Date: June 22-24, 2000
Place: Concordia University Wisconsin, Mequon, Wisconsin, USA.
As a popular movement, what is coming to be known as "intelligent design" is growing rapidly. Nonetheless, its status as a scientific and intellectual program is increasingly coming under scrutiny, and there are many misgivings, especially in the academy. This conference seeks to articulate the best criticisms of Intelligent Design theory and to allow its proponents to address these concerns. Confirmed speakers include Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson and many others, both supportive and critical of Intelligent Design.
The conference will evaluate the credentials of Intelligent Design from the perspectives of the natural sciences, philosophy, theology and education. Papers may be either critical or supportive of Intelligent Design from any of these perspectives. Papers should be limited to 10 double-spaced pages and participants should aim to communicate their major ideas within 15-minutes.
Deadline for papers: April 17th, 2000.
Papers should be submitted to:
Dr. Angus Menuge
Dept. of Philosophy
Concordia University Wisconsin
12800 N. Lake Shore Drive
Mequon WI 53097, USA
Tel.: (262) 243 4249
FAX: (262) 243 4459
Email: Angus.Menuge@cuw.edu
This from atheists.org:
A survey from the Gallup polling organization suggests that while Americans remain "intensely religious," they increasingly embrace nontraditional approaches to organized faith. In addition, a "Key Indicators" poll from Gallup claims that 52% of voters surveyed "would be more likely to vote for a candidate for president who has talked about his or her personal relationship with Jesus Christ during debates and news interviews."
The latter finding, if true, is relevant in light of the increased religion-oriented rhetoric which has become part of the year 2000 electoral campaign. Major candidates in both parties have gone on record extolling their "born again" roots (as in the case of Democrat and Vice President Al Gore), and GOP front-runner George W. Bush who recently opined that he considers Jesus Christ to be the major philosophical thinker in shaping his life.
Among the finding in the latest Gallup survey studying religious opinions:
* Six out of 10 American say that religion is "very important in their life," with another three out of 10 saying that it is "fairly important." These figures appear to confirm results of an earlier study which was conducted by Gallup International and the London-based Taylor Nelson Sofres marketing firm that covered 60 countries. Worldwide, 87% said that they considered themselves to be part of some religion, with 63% of Americans saying that "God was very important" in their lives.
* Two-thirds of Americans claim to be members of a church or some other religious institution. Gallup says that "only nine percent of the public" respond with "none" when asked to identify a religious affiliation or preference.
* Eight percent of the public say that they never attend religious services, while 28% report that they "seldom" go. Gallup concludes, "about two-thirds of the population claim to attend services at least once a month or more often ... Thirty-six percent say they attend once a week."
Curiously, when asked if they attended church or synagogue "in the last seven days," 45% respond in the affirmative.
* "Almost nine out of 10 Americans (86%) say that they believe in God, even when given the choice of saying that they 'don't believe in God, but believe in a universal spirit or higher power' (chosen by only eight percent)." Gallup adds: "In fact, only five percent of the population choose neither of these choices and thus claim a more straightforward atheist position..."
* The Gallup findings tend to confirm a trend which sociologists and others have observed for some time -- Americans are abandoning institutional religion in favor of "cafeteria style" faith, and replacing denominational dogma with a vague "spirituality."
"The results of the survey .. suggest that despite their outward affiliation with a religion and frequent church attendance, less than half of Americans live their daily lives strictly by the code or teachings of their religious faith," notes Gallup. About 48% say that they place emphasis on "God and religious teachings" when deciding a course of action. Forty-five percent, though, say that they give priority to their "own views and the views of others." In addition, "about half of Americans say that religions have unnecessary rules and responsibilities..." Catholics are more likely to express this sentiment (59%) than their Protestant counterparts (46%).
The latest Gallup numbers conform to other finds which pollsters have claimed over the years, namely that about 40% of Americans are regular church attendees, and that atheists account for approximately 10% of the population. The 40% figure for attendance at a house of worship on a "regular" basis, though, has been criticized, especially with major denominations reporting stagnant or even declining membership. Those loses seem to be the gains of the more energized fundamentalist, evangelical and Pentecostal sects. Some studies suggest that respondents are apt to exaggerate their claimed level of church attendance, possibly out of fear of embarrassment. Indeed, in May, 1998, we discussed findings by sociologist Stanley Presser and researcher Linda Sinson that put the figure closer to 26% rather than the claimed 40%.
