Back at Clashing Culture

It's been a little while since I've posted anything at the science and religion blog Clashing Culture. But my co-bloggers over there have kept the place free of cobwebs. I spent a little bit reacquainting myself for the ever-present creation vs. evolution issue this weekend. There's a Texas School Board meeting this Friday to decide science standards for the next 10 years. And of course, some last minute insertions by the board's chair have the scientific community worried that creationism will find its way into science text books... It turns out that the chair of the board Don McLeroy has written an anti-evolution book Sowing Atheism and calls clergy who accept evolution morons. Sounds like the typical anti-intellectual name calling that makes this issue so frustrating to folks like me who just want to get along. In not very related news, one of creationism's champions, Ken Ham, has taken to leveling hypocritical complaints about radio interview ambushes. Read more at Clashing Culture.

Read more about the Texas School Board issue here and the Clergy Letter Project here.

Expelled

I was going to go to the Expelled movie this weekend to write a review for this blog. But it turns out that Expelled is more about Ben Stein flunking than getting expelled. For more information, please consult with TUIB Guy.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

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

Theological Concept: Concordism

When's the last time you thought about how the Bible relates to science? If you read science blogs like I do, this topic comes up quite a bit - often as the butt of jokes. Most of what I see in the science and (Christian) religion 'debate' are arguments from one side of how the Bible portrays a precise account of creation from the other side of how the stories in the Bible are mythological nonsense. There is an obscure school of thought from the 19th century that may offer some wiggle room for individuals interested in exploring the possibility that God played a role in creation, but who hold science as the best approach to investigate the natural order.

Concordism is the view that the biblical account of creation, when properly understood, will be in agreement with scientific accounts of natural history. Understanding where you (or the person you are talking to) stand on the spectrum of concordist perspectives will make it easier for you to understand what direction the discussion will go.

Does this mean that we are to take accounts of natural history in the Bible as correlating to modern day scientific observations?

Biblical literalists will argue that any allusion to natural history in the Bible must correspond to actual physical events. This is an approach with a very high degree of concordism. The problem with this approach is that literalist concordists are trying to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific.

At the other end of the spectrum is the position that the Bible does not intend to teach us about natural history and is only using the language of nature to help our understanding of spiritual truths. This is the minimal degree of concordism.

Most theologians acknowledge that the primary message of the Bible concerns the relationship between God and his creation, not an account of the creation. Taking account of creation is where science comes in handy. The added bonus is that science in this role can be undertaken by anyone familiar with empiricism and the scientific method.

And perhaps in the end, we can note the similarities between the progression of Genesis creation account and the progression of species described by the paleontological record and say, "One wonders about that." Or we might be left curious about how it is that altruistic behavior arose and note that the central message of the New Testament is one of altruism.

Barking Up the Wrong Poll

Now that some of the hubbub surrounding the Creation Museum opening has died down (Well, okay - I guess it really hasn't), I thought I would comment on why of all the topics in science this is the one everyone cares about.

My colleagues and fellow bloggers love to quote polls about just how stupid Americans are when it comes to science. Since we are soooo stupid with science, the media makes it easy for us. As far as the newspapers are concerned, its either A or B. Take for example the recent USA Today/Gallup poll about evolution and creationism. If you bothered to go to the source, it would probably take you 5 minutes just to figure out what the questioners were asking. Then when you consider the results, you would discover that:

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true.

Wait a minute... a majority believe in Young Earth Creationism and a majority believe in evolution over millions of years. The media has done it again. A complex issue for which people think they know more than they do is boiled down into cold, hard data. This time, however, everybody wins. Except that no one does. We are left with less information than we has to start with.

Michael Patrick Leahy has offered suggested questions that could actually set the record straight. So for all of you quoting how stupid Americans are, you will need to wait until this survey is taken before you can speak on evolutionary illiteracy.

On the topic of evolution and creation, which of the following schools of thought best represent your views:

1. Atheistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God played no part in it.

2.Theistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God had a hand in it.

