One Nation Under Darwin

I sometimes wonder why anybody talks about anything else because this is the most interesting topic there is where do we come from how did we get here what brought us into existence what is our relationship to reality as a whole the argument for intelligent design is based on observation of the facts now that's my definition of good science it's observation of the facts now when you observe the facts what are you observed you observe this incredible pattern of interrelated complexity the Darwinian story says that ultimately all it's real is nature nature's all there is a nature is composed of matter and since that's all there is it follows that matter must have done all the creating that had to be done according to materialism a mind can't exist until it evolves mindlessly from matter and so it follows that we are the products of an unguided purposeless material force which specifically is called Darwinian evolution when you get to the history of life and we get our information about it and really information about everything from science the controversy about whether a science teacher can actually give students evidence this critical of Darwin's theory of evolution want them to learn a religiously inspired critique of science based on faulty interpretations and non-existent matters the icons of evolution these are examples of textbook evidences that actually distort the scientific evidence the controversy in modern times is not between science and religion it's between two different interpretations of the same scientific evidence scientists are supposed to question things scientists are supposed to be open to new evidence I'm a scientist I don't know any evidence against evolution they won't allow it to be to go they try to stop the reason they try to stop it is they don't think they can win it good evening friends I'll be speaking to you seated tonight because a few days ago I took a fall and sprained my left ankle I have to keep my weight off of it hey within the next few weeks sometime the Supreme Court of the United States will come down with a decision in the case that most of us call the Pledge of Allegiance case this is a rather strange case a medical doctor who also went to law school and is a fervent atheist decided that it was offensive to him that his daughter sat in a public school classroom or where the Pledge of Allegiance was regularly recited with the obnoxious to him a phrase under God included in it we pledge allegiance to one nation under God this phrase was taken from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and other historical documents and was thought to be unobjectionable until quite recently but this father I did an object he's an absent father who never married the mother the daughter the school girl herself and her mother our Christians who have no objection to a phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which has jurisdiction over California and his public schools ruled that the father could challenge the constitutionality of this practice and that it is an unconstitutional establishment of religious belief had to recite in a public school setting these horrible words under God the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the case the father argued his own case in a history of making the moment I suppose and ended very well at making his argument when the Ninth Circuit decision came down most people in the United States reacted by saying that it was outrageous even insane all 100 United States senators joined in a public statement to say that the decision was an outrage in denouncing it so across the political spectrum Republicans and Democrats the people and their elected representatives strongly disapproved of this decision on the other hand the decision may well violate common sense but it is in fact a quite a logical development in a line of judicial decisions which began in 1962 when the Supreme Court first held that a general non-sectarian almost Unitarian invocation of God in a public school setting was unconstitutional no prayers to God no invoking God's blessing that we must not do at the Supreme Court and in subsequent decisions the Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional for a rabbi to deliver a generic prayer at a school graduation because somebody might object so you can see whether that holding the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for use in the public schools follows rather logically in that line of decisions so on that basis it's somewhat likely that the Supreme Court will the Ninth Circuit decision it is particularly likely that they may do so because the the justice considered most likely to share the public's a sense of outrage over the Ninth Circuit decision Justice Scalia has disqualified himself from participating in the case that was another clever move that the atheist father made he got just Justice Scalia to disqualify himself that means that there are only eight rather than nine justices participating in the decision which creates the likelihood that the court will split evenly four to four when the Supreme Court is evenly divided in a decision then the lower court decision is affirmed by an evenly divided court without opinion so that's what is the most likely thing to happen there is another possibility the justices are well aware that the public considers the Ninth Circuit decision foolish and are not eager to show the public that they are foolish also so that they may search for a rationale which will permit them to reverse the decision and reinstate the pledge with the words under God they could do this by accepting the argument which is being made by the Bush administration ministrations Department of Justice in the case which is that the pledge is a patriotic rather than a religious exercise and the words under God in it are ceremonial or perhaps a recognition of the country's religious tradition at the beginning of years ago in other words it's it's it's it's that we used to be under God but aren't necessarily any longer so the court might