opposing arguments, they've both posted new entries on the subject (see dlamming's here, and see Ed's here).

Previously I said I thought it was unlikely that Ed Brayton found dlamming's original post via one of my blog entries. Then Ed left a comment to my post confirming that he had, in fact, gotten to dlamming's post from my blog. He used a Firefox extension that links to Google's blog search engine. So, since I bear partial responsibility for igniting this turmoil, I figure I should try to capture and summarize the arguments as I see them for posterity.

I'm attempting the "paraphrasing challenge" based on David Brin's idea of "Disputation Arenas" to make sure I've accurately captured both sides of the argument. If either dlamming or Ed wishes to offer corrections here, I'll gladly incorporate them. I've seen the same arguments going back and forth several times, so this is an attempt to nail things down.

First, let's take Ed's original post about the Discovery Institute's (DI) list of scientists "dissenting from Darwin." As I understand it, Ed made two main points:

• The DI's statement and list is a sham, because it is being presented as proof that there is a controversy/debate in the scientific community over the validity evolution, when the language of the statement itself is so wishy-washy that it doesn't even reject evolution outright. Let's look at the original DI statement:
  

  "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

  As Ed, states, any scientist who supports evolution could agree with this statement just as much as those who reject evolution. The statement is vague and noncommittal, and doesn't even address whether or not evolution occured or whether or not all life is related by common descent. It also ignores the fact that other evolutionary mechanisms besides natural selection have been discovered since Darwin's day.
  
• Even if the statement was better worded to indicate a true rejection of current evolutionary theory, only presenting a list of scientists as proof that there's a controvery over evolution without any actual evidence or substantive arguments is an attempt at a falacious argument from authority. This fallaciousness is further compounded by the fact that the list's members don't even primarily consist of scientitsts who could be considered legitimate authorities on evolutionary theory. Rather, fewer than 25% of the signers on the list of 514 scientists are from fields in biology.
  

Now, let's look at dlamming's original post decrying elitism. His major point is that it is elitist to claim that for any particular field, only experts can discuss the issues of that field, and only the opinions of experts should be considered valid on any subject. He further claims that this position is the "logical extreme" of the second point in Ed's post. In addition to Ed's post, he also presents additional examples from Mike the Mad Biologist and Tim Lambert as demonstration of other bloggers' elitism in this regard.

This is where I came into the discussion. I made several comments on dlamming's original post, because I didn't (and still don't) see the logical connection between the elitism dlamming rightly disdains, and the original points in Ed's post (or the other examples, for that matter). To clarify, here is a list of possible positions one could take on the topic:

1. It is elitist and wrong to reject out-of-hand the opinions of non-experts just because they aren't experts in a field. It's possible non-experts can be knowledgeable in a field.
   
2. The opinions of experts and non-experts should be treated equally on a subject because the experts may be biased, and the non-experts may have studied the subject in detail.
   
3. Without additional information, it is appropriate to give the opinions of experts more consideration than the opinions of non-experts, because experts are more likely to be knowledgeable in the field.
   
4. Ultimately, opinions must be judged on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented, regardless of the source (expert or non-expert).
   

dlamming argues against (1), and I agree with him. Ed argues against (2), and I agree with him as well. Is that a contradiciton? No, because I agree with (3) and (4), which are reasonable positions between the extremes of (1) and (2). I'd wager both dlamming and Ed would agree to (3) and (4) as well. At least, when I brought up (3) in my arugments on dlamming's blog, he never argued against it. I don't think there's any room for debate on (4).

So why all the fuss? It seems dlamming continues to claim that Ed's statements argue for (1), when they actually argue against (2) and in favor of (3). This is where I see a fundamental disconnect.

The arguments spiraled around this disconnect on both Ed's and dlamming's blogs, with other commenters chiming in. Later in the discussion, Ed made the statement that he doesn't "believe that educated people in general have a good idea what evolution is about." dlamming responded with "Well, I believe that a basic knowledge of evolution is widespread among scientists (and lay people) of many fields, and certainly those of biology, chemistry, and medicine. And, as I did in my first post, I hold your unwillingness to believe this as evidence that you and others believe that 'only experts should talk about scientific issues.'"

This is another disconnect. Ed's statement is descriptive, claiming that educated people in general don't understand evolution. The position dlamming argues against and claims Ed is holding is prescriptive; that only experts should hold forth on scientific issues. One does not have to support the latter position to agree with the former.

Ed's statement about educated people is a question of fact that can be verified or falsified with sufficient observation. He's formed that opinion based on direct extended interaction over many years with educated people from various fields on the subject of evolution. Hey may be right or wrong about this statement, but he never used this assertion to imply that only expert opinions should be considered for any topic, or that some people can't talk about a particular topic because they're not experts.

