American Scientific Association

I'm blogging from Ipswitch, MA today. It's a crisp spring day on the New England coast. I'm here for the executive council meeting for the American Scientific Association. You may have seen their booth at the annual AAAS meeting. I'm the early career representative to this organization of scientists who are Christians. This is a relatively small group (~2000) of folks from around the country who are united in the following beliefs:

As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth.

Our platform of faith has four important planks:

1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

These four statements of faith spell out the distinctive character of the ASA, and we uphold them in every activity and publication of the Affiliation.

The organization's web site aims to provide resources for Christian (especially Evangelicals) who face conflicts between faith and their understanding of science. The executive director also plays a role advising other groups like AAAS's Dialogue on Science Ethics and Religion (DoSER) and other groups. Our latest project is to help produce science materials for home-schoolers that maintain the high level of scientific integrity that the ASA upholds.

If you are interested in learning more, visit the ASA website or feel free to contact me.

Note to Self:

Hey Robey!

When you have the time, write some blog entries about the latest Papal statement ("Dignitas Personae,") about in vitro fertilization and stem cell science and some of the responses to it.

Or maybe something about the scandal of free religious expression in the Washington State capitol building.

Or even about how the magi's part in the Christmas story provides a pretty good metaphor for a healthy interplay between science and religion.

I'd imagine each of these to be a good fit over at Clashing Culture, the blog I started about science and religion, which I have sorely neglected in the past few months. In the interim, get back to work!

Podcast From the ASA Meeting

The talk I gave last weekend at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation about blogging as a useful tool for talking about ethics, science and religion in the classroom and in the public sphere is online. Listen to it here. It features my motivations for blogging, my experience here and at Clashing Culture, and some ideas about how blogs could play a larger role in dialogue about science and society in the public and within the mission of the ASA.

Man, is it painful to listen to yourself. Follow the link to the audio file at your own risk. I'll figure out how to post my slides, too.

I did talk a little about PZ Myers and Pharyngula as an example of discussions about religion that are more one-sided than I like. What did not come across until late in the discussion was how PZ linking my page once was a great boost to my activities on the web. For his notice and the associated traffic it brought I am thankful.

I did meet some other bloggers at the conference. One of whom lives about two miles from me.

Don't worry! There will be plenty of responses to the meeting coming up, mostly at Clashing Culture. See you there!

Clashing Culture

I'm in the process of starting a new group blog called Clashing Culture. It's meant to be a place where atheists, agnostics and Christians can contribute and discuss posts that deal with the intersection of science and religion. So far, Mike Haubrich (Tangled Up in Blue Guy) has signed up. We're looking for more authors. If you are interested, drop me a line.

Read This

Today, Francisco Ayala was featured in a NYTimes story. When it comes to the science and religion 'conflict,' this guy is one of my role models. I recommend you read the article.

Science Then And Now

Have any of you encountered the creationist tracks extolling the Bible as a scientific text? In one I was recently referred to, evangelist Ray Comfort presents a perspective of science then and now to show just how well our knowledge today was predicted by the Bible. If you promise to read them all, I’ll offer some ideas about Biblical science. Keep in mind that my personal perspective is as a Christian and a scientist who sees very little in conflict with those positions.

1. THE BIBLE: The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). SCIENCE NOW: The earth is a sphere. SCIENCE THEN: The earth was a flat disk.
2. THE BIBLE: Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). SCIENCE NOW: Incalculable number of stars. SCIENCE THEN: Only 1,100 stars.
3. THE BIBLE: Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7). SCIENCE NOW: Free float of earth in space. SCIENCE THEN: Earth sat on a large animal.
4. THE BIBLE: Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3). SCIENCE NOW: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms). SCIENCE THEN: Science was mostly ignorant on the subject.
5. THE BIBLE: Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). SCIENCE NOW: Each star is different. SCIENCE THEN: All stars were the same.
6. THE BIBLE: Light moves (Job 38:19,20). SCIENCE NOW: Light moves. SCIENCE THEN: Light was fixed in place.
7. THE BIBLE: Air has weight (Job 28:25). SCIENCE NOW: Air has weight. SCIENCE THEN: Air was weightless.
8. THE BIBLE: Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). SCIENCE NOW: Winds blow in cyclones. SCIENCE THEN: Winds blew straight.
9. THE BIBLE: Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). SCIENCE NOW: Blood is the source of life and health. SCIENCE THEN: Sick people must be bled.
10. THE BIBLE: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6). SCIENCE NOW: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains. SCIENCE THEN: The ocean floor was flat.
11. THE BIBLE: Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). SCIENCE NOW: Ocean contains springs. SCIENCE THEN: Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.
12. THE BIBLE: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). SCIENCE NOW: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. SCIENCE THEN: Hands washed in still water.

This list is a clever attempt by certain Creationists to claim the Bible as scientific. This doubtless is a rhetorical tactic in the effort to confer legitimacy to the Genesis accounts of creation. There are two main problems with this presentation: 1) Science did not exist until the sixteenth century and 2) The Bible is not a scientific text.

