Skeptical News for 19 October 2008Skeptical News for 19 October 2008Archive of previous NTS Skeptical News listings
Published: August 23, 2008
"Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution," a document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design, aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for Science Education. More questions can be found on Dr. Wells's site, http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ More information about biological evolution can be found at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
1. Origin of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
N.C.S.E. answer: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
2. Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
A. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian. We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they're in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence) . Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
4. Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — "evo-devo" — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel (long-discredited drawings that were used in textbooks 20 years ago) and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil. These fossils are not direct ancestors of modern birds but relatives, and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
6. Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
7. Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies exquisitely documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
8. Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
9. Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory.
Rod Liddle
It's been a damned good week for God, all things considered. Not only have those scientists been trying to find His very own particle in a large bicycle inner tube near Geneva, but the traditional view of Him forming the Earth in a week, resting only to take out a cable subscription to Setanta on the last day, has received a sort of official endorsement from the most unlikely of places – the Royal Society. Normally when you mention God to scientists they blush and start surreptitiously sniggering. Not any more. At last, He has tenure.
The biologist Michael Reiss, from the Institute of Education, has told the Royal Society that creationism should not be written off by scientists as a fantastically stupid notion, at odds with everything we know about the Earth and the universe, but allowed in the classroom as an "alternative world view". Reiss is worried that some 10% of pupils might be put off science at an early age if they are told that creationism is a belief system which can be adhered to only if you have a vat of tomato soup between the ears or very thick parents, or both. Instead, he argued, it should coexist alongside the accepted scientific discoveries – Darwinism, natural selection and so on.
Creationists believe that the world was conjured into existence in 4004BC, something which would come as a grave shock to the Sumerians, for example. They – the creationists, not the Sumerians – think that dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time as mankind; there was no big bang, no amoeba turning into fish, then turning into apes, then turning into Jade Goody. Instead it's Adam and Eve; snake, apple, quick shag, bob's your uncle. They believe this because a book they like – way too much – has told them it is true. Insofar as we can be certain of anything, it is very much not true; indeed, it is a ludicrous suggestion, believable only by the blank-minded and terminally credulous.
Michael Reiss, who is – not coincidentally – an ordained Church of England minister, thinks creationism is rubbish as well, so far as I can gather. Two years ago he argued against the consideration of creationism in school science classes but he has since changed his mind. Perhaps he has received a Visitation, or something. Or his bishop has been on the phone. Who knows?
These two things – creationism and science – cannot coexist in the schoolroom. Education should still be about the imparting of knowledge and the expunging of crass ignorance, even if it is crass ignorance which has been around for quite a while. The world is not precisely how we might want it to be – reality sometimes intervenes. If a child balked at the suggestion of his maths teacher that five plus five equals 10 and argued, instead, that it was 342, because his parents thought that to be the case and therefore it was, for him, an article of faith, he would not be entertained in his delusion. He would be told that he was wrong and that his parents were idiots.
Reiss will have caused some consternation with his address, some of it mitigated by the fact that his chosen discipline is biology. For the physicist, biology is virtually a branch of the arts, a half-science at best.
However, some people have found succour in Reiss's consensual, if not Panglossian, approach. Science, they argue, should not be too dogmatic, and they refer slightingly to Richard Dawkins's silly and dangerous suggestion that parents who bring their kids up with a Christian or Muslim doctrine are "child abusers". We could all do without such certainty and arrogance. Well yes, indeed.
But equally, it is iniquitous to shoehorn science into the present zeitgeist where things can be exactly what you want them to be, and that one view is as correct as any other. Where teachers explain natural selection to their classroom and add, as a horrible 21st-century postscript, "Unless you think otherwise, in which case that's okay."
CONNIE HOWARD / [email protected]
Thousands of us owe our lives to anti-seizure meds, antibiotic meds, anti-viral meds, anti-psychotic meds ... to drugs of all kinds. Thousands of us also owe our lives (and especially quality of life) to herbal and nutritional meds—which is where I, unlike some recent Vue readers, have a problem with the James Randi variety of skepticism. While skeptics sometimes legitimately debunk false claims, the tendency to assume all things alternative guilty until proven innocent has become a little tiring.
Skepticism of the skeptics is in order. Just as Mark Lynas recently reminded us that the energy behind much climate change skepticism comes out of industry-funded conservative think-tanks, others have alerted us to industry ties beneath the often-scathing and blanket skepticism of all kinds of alternative health.
Skeptics seem drawn to alternative health talk like ants are to sweets—and they're organized, cooperative, busy and effective.
Groups like the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), the Health Fraud Discussion Group, Quackwatch, the Skeptics Discussion Group and the James Randi Discussion Group are linked by a webring of over 200 websites, which serves to give related websites top Google placements. Many of them are operated by Stephen Barrett, the man behind Quackwatch, and a few of his buddies. Barrett has been declared by numerous judges to be biased and not credible—but there seems to be no shortage of others willing to take up his torch.
The roots of Quackwatch and the NCAHF go back to the American Medical Association's Committee on Quackery and their attempts to discredit the chiropractic profession about four decades ago. Barrett, who has often provided "expert" testimony in court, has conceded ties to the American Medical Association, the Federal Trade Commission and the FDA, and also admitted that the "sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to ... advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."
Remember, I'm not opposed to skepticism. But I am opposed to manipulation and out-of-hand belittling of all things "unorthodox" with self-righteous fundamentalist superiority, just as I'm opposed to those attributes in extremists of all stripes.
Those most fond of belittling all things alternative as unproven and ineffective have yet to answer why so many sufferers of psychiatric disorders have left their psychiatric meds behind in favour of nutritional meds, or why so many have left statins behind in favour of natural, effective and side-effect-free ways of managing cholesterol, or why, when we are being treated with orthodox "proven" therapies for cancer and heart disease, we're still dying of the same in devastating numbers.
The fact is that thousands of us are staying well and under the radar of mainstream medicine by turning to alternative medicine. The fact is that doctors and pharmacists alike are often frustrated with conventional therapies. The fact is that some of them don't wish to be silenced and shunned by their professional associations, and do things like the pharmacist I met a few years ago who had left her position teaching future pharmacists at the U of A in favour of alternative medicine, and the psychiatrist I met a few months ago who tells me nutritional medicine is now the very heart of her practice.
For immediate symptom management, for aggressive life-saving intervention, pharmaceuticals are very often a godsend. But they rarely offer a cure. Mainstream medicine doesn't have a monopoly on delivering health, nor does it have a monopoly on scientific approval.
The Wall Street Journal has reported Eli Lilly chairman Sidney Taurel as saying: "I think the industry is doomed if we don't change as it is faced with expiring patents and what the Journal calls a "stalled" science engine which is producing fewer and fewer drugs." Investors have downgraded the pharmaceutical market outlook from stable to negative. We just may be hitting a wall with the number of invasive and chemical interventions living organisms will tolerate.
Some magicians, having discovered magic to be no more than smoke and mirrors, now seem to see smoke and mirrors everywhere. And some people, perhaps nervous about the health of the medical-industrial complex, have been busy as ants trying to boost morale.
Category: Alternative medicine • Clinical trials • Medicine • Quackery
Posted on: October 1, 2008 9:00 AM, by Orac
When I first started blogging, I liked to refer to myself as a booster of evidence-based medicine (EBM). These days, I'm not nearly as likely to refer to myself this way. It's not because I've become a woo-meister of course. Even a cursory reading of this blog would show that that is most definitely not the case.
So what's changed? Basically, I've come to the realization that EBM is an imperfect tool. Don't get me wrong, EBM goes a long way towards systematizing how we approach clinical data, but there's one huge flaw in it. (I can just see a quack somewhere quote-mining that sentence: "Orac says EBM has a huge flaw!") That flaw is that it devalues basic science. In any hierarchy of evidence in the commonly used EBM systems, at the very top is, as they should be, are randomized, double-blind studies. Such studies control for the most potentially confounding variables and tries to rigorously isolate the difference between experimental groups to just the study drug or treatment. Thus, level 1a evidence is evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials with homogeneity of the trials. From there, the strength of studies falls by study type all the way down to the least powerful forms of evidence, such as case series. At the very bottom is the following:
Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"
In other words, EBM devalues basic science.
