Evolution in the National Post

1. Further reading is at the bottom of the page.

Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut'
Tom Blackwell, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006
"A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance. Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week. " ...
The beginning of the newspaper article is quoted from the National Post. The full article is at
Link 1
Link 2

2.

Letter to the Editor, D. Johnson
National Post
Published February 25, 2006
Re: Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut',
National Post, Wednesday, February 22, 2006
That is hilarious, but also very sad. I am sure that you could find a biologist somewhere who does not believe in (or perhaps understand) the refraction of light, or a philosopher who doesn't believe in a relationship between supply and demand, and who is willing to offer opinions outside his or her actual training. Does this prove anything about optics or economics? The implication in the title of the article seems to bring Canada into disrepute. Denial of basic biology theory (this word means a body of knowledge) is a project of the US special-interest group mentioned, one that has been busily pushing their brand of religion into science classrooms.
Dan L. Johnson
www.uleth.ca/~dan.johnson

Seen in: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur

3.

A professor's closed mind .
Letter to the Editor
A professor's closed mind
National Post
Published: Monday, February 27, 2006
Re: "Anti-biology made me laugh and weep", letter, Feb. 25.
Everyone should have an open mind, especially academics such as this letter writer. Yet he finds it "hilarious" that "a handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for life."
An open mind recognizes that some happenings are too complex to be explained by a single all-encompassing theory such as evolution. The wave theory of light, for example, added to the corpuscular theory of light, and together they were added to by the quantum theory of light. Each theory contributed to our understanding of light. It is similarly so for our understanding of life.

There is much appeal in the theory of evolution, but there are some facts that do not fit. It seems to me it is just as "hilarious" to believe the theory of evolution right as to believe it wrong.
I see evolution and acts of creation as twin processes working together in the same way a child runs after and guides a hoop gently rolling down an incline. For the most part, the hoop finds its own way down; but every so often, the child gives it a nudge with his stick. The path the hoop takes by itself represents the process of evolution; the nudges of the stick represent acts of creation nowadays referred to as "intelligent design."
David Homa, Ottawa.
© National Post 2006

4.

Letter to the Editor, J. Linville
National Post
Published February 28, 2006

In his letter of Feb. 27 David Homa comments on Prof. Dan Johnson’s opinion (expressed on the 25th) that a small number of Canadian scholars who propound the theory of intelligent design have placed themselves in a hilarious situation. For my part, I find it hilarious that Mr. Homa declares that academics have a special obligation to have an open mind but then immediately closes off debate on what such a mind should conclude about the world, declaring that “an open mind recognizes that some happenings are too complex to be explained by a single all-encompassing theory such as evolution.” So, one has an open mind only if one agrees with Mr. Homa. Really?
Mr. Homa’s analogy of the “twin processes” of evolution and creation/intelligent design resembling a child helping a hoop role down a hill does not require expertise in any science to expose as absurd. What is the point of natural laws only to have to “nudge” things to keep them rolling along as intended? I am reminded of the satirical piece the Onion publishes some time ago about the “theory of intelligent falling”. Now that was hilarious!
If one must consider Western religious doctrines of creationism and intelligent design as necessary complements to the secular sciences, then a truly open mind should engage all religious philosophies and mythologies about the nature of life, the universe and everything. For example, there is a great diversity of Indian cosmologies in which the universe is eternal and uncreated or goes through phases of birth, life and destruction in a never-ending cycle. These almost never get mentioned by ID proponents whose goals and ambitions strike me not as scientific but political and religious—and in particular, monotheistic.
For an academic it is more important to have a curious but critical mind than a mind ‘open’ in the way Mr. Homa desires.

Dr. James Linville
Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Lethbridge

Resolution by a Canadian scientific society, against the teaching of creationism (=ID) in schools.