hold that the pledge is constitutional because the words under God are ceremonial and hence meaningless we can say that provided we don't really mean it I would much prefer that the court would affirm the Ninth Circuit decision because I believe that the important thing is not what the court says about this ceremony of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools the important thing is whether the public we the people of the United States those are the first words in the Constitution We the People establish this constitution do we the people regard ourselves and individually and corporately as being under God or do we reject and repudiate God wish to have nothing further to do with God now what is the attitude of the people of the United States on this subject now it's an important question perhaps the most important aspect of the question is if we are under God then God's moral authority has some force in the public if we are not under God than God's moral authority is a thing of the past also and can be disregarded today as it frequently is so a great deal that depends on whether we are still under God if we are not under God are we under anything at all I've thought of some alternatives what what might we teach the school children if we are forbidden to teach them that we are under God what else might what might we be under should we recite one nation under science science is the ultimate authority that governs what we do and in in any subject another possibility that occurs to me is that we might be one nation under the United Nations that's the liberal internationalist position and we might take and I might add the Supreme Court justices in the recent past have said that they're going to start looking to legal judgments of international organizations as a precedence which they will apply to create new law for Americans so you see they're already thinking about us as one nation under international bodies like the United Nations whatever the people think of that well that's another possibility I thought that perhaps particularly appropriate for the current times would be to say we are one nation under whatever that's the postmodernist a position on the matter whatever you like which is about the same as under nothing at all what do the American people think on this subject what is it appropriate for us to think of ourselves as being under now whether we are under God or not it depends in the last analysis on whether God is real or imaginary the argument that has self-styled civil liberties organizations make here that it is any favorable mention of God in the public sphere is unconstitutional is that such mentions reflect merely a private religious belief a subjective belief say so that is all that god is a being who exists only in the sphere of private subjective belief not real in other words that if if God is not real then we can't be under the authority of an unreal entity and so whether it's unconstitutional or not unreasonable to say we are under God's Authority if God is unreal if if I believe in the tooth fairy that's my ride but it would be unreasonable for me to expect the rest of you to acknowledge the authority of the tooth fairy and to expect a dollar under your pillow for it about is God real or imaginary is the basic question that it needs to be addressed if we if God is real then to say that we are under God is as obvious a statement as to say that we are under the sky it's a plain statement of reality and to deny that we are under God is simply to refuse to recognize reality so everything depends on whether we understand God to be real and the true creator of us all or whether on the other hand it isn't that God created man rather it's that man created God God is a figment of the human imagination in that view in that case God cannot exercise any authority it is likely that the Supreme Court decision whatever it is is going to spark a considerable public debate we have certain things going on in our culture just right at the moment that indicate how divided the American public is about the question of God's reality one thing that is going on is the same sex marriage craze with thousands of people wanting to marry other persons of their same sex and marrying men and women marrying women moreover those of us who follow these trends know that this practice isn't going to stop with same-sex marriage and it's going to go on the law professors are already paving the way for the acceptance of what we call polyamory that is poly many people so that let's let's say all of the people in any of the rows here of the pews I could marry could get married as a group of a male-female it doesn't really matter you could have a group marriage and the law professors are already preparing the justification for that that you have a constitutional right to engage in such a marriage and maybe they won't all be people either if if you love your pet as many people do why should you not include the pet in the marriage this also is under consideration in the higher levels of our academic world and and again is that logical well that also depends on whether God is real or imaginary and if God is now known to be imaginary then God's moral authority is imaginary also and inapplicable and so there's no reason why we shouldn't start all over again and make up whatever moral principles suit us for the present time disregarding any Word of God or any traditional view of morality which was ultimately based on God's authority so we see that this is exactly what is happening it isn't that the Constitution has been amended to say that God is now to be considered unreal or God's moral authority has no more effect it is rather that the courts have adopted a new view of what is real and what is imaginary so when Abraham Lincoln the Gettysburg Address said that we are one nation under God he was assuming that God is real and now the intellectual leaders of our society say that they have discovered that God is not real and hence I should be disregarded No so the same sex marriage craze is one of the things