EVOLUTION: What It Is and What It Isn't A Public Symposium
Wednesday, September 24, 7:00-10:00 p.m.
Montgomery County College
Room D100 -- AuditoriumSponsored by
Texas Association of Biology Teachers
Texas Citizens for Science
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Houston Area ChapterKeynote Speaker
Dr. Alan Gishlick, Evolutionary Scientist
National Center for Science Education
"Whose God Is It Anyway?
Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Divine Implications of Science"Followed by:
Dr. Steven Schafersman, Evolutionary Scientist
President, Texas Citizens for Science
"From Genesis to Intelligent Design:
A Brief History of Creationist Challenges to Evolution Instruction in Texas Public Schools"and
Dr. Keith Parsons, Philosopher of Science
Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Houton-Clear Lake
"Why Evolution Is Science and Intelligent Design Theory Is Not"Followed by:
Roundtable Q&A with Audience Participation
Speakers will be joined by the following distinguished individuals:
Robert Dennison, President of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers
Wendee Holtcamp, NSF Research Fellow at Rice University, Evolutionary Biology,
and Instructor at Kingwood College
Mark W. Whitten, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Montgomery College
Report on the September 24 Montgomery County Symposium
by Steven Schafersman
The symposium started and ended exactly as scheduled. It was excellently moderated by Karyl Palmisano, who introduced each speaker and panel member and then moderated the audience questions. Alan Gishlick only spoke for 35 minutes, and Keith Parsons and I spoke for our allotted 25 minutes each, so there was plenty of time to answer every audience member's questions and even hear their comments if they wished to make them. With only one exception, the audience members listened and spoke respectfully, but also forcefully if they disagreed with the scientific stance of the speakers. Before the symposium started, creationists (members of the newly formed creationist organization Texans for Better Science Education, TBSE) handed out flyers in the courtyard that contained absurd and supposedly unanswerable questions to ask the panel members. Charlotte Coffelt brought along free handouts to advertise Americans United, one of the sponsors of the symposium, including copies of Church and State. I personally was able to meet a number of old Houston friends at the symposium, individuals I hadn't seen in over eight years (I lived in Houston for 22 years, leaving in 1994, and now live in Midland).
Alan Gishlick described how one forms a worldview and how scientific knowledge influences that worldview. He is a Christian, but adamently rejects intelligent design as a force in the history of life and the universe. Most of his remarks were philosophical in nature. I next discussed the history of creationist challenges to teaching evolution in the United States and Texas, and then devoted about half my time to the local political situation, discussing the efforts of four Houston-area State Board of Education members (Leo, McLeroy, Bradley, and Bauer) to weaken the teaching of evolution in Texas schools and diminish the evolution content in biology textbooks. I also mentioned the TBSE (see below for more details). Keith Parsons then discussed the philosophical and scientific reasons why intelligent design is not science. Keith was the only one of us who presented any scientific information.
The questions from creationists to the panel were typical and expected. One complained that he didn't hear any scientific evidence for evolution. Our purpose was not to deal with that, since such information is easily available in libraries, science books, and now on the Web. Our purpose that night was to discuss the philosophical, historical, and political issues. I pointed out that the legitimate scientific debate between evolution and creationism was in the nineteenth century, and creationism lost then. Today there is no scientific debate, and there is no reason to pretend that there is. Another creationist asked for equal time and balanced treatment, but doing that is educationally dishonest, since creationism has no scientific validity at all. Others brought up the standard but nonsensical creationist arguments against evolution: Haeckel's embryos, Cambrian explosion, Miller-Urey experiment, peppered moths, second law of thermodynamics, polystrate trees, lack of transitional fossils, improbability of forming complex biological molecules, etc., and all were easily answered by the panel members (the proper scientific answers to these and many other creationist questions have long been available on the Web; see the TCS website for links).