The second statement is a position that argues in favor of only considering arguments from authority and rejecting all other arguments regardless of their merit. This is clearly the "elitist" position that dlamming derides, but it has no direct connection to Ed's assertion, and Ed expressly denied that he supported it.

After going through the various posts repeatedly, it seems to me that the arguments are driven by dlamming's continued refusal to recognize and acknowledge the disconnects in his arguments, and Ed and other commenters getting increasingly frustrated and hostile toward this refusal.

Unfortunately, Ed and other commenters have added some vitriol to their replies to dlamming, stemming from their growing frustration. I commend dlamming for remaining relatively polite in his responses. Unfortunately, that's the only merit I see in his arguments. And his continued refusal to acknowledge the disconnect between the positions he argues against and the positions his opponents actually hold is not helping.

But that's just my non-expert opinion.

Labels: blog flame wars, evolution, intelligent design

Well, since my post yesterday, there's been a bit of back and forth between dlamming and Ed Brayton on the DI Statement. Ed responded to dlamming's original comments, then dlamming responded to that on his blog, and Ed followed up with a second response.

Since dlamming, others, and I already had a long discussion in the comments to his blog post last week, the fact that Ed's reply appeared today almost suggests he found dlamming's post via my blog (as dlamming suggests in a comment to my previos post). However, I find this unlikely, as my Site Meter logs indicate the traffic to my blog puts me about 5 levels below "pathetic nobody." Anyway, I'm still convinced dlamming misinterpreted Ed's original argument about the DI statement.

If I get time, in a future post I'll try to make a detailed summary of the arguments on both sides thus far.

Labels: blog flame wars, blogging, evolution, intelligent design

Cool Link

Sorry for the extended absence. Too much celebrating after the big Super Bowl win for Pittsburgh! I've also been busy stirring the currents of the blogosphere commenting on other blogs. In particular, I had an interesting discussion with dlamming on his blog, Saccharomyces, about elitism and hypocrisy. Also, check out the original post from Ed Brayton's blog that we were disagreeing about. I, of course, think my arguments were correct, but read the whole discussion and judge for yourself.

I found my way to his blog from a comment dlamming left to a post on PZ Myers' Pharyngula. Also, dlamming made a similar comment on a post at Orac's Respectful Insolence blog, and Orac actually quoted me in his response to dlamming's arguments. Cool! It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who finds my arguments convincing ;)

I also found something interesting to comment on at Cognitive Daily, about what the best type of evidence is for convincing people of a proposition.

Additionally, a while ago I participated in a discussion on sci-fi author David Brin's blog about Intelligent Design (Part 1, Part 2). One particular comment I left on Part 2 actually impressed Dr. Brin.

Wow, that's a lot of links for such a short blog entry. Have fun clicking around the blogosphere, and I hope there's something interesting here when you get back!

Labels: blogging, David Brin, evolution, intelligent design

I've been following the whole evolution versus intelligent design political battle for the last few months, and I see that scientists face a huge challenge in getting a fair representation of evolution in the media. The major ID organization, The Discovery Institute, has a massive PR apparatus that can spin falsehoods and anti-evolution propaganda faster than a runaway ferris wheel (can anyone give me a better metaphor?). The supporters of science have no such PR machine, and many of the arguments for evolution involve explaining a significant amount of detail on what evidence for evolution exists and how scientific conclusions were made. This amount of information doesn't really fit that well into a short newspaper article or a few pithy soundbites.

Most people don't seem to be inclined to listen to a boring science lecture with lots of minute uninteresting details (well, *I* don't think they're uninteresting, but then, I'm a geek). So below I present an argument for evolution that perhaps might do better at capturing the general public's attention while still being interesting. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated (as if anyone is actually reading this!).

---

Do you rely on the daily weather forecast? I do. Every morning before work, I watch the news to hear what the day's weather will be like. I even look at the 5-day forecast when there's a special outdoors event coming up that I want to attend. As we are all aware, weather forecasting isn't perfect. Sometimes meteorologists get it wrong. It rains when they said it would snow. We get a sunny day instead of the expected rain. However, on most days, the weather forecast is reasonably reliable. And meteorologists continuously collect data so that they can modify their predictions as new information becomes available.

Most people would consider meteorology to be good science, despite scientists' inability to predict the weather with 100% accuracy. I'm no expert on the science behind weather modeling, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't grounded in physics and chemistry. Despite the significant increase in our knowledge of both physics and chemistry in the last few centuries, we still are unable to make semi-reliable weather predictions beyond more than 2 weeks into the future. We can't predict where tornados will touch in down in the midwest early enough to warn people to evacuate. Most people would label the weather as "random" in the sense that people, with our limited understanding and simplified models, cannot predict weather changes with complete certainty.

