A Man Can Do Nothing Better

...than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. ~Ecclesiasties 2:24

People have asked me recently how it's going with the two girls. My response has been fairly consistent.

"I'm not having fun."

Don't get me wrong: We're doing quite well. The girls seem to have adjusted marvelously. We've got a solid routine. They eat well. They sleep well (well, naps are different, but bedtime is fine). They've got their "please" and "thank yous" down. They love the park. The love playing with blocks. They get along. They're both coming along with potty training. All good things.

But me... I've rediscovered just how much I don't find joy in children. Not that I don't like kids. I do. But my mom said it best: "Luke likes it when kids come to him on his terms." And once you're watching kids, you have to meet them where they are. As Brittany's mom said: "You have to play with them at their level."

So, again: "I'm not enjoying it."

Brittany asks me, "Weren't you having fun?" after we've been roughhousing or building with blocks while giggles filled the house.

"It wasn't torture," I tell her.

But then I recall a conversation I had with my older sister a few years ago. I'm not sure how the topic came up, but she put the question to me, "So, Luke, what do you do for fun?"

"Fun? Umm... I write. ...I like movies. ...I... I guess I don't have fun." Never before had that thought crossed my mind. My natural exuberance about life masks this general apathy when it comes to my personal experience.

Those ideas collided today.

Kids is one of the few areas of life that people ask about our enjoyment. Granted, we ask about other elements here and there--did you like dinner? did you have fun on that ride? how was the movie? But those are events, not phases. College and work are probably the two closest proximities. But our enjoyment of these has much more to do with the environment and tasks we preform. Kids seems to question your humanity by your connection with the munchkins.

Perhaps my answer is biased by the simple fact that I just don't have fun much.

If that is the case, I take comfort in "the teacher" who suggested that I can do no better than enjoy ice cream, bed time, and what I do.

And I do.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Surrogate Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part9

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 5.25min]

I have to return this book tomorrow, so I'm going to whip through the rest of it very quickly.

In Chapter 4, Scott presents a very interesting overview of the scientific community prior to the 20th century. Covering a wide range of people from Plato to Pope Pius XII, Scott points out some of the difficulties that Darwin's ideas faced. For instance, the idea that the world was stable and mostly unchanging [74]. She points out that many discoveries, however, challenged this view. For instance, discovery of the Americas lead to major rethinking of theological as well as scientific assumptions [76]. The scientific community of the mid-nineteenth century considered science to lead to "positive finality. Anything less than certitude was deficient." [80] Darwin's ideas were thus sometimes rejected as not rigorous enough and mere speculation... even though his methodology has since become the standard of science [81]. Scott also claims that Christians reject evolution because of a belief in Special Creation [81] or a need for a Design and Purpose [82].

Scott then discusses some of the political/religious reasons why Americans tended to reject Darwin's ideas despite the fact that, "[by the] mid-twentieth century in Great Britain, Europe, and North America, the scientific community no longer questioned whether evolution occurred." [86]

Scott appears to all but bemoan the lack of centralized education as the reason Americans still don't teach evolution in class [87-88] but then agree with the ACLU that teachers should be given free speech when it comes to teaching evolution [94]. Thus, as long as the educators teach what she likes, she seems willing to flip sides. This is not uncommon for us humans, but an editor should have pointed this out to her.


Chapter 5 covers the "invention" of Creation Science. Scott cites the uneasiness of Fundamentalist parents as more and more students attended high school in early 1900s. [91] My Alma Mater is credited as laying the foundation for Fundamentalism [92] and evolution is rejected for it's incorrect association with German ideals and the robber barons [93]. Scott then talks about the "three-ring circus" of the Scopes trial [93-96] which did little for either side of the controversy [97].

It was Sputnik, Scott claims, that pushed our government to promote science in the classroom... and science was evolution. This lead to a major resurgence of evolution in high schools which had all but disappeared in the years after Scopes [98]. The rest of the chapter is a brief look at the legal history of Creation Science in the courts with a culmination of the Lemon test and other rejections of religion in the classroom.


Most of chapter 6 is dedicated to taking down Intelligent Design. Scott criticizes irreducible complexity by pointing to Behe's mouse trap and the scientists who have made less complex versions [117-118]. Of course, she never cites any of these or gives an example, so these "less complex" options may not actually detract from Behe at all.

