Learn how to make movies.
I haven't been on this blog much because I've been working on my Filmmaking 101 course. It's a 36 week introduction to movie making. The first ten weeks are up and running, and I'm working on getting the rest done.
But I have a problem: I don't know who wants to learn how to make movies. So, I'm passing this on to you to pass on to anyone you know who wants to learn how to shoot videos. If you have an aspiring filmmaking--or are one yourself--please check out my free film school and tell others as well.
Thanks!
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Love and Reconciliation
"I had just gone through a really bad breakup." Her smile--which always lights up a room--carried a heart-wrenching pain. "He started making snide comments and I told him I just couldn't handle that right then. He blew up and said, 'No man is ever going to put up with your BS!'"
A moment.
She lifted her eyes. "So, yeah. It's hard to pretend that everything's okay right now."
This is a story of forgiveness. This is a story that hasn't ended yet. For now, this girl can forgive the man. Indeed, she must. Carrying bitterness destroys the soul. Thankfully, we--by God's grace--have been given the ability to forgive those who wrong us. Not because it restores the relationship between us and them, but because it allows us to be free of the bondage of being wronged.
"Has he ever admitted he was wrong? Has he apologized?"
"No. Never."
But forgiveness is not reconciliation. If a company purposefully cheats you, you can decide it's not worth suing them. You can decide to let that go. You can move on with your life. But you wouldn't use that company again. The cheating company would need to apologize, admit their mistake, make a policy change and work to make restitution. Forgiveness is one thing. Repairing a relationship is another.
Today the world is abuzz with talk of Universalism and the idea that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell. Christ's shed Blood covers the sin of all mankind. God is love and God ultimately wins.
But like the scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carrey tries to command his girlfriend to love him, I'm not sure even God has the ability to make us love Him. He can absolutely forgive us; indeed, He has. He can even pay for the wrong we've done. He's done that too. But relationships are two-way. Reconciliation requires repentance at some level.
This is why, no matter how much she longs to be reconnected with her father, my friend is separated from him until he asks for forgiveness. And this is why salvation through the grace of God is such a beautifully simple, yet brutally severe transformation: It requires us to admit we were wrong. It requires us to drop our pride. It requires us to accept the forgiveness already offered us.
When a man can't allow himself to make right the relationship with his daughter, it's little wonder we can't bring ourselves to the grace of God. We can bide our time and try to sweep things under the rug of our relationship. But all the forgiveness in the world won't make us friends again. That requires us to accept the forgiveness given.
"But I do accept her forgiveness," this man may say. "That's why I'm trying to move on."
You can't do that. You can't skip the important step of repentance, of apologizing with an aim to be better. Until you do that, you've merely accepted civility and tolerance. Grace and forgiveness say, "You have wronged me, but I will still accept you as a friend." To respond and say, "I'm glad we can still be around one another," ignores the first part. We must bring ourselves to say, "Thank you so much for being my friend. I am so sorry I have wronged you."
That is accepting love in a way that brings reconciliation.
The difference between the two responses to love is painfully clear. A girl, who loves her father, quietly mourns that divide.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester
A moment.
She lifted her eyes. "So, yeah. It's hard to pretend that everything's okay right now."
This is a story of forgiveness. This is a story that hasn't ended yet. For now, this girl can forgive the man. Indeed, she must. Carrying bitterness destroys the soul. Thankfully, we--by God's grace--have been given the ability to forgive those who wrong us. Not because it restores the relationship between us and them, but because it allows us to be free of the bondage of being wronged.
"Has he ever admitted he was wrong? Has he apologized?"
"No. Never."
But forgiveness is not reconciliation. If a company purposefully cheats you, you can decide it's not worth suing them. You can decide to let that go. You can move on with your life. But you wouldn't use that company again. The cheating company would need to apologize, admit their mistake, make a policy change and work to make restitution. Forgiveness is one thing. Repairing a relationship is another.
Today the world is abuzz with talk of Universalism and the idea that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell. Christ's shed Blood covers the sin of all mankind. God is love and God ultimately wins.
