The Pen Slipped — January, 2008
Ah, the pen. Trusty writing implement and doodle tool. Its even strokes lend legibility to our writing and a simpleness to our ballpoint drawings. But in the hands of a master, the pen can be every bit as capable an instrument of art as is the painter's brush, though the brush may deliver strokes of different widths and weights. Yes, creatively applied, the ballpoint pen can be an artisan's tool of choice.
And so it was, when at the age of 6, I decided to put pen to bare forearm and draw upon myself a face of incomparable beauty and detail. OK, OK. It was really more of a stick-person face. I'll admit it. But it was art, and I was proud of it.
I don't know what it is about kids, but if you leave them to their own devices with pens and markers about, inevitably bare skin becomes blank canvas. It's nearly certain.
Of course, Mom and Dad were none too happy with my drawing. But in an attempt to defer blame for the masterpiece, I suggested, "the pen slipped." I thought it a fairly crafty explanation. Mom and Dad weren't dumb, but by blaming a slip of the pen for the facial masterpiece upon my forearm, I was suggesting a divine inspiration.
Brilliant! But they didn't buy it.
And neither should you buy it from the creationism apologists now.
If you've been following the news, you'll hopefully have caught wind of the raging debates in Florida, where school administrators are now reviewing proposed changes to the state's science curriculum. For the past 10 years, Florida teachers have been required by law to use the phrase "biological changes over time" instead of the word "evolution" and have not been able to teach natural selection as the driving force of said biological changes over time. And the easily predictable result of this nonsense? Students in Florida perform horrendously on standardized scholastic tests and college entrance exams compared to much of the modernized world. Some parents must have started asking why their kids were so dumb, because the curricula are finally being reviewed.
And though the pendulum of reason finally appeared to be swaying toward real science in Florida's classrooms, the Army of Ignorance and Credulity remains hard at work in its efforts to keep Floridians dumb. I share with you some of their arguments and my quips:
According to Beverly Slough, who opposes the changes, "I think to limit our children and to teach evolution as dogma, not allowing them even open discussion, is not intellectually honest."1 And Slough, I should point out, has a degree in Biology.1
Well Ms. Slough, I challenge you to explain to me how children were afforded the opportunity for "open discussion" when teachers were prohibited by law from using the word "evolution" or the phrase "natural selection". Is it intellectually honest to accept a classroom limited to religious dogma, but not one presenting rigorously tested scientific theories?
And how do parents of Florida's students feel about the rigorous testing of our beloved biological changes over time? Bill Love, a pediatric dentist and devout Christian, has said, "It's caused me to ask the scientists that I know to be rigorous in their testing of evolutionary theory in the same way that they ask others to be rigorous in their scientific areas."
Mr. Love, I assume your comments on rigorous testing would suggest ongoing research, experimentation, and consideration of alternate hypotheses. Can you provide me any evidence of a scientific experiment supporting creationism, or for that matter, intelligent design? Can you provide me with any reports of successful research by the Templeton Foundation on creationism? Have creationists entertained the notion of an alternative hypothesis not involving magic?
Science has a process and a method. Conveniently, we call it the "Scientific Method." It is rigorous and deliberate. It leaves itself open to future discoveries. It begins with questions and doubt and seeks evidence—evidence in support or opposition. Its results must be repeatable. Thus when Darwin first suggested natural selection as the driving force of evolution, he had his doubts. He readily offered up what he felt were weaknesses in his theory. And he suggested ways to disprove his theory. Rigorous tests of his doubts have never turned up definitive holes. They've turned up more questions, sure. But that's why natural selection is still a theory and not a law. It's all part of the Scientific Method.
But of course, the creationism apologists already know this. As Mark Messinese, a former classmate of Love's said, "...robust methodology in the scientific method has a biblical basis."1
Really, Mr. Messinese? I didn't know this. I've never found anything in the bible suggesting use of the scientific method, or reason, or logic, or even the most fundamental instrument of science: the question. In fact, the nearest thing to a hint or suggestion of any of this I can find in the bible has also become my favorite bible passage:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." ~ Phillipians 4:8, King James Bible.
Mr. Messinese, you can't just say things. You must seek out evidence and build a body of knowledge upon this evidence, even if that evidence crushes your theory.
