God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas

For the fourth time, the Kansas Board of Education is going to debate what is and is not science. I've commented several times on this blog about the battle over intelligent design in the classroom. My opinion hasn't really changed. Regardless of personal opinion on the discussion, can't everyone in the Kansas debate recognize that constantly re-debating the question, and redefining science every couple years, after each election, is not only silly but ultimately more confusing to the students? I know it will never happen, because posing for their power bases is more important than actually addressing issues, as in all politics, but both sides really should try to find an accomodation.

I've argued before that what Dover, PA came up with is pretty good. The Dover solution was to ackowledge that not everyone believes evolution and that some believe in intelligent design, but to use language that differentiates intelligent design from science, and to also acknowledge the simple, and seemingly indisputable, point that evolution is a theory like every thing else in science. So it's a solution that acknowleges the existence of intelligent design, but keeps the science classes teaching science. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. As I said, it'll never happen. But if politicians actually cared about solving problems and doing something, it might.

The News Media and Facts

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's too much to ask for the MSM to at the very least get simple facts straight. In an article unrelated to the intelligent design debate, USA Today writes

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the Dover, Pa., school board acted unconstitutionally in requiring science students to learn the "intelligent design" theory of life's origins along with evolution. Intelligent design is the idea that some forms of life are so complex that they must have been shaped by a designer who is left unspecified.

This is a ridiculous distortion for two reasons. First, USA Today does what the Dover board explicitly did not, namely identify intelligent design as a theory, I'm sure much to the chagrin of science-friendly readers. More importantly, the Dover policy, as I've reminded readers multiple times, did not require the teaching of intelligent design at all.

Is it really too demanding of professional reporters to at least have some basic clue of what they write about?

Media Coverage of Dover against Kansas

Regular readers will know that I have posted several times on the debates throughout the country over teaching intelligent design in science class. The big battle grounds of late have been in Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania. Both localities have been in the news this week. Elections this week resulted in the Dover school board being essentially outsted, with eight of the nine members replaced. At the same time, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to approve teaching intelligent design in the science classes.

I have a bone to pick with the media coverage of these two stories. Press coverage of the two debates tends to equate them. They are not the same at all. For example, CNN writes

The Kansas board's action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board's policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class.

MSNBC's coverage of the Dover election results makes several references to Dover schools teaching intelligent design. The Dover policy in question does not require students to study intelligent design, nor teachers to teach it. It required teachers to read a brief statement one time that I have commented on in detail before, before continuing on to teach evolution as they should. This is a far cry from redefining science, as the Kansas school board did, so as to actually teach intelligent design. Whether one agrees with the Dover policy or not, surely the difference from Kansas' board is obvious.

Why can the media not understand the difference between the two cases? The media are being very sloppy in their coverage if they cannot convey the essential differences in the two cases. This sloppy coverage is misleading to readers. Bloggers can be just as bad, of course. Badger Blues characterizes the Dover case as "a weird, Scopes-like trial over teaching science in science class" when the case had nothing to do with not teaching evolution.

If we are going to have intelligent discourse in this country, the news media (and bloggers) needs to be a little more diligent in their coverage, so as to provide accurate information to readers.

Update (11/11/2005): Fixed the link to my previous look at the Dover policy.

Hurting Kansas Kids

Andrew Kantor writes in response to the Kansas school board decision on evolution and intelligent design:

Let's set aside the fact that the Kansas school board voted to teach creationism in schools. There's something more important in the board's decision. Per CNN:

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

So now, in Kansas, science isn't science anymore. Astrology, witchcraft, miracles, angry gods, voodoo curses -- these are all legitimate explanations for what we see in the world.

Does no one see that this is going to hurt kids in Kansas schools if they want to go to college? Like it or not, agree with it or not, universities are going to discount these kids' science grades when they see 'KS' on the application.

Good job, school board. Way to go.

The "Intelligent Design" Trial

The Dover, PA school district is being sued by parents over its controversial accomodation of intelligent design in biology class. I have been critical of the creationist side of the ID discussion numerous times. But the scientific side needs to be taken to task as well. Their strategy in the case appears to be to prove evolution in court.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen.

Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.

"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch.

This is the wrong approach.

From what I have read, the school district does not teach ID. The teacher is required to simply issue a disclaimer before each class session. The text of this disclaimer is available online. I have said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing objectionable in this disclaimer. It begins by stating evolution is a theory. What scientist can object to that assertion? It goes on to say there are gaps. I'm a physicist, not a biologist, so I cannot speak authoritatively, but I would be totally shocked if this were not true. I have never seen a theory in science in which there were no holes. The disclaimer continues by giving a perfectly reasonable definition of what the word "theory" means. The creationists try to whip up doubt by confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the more colloquial. The disclaimer in question asserts the scientific version.