But like the scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carrey tries to command his girlfriend to love him, I'm not sure even God has the ability to make us love Him. He can absolutely forgive us; indeed, He has. He can even pay for the wrong we've done. He's done that too. But relationships are two-way. Reconciliation requires repentance at some level.
This is why, no matter how much she longs to be reconnected with her father, my friend is separated from him until he asks for forgiveness. And this is why salvation through the grace of God is such a beautifully simple, yet brutally severe transformation: It requires us to admit we were wrong. It requires us to drop our pride. It requires us to accept the forgiveness already offered us.
When a man can't allow himself to make right the relationship with his daughter, it's little wonder we can't bring ourselves to the grace of God. We can bide our time and try to sweep things under the rug of our relationship. But all the forgiveness in the world won't make us friends again. That requires us to accept the forgiveness given.
"But I do accept her forgiveness," this man may say. "That's why I'm trying to move on."
You can't do that. You can't skip the important step of repentance, of apologizing with an aim to be better. Until you do that, you've merely accepted civility and tolerance. Grace and forgiveness say, "You have wronged me, but I will still accept you as a friend." To respond and say, "I'm glad we can still be around one another," ignores the first part. We must bring ourselves to say, "Thank you so much for being my friend. I am so sorry I have wronged you."
That is accepting love in a way that brings reconciliation.
The difference between the two responses to love is painfully clear. A girl, who loves her father, quietly mourns that divide.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ken Ham's Math Problems Solved!
It appears that my confusion in Part I has to do with Mr. Ham's poor wording--and/or my inability to read properly--and not his math:
5% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before elementary/middle school. (Hence Ham's stated 95%)
40% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before high school. (Hence Ham's 55%... 100% - [5% + 40%])
Since 11% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly but now longer do so, were still attending church regularly during college. This complete shift in focus totally threw me for a loop. But, 55% - 11% = 44%, so 44% of those who are 20-29 and no longer attend church regularly, stopped before college.
Thus, based on Ham's wording, we must assume that this last 11% left during or sometime after college.
So, despite being incredibly unclear in my mind, his math does check out.
In Part 2, it turns out that I was the one who made the serious error. I rightly assumed that they should have been percentages, but my mistake was to assume that these two percentages from mutually-exclusive groups necessitated that adding them together should come to 100%. This was not the case. Rather, 34.3% of Group A agreed, 69.7% of Group B also agreed, 28.9% of Group C... and so on.
Thank you all for helping me figure this out! As frustrating as it is for me to learn that my math skillz truly are completely dull, I am happy to know that the numbers--when untangled from what I perceive as poor wording--do come out correctly.
As for Ham's conclusions, assumptions and ideas... well... I'll get to that at some point.
I am happy to report that the last chapter contained no math which confused me. ...mostly, I'm sure, because the last chapter had no math whatsoever. Had I been confused then, well, more than just my math skillz would be missing...
<smile>
Thank you, again, to those who set me straight. I appreciate you taking the time to correct my thinking.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
5% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before elementary/middle school. (Hence Ham's stated 95%)
40% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before high school. (Hence Ham's 55%... 100% - [5% + 40%])
Since 11% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly but now longer do so, were still attending church regularly during college. This complete shift in focus totally threw me for a loop. But, 55% - 11% = 44%, so 44% of those who are 20-29 and no longer attend church regularly, stopped before college.
Thus, based on Ham's wording, we must assume that this last 11% left during or sometime after college.
So, despite being incredibly unclear in my mind, his math does check out.
In Part 2, it turns out that I was the one who made the serious error. I rightly assumed that they should have been percentages, but my mistake was to assume that these two percentages from mutually-exclusive groups necessitated that adding them together should come to 100%. This was not the case. Rather, 34.3% of Group A agreed, 69.7% of Group B also agreed, 28.9% of Group C... and so on.
Thank you all for helping me figure this out! As frustrating as it is for me to learn that my math skillz truly are completely dull, I am happy to know that the numbers--when untangled from what I perceive as poor wording--do come out correctly.
As for Ham's conclusions, assumptions and ideas... well... I'll get to that at some point.
I am happy to report that the last chapter contained no math which confused me. ...mostly, I'm sure, because the last chapter had no math whatsoever. Had I been confused then, well, more than just my math skillz would be missing...
