Has NASA Discovered a 'Missing Day'? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1117.asp

NASA and the Missing Day http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1835.asp

Have NASA computers really proven Joshua's 'long day'? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/507.asp

My book on God and religion, HOW WE BELIEVE: The Search for God in an Age of Science, just came out last week in paperback from W. H. Freeman. You can pick up a copy at any bookstore for $14.95, at the Skeptics Society web page at www.skeptic.com, or at amazon.com for only $11.96. I have added a lengthy new Introduction entitled "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind":

Reconsiderations and Recapitulations on the God Question," that reflects the feedback I received on the cloth edition of the book (still available in the first edition, by the way). Below I have appended the Table of Contents and a few paragraphs from the new Introduction on what I consider to be the biggest weakness in the Intelligent Design creationists' argument. And I especially like the quote from Darwin I found for the epigraph:

HOW WE BELIEVE:
The Search for God in an Age of Science
Michael Shermer

Introduction to the Paperback Edition
The Gradual Illumination of the Mind:
Reconsiderations and Recapitulations on the God Question

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."
--Charles Darwin

Reasons to Believe

Self-organization, emergence, and complexity theory forms the basis of just one possible natural explanation for how the universe and life came to be the way it is. But even if this explanation turns out to be wanting, or flat out wrong, what alternative do Intelligent Design theorists offer in its stead? If ID theory is really a science, as they claim it is, then what is the mechanism of how the Intelligent Designer operated? ID theorists speculate that four billion years ago the Intelligent Designer created the first cell with the necessary genetic information to produce all the irreducibly complex systems we see today. But then, they tell us, the laws of evolutionary change took over and natural selection drove the system, except when totally new and more complex species needed creating. Then the Intelligent Designer stepped in again. Or did He (She? It?)? They are not clear. Did the Intelligent Designer-let's call it ID--create each genus and then evolution created the species? Or did ID create each species and evolution created the subspecies? ID theorists seem to accept natural selection as a viable explanation for microevolution--the beak of the finch, the neck of the giraffe, the varieties of subspecies found in most species on earth. If ID created these species why not the subspecies? And how did ID create the species? We are not told. Why? Because ID theorists have no idea and they know that if they want to be taken seriously as scientists they cannot just say "God did it."

I presented all these challenges to the leading Intelligent Design theorists at a June 22-24 conference at Concordia University (Wisconsin) on "Intelligent Design and its Critics." Although there were some critics there, both on stage and in the audience, it was mostly populated by ID supporters.

The conference was partially sponsored by the Templeton Foundation (to the tune of $20,000), and was clearly structured to make it appear that there is a real scientific debate ongoing about Intelligent Design. But as I pointed out in my opening remarks, the conference was being held at a Lutheran college and just before I was introduced they announced what time chapel was the next morning and how we can obtain transportation to it. "Who are we kidding here, folks?" I inquired. "You guys claim that you are scientists, that Intelligent Design is science, and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Yet virtually every one of the ID supporters turns out to be a born again Christian. Can this really be a coincidence?" For these remarks I was later accused of committing the "genetic fallacy," where one attacks the person rather than their arguments. I have certainly never backed down from a good point by point argument (see my chapter in "Why People Believe Weird Things" on "Confronting Creationists: 25 Creationist Arguments and 25 Evolutionist Answers" and Chapter 5 in this book on "O Ye of Little Faith: Proofs of God and What They Tell Us About Faith"). I have participated in numerous debates with creationists and theologians. And, in fact, my participation at this conference was a debate with Stephen Meyer in which I did address many of their points.

For my money, however, the action is not in ID arguments, all of which have been thoroughly refuted by myself and others (especially by Kenneth Miller in his superb Finding Darwin's God), but in ID psychology. What is really going on here is old time religion dressed up in new fangled jargon. It wasn't good enough for scientists in Scopes' era and it isn't good enough for scientists today. The language changes but the arguments stay the same. The building is repainted and a new facade plastered on every decade, but the interior retains the same old dusty furniture. What ignites my ire about these people more than anything else is their disingenuousness about their religious motivations. In _Why People Believe Weird Things_ I compared these evolution deniers to Holocaust deniers, pointing out how they use the same style of argumentation and commit the same fallacies of logic in their parallel attempts to distort the historical record for political, ideological, or religious purposes. But at least the Holocaust deniers are honest about their motivations. They don't like Jews and they are not afraid to say so. In fact, they openly and proudly proclaim that theirs is a vital mission against what they believe is an unwarranted level of power on the part of Jews in our culture. Holocaust deniers may be odious, but at least they are not hiding their agenda. Evolution deniers, by contrast, are a sneaky lot, duplicitous to the core, and they are dangerously successful at slipping in their agenda to unsuspecting school children in America's public school system. Make no mistake about it. Creationists do not want equal time. They want all the time. Theirs is a war on evolution in particular and science in general, and they are as fanatical in their zeal as any religious movement of the past millennia.

Let me be blunt (as if I could be even more). It is not coincidental that ID supporters are almost all Christians. It is inevitable. _ID arguments are reasons to believe if you already believe._ If you do not, the ID arguments are untenable. But I would go further. If you believe in God, you believe for personal and emotional reasons (as I show in Chapter 4), not out of logical deductions. But, as my data show, highly educated believers, especially men who were raised religious, have a strong tendency to defend their beliefs with rational arguments. And looking out over an auditorium of about 250 ID supporters at this debate it was overwhelmingly educated males.