Some questions dealt with education and the relationship between science and religion. Robert Dennison explained why evolution is good science and why students must understand it to be good citizens. Mark Whitten and Wendee Holtcamp addressed the reasons why it is perfectly consistent for Christians to accept the natural process of evolution. All Christians are creationists in the cosmic sense, and this worldview is compatible with science because it addresses ultimate metaphysical questions that science ignores. Many scientists are religious (in our country, most of these are Christians, thus supernaturalists), and they all accept evolution as one of many natural processes that the evidence supports. As I said at the symposium, religious differences among scientists (most are philosophical naturalists, not supernaturalists) are a nonissue because the personal differences fall into the realm of metaphysics. As long as all scientists follow methodological naturalism in their scientific work, there is no conflict. The conflict only arises in situations when creationists try to insert their supernaturalistic, anti-materialistic beliefs into science textbooks, curricula, and popular culture, such as the now-popular but misguided attempt to show the "connections" and "relationships" between science and transcendental religion; there are no such connections or relationships. There is the ultimate problem, as I pointed out, of identifying the relationship of the natural to the supernatural, i.e. how the Deity manifests Itself in the natural universe, if It does; the burden of doing this falls upon the supernaturalists and religionists, but so far they have either ignored the problem or failed to explain it cogently.
It is unlikely that any minds were changed during the symposium. I personally never expected this to happen, but apparently some individuals did. I have opposed organized creationism for over 20 years, and I am well aware that rational arguments and empirical evidence are unconvincing and make no difference for any creationist's belief system. Their beliefs are predetermined by their childhood fundamentalist religious indoctrination and adult blind faith, and they have lost the capacity for independent, critical thinking. They are incapable of looking at clear, well-known scientific evidence fairly and using it to reach reliable conclusions, and they are incapable of reasoning logically in the way any scientist must reason. The creationists who spoke and asked questions at the symposium repeatedly demonstrated those traits. It must have been a sobering, even fearful, experience to those normal, rational people in the audience who had never encountered extreme creationists before, but to me it was the same old, sad story I have experienced consistently over more than two decades. It would be easier to live on the same planet with these fundamentalists and creationists if they would just mind their own business and stop trying to damage public education. Of course, since their taxes help support the public education system, they feel they have the right to have it reflect their own warped, misguided, and ignorant ideals and beliefs. In our free society, they have the right to advocate that, so we must constantly exercise our right to oppose them. Such resistance must be part of everyone's life work, and you must be willing to continue it for the rest of your lives, because the creationists certainly won't stop. The only way to ultimately defeat them is to continue to promote the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools, so that all American citizens eventually learn to make decisions about knowledge and actions on the basis of reason, evidence, and reality, not hopes, wishes, and emotions. This educational process has been an ongoing one for over two hundred years, and I predict it will still be ongoing two hundred years from now.
The September 24 symposium was organized and held to counter the previous September 18 forum at the same location by TBSE and the Montgomery County Republican Leadership Council. I was able to read the news reports of this event published in the Conroe Courier (reprinted below), and actually met five of the members of these two groups in Austin and at the symposium on Sept. 24. What I discovered was somewhat unexpected: the TBSE publicly presents itself as supporters of intelligent design and only wanting to insert "weaknesses" of evolution in the textbooks, but the TBSE and RLC members (mostly the same people) actually are the most credulous, ignorant, and vulgar form of creationist: young-Earth creationists who accept only a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, they are all religious fundamentalists and Biblical literalists, unlike the real ID supporters of the Discovery Institute who have quite a variety of different religious views, mostly non-literalist. The TBSE members gave the Courier writer, Tiffany Bosler, a false definition of intelligent design, claiming it is "the idea that there was a 'master creator' who designed life[; p]roponents of this idea argue that evolution is at best an unprovable theory that should be taught as just one of the possible explanations for the origin of life." This is not the definition of ID that Behe, Dembski, and other ID theorists use, since they accept quite a bit of modern evolutionary theory (just not all, as do scientists). Laughably, the TBSE members were pretending to be ID theorists to gain some of their celebrity, in exactly the same way they pretend to possess scientific knowledge to gain some of science's legitimacy and prestige. Ironically, they misrepresented their creationist views as much as they misrepresented their scientific legitimacy. Such duplicity is the mark of true pseudoscientists.