that is going on and is a very powerful movement at the present time and it's going to go farther on the other hand at the exactly the same cultural moment we see that a movie Mel Gibson's a Passion of Christ has had a simply astonishing record-breaking a success and that it isn't simply an act of amusement or recreation for people to go to this movie and who to to remain prayerfully at the end of the a movie they are making a statement by their attendants they're just as the movie itself is making a statement that this man who suffered and died as shown in the movie was the son of God who and is remains the son of God who suffered and died for our sins and was resurrected so we see this powerful expression of the public outlook so the way is prepared for a very important public debate on this question of whether God is real or imaginary and much turns upon how that debate comes out it may become an active issue in the presidential election the the president's religion is very much a public issue at nowadays and so that may surfaced in the in the public education in the public debate over the presidential election but even if it does not come up that soon we will see down the road that these issues are not going to go away and we will be having this a public debate in late February I gave a lecture at the national capital building the purpose of my lecture was to explain to persons holding public office and especially candidates for public office how they might approach this great public debate I believe that the debate that is coming about the reality of God or unreality is the most important public debate to have occurred in this nation since the debates in the 1850s about slavery this is the most important issue before the public and so public officials have to know how to approach it intelligently I spoke at the capital at the invitation of the majority leader of the House of Representatives than the it was the Republican members of Congress who attended my lecture this was not by my choice I would have been very glad to have spoken to the Democrats as well but they didn't invite me I'm glad to speak to any group or party on this subject I think they all need to understand it now what I explained to the members of the Congress who will be running for election in this situation was that everyone who appears before the public has to be able to take a stand on this question of the reality of God a stand which is both prudent and principled I say that it has to be a principled stand they can't dodge the issue they say they'd rather not express an opinion or Gibbs or waffle on it as candidates do sometimes on the one hand this and on the other hand that and that's some of my friends think this and some of my friends think that and I agree with my friends no they need to take a principled issue but they they need also to take a prudent that that doesn't to subject them unnecessarily to a risk of embarrassment or loss of public support now what can they do well this debate over the reality of God necessarily takes place in the context of the scientific question of whether science which is another candidate for the ultimate authority save one nation under science perhaps science has shown us that God is not really our Creator that brings us to the Darwinian theory of evolution this theory says that in fact nature is our Creator according to the Darwinian theory and the philosophy which gives rise to it nature is a closed system of material causes and effects which cannot that be affected by anything outside of nature sometimes this principle is stated simply as a methodological principle that is that it isn't necessarily that we're saying this is absolutely true that nature is all there is but if we want to find out anything further that is true we have to start with the assumption that nature is all there is and that nature had to do its creating so if we want to know anything about our creation we have to make that assumption that I call that Assumption epistemic naturalism in order to learn anything we have to assume that only natural forces have ever had any operation in the world thus for example how did life begin in the first place how did the first living organism emerge was a supernatural creator God involved in that well if we follow the principle of epistemic naturalism then we would say no God is outside of scientific investigation we can't find out the truth of anything by putting God into the that leads only to confusion and error so the first life must have appeared by purely natural processes then if we ask the question can a mixture of nonliving chemicals halves in a chemical soup by chemical laws and chance some combination of law and chance without any participation by God can this mixture spontaneously give rise to a living organism perhaps a very simple one well the answer to that if we follow the principle of epistemic naturalism is of course of course it can what proof do we have of this all the proof we need is that living organisms exist they're all around us here living organisms could hardly exist if they did not have any means for coming into existence good day well but you may say well what about God perhaps he God was the means of living organisms coming into existence in the first place the answer to that in the world of evolutionary science is oh you're changing the subject I thought we were talking about science which is to say what really happened you brought up a totally different subject which we call religion and it's alright if you want to have your religious belief see that that is all right on Sunday morning but you shouldn't bring it into the real world of the office the classroom in the laboratory where we talk about reality it's just for that reason that to say one nation under God is unconstitutional in the public schools so we must get life started with a simple organism we can't even figure out how to get a simple organism it started so we won't try for a complex one right away but just a very simple let us say one celled organism in fact one celled organisms