"Accommodationists" won't accommodate evolution disclaimer statements

The term "accommodationism" was apparently "coyned" by Jerry Coyne to refer to tolerance of theistic evolutionists, sometimes even including tolerance of a belief in the supernatural [1] [2]. The so-called "accommodationists" are hypocritical because they oppose "accommodation" of evolution disclaimer statements in the public schools. One of the purposes of evolution disclaimer statements is to reduce offense to people who oppose the teaching of evolution theory, particularly the dogmatic teaching of evolution theory. Evolution disclaimer statements were struck down by the courts in three fairly recent cases -- Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), Selman v. Cobb County (2005-06), and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish (2000). Both Selman and Freiler came close to being reversed on appeal and Ktizmiller was not appealed.

Why should accommodationists want to accommodate people who are opposed to the teaching of evolution? The answer is that people who are opposed to the teaching of evolution can have a big effect on how evolution is taught and even on whether evolution is taught at all, so it makes sense to make evolution disclaimer statements to try to reduce these people's opposition to the teaching of evolution. Indeed, in both the Kitzmiller and Selman cases, one of the main purposes of the evolution disclaimer statements (accompanied in Kitzmiller by school-library books that were not required reading) was to reduce opposition to adoption of a heavily pro-Darwinist biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.

READ MORE

Darwinism called "a lie . . . from the pit of hell"

David Klinghoffer wrote,

I did a radio interview today with a fellow down in Texas who had a real preacher's style. Entertaining guy but at one point he asked, letting his voice rise and rise like he was at the pulpit, "David, would you not saaaay that Darwinism is a lie, from its top to its bottom, sprung straight from the pit of Hell!?"

There was sort of an awkward pause. I'm a pretty mild and soft-spoken kind of person. I didn't want to disagree with him, but I couldn't quite echo his sentiment, neither the style nor the substance. "Well," I offered, "that's not exactly the way I would put, though I like your formulation! What I would say is that it's a delusion with, um, some very negative social consequences." I felt bad about having to disappoint him.

There is something diabolical about Darwinism -- its irrationality, the insane, fanatical dogmatism of its adherents, and the strong, unjustified support it has gotten from the courts and the general media. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth and some evidence for common descent, but the evidence for an evolutionary process that was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection is virtually nil. I cringe when this kind of nonsense is called "science."

READ MORE

Establishment clause requires balance in evolution education

I assert that the religious implications of Darwinism have become so strong that teaching it dogmatically in public schools, without balancing or tempering it with criticisms or at least evolution disclaimer statements, is a violation of the Constitution's establishment clause. Examples of these religious implications are contained in the National Center for Science Education's "Faith Project," the "Clergy Letter Project," and several books on the subject. The Darwinists are of course going to hocus-pocus that Darwinism really does not have religious implications or that it ought not to have religious implications, but what Darwinists think or pretend to think does not change reality. Unfortunately, in the last three major monkey trials, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, the courts ruled against mere evolution-disclaimer statements, though Freiler and Selman came close to be overturned on appeal and Kitzmiller was not appealed so it is unknown how Kitzmiller would have fared in appellate courts.

Section V(C) of the opinion of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (Eastern Dlst. Ark. 1982), says,
.

The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment . . . . .

. . . . The defendants argue that the teaching of evolution alone presents both a free exercise problem and an establishment problem which can only be redressed by giving balanced treatment to creation science, which is admittedly consistent with some religious beliefs. . . .

. . . . If creation science is, in fact, science and not religion, as the defendants claim, it is difficult to see how the teaching of such a science could "neutralize" the religious nature of evolution.

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it.

