According to Sample, it all depends on what the null hypothesis is. In science, a null hypothesis is “a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.” It’s the default position, or the commonly accepted hypothesis (H₀) that researchers must disprove (H₁). It’s similar to saying a person is presumed innocent (H₀) until proven guilty (H₁).

And Sample argues that with evolution, the null hypothesis actually favors intelligent design for the origin of life over purely evolutionary forces. In order to accept evolutionary theory, he says, science must prove it.

Sample says the “null hypothesis” is such because the old experiments that attempted to produce “building blocks” of amino acids failed to do so. In addition later experiments that produced other precursor chemicals, such as DNA and RNA, required very specific conditions in a lab, and aren’t… necessarily reflective of what the early Earth was like. Therefore, he said, the odds of making life from non-life seem too small for a naturalistic hypothesis to work.

Sample says it isn’t stealth creationism – he says the intelligent agency might just as well be aliens. But he emphasizes that he wants students to learn to think critically, and that unlike the physical sciences, there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.

If nothing else, this is an interesting twist on the evolution debate, essentially putting the impetus on science to prove its case, which is what the scientific method is designed to do. If life originated from random chemical reactions, then that should be verifiable and reproducible. However, because science cannot exactly recreate the environmental conditions of the earth as it was billions of years ago, then reproducibility is impossible, and therefore the evolutionary theory of the origin of life cannot be proven. Which means that intelligent design (H₀) cannot be disproven.

Ultimately, if Sample’s goal is to teach students to think critically, this seems like a much better approach than just blindly accepting evolution without debate. Unfortunately, I doubt many Evolutionists would agree.

Previously:
Professors: Debating evolution in school ‘worrisome’
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

At least that’s the position of political science professors Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. According to surveys conducted by them, they found that a whopping 60 percent of biology teachers around the country allowed room for debate and doubt when teaching the subject of evolution. And that, they argue, is unacceptable.

Many of these teachers lack the educational expertise to defend evolution, so they resort to dodging the creationism vs. evolution “controversy” altogether. Some of them shift the blame of having to teach evolution to state examinations, while pointing out to students that they do not need to actually believe it. Other teachers focus on molecular evolution, avoiding macroevolution of species, which prevents students from understanding the complete picture. Finally, some teachers like to provide students with both sides of the discussion and allow students to draw their own conclusions. Berkman and Plutzer find this last approach particularly worrisome, as it gives students the impression that a well-established concept, which is supported by thousands of scientific papers, is debatable based on personal opinions.

The professors identify several reasons for this “worrisome” teaching method. First, there are too many “conservative” school districts, where teachers teach according to the political and social ideology of the community they’re in. Second, “highly educated and cosmopolitan” teachers stuck in politically diverse districts are forced to teach evolution cautiously in order to “stay out of trouble”. Third, while the pro-evolution camp has grown significantly in the last few decades, there’s “a lot of information in churches and the Internet that takes a contrary position, too.” And fourth (and most importantly, they say), most teachers just don’t know enough about evolution to teach it to the professors’ standards.

The answer, according to Berkman and Plutzer, is to immerse teachers in the study of evolution until they are unable to teach anything contrary to it.

Sounds a little like brainwashing, no?

Because heaven forbid students should be given any latitude to come to a conclusion that may be different than that of their teachers or some liberal political science professors from Pennsylvania. Because allowing for such debate, for doubt, for questioning, for — dare I say it — disagreement would completely undermine a pro-Evolutionist agenda which seeks to eradicate the very notion of a Creator or God. And that simply is not an option.

The problem, as I see it, is not the teachers’ belief or lack of belief in evolution. That should be irrelevant. The problem is the one-sided presentation of it. The question of evolution may be considered settled within the scientific community and “higher education”, but that doesn’t mean that it’s any less controversial. Obviously, there are those, including myself, that don’t accept that life on Earth originated from a single chemical reaction which resulted in the first strands of DNA and RNA or that human beings evolved from other species. So why not teach both sides, or at the very least acknowledge that more than one side exists? It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with Creationism or agree with Evolution, only that they understand the controversy surrounding each. After all, this is the way other subjects are taught.