Now suppose there was a hypothetical group of people who looked at meteorology and decided it was flat-out wrong. "The weather displays amazing complexity," they say. "The weather cannot just be the product of natural forces acting randomly! The very existence of the weather and its complexity implies that there must be an intelligence that designed the weather!" What would you say to that? Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, you might argue that scientists have been able to make predictions about the weather based only on natural forces, and have found no evidence for a designer. "Those predictions don't prove anything," your opponents would say. "Why can't the meteorologist models predict weather more than a few days in advance? And even then, sometimes those predictions are wrong. Long-term weather trends can't be predicted, and natural disasters are almost never recognized by meteorologists! How do we explain this complexity without the existence of a designer?"

At this point you might ask your opponents to explain why this intelligent designer makes natural disasters that kill people, such as lightning strikes that can cause fires and burn down buildings. "We can't know the purposes or mechanisms of the designer," the intelligent weather design (IWD) proponents say. "Perhaps the designer was displeased with the people in those particular buildings, and decided to punish them. But look at the complexity of the weather! Look at snowflakes! Such complex patterns *CANNOT* have arisen by random chance! Meteorologists are just blind to the facts that all evidence points to an intelligent weather designer. Their theories only work in limited cases, and can't explain all weather! They have an inherent bias to philisophical materialism, and that means they've excluded the possibility of a designer a priori! They're blind to the real evidence!"

"Uh, Okay. Well, who is this intelligent designer, according to your theory?" you might ask. The IWD proponents' answer: "Well, we're doing real science, so we can only use empirical evidence to make a conclusion. The evidence clearly points to the existence of an intelligent weather designer, but we cannot determine the designer's identity. However, given the majesty and complexity of the weather, it seems completely logical to assume that designer is God." You ask, "But you said meteorologists excluded the possibility of an IWD. Does that mean they think meteorology proves God doesn't exist?" And they reply, "Exactly! Meteorologists are part of a consipiracy to get God out of public life. Their meteorology is a flawed theory that denies the glory of God! With IWD theory, you can see that science proves God's existence!"

These guys don't seem to be making sense. You ask another question: "Well, wait a minute. I've watched the weather report countless times on the news, and it's reasonably accurate. Sure, I've never heard a weather announcer claim God controls the weather (they keep talking about things like "warm fronts" and "cold fronts") but I've never heard a weather announcer claim meteorology proves God doesn't exist. Why have you reached that conclusion?"

The IWD proponents' response: "Those meteorologists never talk about how the weather is intelligently designed, do they? They claim the weather is just "random and unpredictable." They claim they know everything there is to know about the weather, but their models can only make limited predictions, and even those are often wrong! How can anyone who believes that the weather is random also believe in an all-powerful God who controls the weather and the entire universe! They are athiests trying to use meteorology to destroy your faith in God!" At this point, you smile, nod, and back away slowly, avoiding eye contact.

Okay, I know, this story sounds really over the top. Weather science has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, right? No one would really be silly enough to dispute that meteorology is "flawed" or that scientists who study the weather are motivated to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that the weather is "random and undirected." I'm just making a flawed analogy to defend my misguided support of evolution as science, right?

Well, no. It turns out, some people in the 18th century refused to put up lightning rods to protect their houses from lightning strikes. They saw lightning as the manifestation of God's will, and lightning that destroyed peoples' houses was divine punishment. Then Ben Franklin came along with his electriciy experiments. He invented the lightning rod, and it was surprisingly effective at preventing fires due to lightning strikes. People were skeptical at first, but couldn't deny the practicality of Franklin's invention. Eventually, some churches were the only major structures that did not have lightning rods. Some religious leaders saw the lightning rod as blasphemy, because it thwarted God's will, and refused to install them in their churches. In the end, ironically, the only buildings to continue to suffer "God's wrath," were those same churches. Of course, people eventually came to their senses and realized that lightning wasn't divine judgement, but a result of natural physical processes. They also didn't conclude that this therefore proved God doesn't exist.

We can look back, and see how foolish those people were being. Ben Franklin used science to invent something that would help prevent loss of life and property damage. Why would anyone cling to superstition in the face of good science? Why would anyone claim that one must either accept the glory of God, or the conclusions of science, but not both, with no exceptions? Why, indeed.

But what is the difference between evolutionary theory and meteorology? Evolution describes the process by which species change over time. Genetic mutation, a major process behind evolution is "random" in the sense that we cannot predict what mutations will occur. But natural selection is a process that acts on these mutations in predictable ways. Similarly, the weather is based on the well-defined processes of physics and chemistry, but is unpredictable due to "random" variations. All the data that's been collected, from anatomical similarities across animal groups, to the fossils of extinct animals and plants, to all the genetic information in DNA, supports evolution. Evolutionary theory explains quite well the diversity of life on Earth. Like any other scietific theory, it is not complete. Scientists don't claim to know everything about evolution. Finally, evolution is a conclusion based on a vast amount of empirical evidence, not a religious commitment to atheism. Evolutionary theory does not imply atheism any more than meteorology does.