Judge Overton is wrong here -- even if the courts rule that evolution is a kind of religion or has strong religious implications, the establishment clause can still be satisfied by continuing to teach evolution but requiring that it be balanced or tempered by teaching criticisms or by making evolution-disclaimer statements. Unfortunately, for some time now there have been no active cases that could be used for testing different legal theories about evolution education -- Kitzmiller ended when the decision was released in Dec. 1995 and Selman ended when the school board took a dive by settling out of court in Dec. 1996, and the last US Supreme Court decision on the issue, Edwards v. Aguillard, was in 1987. The supercilious Darwinists, who think that they are the world's biggest experts about law as well as the world's biggest experts about science, think that the Kitzmiller decision is airtight, but they have been wrong about the law before -- for example, they thought that Yoko Ono's "Imagine" copyright infringement suit against the "Expelled" producers and Chris Comer's wrongful termination suit against the Texas Education Agency were strong cases, but both suits were thrown out by the courts and were so weak that they were not appealed.

More discussion about the constitutionality of teaching Darwinism in the public schools is here.
.

READ MORE

Darwinian atheist stonewalling

Darwinian atheists (my new name for Darwinists -- or evolutionists) are no longer even paying lip service to the idea of open debate about Darwinian atheism. Cornelius Hunter wrote,

Once upon a time scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Scientific theories, we were taught, were to be questioned. . . . .Scientists were to be objective, and to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.

Those days are gone — long gone. Misleading the public, covering up evidence, protecting theories — that is all standard fare today. We have now arrived at the sad state where evidence that is contrary to evolution — any contrary evidence — is not allowed. Consider this recent exchange between Yudhijit Bhattacharjee of Science magazine and evolution crusader Eugenie Scott:

Science magazine: How has this battle changed in the past 20 years?

Eugenie Scott: The enemy has become more diverse. When I started, it was just creation science. Now we have creation science, intelligent design [ID], and straight-up antievolution in the form of "evidence against evolution."

Evidence against evolution? Is there something wrong with that? Yes, there is for evolutionists.

I have encountered Darwinian atheist stonewalling in my attempts to present my ideas about coevolution [link]. My presentations of those ideas have been met almost entirely with scoffing, impromptu just-so stories, bibliography bluffing (just aimlessly pointing to literature), general filibustering, and censorship. The bloggers at the Florida Citizens for Science actually banned me from posting my ideas about coevolution on their blog unless those ideas are approved by "experts" in advance![link] Who ever heard of such a thing? I could see the point of requiring pre-approval of my ideas if those ideas required some specialized, esoteric knowledge, e.g., knowledge of advanced mathematics, but my ideas about coevolution are easily understood by laypeople. The Darwinian atheists bury their heads in the sand because they can't believe -- or pretend that they can't believe -- that anyone could come up with reasonable criticisms of Darwinian atheism.
.

READ MORE

"Intelligent design creationism"? How about "Darwinian atheism"?

Darwinists who use the disingenuous stereotyping term "intelligent design creationism" pretend that they are unable to separate a scientific or pseudoscientific idea from the religious implications of that idea. So I have an idea -- I am going to start mimicking them by using the name "Darwinian atheism."

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

READ MORE

Random thoughts about theistic evolutionism and "accommodationism"

I recently posted the following random thoughts on "The Intersection" blog of the Discovery magazine website. Most of these ideas have previously been posted on this blog but I decided to post all these ideas again here because they are now together in one place.

"Accommodationism" is the idea that the scientific community should be friendly towards the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists.

==================================

The National Center for Science Education not only does not present the atheists’ views on the issue of the compatibility of science and religion, but does not present the fundies’ views on that issue. The NCSE is no good as a one-stop source of information about that issue.

The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, “[evolution theory] in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” That is a personal religious or philosophical belief that has no place in a judicial opinion. The Darwinists lucked out in the Dover case by getting a crackpot activist judge. They may not be so lucky next time.

Here is PZ Myers’ blunt opinion of accommodationism:
.

What I really object to is the goofy “if you don’t be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home”. I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.

William Jennings Bryan on theistic evolutionists [link]:

If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

The following quotation from Winston Churchill is a good description of theistic evolutionists who try to appease the atheistic evolution establishment: “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.”