Scott next points out that Behe misrepresents the process of evolution. Rather than building piece by piece "like stringing beads", natural selection can build useful, less complex pieces that could form together to make an ultimately irreducibly complex feature [118]. Again, she offers no hint as to how these could, via mutation, combine. She also mentions the "scaffolding" idea: Masons build irreducibly complex arches by supporting the arch with scaffolding before placing the capstone. "The now superfluous components can be removed by natural selection," Scott points out [119]. And while she goes on to criticize Behe's "God of the gaps" argument [119], I don't feel that it is fair to say that her view of evolution is scientifically backed with the gaping holes in her own thinking.

It's true: Science may "come up with an additional mechanism" that fills in these gaps [119], but to put such faith in a current idea that has no cited basis in reality feels far-fetched to me. This is especially poignant when Scott later strips away the "dichotomy between 'natural' and 'intelligent' ...because some of the agents on the 'intelligent' side are actually 'natural'" including "extraterrestrials (if such beings exist)" [122]. Which reminds me of a lesson at Biola: If God exists, then we add nothing outside of reality to support our beliefs. Thus, arguably, the most natural force in the universe is God.

Scott makes an excellent observation, however:

Enamored of an ideological, political, or social goal, it is all too easy to misrepresent or ignore empirical data when they do not support the goal; certainly Creation Science is infamous for doing so. [126]

As is, it seems, the education community as well.

Scott next complains that "Intelligent Design proponents ... exploit public confusion about 'Darwinism' to promote doubt about evolution." [127] I'm convinced that if people like Scott actually defined "evolution" and stuck with the definition, IDers wouldn't be able to so easily sway people. Unfortunately for her, Scott seems unable to keep her own theories straight in her writing and has all but confused me more than once. It is little wonder there is confusion in the general public.

In the last few pages of her own writing in this book, Scott finally mentions the reasons I've always been less than convinced of evolution: The evidence against it. Yet Scott seems unwilling to accept that "evidence against evolution exists" [129]. Why? She doesn't say. But she does say, "Presenting evidence against evolution per se is only bad science" [130]. Ironic, since she's spent the rest of her work promoting the wonders of science's corrective measures when faced with evidence.

She concludes her words with a reminder that while evolution is a theory, it is not "just" a theory because theories are "the best [explanations in science]" [130].

I stopped reading on page 135 when Scott mentioned, "I do not present evidence for evolution" because it is the consensus of the scientific community and you'd need to read scientists or take college classes. This, after the opening when she criticizes IDers for not letting her reproduce their writings because their articles would not do their theory justice. [xviii]

So, now again, half way through a book on evolution, I learn that there is none to be found here. Despite my clear request for a book with the evidence.

Final thoughts on this challenge to come...

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part8

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]

Scott spends pages 54-56 talking through the symbolism found in Genesis. My dad has blogged about this before, and there are interesting things to consider in all that.

But then Scott presents us with two huge straw men which she burns in passing. In describing a continuum of Biblical literalists to philosophical naturalists she also tacks on creationists to evolutionists. But wait, there's more! Her first two examples of "creationists" are... flat earthers and geocentrists.

Got that?

She's got two beliefs that are utterly separate from creation as examples of the foolishness of creationism. Granted, they are both part of a literalist continuum of Scripture, but it is completely wrong to include them in a creation/evolution scale.

Somehow she also wants us to equate Young Earthism with Flat Earthism as well. [57]

Now she begins an overview of the various segments of her supposed continuum. A few points worth mentioning:

"The basic body plans of major phyla that appear in the 'Cambrian Explosion' are seen by most [Young Earth Creationists] as evidence of Special Creation." [60] No footnote for further study. No mention of how she got to this idea. No hint as to where we can go to find out why the "Cambrian Explosion" is (or is not) evidence for creation. Nothing. In typical fashion for this work. I'm appalled that the "Internet Bookwatch" would say, on the back of this book, that Scott adheres "to the highest standards of academic research"... when she references nothing of importance. Ever.

Similarly, she states, "In proportion to the mission activity, little scientific research is performed by [Institute for Creation Research] faculty." [61] That doesn't surprise me much. I have no trouble believing it's true. But if you're going to make such a statement, giving some hint as to where she got that idea is essential to prove she isn't just a windbag.