At the foundation of each of these claims is that science is not merely about predictions. Science combines innovation and idea with a rugged process of hypothesis testing and repeated fine-tuning to formulate a theory that when applied to unknown situations can explain them to the best of our ability. Unlike Ben Stein’s perception of science as a static entity unchanged since the days of Charles Darwin, elements of science are always in flux.

Right – my points:

1. The SCIENCE NOW/ SCIENCE THEN dichotomy is flawed most simply because the world view in the ancient world was not scientific. Sure there were glimmers of it all over the ancient world – Egypt, Greece, South America, India, China, Arabia – but the progression of thinking of something, testing it objectively and using the results to formulate predictions just hadn’t come around yet. Humans were stuck describing, categorizing and guessing. (This, by the way, worked pretty well for us most of the time.) It is as unfair to claim the then prevailing world-views as science then as it is to claim astrology as science today. Each has made predictions about the world, but only science as we know it today can be tested. (Also recall that ‘science’ wasn’t even a commonly used word until the early 19th Century!)

2. The Bible is not scientific. If it were, the writers would have incorporated those flawed (SCIENCE THEN) explanations into its stories. The world would not have been created in six days; it would have been vomited by a scarab. I admit, this second point is not as strong. It actually makes me sound like I’m in a “Yes it is/No it’s not” argument. Even so, I don’t think I have written enough recently of my opinion that the Bible is not a scientific text. The absence of there even being science when it was written aside (see point 1, above), few in Christendom or the Jewish or Muslim worlds would identify these texts as scientific. What else was there to describe in these verses but items in the natural world? Referring to rocks does not make your novel a geologic text. Even the references cited in the list above are oblique references to physical phenomena. Check out the Job 38:19-20 text. I’m pretty used to sorting out metaphors in the Bible; maybe that’s why identifying these verses as referring to the propagation of light was so hard. By the way, in this section of his trials, God is speaking to Job in the midst of a terrible storm. It is often interpreted as emphasizing the power of God and the finite knowledge of man, both in the ways of the world and the ways of Heaven.

These are my raw thoughts on this matter. If I didn’t have to study up on anemia and GI disease tonight (how appropriate!), maybe I could formulate some more succinct arguments. I guess I will have to leave some of that up to you, dear reader.

Big hat tip to Tangled up in Blue Guy.

Witnessing Evil?

On November 28 a young man named Dennis Lindberg died in Seattle's Children's hospital. He died because he refused treatment for leukemia. I have personally met many individuals close to this case. I work in Skagit County, WA - the same county where Judge John Meyer made his well publicized ruling. Last week, A Jehovah's Witness who happened to have a deep vein thrombosis taught me about the Winesses' perspectives about blood. His wife shared that she was in the same congregation as this young man. The attending hematologist for this procedure gave lectures about leukemia when I was a medical student at Children's Hospital in Seattle. My wife worked with him for a new diagnosis of leukemia that presented in a kid that came to the Children's ER. I have taken courses with and from some of the professional ethicists on staff at Children's. I would not choose the same path for myself of a child in the same situation, but when you see the story from so many angles, it's harder to be so critical of the outcome.

On top of the complexity already inherent in this case, there are a few distortions, inaccuracies and partial truths about this story gaining traction in the blogosphere - particularly in the atheist community. This post is meant to bring to light some of those lapses in intellectual honesty. We all complain about how science is too-often misused by politicians; when dealing with an issue as controversial at this one, the least we can do is present all of the facts.

Here are some points that if you rely on blogger news, you may not have encountered:

(1) Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in 1872. Any reference to the faith being founded on Bronze Age or Dark Ages thinking is inaccurate hyperbole. The religion is based on 19th Century pre-modern medical thinking.

(2) The treatment denied by the judge was not the stem cell transplant. It was a blood transfusion. Why is this distinction important? Stem cell transplants are the single most expensive procedure in medicine (hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do the procedure). We do them (and many health insurers cover them) because they work, but not all patients facing leukemia choose to be transplanted. Some cannot afford it. Some do not want to go through the pain of the procedure. Others (like this patient) have different reasons. If after providing all of the information, the patient does not consent to a procedure, the medical establishment usually respects this decision. Keep in mind that the legal decision here was related to the blood transfusion which could keep the patient alive for several days, not the stem cell transplant, which has 70% survival at 5 years as reported in the media. It's not as simple as a 750 word article would have you believe. (The Seattle PI printed a good story overall.) The Cheerful Oncologist offers a refreshing perspective on this issue.

(3) There has been some criticism of the words "mature minor." Some say it is a contradiction. The terminology comes directly from Washington State law. Health care providers are very familiar with the term; mature minor is most often applied to pregnant teenagers and to teens who need psychiatric services. The right to make autonomous, confidential (parent-free) medical decisions about reproduction (including abortion) and mental health issues is routinely conferred to 14-year-olds. It has not been previously applied to patients with blood diseases. Joana Ramos outlines some of the issues in a white paper she authored:

Doctrine of the Mature Minor
In most states of the US, 16 is the minimum age for donating blood with parental consent. In a variety of instances, teens are able to consent to, or refuse, medical treatments including surgery. It is customary that 14 is the age of consent for confidential reproductive health services, including elective abortions; substance abuse treatment and counseling; and for consent or refusal of mental health services, even when parents feel that a child’s life may be in danger(1).