Consider the study of history. Most people agree that slavery is inhumane and that segregation is detestable. Yet, when studying American history, we must acknowledge both. We must recognize that not everyone disagreed with slavery or segregation and that for generations both were completely normal and socially acceptable. Teachers don’t have to agree with slavery in order to teach that it existed, and teaching about it is not the same as endorsing it. The reality is that history and social studies teachers routinely teach about controversial issues without taking sides or penalizing students who may lean a different direction politically than them.

So why can’t we take the same approach with the subject of evolution? Why can’t we give students an opportunity to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? Because for Evolutionists such as Berkman and Plutzer, it is politically and socially disadvantageous to do so. Instead of acknowledging an alternative, they would prefer to disavow that one ever existed. But that’s not science, that’s censorship. And it’s that censorship which is ultimately the most worrisome to parents like me.

Previously:
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
The Vatican: Evolution compatible with Christian faith
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

Source.

Previously:
The Vatican: Evolution compatible with Christian faith
Angels, unicorns, and Giants
Attempting to translate spiritual realities through scientific equations

Today, the Texas State Board of Education begins debating social studies curriculum standards that would affect history, government, and economics classes in public schools for the next 10 years. And naturally, the debate isn’t without controversy.

One of the biggest questions is how much emphasis should be placed on the role of Christianity in history books. Critics argue that the Board is showing a clear Christian bias, including appointing conservative Christian experts to review current standards.

Some of the board-appointed reviewers are picking and choosing certain people and events from history to make an argument that America is a Christian nation, said John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, a Christian school in Grantham, Pa.

“Students are not learning history. They are learning the facts about the past that suit some larger agenda, a cultural and political agenda,” said Fea, who has been following the Texas curriculum process.

“My best advice would be to respect the historians, respect the voice of historians,” said Fea, “and try to keep politics out of the teaching of history.”

A few observations here:

First, it’s impossible to teach history or government without discussing politics and religion. Go on, try it. It can’t be done. It’s a proven fact that 99% of history involves politics and/or religion to some extent. The other 1% mainly involves men in funny hats, but even that often is related to politics and religion.

Second, all historians have an agenda. Don’t be fooled by their stunning good looks, these folks are serious. And as someone with a History degree, I know of what I speak. The reality is that history, while comprised of objective facts and statistics, is largely subjective. What history “is” depends on how the historian interprets those facts and statistics. So any time an “expert” tells you a history book is completely unbiased, they’re lying. The bias might not be great, but it’s there. The critics in Austin simply want to trade a bias that they don’t like for one that they do.

Third, the United States is a Christian nation, so to downplay the role of Christianity in our history is pretty reckless. Now, when I say the U.S. is a “Christian nation”, what I mean is that Christianity has played a critical role throughout our existence. Christopher Columbus, the Puritans, the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, Manifest Destiny, the Enlightenment, Prohibition, the Civil Rights Movement, abortion, gay rights. Every single one of these topics was influenced in one way or another by Christianity.

Does that mean we should ignore the role of Judaism, Islam, or other religions in U.S. and world history? Absolutely not. But just because you discuss a particular religion in an historical context doesn’t mean you’re promoting it.

Finally, I’m struck by the irony of this debate. This is the same Board of Education who only 6 months ago voted to eliminate the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement when teaching evolution in science classes, pretty much guaranteeing that evolution will go unquestioned in public schools. The critics who argue that the Board is being biased with social studies now didn’t seem to mind them being biased with science back then. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

As I said back in January regarding the evolution question, I think students need to be able to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, and they should be free to question and debate as part of the process. That’s true with science, and it’s just as true with history.