<smile>
Thank you, again, to those who set me straight. I appreciate you taking the time to correct my thinking.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Confused by Ken Ham Math 2
Let's say I have a sample size of 1,000 individuals. These individuals can easily be sorted into various groups. So, I ask them a question, say, "Do you understand how to label your values?"
This is how many people answered yes:
Those who passed Algebra with an A - 34.3
Those who failed - 69.7
Those who plan to retake Algebra - 28.9
Those who will never touch a math text again - 78.3
...I decided to do a little simple addition:
34.3 + 69.7 = 104.0
28.9 + 78.3 = 107.2
So, I ask you--since Ken Ham and his number crunching buddy and his editor couldn't be bothered to check his numbers or give me a label of what kind of number I'm looking at--what does it mean that 107.2 of my 1,000 said yes?
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
This is how many people answered yes:
Those who passed Algebra with an A - 34.3
Those who failed - 69.7
Those who plan to retake Algebra - 28.9
Those who will never touch a math text again - 78.3
...I decided to do a little simple addition:
34.3 + 69.7 = 104.0
28.9 + 78.3 = 107.2
So, I ask you--since Ken Ham and his number crunching buddy and his editor couldn't be bothered to check his numbers or give me a label of what kind of number I'm looking at--what does it mean that 107.2 of my 1,000 said yes?
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Monday, August 16, 2010
Confused by Ken Ham Math
Help me out, friends! I used to be good at math, but I've since lost all of my skillz. Let's say I give you this:
Of all the 20 to 29-year-old people who were virgins but no longer are so:
I would be horribly mistaken to say that "11 percent of those who lost their virginity did so during their college years." I would also be completely misreading my data to say, "Almost 90 percent of them lost their virginity in middle school and high school. By the time they got to college their virginity was already gone!" Further, I'd be remiss to state that "about 40 percent are losing their virginity during their elementary and middle school years!"
Why?
Reasoning (equations I'm using in my head):
100% of all virgins
-95% virgins during elementary and middle school
----
5% lost during that time period
95% virgin prior to high school
-55% virgin during high school
----
40% lost during that time period
55% virgin prior to college
-11% virgin during college
----
44% lost during that time period
Right?
So... can someone please explain what Ken Ham is doing on page 31 of "Already Gone"?
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Of all the 20 to 29-year-old people who were virgins but no longer are so:
- 95% were virgins during elementary and middle school years
- 55% were virgins during high school
- 11% were still virgins during college
I would be horribly mistaken to say that "11 percent of those who lost their virginity did so during their college years." I would also be completely misreading my data to say, "Almost 90 percent of them lost their virginity in middle school and high school. By the time they got to college their virginity was already gone!" Further, I'd be remiss to state that "about 40 percent are losing their virginity during their elementary and middle school years!"
Why?
Reasoning (equations I'm using in my head):
100% of all virgins
-95% virgins during elementary and middle school
----
5% lost during that time period
95% virgin prior to high school
-55% virgin during high school
----
40% lost during that time period
55% virgin prior to college
-11% virgin during college
----
44% lost during that time period
Right?
So... can someone please explain what Ken Ham is doing on page 31 of "Already Gone"?
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Brown Paper Bag Floor
I recently mentioned on my SonlightBlog that we have a brown paper bag floor. Curious, some of you asked for more information. For those of you not interested in learning more about how to create a brown paper bag floor for your home, move along. There is plenty of more interesting stuff on the internet.
So, what is a brown paper bag floor?
A. An inexpensive and yet good looking floor covering alternative you can do on your own.
Good looking? See for yourself:
Brown Paper Bag Floor in Our Home Office
Close Up on the Paper Floor
What you need:
So, what is a brown paper bag floor?