So what, you ask? Why is that a problem? After all, why should basic science matter? Here's why. In the absence of a basic scientific basis to think that a treatment is at least plausible on a physiological basis, all sorts of mischief happens. That mischief takes the form of "complementary and alternative medicine," much of which has zero plausibility from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not just talking about mild improbability, either. I'm talking about relying on first principles that flout everything we know about physics and chemistry, that for them to be true would require the overthrow of major, well-established theories. Think homeopathy, for instance. For homeopathy to be true, not only would our entire understanding of the chemistry and physics of water have to be seriously in error, but so would our understanding of how cells respond to chemical compounds. Think reiki. For reiki to be true, not only would there have to be a life "energy" (which, by the way, no scientist has yet been able to detect or characterize), but "healers" would have to be able to manipulate it. And not just manipulate it either, they'd have to be able to make it do their bidding to heal. Or think acupuncture. For acupuncture's mechanism to be true, much of what we know about anatomy and physiology would have to be wrong. We know, for instance, that there are no such things as meridians, the mythical pathways along the body through which that magical, mystical life energy known as qi is claimed to flow and into which needles need to be inserted in order to "unblock" or "redirect" that flow in order to heal. True, it's marginally possible that acupuncture could "work" by another mechanism consistent with modern science (endorphin or opioid release, for example), but classical acupuncture is clearly pseudoscience. On the basis of enormous amounts of data gathered over literally centuries, we can say with confidence that all of the above CAM therapies are incredibly implausible, bordering on being downright impossible.
None of this matters in the EBM paradigm as formalized by the Cochrane Collaboration and others. First principles based on basic science, no matter how well supported that basic science is, fall under level 5 (the lowest level) evidence, and for purposes of EBM as prior probability doesn't matter. Even a poorly designed, badly carried out case series ranks higher on the scale of evidence than hundreds of years of science saying that homeopathy can't work. Worse, as John Ioannidis has shown us, clinical trials are so prone to producing "wrong" results more than the 5% of the time expected by random chance alone using the conventional 95% confidence interval, with the probability of such a result increasing with the implausibility of the treatment being tested. In other words, the less likely the prior probability of a positive result based on scientific principles, the less likely the positive result obtained is a "true positive" or that it can be explained by a real therapeutic effect. When the result is equivocal or only weakly "positive" (as virtually all of the few well designed studies of CAM modalities that report "positive" results are), it's even less likely that the positive result is due to a real effect.
What this blind spot in the EBM paradigm leads to is the appearance of enough "positive" trials of even incredibly improbable CAM modalities such as homeopathy when on the basis of prior probability alone it is not unreasonable from a scientific (not to mention ethical) viewpoint to reject these improbable remedies a priori while awaiting evidence that approaches being as compelling as the scientific evidence that says they can't work. That's a lot of evidence. It's also why I've started referring more to "science-based" medicine rather than EBM, or "science- and evidence-based" medicine (SEBM). To me SEBM takes into account both clinical trials, other forms of evidence, and, most of all, science in the form of estimating plausibility and prior probability. Rarely do I see anyone writing about such topics in literature directed at a lay audience. (Actually, come to think of it, I rarely see articles directed at professionals discussing such matters.)
That's why I was pleased to see an article in the New York Times yesterday that does about the best job I've seen at actually discussing the issue of how to rank the "believability" of clinical trials. Have you ever heard of the Avalon effect? The article uses it to demonstrate how three large, well-designed randomized trials that failed to find that beta carotene protected against cancer were trumped in the public consciousness by lots of lesser quality studies. As Frankie Avalon, while shilling for supplement manufacturers put it:
There were laboratory studies showing how beta carotene would work. There were animal studies confirming that it was protective against cancer. There were observational studies showing that the more fruit and vegetables people ate, the lower their cancer risk. So convinced were some scientists that they themselves were taking beta carotene supplements.
Then came three large, rigorous clinical trials that randomly assigned people to take beta carotene pills or a placebo. And the beta carotene hypothesis crumbled. The trials concluded that not only did beta carotene fail to protect against cancer and heart disease, but it might increase the risk of developing cancer.
It was "the biggest disappointment of my career," said one of the study researchers, Dr. Charles Hennekens, then at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
But Frankie Avalon, a '50s singer and actor turned supplement marketer, had another view. When the bad news was released, he appeared in an infomercial. On one side of him was a huge stack of papers. At his other side were a few lonely pages. What are you going to believe, he asked, all these studies saying beta carotene works or these saying it doesn't?
That, of course, is the question about medical evidence. What are you going to believe, and why? Why should a few clinical trials trump dozens of studies involving laboratory tests, animal studies and observations of human populations
Why indeed. Too bad the average lay person doesn't understand that quality matters far more than quantity when it comes to deciding which clinical trials to believe. It is true that two or three well-designed studies do trump hundreds of weaker studies.
What follows is a fairly standard and well-described discourse on the rationale for what makes a medical study convincing. The importance of comparing populations as similar as possible except for the study intervention, randomization, controlling for confounding variables, and as large a sample size as possible. What shocked me is that Bayes' theory was next described:
The third principle, Dr. Goodman says, "is often off the radar of even many scientists." But it can be a deciding factor in whether a result can be believed. It's a principle that comes from statistics, called Bayes' theorem. As Dr. Goodman explains it,
"What is the strength of all the supporting evidence separate from the study at hand?"
A clinical trial that randomly assigns groups to an intervention, like beta carotene or a placebo, Dr. Goodman notes, "is typically at the top of a pyramid of research." Large and definitive clinical trials can be hugely expensive and take years, so they usually are undertaken only after a large body of evidence indicates that a claim is plausible enough to be worth the investment. Supporting evidence can include laboratory studies indicating a biological reason for the effect, animal studies, observational studies of human populations and even other clinical trials.
That's science-based medicine he's talking about. Normally, the way in which treatments are developed and found to be effective in humans begins with a clinical observation or a scientific finding in the laboratory. It is then studied further using in vitro models, animal models, and all sorts of other forms of evidence. All these studies, known as "pre-clinical" studies, form the supporting basis that justifies small pilot studies in humans and ultimately larger randomized clinical trials. Dr. Goodman puts it very well, when he says that the guiding principle in interpreting clinical trials is "that "things that have a good reason to be true and that have good supporting evidence are likely to be true."
The article then does something I've never seen in such an article before in a major newspaper. It gives an example:
To teach students the power of that reasoning, Dr. Goodman shows them a paper on outcomes of patients in an intensive care unit, with every mention of the intervention blacked out. The study showed that the intervention helped, but that the result was barely statistically significant, just beyond the threshold of chance.
He asks the students to raise their hands if they believe the result. Most indicate that they do. Then Dr. Goodman reveals that the intervention was prayer for the patient by others. Most of the hands go down.
The reason for the skepticism, Dr. Goodman says, is not that the students are enemies of religion. It is that there is no plausible scientific explanation of why prayer should have that effect. When no such explanation or evidence exists, the bar is higher. It takes more clinical trial evidence to make a result credible.
And that, my friends, is what science-based medicine is: EBM with science taken into account. It takes into account all the other preclinical evidence and evidence from other sources, such as basic science, that bear on the believability and plausibility of a therapy under study. That's all. It really is that simple.
Nor is it being close-minded, either, and rejecting out of hand the possibility that a therapy might work. It is simply weighing all the evidence, rather than pretending that any therapy under study is as likely to work as any other. It is using what we already know to decide where to set the bar for evidence. For a therapy that is highly plausible, the bar is relatively low: A couple of convincing randomized trials might be enough. For something as improbable as homeopathy, whose principles go against so much of what is known about chemistry and physics, the bar would be much, much higher. There would have to be multiple well-designed randomized clinical trials with very clear, compelling, and undeniable results to make it reasonable to start to conclude that there may be something wrong with our understanding of chemistry and physics rather than something wrong with the clinical trials. Of course, in the case of homeopathy there are no such trials. The "positive" ones are almost invariably small and/or poorly designed, and even the occasional randomized trial that appears "positive" generally demonstrates an "effect" that is barely above statistical significance. Meanwhile, the better designed and more rigorous a clinical trial of homeopathy is, the less likely it is to show a "positive" result.
Of course, that's the elephant in the room in discussions like these: How CAM research utterly ignores the issue of prior probability. True, Gina Kolata, the writer of the Times article, discusses prior probability and even interviews Dr. Goodman. In that, she goes further than virtually any other science or medical writer I've seen before in understanding how EBM should be applied. However, there's still that damned elephant that can't be avoided in CAM studies. It's an obvious connection, but she doesn't make it, and rarely does anyone else, it seems. In fact, we tend to pretend that it isn't there. Sometimes we bump into it but pretend it's something else. But it won't go away, and it's the reason that the vast majority of CAM research done under the auspices of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and promoted by wealthy private foundations such as the Bravewell Collaborative is so often a huge waste of resources and an abuse of science.