3. Intelligent Design, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the development of species over time are the results of the design of an intelligent agent, which may or may not be God.

4. Old Earth Creationism, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and man was created fully formed by God within the last 50,000 years.

5. Young Earth Creationism, in which God created the universe, the earth, and man in one week 6,000 years ago.

6. I’m not sure and I don’t care

7. I’m not sure, but I think God played a role.

8. I’m not sure, and I don’t think God played a role.

Make sure you know what you think on this issue before Gallup calls you!

He's (Brown)ba-aack!

Mike the Mad Biologist brought my attention to the fact that Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) got a column published in the NYTimes about his (dis-)beliefs of evolution.

It is interesting to me that the gentleman from Kansas is making such a stand on this issue. I suppose he will guarantee some votes in the primary with this position, but to the rest of us, he seems more and more a moron. So please do not confuse my statements as supporting the man. I do however see something deep in his arguments that strikes a chord with me. Those that have read Gould (or a previous post of mine) will recognize this quote:

"the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

Maybe this is where Brownback is coming from regarding his perspectives on faith and empiricism. Or maybe it is simply that:

"limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason."

What? I agree with Sam Brownback??? (Speaking of agreeing with Brownback, did you know that Brownback and Barack Obama both appeared at Rick Warren's (The Purpose-Driven Life) church on World AIDS Day last December?) Our friend from Kansas may be mixed up about evolution, but he has some redeeming qualities when you consider some of the social positions he takes. That's for another post though...

A lot of people - many scientists included - see existence as consisting of more than empirically derived explanations. I think this is fine. It's been a part of human experience for millennia. The problem that Brownback is running into is that an issue at the periphery of his personal faith (an issue trumpeted as critical to that faith by certain religio-politico groups) conflicts directly with a central tenet of science.

For me, it's too bad that we can't talk about the different roles science and faith play in people's lives without inciting the vitriol of the creation-evolution 'debate.'

Creating "Museums"

While I'm on the topic of museums, there's a new one opening Monday that deserves some coverage here. At the time of this post, the Creation Museum was to open in 16 hours, 32 minutes and 12 seconds. (Information conveniently provided on their website.)

Fortunately for me (and I am guessing, you too!), we can participate in this event from afar. You can see the highlights of this $27 million dollar project in a virtual walk-through. One netizen has already posted photographs of most of the exhibits. In the online tour, I am partial to the

"towering face of Grand Canyon along the front wall, while bones of dreadful dinosaurs hint of catastrophe"

and

"T. rex—the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed! You’ll run into this monster lurking near Adam and Eve. How’s this possible? Find out soon!"

It's not just about dinosaurs. You can also

"unravel the mystery of the origin of the so-called ‘races,’ and discover how the science of anthropology actually confirms the Bible’s history!"

I am guessing this has something to do with the Tower of Babel.

I am an advocate for bringing together people to talk about the elements of science and religion that are in conflict, so that we can better understand each other and better understand ourselves. There are plenty of scientists and believing people that honestly pursue dialogue. The Creation Museum and its supporting organization, Answers in Genesis, are not interested in this kind of conversation. Also from their walk-through:

"God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise."

Except among the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are also religious.

Several articles have been written and syndicated about this story, and one from the Washington Post showed up in my Sunday Seattle Times. I appreciated the incongruence of two statements made by Ken Ham, the brains behind this operation.

"When you're talking about origins, you're not talking about science," Ham said as charter members snapped photographs in an early walk-through. "You're talking about belief."

But, to the national press reporter:

The overriding goal is to convince visitors that the Book of Genesis is scientifically defensible.

Wait a minute... I thought that "when you're talking about origins, you're not talking about science."

Another gem also comes from Ken Ham:

"People are just fascinated by dinosaurs, but they've sort of become synonymous with millions of years and evolution."

If you want to read more, over at the ScienceBlog Pharyngula, PZ Myers has assembled much more information than I could uncover in a week!