aren't simple at all they're extremely complex but we'll assume that they're simple because we're assuming whatever we want to here aren't we and so then if we have this one celled organism start can that we can that one celled organism become complex plants and animals every kind of complex plant and animal that exists and eventually can it become a human being like ourselves well the answer to that question is of course human beings exist and they also could not exist if they had no means of coming into existence then the only means of coming into existence that science will recognize is some combination of chance interactions of particles and chemical laws so some combination of chance and chemical law must have produced the first simple relatively simple living organism and similarly a combination of a chance and law produced all the rest of the diversity and complexity of life that exists because nothing else could have happened could it or if you suggest that something else and it involves a supernatural creator and unevolved intelligence then you have changed the subject to religion and you are ruled out of bounds and your answer is rejected so in order to address the question of whether God is real or imaginary we have to address the question of whether the evolutionary story which is being given to us on the basis of scientific Authority is valid or not is it true or is it itself simply a religious or anti-religious belief in which case if we object then it shouldn't be taught in the schools well that's the same principle is it is it merely a religious or anti-religious belief a belief in the area of subjective opinion or is it unchallengeable fact as many of our teachers tell us it is how our public officials to address this question how are they to challenge what comes to us as scientific authority that nature and not God is our Creator as Carl Sagan the famous voice of science put it in a 1980 a television program seen by many Millie endorsed by the scientific authority of our country the cosmos that is nature is all there is ever was or ever shall be God is permanently out of the picture is that scientific fact or subjective opinion how are public officials to address this sort of question without making fools of themselves or getting above their depth how I was able to tell the members of Congress that fortunately a solution to this problem exists and it's right there for them to pick up in the summer of 2001 I gave some lectures in Washington and I urged that the appropriate thing for our educational authorities to do in view of the public controversy over whether the theory of evolution is as unchallengeable as we've been planned when something like 90% of the public is skeptical to one degree or another of the theory how should educational authorities address this controversial subject I said they should teach the controversy simple three word soundbite to explain the principal teach the controversy teach what the official voices of science say that's knowledge students should have but they should also learn why many people believe that what they are being told is philosophy rather than a fact that it is it makes claims which have not actually been established by the scientific method of careful observation and especially experimentation repeatable experiments that one scientist does than another can repeat that this method of scientific evaluation is not what is behind the Darwinian theory of evolution rather it is a philosophical claim well I said that students should be taught the controversy they should know why it's controversial so a senator Rick Santorum sent a message to me after this and said that as the precedents leave no child behind Education Act was up before the Senate at that he wanted to introduce a teach the controversy resolution as an amendment to the bill and I wasn't at all sure that the senator would get more than a handful of votes for this so I didn't know if it was a good idea or not for him to do it but I wanted him to have a good amendment to proceed with so I sat down and drafted one as a staff assistant might do what I drafted was a resolution for the United States Senate to pass that read as follows it is the sense of the Senate that in two sentences this is a two sentence resolution four sentence good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science now that seems to me to be a hard to dispute isn't it a good idea that students of science should learn how to distinguish philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science from actual data or testable theories that are subject to experiment it seemed to me that that was an obviously a sound principle and then the second sentence of the Santorum amendment as it has been called since we're biological evolution is taught the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject the second sentence you can see is simply an application of the first sentence to a specific subject first sentence has the principal all are there as Senator Santorum stated that the purpose of this resolution was to promote intellectual freedom it was a very liberal resolution and indeed after senator Santorum finished introducing it the Democratic floor leader on the Education Act that was being debated that day Senator Ted Kennedy stood up and endorsed the amendment he said he said I hope every senator votes for this amendment which provides just the sort of principle we should have for science education students should learn about these different theories and learn to evaluate that that's what he said then another Democrat - senator Byrd of West Virginia and other liberal I stood up and invade his own and an endorsement a couple of other senators spoke and the amendment was the resolution was passed by the Senate by a vote of 91 to eight almost unanimous all eight negative votes were Republicans they were I think trying to avoid the issue or perhaps they regarded it as a subject for states rights or something off but they didn't let it be recorded as voting for it but the resolution passed overwhelmingly