The duplicity of the IDers is most apparent, and appalling, in their claim that they are only doing science and, therefore, they cannot comment on the nature of the Intelligent Designer. Why not? Aren't they in the least bit curious who or what this ID is? If ID operates on the universe and our world, don't they want to know how ID works? They claim, for example, that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex." A number of different parts of a system could not possibly have come together by chance or through any other Darwinian or natural system or forces, therefore it must have happened supernaturally. Granting, for the sake of argument, that they are right (although they are not), if ID really did put together a number of biochemical components into a single cell in order to enable it to propel itself with a flagellum (as goes their single most popular example, replete with a slick power point video demonstration), don't they want to know how ID did it? Any scientist worth his or her sodium chloride would want to know. I know I would. I'd like to know if ID used telekinesis, or some other mystical force, to push together the parts. But ID supporters claim they don't care how ID did it. The only thing that matters is that He (or She or It) did. What a remarkably unscientific attitude. What an astounding lack of curiosity about the world.

ID theorists also attack scientists' underlying bias of methodological naturalism. It's not fair, they say, that we do not allow supernaturalism into the equation. They (the IDers) are being pushed out of the scientific arena on the basis of nothing other than a fundamental rule of the game. Let's change the rules of the game to allow them to play, they cry. Okay, let's change the rules. Let's allow methodological supernaturalism into science. What would that look like? How would that work? What would we do with supernaturalism? According to ID theorists, they do not and will not comment on the nature of ID. They only wish to say "ID did it." It reminds me of that Sidney Harris cartoon with the scientists at the chalkboard filled with equations, with an arrow pointing to a blank spot in the series denoting "Here a miracle happens." Although they eschew any such "god of the gaps" style arguments, that is, in fact, precisely what they are doing. They have simply changed the name from GOD to ID.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that ID theorists have suddenly become curious about how ID operates. And let's say that we have determined that certain biological systems are irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. As ID scientists who are now given entre into the scientific stadium with the new set of rules that allows supernaturalism, they call a time out during the game to announce "Here ID caused a miracle." What do we do now? Do we halt all future experiments? Do we continue our research and say "Praise ID" every couple of hours? For the life of me I cannot imagine what we are suppose to do with supernaturalism in the rules of the game of science. Apparently ID supporters cannot either because I ask them every chance I get and I never receive an answer. The reason is that they haven't got a clue. They are deeply religious folks desperately seeking proven faith, an oxymoron if there ever was one. The whole system collapses in a risible game of semantics.

This from Jack Krebs, from Lawrence Kansas, Citizens for Science, on what's happening in Kansas

I am writing to provide some background on the science curriculum situation in Pratt. I am a high school educator and Board member of Kansas Citizens for Science, and I have followed the science curriculum controversies in Kansas closely.

In a replay of the state science standards scandal, members of the Pratt school Board have rejected the recommendations of their own science teachers and worked behind the scenes to produce local science standards that challenge evolution and open the door to teaching creationism.

This is far more than a local issue. National and state organizations in the "intelligent design" (ID) movement are looking to Pratt as a possible test case for their goal of challenging the current legal restrictions on teaching creationism in public schools.

The people of Pratt should be aware that they are seen by these organizations as a means to an end. "Intelligent design" has made no progress at establishing itself as science. Therefore, its supporters have a strategy of using school systems as a vehicle for doing an "end-run" around the normal ways in which new scientific theories get established.

The Board members supporting these science standards are circumventing both established ways of developing curriculum and of establishing new scientific theories. Instead they are using their positions of authority to further a narrow religious and political agenda at the expense of the community of Pratt.

Here is some background information. Two Pratt citizens, lawyer Ernie Richardson and biologist Chris Mammoliti have been working with the Intelligent Design network in Kansas City. Both of these people were presenters at a conference on teaching intelligent design in public schools sponsored by the ID Network this summer. At this conference and others, the ID network has described how they are working with people in Pratt to insert ID into the curriculum, and that national attention is being paid to their efforts.

The ID Network is working closely with a national group, the Discovery Institute, which believes that science is inherently atheistic because it limits itself to natural explanations for natural phenomena. The Discovery Institute's avowed goal is to drive a wedge between those who accept evolutionary theory, claiming they are atheists (which is false), and those that believe in God.

Members of the Discovery Institute have written two works which are the basis of the strategy being used in Pratt. One is "Intelligent Design in Public Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook," by David DeWolf. (See arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm). Ernie Richardson used this document as the basis for his presentation this summer on why it would be OK to teach ID in school.

The other work is the book "Icons of Evolution," by Jonathan Wells, illustrated by a member of the ID network. The strategy of this book is to use weaknesses in textbooks as the wedge to attack evolutionary theory itself, and thus open the door to teaching "intelligent design" as an "alternative" theory of origins.

All of the outcomes and resource activities added by the Board to the science standards follow the outline of Wells' book, and the strategy of trying to insert ID as science (even though it has no scientific content) comes from DeWolf's legal guidebook.

Past attempts to insert creationism into the public science curriculum have led to protracted court cases. The current strategy advocated by the Discovery Institute is to try to pass ID off as science, not religion. It is likely that the legality of this tactic will eventually have to be determined by the courts also.

The people of Pratt should be aware of the role they are playing in this larger conflict. The public schools should not be the place where judgments about new scientific theories are made, and school Board members should not be the people making those decisions. The strategy being implemented in Pratt does your children a disservice, using their education as a tool in a conflict that should be taking place in the adult scientific and religious communities. If ID eventually gets established as science, it will show up in textbooks and science teachers will teach it. Until that time, school Board members should play their proper role and support mainstream science, as recommended by your science teachers.

--Jack Krebs, Lawrence Kansas, Citizens for Science