Previously:
Should evolution be debated in public schools?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
History to be (re)written by the victors?

When the church began to doubt its own integrity after the Darwinian attack on Genesis 1 and 2, we began to answer science, not by appealing to something greater, the realm of beauty and art and spirituality, but by attempting to translate spiritual realities through scientific equations, thus justifying ourselves to culture, as if culture had some kind of authority to redeem us in the first place. …

In fact, much of biblical truth must go out the window when you approach it through the scientific method.  God does not live within the philosophical science He made, any more than He is bound by the natural realities of gravity. There is moral law, to be sure, but moral law is not our path to heaven; our duty involves knowing and being known by Christ. …

In a culture that worships science, relational propositions will always be left out of arguments attempting to surface truth. We believe, quite simply, that unless you can chart something, it doesn’t exist. And you can’t chart relationships. Furthermore, in our attempts to make relational propositions look like chartable realities, all beauty and mystery is lost. And so when times get hard, when reality knocks us on our butts, mathematical propositions are unable to comfort our failing hearts. How many people have walked away from faith because their systematic theology proved unable to answer the deep longings and questions of the soul? What we need here, truly, is faith in a Being, not a list of ideas.

Previously:
When we worship God

I like those stories
About angels, unicorns, and elves
Now, I like those stories
As much as anybody else
But when I’m seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science
Science is real

And to think I wasted my youth on songs like “Itsy-Bitsy Spider” and “Jesus Loves the Little Children”. Instead, I could’ve been learning about simple and abstract knowledge through the power of scientific fact!

From Wired:

“Although it wasn’t designed to create controversy, it’s still a big relief to me that the opening track, ‘Science Is Real,’ didn’t raise any red flags with the label,” the 49-year-old Flansburgh told Wired.com in an e-mail interview. “The song freely acknowledges the Big Bang and evolution, and casually conflates angels with unicorns and elves, which might bug some anti-science, pro-angel folk.”

I guess I fall into the category of “pro-angel folk” although I’m certainly not anti-science. But yes, I would say the song bugs me. I’m all for science, don’t get me wrong.  I’m all for teaching kids about the elements, solar system, and other topics covered on the CD. But as a Christian, I don’t agree with parents teaching kids that angels (and by extension, God) don’t exist or that humans evolved from apes.

Besides, isn’t that what the public schools are for?

Previously:
Kids camp for atheists
Should evolution be debated in public schools?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution

Opponents of the bill argue that it creates a slippery slope by allowing students to conveniently believe anything they want and still get an automatic pass. Don’t believe in plate tectonics? Pass. Don’t believe in the theory of relativity? Pass. Don’t believe that the earth revolves around the sun? Pass.

“Students could claim they believe anything they wanted in anything in science and if that’s what they say, the teacher would be forced to give that student an A,” said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science. “That’s how bad this bill is written.”

But if you read the text of the bill (HB 4224), that’s clearly not the case:

(c)  Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses;
(d)  No governmental entity shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students to understand, analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

In other words, students don’t have to believe the theories they’re being taught, but they still need to understand them. A student can’t just sit there and say, “I don’t believe in evolution, so you have to give me an A.” As long as he can pass a test over the material, a teacher who disagrees with the student can’t flunk him simply because they disagree.

Why is that such a bad thing?

As I wrote in January:

I say, if evolution is, in fact, completely true, then what’s the harm in debating its strengths and weaknesses? The point of school is to educate our children, and a big component of education is teaching critical thinking skills, teaching kids how to research, debate, formulate an argument and then communicate that position. To me, allowing for debate about the topic of evolution in school is a perfect opportunity to teach these skills.

This bill — at least as I read it – provides an opportunity for exactly this type of debate. Of course, it doesn’t require the debate, but it at least allows it to occur.

And it’s for precisely that reason that pro-evolution groups are so opposed to it.