Too bad someone didn't tell another Times writer, William J. Broad, who clearly didn't get the idea. On the very same day Kolata's article appeared, he published an article called Applying Science to Alternative Medicine. Although there are some reasonable bits, there's a lot of the double-talk used to justify wasting resources studying highly implausible CAM treatments:
Dr. Briggs said such investments would be likely to pay off in the future by documenting real benefits from at least some of the unorthodox treatments. "I believe that as the sensitivities of our measures improve, we'll do a better job at detecting these modest but important effects" for disease prevention and healing, she said.
If the effects are so modest, why is it justified spending so much money and in the process twisting the very process of scientific medicine, I ask? On the other hand, tight funding may eventually bring some sense to the endeavor of studying CAM treatments by forcing a more rigorous form of triage:
An open question is how far the new wave will go. The high costs of good clinical trials, which can run to millions of dollars, means relatively few are done in the field of alternative therapies and relatively few of the extravagant claims are closely examined.
"In tight funding times, that's going to get worse," said Dr. Khalsa of Harvard, who is doing a clinical trial on whether yoga can fight insomnia. "It's a big problem. These grants are still very hard to get and the emphasis is still on conventional medicine, on the magic pill or procedure that's going to take away all these diseases."
I hate that "magic pill" straw man. If there is a "magic pill" in scientific medicine, its effects are not magic; they're documented by rigorous science and clinical trials. It's CAM that is looking for magic in the form of that "magic supplement" or extravagant magical thinking in the form of modalities like homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, much of chiropractic, "detoxification," and so many others. If there's a silver lining that might come out the current dire NIH funding situation, it's that it might force some rigor in our thinking about CAM and in how we decide what CAM modalities to study.
I guy can dream, can't he? Or, if you will, think magically.
TRICK OR TREATMENT
The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine
By Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst
Norton. 342 pp. $25.95
Alternative medicine is global big business, with an estimated $74 billion spent each year worldwide on therapies of all sorts, from nutritional supplements to meditation to chiropractic therapy. Given the popularity and ubiquitous media coverage of such treatments, I suspect that by now a majority of Americans either have personally tried some type of alternative medicine or watched relatives or friends experiment with it. (I include myself: A physician trained in family medicine, I practice yoga and, at the suggestion of my doctors, have tried acupuncture for low back pain and dietary supplements for arthritis.) For anyone who has ever wondered about the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such alternative therapies, "Trick or Treatment" by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst offers fascinating and clearly presented information.
Ernst is a physician and professor of complementary medicine in Britain, a former practitioner of homeopathic medicine who decided that homeopathy and other alternative treatments deserved keener scientific scrutiny. He has both reviewed the research literature and contributed to it, having invented a sham acupuncture needle that is used as a "placebo" in studies testing acupuncture's effectiveness.
He and Singh, a science journalist, explore the history of four popular forms of treatment -- acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic therapy and herbal medicine -- as well as the claims made for them. They describe the theories commonly invoked by practitioners to explain how each is thought to affect the body. Then they turn to the scientific evidence, particularly that derived from carefully conducted, double-blind clinical trials in which a therapy has been compared with a placebo in groups of patients suffering from a specific illness or symptom. They argue convincingly that conducting many such trials and carefully weighing the collected results is the only way to decide whether an alternative therapy works. (In an ironic touch, the book is dedicated to the Britain's Prince Charles, who established the Foundation for Integrated Health, an organization with a research mandate that nevertheless published a government guide on alternative therapies that contained little or no scientific information about their effectiveness.)
Ernst and Singh recount intriguing historical details about each of the four types of therapy. For example, Otzi the Iceman, whose 5,000-year-old frozen corpse was discovered by hikers in the Alps in 1991, was tattooed with lines and dots that appear to correspond to acupuncture points and meridians, suggesting that the practice may date back five millenniums. He also carried pieces of a birch fungus that contains a natural antibiotic, indicating he may have been taking an herbal remedy for intestinal parasites. Acupuncture was revived in the 20th century by Mao Zedong. It attracted widespread interest among Western physicians after reporter James Reston, who underwent an emergency appendectomy in Beijing in 1971, wrote enthusiastically in the New York Times about receiving acupuncture to treat his postoperative gas pain.
Homeopathy and chiropractic medicine are of much more recent origin. The former -- which involves administering solutions so highly diluted that they contain only water -- was invented by 18th-century physician Samuel Hahnemann, who sought a gentler alternative to bloodletting and other dangerous medical treatments of his day. The latter was the creation of Daniel David Palmer, an Iowa practitioner who became fanatically convinced that all maladies stemmed from subtle displacements of the spinal vertebrae that blocked the body's "innate intelligence."
Some forms of alternative medicine have been studied extensively, and the results (not surprisingly) are mixed. Homeopathy, the authors conclude, is "a bogus industry that offers patients nothing more than a fantasy"; it wastes money and can be dangerous if it keeps patients from using effective treatments. Chiropractic therapy shows some evidence of working for low back pain, but is expensive and has significant risks, especially if the neck is manipulated. Clinical trials of acupuncture have found evidence of its effectiveness in only a few conditions: low back pain, headaches, neck disorders, bedwetting, postoperative nausea and vomiting. A table in the chapter on herbal medicine rates the evidence as "good" for 10 of the 35 herbs listed; the evidence for the rest is rated as "medium" or "poor," and the authors emphasize that many herbal remedies can interact with other medicines. The book's final section provides useful one-page summaries of the research findings (often scanty) on three dozen additional forms of alternative treatment, ranging from the Alexander technique and aromatherapy to reiki and traditional Chinese medicine.
Singh and Ernst conclude with sound advice for anyone considering alternative therapies: Check with your doctor first, and don't stop your conventional medicines; look for scientific evidence of efficacy before you spend your money; and remember that every treatment, whether orthodox or alternative, has risks.
Three nominees set to review Texas science standards question theory of evolution.
By Laura Heinauer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, October 16, 2008
One of the leading proponents of intelligent design and two scientists who say they have doubts about the theory of evolution are among the six-member panel of experts that will be reviewing a set of proposed science curriculum standards expected to be adopted by the state next year.
The standards, which are scheduled to be approved by the State Board of Education next March, will determine what is taught in Texas science classes and found in state science textbooks for the next decade.
The draft to be reviewed by the panel of experts was penned by a board-nominated committee of science teachers and curriculum experts who removed language from the state's current curriculum that requires teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, an explanation for the diversity of species in nature. Critics of the language say it opens the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design, which hold that the origins of the universe stem from a higher power.
Each member of the new panel of experts was nominated by two members of the state board. State officials said a seventh panel member could be nominated. The panel is expected to send recommendations on the proposal back to the board in the coming months. The state board probably will hold a public hearing on the standards in November. Final adoption is slated for March.
Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said the board asked for an expert review because members thought it would be an improvement over the process used during the adoption of the English, Language Arts and Reading curriculum earlier this year. During that process, some complained about receiving a never-before-seen draft of the lengthy document less than an hour before the board was to take a final vote.
Gail Lowe, a Lampasas Republican, said she did not have any litmus test on evolution for selecting her nominee, Charles Garner, a Baylor chemistry professor, to the panel of experts.
Garner is one of more than 700 signatories of a petition titled "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" developed by the Discovery Institute, a group that promotes the idea that life is a result of an intelligent creator.
Lowe has said she would like to see the standards require that the strengths and weaknesses of evolution be taught.
"I figured others would be nominating people with a biology background. (Garner) offers another area of expertise that I thought might be overlooked," said Lowe, who along with Terri Leo, a Spring Republican, nominated Garner. "Also, he is in my district and from Baylor, and I am pleased he was willing to do it."
The selection of Garner, Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow and vice president of the Discovery Institute, and Ralph Seelke, a science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, was quickly criticized by the Texas Freedom Network, an education advocacy group that says it monitors the religious right.
Meyer was nominated by board members Cynthia Dunbar and David Bradley. Seelke, who has said his research with bacteria causes him to question evolution, was nominated by Barbara Cargill and Ken Mercer. Meyer and Seelke are co-authors of "Explore Evolution: The Case For And Against Neo-Darwinism."
"I think these state board members have really lifted the veil on what their real agenda is here," said Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the network. "It's clear they picked a few experts and a few people with a clear conflict of interest and a political agenda."