Mark Cadwallader claimed Lucy was only an ape with fake human feet. He advocated the traditional creationist argument for design. Tom Lancaster advocated a "worldwide flood model." He claimed that the fossil record is more consistent with preservation by a global flood than by normal geological processes, that Archaeopteryx was a fully-developed bird, that there were no transitional fossils. Later, Don Clark and Jim Jenkins discussed DNA and the improbability of life occurring by chance. Other members have advocated that there are no rocks and fossils on Earth older than 10,000 years in age. All of these arguments are traditional, simplistic, and common young-Earth creationist arguments, used for years, for example, by the Institute for Creationist Research and Answers in Genesis. These arguments have been answered and refuted again and again by evolutionary scientists in books and on websites.
Intelligent design theory to evolve at forum tonight
By: Tiffany Bosler, Conroe Courier
September 18, 2003
Source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10182583&BRD=1569&PAG=461&dept_id=180944&rfi=8If some Montgomery County residents had their way, evolution wouldn't be the only idea taught by high school biology teachers on the origin of life.
Montgomery County Critical Issues Forum is presenting a discussion this evening from 7-9 p.m. at the Montgomery College Theater, 3200 College Park Drive, on "The censorship of critical thought in our public schools: Intelligent design versus evolution."
The forum will have a panel of four speakers presenting evidence for the inclusion of intelligent design in high school biology curriculums. Admission is free and open to the public. An open question period will follow each of the presentations.
Intelligent design is the idea that there was a "master creator" who designed life. Proponents of this idea argue that evolution is at best an unprovable theory that should be taught as just one of the possible explanations for the origin of life.
"Evolution is atheism in a straight jacket," said Jim Jenkins, president of the Republican Leadership Council of Montgomery County and speaker at tonight's forum.
Jenkins said that recent evidence has proven several tenets of evolution untrue. He said that the Haeckel drawings were exaggerated to illustrate similarities between the embryos among various vertebrates to validate evolution.
He also cited the Miller-Urey Apparatus, which was used to simulate what the earth's atmosphere may have been like at the time life began. He said that the experiment was later found to have a amount an oxygen too great to have allowed for the creation of certain amino acids.
Jenkins likened the chances of life occurring as evolutionists claim to a person being blindfolded, placed in the middle of the Sahara Desert and asked to find a single marked grain of sand three times.
The logical question that arises from this debate is, "Who is the intelligent designer?" Jenkins said that the attributes of the designer are unknown and stated that others have postulated the identity of the master designer to be God, a parallel universe or possibly a space alien.
He said the intention of the forum is to stick strictly to the science of intelligent design and avoid the issue of religion altogether.
Both Jenkins, an electrical engineer, and Mark Cadwallader, a local chemical engineer who will also speak at the forum, testified last week in front of the Texas State Board of Education on the issue. They asked for the removal of what Jenkins termed "gross errors," which included the Haeckel drawings, the Miller-Urey Apparatus and the Cambrian explosion, and consideration for the inclusion of intelligent design in high school biology curriculum.
"(The issue) won't go away -- there is too much evidence. This will keep coming back until the evolution philosophy is overturned," said Jenkins.
The last day for textbook changes to be submitted to the State Board of Education is Oct. 3, and a final decision on the textbooks approved for the 2004-05 school year will be made in November. For more information on tonight's forum, call (281) 288-0168.
On Sept. 24, the Texas Association of Biology Teachers, Texas Citizens for Space and Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Houston Area Chapter, will sponsor a symposium on "Evolution: What it is and what it isn't."
Speakers including Dr. Alan D. Gishlick, Dr. Steven Schafersman and Dr. Keith Parsons will present arguments for evolution from 7-10 p.m. at the Montgomery College Theater. For more information, contact Charlotte Coffelt at (281) 360-2506.
Forum examines "intelligent design"
By: Tiffany Bosler, Courier staff
September 19, 2003
Source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1569&dept_id=180944&newsid=10189035&PAG=461&rfi=9The Montgomery College Auditorium was packed with county residents, parents and children Thursday night who were eager to hear the arguments against the teaching of evolution in area schools.
Only standing room was available for those arriving late to the Montgomery County Critical Issues Forum, which featured four speakers, each of whom presented arguments for intelligent design as an answer to the question of life's origin.
