Arkansas science students wonder: how old is really really old?

Transcript of today's show:

Evolution is not officially banned in Arkansas schools, but it has been unofficially banished for fear of upsetting fundamentalists. Arkansas school teachers are forbidden to use the word ‘evolution’ and the term ‘natural selection’ in the classroom. They are also required to be vague. As one teacher described, “I am instructed NOT to use numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. Instead, I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD.” [source: The Arkansas Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A subtle yet dangerous prejudice has been creeping into our society, oh, I’d say, since 2001 – the year that among other things endowed us with the presidency of George W. Bush. The creepy crawly prejudice began about then, marked by a despotic intolerance of all things progressive, non-traditional, and discordant with Biblical values. Severe and unyielding positions were indoctrinated throughout the new administration on meaningful issues, each of which touch our daily lives. The creepy crawly prejudice slithered out of Washington and into communities all over America, especially ones with Christian mega-churches and evangelical study groups.

Suddenly, the issues of right to life, stem cell research, gay marriage, and the fate of Terry Schaivo -- to name a few -- became pet political themes around which the emerging conservative Christian voice could find and feel its power. The sciences, too, have become targets of these righteous Christian soldiers and their war of ideas, particularly in the fields of genetics, the environment, and evolution. Evolution itself is nearly a dirty word in some places, Arkansas among them. But wait, have we forgotten that this war of ideas, of religion vs. science, was conclusively addressed in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as well as in the First Amendment, guaranteeing separation of church and state? Are these inconvenient truths being pushed aside?

The scientific community has no interest in changing nor obliterating the various religious beliefs that we are free to express in this country. We ask that religion offer science the same courtesy. We can all agree to disagree, respect one another’s differences, and teach evolution in science classes and creationism in religion classes. This, I believe, is a practical and honorable truce in the culture wars of ideas and ideology.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
I believe it is our duty as adults, parents, and teachers, to shape an education that will open young minds to the immense vastness of creativity, spirit, and Creation. We must show them the world in its wonder, and enthusiastically celebrate the miracle that it is. At the same time, we will do well to refrain from excessive emphasis on geological details, that may be nothing more than scientific conjecture. Giving young minds specific and incomprehensible numbers with regard to the planet’s age may confuse them (particularly if their family are Bible-reading Christians), and (if they are not Christian) may fixate their thinking in such a way as to close their mind to the truths contained in Genesis. This is a benign legislation that does no harm to any student, but rather, may prevent harm from befalling them.

Is evolution a statistical long-shot?

Transcript of today's show:

British astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle has calculated the probability of the random occurrence of evolution to be 1 chance out of 10 to the four-thousandth power! Hoyle compares this to the likelihood of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the scraps. Hoyle also says that protein formation had as much chance of occurring naturally than a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.
[source: Gregg Easterbrook/Beliefnet]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
This story, if you’ll pardon the pun, would seem like a God-send to ID’ers, whose principle argument is that if you can’t explain something scientifically – then God most certainly had a hand in it. Not so long ago comets, meteors, and other unusual celestial phenomena were thought to be bad omens from God or Lucifer. The appearance of bright conjunctions of large planets and spectacular supernova activity portended the birth of a great man or some other such boon to the world. Today, the majority of free-thinking adults believe that celestial phenomenon presage nothing about life on earth, and these myths are becoming appropriately labeled as ‘superstition’.

The fact that the honorable Sir Hoyle so eloquently postulates the unlikeliness of life and protein formation does not, however, mean that a supernatural being was directly responsible. His postulate only proves that unaided life formation is extremely unlikely. But let’s think about this for a moment. This is one big (big!) universe, stretching in all directions for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of miles. Within this immense space are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of free-floating molecules, atoms and other building blocks of life. Statistical long shots would certainly do well in such an enormous environment containing an inexhaustible number and variety of conditions.

Still, all of that being said, if tomorrow scientists successfully created a viable life form in a laboratory from a recipe of organic chemicals, what would be the response of the creationists and the ID’ers? Will they concede and slink away quietly, or would they reject the science as heretical, and like the Catholic Pope in the days of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, chastise the scientists and symbolically burn them at the stake?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
I have a great and special respect for Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a hero to me in my youth and whose name was on the textbook I studied as an amateur astronomer. He always had a reputation as something of a rebel; he was one who thought profoundly for himself yet with a measure of reverence and awe of the universe he contemplated.

In recent years, Sir Hoyle has made one the most compelling and indisputable arguments for Intelligent Design. Yet fellow scientists turn a deaf ear, unwilling to open their minds to the possibility of supernatural causes. Christians derive great comfort and joy from the knowledge that God has a hand in all of life, not only the creation of life, but the unfolding of life as well, where we see his activity in the form of miracles, Divine intervention, and revelation. Scientists seem to fear the miraculous -- perhaps they are threatened by what they cannot fully know and perceive – and so they criticize miracles as superstition and child’s play. My heart grieves for them, they know not what they are missing.

Darwin’s drawings under suspicion

Transcript of today's show:

Darwin’s chief illustrator has been accused of producing fraudulent drawings in order to provide better evidence for Darwin’s arguments. Ernst Haeckel deliberately fudged his drawings to reveal similarities in embryonic development among species. An international team of experts recently compared Haeckel's drawings with actual embryos and have concluded that Haeckel's work is one of the most famous fakes in biology. In spite of this widespread discrediting, Haeckel's drawings still appear in many textbooks and are presented as fact. [source: Science magazine, Talk Origins]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
All textbooks containing Ernst Haeckel’s questionable drawings should be pulled from use and revised or replaced. I believe in a zero tolerance rule regarding fraudulent presentation of material. Haeckel’s frauds must be fully brought to light and expunged from all teaching materials.

Now, what about Darwin? We do well to remember that Haeckel’s drawings were a post factum addition to Darwin’s published work. Haeckel’s embryo drawings did not appear until 1874, almost two decades after Darwin published the “Origin of the Species.” Haekel’s exaggerated drawings never influenced Darwin’s thinking nor formed a basis for his theories of natural selection and adaptation. Creationists and ID proponents rightly assail Haeckel’s utter lack of professional ethics, however, they go to far when they pin this on Darwin with the purpose of discounting his work altogether. The transgressions of Haeckel do not belong to Darwin.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This travesty of scientific integrity points to a little-known political campaign that was waged in the years following Darwin’s publication of his controversial “Origin of the Species.” Colleagues of Darwin undertook a decades-long disinformation campaign to trump support for his bizarre and heretical theories (which were quite unpopular among the people of his day). Haeckel played a significant role in this political machine. He was a great embellisher of his observations, he had a comfortable genius for creating false proofs, and he expounded many outlandish theories of his own, which he often devised from thin air. And there are other Darwinists who, like Haekel, would do anything to make their theory seem believable to the public. This unethical approach of disinformation is exactly why state legislators are introducing bills that would allow other theories to be taught along side evolution. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is not gospel. There has been much sleight of hand and underhanded deception from the Darwinists. They must be questioned vigorously and unapologetically.