The legal concept of the mature minor is well established in case law nationwide(2). It governs such topics the age of consent to engage in sexual activity, to marry, and to make independent and confidential decisions about medical care. The following list of rights extended to teens serves as a good illustration of this concept. Many of these rights involve activities that carry varying amounts of risk, may have both psychological and physical health consequences, and may be neither beneficial nor life-saving. While the laws vary in each state, teens commonly have the right to:

• make decisions as to one’s own guardian or custodial parent at 12
• travel and to purchase a ticket to travel by public conveyance anywhere in the US at age 13 without parental permission
• be employed at 16, but to engage in agricultural work at age 12, in other occupations at 14, with certain jobs being exempt from any age limits
• obtain a license and drive a motor vehicle at age 16
• have one’s body pierced at age 16 without parental consent
• enlist in the military at age 17, with parental consent
• petition the court to become an emancipated minor with cause
• make decisions on behalf of a child parented by one’s self at any age

References:
1. Stenger, RL. ( 1999-2001) “Exclusive or Concurrent Competence to Make Medical Decisions for Adolescents in the United States and United Kingdom”, Journal of Law and Health, 14(2):209-41.
2. Forman, DL. (1998) Every Parent’s Guide to the Law. (pp. 87-154) New York: Harcourt Brace.

The legal precedent in this case is that the 14-year-old was conferred mature minor status for a condition that was not reproductive or psychiatric. In his criticisms of this case, Orac makes the right concession to adult Jehovah's Witnesses regarding decisions about transfusion. He believes a grey area to apply between age 15 and 17. Based on the above examples, I think the range should be 14-17.

(4) Some have written this to be an ignorant backwards, if not abusive decision. To those who think this, I would invite you to seek out a Jehovah's Witness. Ask him about blood. If you don't learn from that individual, every congregation has several experts and health advisers. I bet you will learn things about bloodless surgeries (a few of which are at least as successful as traditional approaches) and artificial blood that you had know idea about.

(5) The newspapers included a fact about this case that most bloggers have left out. The patient's biological parents (who filed the injunction to force the blood transfusion) had a long history of drug abuse. They were in and out of jail, but had been in recovery only recently. They flew to Seattle days before the court hearing and the patient's death. If their son was dying of leukemia, why were they not in Seattle in the weeks and months before this incident?

The bottom line here is that this case is complex. At its center is a 14-year-old's autonomy. Closely related to that is the freedom of religion. The same individuals who value the separation of church and state have called for that wall's dismantling via a court of law. In the end, the judge looked at this young man's ability to make life and death decisions. My suspicion is that Dennis Lindberg was better prepared to make this decision than you or I.

Unearthing Truth in Northern Kentucky (Part 3 of 3)

This is the third part in a series of posts describing a recent visit to two of northern Kentucky's attractions: the Creation Museum and the Ordovician fossil beds. Part 1 outlined my perspective on the science and religion debates. Part 2 narrated a span of 3 hours when I visited both the Creation Museum and the birthplace of American vertebrate paleontology. Part 3 offers the conclusion to my journey: an exercise in unearthing truth. If you have stuck with me this far, you don't have to worry about verbosity in this entry. This one is mostly pictures.

UNEARTHING TRUTH

After finishing my conference in Lexington at noon, I had three hours to make the 80 minute drive to the airport. That left a little bit of flex time to following up on a rock hound's tip from a few days previous. There was a new Wal-Mart in Fort Wright, KY that was built into the side of one of the areas river hills. The naturalist at Big Bone Lick State Park told me that folks had been finding trilobites over there. Given that the store is 10 miles from the airport (CVG), I hedged my bets that I could find something good if I sought out that beacon of American consumption. I was hoping for something like I bought as a 10 year old from the Field Museum of Natural History. I wasn't disappointed with the 45 minutes I spent scrambling over clay-slickened rocks behind the bargain center's loading dock. Here are some pictures of my specimens, and my attempt at identifying the items. More knowledgable readers are welcome to correct me! The trilobite in the center is about as big as a nickle.

Clockwise from the top are: monticule ornamented bryozoan coral, conglomerate crinoid slab, fossil coral stem, trilobite, individual crinoid stem, brachiopod (perhaps Rafinesquina), Hebertella brachiopod, and in the center another trilobite.

I had to pick and choose from numerous slabs like this one. Packed into this 7 inch piece are numerous intricate details of organisms from the large inland sea that covered much of middle America in the Ordovician Period.

In under an hour, I had unearthed ample evidence of life extinct for more than 500 million years. I could have stayed there for hours (although it would have been nice to dig with someone who knew what he or she was doing!) As if to remind me to head to the airport, the sky opened up with one of those Midwestern thunderstorms I have grown to miss since moving to Seattle (land of perpetual mist). I got quite a bath running back to my car. Perhaps that was God's way of baptizing me in the truth of an Earth formed billions of years ago.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Equal Time in Northern Kentucky (Part 2 of 3)

This is the second part of a three-part series detailing some of my experiences on a recent trip I made to Lexington, KY. Part 1 outlines my resistance to the warfare thesis, that is that religion and science are not reconcilable. By that position, as long as they both exist as prominent components of society, S&R will be at war with each other. Unfortunately, this perspective is often used to frame media representations of science and religion – most notably in the conversation about evolution and creationism. Even though I firmly deny the legitimacy of selecting one creationist scientist as an equal opponent to a shouting evolutionist who defends all of science, I recognize that we humans like to categorize our arguments. Therefore, today I will grant equal time to my science and religion experiences in northern Kentucky. Should you be accustomed to presentations in the form of a scientific reports, think of this post as field research composing the methods and data sections for this paper.