Religiosity and Divorce
With questionable studies claiming to link religious belief and everything from mysterious medical cures to better health, athletic performance and (if the President of the United States is to be believed...) resistance to drug abuse, it is surprising to note the latest finding from another religious pollster, the Barna Research Group. We have tasked Barna for some of its dubious claims in the past, such as statistics indicating a huge market of regular listeners to Christian radio stations.
The group's findings for December 21, 1999 though examine divorce and religiosity, and yield some interesting results. To wit...
"Born again Christians continue to have a higher likelihood of getting divorced than do non-Chrsitians..." and
"Atheists are less likely to get divorced than are born again Christians."
The Barna survey interviewed nearly 4000 adults, and indicated that 11% of the adult population is currently divorced, and 25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their life time. Divorce rates for born again Christians register at 27%, which is three percent over the range of adults who are not born again.
In addition, the Baby Boomers -- that generation often criticized for sexual indulgence, moral relativism and other pernicious behaviors -- has a lower rate of divorce (34%) than the preceding generation (described as "Builders"), who hover at 37%.
Other findings from Barna:
* "Surprisingly, the Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists." Twenty-nine percent of the Baptists have been to the divorce court, although non-denominational Christians (small sects, independents) show an even higher rate of 34%. Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorces, 21%. The mainline Protestants "experience divorce on par with the national average (25%)," notes Barna. Interestingly, Mormons -- "renowned for their emphasis upon strong families"-- come in close to that average, at 24%.
* "Among the characteristics that do not seem to be related to divorce are educational achievement, household income, and political ideology."
Barna does not attempt to explain why atheists have a much lower divorce rate than our religious counterparts. The research, according to the Barna report, "also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families" and "challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."
Conflicting Claims of Church Attendance
Equally curious is a study released by Barna on December 6, 1999 titled "America's Congregations: More Money but Fewer People." When compared to the Gallup poll claims of church attendance, it suggests a conflicting set of figures, and a possible confirmation of "empty pew syndrome" which many say has plaguing America's churches for years.
Barna found that "median adult attendance at church services in 1999 was 90 people," slightly below last year's average of 95. It is also 10% under the 1997 average of 100 people, and 12% lower than the 1992 level of 102 people.
The survey's main focus was on attendance versus income, and Barna found that the average operating budget of the typical church increased 5% over the past year to $110,000 per church. The crucial finding, though, is suggested in the "Data in Context" section of the Barna report. It states, "Since 1992 Protestant churches have lost 10% in average weekly attendance. During the same period, America's population has increased by almost 9%... The bottom line ... is that we are attracting fewer people than we used to..."
With such a trend, one conclusion may be that the 40% figure claimed for church attendance -- a number which has remained relatively constant over the years -- is possibly an artifact of the interviewing process, or some other factor, than a true reflection of how many Americans are heading for their neighborhood house of worship.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church1.htm
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church16.htm
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism7.htm
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec4.htm
This is from Ron Ebert, a physicist and consultant for the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, responding to the critique of the Big Bang Theory from last month that I posted.
Michael,
The way you have the Skeptic Mag Hotline set up, it's not possible to know who, if anyone, has responded to items in it, and if so what was said. At the risk of duplicating the efforts of one or more of the other competent people subscribed to the list, I'll respond to the "dissent" of the Big Bang.
At 02:56 PM 11/19/1999 -0800, you wrote:
By contrast I thought you might like to hear from one dissenting voice, Todd Matthews Kelso at toddmatthewskelso@netzero.net, who feels that more skepticism is needed when it comes to the Big Bang:
"The big bang theory, originally proposed by the Jesuit priest, Georges Lamaitre, is creationist nonsense and is no more worthy of credence than stories about the Easter Bunny. There is no evidence that supports it. The only evidence that is ever cited for it is:
1) the redshift of the light from distant galaxies,
2) the ratio of the amounts of hydrogen and helium isotopes,
3) the cosmic microwave background radiation and
4) the existence of more bright radio sources further away than there are nearby.
Of these, the 2nd is bogus, since the proportions of the isotopes are used to gauge the supposed process of the big bang rather than being something that has a natural explanation in terms of that theory.