I do appreciate her inclusion of this quote from Matt Cartmill:

Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a research finding [67].

Scott concludes the chapter by stating,

both supporters and deniers of evolution argue erroneously that because science utilizes methodological naturalism (and quite successfully), science therefore also incorporates philosophical naturalism. Unfortunately, such a confusion makes communication about science and religion, or creationism and evolution, more difficult. [68]

And I would agree.

Of course, arguing from erroneous couplings and citing no evidence also makes discussion more difficult as well.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part7

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]

Eugenie Scott now turns her attention to "Beliefs: Relgion, Creationism, and Naturalism" where she reminds us again that the natural world is not all that people think about; there are parts of reality that science can't examine. [47] This is, perhaps, "the most important reason scientists restrict themselves to materialistic explanations" [50].

She begins by stating that all religions seem to have "a belief in something beyond the material world, an Ultimate or Absolute or transcendent reality" [47]. And the ethical systems of human societies are "usually, though not universally ... strongly influenced by religion" [48].

Two thoughts:

1. Non- or irreligious people do have a code of ethics. In fact, they are often easily perceived as more ethical than their religiously motivated, intolerant neighbors who are steeped in the blood of religious history. A closer inspection of this perception would, I believe, be very beneficial to everyone; unfortunately, that is far beyond the scope of this post.
2. While I think it is perfectly fair for Scott to say that ethical systems are "strongly influenced" by religion, I think it is also essential that we recognize that often societal ills are perpetrated by those who are acting outside of their religious code. For example: Pornography use is rampant within the Christian church, but that is outside of the Christian ethic. I think there are fascinating implications to this reality, but--again--that is beyond this post.

Scott next points out that religion often asks the question of motivation: What is the motivation behind a natural disaster? Were the gods angry? These kinds of questions show a "blended" spiritual and natural worldview [49].

But just because we in the Western world accept a natural explanation for a "natural disaster" that does not mean that God was not involved... merely that He can use the natural world. Though, remember, the Bible does seem to show a certain impartiality to the righteous and the unrighteous.

Scott then quotes St. Augustine who makes a good case for not relying on the Bible to inform our views of natural world: If the Christian maintains "foolish opinions about the [natural world based on Scripture], how then are [others] going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection ... and the kingdom of heaven?" And much like Newton, it is wise to take on a natural philosophy and look for laws within nature. [49]

Yet it is entirely possible to stick with a "methodological naturalism" as opposed to a "philosophical naturalism" [50]. Scientists who are Christian often hold to the former, but there are those who go to the latter extreme and thus reject anything beyond the physical world.

Scott then mentions much of what I wrote in Part 2 stating that, "The Catholic Church rejected [geocentrism] partly on scientific grounds" but also because of their interpretation of Scripture [51]. I would also remind us to think of the political motivations as well.

"It is important to define terms and use them consistently," Scott tells us. [51] Too bad she has so infrequently taken her own advice thus far.

She then talks about "Origin Myths" which "are 'true' even if they are fantastic and deal with impossible events [because they] encapsulate important cultural truths" [52]. And I think that is fair; CS Lewis (or, perhaps, Tolkien?) called Christianity the one true myth. Too bad she does not include her own origin myth on page 27 in this mix.

I'll pause here and let you take a break. We'll continue this chapter in the next post.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part6

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 6min]

Scott tells us: Darwinism is natural selection, not evolution. Again: There is a difference between the phenomenon and the mechanism that makes it happen. In short, if we take "repeated iterations of randomly generated solutions, combined with selection of the characteristics that meet the necessary criteria, [we'll get] a series of solutions that more closely approximate a good solution" [34].

In other words: The key difference between natural selection and Perry Marshal's Random Mutation Generator is that Perry's lacks the part that selects only the mutations that make up proper words... or, at least, recognizable approximations like kthxbai.

Conclusion: Natural selection works with already operating systems where at least a part of the population can function in a different situation. Hang onto that idea because it is, I think, the crux of the failure of this chapter--and probably, this book (if not the entire "theory" in question here).


Scott continues: Thus, natural selection is genetic differences within a population that leads to those who are better suited for the environment to naturally reproduce more than the others. [35] Natural selection is not based on chance, but rather luck. Those who are "lucky" enough to have the genes for a situation procreate. Nothing "chance" about it. [36]

I think it's rather lame to replace "chance" with "luck" ...but whatever. It's her book. Though, I was struck by how closely this kind of verbal quibbling resembles the tension between freewill and predestination.