EQUAL TIME

Yesterday, I hinted that I was considering a visit to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. This decision was not without its dilemmas. First, there is principle. How could a God-fearing scientist such as myself justify the blasphemy of setting foot in a temple of wrongness? Please see the figure at left for a summary of my gut reaction to the museum. My regular readers know that I am a Christian and a scientist. One of the ways I reconcile this is to approach both theology and scientific empiricism with intellectual honesty. I previously alluded to my view that young earth creationism is at worst dishonest, and at best fanciful. Why would I then be willing to step inside? Many out there (6th Century BC Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu, for example) would contend that we need to know the enemy so as to not be imperiled in battle. But wait a minute – I'm no fan of the warfare thesis. So why visit? Well, there's the curiosity of it all. According to the traffic director in the museum's parking lot, more than 500,000 people have visited the museum since it opened six months ago. That's a whole stink of a lot of people to see a little animotronic cavegirl feeding velociraptors carrots. Maybe I don't see them as enemies, but if ever I am going to be an informed contributor to the dialogue on science and religion, shouldn't I have visited the crown jewel of creationist science? The guy (Matt) who checked my paperwork as I left the Alamo rental car lot told me that the museum was totally worth my time. Museums are, after all, the place where (insert topic here) comes alive. Just when curiosity nabbed me, I was deflated by: 1) The lines – it was to take 30 minutes just to get in to the place! and 2) The price tag – on a graduate student's budget, $19.95 is a steep price to pay for an hour's amusement. Rental car Matt saw the museum for free because his brother worked construction there - I forgot to ask him whether the visit was worth my money. I am guessing that $19.95 goes toward anti-science propaganda. Even though I didn't buy a ticket, the people at the museum were nice. They let me check out the gift shop, look at some of the dinosaur animatronics and didn't prevent me from documenting my visit.

My pilgrimage was handicapped from the start. I needed to get to Lexington by 7:00 PM for the first meetings of the conference I was attending there, and I heard that there was nice scenery between Cincinnati and Lexington that I wanted to enjoy before dusk. I headed south on I-75 and quickly encountered a sign that jogged memories from more than a decade ago. In my eleventh grade American history class, each student adopted the personality of one historical figure. I was Lewis and Clark. (Some of the personalities were schizophrenic.) Naturally, I was drawn to the scientific missions the two pursued in the midst of their cross-country adventure. I also remember reading about a scientific collecting expedition William Clark led after the Corps of Discovery returned from their adventures. The destination of the voyage was a little valley now designated Big Bone Lick State Park. Native Americans knew for ages of the place with big bones and French trappers discovered it in the middle of the 18th Century. The place soon became a well guarded outpost – for nearby salt springs, not the fossils. When Thomas Jefferson heard of the enormous fossils being recovered at the site, he sent Gen. Clark to recover the bones. I think that some mastodon teeth are still at Monticello.

Back to my story. It was still light out, and I decided that interstate driving was not fulfilling my quest for local scenery. I took the 7 mile detour to the birthplace of American vertebrate paleontology. Call it providence, but I happened to run into the park's naturalist in the visitor center parking lot. Todd Young is an anthropologist by training and is an expert in Native American sign language. State Parks are notoriously understaffed, so he wears many hats at Big Bone Lick. One of which was to teach a curious traveler a little about local geology. I am still on the lookout for a personal copy of the local geology field guide he recommended. Thumbing through it at the University of Kentucky library provided me with a profound connection with the place I was visiting. It also pointed to the great irony that the Creation Museum is built on one of the most fertile fossil beds in all of North America. The Ordovician strata is the remnant of the great inland sea that inundated much of the Midwest 500 million years ago. It is the purple region on the map from yesterday's entry. The rock strata are so close to the surface that just about every road cut, stream bed and construction site offers an opportunity to discover fossils. At these disrupted sites, you can expect to trip over corals, crinoids, brachiopods, nautiloids and trilobites. Todd and I scrambled through a creek bed and found some crinoids and brachiopods. Before I hit the road, he pointed me in the direction of a recently built Wal-Mart. Evidently, folks had been finding some nice trilobites there recently. Growing up, the trilobite was a symbol of fossil hunting for me – I always hoped to find one 'in the field,' but had to settle for one purchased from a museum shop.

In the end, I was happy with my decision to drive to, but not pay for entry at the Creation Museum. That decision enabled my encounter with the naturalist at the birthplace of American vertebrate paleontology. In a way, viewing the mammoth skull and scrounging for some little fossils was cleansing. It balanced out the queasiness I felt standing in the Creation Museum's bookstore.I hope you will find your way back here tomorrow for a final installment of my three part series: Unearthing Truth in Northern Kentucky.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Warfare in Northern Kentucky (Part 1 of 3)

This is the first entry in a three part series that examines science and religion in the context of a recent trip I made to Northern Kentucky.