Intelligent design is then described as an "explanation", not a theory so as to not be confused with science, that is different from evolution. Well, yes. It is an explanation and is not evolution, so this is an accurate statement. A reference text on ID is then mentioned for any student interested in learning about it. Unless the scientists want to argue that this book is, in fact, not a reference for ID, I cannot see anything wrong.

In the final paragraph of the disclaimer, students are encouraged to keep an open mind with respect to any scientific theory. Is this a problem for scientists? Surely they are not trying to argue we should never question our theories. Where would science be if scientists never questioned the prevailing theories of the day? We would still be stuck in flat Earth, geocentric conception of the universe.

The scientists trying to fight against this disclaimer do their own cause a tremendous disservice. Apart from the fact that there's nothing they should find objectionable, fighting it reinforces the creationist notion that the scientists are simply trying to push their theory as unquestioned fact. Which is more damaging to the cause of science: passing religion off as science, or demanding unquestioned acceptance to whatever science theorizes at the moment? Both will crush the advancement of science.

Why Some Christians Hate Evolution

Maybe I've just been dense and it never registered before, but I think I finally understand why so many evangelical Christians resist and oppose evolution. And it's not the reason you might think. In a recent Time cover story on the evolution wars, the magazine included short interviews with four people on the question, "Can you believe in God and evolution?" Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says no arguing

For one thing, there's the issue of human "descent." Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any non-human species. Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker.

Before proceeding, let me again reiterate that I am an evangelical Christian by faith and a physicist by education.

Mohler makes two points. The first is that Christians must believe that humans had a special creation that makes them unique and distinct from all other animal species. I think we have to agree Biblically that man has a unique place in creation, but I do not see that that precludes a non-human ancestry.

The second point is what's interesting. He is attempting to debunk a straw man, I think, which is that Christian evolutionists believe in some sort of deism, where God accomplished creation by setting the rules for evolution then stepping back and watching it happen. It's a straw man because I do not believe that's what most Christian evolutionists believe. We embrace the fact that God is "involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe." While that does indeed rule out the divine watchmaker, it is also beside the point.

But it is illuminating. In thinking about this, about a comment in a letter to the editor in Newsweek, and about a comment I heard in church recently, I realize the basic issue is randomness. Evolution suggests life evolved through a series of random mutations in simpler organisms. Randomness suggests, well, randomness, whereas creation suggests order and method. Hence, the two are inexorably opposed, right?

I am glad these anti-evolutionists have not apparently studied modern physics. Randomness is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, which is founded on the assumption that nature works through probabilism, not determinism. Here's the idea. In classical physics, all the way back to the Greeks, nature was assumed deterministic. That means if I repeat an experiment 1000 times under the same conditions, the exact same result will emerge 1000 times. If I know the initial conditions and the forces involved, I know exactly what will happen. Probabilism, on the other hand, says I have no idea what will happen each time I run the experiment. There are any number of possible outcomes, each with a certain probability of happening. The best I can say is how often I would expect to see some given outcome.

This is necessarily abstract and hard to understand if you haven't studied physics. I will try to illustrate. If I pick up a pencil and let it go, it will fall due to gravity. In a deterministic universe, all I need to know is the height of the pencil to determine exactly what will happen. I can calculate exactly how long it will take to hit the ground, and the speed at which it will be moving when it does hit. More importantly, I can calculate the exactly trajectory of that pencil, marking its exact position at every moment during the fall. And if I do the experiment 1000 times, I will get the exact same results.

In the quantum realm, it is much more complex. I have to consider the straight line path, yes. But I have to consider a trajectory with a single loop, one with two loops, one where it makes a 90 turn, etc. (This sounds weird, I know. At the size scale we are talking about, the probability of each of these paths is 0, except the straight line path, which is why we don't worry about quantum effects in our everyday world. But a proper quantum solution would have to consider all these. The example illustrates the process involved in understanding interactions at much smaller size scales where quantum effects do matter.) Each trajectory has a probability, so repeating the experiment 1000 times, I can estimate how often I would expect to see each path. The same thing will not necessarily happen each time. (Quantum also has the uncertainty principle which says I cannot know the position and momentum of the pencil simultaneously, and other fun effects.)

A more realistic example would be electron-electron scattering. As we know, like electrical charges repel each other, which means an electron flying past another will be deflected. In the quantum world, how would this be explained? The theory is called quantum electrodynamics (QED), perhaps the best tested theory in physics. To explain what happens, one has to determine all the possible interactions, and add up their probabilities. So, a photon (the carrier of the electromagnetic force) could simply be exchanged between the two electrons. Or, a photon could be emitted by one, spontaneously produce a virtual electron/positron pair which then annihilate to go back to one photon. Or two photons could be exchanged. Or there could be multiple virtual pairs. Any number of interactions are possible. (These are typically expressed through Feynman diagrams which represent terms in a series expansion of the equations of QED.) So the probability for each interaction is determined and from this a model of exactly how the electron-electron scattering occurs is derived.