Scott: Natural selection is survival of the fit enough. "The process of natural selection works more like a tinkerer than an engineer" much like building guitars out of toilet seats and strings... using what you have rather than designing it from the ground up. [37]

I think what Scott is secretly referring to is the flawed nature of the world. It's almost as if she is unconsciously saying, "It's far too messy to be designed by anything like that Christian God." But she doesn't say it. She merely makes these rather odd statements and drifts on.


I am very glad Scott includes this definition: Speciation happens when a population becomes reproductively isolated from the others of its kind. [42 emphasis hers]

I've long known of the struggle to define the term species. And Scott's definition does little to clear things up. For this definition could include speciation if a human population was put on one side of a wall and the rest of us kept on the other side. Granted, she is right in that we will likely see a shift in the evolution of these two groups. But a new species of human? The definition is shaky, but I'll go with it (because at least she's defining something).


But in the end, after having said little more than what is paraphrased above, Scott wants us to know one very important thing: Man is not descended from monkeys. Far from it! No, man is merely related to monkeys via a common ancestor.

So, I am not a descendant of my Uncle Earl. That would be preposterous! But Earl and I are both descendants of my Great Grandpappy Joe.

And that makes it all better.

Only those with with *no* understanding of human relations would believe that "I came from my Uncle Earl."

I had a biology teacher who said that his biggest peeve was that people said humans were descended from apes. Somehow this was huge for him (and others) because we are not descended from them, but rather descended like them from a common earlier thing. I'm still not sure why that bugged him so much. If someone learning English misapplied the idea of the word Uncle to mean Predecessor instead of Relative, I wouldn't get bent out of shape. I may politely correct this minor slip, but my foreign friend would still get the gist of what was happening.


Which has lead me to the following observations:

1. Scott (and many others) get all bent out of shape with a few specific definitions, and yet fail to clearly define most everything else in their discussion.
2. It seems that "common ancestor" is the "right" answer simply because it's nebulous whereas apes are concrete. I have yet to hear an explanation of any kind from anyone as to why this distinction is so important.
3. Scott quoted no science--as she defined it in the previous chapter--that indicates any kind of macro evolution. None.
4. Instead, she gave very nice details about how rabbits have adapted, birds have diversified, and fish have splintered in various species.
5. Thus, in a chapter dedicated to evolution, Scott presented absolutely no scientific data--which is explained in detail the chapter before--that points to macro evolution.
6. Therefore, Scott has shown that evolution only works in the horizontal way with organisms already in place that come pre-built with the ability to adjust.

Therefore, what I understand to be the case still holds true: Change does happen within things via natural selection and genetic mutations. But no data has yet to arise that scientifically demonstrates vertical progression between the species.

None.

And this is the book written by the "Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, the leading advocacy group for the teaching of evolution in the United States." [273] If she can't come up with any data or information, it is little wonder people still seriously question the scientific backing of this idea.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

[Added 8/28/09: Humans are from apes after all. Greg does want us to remember, however, that there's no such thing as "human exceptionalism"...]

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part5

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 2.5min]

Scott starts out her chapter on evolution proper with a red herring. And a very big and very red one at that. After stating that "most people" define evolution as "man evolved from monkeys" she goes on to point out that "surely no one believes that only males evolved" [23].

Surely.

Her definition of evolution is "a cumulative change through time" [23]. And this change is seen in astronomy, geology as well as biology. But focusing solidly on the evolution that is really in question requires the definition of living things sharing common ancestors leading directly to decent with modification; the leading mechanism of this is natural selection.

Scott then drifts into abiogenesis after mentioning the big bang. She actually quotes the Miller-Urey experiment [24]. This is utterly ridiculous considering I, as a high school student, wrote a paper that exposed the gaping hole of chirality in this experiment. I find it completely dishonest to continue to present this data as anything other than a nifty idea that failed. And as a scientist--as she talked in great length last chapter--she should have moved on.

But she doesn't. Over the next few pages she tries to impress us with her use of vocabulary and ultimately tells us that we just don't know that much about the origin of life. But! "Once life evolved, biological evolution become possible. ...Life had to precede evolution!" [27]

Clear?