It does have a natural explanation in terms of the theory. BB theory predicts an era where the universe is hot enough to allow nuclear synthesis. In an expanding universe, this is only for a finite time and over this time the temperature is dropping. When calculations are done for the amounts of light elements and their isotopes that should form, the calculated proportions match what is found in the universe by observations.
It is not as if the only way that the universe could be 75% hydrogen and 24% helium is if the universe exploded from a singularity 13 billion years ago
No, but it does have to happen in a hot expanding universe. Only the BB theory predicts this, other proposed models don't.
The other three pieces of "evidence for the big bang," like the colored eggs that appear in April, have a reasonable explanation. There is no warrant for believing any such nonsense as that space is curved, that space expands, that space has a finite total volume or that time goes back only a few billion years.
To the contrary, we have good reason for believing these things (with the possible exception of space having a total finite volume.)
We measure the expansion of the universe based on the red-shifted light of distant galaxies. The redshift really does indicate that these distant galaxies are moving away from us and is not caused by other proposed effects such as "tired light." This has been demonstrated in the past few years with the study of type Ia supernovae. The spectral signature of these distant supernovae show relativistic time dilation - they are stretched out compared to nearby ones with smaller redshifts. Only a real redshift due to the expansion of the universe can cause this effect.
The curvature of spacetime is demonstrated with the classical observation of stars around the sun during a total solar eclipse. Curved spacetime around the sun bends the path of light from the distant stars. For this reason, the stars are seen displaced away from the sun's limb when their positions are compared to when the sun is not in that part of the sky.
The expansion of space is shown by the redshifts of light from distant galaxies. Knowing the rate of expansion, one can work out the starting time for that expansion, and hence the age of the universe.
The total finite volume of spacetime has a finite empirical limit. It is based on the radius from the earth, the length of which is determined by the longest amount of time that light has had to travel since the beginning of the universe. If the universe is 13 billion years old, this distance is 13 billion light years. Beyond that we cannot see because light has not had time to reach us. But some theories that elaborate on the BB, such as inflation, predict a universe far larger than this. If such a larger region really exists, we can't know it because it is causally disconnected from us. Not light or anything else has had time to reach us from these more distant regions.
Your speaking of "decades of testing and research" in support of the big bang theory is errant nonsense. No tests of such a hypothesis are possible and none have been conducted.
Wrong. See above.
There is also no research programme for this theory other than to muck around with the equations of general relativity theory and quantum mechanics and try to figure out some way to reconcile these two disparate and incompatible theories with each other.
As indicated above and stated correctly by Michael Shermer, there is lots of observational evidence that supports the BB. General relativity and quantum mechanics have no conflict except in situations where one is dealing with very small, very dense regions of matter, such as with singularities. The overall properties of the universe are correctly described by these theories as is borne out by the observational evidence.
This is all head-in-the-clouds research, not laboratory-in-the-real-world research. There would be nothing wrong with that except that neither of the two theories involved makes any sense.
They make perfect sense in that they correctly describe experiments and observations in their realm.
If you wish to earn your stripes as a skeptic, you need to be skeptical not only about ancient myths but modern ones as well."
The BB, and what we know about the universe, is not based on a myth but on empirical evidence.
Ron Ebert
UCR Physics Department
ron.ebert@ucr.edu
http://phyld.ucr.edu
This from Kevin Courcey on the latest prayer and healing study:
A Rough Analysis Harris' CCU Prayer Study
Several aspects of this study are bothersome. First, there is an inherent Christian bias in the study. The patient assignments were made by the hospital chaplain's office; the praying "intercessors" were all Christians; and they were chosen by the investigators themselves through their "contacts in the local community."
The second issue is the lack of informed consent. The authors state that no consent was required since "it was agreed that there was no known risk associated with receiving remote, intercessory prayer." They later cite a study by Scott Walker of remote prayer on patients in an alcohol treatment facility, saying that in Walker's study, such prayer showed "no clinical benefit." This is an understatement at best. To quote Walker from the summary of his study, "Compared with a normative group of patients treated at the same facility, participants in the prayer study experienced a delay in drinking reduction. Those who reported at baseline that a family member or friend was already praying for them were found to be drinking significantly more at 6 months than were those who reported being unaware of anyone praying for them." Certainly this constitutes a documented negative outcome directly associated with participation in a study on remote intercessory prayer, thereby posing a potential risk to patients. To ignore this negative outcome suggests a bias in favor of prayer, and makes the authors' claim of "no known risk" spurious.