It is crucial to understand that this probabilism is a fundamental property of nature, not some mathematical tool. In classical physics, there is a branch called statistical physics which looks at things like the physics of gases. Probability is involved there as well, but only as a simplification to the impossible task of solving the millions of equations, each of which would be assumed deterministic in principle. In principle, one could solve the equations of motion for every gas molecule, but that's just not realistic because there are so many and the interactions are so complex. Instead, the scenario is simplified to a statistical expression. Out of practical necessity, we give up trying to understand the properties of an individual molecule and instead try to understand the properties of the gas as a whole instead.

That is not the same thing as quantum which asserts this probabilism as a fundamental property of nature. In quantum we give up trying to understand the motion of a single electron around a nucleus because it is fundamentally not possible to understand that motion. The uncertainty principle tells us that the better we know the momentum of an electron, the less we know its position, and vice versa. Even attempting to make a measurement changes the state of what we're measuring.

I don't know how many people have made it this far but I'll press on with the point I'm trying to make. It seems to me that at the core of intelligent design is a resistance to the notion of randomness. The ID supporters want to remove the random mutations of evolution with a more orderly process guided by a designer. This is very similar to the debate in the physics community in the early 20th century when quantum physics began taking hold. Many physicists rejected quantum for exactly the same reason. Einstein and Niels Bohr had a celebrated exchange of letters arguing this philosophical point, with Einstein making the famous comment, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Randomness is not simply an element of evolution. It is a fundamental property of nature. To resist evolution because it is makes use of random processes is to also resist all of modern physics.

So, are randomness and design in conflict? This is the question at the core of the ID movement. As a Christian, I believe, as Mohler does, that "God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation." As a scientist, I have learned that God's involvement with creation is manifested through processes expressed and understood in the natural realm as random processes. Instead of fighting what science reveals about God to make God fit into some preconceived box, Christians should accept what God is showing them. As I wrote before,

Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?

Flaws in Evolution as Evidence

In a previous post on evolution versus creationism, I wrote

Beyond that, the existence of flaws in evolution does not mean creationism is right. That seems to be the most common line of 'evidence' for intelligent design and creationism: evolution doesn't explain everything, so creationism is supported. (Witness David Berlinski's "defense" of intelligent design.) That's just silly, and demonstrates exactly why these "theories" should not be taught in schools.

Richard Dawkins puts it much better:

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. "Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?" If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: "Right, then, the alternative theory; 'intelligent design' wins by default."

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist's rejoicing in uncertainty. Today's scientist in America dare not say: "Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I'll have to go to the university library and take a look." No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: "Weasel frog could only have been designed by God."

Evolution in Cobb County, GA

Another front in the ongoing battle between supporters of science and their opponents is taking place in Cobb County, GA. Last week, stickers placed on science text books indicating that evolution is a theory or origin rather than a fact were removed by court order. The court order comes as a result of a law suit by some in the county alleging the "disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state." The disclaimer read

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

I have two questions on this.

First, how could anyone object to the disclaimer? Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the origins of life. It is not a fact. As with all theories, evolution should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this disclaimer.

Second, how could this possibly be a violation of the separation of church and state? Where is religion mentioned? Now, I understand that the stickers have most likely come about due to the lobbying of conservative Christian groups who think they are somehow undermining the theory of evolution by calling it a theory. They are doing the right thing but out of ignorance rather than understanding. Be that as it may, there is nothing religious about this disclaimer. This is not endorsing a religious view like intelligent design. The disclaimer simply expresses a correct understanding of science, whether that was the lobbyists' intent or not.

This is a perfect example of what I have said before, namely that both sides in this battle are taking highly questionable stands. One crowd thinks it is supporting science education by rejecting a disclaimer that would help properly understand science. The other thinks it is undermining science education by calling for a disclaimer that helps to properly understand it. This "battle" is just plain silly.

More on Evolution in Kansas

In my previous comments on the evolution debate in Kansas schools, I have described the "revisionist" view as reasonable at face value, but a smokescreen for their real ambition, which is to turn religion into science. I guess the smoke is clearing because they are getting quite open about it. The AP reports

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of 'intelligent design' are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

Stephen Meyer argues that the current definition of science, which focuses on the natural world, is "not neutral. It's actually taking sides" on the question of natural versus supernatural explanation. Well, yeah. Science searches for logical, demonstrable, reproducible explanations for the phenomena around us. That naturally precludes a supernatural explanation. Christians will argue that God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. Therefore, since God can do anything he wants, there is no way to predict what will ever happen if you bring God into your theory.