Seelke, who said he was asked by Cargill to be a panelist, said his research is focused not on promoting alternative theories to evolution, but rather to test it. "I am very comfortable simply asking what can evolution really do," he said. "If it turns out the answer is not much, then you're back to, 'How did we really get here?' "
The three other nominated panelists are University of Texas integrative biology professor David Hillis, Texas Tech University education professor and dean emeritus Gerald Skoog and Southern Methodist University anthropology professor Ronald Wetherington.
Board Chairman Don McLeroy, a College Station Republican, Lawrence Allen, a Houston Democrat, and Rick Agosto, a San Antonio Democrat, did not make nominations.
[email protected]; 445-3694
ANTIEVOLUTIONISTS ASKED TO REVIEW DRAFT STANDARDS IN TEXAS
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards. A version of the minority report was adopted in 2005, despite criticism from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association, but the balance of power on the board changed, and supporters of the integrity of science education quickly restored a proper treatment of evolution to the standards.
Referring to the appointment of Meyer, Seelker, and Garner, Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network told the Austin American-Stateman (October 16, 2008), "I think these state board members have really lifted the veil on what their real agenda is here ... It's clear they picked a few experts and a few people with a clear conflict of interest and a political agenda." Similarly, in a press release issued on October 15, 2008, Texas Citizens for Science's Steven Schafersman lamented, "It is unfortunate that some SBOE members have such a poor regard for the education of Texas science students that they must resort to pushing their own anti-evolutionist and Creationist religious ideologies into the science standards revision process."
The three remaining members of the committee -- "veteran science professors from major Texas universities," as the Morning News observed -- are David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas, Austin, Gerald Skoog, a professor of education at Texas Tech University, and Ronald Wetherington, an anthropology professor at Southern Methodist University. The American-Statesman noted, "a seventh panel member could be nominated. The panel is expected to send recommendations on the proposal back to the board in the coming months," with a public hearing following in November 2008 and a final decision on the standards scheduled for March 2009.
For the story in the Dallas Morning News, visit:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/101608dntexevolutionists.4a8e2cf.html
For information about the "Dissent from Darwinism" statement, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp
For information about Of Pandas and People, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21
For John Timmer's review of Explore Evolution, visit:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars
For the testimony from the "kangaroo court" hearings, visit:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Kansas, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=KS
For the Austin American-Stateman story, visit:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/16/1016science.html
For the Texas Citizens for Science press release, visit:
http://www.texscience.org/releases/creationists-science-review-panel.htm
For the pro-science organizations in Texas, visit:
http://www.tfn.org
http://www.texscience.org
http://www.texasscientists.org/
And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Texas, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=TX
MOORE WINS EVOLUTION EDUCATION AWARD
Randy Moore is the winner of the 2008 Evolution Education Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers, according to a press release issued on October 14, 2008, by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The award, sponsored by AIBS and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, recognizes innovative classroom teaching and community education efforts to promote the accurate understanding of biological evolution.
"This is a great honor, especially considering the roles AIBS and BSCS have played in defending the teaching of evolution," Moore was quoted as saying. He added, "Evolution is a unifying theme in biology; teaching it as such is the best way to show students what biology is about and how they can use evolution as a tool to understand our world. [Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science -- it is a great gift to give to students."
Moore will receive the award, which includes a plaque and a prize of $1000, at the NABT national conference in Memphis, Tennessee, in October 2008. A long-time member of NCSE who received its Friend of Darwin award in 2004, Moore is Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His latest book, coauthored with Mark Decker, is More than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of the Evolution-Creationism Controversy (Greenwood Press, 2008).
For the AIBS press release, visit:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/aiob-ber100708.php
To buy More than Darwin from Amazon.com (and benefit NCSE), visit:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0313341559/nationalcenter02
NCSE'S SCOTT RECEIVES AWARD FROM THE FIELD MUSEUM
On October 10, 2008, NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott was presented with the Field Museum's Award of Merit at a ceremony at the museum, where she gave a talk, attended a gala dinner, and received a $7500 honorarium for NCSE. The award is presented by the Field Museum's Founders' Council each year to "a leading scientist who has brought issues of cultural and environmental understanding to the forefront of public attention." Previous recipients include NCSE Supporter Stephen Jay Gould, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson, Richard E. Leakey, Jane Goodall, NCSE Supporter Lynn Margulis, Walter Alvarez, and NCSE Supporter Niles Eldredge.
For information about the Field Museum, visit:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
[email protected]
http://www.ncseweb.org
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
The latest from the Associated Press out in Texas (via Houston Chronicle) reports that "Scientists from Texas universities on Tuesday denounced what they called supernatural and religious teaching in public school science classrooms and voiced opposition to attempts to water down evolution instruction."
We covered the Texas science standards last week, noting that Darwinists there oppose teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.
In the AP article, no explanation is given for their opposition to the "strengths and weaknesses" language except the unsupported claim that thoroughly examining Darwin's theory in the classroom is something only creationists do.
Actually, AP reporter Kelley Shannon is pretty sure that the whole thing is a creationist ploy to teach religion in our schools. That's why she makes a point of giving credibility to the several Darwinists in the story before calling McLeroy a creationist, then discrediting the position she assigned him:
The Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based group that says it monitors the influence of the religious right, also praises the proposed language change.
But they say they fear State Board of Education members, led by chairman and creationist Don McLeroy, will switch the language back before the final vote.
Even at Baylor University in Waco, the world's largest Baptist university, professors don't teach creationism because it's not based on science, said Richard Duhrkopf, an associate professor of biology.
Then she has McLeroy singled out as the lone voice in support of the current language and includes some special context for the reader:
"Texas students need to understand what science is and what its limitation are," McLeroy said Tuesday, repeating part of an opinion piece he wrote in August. "I look at evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses." (emphasis added)
With one little phrase, not only is McLeroy a marginalized character with a marginalized viewpoint -- he's repeating a talking point! And we all know that talking points and parts of opinion pieces aren't arguments... oh, wait...
McLeroy has a legitimate argument, but reporters who couch support for teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as mere creationism will not be satisfied with arguments. They want the narrative they're planning on, you know, the one where lots of scientists stand up to the Crazy Creationists and Their Clever Code:
Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. So teaching the strengths and weaknesses of theories such as evolution has become "code" for pushing religion-based ideas in schools, said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network.
"It's time for the State Board of Education to listen to experts instead of promoting their own personal and political agendas," Quinn said.
And thus the story ends. No rebuttal, no other point of view, just the routine Darwinist narrative. Readers in Texas might wonder why the AP is marginalizing the common-sense view that teaching more information about evolution is better for science education.
Posted by Anika Smith on October 1, 2008 6:57 AM | Permalink
Evangelicals advocate that creation science should be taught in our public schools. Maybe we secularists who endorse evolution rather than Bible-based creationism have been a little hasty in our criticism.
Just think, with Darwin and evolution out of the way in our schools, students in chemistry class will now learn how water was miraculously turned into wine.
In physics, they'll finally be able to critically examine the elemental principles of "angel" aerodynamics— how do they achieve takeoff, let alone fly?
Someone ought to let North Carolina know that its state license plate ("First in Flight") is, from a historical perspective, incorrect.
In anatomy, girls will assiduously be instructed as to their true origin — Adam's rib.
And the boys? Well, the boys will be enlightened that they were created from a pile of dirt (dust). Do you suppose that's where that pejorative expression "dirt bag" comes from?
Just think of the astonishment our impressionable kids will have in English 101, when the class learns of the linguistic skills of a talking snake or their surprise in astronomy class whey they are taught how Joshua stopped the sun so as to provide him more time to murder the Amorites.
"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution," as Judith Hayes wrote, "then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
Come to think of it, it's about time that faith and belief replace reason and thinking in the classrooms. The secularists have had it their way long enough.
Borden Applegate
Jackson
By JOSHUA ZILLAK / Reader Columnist
Thursday, October 2, 2008
It's become in vogue to take shots at the "traditional" views of Sarah Palin. The weapon many think will knock voters over the head most persuasively is her views on the origins of life.
"She wants schools to teach creationism."
This desire — be it true about her or not — is seen by some as a line of demarcation, separating intelligent humankind from plodding, mouth-breathing, half-wits.
Let's agree that science, in general, has its facts correct one such set of facts is the universe appears to be very old. Plate tectonics, carbon dating, the earth's layers and the immense distance light from stars must travel are well-studied. All show us signs of an old universe. Does this "prove" creationism false?
Join me in a little thought experiment.