A. An inexpensive and yet good looking floor covering alternative you can do on your own.
Good looking? See for yourself:
Brown Paper Bag Floor in Our Home Office
Close Up on the Paper Floor
What you need:
- A floor (preferably ugly wood or concrete)
- Paper (preferably brown, like contractor's or kraft paper, though you can use packing paper or grocery bags without printing on them)
- Glue (cheap white glue, purchasable by the gallon)
- Polyurethane (water-based, low odor worked best for me)
- Brushes
- Rags
- ...assorted other stuff
What you do:
Tear the paper into irregular medium sized pieces (approximately 8"). Crumple and then flatten to create a texture. I suggest you do this before hand as it makes gluing faster.
Clean the floor you're going to cover. Spread some glue and stick your paper pieces down. Slightly overlap your pieces, but try to avoid glue on the top of the paper as this stains darker.
Let dry.
Apply a coat of polyurethane and let dry. Ventilation is preferable during this step. Hanging a sheet to close off the room can work if you were to, hypothetically, attempt to do this in the middle of winter. Repeat this step 5-6 times.
Admire your work. Allow time to set.
Easily repaired with a little glue, a piece of paper and more poly.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The Cost of Christianity: Forgiveness
In church you hear one message: Turn to Jesus as your savior because He makes everything better. Sure, life still has it's ups and downs. But wouldn't you rather have God on your side through that?
Faith in Jesus saves. No more need for thought. You want saving, don't you?
If you answer, "Not yet," then we adjourn until next week. If you answer, "Yes," then we say the prayer. You can come back next week where you'll again hear the wonders of walking with Christ.
At the moment, I'm sick of it. I'm done. Count me out of such pathetic religious babble. I've had enough.
Becoming Christ-like is nothing like that.
So what is the cost of following Christ? I've heard of things like giving up porn, abandoning alcohol, reducing your rage, and surrendering your ambitions. And I'm sure there is a part of this that includes all of that. But that's not where I am at the moment. No, tonight I'm a lot more basic than that. I'm near square one: Forgiveness.
"Will you forgive me?" she asks, not daring to come closer.
"I don't know," I spit. "That's asking a lot of me."
"I know," she breathes.
I stew. The pain, the anger, the frustration. It's all there, very real. I want to hate her. I want to be furious. I want to feel this way forever because... because I have the right to. It may be petty, but it's real. Very real. "I have to eat this if I forgive you."
"It sounds very bitter."
"It is."
"I don't want it to choke you. Is there a way that it doesn't have to choke you or be bitter?" She really wants to know. It would hurt her too much if it choked me. And she can't bear more bitterness.
Bible truths start nudging my brain. These aren't lessons you learn in Sunday School. These aren't messages you hear from the pulpit. You've heard about your need for forgiveness. You've been told over and over again that you forgive because of how much you have been forgiven. You can even remember a time when someone told you that your ability to forgive rests on God's ability to take care of you and take that burden from you.
But I want to hold this burden. I want to choke on the bitterness of forgiveness. I want to be crushed under the weight of the wrong done to me. I don't want it to go away. I certainly don't want it replaced with something like intimacy and fondness. Even the thought of those words makes me want to spit.
And this, I realize as I stew silently, is why there is no transforming power of Christ in my life. This--and other things like it--are what make Christianity so impotent in my life. This is why I see no power, no heart change, no awesomeness in following Christ. This is why Christianity is simply so hard for me to share: Because it costs so stinkin' much! And if I'm not willing to make the payments, I'm certainly not going to ask someone else to do the same.
"I forgive you," I grumble. I'm a man of my word, and if I'm going to follow, I'm going to follow... even if it's terrible. Even if it costs too much. Even if it isn't worth it.
I cling to the burden a moment more, feeling Christ gently prying it from my hands. I scream, 'I don't want to let You have this!' I curse at my Savior. I swear at the One who forgave me. I scream profanity in the face of Him who promises to repay whatever I'm going to lose in this exchange of forgiving.
I'm feeling the cost.
It hurts. This is faith in action, and it hurts.
I let go.
The world, sadly, doesn't crumble. My wife slides closer and puts her arms around me. Life can go on. I've exchanged my pain, anger and frustration for forgiveness. Christ's blood has covered the difference. I paid the price of following Christ and He paid me back with more. Much more.
But it wasn't fun. It wasn't nice. It was worse than paying a needless bank fine. It was awful. Horrible. Terrible.