People who know me well are aware that I'm a little proud of the fact that I have been to every state. (Although my dad contests my claim on Oklahoma.) Do you count states? Whether you count the Bluegrass State while passing through Delta's hub depends on your counting rules. For this trip, I decided to fly direct into Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky airport and drive the 80 miles or so south to Lexington where I was to present about graduate student ethics education. (Carbon auditors: what's the verdict on this? I drove a compact car.) In cutting out the labile factors of airline strikes, delays and weather that could strand me somewhere in middle America, I increased the chances of returning to Seattle and Anacortes in time to get some sleep before the first day of my family medicine clerkship. As a bonus, I got to drive through some scenic countryside during daylight hours.

Some readers might recall something else about northern Kentucky. Back on Memorial Day there was a big splash in the blogosphere and beyond about the grand opening of the Creation Museum. Tara and Michael each wrote good reviews of this spectacle and there are rather extensive photo-documentaries of the place around the web. Since the museum happens to be just a few miles from the airport, I had been considering checking it out, and several folks suggested I would regret being in the neighborhood and not visiting.

Since my presentation was about graduate ethics education, it is reasonable that I formally outline the dilemma I faced. As I got to typing this entry, it quickly blossomed into a thesis on science and religion. I present it here in three parts, titled “Warfare,” “Equal Time,” and “Unearthing Truth.”

Who knew that northern Kentucky could be so stimulating?

WARFARE

When it comes to science and religion, I am no fan of the warfare thesis. After all, how could I reconcile my own beliefs regarding science and God? My view is that the folks who ascribe to warfare are either comfortably camped with their own tribe, or indifferent to the extent that they buy in to the barrage on the airwaves about science and religion as polar extremes. The hour or so footage that I've seen from the recent NOVA special, “Intelligent Design on Trial” perpetuates the warfare thesis, and evidently in Dover two years ago, it felt like war. Science and religion are well entrenched, but like certain other kinds of war, that people fight does not make it right. When it comes to conversations about religion and science, I prefer a diplomatic approach. That's why I am a member of the American Scientific Affiliation and the Metanexus Institute.

What does all this have to do with the Creation Museum? A lot, actually. I am a Christian and a scientist who understands Earth to be billions of years old. I am an evolutionist who believes that the Universe exists in the context of Divinity. For me, that's a Christian divinity. I do not believe that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Like the majority of Christians, I am not a Biblical literalist. As someone who prefers diplimacy over warfare, I am interested in meeting people where they are and seeking a common ground. This part of me strongly endorses a visit to the Creation Museum. I think that several science bloggers and atheists who visited the museum when it opened took this position as well. They sought an understanding of this foreign worldview, if only to better mock it.

That's not the end of this story. I've been around the conversations involving evolution, young earth creationism (YEC) and intelligent design (ID) long enough to know that there are some folks genuinely convinced that there is scientific proof of an earth less than 10,000 years old. These people are confused. Take for example, LOLCreationists: earning a PhD in geology requires acceptance of billion year old principles. How then can the earth be only 6,000 years old? I have to give the YECs credit for their earnest puzzle-solving. Cramming geologic research from the better part of two centuries into a worldview derived from ancient peotry takes a great deal of skill. Most folks on the Creationist side of this 'debate' are more disingenuous. They do not understand science or else openly disregard it, for they select certain facts and misuse them to 'prove' their own agendas. Science requires a complete assessment of all known facts, not a selective assortment of convenient truths.

So if there is a war, it is not between science and religion. It is between the honest immutibility of fact and the confused selective interpretation of fancy. That is not to say that all scientists are honest and all persons of faith are fanciful. On this particular issue, I think that there is a basic misunderstanding that will require both education and relationships to overcome. At the center of the creationism debate is not the science, but Biblical literalism.

Tomorrow in Part 2, I'll provide some elementary field work to examine the state of creationism and evolutionary theory in northern Kentucky. Of note to the folks who hung around for the entirety of this post, that entry will have more jokes, too.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Faith in Science

Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

These be fightin' words!

The general idea offered by Paul Davies in a NYTimes editorial yesterday is that science is actually based on faith - specifically that scientists mus adopt a belief that the universe is ordered and has special conditions that enable life. You can expect there is another another side to this story. Actually, many other sides. I appreciate the concluding statement in PZ Myers' lengthy rebuke:

Maybe Davies has faith in science, but I don't. I take it as it comes. I have expectations and hypotheses, but these are lesser presuppositions than what is implied by faith—and I'm also open to the possibility that any predictions I might make will fail.

Of all the responses that I have read, I most appreciate Dr. Free-Ride's distinction between metaphysical commitments and methodological strategies. When discussing the perspectives of scientists in action (Latour reference intended), it is important to consider what the practitioners recognize as the foundation of their activities. In the trenches of wet labs, field plots, and modeling suites, there are many more scientists willing to accept the utility of empiricism than a theory of universal existence. Don't get me wrong: many scientists do nurture their own metaphysical understanding of the universe, but my guess is that the color of those beliefs varies widely between individual. When it comes down to it, I think that most scientists do experiments and leave questions of metaphysics to the philosophers and theologians.