Previously:
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

“In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said. …

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

This view by the Catholic Church isn’t really anything new. The Church has had an open mind with regards to evolution going back at least to the 1950s, and Pope John Paul II said in 1996 it was “more than a hypothesis.” And while Pope Benedict XVI hasn’t specifically endorsed evolution as the ultimate truth, he hasn’t endorsed Intelligent Design either.

I’m not Catholic, so maybe I’m not really qualified to be blogging about this. But I’m not sure how you can say on the one hand that the world was “created by God” while on the other hand, Intelligent Design (i.e. Creation) is “poor theology and poor science.”

Does the Catholic Church believe that God created the universe and mankind or doesn’t it? From Archbishop Ravasi’s statements, it appears it doesn’t.

So how is that complementary to the Bible? It isn’t. As I wrote a couple of months ago:

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him. Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

It may be that I’m misunderstanding the Vatican’s position here. It could very well be that their view of evolution is similar to mine, which allows for a limited form of evolution so long as it doesn’t interfere with the concept of divine creation by God.

But if there’s any question as to the Church’s beliefs, now would be a good time to clear it up.

Previously:
The faith of George W. Bush
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

Up for consideration is whether to remove the requirement of presenting both strengths and weaknesses of evolution in science curricula, and whatever standards the Board agrees upon will be in effect for the next 10 years.

Supporters of evolution, of course, argue that the current requirements open the door to teaching Creationism and amount to “bad science,” while proponents of the requirements say that removing them is tantamount to censorship.

I say, if evolution is, in fact, completely true, then what’s the harm in debating its strengths and weaknesses? The point of school is to educate our children, and a big component of education is teaching critical thinking skills, teaching kids how to research, debate, formulate an argument and then communicate that position. To me, allowing for debate about the topic of evolution in school is a perfect opportunity to teach these skills.

Why, then, are evolution supporters so adamant about not allowing for that debate? It’s because this whole issue isn’t really about science.

The scientific method, as taught to every student, is as follows:

1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis.
5. Draw a conclusion from those tests.
6. Report the results.

If evolutionists were so concerned with teaching proper science to students, then they would allow the students to do their own research, perform their own tests, and come to their own conclusions. But evolutionists don’t want students coming to their own conclusions. They don’t want to debate. They want to forcefully impose their beliefs on everyone else, a desire which stems from their wholesale rejection of the possibility that God could actually exist and the the universe and mankind could actually have been created by Him.

UT Austin professor Dr. Dan Bolnick, a supporter of evolution, stated in his testimony before the Board yesterday that creationists “haven’t earned a seat in the classroom.” (Video below.) He argues that if there is to be debate about evolution allowed in schools, then creationists must first provide scientific evidence of Creation.

He doesn’t get it.

The evidence is all around us. This universe, this solar system, this planet, the plants and animals inhabiting it are far more complex than we will ever truly and completely understand. And we as human beings are unique within the animal kingdom. Homo sapiens is the only species to ever question the origins of its existence, and it has been doing so since its inception.

The latest in evolutionary theory states that life first originated on earth after a unique blend of chemicals and compounds were ignited, probably by lightning, forming amino acids which eventually gave rise to RNA, DNA, and then complete organisms. In my opinion, it takes a far greater faith to accept this hypothesis than it does to believe that an eternal God designed them. But even if the hypothesis is true, that still doesn’t disprove God’s existence or contradict the Bible’s account of Creation; all it does is contradict the idea of creation in six 24-hour days.

As I’ve stated before, I can accept the concept of evolution if you define it as plants and animals adapting to their environment. I can even go so far as to accept that life was created in the way described above. None of that is inconsistent with the idea of God or intelligent design. But as a Christian, I cannot accept the idea that mankind, Homo sapiens, evolved in the same way that other plants and animals may have evolved. I cannot accept that our existence is merely happenstance. I believe that we were uniquely created alongside the animal kingdom and that we were created for a reason.