Further reading
In Canadian Cynic: Episode 1 in the serial adventures of John Q. Creationist
Article: "Politicized scholars put evolution on the defensive", By Jodi Wilgoren, The New York Times, August 21, 2005
Article: "Don't teach religion in science classes", A. James Rudin, Religion News Service, February 18, 2006
Article: "Three cheers for a Baptist's views on evolution vs. religion: a false dichotomy", Tom Spears, The Ottawa Citizen, December 23, 2005 (ignore the typo in the image caption; should say 1839).
Article: "Religious right fights science for the heart of America", Suzanne Goldenberg in Kansas City, The Guardian, February 7, 2005
Article: "Few biologists but many evangelicals sign anti-evolution petition", Kenneth Chang, The New York Times, February 21, 2006. "Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life..." PandaLink, Pewforum, CSICOP
Article: "Show me the science", Daniel C. Dennett, The New York Times, August 28, 2005

More about the evolution of life (University of California Museum of Paleontology)
The Basics of Evolution
PBS
The Evolution list network
National Center for Science Education
Creation and Intelligent Design Watch
Teach the "Controversy"?
Example resolution from a scientific society (Nov 4, 2005)
More about the "Discovery Institute", noted in the National Post article.
Classroom of the Future?

Why not go all the way? See "The Fixed Earth Controversy", with arguments against evolutionary biology, geology, geography, astronomy and history.

Seen in: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur

The New Mexico experience: excellent summary in the The Albuquerque Tribune.
Commentary: Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out

Dave Thomas
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Thomas, a physicist and mathematician, is president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason (www.nmsr.org). He is co-host of the group's "Science Watch," which airs Saturdays at 2 p.m. on KABQ-AM (1350).
In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed.
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve Komadina, a Corrales Republican.
The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of evolution science in biology classes.
The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins."
We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences?
Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the freedom to teach creationism in science class.
The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before adjournment this week.
While supporters insisted that "this is about science, not religion," Williams was much more honest. At a hearing Jan. 29 in the House Judiciary Committee on the memorial, Williams declared: "What we evolved from we will never figure out. There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this, and if you have the faith I have, God did it all."
After hearing from several scientists and teachers opposed to the bill at an Education Committee hearing Feb. 21, Williams graciously tabled his own bill.
These unnecessary measures would have given students the power to decide how they will be tested in the science of biology. Current state standards already recognize the rights of students to have their own religious views.
Just because this legislation may have failed, however, we shouldn't be complacent about intelligent design creationists.
Watch for continued calls for classroom presentation of so-called weaknesses in evolution. In mainstream science, evolution is spectacularly successful, and supported by literally millions of observations. The only weaknesses brought forth are invariably warmed-over creationist pseudoscience - the "Cambrian explosion" can't be explained; complexity can't evolve; study of past events is mere speculation; and on and on.
Look out for complaints that simply teaching the scientific method - testing real-world (natural) explanations - somehow denies even the possibility of a guiding intelligence above it all. Science is not "atheism" just because it cannot invoke supernatural causality.
Intelligent design creationism proponents demonize everyone who doesn't accept their specific sectarian tenet - that God created unique "kinds," and would never use evolution - as "Darwinists" and "atheists."
They have the audacity to think they know the mind of God, and that they should keep the rest of us in line. The president of the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network, Joe Renick, went as far as calling Judge John E. Jones (who ruled that intelligent design is just a form of creationism in the Dover, Penn., ruling of 2005) one of the "federal judges who drink the same Kool-Aid as the Darwinists," invoking images of cult leader Jim Jones leading a mass suicide in Guyana.
In public, they will claim intelligent design is not creationism, but only "science." But on the Jan. 13, 2005, "Family News In Focus," James Dobson's radio news program, Renick revealed his agenda: "If there's no transcendent designer or creator, such as the God of Genesis, well then, that's going to say a whole lot about what this life is about and what it means."
The latest intelligent design creationism effort is underway, and it involves giving science teachers copies of infomercial videos, under the auspices of the New Mexico Science Foundation. But the Public Education Department has repeatedly said intelligent design has no place in New Mexico science classes. These videos are not acceptable for class use. The material cleverly makes no mention of creation, or God, but instead links to the National Science Foundation and quotes Albert Einstein.
Yet, the webmaster for the foundation is Mark Burton, a high-ranking member of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, a creationist organization committed to biblical inerrancy, Noah's flood and a 6,000-year-old Earth.
Looking at the foundation's material, you realize that it's the same old Cheshire cat - young Earth creationism - but all that can be seen is the grin.
Creationists aren't going away. They're just getting sneakier.
-- end of article in the The Albuquerque Tribune.