Imagine the biblical account of Adam as the first man is true. First, he wasn't there; and then, bam, he is there.
Now, imagine that after mulling about Eden for a day or so, eating fruit and naming animals, Adam drops dead. Who knows why; it doesn't matter.
Finally, imagine that the crew from "CSI: Miami" drops through a time-warping wormhole to examine the scene. It doesn't know Adam from, well, Adam.
The team begins to piece together the life and death of this fig leaf-wearing man.
Obviously, he's male. Maybe he's Caucasian; maybe more ethnic. Identifying Adam's age would be a bit harder. Luckily, Horatio Caine has the wonders of science at his disposal. X-rays show Adam's skull bones have fused, and his teeth are fully formed. His cellular make-up shows years of duplication and growth. Clearly, Adam is no baby.
A crack team of scientists determines Adam to be, let's say, 20 years old; but, in our thought experiment, we know that Adam is only a day old. How could science be so wrong? The science being performed is not wrong; what is wrong is our conclusion.
For some, science is a tool in understanding how God's creation works. For others, science is a truth that is meant to remove the need for God.
I won't try to convince anyone here that God created the earth, and Adam was the first man, but I hope to convince you that science is not a barrier to knowing God. More important, I hope to convince you that most disputes are not over the science being performed, but rather the conclusions being proposed.
The notion that something came from nothing runs counter to virtually every scientific nugget of knowledge. So much so, that to accuse anyone who theorizes otherwise of living in the Dark Ages insults human intelligence and does a tremendous disservice to the search for truth and understanding.
Creationism is not limited to the realm of superstition practiced by hayseeds and the uninformed, just as the theory of evolution is not limited to the realm of postmodern, self-important atheists.
Don't be fooled by close-minded individuals using the label of creationist as an insult. We are all too smart for that.
Contact Joshua Ziliak at [email protected].
By Brian Bethel Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Local professors who back science coalition
Abilene Christian University
Daniel Brannan
Thomas Lee
Hardin-Simmons University
Mark Ouimette
McMurry University
Joel Brant
Richard Schofield
Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools
A strong science curriculum is an essential part of a 21st-century education and should be based on established peer-reviewed empirical research. In 2008-09 the State Board of Education is revising the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards for the sciences.
Scientifically sound curriculum standards must:
We, therefore, call on the Texas State Board of Education to approve science curriculum standards that prepare Texas students to succeed in the 21st century.
Source: www.texasscientists.orG
A group of Texas scientists, including professors at all three of Abilene's Christian colleges, have banded together to take a stand on the need to teach evolution in the state's K-12 classrooms.
More than 800 people have signed the 21st Century Science Coalition's online petition, which states that a strong science curriculum is essential and should acknowledge "that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences."
Those who endorsed the statement also agreed that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond reasonable doubt.
The 21st Century Science Coalition's statement comes as the State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards -- something it votes on next spring.
An academic work group proposed Texas' standards for biology courses eliminate the long-held language of teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, according to a recent Associated Press article.
The 21st Century Science Coalition supports the language change because, it says, discussions of "weaknesses" allow for religion-based concepts such as creationism and intelligent design to be introduced.
Joel Brant, assistant professor of biology at McMurry University, signed the initiative and said that it was good "for us as a state to go through and review what our standards are and what we are teaching our students."
If one is going to discuss science standards, one needs to keep such standards "within the realm of science."
"What are the patterns I'm seeing, and how can I explain these patterns using natural explanations," he said. "That's exactly what science is."
Well-meaning people who want to introduce a "faith vein -- or at least the option to explore a faith argument -- into our science standards," he said, risk introducing nonscientific arguments into a science classroom.
"Science deals with natural phenomena and uses measurable standards," he said, whereas statements of faith apply a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenon.
The weaknesses of a theory can be examined as long as such an examination is done from a scientific standpoint, he said.
Tom Lee, a biology professor at Abilene Christian University, said it is "important to teach science in a science class."
"I think it's important we stand up for that," he said of the decision to sign the 21st Century statement.
Lee sees allowing creationism into the classroom as tantamount to opening up a "Pandora's box" that could lead to a morass such as determining which creation stories should be highlighted and which should be excluded.
"I think we should just stick with the science," he said.
Dr. Mark Ouimette, a Hardin-Simmons University geology professor who also signed the statement, said he supported the "teaching of science, not philosophy in the place of science."
Ouimette said he realized his statement is a "broad, very general, maybe even argumentative approach," but that concepts such as intelligent design do not have sufficient evidence.
"There's no evidence for it," he said. "The use of the scientific method has not been applied to those types of studies, and what few there are is just more of a rationalization bridging the gap between one very opposite extreme, the creationism way of looking at the origin of the earth and the universe, versus what scientists think."
Science is based on evidence, scientific fact, reporting results, arguing results, more testing and following protocols that have "worked very successfully for hundreds of years," he said.
Ouimette said that to not take a scientific approach risks creating generations of students ignorant about how the natural, physical and chemical world operates.
State Board of Education chairman and creationist Don McLeroy said in a recent AP story that he was "sick and tired of people saying we're interjecting religion" into the classroom, though he supports restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language and working some form of it into the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy.
McLeroy said he looks at "evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses."
Gaile Thompson, executive director of secondary education with the Abilene Independent School District, said she had heard of the 21st Century initiative but didn't think it would make much difference at the ground level.
"Teaching the processes of evolution is in the science (section) of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills" test, she said.
TEKS' requirements are law, so teachers in Texas must teach the processes of evolution, Thompson said.
"Creationism and/or intelligent design are not mentioned or supported by the TEKS," she said. "And so we're going to follow the law."
Whether wording concerning the "weaknesses" of prevailing theories is retained isn't much of a concern to her, she said.
"I don't think it's going to make any difference to my teachers at all, really," she said. "I am glad that the scientific community is supporting that stance on the TEKS, but I really don't think my teachers have a problem teaching the processes of evolution anyway."
ACU's Lee said some people threatened by the concepts that underpin evolution will "never interpret the data the way a scientist does, no matter what we come up with."
All three professors interviewed said that their Christian faith is not threatened by their scientific knowledge.
Lee said that the biblical narrative was "not designed to be a science book" and that the gaps in our understanding about evolution are simply further "frontiers" to be explored and explained.
McMurry's Brant said that as a scientist and a man of faith, "I don't see conflict between my religious understanding and my evolutionary understanding.
"When I read the Bible, I do not hear a how, I hear a why. And when I look at my science textbooks, I don't see a why, I see a how."
HSU's Ouimette said he also has no problem living in both worlds.
"I am both," he said, referring to his faith and his vocation. "There's a decision people have to make -- is the Bible literal, or is it a collection of metaphors used to make a point? Somewhere along that line, you have to make a decision about where you're going to stand."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Posted on: October 17, 2008 5:33 PM, by Josh Rosenau
Texas is gearing up to revise their state science standards. This is a big deal, because the standards Texas sets determine how textbooks are written not just for the Texas market, but for the rest of the nation. The fight over science standards now is a prelude to an imminent and much bigger fight over textbook adoptions. And the Texas Board of Education is currently run by creationist Don McLeroy, who runs a bloc of 7 of the 15 board members, a bloc which often draws in enough swing votes to allow bad policy to be pushed through.
The panels of experts selected to put together the new science standards have produced excellent drafts (far from perfect, but quite good), which means that McLeroy and his crew are looking for a way around them. Rather than a ham-fisted kangaroo court as in Kansas, the Board is simply appointing a panel of expert reviewers, and giving them unspecified power to mess with the carefully ironed out documents.
As in Kansas, the creationists on the Board of Education turned to out-of-state creationists to be their "experts." Ralph Seelke and Stephen Meyer are both veterans of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt, and the third creationist-nominated witness, Charles Garner, has been identified by his own students as a young earth creationist.
As the human rights group Texas Freedom Network points out, Meyer and Seelke are also "authors of an anti-evolution textbook":
The inclusion of the two textbook authors raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and whether political agendas took priority over giving Texas students a 21st-century science education, Miller said.
"It's simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists," she said. "Are they coming here to help write good science standards or to drum up a market for their lousy textbook?"
The textbook, Explore Evolution, is intended for secondary schools and colleges, according to its U.S. distributor, the anti-evolution Discovery Institute in Seattle. Because of that, the State Board of Education could consider it for the state's approved list of science textbooks in 2011.
Noting that the three pro-science experts are all from Texas, TFN adds that:
A number of respected Texas scientists contacted TFN to say that they had asked state board members to serve on the review panel, Miller said. None appear to have been named to the panel.