I think that my resistance to Davies' article is founded on the comparative comfort that cosmologists have in talking about origins, faith and world-views relative to other scientists - especially biologists. Maybe I am jealous that cosmologists can write in the New York Times about science and faith, while in the current setting, most biologists must pick a side: science or faith. Some readers are not willing even to grant cosmologists the right to seek common ground between science and religion.

I applaud Davies' efforts to point out an important understudied element of existence - origins - but agree with many other blogs that he was clumsy in his attempt. Anyway, is science even capable of studying origins?

Tonight Only: Science and Blues Revue

Last Thursday I had the privilege of watching a preview of NOVA's Intelligent Design on Trial at the Pacific Science Center. The director (Richard Hutton) presented about an hour of the two hour documentary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education court case two years ago. If you haven't heard, the special airs tonight at 8:00 PM on PBS.

I want to get this post up before the big event, but don't have the time for a complete analysis. Here are some bullet points:

• Judge John Jones is prominently featured.
• We weren't shown the whole thing because it was not finished yet (on Thursday).
• There was a bit more of the warfare theme than I thought was necessary.
• I sat next to Carl Bergstrom of the UW Biology department.
• They used actors to portay the court proceedings; Behe's double is excellent.
• The basic introductions to the philosophy of science are adequate.
• I thought the presentation of the science was too simplified.
• I am thinking of using a mousetrap as a tieclip one of these days.

I look forward to the special tonight. I hope you are too.

T's Crossed

You can tell that I took this photo before the dissertation clerk realized that my dissertation's signatory page was printed in size 14 rather than 12 because she has that big smile on her face. It only took one puppy-dog face to convince her that it was actually okay. It's a good thing I didn't have to use the Force; my Jedi mind tricks probably wouldn't have worked on her.

I only had to reprint two pages and re-copy all of my tables. But it is over. I earned my Ph.D. just in time to rush over to Children's Hospital to take my pediatrics clerkship final. I passed the multiple choice part on the first try, but could have done better. I hope my subjective reviews come back stronger.

I am going to celebrate by attending a special screening of Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial at the Pacific Science Center. This is one of Paul Allen's pet projects, and if you read ScienceBlogs, there's a bunch of good buzz (and plenty of ads) for it. I'll give you my take this weekend.

ScienceBlogs Loses One

ScienceBlogs' founding member of the "don't hate the religious" clique, has moved on from blogging and resigned his position as ScienceBlogger. Rob Knopp has never been careful with his words; he writes what he thinks and makes no excuses for it. Evidently, the ScienceBorg (who are very good at generating conversations about science, and I applaud them for it) is not interested in assimilating his posts into their archive now that he has left. This is a shame, since some of his posts shed new light on my own position as a scientist and a Christian. My guess is that Seed (they are the folks who manage ScienceBlogs) wants to extinguish any evidence that scientists and science bloggers can consider religion an important part of life.

Thanks Rob. You will be missed. I hope to see you around someday.

Churched Stem Cells

You know those polls that separate out weekly churchgoers and Democratic voters? Or that distinguish scientists from folks that consider themselves spiritual AND religious? Well I break both of those molds. If you didn’t know already, I am a church attending, Democratic voting scientist. So shake of the surprise when I tell you that the other day I was sitting in church and the pastor opened his prayer with this statement: “The stem cell of worship is gratitude.” Often in times of public prayer, I usually zone out into my own way of meditating, but you can bet that this time I tuned in!

As a stem cell scientist (Oh yeah – I forgot to disclose above that I am an Christian embryonic stem cell scientist), I have taken full advantage of the metaphoric power of stemness. Believe me, there are plenty of opportunities for so-bad-you-can-groan puns and fantastic wordplay built into my field. Is your stem cell totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent or omnipotent? But from the pulpit?

Any good sermonette should have some numbered points. Let me make two reflections:

1) I am really glad that Pastor Dave (he officiated at my wedding, by the way) brought science into the sanctuary. Granted, this particular sanctuary is in a church situated adjacent to a large public university in liberal Seattle. There is a reason the Clergy Letter Project exists: there is the need to infuse science conversations into church life.

2) From my elementary understanding of theology, this makes sense. Think of stem cells as the progenitor. Whether worship is the act of expressing joy for your situation or it occurs as an activity to support yourself in the context of faithfulness, there is an underlying relationship with God that is dependent on the worshiper’s gratitude. If we approach whatever situation we find ourselves in – whether gifts or challenges – in the context of thankfulness, we may be able to more clearly approach our calling or purpose. This can happen with both corporate worship (as in Church), or personal worship (like when I ride my bike into work.)

I think it is the first point that got me really excited about the pastor’s use of the stem cell metaphor. If the language of science makes it into the sanctuary, can its ideas be far behind?

Framing Food Consumption

Kate at the World's Fair made a nice post yesterday about how we choose our food. She outlined five reasons why we eat what we do. They are money, taste, nutrition, time and source. Her post got me thinking, and I made a comment over there that I think is succint enough for cross listing here. Disclaimer: this is not the most polished of posts; I have not done much background reading on this issue.