Someone who interprets the gospel literally but does not interpret the bible’s creation story literally is a kind of “cafeteria Christian.” To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural. However, whereas the creation story is straightforward, the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Also, the creation story is consistent with a belief in an all-powerful god but the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. Hence, an otherwise rational person who believes in the supernatural should have a greater tendency to interpret the creation story literally than interpret the gospel literally.

Geocentrism, like creationism, is supported by the bible, but the fundies accept heliocentrisn but not evolution because they find the scientific evidence to be persuasive for heliocentrism but not for evolution. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth and some evidence for common descent, but the net evidence is actually against an evolutionary process that was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection.
.
Darwinists believe that the fundies reject evolution in order to maintain a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. But that belief in biblical inerrancy has already been undermined by the bible’s erroneous teaching of geocentrism.

Another Darwinist myth is that all they have to do is persuade the clergy that evolution is compatible with religion and then the faithful will follow the clergy like sheep following a Judas goat. The infamous Clergy Letter Project is an example of this kind of thinking. But, for example, a lot of Catholics don’t follow the church’s very strict teachings about abortion, so why should Catholics follow the church’s teaching about evolution?

With all of this talk about the relationship between evolution and religion, it is going to be difficult for Darwinists at the next monkey trial to argue that evolution has no religious implications.

I believe that the religious implications of evolution are so strong that it is unconstitutional to dogmatically teach it in public schools without at least a disclaimer statement. Unfortunately, evolution-disclaimer statements were struck down in three court cases — Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, Selman v. Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, Kitzmiller was not appealed and the other two decisions came close to being reversed on appeal.

IMO one of the big reasons why some Darwinists are telling other Darwinists who are discussing this issue of the compatibility of evolution and religion to shut their big fat mouths the hell up is a fear that the mere fact that Darwinists are even discussing this issue could be used against them in a future monkey trial.
.

READ MORE

Kitzmiller and "accommodationism"

.



In the conclusion section of his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, crackpot activist Judge "Jackass" Jones wrote,

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.(emphasis added)

Fundy creationists of course disagree with the above statement in bold, but it is now apparent that many Darwinists also disagree with that statement because of its "accommodationist" stance. "Accommodationism" means making nice with theistic evolutionists or people who believe that evolution and religion are compatible. The debate over accommodationism has really been heating up lately [1] [2] [3]. Sleazy PZ Myers is quite blunt about his opinion of accommodationism:
.

What I really object to is the goofy "if you don't be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home". I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.

As for Jones above statement that "the theory of evolution represents good science," there is no constitutional principle of separation of bad science and state (it has also been claimed that there is really no constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but that is another matter).

The above statement that evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator" is a personal religious or philosophical belief that has no place in a judicial opinion. The Kitzmiller opinion is arbitrary and subjective but Judge Jones has been trying to give the false impression that it is objective and unavoidable. In an effort to give the false impression that any other judge would have made the same decision and written the same opinion that he did in Kitzmiller, Judge Jones claimed that judges "operate in a very workmanlike way" :

We operate in a very workmanlike way, believe it or not. We find the facts, as we did in this case, by listening to the testimony, and then we apply well-established law to those facts. It's a sequential process that is time-tested. Every judge does it in the United States.

Judge Jones also charged that critics of his Kitzmiller decision have no respect for "the rule of law" and "judicial independence." Also, he has not acknowledged criticism from legal scholars but has only acknowledged criticisms from personalities of the popular media -- e.g., Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan.

Of course, the Darwinists treat Judge Jones like he can do no wrong. The most irritating thing about Judge Jones is that the general media treats him as a brilliant judge instead of the crackpot activist judge that he is. He is too stupid to be a judge.
.