"Texas universities boast some of the leading scientists in the world," Miller said. "It's appalling that some state board members turned to out-of-state ideologues to decide whether Texas kids get a 21st-century science education."
To sum up: the creationists on the board nominated three men who hold views far outside the scientific mainstream, two of whom are from out-of-state, have a history of attempting to undermine accurate science standards, and will financially benefit of Texas waters down its curriculum.
TFN was too polite to ask this, but I do wonder why they couldn't have found good creationists in Texas. Bill Dembski, Carl Baugh, Kurt Wise, and any of the staff of the ICR would've prevented the carpetbagger critique.
How would Disco. respond?
Mendaciously, of course: Texas Freedom Network Manufactures Bogus Controversy Over Science Standard Reviewers:
AUSTIN, TX – The Chicken Littles at the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) are ranting that the sky is falling because two of the six experts selected to review the state's science standards co-authored Explore Evolution, a textbook that examines both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution (www.exploreevolution.com).
What the TFN doesn't reveal is that another of the expert reviewers co-authored a one-sided, Darwin-only textbook! David Hillis, a biology professor at UT Austin co-authored the 2008 edition of Life: The Science of Biology, a textbook whose previous editions have been approved for use in Texas high schools. Hillis also serves as a spokesman for a pro-evolution lobbying group that is trying to remove language in the Texas science standards requiring students to study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Gerald Skoog, another expert reviewer, has signed a statement issued by the same pro-evolution group, and he too has been a science textbook author and has a long history as a pro-Darwin activist.
"If being a textbook author really is a 'conflict of interest,' then why isn't TFN attacking Hillis and Skoog?" asked Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "In truth, textbook authors are precisely some of the experts who should be having input into science curriculum standards."
"TFN and other Darwinist activists are manufacturing a controversy because they don't want a serious examination of the science standards, especially of their effort to gut the 'strengths and weaknesses' language. What are they afraid of?" asked Luskin.
"We think it's fantastic that Dr. Meyer and Dr. Seelke have been invited to review the Texas science standards and explain why students should learn both the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories," added Luskin. "And we also think it's great that people like Dr. Hillis and Dr. Gerald Skoog were chosen. Unlike the TFN, we think the state board of education should be applauded for choosing a diverse group of scientific reviewers. Getting honest input from science experts with diverse views is imperative if we're going to build a world-class educational system."
Both Dr. Meyer and Dr. Seelke are practiced reviewers having been involved in other states' standards review processes. Dr. Meyer has previously been invited by the states of Ohio and Kansas to testify on their science standards.
Odd that Seelke's work in Kansas was ignored, as was his testimony against evolution in the Michigan legislature. Odd, too, that they don't mention what textbook Skoog wrote. In fact, he hasn't been listed as an author of a textbook since 1999, when he was the author of several textbooks in Addison-Wesley's "Science Insights" series. Other authors continue the series today, but Skoog has no financial stake in the series at this point.
As for Hillis, here is his reply to the Disco. Inst. attacks:
I am co-author of the 8th edition of Life: The Science of Biology (published by Sinauer Associates and W. H. Freeman). This is a college-level book for majors in biology. It is also used in some AP-Biology courses at the high school level, and an earlier edition (I was not a co-author) is on the approved list for use in AP Biology in Texas. The curriculum that we are reviewing is not the AP-Biology curriculum, which is not determined by the state of Texas. The book is not on the list (nor it it an appropriate level) for use in the regular high school biology curriculum in Texas, so there is no conflict. That is my only textbook…my other books are professional books on biology (you can find the full list on my cv).
For his c.v. and other publication info, check out Hillis's webpage. Because the AP curriculum is not set by the Board of Education, Hillis's review of the new TEKS cannot have any financial impact on him, thus he has no conflict of interest, either.
Thus, the only claim left to Disco. is that Skoog and Hillis (and presumably Dr. Ronald Wetherington, the third pro-science expert) are disqualified on the grounds that they have spoken out against ID and other forms of creationism. But doing so simply reflects that they are within the scientific mainstream, and will ensure that the standards used to test Texas students and to select textbooks for Texans will reflect the generally accepted principles of the scientific process.
Garner, Meyer, and Seelke do not, and should not be in charge of science education in Texas. The mendacity demonstrated by Disco.'s response here indicates exactly why they should not.
FORT WORTH — The Great Debate: Intelligent Design and The Existence of God, a program featuring four scholars, will be Nov. 7-8 at two Fort Worth locations. The question "How did we get here — by design or chance?" will be debated by these scholars:
David Berlinski, a critic of evolution, who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. He is the author of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Bradley Monton, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and author of An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design.
Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St. Edmund's College in Cambridge, England, and author of Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
Lawrence Krauss, professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the physics department at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz. He is the author of Beyond Star Trek: From Alien Invasions to the End of Time.
The first session will be 7 to 10 p.m. Nov. 7 at Will Rogers Auditorium, 3401 W. Lancaster Ave.; the second, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, 917 Lamar St. Tickets cost $10, $5 for students at the first session; free for the second. www.st-andrew.com.
— Terry Lee Goodrich
Part 1
Some in the scientific community question the theory of evolution; others believe it is fact. What is the truth behind the evidence?
By Bradford G. Schleifer
This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
The origin of life has for several generations been a hotly contested and unnecessarily complicated issue.
Scientists, educators and theologians staunchly stand in opposite ditches, unable to see the full picture. Their deep-seated biases have turned an inspiring subject into one filled with bitter controversy. This need not be.
Throughout this series, the subject of evolution will be made plain. Many of its teachings will be deconstructed and the underlying assumptions exposed. You will be left with a conclusive picture about the theory of evolution. Your thinking—and understanding—about the foundation of the world will be forever changed.
You have but one task as you read: Review the evidence with an open mind. Do not allow any existing bias to blind you to this crucial understanding. The implications are much greater than you probably realize.
Most scientists believe that evolution is the foundation for many disciplines of science. Biologists, geologists, archaeologists, biochemists, etc., would state that evolution is the starting point for further study.
Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?
How did this occur?
Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.
Once evolution is dismantled, you will be left with many questions—and serious implications.
Conflicting Opinions
Even a cursory review of this subject demonstrates that decades of scientific study have resulted in little more than assumption, disagreement and widespread confusion. Allow the late Colin Patterson, once the world's foremost fossil expert, to summarize: "One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it."
He addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?" Each time, he was met with weak explanations, hypotheses and theories.
The only salient comment came during the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, "I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school."
This led Mr. Patterson to conclude, "It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
What are the facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its near universal acceptance?
You will be amazed at what the scientific evidence reveals!
Science is Logical
No matter the discipline, when one is presented with a vast swath of empirical data, sound logic must be used to interpret it. Right conclusions can only be reached when proper logic is employed. Faulty logic—often called logical fallacies—cause error, confusion and misinterpretation. Sometimes these fallacies are used by accident; other times the motives are more sinister.
In the latter case, fallacies are meant to cause an audience to misinterpret data and reach a wrong conclusion. By creating a tangled web of confusion, the data is impossible to navigate and correct conclusions are lost.
While it should not be so, science is riddled with logical fallacies. Nowhere is this more true than with the subject of evolution. The seven fallacies below are the most commonly used to explain evolution. As the evidence unfolds, try to recognize these fallacies in the evolutionist's arguments.
Hasty Generalization: A small sample is used to reach a broad conclusion. Suppose your local car dealership only sells red cars; a hasty generalization is to conclude that all dealerships in your country only sell red cars.
Begging the Question: Often referred to as "reasoning in a circle," or circular logic. An assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption.
Misuse of Authority: Pointing to a group of experts to validate a conclusion, even if those experts disagree with each other or with the conclusion. An example would be stating that dentists prefer a certain brand of toothpaste, but never actually polling them about their preference in the first place.
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis, instead of relying on relevant evidence. Stating, "Of course, everyone accepts that as fact," would be an example.
Argument to Future: Stating that while a theory is not yet proven, it will be with further study and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Repeating as new a theory or hypothesis already disproven. This is akin to asserting that the earth might be flat, when evidence already demonstrates otherwise.
Chronological Snobbery: When a theory is either refuted or proven by dating "evidence" as extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.
One theme flows throughout all fallacies: They are false! Through dishonesty and lies, a proponent attempts to deceive. People would not be surprised if such a person was a snake oil salesman or a con artist. However, it is shocking how often scientists use such deception to promote the theory of evolution as irrefutable fact.