But here I am, a couple hours later, writing about it. And not in a vehement, vengeful, violent way. I'm okay. I'm okay in way that I wouldn't have been years ago before God started working this forgiveness thing with me.
Faith in Jesus saves. No more need for thought. You want saving, don't you?
If you answer, "Not yet," then we adjourn until next week. If you answer, "Yes," then we say the prayer. You can come back next week where you'll again hear the wonders of walking with Christ.
At the moment, I'm sick of it. I'm done. Count me out of such pathetic religious babble. I've had enough.
Becoming Christ-like is nothing like that.
So what is the cost of following Christ? I've heard of things like giving up porn, abandoning alcohol, reducing your rage, and surrendering your ambitions. And I'm sure there is a part of this that includes all of that. But that's not where I am at the moment. No, tonight I'm a lot more basic than that. I'm near square one: Forgiveness.
"Will you forgive me?" she asks, not daring to come closer.
"I don't know," I spit. "That's asking a lot of me."
"I know," she breathes.
I stew. The pain, the anger, the frustration. It's all there, very real. I want to hate her. I want to be furious. I want to feel this way forever because... because I have the right to. It may be petty, but it's real. Very real. "I have to eat this if I forgive you."
"It sounds very bitter."
"It is."
"I don't want it to choke you. Is there a way that it doesn't have to choke you or be bitter?" She really wants to know. It would hurt her too much if it choked me. And she can't bear more bitterness.
Bible truths start nudging my brain. These aren't lessons you learn in Sunday School. These aren't messages you hear from the pulpit. You've heard about your need for forgiveness. You've been told over and over again that you forgive because of how much you have been forgiven. You can even remember a time when someone told you that your ability to forgive rests on God's ability to take care of you and take that burden from you.
But I want to hold this burden. I want to choke on the bitterness of forgiveness. I want to be crushed under the weight of the wrong done to me. I don't want it to go away. I certainly don't want it replaced with something like intimacy and fondness. Even the thought of those words makes me want to spit.
And this, I realize as I stew silently, is why there is no transforming power of Christ in my life. This--and other things like it--are what make Christianity so impotent in my life. This is why I see no power, no heart change, no awesomeness in following Christ. This is why Christianity is simply so hard for me to share: Because it costs so stinkin' much! And if I'm not willing to make the payments, I'm certainly not going to ask someone else to do the same.
"I forgive you," I grumble. I'm a man of my word, and if I'm going to follow, I'm going to follow... even if it's terrible. Even if it costs too much. Even if it isn't worth it.
I cling to the burden a moment more, feeling Christ gently prying it from my hands. I scream, 'I don't want to let You have this!' I curse at my Savior. I swear at the One who forgave me. I scream profanity in the face of Him who promises to repay whatever I'm going to lose in this exchange of forgiving.
I'm feeling the cost.
It hurts. This is faith in action, and it hurts.
I let go.
The world, sadly, doesn't crumble. My wife slides closer and puts her arms around me. Life can go on. I've exchanged my pain, anger and frustration for forgiveness. Christ's blood has covered the difference. I paid the price of following Christ and He paid me back with more. Much more.
But it wasn't fun. It wasn't nice. It was worse than paying a needless bank fine. It was awful. Horrible. Terrible.
But here I am, a couple hours later, writing about it. And not in a vehement, vengeful, violent way. I'm okay. I'm okay in way that I wouldn't have been years ago before God started working this forgiveness thing with me.
...
A few months ago I almost wrote a piece about the ineffective nature of Christianity. I was going to argue, and argue well, that if we could just grasp one simple concept, we would be perfect. It was this easy:
Realize that, no matter what, you'll be okay. Even if you're not okay, you'll be dead and, therefore, okay. So just let everything roll off you.
If we could do that, I'm convinced, we'd be fine. Wars would end. Hatred and rage would cease. Generosity would flow. The world would experience harmony and love the likes of which has not been seen since the Fall.
...but I realized something tonight: That can't happen. When we let things "roll off" we forgive. We take that burden. We eat that cost. And it is heavy. It is bitter. And if we have no place to put it, nothing to pay us back, then we just carry it ourselves and become overwhelmed.