Intelligent design is the theory that life on Earth was created by a "master designer" who carefully assembled each species independent of each other. The theory supports the idea of microevolution, or evolution within a single species, such as the various dog breeds, but rejects the idea of macroevolution, or evolution between species.
Mark Cadwallader, who holds a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Houston, presented arguments against the evolution of man from apes, citing falsified evidence in the discovery of "missing link" species.
He said that the early hominid species "Lucy" was an extinct ape with human feet drawn in because of the absence of the actual ape feet, which he said were discovered later.
Cadwallader introduced the example of manmade machines, such as large airplanes, to create an analogy between the machine's intricate systems and life's careful creation.
"If complex manmade things require a designer, why shouldn't complex things in nature? True science must think outside the box of naturalistic philosophy," said Cadwallader.
Tom Lancaster, an architect, presented arguments against the evolutionist ideas on the fossil record. Lancaster said that the "worldwide flood model" is a more accurate explanation of how fossils were formed.
He showed examples of jellyfish and fern fossils that had been perfectly preserved to illustrate the sudden nature in which he believes they were covered up. This contradicts the idea of evolution, which evaluates fossils as records of life that occurred over long periods of time.
Lancaster got big laughs when he asked the audience how the lizard evolved into a bird. He said that there are no records of transitional species between the two.
He also said that the well-known Archaeopteryx, which is believed to be the missing transitional fossil, is not transitional at all, but rather a fully-developed bird species with feathers.
Audience members were permitted to ask questions after each presentation, which was conducted in a calm and orderly fashion. No one presented any contradictory evidence supporting evolution. Often times the presenter would find himself finishing a sentence with several "That's right" affirmations chiming in from the audience.
In the auditorium's entry hall, petitions requesting the inclusion of intelligent design in biology textbooks and high school curricula were made available for people to sign. The petitions asked for the addition of a disclaimer to each biology textbook that reads:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution regarding the origin of living things is a hypothesis, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
A quiet congregation of protesters gathered in the small faculty parking lot quite a distance away from the auditorium to voice their opposition to intelligent design.
Several members from the Houston Atheist Society handed out literature as they held signs in support of evolution.
"Intelligent design is the new code word for creationism," said Keith McCaffety, president of the Society.
Presenters at the forum did not attempt to identify the "master designer," but said that the designer may be data, nature, God, Allah or space aliens.
McCaffety said that the goal of the Society's presence at the forum was to let other people in the area who have similar views know that they are not alone.
"We are not protesting religion or religious people. We are protesting specifically intelligent design," said McCaffety.
The society, which was formed in March, has a membership of over 60 people. For more information, visit www.godlesshouston.com.
Dr. Don Clark, a biochemist and microbiologist, was joined by Republican Leadership Council of Montgomery County President Jim Jenkins, who holds a degree in electrical engineering, in closing the night with presentations on DNA and life's probability of occurring by chance.
Evolution supporters bonding together for forum at Montgomery College
By: Tiffany Bosler, Conroe Courier
September 24, 2003
Source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10211367&BRD=1569&PAG=461&dept_id=180944&rfi=8In response to last week's intelligent design forum, several area organizations have joined together to sponsor a public symposium in support of evolution.
Texas Association of Biology Teachers, Texas Citizens for Science, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Houston Area Chapter will host "Evolution: What it is and what it isn't" from 7-10 p.m. tonight in the Montgomery College Auditorium, room D100.
Dr. Steven Schafersman, founder and president of Texas Citizens for Science, is one of three speakers at tonight's symposium. He will give a 25-minute presentation on the topic "From genesis to intelligent design: A brief history of creationist challenges to evolution instruction in Texas public schools."
"(Without evolution), students in our schools will be getting an inaccurate, third-rate, subscale science education," said Schafersman, an invertebrate paleontologist who lives in Midland.
According to Schafersman, the theory of evolution is founded on the principle of common descent, or that all species are related and share a common ancestor.
"It's a change in gene frequencies through time in species populations," said Schafersman.
Many supporters of intelligent design argue that there is no common ancestor and that a "master designer" created all of Earth's species independent of each other.
Schafersman argues that there is no evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design.
"This is an aggressive, extreme form of political movement acting much like the Nazi and Communist parties in the 1930s, just not to the same scale," said Schafersman of the intelligent design movement.