Inescapable Law
There is an overarching law governing the entire universe. It is so intrinsic to everyday life that most apply it without knowing. It is inescapable. Everyone is impacted by it.
It is the law of cause and effect.
Drop a rock and it falls to the ground. The effect is the rock hitting the ground; the cause is gravity. Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day and you are refreshed. The effect is feeling refreshed; the cause is jumping into the water.
Cause and effect is so universal and proven, it carries the status of being a scientific law: causation, which states that every effect can be traced to a cause that happened before (or simultaneous to) the effect.
All effects must have causes. It is that simple.
Linking cause and effect with another set of scientific laws—thermodynamics—makes the picture sharper. The word "thermodynamics" comes from the Greek words therme, meaning "heat or energy," and dunamis, meaning "power." It is the study of how energy is transferred, and is usually defined by three fundamental laws, on which all disciplines of science are based.
We will focus on the second law in this example (covering all in more detail later in the series). The second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In laymen's terms, it can be summarized by saying that when left alone, everything "burns" its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.
Consider: Water is heated on a burner to the boiling point. If the stove is turned off, the water's temperature will drop instead of rise. Water will dissipate heat until it reaches room temperature.
Here's another example: Connect a light bulb to a battery, and it will produce light. Over time, the battery will fully drain, and you will be left with no light and a dead battery. Instead of having two usable items, both will eventually reach a state of complete entropy—no usable energy.
Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.
This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws are immutable and complement one another.
Combining cause and effect with the second law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. Said another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its cause.
The theory of evolution states that a more "evolved" life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.
So begins the quandary of evolution…
In Part Two, we will look into what the theory actually means. You may be stunned at how many differing definitions it has. Then we will investigate how a scientific law and theory are defined—and whether evolution fits into either category! Also in Part Two, we will tackle the first assumption of evolution: survival of the fittest.
After learning the facts, you will be amazed that this theory is universally accepted. Again, if you keep an open mind, you will find yourself agreeing with the comments from the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar that evolution "ought not be taught in high school"!
Related Literature
Part 2
The debate about the origin of life is clouded by a hazy definition of what evolution actually is. This need not be.
By Bradford G. Schleifer
This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
Originating as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures (and, by extension, even matter) evolved from a less complex life form or substance. His theory purports that life began by accident—blind chance—and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.
While the general scope of evolution is still contested, even among evolutionists, it can be separated into six primary disciplines: cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro, and micro.
Cosmic evolution encompasses the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline.
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
Stellar and planetary evolution focuses on the origin of stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Origin of life research centers upon this discipline.
The two final disciplines, macro- and micro-evolution, are most often wrongly interchanged. They are not meant to detail the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the innumerable variety of plants and animals. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro-evolution takes this further, stating that such adaptations and mutations will, over time, create a new species of plants or animals. Micro-evolution attempts to explain variety within a particular species, while macro-evolution attempts to prove a common link between all species, families or phyla.
There is ample evidence demonstrating micro-evolution. For instance, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is indicative of micro-evolution. Often, such evidence is used to "prove" macro-evolution, thus employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. (To learn more about logical fallacies, read Part One of this series.) There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution—none!
Blurring these disciplines has led to much confusion among the general public and to heated debate among scientists.
Assumptions Are Not Proof
Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The crux of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many aspects of evolution's fundament are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and "prove" other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method—and not how legitimate science operates!
Approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false—or impossible to validate—any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.
To remove all doubt, most of the major tenets of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.
As we cover each point, the logical fallacy evolution employs will become clear. Get ready to be amazed by the "science" used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.
Neither Theory nor Fact
The first assumption is the gradual transition of referring to the theory as a tried, tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The certainty with which such statements are made leaves most people convinced that scientists have corroborating evidence. One statement from Theodosius Dobzhansky's book, The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, illustrates the point well: "Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century."
Such blind conviction among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.
But not all evolutionists agree with Dobzhansky's conclusion: "What was the ultimate origin of man?…Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural" (W. LeGros Clark, Discover, Jan. 1955, emphasis ours throughout).
Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist, author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, "Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved" (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).
While these quotes speak loudly, the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.
A scientific fact is defined as "an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true." From just the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that neither an evolutionist nor an influential zoologist accepted evolution as fact. How could evolution be considered fact when such divergent opinions exist?
In truth, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory! A scientific theory is defined as a "theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable."
To survive as a legitimate theory, there must be some test or tests proving it valid or else it should be discarded. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.
For example, a theory arising from observing an orange sunset could state that the sunset is always orange. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a year and record their color.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a red, yellow or violet sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.
Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be argued that with no observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific observation. Further, nearly all evolutionists purport that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven (or disproven).
When evidence that is no longer available (because it is extremely old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!
Evolutionists should recognize their "theory" is neither a scientific fact nor even a theory. This may explain why most resort to convoluted arguments and logical fallacies.
Such thinking is best summarized by world-renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Denton: "His [Darwin's] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).
Evolution is not a fact; it is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton stated, it is nothing more than a "highly speculative hypothesis." Again we can ask: How can something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?
Survivors Survive
One of the most basic tenets of evolution is the assumption of "survival of the fittest." Simply put, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.
You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained presumptions.
Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well: "Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve" (Janus: A Summing Up).
In other words, the fittest are those who survive; and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! It assumes that just because something survived, it is the fittest.
In science, you cannot base a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass muster in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.
Survival of the fittest is a loose "tautology," a way of saying something redundantly. For instance, "survivors survive"; "water is wet"; "matter is material"; and so on. Such statements do not prove anything, because they are nothing more than truisms.
Yet even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: "Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder…simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring" (emphasis ours).
"What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology" (Gregory Alan Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection).
Surviving vs. Arriving
Some scientists may argue, "We have witnessed natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. It is provable!" They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit—not a process that favors the "fittest." At best, you could call natural selection a "survival of the average."
Natural selection is a system that removes the weak, infirm and unfit from species. This ensures that populations are healthy and thriving. It can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed. In no way, shape or form does it propel some supposed "fittest" to the front of the pack! Evolutionists must account for new species by, as Darwin purported, successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolutionists require!
A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest" (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation).
Interestingly, natural selection did not originate in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, it was documented 20 years earlier by Edward Blyth, a zoologist, chemist and creationist. Darwin changed the correct observation of a passive "natural process of selection" to the active "natural means of selection." He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!
Like all such truisms, the false interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this pillar of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement proving nothing!
A House of Cards
Even with just two assumptions of evolution detailed, you should already begin to understand how so many scientists illogically view evolution as fact. The scientific theory of evolution has already broken down just by using logic.
We ended Part One with the question of how it could be taught in high schools; we could now ask why it is believed by anyone. There is much, much more to cover as this faulty science is exposed and the house of cards completely topples.
Related Literature
Part 3
The origin of the universe is usually avoided in evolutionary theory. However, if evolution is real, then the arrival of the cosmos cannot be ignored!
BY BRADFORD G. SCHLEIFER
This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
As we have seen, the theory of evolution comes in many flavors and forms. But all stories have a beginning, and evolution should be no different. It should be able to explain the beginning of the universe. This is the first step from which every evolutionary change must take place.
Evolutionists quickly state that the universe has nothing to do with evolution. It is dismissed as a different discipline of science.
You cannot jump up the evolution ladder without explaining its first rung. Evolution was supposed to have begun when gas was affected by some unknown catalyst and formed a more complex organized state, leading to life. Explaining this part of the process leaves evolutionists stumped. They are left with no choice but to dismiss cosmic evolution as not pertaining to evolutionary theory.
Readers should not settle for weak theories that pass themselves as fact. Investigate the facts! Use logic and determine the answer for yourself. When understood, there are only two possibilities.
The first option is that the universe began—appeared—at a specific point in time. The second is that the universe is eternal—it always existed. Each option requires some investigation.
Since one is unable to travel back in time, the universe's age may seem impossible to determine. However, there are multiple ways for scientists to verify whether it had a beginning or has always existed. This is partly due to an amazing property of matter: decay! Everything, in one way or another, decays. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if the house was vacated, layers of dust would build up and its general state would decline. The human body also evidences this. Keeping oneself in shape requires work. Stop exercising or eating properly and health conditions will deteriorate much faster than one would desire. These examples are a broad application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In laymen's terms: When left alone, everything "burns" its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.
What does this have to do with proving the universe's origin?
With the advent of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie's discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements give off radiation. As Uranium decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. When each is released, the element's nature changes (the first helium atom released results in radium). While this process takes a tremendous amount of time, eventually the final product is the inert element of lead.