Life evolves. Then evolution can start.

<nods emphatically> See!?!

...I would appreciate it if she would actually stick with definitions. I hear that's important when you're building a case.

But for now, Scott wants us to remember that the "distinction between the patterns of evolution and the processes of evolution" is important because of criticisms of evolution we will address later [27].

Clarity.

It's lacking.

Scott now gives us a brief history of time:
Deep time: A long period--so long it's hard to get your mind around it. Thus something magical happened.
...and then cells, invertebrates... wait:

"[D]evelopmental biologists [are astounded to discover] that very small changes in genes affecting early, basic structural development can cause major changes in body plans" [30]. Actually, small changes in genes can really mess all of us up. Though, to be fair, it is interesting that such little changes can massively affect the outcome.

More gibberish about how things may or may not have changed. And then: The four basic principles of biological evolution are "natural selection, adaptation, adaptive radiation, and speciation." [33]

Which we'll delve into more in the near future.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Evolution vs. Creationism - Part4

[Long posts scare me. Read time: 4min]

We live in a universe made up of matter and energy, a material universe. [M]ost individuals believe that the universe includes something in addition to matter and energy, but science is limited to the latter two. [pg 3]

I am so thankful that Scott started out her book with this acknowledgment. Science does not address everything, nor can it. But, for the material universe, it is well suited for the task.

Why?

Because, Scott gladly tells us, science relies on the natural world "as the arbiter of truth." [3] Unlike, say, Authority, which could be misinformed or lying; Revelation, which relies on supernatural powers with which at least someone disagrees (e.g. Greek gods, Muhammad, Mormons, Catholics can't agree on what is right); Logic, which requires that we properly understand the "real world" before it is of any practical application. [4]

But Science! Ah, Science; Science goes to the natural world for verification. Even so, Scott notes, this is "not perfect." [5] Scott then rambles on for a few pages about all the ways that Science has found itself wrong over time; constantly correcting wrong ideas, and ultimately getting us every closer to truth... but always open to further illumination. In fact, Facts are the "least important" aspect of scientific inquiry, behind Hypotheses and Laws with Theories at the top. And a Theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." [14]

Theories aren't just hunches. Instead, they rely on "inferential reasoning"... which makes them scientific and therefore... umm... well... er... she doesn't say. But she does want us all to know that "most people" don't use the term properly. [14]

Using the powerful scientific "if/then" model, we can test even evolution scientifically. And here we go:

1. If life came from a common ancestor, then distant past things should be different from what we see today. And, Scott assures us, "this is indeed what we see." [15] But we'll have to take her word as an Authority on that because she cites nothing here (though, she hinted at possibly doing it later in this book).

2. If evolution happened, simple organisms will be in old rock and more complex ones will be in newer rock. Again, we're told this is what scientists have found. No footnotes, references, or data whatsoever. All we get is one nice scientific sounding phrase: Cambrian period.

3. We should see "connecting forms between the major groups." There isn't as much of this, Scott admits, but there are two reference titles she mentions that demonstrate "good evidence" of connecting forms. [15] I don't have access to these titles, but there are enough books published by other scientists--who have read and studied much more than I--that question this interpretation of the fossil record to leave me still skeptical. But, we could all be wrong... so... <shrug>

4. We should not see jumbled sets of fossils. And we don't. Instead, things stay in their proper layers the world over. [16] If this is true--again, no sited evidence, but she's got to be basing this claim on something--I must admit that is intriguing. I don't know what kind Logic Creationists have against this observation. I'm guessing that they'd point to a tree or something. Of course, people disagree.

Scott closes this chapter with this:

Evolution, like other sciences, requires that natural explanations be tested against the natural world. ...The heart of creationism--that an omnipotent being created--is not testable by science, but fact claims about the natural world made by creationists can be. [20]

It's petty, but I didn't realize that evolution was its own science. Does gravitation have its own science? What about electron theory?

I mean, sure, she's writing a book on the topic, but does that mean it should be its own science?

But I do appreciate her comments about science's relationship to creationism. She makes a solid point, and one that is well worth remembering on both sides of discussion.


I may flesh out these ideas more in my next post. But for now, I leave you with just this brief summary of Scott's brief glimpse into the world of science.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father