how afterwards I thought that would be the end of it mister resolution it was not a an effective provision of the bill just a sense of the Senate resolution unenforceable however then the House of Representatives passed the same Education Act without a comparable sense of the house resolution and some of our senator Santorum and some of our other friends in the house and the Senate moved the same amendment in the conference committee which had to decide on the final form of the bill you see whenever the house and the Senate pass slightly different versions of the same bill and there there always are differences then a conference committee has to be appointed of senior members of both houses to I bring a consensus a bill to them to be passed and we that the conference committee did not put the Santorum amendment into the language of the bill itself of it didn't make it an enforceable provision of the acts itself but what they did do is include it in the report of the conference committee which accompanied the legislation the report of the conference committee who is voted on by both houses of Congress and approved and and sent with the bill to when it goes to the president for signature is exactly what happened so what legal experts understand is that a conference committee report is the primary source which any court or administrative official will look to to determine the meaning of the language that is in the bill proper you see words such as science and education for example which are throughout the bill have to be interpreted and you the the courts would look to the conference committee report as the prime source of authority on how those words are to be interpreted so the conference committee report has the effect of law in that sense and and therefore the Santorum amendment is part of the federal law governing education in science and this this is not just my opinion the Department of Education has officially taken the position responding to enquiries from local school districts about the legal situation regarding the teaching of evolution that the Santorum amendment is their guiding authority in this matter so let's say now moreover I don't like to rest the case for the Santorum amendment simply on the ground that it is legally enforceable although I think that it is enforceable or not it states what I believe to be the only defensible principle for a teaching a highly controversial subject as important as biological evolution with its implications for the reality of God in a nation which is a constitutional democracy in which the citizens have freedom of thought and freedom of speech at least for the present now this is say because when you think of the young young people growing up in a country like this and being educated they're being educated for citizenship in a democracy which means that they are all public officials of a sort see any of us may be called to jury duty and as jurors we have to determine whether scientific experts who give expert testimony are to be believed or to be dismissed as bluffers who are perhaps putting across their philosophical viewpoint and claiming scientific support for it jurors have to decide that any citizen might be appointed or elected to be a judge and then have the responsibility to decide whether that scientific testimony should even be admitted they so when when we approach our responsibilities as citizens we have to have the ability to understand what science is and what the difference is between testable scientific theories and data on the one hand and religious or philosophical claims made in the name of science on the other hand so whether or not the amendment as is enforceable in the courts it is a principle which every responsible educational authority ought to adopt for the teaching of controversial subjects as such as a biological evolution now so far it may seem that I have been talking only about curricula and educational practices in the public schools but that isn't the case now of course the Education Act deals with public education and the way it's to be financed what what kinds of practices can be supported with federal money and what kind cannot so it's directly applicable to the public schools but the issue is much broader than that if the public schools are supposed to teach that there is a difference between religious claims made in the name of science and testable theories then the universities have to take up that subject as well and the scientific organizations have to face that subject it is a matter of legitimate public debate which must be considered at all levels of the society and by the scientific organs now this this will explain why the reaction of the scientific hierarchy no they the people I call the mandarins of science who decide what gets funded in science and what what the public gets told about what's going on in science these mandarins of science were utterly horrified by the Santorum Amendment and by the fact that the Senate passed it overnight you know they went into panic reaction and said this must be stopped they they went to the Democratic senators and said what could you have been thinking the teachers unions the education Lobby that kind of group said don't you realize that we are in big trouble if this amendment becomes law now you see why are they in big trouble if this amendment becomes law that is the most important point to consider it's it's important to realize that although I drafted the words for the the Senate the amendment does not say that this teaching about science and what it is and what it isn't should be done by Phillip Johnson and his friends no it leaves it to the same science educators who have been doing it all along and who are under the control of the mandarins authorities who are teaching evolutionary naturalism as fact why should they be terrified of the the the principle that stated in the Santorum amendment when they would be carrying it out well I think I can see that some of you have caught on right away that they realized that although there were first reaction will