READ MORE

Commenting rules

I have rejected a large number of comments lately, and rather than respond to each rejection, I decided to post my commenting rules to show commenters why their comments were rejected. Comments containing any of the following will be rejected:

(1) -- nothing but name-calling or scoffing (a comment containing nothing but scoffing will be accepted if really hilarious)

(2) -- deliberate lies about objective facts

(3) -- gossip about my private affairs

(4) -- disparagement of anyone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or sexual orientation

(5) -- attempts to identify an anonymous commenter

(6) -- threats of violence

(7) -- anything illegal

I consider these rules to be quite liberal.

A reminder of the following statement at the head of the blog:

My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

I will respond to some comments by saying, "don't feed the trolls."

Unlike a lot of other bloggers, I do not ban commenters. All comments will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commenters need not change names when submitting comments.

READ MORE

Coevolution discussed in comment thread on "Intersection" blog

I spend a lot of time commenting on other blogs and other websites in order to help spread my ideas, which I can't do well on this blog because this blog gets so little traffic. Unfortunately, the time I spend elsewhere reduces the time I have available for making new posts here. I figure that I might as well take advantage of these discussions I have on other websites by linking to those discussions here -- I am of course inviting others to join these discussions if they are interested. I have been involved in a long discussion on a comment thread on Chris Mooney's and Sheril Kirshenbaum's "Intersection" blog on the Discovery magazine website. I entered the thread at comment #138 and most of the comments that follow are either mine or responses to me -- we are now up to comment #173. The main topic is coevolution, but there are also discussions about Ktizmiller v. Dover, Michael Behe, and intelligent design. I consider the dilemmas of coevolution to be among the biggest weaknesses of evolution theory.

READ MORE

Darwin-doubting often based on science and not just religion; Dover opinion is worthless

Darwinists seem unable to believe -- or pretend to be unable to believe -- that Darwin-doubting could be based on science and not religion. On his Discovery magazine blog named "The Intersection," Chris Mooney writes in his debate with Jerry Coyne,

I believe the central reason we have such massive problems with the teaching of evolution to be precisely this — millions of America believe, incorrectly, that they must give up their faith in order to learn about it or accept it. This misconception is highly prevalent, and is regularly reinforced in a number of ways: Through the media, by church leaders, by the New Atheists, and so on.

If this incorrect view could somehow be dislodged, then, we might also have a better chance of defusing tensions over the teaching of evolution, and thereby improving “scientific literacy” . . .

The Darwinists have deluded themselves into thinking that all they have to do is persuade the fundies that evolution is compatible with the bible and then everything will be hunky-dory.

Geocentrism, like creationism, is supported by the bible, but the fundies accept heliocentrisn but not evolution because they find the scientific evidence to be persuasive for heliocentrism but not for evolution. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth and some evidence for common descent, but the net evidence is actually against an evolutionary process that was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection. Teaching that such an evolutionary process is fact is lying to students.
.
Another mirage is Darwinists' belief that the fundies reject evolution in order to maintain a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. But that belief in biblical inerrancy has already been undermined by the bible's erroneous teaching of geocentrism.[link]

Yet another Darwinist myth is that all they have to do is persuade the clergy that evolution is compatible with religion and then the faithful will follow the clergy like sheep following a Judas goat. The infamous Clergy Letter Project is an example of this kind of thinking. But, for example, a lot of Catholics don't follow the church's very strict teachings about abortion, so why should Catholics follow the church's teaching about evolution?

Loony Mooney's post also praises the Kitzmilller v. Dover decision, but that decision should not be taken seriously. Judge John "Jackass" Jones is a crackpot activist judge who showed extreme lack of restraint in the Dover opinion because he knew that the opinion was unlikely to be reviewed by higher courts because the school board was unlikely to appeal because of a change in the school board membership as a result of an election. The extreme one-sidedness of the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section, which was copied nearly verbatim from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs, is evidence of this lack of restraint. If Judge Jones had anticipated an appeal, he probably would have -- as a precaution -- addressed the defendants' arguments about ID-as-science even if he thought those arguments were bad. Judge Jones lied when he said that the school board election results would not affect his decision. And after the release of the decision, Judge Jones gave further evidence of what a big crackpot activist he really is. For example, he showed extreme prejudice against intelligent design and the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept -- by stating in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. [link] Also, he has extolled "judicial independence" and "the rule of law," charging that critics of his Dover opinion have no respect for those things. [link]

Some bloggers' reactions to Mooney's debate with Coyne are discussed here. Mooney has another follow-up post here.
.