Thirdly, there was an expectation of a positive outcome for prayer, and the study was designed in such a way as to exaggerate this outcome. According to the authors, "it was anticipated that the effect of prayer was unlikely to be evident in any specific clinical outcome category.but would only be seen in some type of global score." Why? If the researchers believed that prayer to an all-powerful god capable of miraculous healings would be an effective intervention, why would they then expect the effect be so minimal as to be virtually undetectable without the addition of an arbitrarily conceived global rating scale?
Lastly, in the press, the researchers tended to exaggerate the positive results in favor of prayer while downplaying conflicting data. While the study itself acknowledges that there was no statistically significant difference between the prayed-for group and the control group on any of the 33 individual measures (as they had predicted), they went to great lengths in the media to proclaim that the prayed-for group did "better" than the control group. As cited in the Kansas City Star, Harris announced, "The patients who were prayed for just did better." When pressed about what the vague term "better" might mean, Harris replied, "I mean everything that word means." Apparently "everything that word means" includes the fact that two of the patients in the prayer group had hospital stays twice as long as any other patient in the study, although I doubt the reporter for the Star realized this at the time. The study goes on to note that "mean lengths of stay in the CCU and the hospital.were not different." Actually, the length of stay in the hospital for the non-prayed-for patients was 9% shorter than that of the prayed-for patients.
In the past, virtually identical studies have been flawed by not adequately accounting for pre-existing conditions in the patients. Fortunately, this study included a list of pre-existing conditions by group assignment, allowing for verification of the researchers' contention that "Comorbid (pre-existing) conditions upon admission were similar for each group." Of primary interest, then, would be cases where a pre-existing condition was overly represented in just one group by at least 10% and 10 patients. For example: while a 30% higher rate of patients with pre-existing pneumonia was found in the prayer group, the actual number of patients admitted with pneumonia was so small (26) that the difference between the groups was only 2 patients (out of close to 1000 in the study), and thus would not be considered to be significantly weighted against the prayer group. On the other hand, a 31% higher rate of patients who had pre-existing heart valve disease ended up in the control group, with the difference between the groups being 10 patients (Control grp=31, Prayer grp=21), which could lead to a significant difference in the global hospital course score between the groups. After applying this sorting criteria to every pre-existing condition on the list, only five were found to be inordinately represented in one or the other of the two groups. In every case, however, these significantly higher rates of pre-existing conditions were found to be weighted against the control group, to the benefit of the prayer group.
Consequently, a 62% higher rate of patients with acute pulmonary edema, where the lungs are filling up with fluid, ended up in the control group; plus a 31% higher rate of patients with heart valve disease; an 18% higher rate of patients who had a history of previous heart attacks; a 10% higher rate of diabetics; and a 10% higher rate of patients with chronic kidney failure, all over-represented in the control group. It seems likely that this skewed weighting of serious pre-existing conditions against the control group could account for the statistical 11% difference between the groups found in this study.
As is customary in these studies, where both the power of prayer and the responsiveness of the Christian god are seemingly being put to the test, little mention is made of the fact that the prayed-for patients needed to have defibrillators implanted inside their chests twice as frequently; or that the prayed-for group had a 30% higher rate of readmission to the Coronary Care unit and 9% longer hospital stays; or that more prayed-for patients came down with pneumonia; not to mention that a higher percentage of the prayed-for patients DIED during the study.
While the authors claim this study adds evidence to support the original (flawed) Randolph Byrd cardiac study, when they used Byrd's scoring method on their data, no significant effect was found in favor of the prayer group; thus this study cannot be considered as replicating or confirming the Byrd study.
This study will not add significantly to the scientific research on remote intercessory prayer. It will, however, live on in the minds of those already convinced of the efficacy of prayer, and who wish we were a more prayerful nation. It will not be the last of its kind. Multi-millionaire John Templeton, whose foundation's goal is to document only "the positive medical aspects of spiritual practice," is paying author Herb Benson to replicate Byrd's study, and it is due to be released next fall.
Sincerely,
Kevin Courcey RN
Eugene, OR
kevin32@earthlink.net