If I pick up a pencil and drop it, what will happen? If I take a scientific explanation, I can answer that. I can predict the path it will take, how long it will take to fall to my desk, and how fast it will be travelling when it hits the desk. But if I bring God in, how do I predict what will happen? I cannot. If God can do whatever He wants, then that pencil can follow any trajectory, move at any speed, do anything God wants it to do. There goes any element of predictability in science. This is why God is not part of any scientific theory.

Ironically, what these Christians are doing is basically undermining God. They are saying that even God is subject to the laws of nature. Science is the quest to understand those laws, so if God is part of a scientific understanding, then He is subject to those laws. Even He cannot break them. In other words, God is not omnipotent. This is why, as a Christian myself as well as a scientist, I find this whole line of argument disturbing. God cannot be put in a box, and why these Christians are so insistent on doing so is perplexing.

Fundamentally, we're comparing apples and oranges. On the question of the origins of the universe of or life on Earth, science looks at the "how" and religion looks at the "who" and the "why." As a Christian, I say God created the universe and created all life on Earth. That statement does not address the question of how He created the universe. Science attempts to provide an explanation of the how. Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?

Evolution Versus Creationism in Schools

Folkbum posts on the movement that is heating up to change how science is taught in schools. As one who is both an educated scientist and a Christian, this is a topic near to my heart. As I once wrote in a more sarcastic way, there are problems on both sides of the argument, but most especially on the "reform" side.

Fundamentally, the "reformist" movement, i.e. that which wants to change science education to include the so-called intelligent design concept, claims that evolution is taught in schools as a proven fact, which it is not. In this, they are right. Nothing in science is or can ever be proven. Demonstrating evidence in support of a theory is not proving that theory, in the sense of prove meaning "to establish truth or fact." A theory can today neatly agree with experiments, therefore "proving" the theory, and tomorrow be thrown away. All scientific theories change over time as more observations are made which expose flaws in what is already established, forcing scientists to rework their theories. At times, these flaws are so pronounced that they force scientists to start over completely, as with the birth of quantum physics. The reformists are right that a proper education in science should include an examination of the flaws of the current theory, rather than simply teaching the students what works about the theory.

However, does that mean that teachers should be teaching intelligent design or creationism? Certainly not. That those are unscientific ideas best suited to the church pulpit rather than the science classroom should be readily obvious. Beyond that, the existence of flaws in evolution does not mean creationism is right. That seems to be the most common line of "evidence" for intelligent design and creationism: evolution doesn't explain everything, so creationism is supported. (Witness David Berlinski's "defense" of intelligent design.) That's just silly, and demonstrates exactly why these "theories" should not be taught in schools.

Science education should be a tool to teach students critical thought. The "reformers" would throw away critical thought, attributing any flaw in a theory to God. By the same token, establishment education in schools discourages critical thought by ignoring the holes in the theories, compelling students to accept these ideas without question, the antithesis of critical thought. Educating students to believe evolution is a fact is no better than educating them to believe creationism is science.

Science education should teach science in all its wonder. That means teaching the details of established theory, but also embracing the holes in the theory as a launching pad to greater discovery and insight into the world.

Evolution Law Suit

Oh brother. A school district in Georgia is being sued in federal court on the question of whether stickers in science texts that proclaim evolution a theory, not a fact, and that evolution should be "critically considered" is a violation of the separation of church and state. Evolution is a theory? Uh, duh! That's half of what science is all about, building theories! Everything in science is a theory. There are no "facts" in science. Should any scientific theory be critically considered? Uh, duh! The other half of what science is all about is testing those theories! So, this district is being sued for stating the obvious. Give me a break!

Why, one may ask, is separation of church and state invoked? Because the motivation for placing these stickers is not a simple statement of scientific truth, but an attempt to deny the status of evolution as the prevailing scientific theory for the origin of life by evangelical Christians afraid of science who want to make their decidedly unscientific picture known as creationism a "theory" on the same footing as real science. On that, give me another break! These people think calling evolution a theory is to somehow disparage it. Then they turn around and demand their idea be treated in the same way, but presumably without the disparaging element.

As a scientist, the whole debate appalls me. Both sides appall me. Neither gets it. One thinks far too highly of science, thinking its theories should be treated as fact. The other thinks so little of science that calling something a theory is considered insulting. The concern here is about the negative impact on education. I have to conclude science education is a joke in this country if it leaves us with two equally clueless groups making such silly and pathetic arguments. Give me a break!