Schafersman refuted several of the arguments against evolution. He said that the Miller-Urey experiments, which are often cited as faulty, did in fact have minor flaws, but that recent studies have reproduced the same results even with the updated knowledge of what Earth's early atmosphere was actually like.
He also said that the lack of transitional fossils is "an absolute lie," citing Archaeopteryx as a true example of a transitional species. He said that the species is not a fully-developed bird, but, in fact, a dinosaur with feathers and a wishbone.
Dr. Alan Gishlick, with the National Center for Science Education, has studied Archaeopteryx extensively.
"(Archaeopteryx) shows a series of morphologies that are transitional," he said.
"The idea that there are no transitional fossils is a just a flat out lie," said Schafersman, who noted transitions between whales and land-dwelling mammals and dozens of hominid species.
Schafersman agrees with the supporters of intelligent design, however, in requesting the removal of the Haeckel drawings of vertebrate embryos from biology textbooks due to the drawings' inaccurate exaggerations.
Schafersman, like Mark Cadwallader and Jim Jenkins of the intelligent design forum, attended a recent Texas State Board of Education textbook hearing, in which he spoke in favor of the current biology textbooks.
"I would like to see the biology textbooks adopted without unscientific changes," he said. Gishlick, who is traveling to the forum from California, will also speak at tonight's forum on the topic of "Whose God is it anyway? Evolution, intelligent design and the divine implications of science." Gishlick, who has a doctorate from Yale University in vertebrate paleontology, is the keynote speaker and will take the stage for 50 minutes.
"Evolution is the best explanation of patterns in the natural world," said Gishlick.
Dr. Keith Parsons, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Houston-Clear Lake, will speak for 25 minutes on "Why evolution is science and intelligent design theory is not."
The symposium will also allow one hour for audience members to ask questions of not only the speakers, but also a three-member panel of evolutionists. Included on the panel are Robert Dennison, president of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers; Wendee Holtcamp, National Science Foundation Research Fellow at Rice University and evolutionary biology instructor at Kingwood College; and Dr. Mark W. Whitten, associate professor of philosophy and ethics at Montgomery College.
Experts lay out case for evolution
By: Erika Durham, Conroe Courier
September 25, 2003
Source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1569&dept_id=180944&newsid=10225414&PAG=461&rfi=9Local supporters of evolution were unable to match the overflowing attendance at last week's intelligent design forum during Wednesday night's symposium.
But judging from the warm reception and support the guest speakers received, the fewer number of attendants were also those faithful to the theory.
"Evolution: What It Is, and What It Isn't," was led by Alan D. Gishlick, Steven Schafersman and Keith Parsons, all doctors of philosophy in their respective scientific fields.
One by one, each presented a case for evolution or against intelligent design, a theory that says a higher being or power created humans. Included in this higher power is God, nature, Allah or space aliens.
Each speaker unveiled different points about evolution. However, one belief was common among them -- evolution is science and intelligent design is not, therefore it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Gishlick of the National Center for Science Education, argued that "intelligent design" was simply a mask for Christian creationism, which preaches that God created all things.
"Proponents of intelligent design don't like to talk about God but that is exactly what they are talking about," he said. "They are trying to make God scientific."
Donna Lopez, a resident of The Woodlands said she fully supports evolution although she is a Christian.
She said she just wants to know that her children are learning facts in school.
Lopez said it is a "sad day," when residents must fight to keep unscientific facts out of the classroom. Schafersman, whose talk was more politically focused, said proponents of intelligent design have made a recent push for the weaknesses of evolution to be included in school books, which "is a last ditch effort to win something. They are desperate for any victory," he said.
Parsons, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, said he disagreed with intelligent designs' elusive way of not naming an actual designer but instead giving a list of possible creators.
"I think we deserve to know who they are talking about," Parsons said.
Parsons said several aspects of evolution have passed scientific tests, unlike intelligent design, which is why scientists as a whole support the theory.
"More scientists believe in evolution than (those who believe) the world revolves around the sun," he said.
Steven Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science infoATtxscience.org (Help stop spam: replace AT with @ before mailing) Last updated: 2004/02/18