I think there is another consideration that could be added to her list, but it probably overlaps some of the other categories, particularly nutrition and source. I call it the body as a temple consideration. The body as a temple is a reverence or awareness of self that connects what you eat with who you are. (Really though, it's just a highfalutin way of saying, "You are what you eat.") I'll get back to my use of religious language, but the concept as I envision it is subscribed to in large number by decidedly secular communities, especially among the co-op rich, collective-friendly, granola mentality of the Pacific Northwest.

Joking aside, I think that the philosophy of consumption, whether it ranges from puritanical teetotaling to vegan/organic to conscious indulgence is governed by more than just social or economic factors. Food consumption can provide a window into the self.

As far as the religious connection is concerned, I think that there is room for this topic to be framed for religious communities in a similar way that climate change/global warming has been. For example, a good number of Christians (even fundamentalists) have adopted global climate change as an important issue of creation stewardship. Some of these people might not 'believe' in evolution and cast askance looks at Science, but none-the-less have adopted many of the same strategies to forestall global warming as the most outspoken environmentalist groups. If, as I believe is a goal at the World's Fair, we are to elevate the conversation about food choice, consumption and calorie origin, it might be worth the while to identify ways to involve the body as a temple concept as a tap into the organization and energy that certain Christian movements have.

Finally, I probably do not need to remind you that the body as a temple is not a new idea. Blessed food has a thousands of year history in Abrahamic traditions, and is so ubiquitous it is not given a second look in markets and pantries. Many Eastern traditions have similar prescriptions. I think this could be a very useful idea for discussions on the topic of food.

What do you think about this idea? It may not even be new as I have presented it, but if it isn't, why do you think we have not heard more about it?

"Christian Faith and Reason"

Around the time the anti-evolution Creation Museum opened back in May, I stumbled upon a new magazine called Christian Faith and Reason. The publisher has an interesting idea: collect scientists, politicians, people of faith, and - really - anyone interested in reasonable discussion about issues related to Christianity to

provide in depth analysis on the most critical matters of faith in a manner that is both intellectually honest and consistent with Christian faith.

Science is an important voice in such analyses. You are thinking, "But I thought science and rational thought contradicts faith." Some of us (25-45%, depending on the survey) scientists don't think that at all. From the Christian Faith and Reason statement of beliefs,

We believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but that it must be interpreted using the faculties of human reason which God bestowed upon us.

The main way I employ the faculties of human reason is with science. I think that providing communities of Christians with a publication that provides multiple perspectives about controversial topics is a great idea especially if science is invited to a legitimate position around the table. And by multiple perspectives, the editors do not just mean all types of Christians: there were atheist and Muslim contributors in August's edition. From the magazine's statement of purpose,

We seek to provide a marketplace of ideas from all sources, especially those which challenge our viewpoint. Our thoughtful responses to those challenges will lead the sincere skeptic to consider the possibility of choosing to believe in God and the message of Jesus Christ.

This represents a moderately evangelical mission, but I appreciate the tolerance embedded in this invitation to contribute. And contributors the magazine is seeking; if after reading the online version, you wish to submit an article, visit this page. The areas covered the most so far have been science (mostly topics in evolution), atheism and topics related to Islam. The fledgling publication has had two online editions and just printed an August edition. I have signed on to contribute scientific articles for the next year, but (importantly for me) will not be responsible for others' content. You can read my primer to stem cells in this month's edition.

I would be interested to know if you think the articles up at this point live up to the ideal of intellectual honesty. It would also be interesting to know how folks respond to the more assertive claims made in a few of the articles - no matter what your background.

Altruism

You think you get altruism from religion? Democracy? Aunt Edna?

The King of the Nerds notes over at The Stranger how waving someone through the intersection (Seattle drivers: GET A CLUE!) is a trait that even lab rats have. Sadly, this causes me to lose a little respect for those cute little rodents. A 500 word article in a free weekly that features a spot titled "Drunk of the Week" right next to the King's is not enough to convince me there is no learned component of altruism. But a weekly science column in a pop culture rag? Now, that's looking out for his fellow man.

Fertile Biblical Debate

The hinge for many arguments about stem cell research is the same as for the abortion debate. When does personhood begin? Since, I recently made a post referring to abortion, I thought I would follow it up with a position statement on that topic.

I think the least-read entry on my blog so far is one from last month concerning the theological concept of concordism. I want to come back to that term now in conjunction with a presentation of one Christian perspective that is consistent with the moral use of human embryonic stem cells in research and to an extent does not rule out a pro-choice political perspective.

What follows is a lengthy post by someone without theological training, but who is committed to the struggle of reconciling his personal religious, political and scientific world-views. My intent is not to draw you to anger, but to understand a perspective on abortion that you might have yet to consider.

First, some reminders about concordism:

• Concordism is the view that the biblical accounts, when properly understood, will be in agreement with scientific accounts of the natural world.
• The extent that individuals attempt to reconcile conflicting biblical statements with each other and with what scientific study has demonstrated depends on whether that individual pursues a verse that supports his or her opinion or tries to assemble a comprehensive concordist explanation.
• Concordism occurs in both the literalist approach to interpreting the Bible and in the position that the text concerns the relationship between God and his creation rather than a scientific account written in a pre-scientific era.