probably be to say oh don't worry about this Darwinian evolution is a fact a god is out of the picture just believes you're tall that they're going to get back talk a teacher how do we know that that is that a testable theory or is that a philosophical claim a parents will get into the act lawyers will get into the act and and eventually the the science educators are going to have to face this subject honestly they will well know and they'll have to deal with the objections rather than just sweeping them aside it legitimates a whole field of debate for the public understanding now when they do face this honestly will the educators be able to say well we can prove that natural selection darwin's mechanism has the power to do and actually did do all the creating that has occurred in the history of life that natural selection has the power to make complex organs like wings and eyes blood circulatory systems immune systems a photosynthesis mechanisms in plants all those things we can show you how natural selection does these things well that's the problem they can't show you that the evidence doesn't show that natural selection has any significant creative power whatsoever at most it shows that the natural evolutionary processes have produced minor shifts relatively trivial shifts in fundamentally stable populations it is true for example that if you douse a mosquito population repeatedly with DDT or some insecticide the mosquitoes that survived this treatment are the ones that are most resistant and so after a time you get a resistant population and you have to use another insecticide same thing with bacteria and penicillin a drug so you get this kind of change but this does not mean that the bacteria are in the process of changing into something else no and nor are the mosquitoes in the process of becoming Birds or anything like that the these processes are temporary shifts which are then reversed when the insecticide or the penicillin is removed then the population goes back to normal because the the fittest the most resistant specimens are more fit than to survive than the others only in this toxin filled environment so so once once the distinction between philosophy and data or testable theories is on the table then it will become clear to the public that the basic principle of epistemic naturalism is what generates the entire as a structure of Darwinian belief it is that that that if nature had to do its own creating then something roughly like Darwinian evolution has to be true as a matter of logic regardless of the evidence because nobody can come up with a more likely way in which nature could have achieved these miracles of creation so we're stuck with the the only theory on the table however inadequate it may be if it's the only naturalistic theory that has any plausibility whatever so the public will then be able to understand that the principle of epistemic naturalism that generates this belief system is a philosophical or religious claim and not itself a testable theory and the whole structure will collapse in my view that it is an utterly fatal a blow now whether I'm I'm right about that or not could only be seen when the debate occurs say it may the way I predict or it may not but I believe that the mandarins of science the official scientific authorities agree with me that they will be in an impossible position once the debate is joined on the principles of the Santorum amendment and I know this because they are absolutely desperate to prevent that from happening and who to assure the public oh that this theory doesn't mean anything legally we can ignore it and we should ignore it we are going to ignore it and just don't think about it at all because we can't proceed on that basis so that they are desperate to avoid this obvious common sensical way of dealing with a controversial subject because they know that they cannot survive their theory cannot survive an examination under these principles so that is the public debate basically that I think has to happen and a public official that can take a position that is prudent and principled it's taking a stand on principle the principle of intellectual freedom as Senator Santorum described and it's prudent it won't get them in a lot of trouble because let us suppose that a candidate for public office oh the President of the United States for example just to pick up one example where to take this position and were to be denounced in the newspapers for having joined the creationists or something outrageous like that he would be able to say that this precise language of the Santorum amendment had the votes of 91 US senators including his opponent and his opponents supporters major supporters so so it is prudent in that sense its language from the that there can be that from the Congress of the United States a bias legislative procedures and it is enormous ly bipartisan it is not a partisan enactment it is bipartisan in its authority and once this language is before the public the public is going to like it that's why the public isn't getting this language you know in the newspapers because the editors who supports a naturalistic position don't want the public to know precisely what is under discussion here once they understand it it's going to be irresistible it's obviously the only kind of principle that is is appropriate for education in a constitutional democracy on such a controversial and important subject which is the basis of authority the identifies the ultimate authority but which we all of us individually and corporately are subject is God real and really our creator or not the editor of the liberal magazine New Republic no friend of creation I said summed it all up is said either there is a God and we are then we are under God or there isn't and we aren't it's as simple as that it's all whether God is real or imaginary and these are the terms on which that issue can be successfully and rationally debated in public in an election season or at any other time there is that prudent and principled stand and that any any public figure can