This is why Christianity is so powerful: We have a God who offers to carry those burdens, to replace the bitter drink with a cup full of good things... like intimacy and fondness.
The cost of following Christ is great. But the payoff is worth so much more.
And I think I may just be beginning to understand these things...
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Saturday, November 21, 2009
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
Saturday, September 12, 2009
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:
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
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
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:
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
Monday, September 07, 2009
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:
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:
- 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.
- 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
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Scott quoted no science--as she defined it in the previous chapter--that indicates any kind of macro evolution. None.
- Instead, she gave very nice details about how rabbits have adapted, birds have diversified, and fish have splintered in various species.
- 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.
- 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"...]
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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
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
Monday, August 24, 2009
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
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Fail Gov
...or: How the Government Got a Reality Check
So buried deep within a blog post, the government has given us the closest thing to an apology for bad form as we're going to get.
The upside?
They are now a little clearer as to what they are looking for as far as contacting them about Health Reform is concerned, and you get another cool graphic from me:
Fail Gov
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
So buried deep within a blog post, the government has given us the closest thing to an apology for bad form as we're going to get.
The upside?
They are now a little clearer as to what they are looking for as far as contacting them about Health Reform is concerned, and you get another cool graphic from me:
Fail Gov
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Evolution vs. Creationism - Part3
[Long posts scare me. Read time: 2min]
I've been using the books.google.com version of the book, but I'm quickly running out of preview pages.
Inter-Library Loan had better come through for me quickly! <smile>
This evening I got through the "Pillars of Creationism" after briefly glancing at the Preface.
One thing that Scott says that may be noteworthy--though, I'd never thought of it myself, nor saw it mentioned in any of the books I've read on the topic--is that Darwin proposed two major ideas: Common ancestors and natural selection. These are distinct ideas that do not rely on one another. [xxii]
I'll try to keep that in mind as the book gets going. Though I am skeptical that it will ever resurface as an issue.
"Religious objections to evolution are far more important in motivating antievolutionism than are scientific objections to evolution as a weak or unsupported theory." [xxiii] This after a mention of Christians rejecting macro evolution, which is not addressed at all here. Hopefully this critique is answered in the coming chapters. But for now, it feels really awkward to state that there are so few scientific objections to evolution after mentioning in an off-hand way the major definitional one of which I am aware.
It's just odd.
"Educators and scientists argue that a student must understand evolution to be scientifically literate, and insist that the science curriculum would be deficient if evolution were omitted." [xxiv] Sadly, despite four years in a public high school--where I took Advanced Biology among other science courses--I still do not feel like I "understand evolution"... nor do, it seems, most others, as is mentioned earlier in the book as to why Scott is writing this title: "Students [lack] enough basic science .. to understand why creationist critiques of evolution are resisted so strongly by scientists" [xvii]. Again, it's the odd combination of statements that seem to put this book off-kilter.
But I'm still in the introductory comments. I really need to withhold judgment until Scott has started presenting points. Until that time, I'm merely picking at things.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
I've been using the books.google.com version of the book, but I'm quickly running out of preview pages.
Inter-Library Loan had better come through for me quickly! <smile>
This evening I got through the "Pillars of Creationism" after briefly glancing at the Preface.
One thing that Scott says that may be noteworthy--though, I'd never thought of it myself, nor saw it mentioned in any of the books I've read on the topic--is that Darwin proposed two major ideas: Common ancestors and natural selection. These are distinct ideas that do not rely on one another. [xxii]
I'll try to keep that in mind as the book gets going. Though I am skeptical that it will ever resurface as an issue.
"Religious objections to evolution are far more important in motivating antievolutionism than are scientific objections to evolution as a weak or unsupported theory." [xxiii] This after a mention of Christians rejecting macro evolution, which is not addressed at all here. Hopefully this critique is answered in the coming chapters. But for now, it feels really awkward to state that there are so few scientific objections to evolution after mentioning in an off-hand way the major definitional one of which I am aware.
It's just odd.