I have identified several verses from the Bible that are commonly cited as support for personhood occurring at fertilization. Quotations are from the New International Version, available free here.

These include:

Psalm 139: 13-16
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Job 31:15
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Jeremiah 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Each of these point to God's knowledge and creative activity before birth. This could refer to omniscience or activity even before fertilization. No specific comment on fertilization occurs here. In fact, Jeremiah 1:5 emphasizes God's relationship with Jeremiah even prior to his conception. It is a relationship verse rather than an explanation verse, but some strict concordists might disagree.

Other frequently cited sections in the abortion dialogue are:

Job 3:3
3 "May the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
Isaiah 49:1
1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Luke 1:41-44
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
Luke 1:15
15He will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.
Galatians 1:15
15God set me apart from birth (OR from my mother's womb, depending on translation) and called me by his grace.

None of these say anything precise about the origin of personhood. One of them even makes a nice prescription against pregnant mothers drinking alcohol.

The major references to personhood are:

Exodus 21:22-25
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Numbers 5:11-31
(A long passage about what is to be done if a woman is suspected of unfaithfulness to her husband that treats the husband and wife as the only persons involved in a cleansing ritual. The swelling of the abdomen is fully part of the woman. An irreverent interpretation may be found here.)

These last two actually suggest that personhood is not immediately present at fertilization. In order for one to draw a conclusion about fertilization, a concept from modern science must be retroactively applied to the ancient words. For example, some folks like to think of the unformed body in Psalm 139:16 as the morula or blastocyst (stages of development that occur days after fertilization), but it could just as easily be a 'twinkle in your father's eye' or cosmic dust.

Why are these verses so often cited as supporting a pro-life political perspective? My guess is that people try to apply science and what we know about life today to text from the Bible written long ago. I think that it is wrong to apply new meaning to old words, particularly if you consider them sacred, holy, or (separate from religious significance) just an important account of a moral code.

It is within their right for fellow Christians to offer perspectives that differ with mine regarding this issue. I begin to take offense when people uncritically accept others' uses of words from the Bible - what I consider a catalyst for God's relationship with humans - to support political perspectives that are at the periphery of what it means to be a Christian, and then tell me that my reading is wrong.

So if there are any atheists out there who use the refrain that moderate Christians are complicit with fundamentalists by not speaking out, here is one voice saying, "Wait a minute!"

Thanks to an article by Robert Boomsma for helping identify these verses.

Atheism in America

Have you noticed the recent increase in conversations about atheism lately? You've seen books, TV programs and more talking about atheism. If you read ScienceBlogs, you might think that a supermajority of scientists are atheists. Two recent posts there have shifted the conversation away from the screaming edges, and I would like to comment here on them. Matthew Nisbet at Framing Science posted a recent Barna survey showing that Christians tend to donate time and money to the needy more than atheists, and Josh Rosenau from Thoughts from Kansas posted a recent analysis of belief on America.

I'll say right now that I am a Christian, a liberal and a scientist. I wish to contribute to a dialogue about topics like this rather than pick a fight.

Nisbet's post and subsequent discussion centers on the image problem that atheists have in America, and the comments seem to me right on. If, however, he is interested in addressing the findings of the Barna survey, there seems to me an important consideration missing.

I believe that among atheist scientists, there are considerable negative stereotypes of religious - particularly Christian - people. A vast majority of comments (and posts) on ScienceBlogs refer to Christians is cynical hypocrites. I know that this text lashing is not representative of all atheists, but if ScienceBlogs is taken as a representative section of atheists, I might wonder if the negative impressions that society at large holds of of atheists are founded. I have had close interactions with a few groups of atheist secular humanists, and I would characterize only a very small minority of them as something resembling 'militant' or 'cynic.' So I think that Nisbet and colleagues are on to something when they suppose that community (as provided by a church, for example) is linked to good works. It is also possible that people interested in social justice are more social to start with, so seek out places like churches, community groups and political organizations.

My question related about what the Barna study says about atheism is: Are atheists willing to accept that Christians honestly pursue their religious teachings?

If you would like to understand how Christianity can be a religion of social justice, read the Sermon on the Mount. (The summary at Wikipedia is good as long as you don't read the muddled interpretation section.) Christ's teachings advocated giving alms (as the Barna study examined), reducing war, withholding judgment, healing sick, and were against materialism. Jesus interacted with and helped women, lepers, the underclass, tax collectors, priests and aristocrats. Paul preached to and formed friendships with Jews, Greeks, slaves, prisoners, soldiers and Roman leaders alike.

You will, of course, be able to cite contradictions to these points - mostly in the Old Testament. And surely you will find Christians that do not place the social justice commandments high on their priority list. I am just saying that there are stereotypes of atheists and stereotypes of Christians, and to shake off one, you may just have to let go of the other.

Finally, Rosenau identifies that there may be a trend toward a less religious America, and the Barna survey indicates that Americans are increasingly misinformed about the poor. Let's hope that we are not trending toward an era of callousness and fewer good deeds.