---

The only difference between my weather story and evolution is that evolution lacks a "killer app" like a lightning rod that would obviously and conclusively demonstrate its use to most people. Things like bacteria resistance to antibiotics has been shrugged off by creationists and ID proponents as "microevolution," and evolutionary predictions like the eusocial behavior of naked mole rats are too dry and abstract for most people to relate to.

Perhaps, with the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genomes complete, scientists will discover some insight about humans by examing the chimpanzee genomes that couldn't be explained without evolution. This might lead to some treatment for genetic diseases or cancer that would be based on the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA due to their close relation via common descent. Of course, this is just speculation. I think the weather analogy makes the point that evolution is science and is not out to destroy reigion. The story can be easily grasped by someone who is not a science geek, despite there not being a good evoultion "killer app" example. What do you think?

P.S. I didn't invent the weather analogy. A commenter on The Panda's Thumb linked to the lightning story in a discussion. I've merely tried to dress it up a bit and make it entertaining. Although, I admit, I might have failed miserably.

Labels: evolution, intelligent design

If you've been following the evolution versus intelligent design (ID) debate in the media, you've probably heard about the court case in Dover, PA. The school board there instituted a policy to inject ID language as a criticism of evolution into the 9th grade biology curriculum last year. Some parents sued the school board, asserting that ID is not a scientific alternative, but rather an attempt to sneak creationism back into science under a different name. The trial lasted 6 weeks through the end of September, all of October, and early November. Got a lot of free time? Check out the complete trial transcripts on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) website here and the evolution information Talk.Origins Newsgroup Archive website here.

Today Judge Jones released his decision. If you want to read the entire 139-page document (in PDF), click here. To summarize; ID is a religious proposition, not science, certainly not a scientific alternative to evolution, and cannot be taught in US public schools due to that pesky Establishment clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. All around, a victory for the integrity of science and science education.

Since you probably won't go read the whole 139-page document, here is a direct quote of the conclusions that sums up why ID is a load of horse puckey:

From pages 136-138:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

I don't have much to add to the general celebrations on all the evolution blogs on the web, but here's a collection of links:

• The Panda's Thumb is the go-to site for the evolution "controversy." The've got several posts on the Dover decision. In particular this one has a bunch of information resources that was continually updated throughout the whole trial.
  
• Pharyngula is a blog run by PZ Myers, a practicing biologist who has little patience for creationist dishonesty. Check out his comparison of what the judge thought of the testimony of Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of ID as a scientific theory, and how Dr. Behe himself viewed his own testimony.
  
• Ed Brayton's Dispatches From the Culture Wars blog has commentary on the decision with more excerpts from the document here and here. The killer just quotes don't stop! This judge was really on the ball.
  
• Of course, the Discovery Institute, the main organization pushing ID as science, released a press release about the decision. Of course, they make themselves look extremely silly by calling Judge Jones an "activist judge." The guy's a Bush appointee and is good friends with former PA governor and ex-Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge. Aren't activist judges supposed to be liberal? Oh, and scroll back up to the last paragraph in my direct quote from the Judge's decision. Judge Jones saw their predictable response coming.
  

One word of caution: although this is certainly a great victory for science, the forces behind ID are not going to go quitely into the night. Some folks will try to use this decision as a political wedge issue. ID is primarily about politics, spin, and deceiving the public, and they've been somewhat successful at it. Some people will likely try to take advantage of politcal backlash from the ire of religious conservatives. The Religious Right has always cast the evolution debate as "atheistic, immoral" science versus religion, knowing that many voters will vote for candidates who pledge to "protect" their religion from those evil "Darwinists." This is a false dichotomy and a complete distortion of reality.

The whole "debate" is really about science versus anti-science. Scienctific theories are accepted based on evidence gathered via repeated observation and experimentation. Thus, science can only be concerned with what can be repeatably and reliably tested against observations of reality. Religion, by definition, deals with things outside of observable reality, and therefore science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of the divine. It's a matter of faith. I and many other people are perfectly happy to continue to believe in God and accept the facts discovered by science. Evolutionary theory is no more atheistic or immoral than weather forcasting, particle physics, chemistry, or forensic science. In contrast, ID is every bit as scientific as astrology, fortune telling, and the Psychic Friends Network.

If you feel there is an inherent conflict between your religous beliefs and evolution, check out what this scientist and Christian has to say about it. You might be surprised.

Labels: evolution, intelligent design