"Educators and scientists argue that a student must understand evolution to be scientifically literate, and insist that the science curriculum would be deficient if evolution were omitted." [xxiv] Sadly, despite four years in a public high school--where I took Advanced Biology among other science courses--I still do not feel like I "understand evolution"... nor do, it seems, most others, as is mentioned earlier in the book as to why Scott is writing this title: "Students [lack] enough basic science .. to understand why creationist critiques of evolution are resisted so strongly by scientists" [xvii]. Again, it's the odd combination of statements that seem to put this book off-kilter.
But I'm still in the introductory comments. I really need to withhold judgment until Scott has started presenting points. Until that time, I'm merely picking at things.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Monday, August 17, 2009
Blog Love
Matt from thechurchofnopeople.com was nice enough to send me a sticker!
And that, my friends, is totally blog worthy:
Church of No People Sticker
Thanks, Matt!
Check out Matt's Church of No People blog. His posts are often thought-provoking and funny. Just the kind of thing I like!
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
And that, my friends, is totally blog worthy:
Church of No People Sticker
Thanks, Matt!
Check out Matt's Church of No People blog. His posts are often thought-provoking and funny. Just the kind of thing I like!
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Evolution vs. Creationism - Part2
[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3min]
Before I get started with this book properly, let me set a little context for this discussion.
First: There truly is nothing new under the sun. I see the current disagreement about evolutionism vs. creationism as potentially much the same as geocentrism vs. heliocentrism: The disagreement is fueled by politics, the religious institutions' fear, the lack of good data from the scientific community, and a general lack ignorance all around.
But, eventually, the geocentric model was overturned, Christians embraced the latest scientific discoveries, the misinterpretation of a few passages of Scripture were corrected, and that debate is but a blip on the map of religious history. And the realignment of religion and science ultimately changed neither.
If evolution proves to be true, I predict a similar outcome: Christians will eventually decide science has it right, they will agree they've been reading passages of their Bibles wrong, and will move on--completely undisturbed by the change. Because, honestly, what theological difference does it make?
Yes, we'd need to admit we've read our Bibles wrong. Not the first time that's happened. We'd also need to admit that some of the people we've supported were errant in their thinking. This is also hardly a new event and this too says nothing about God. There may be a few more "sticky" points in the Bible--perhaps--but we've lived with those for thousands of years as well.
Second: There is a ton of confusion--at least, I'm confused--about the use of the word "evolution" which can refer at least three different things:
Before I get started with this book properly, let me set a little context for this discussion.
First: There truly is nothing new under the sun. I see the current disagreement about evolutionism vs. creationism as potentially much the same as geocentrism vs. heliocentrism: The disagreement is fueled by politics, the religious institutions' fear, the lack of good data from the scientific community, and a general lack ignorance all around.
But, eventually, the geocentric model was overturned, Christians embraced the latest scientific discoveries, the misinterpretation of a few passages of Scripture were corrected, and that debate is but a blip on the map of religious history. And the realignment of religion and science ultimately changed neither.
If evolution proves to be true, I predict a similar outcome: Christians will eventually decide science has it right, they will agree they've been reading passages of their Bibles wrong, and will move on--completely undisturbed by the change. Because, honestly, what theological difference does it make?
Yes, we'd need to admit we've read our Bibles wrong. Not the first time that's happened. We'd also need to admit that some of the people we've supported were errant in their thinking. This is also hardly a new event and this too says nothing about God. There may be a few more "sticky" points in the Bible--perhaps--but we've lived with those for thousands of years as well.
Second: There is a ton of confusion--at least, I'm confused--about the use of the word "evolution" which can refer at least three different things:
- The natural process of diversification among species (aka "Micro"/"Horizontal" evolution). This happens and works great with Scripture.
- Speciation or "Macro"/"Vertical" evolution: The idea that all species have evolved from a common ancestor (what it appears the book of this series purports).
- Abiogenesis: The non-supernatural answer for how life got here.
What I have noticed is that I think most of the "debate" rests on a misunderstanding of the last two. The evolutionists I've spoken with say that abiogenesis is not within the theory of evolution. Speciation is the key; how life started is something else entirely. So, creationists are yelling about one thing (genesis of life) and evolutionists are yelling about another (speciation of organisms):
The Possible Confusion of Creationist/Evolutionist Debate
So when we put both perspectives on their proper side of the timeline, we see that we've been incorrectly mashing the two together. Creationism is one thing. Evolutionism is another. And I'm seeing more and more documentation that points to God designing things to evolve. Which, if true, is a win/win: Scientists were right and God is still the Creator. And, what's more: It cleanly leaves everyone where they should be.