READ MORE

Evil Genie wants evolution in every college biology course

Eugenie "Crackpot" Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said in a Science magazine interview,

"Universities need to do a better job of teaching evolution because that's where high school teachers get their training. Evolution needs to be brought into every course of biology instead of getting tacked on as a unit to the intro class."

She didn't just say that evolution needs to be brought into more courses of biology -- she said that evolution needs to be brought into "every" course of biology. Certainly there are some biology courses where evolution is irrelevant. She is fanatical about evolution.

How this crackpot has been getting all those awards is beyond me.

READ MORE

Judge "Jackass" Jones contradicted by Darwinist experts

(The above statement is actually a quotation of creationist Texas state board of education member -- and former chairman -- Don McLeroy)

======================================

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion (page 136), Judge "Jackass" Jones said, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and therefore religious, antecedents."

Darwinist scholars Ronald Numbers and Francis Collins, who are experts about the relationship between intelligent design and creationism, disagree with Judge Jones' above statement. The Discovery Institute says,
.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

There is another big reason why Darwinists conflate ID and creationism: so that they can misuse the establishment clause to attack ID.

And Francis Collins' BioLogos website says,

Intelligent Design

Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.

ID is based on scientific observations and scientific reasoning whereas creationism is based on religious sources.

Judge "Jackass" Jones strikes out again.
.

READ MORE

Two new websites about evolution & religion

There are two big new websites about the issue of evolution and religion: faith + evolution, run by the pro-ID Discovery Institute, and The BioLogos Foundation. I will comment here about the BioLogos website because that website seems especially confusing and ambiguous.

The BioLogos website leans towards theistic evolution (The Questions):

1. How is BioLogos different from Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism?
BioLogos is most similar to Theistic Evolution. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with the creation. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is the way by which God created life.

BioLogos defines "evolution" as follows:
.

2. What is evolution?
Simply put, the term evolution means a change over time. For example, one might say that laptop computers have evolved over the past decade. But when biologists use the term, they refer to the entire history of life on Earth.

IMO that is an incomplete definition of the term "evolution." The Latin root for "evolve" means "unrolling" or "unfolding," so the term "evolution" implies development, improvement or a pattern of change (e.g., the evolution of stars), as distinguished from random change.

BioLogos says,

Intelligent Design

Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.

LOL. Tell that to that stupid bozo Judge "Jackass" Jones!

BioLogos continues,

l Proponents of ID only argue that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

BioLogos is quoting the Discovery Institute here. IMO the term "intelligent design" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of an "intelligent" -- possibly supernatural -- designer and because it implies that some living things were "intelligently designed" or are the result of intelligent causes. To me, ID is just the study of whether the combination of natural genetic variation and natural selection is sufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of living things.

This definition can be confusing because Theistic Evolutionists also believe an intelligent being created the world.

There is little difference between Michael Behe's ID and Ken Miller's theistic evolution, but Judge "Jackass" Jones ruled that the former is unconstitutional but the latter is not.

Theistic Evolutionists, however, also believe evolution by natural selection is the process God used to create. Although advocates of ID do not disagree that evolution is change over time, they deny the biological process of evolution by natural selection could account for the present complexity of life forms on Earth.

More than just natural selection is needed -- genetic variation is also needed. And many ID advocates do not deny the effectiveness of natural selection -- they only deny that natural causes are sufficient to produce the necessary genetic variation.
.

READ MORE