Vistors since reset:

1.	Further reading is at the bottom of the page. Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut' Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 "A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance. Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week. " ... The beginning of the newspaper article is quoted from the National Post. The full article is at Link 1 Link 2

2.	Letter to the Editor, D. Johnson National Post Published February 25, 2006 Re: Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut', National Post, Wednesday, February 22, 2006 That is hilarious, but also very sad. I am sure that you could find a biologist somewhere who does not believe in (or perhaps understand) the refraction of light, or a philosopher who doesn't believe in a relationship between supply and demand, and who is willing to offer opinions outside his or her actual training. Does this prove anything about optics or economics? The implication in the title of the article seems to bring Canada into disrepute. Denial of basic biology theory (this word means a body of knowledge) is a project of the US special-interest group mentioned, one that has been busily pushing their brand of religion into science classrooms. Dan L. Johnson www.uleth.ca/~dan.johnson
	Seen in: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur
3.	A professor's closed mind . Letter to the Editor A professor's closed mind National Post Published: Monday, February 27, 2006 Re: "Anti-biology made me laugh and weep", letter, Feb. 25. Everyone should have an open mind, especially academics such as this letter writer. Yet he finds it "hilarious" that "a handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for life." An open mind recognizes that some happenings are too complex to be explained by a single all-encompassing theory such as evolution. The wave theory of light, for example, added to the corpuscular theory of light, and together they were added to by the quantum theory of light. Each theory contributed to our understanding of light. It is similarly so for our understanding of life. There is much appeal in the theory of evolution, but there are some facts that do not fit. It seems to me it is just as "hilarious" to believe the theory of evolution right as to believe it wrong. I see evolution and acts of creation as twin processes working together in the same way a child runs after and guides a hoop gently rolling down an incline. For the most part, the hoop finds its own way down; but every so often, the child gives it a nudge with his stick. The path the hoop takes by itself represents the process of evolution; the nudges of the stick represent acts of creation nowadays referred to as "intelligent design." David Homa, Ottawa. © National Post 2006

4.	Letter to the Editor, J. Linville National Post Published February 28, 2006 In his letter of Feb. 27 David Homa comments on Prof. Dan Johnson’s opinion (expressed on the 25th) that a small number of Canadian scholars who propound the theory of intelligent design have placed themselves in a hilarious situation. For my part, I find it hilarious that Mr. Homa declares that academics have a special obligation to have an open mind but then immediately closes off debate on what such a mind should conclude about the world, declaring that “an open mind recognizes that some happenings are too complex to be explained by a single all-encompassing theory such as evolution.” So, one has an open mind only if one agrees with Mr. Homa. Really? Mr. Homa’s analogy of the “twin processes” of evolution and creation/intelligent design resembling a child helping a hoop role down a hill does not require expertise in any science to expose as absurd. What is the point of natural laws only to have to “nudge” things to keep them rolling along as intended? I am reminded of the satirical piece the Onion publishes some time ago about the “theory of intelligent falling”. Now that was hilarious! If one must consider Western religious doctrines of creationism and intelligent design as necessary complements to the secular sciences, then a truly open mind should engage all religious philosophies and mythologies about the nature of life, the universe and everything. For example, there is a great diversity of Indian cosmologies in which the universe is eternal and uncreated or goes through phases of birth, life and destruction in a never-ending cycle. These almost never get mentioned by ID proponents whose goals and ambitions strike me not as scientific but political and religious—and in particular, monotheistic. For an academic it is more important to have a curious but critical mind than a mind ‘open’ in the way Mr. Homa desires. Dr. James Linville Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Lethbridge

Resolution by a Canadian scientific society, against the teaching of creationism (=ID) in schools.