Could it be that even the title Evolution vs. creationism is misleading? Is this book really going to focus squarely on the interpretation of Genesis 1:25: How God made everything according to its kind? Or is it honestly going to show the evidence for abiogensis that renders creation needless?
I hope to find out soon enough!
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Friday, August 14, 2009
Evolution vs. Creationism - Part1
[Long posts scare me. Read time: 3.5min]
After a rather long discussion, I finally got fed up and proposed a challenge: Give me one book that provides the overwhelming evidence for evolution and I'll read it.
And the first one recommended was this title. So I've started. And I'll be taking notes and sharing my thoughts and observations as we go along.
Right now, I'm reading the Foreword by Niles Eldredge. He states:
After a rather long discussion, I finally got fed up and proposed a challenge: Give me one book that provides the overwhelming evidence for evolution and I'll read it.
And the first one recommended was this title. So I've started. And I'll be taking notes and sharing my thoughts and observations as we go along.
Right now, I'm reading the Foreword by Niles Eldredge. He states:
It seems common-sensical to [those who have absorbed evolution] to see us as the product of natural evolutionary processes--and ... new facts ... such as the astonishing 98.4 percent genetic similarity between humans and chimps ... fit right in. [pg. x]
Sadly, newer data has shown the "98.4% fact" to be astonishingly no where near as precise, nor as "common-sensical" an evidence for evolution as intoned here.
Science ... cannot deal with the supernatural. Its rules of evidence require any statement about the nature of the world to be testable... [pg. xi]
Which sounds, to me, like a great reason to limit how much "faith" [snicker] we put in science. As philosophers I've heard so often remind us: Science cannot account for scientifically why the scientific method is the best (only?) way to understand reality; those who believe that it is, do so on philosophical grounds.
Also, based on this introduction I hope to see evidence in this book for:
[Evolutionary theory's prediction 1:] more closely related organisms will share more similarities with each other than with more remotely related kin; ...there should be a single nested set of similarities linking up all of life. [Scientists are confident life evolved because we see this "nesting" take place: Rodents are similar to each other, but they also share things like cells and RNA, just as is to be expected if all life came from one common ancestor.] [pg. xi]
That's nice. Closely related things--defined by how close we deem them to be related--are more closely related than those we deem to be a more distant relative. "Capital, simply capital!"
[Prediction 2: paraphrased] Life should, through time, go from less complex to more. And we see this. [xi]
I am very interested to see what data they have on the varying levels of complexity going up the sequence, and if any of it points to good reasons to doubt creationism.
Now for an aside he tosses into the mix: [paraphrased] Biology's splits do not match man-made design advances, which along with other stuff, shows Intelligent Design to be false. [xii]
...I do hope there's more to this line of thought because that's a little too easy to topple. If, for instance, God made the world, I wouldn't have any problems believing he'd go about it differently from how we improve our computers. And, as usual, I actually like to know the "other stuff" that shows ideas to be false. I know, I'm through like that.
Creationists persistently and consistently threaten the integrity of science teaching in America--and this, of course, is of grave concern. [Paraphrased:] Their beliefs are narrow, religious and political, and that is why scientific and intellectual truth is of little concern to them. [pg xii]
Well, I'm interested in the scientific and intellectual truths scientists have come up with... that's why I'm reading this book. Therefore, I must not be a creationist, and there is no need for "grave concern" regarding my existence.
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Clipping Off the Problems
I tend to pick at my toenails instead of clipping them strait across so as to avoid ingrown toenails as my wife suggests.
Oh well.
It turns out that Uncle Sam may be using our flags to make video clips clearing up some misconceptions. You can watch the videos and get a reality check at http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Oh well.
It turns out that Uncle Sam may be using our flags to make video clips clearing up some misconceptions. You can watch the videos and get a reality check at http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