David Campbell, one of the drafters of the new standards, supports a rigorous scientific method, and points out Florida's new science curriculum will not contain any lessons on the earth being flat or the earth sitting still at the center of the universe. Because though these were once widely held scientific beliefs, they have been disproven, overwhelmingly.1
But Mr. Campbell is being challenged. Robin Brown, a recently retired Florida teacher, for one, argues she has sought the insight of several "learned people" regarding the fallacy of evolution. She suggests we listen to Karl Popper, Fred Hoyle, Phillip E. Johnson, and Paul Davies—people Ms. Brown considers learned. And Brown suggests Florida classrooms be a place of tolerance and open-mindedness to different ideas.1
Well, Karl Popper studied philosophy, not biology. His beliefs regarding knowledge theory and the scientific method have been widely criticized. And, as it turns out, he's been dead for 13 years. I doubt he's had a chance to chime in on the subject of evolution recently.
Fred Hoyle studied astronomy, not biology. And he's been dead for 6 years.
Phillip E. Johnson is a law professor, not a biologist. He's also a born again Christian who suggests HIV is not responsible for the disease AIDS. And I'm sure in a civil suit against HIV for wrongfully impersonating an immune system virus, Phillip could present a preponderance of evidence to support his wild claim.
Paul Davies studies the bleeding edge of theoretical quantum physics, and though one easily could argue he's wildly intelligent, he's pretty far removed from the subject of biology. He's studying the curvature of time, not the mechanisms by which genes perpetuate their own existence.
So Ms. Brown, allow me to ask you a few things.
First, a favor. Please stop suggesting evolutionary biologists are lax in their scientific pursuits; they are far more rigorous than anyone studying creationism or intelligent design.
Second, would any of your learned people still support the following from the bible? "The lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Psalm 104:5. Galileo challenged this notion by suggesting the earth revolved. The Catholic church responded by prosecuting Galileo for heresy and imprisoning him under house arrest until his death.
So, Ms. Brown, I'll ask my final question of you. Is the prosecution and imprisonment of Galileo the kind of tolerance and open-mindedness toward different ideas you'd like to see in Florida's classrooms? I hope not.
But the desperate and tautological claims against evolution and natural selection don't end with discussions of theoretical validity. No, the apologists would also like to suggest it's dangerous to teach evolution and natural selection.
Bill Foster, parent of a Florida student, has an opinion on the matter and wrote a letter to Florida's State Board of Education.2 In his letter, Mr. Foster suggests "Evolution gives our kids an excuse to believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, which leads to a belief that they are superior over the weak. This is a slippery slope."2
Mr. Foster, is this slope any more slippery than arming our kids with ignorance and expecting them to function in the real world? Sadly, I know several people who will never experience the joys of their full potential because they live cowering in a shadow of self doubt cast by an umbrella of ignorance about how things really work. They believe in magic instead of themselves.
But I won't attack Mr. Foster's claim without also allowing him to present his evidence. So here it is. Mr. Foster's letter continued to say, "One of the Columbine shooters wrote on his Web site, 'You know what I love? Natural selection! It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.'"2
And now, Mr. Foster, my retort, which I shall present in two parts.
Part 1—A quick and dirty lesson on natural selection: One human being shooting another human being in anger has nothing to do with natural selection or survival of the fittest as they apply to evolutionary biology. The root word of "natural" is "nature", which means nature does the selecting, not some raging lunatic. Further, "survival of the fittest" really applies to the survival of the genes providing environmentally-advantageous traits. There are no genes for handguns or assault rifles. And even if there were, the Columbine shooters are now dead, and would have taken their gun-genes with them, Mr. Foster.
Part 2—A comparative analysis of the threat presented by evolution and religion: Mr. Foster suggests the Columbine shootings were motivated by teaching the theory of evolution. I'll be completely absurd for a moment and acquiesce to Mr. Foster's theory. We can therefore say the teaching of evolution "caused" 12 deaths. Now I'll stop being absurd and remind everyone that roughly two and half years after the Columbine shootings, the poison of religious fervor caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.
Really, no matter how absurd we allow our arguments to be, we could never reasonably argue real science in classrooms has killed even one person for every 1,000 bodies produced by religion.
I'm growing tired of this origami of ignorance with all its tautological folds. Reason has far fewer creases.
Just as kids with pens and markers will doodle on themselves, so will the storytellers put pen to paper. It's nearly certain. Both the drawings and the stories may be magnificent. But neither is divinely inspired. As surely as my pen did not divinely slip upon my forearm, you may be certain the storyteller's quill did not divinely slip upon holy parchment. We must stop teaching stories in our science classrooms and keep works of wildly imaginative fiction where they belong: literature classes.
~ topher
1: Matus, R. Winchester, D. Foster Links Darwin, Hitler. www.tampabay.com. January 12, 2008.
2: Wolever, E. Debate on Proposed Science Standards Continues. Florida Baptist Witness. January 17, 2008. (note: despite the stated publication date, this article was posted January 16, 2008.)