take well there we are and at this point I'd like to invite two questions there are some their microphones that you can come to the I'm glad to get questions whether supportive or challenging I always appreciate the question a period the only restriction of course we want to have as many people have an opportunity to ask as possible so ask questions as succinctly and and if you if you want to make a speech you can arrange to rent the auditorium on another so we don't know he would not have been he could have refused to disqualify himself I wonder I speculate without having heard anything from the Justice of course that he may be thinking why I'm thinking and that what what I am glad that he recused himself as the word lawyers use because I think the best outcome of the case would be a 44 split that sets up the public debate that I would like to have is the weakest kind of affirmance of an decision that outrages common sense and that the public thinks to be ridiculous say that's a great start for the public debate what I don't want what is for the Supreme Court to to muddy the waters by saying well it's constitutional because it doesn't really mean anything it's ceremonial they then and and so so I'm pleased that that happened I don't know whether that's Justice Scalia's reason or not good evening could you speak to the fact that secular humanism and atheism or religions just like Christianity I think that's of a Supreme Court in 48 or 50 to ruled yes I'm glad to be asked that question the the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court since 1962 state holds that it is enormous ly important to differentiate religion from non religion hey you can you can teach non religion in the schools no matter who objects for example but you can't teach anything that falls into the class of religion however the court has also found that it's impossible to define what religion is and have totally given up on any effort to define this thing which is you know with the definition of which is so willful whelmingly important for example is is environmentalism a religion it's held with certainly with religious intensity by many people is feminism a religion you mention humanism is they believe though you see that that that humans are the ultimate authority for everything what is a religion and what isn't there's no definition and no one can say and I would say it's it's not a religion if the court wants it to be taught in the schools that seems to be the principle of law at stake here yes another question yeah in response to the idea of irreducible complexity such as the question what good is half an I in evolution my biology teacher friend would argue that an AI does not have the night does have reducible complexity that half and I won that might only tell light from dark could be a benefit to an animal that previously had no visual acuity how should I respond to such yes I would be glad to tell anyone that the the the the great book and irreducible complexity is by my colleague professor Michael Behe the professor of biochemistry from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and he doesn't use simple slogans you know like what uses half of an eye he has a very completely developed as scientific argument that a biological that envies cells for example now you have trillions of cells in your body each working in marvelous harmony now each cell is irreducibly complex in the sense that it contains a multitude of complicated parts all of which have to be present for the cell to do its work just one of those parts alone doesn't do useful work now this can be disputed I mean this is what he says but some people will disagree well then that is question who can prove their case may who can who can make the best arguments now if you want to follow this up I'd advise you to read I'll be he's a great book a darwin's black box and on the on the web you know it you could you could Google Michael Behe sand hey more go to the Discovery org website and you can see the papers that have attacked to be he and his response to it this is one of the few places you'll be able to read his response to the attacks because the scientific journals have taken the position we will not publish any defense of Biggie's irreducible complain we will publish all the attacks on it we can find but we will not publish any defense because we don't like it and we don't want people to hear any defense that's it so that's the way that this is it this is done I can tie it isn't I think my role tonight to iron out all of the scientific debates that might might be heard it and to answer them this is the kind of dispute that we will have and then of course eventually the public at large will decide whom to believe should they believe a Michael B he and his supporters or the materialists Darwinists and their supporters who say well there must be some way you can get from here to there and and this is what the the tyrannous don't want to happen that is why the scientific on that why the Santorum amendment horrified the scientific elite so much they saw something like this coming down the road thank you very much for that question that was one I wanted to address another sort of go back and forth oh you want it you're you're nominated here we haven't had a woman yet well actually I'm on the piggyback of his question since we can show the discrepancies in natural selection how do we combat the scientists that say we cannot prove that God exists having heard dr. Michael Behe speak and taking for instance one of his examples in irreducible complexity the nine steps of the blood clotting mechanism he can absolutely show that those are necessary but how can we as scientists in the creation community show how that developed and prove that God is the intelligent designer whom that yes in my opinion and be he's I think a science cannot prove the identity and a nature of the intelligent designer you say what when we look at the evidence of Science in partially without prejudice what we see is things like irreducible complexity complex specified