	Further reading In Canadian Cynic: Episode 1 in the serial adventures of John Q. Creationist Article: "Politicized scholars put evolution on the defensive", By Jodi Wilgoren, The New York Times, August 21, 2005 Article: "Don't teach religion in science classes", A. James Rudin, Religion News Service, February 18, 2006 Article: "Three cheers for a Baptist's views on evolution vs. religion: a false dichotomy", Tom Spears, The Ottawa Citizen, December 23, 2005 (ignore the typo in the image caption; should say 1839). Article: "Religious right fights science for the heart of America", Suzanne Goldenberg in Kansas City, The Guardian, February 7, 2005 Article: "Few biologists but many evangelicals sign anti-evolution petition", Kenneth Chang, The New York Times, February 21, 2006. "Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life..." PandaLink, Pewforum, CSICOP Article: "Show me the science", Daniel C. Dennett, The New York Times, August 28, 2005 More about the evolution of life (University of California Museum of Paleontology) The Basics of Evolution PBS The Evolution list network National Center for Science Education Creation and Intelligent Design Watch Teach the "Controversy"? Example resolution from a scientific society (Nov 4, 2005) More about the "Discovery Institute", noted in the National Post article. Classroom of the Future? Why not go all the way? See "The Fixed Earth Controversy", with arguments against evolutionary biology, geology, geography, astronomy and history.
	Seen in: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur
	The New Mexico experience: excellent summary in the The Albuquerque Tribune. Commentary: Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out Dave Thomas Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Thomas, a physicist and mathematician, is president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason (www.nmsr.org). He is co-host of the group's "Science Watch," which airs Saturdays at 2 p.m. on KABQ-AM (1350). In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed. Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve Komadina, a Corrales Republican. The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of evolution science in biology classes. The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins." We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences? Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the freedom to teach creationism in science class. The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before adjournment this week. While supporters insisted that "this is about science, not religion," Williams was much more honest. At a hearing Jan. 29 in the House Judiciary Committee on the memorial, Williams declared: "What we evolved from we will never figure out. There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this, and if you have the faith I have, God did it all." After hearing from several scientists and teachers opposed to the bill at an Education Committee hearing Feb. 21, Williams graciously tabled his own bill. These unnecessary measures would have given students the power to decide how they will be tested in the science of biology. Current state standards already recognize the rights of students to have their own religious views. Just because this legislation may have failed, however, we shouldn't be complacent about intelligent design creationists. Watch for continued calls for classroom presentation of so-called weaknesses in evolution. In mainstream science, evolution is spectacularly successful, and supported by literally millions of observations. The only weaknesses brought forth are invariably warmed-over creationist pseudoscience - the "Cambrian explosion" can't be explained; complexity can't evolve; study of past events is mere speculation; and on and on. Look out for complaints that simply teaching the scientific method - testing real-world (natural) explanations - somehow denies even the possibility of a guiding intelligence above it all. Science is not "atheism" just because it cannot invoke supernatural causality. Intelligent design creationism proponents demonize everyone who doesn't accept their specific sectarian tenet - that God created unique "kinds," and would never use evolution - as "Darwinists" and "atheists." They have the audacity to think they know the mind of God, and that they should keep the rest of us in line. The president of the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network, Joe Renick, went as far as calling Judge John E. Jones (who ruled that intelligent design is just a form of creationism in the Dover, Penn., ruling of 2005) one of the "federal judges who drink the same Kool-Aid as the Darwinists," invoking images of cult leader Jim Jones leading a mass suicide in Guyana. In public, they will claim intelligent design is not creationism, but only "science." But on the Jan. 13, 2005, "Family News In Focus," James Dobson's radio news program, Renick revealed his agenda: "If there's no transcendent designer or creator, such as the God of Genesis, well then, that's going to say a whole lot about what this life is about and what it means." The latest intelligent design creationism effort is underway, and it involves giving science teachers copies of infomercial videos, under the auspices of the New Mexico Science Foundation. But the Public Education Department has repeatedly said intelligent design has no place in New Mexico science classes. These videos are not acceptable for class use. The material cleverly makes no mention of creation, or God, but instead links to the National Science Foundation and quotes Albert Einstein. Yet, the webmaster for the foundation is Mark Burton, a high-ranking member of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, a creationist organization committed to biblical inerrancy, Noah's flood and a 6,000-year-old Earth. Looking at the foundation's material, you realize that it's the same old Cheshire cat - young Earth creationism - but all that can be seen is the grin. Creationists aren't going away. They're just getting sneakier. -- end of article in the The Albuquerque Tribune.