Francis Chan writes in his book, Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God:

Have you ever thought about how diverse and creative God is? He didn’t have to make hundreds of different kinds of bananas, but He did. He didn’t have to put 3,000 different species of trees within one square mile in the Amazon jungle, but He did. God didn’t have to create so many types of laughter. Think about the different sounds of your friends’ laughs — wheezes, snorts, silent, loud, obnoxious. …

Whatever God’s reasons for such diversity, creativity, and sophistication in the universe, on earth, and in our own bodies, the point of it all is His glory. God’s art speaks of Himself, reflecting who He is and what He is like. …

That is why we are called to worship Him. His art, His handiwork, and His creation all echo the truth that He is glorious. There is no other like Him. He is the King of Kings, the Beginning and the End, the One who was and is and is to come.

I don’t expect Dr. Bolnick and other supporters of evolution to agree with this assessment, nor do I expect every Texas school teacher to. But to disallow the debate over it does far greater harm to Texas students than the alternative.

The part of the interview that seems to be getting the most attention is when McFadden asks the President about his faith. While some of the answers are pretty good, there are a few that I disagree with.

Below are some of his responses and my comments on them. (And by the way, I’m sorry for the extremely long post here.)

Bush said he is often asked if he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

“I just, I can’t go there,” he said. “I’m not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, ‘Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people.’ My relationship [with God] is on a personal basis trying to become as closer to the Almighty as I possibly can get. And I’ve got a lot of problems. I mean, I got, you know, the ego … all the things that prevent me from being closer to the Almighty. So, I don’t analyze my relationship with the good Lord in terms of, well, you know, God has plucked you out or God wants you to do this. I know this: I know that the call is to better understand and live out your life according to the will of God.”

Me: I like his answer here, especially the last sentence. But it bothers me that he constantly refers to God as “the Almighty”. Just seems very politically correct to me.

“People say, ‘But how do you know that it’s because of prayer?’ And I guess the answer is because of faith is how I know — I can’t prove it for you. People, you know, say it’s just a crutch. For me, it’s not a crutch, for me it’s the realization of a power of a universal God and recognition that the God came manifested in human and then died for sins. Now, all of this was hard for me to understand for a period of time and I am still trying to understand as best as my human mind can possibly do so. But in the understanding and in the search and in the quest, I find comfort and strength.”

Me: Well said.

When asked if he thinks that he prays to the same God as those with different beliefs, Bush said, “I do.”

“I do believe there is an Almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people…”

Me: Incorrect. The Muslim God (Allah) is not considered by Muslims to be the same as the Judeo-Christian God (Yahweh). Therefore, Muslims do not pray to the same God that Jews and Christians do. And Buddhists and Hindus likewise do not pray to God. Further, because Jews do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, then it’s fair to say they don’t pray to the same God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that Christians do.

Jesus was very clear that He is the “way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  (John 14:6).

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,’” Bush said.

(Quote taken from here.)

Me: OK, I’m going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. As he alluded to here, there is a difference between a biblical literalist (i.e. one who accepts every single word of the Bible as true, including that the universe and mankind were created in six 24-hour days) and a biblical fundamentalist (i.e. one who maintains that the Bible is God’s Holy Word but who can also accept that it contains some allegory or symbolism).

President Bush is presumably saying here that he’s more of a fundamentalist, although most viewers would not understand that distinction.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said, “I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.”

He added: “I happen to believe that evolution doesn’t fully explain the mystery of life.”

Me: I agree and I disagree.

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him.  Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

So what is President Bush saying here exactly? It’s not 100% clear. But I suspect, based on the way he framed the answer, that he’s acknowledging the limited version of evolution I just described.

Again, with a lot of these answers, it’s difficult to know exactly where he stands on a lot of these things. Certainly, many Christians will disagree with him, and I’m sure others will misunderstand him. As I’ve said before, though, our faith should never be in any politician, but in God Himself.