This means there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed! Otherwise, we would only find lead today. Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner. This also means there was a specific moment when all radioactive elements came into existence. It is impossible for any of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—to have existed forever. Each element had a beginning.
This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Morris stated, "The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning" (Scientific Creationism). It represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence—in other words, the universe is not eternal! This much is obvious.
Therefore, we can ascertain that something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence. The universe is the effect—but what is the cause? In other parts of this series, we have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So, as vast as is our universe, something greater must have caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws already discussed.
Such basic logic and laws of science are not lost on scientists. They understand that the universe had a beginning. To facilitate this, there needs to be what is often called the "first cause." Ignoring the true first cause, other theories have been formulated to explain the origin of the universe. The most common is the "Big Bang" theory.
Big Bang—or Big Hoax?
At its very core, the Big Bang theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial singularity event. After this first cause, another theory takes over. The "inflationary model" (a theory attempting to explain how the universe "inflated" from microscopic to billions of light-years across) was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today. (While the Big Bang appears in tens of millions of text books, the process, details and conclusions are hotly contested, and scientists are far from agreement beyond the initial concept.)
Both the Big Bang and the inflationary model break basic laws of science. We have seen that energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy (entropy)—not into larger, more complex and organized systems, such as the universe.
For the universe to form in that manner there would have to be a nearly unlimited amount of energy that started the Big Bang. This simple fact is usually ignored!
An even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. Memorized by high school students, it is a basic fundamental law of science. Essentially, it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This flies in the face of the Big Bang theory!
If energy cannot be created, then an incredible amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolutionists understand this problem. Often, focus is directed from how the universe began, to an explanation of how it grew. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created a series of "smoke and mirrors," which, as we have seen before, is often the best—and only way—to explain nearly every facet of evolution.
Many scientists, such as professor of physics Alan Guth, have also raised the issue of ignoring the universe's origin: "First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from" (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God).
Further, a concluding statement by one of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, debunked the inflationary model: "The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable" (A Brief History of Time).
Strong, clear statements!
However, like so many aspects of evolution, even when evidence demonstrates otherwise, it continues to be purported as fact.
Inadvertent Proof
So how did the universe come into existence? The First Law of Thermodynamics points to God's eternal existence. Remember, this law defines that something could not come from nothing. Science has effectively proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would have never been a universe!
Since something can never come from nothing, then a Creator had to always exist! Since a cause must be greater than the effect, an eternal Maker—an all-powerful God—had to exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God's existence while at the same time debunking evolution!
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Louis Neel stated, "The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe"—and, it should be added, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people.
Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, suppositions and deceit. Ignoring the evidence, evolutionists and others are forced to conjure illusions—and assumptions. Two more of which you should now be able to dispel.
Related Literature
Part 4
From the smallest of cells to the largest of planets, evolution tries to prove everything, yet proves nothing. More holes are revealed.
By Bradford G. Schleifer
This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a chicken grow from a lump of coal? Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non-living matter can transform, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as "spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, abiogenesis" or "biopoiesis."
Do not allow evolutionists to dodge the "origin of matter" question. Many assert that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.
Renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life's origin on our earth lies outside its domain…Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life" ("Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Bully for Brontosaurus).
Should evolution be restricted to the study of organic matter? Allow noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer: "Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life" ("Changing Man," Science, January 1967).
If evolutionists try to separate biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), a towering question remains: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must encompass the whole process—from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific "spin" can change this.
Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts?
Unbreakable Laws
At the heart of the "origin of life" debate is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the process that new life can come only from existing life—that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.
Simpson and Beck's biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology is clear: "There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell."
Also, Martin A. Moe, a writer for Science Digest, wrote, "A century of sensational discoveries in the biological science has taught us that life arises only from life..." ("Genes on Ice," December 1981).
Perhaps the most powerful statement is found as a footnote in the biology textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity: "Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization" (1974).
These are three plain, conclusive and irrefutable statements. How then do evolutionists bypass a linchpin of biology? Again, tossing aside the obvious, they are forced to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process.
Do not be fooled by discussions of scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Every honest and even basically trained biologist knows that viruses are non-living organisms, because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who says otherwise is either untrained or dishonest.
Even if it were true, it took decades of scientific research and advancement to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to create synthetic polio. Random, mindless events did not create it!
So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?
A Land Far, Far Away!
When one tries to prop up a shaky assertion, he must quickly change focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes, if abiogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.
What should be seen as illogical insanity is entertained as a valid postulate. This does not follow the scientific process. When a theory is disproven, it should be dispelled and another theory put forward. In this case, a new hypothesis is developed under the assumption that the original was true! Imagine if someone stated that the sky was purple. All those around could clearly look up and see the sky is not purple and disprove the theory. It would be preposterous for the theorist to retort, "Well, the sky is purple if you look at it from space." It would be seen as a desperate attempt to credit an obvious fallacy and would be quickly dismissed.
Evolution seems immune from basic logic. The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.
These highly unstable, simple forms of life must survive being ejected from a faraway planet (usually by a catastrophic event or explosion), travel through the rigors of space (radiation, bitter cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of penetrating earth's atmosphere and, finally, survive the severe surface impact. How ridiculous! One does not need a degree in science to see ludicrous nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!
Remember. This hypothesis is not meant to be a real theory. The attention had to be taken away from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific "bait and switch." Instead of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot get around, they attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus avoiding the original problem.
Biogenesis is a UNIVERSAL law. Just as it applies on earth, it must apply throughout the universe. Moving the problem to outer space is silly—and dishonest!
So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least honest enough to admit no answer to biogenesis? They simply parrot a non-answer, and apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as covered in Part One of this series), claiming further scientific advances will reveal the origin for life on earth.
Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer—because they have no answer! Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
The Law of Laws
For the next assumption, we can play the game of "let's suppose." Suppose the previous assumption was not false, and that at some future time we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into existence.
Obviously, with the proof, logic and statements above, this is quite the supposition. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, existed. We can even extend the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. This is an overly generous leap, but it will serve to prove a point.
With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science come into play—the Laws of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington stated, "The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation" (The Nature of the Physical World).
These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of science. To even be considered, evolution must function within the constraints of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics.
Open or Closed—Still Impossible
Thermodynamics comes from two Greek words, therme, meaning "heat," and dynamis, meaning "power." In essence, thermodynamics is the study of "heat power." The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a system, all processes will result in increased entropy—the scientific term for "unusable energy."
The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things tend to even out in an isolated system. And entropy is a measure of how stabilized—or evened out—a system has progressed.
Another way to look at it is best explained by world-famous science writer and scientist Isaac Asimov: "Another way of stating the second law then is 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about" ("In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970).
This poses quite a challenge for a theory based on an increase of order, complexity and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!
In an attempt to make the theory work, a debate between "open" and "closed" systems has arisen. The difference between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the second law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disorderly, entropic and stable over time strictly in line with the second law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy allow a process to have more sustained energy—increase in useable energy.
In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more usable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, effectively transferring energy, all of the Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are satisfied.
Energy Alone Doth Not Evolution Make
Can simply applying raw, undirected energy to a system allow a lower level of entropy? Can it really be that simple? There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Also, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.
While many evolutionists try to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, there are some that are more honest. Charles J. Smith stated, "The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology" ("Problems with Entropy in Biology," Biosystems, Volume 1, 1975).
Decades ago it was understood there are "fundamental unsolved problems." Nothing has changed today.
Raw energy alone is not enough to reduce entropy! For this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from Life: An Introduction to Biology: "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed" (emphasis ours).
"Particular work" is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a "bull in a china shop." Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only destroys! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and destroys. There must also be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a specific application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that destroys.
Consider the process at work in plants, photosynthesis. The parallel is most interesting because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This complex energy conversion system is the process used by plants to change sunlight into usable energy needed to grow. Because this is biological, we are dealing with the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have information-rich DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed specification for this "particular work" to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in usable energy.
There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory, etc. Yet in all cases, the three conditions are satisfied.
To perform specific work, there must be "information"—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those instructions to be carried out. This happens in the leaves of plants, as well as with the systems in the human body.
Highly specific work—evolution—is impossible by supplying energy from the sun and "hoping for the best." The work must be specific, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed instruction. No matter the argument, no matter how loud voices get or how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.
Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, p. 35).
Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.
The fundaments of science are based on these laws. They are SURE! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution impossible!
Related Literature