information you could translate that simply as software something that's as intricate as as the software in your personal computer that you know you need computer software engineering stoop to get this software so you sees things like that and they point to the need to credit some intelligence intelligent causes had to operate in the history of life or we wouldn't have life and certainly we wouldn't have this complex kinds of living entities that we do but that's as far as the scientific evidence will take you it doesn't tell you that this intelligence is the God of the Bible it doesn't you know it doesn't help to settle arguments between Christians and Moslems it doesn't even tell you that the intelligence is supernatural you know conceivably it could be spacemen from some distant galaxy ah ha ha because because not because it shows that maybe just because it doesn't tell you anything beyond what what what the evidence can tell you which is intelligence needed to be involved so if you are looking for proof that the God of the Bible is our Creator or the book of Genesis is his story you know is accurate or anything like that you'll have to go somewhere else other than the examination of biology to prove that however everybody knows we know and the the materialists who do and the mandarins of science know that most of the American public is going to think that the designer is the God of the Bible that because they have other reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is our Creator and so this will be extremely encouraging information from that perspective it doesn't prove that they're right but it shows that science is far more in support of that position than against it contrary to what the schools and the Natural History Museum's have been teaching us for decades so that that's where I think we have to leave that Bishan dr. Jensen over the last one or two decades there's been a lot of interest maybe even a movement of science and theology communicating with each other we've got people like Houston Smith with why religion matters Zygon journal and the Templeton Foundation pushing this further I don't know what came first the ID movement or this movement of science and theology communicating with each other but I am curious as to get your feedback on those yes good question thank you science and theology communicating with each other the underlying issue there is whether this communication is to be done under terms and rules set by the mandarins of science or whether their authority to dominate the debate can be challenged see most of what goes on under that name is a matter of theology conforming to science they are trying to persuade the scientists that well we're not so dangerous yo we don't say anything that you need to worry about now some of it isn't but but but the the scientific community is very wary and frightening even though the relatively moderate kind of non-threatening attempts at communication from say the Templeton Foundation that you mentioned because they're afraid that it's just the camels nose under the tent flap seein that once they begin to talk about a possibility of God even if at first God is understood to be required to follow the dictates of the mandarins of science that down the road God may assert its independence and so so so they tend to be very nervous about these dialogues and and and the and for example the American Association for the Advancement of science that started out setting up a couple of these then retreated from it simply because the membership was so upset the possible infection that would result so now my own movement the intelligent design movement is a straight-out challenge to the authority of the mandarins to say that the debate must be conducted under the rules of epistemic naturalism and that's why it's such a conflict and that's the issue should we challenge that authority or not well thanks again your folks are helping to bring out through the right issues which is just what a question period should do yes sir who's next dr. Johnson evolutionary theory depends upon two basic principles one of which is uniform uniformitarianism and billions of years for a lot natural action take place I said you asked about uniformitarianism and and also um billions of years the ends of your evolution the age of the earth or the cosmos yes I courageously take no position I'm the age of the Earth or the cosmos and I've explained that in my books very straightforwardly in my opinion the right issue for now in our time the right question is can you get the creating done without a creator or is a creator necessary and that's that's the intelligent design position that you need the intelligence which is to say the Creator the Creator is not just an option if you want to believe that sort of thing yes it's Ness is necessary and and that is more important than the question of how long the creator might have taken it is the creator involved at all so I believe that we should all concentrate on that question for now to raise the issue of the age of the earth the length of the days of creation in Genesis is is to start a very divisive issue say in the Christian community you then divide the opponents of Darwinism into the old earthers and the young earthers and the Darwinists the materialists say let's you to fight and you know we'll cheer you on we hope you kill each other and and so it's it's not useful to have that battle going and now I have aimed by stressing the intelligent design issue to unite the divided people that's the of the religious community and to divide the united people that's the materials so that's why I don't take a position on that but that's not to say that I think it's an issue that can be forever left you know unaddressed it's just not today's session dr. Johnson I want to thank you for having the intestinal fortitude to bring forward such a position and bring it forward in our time and my question is is that how should we as Christians try to influence educators school boards etc as you said bringing the question to the front perhaps and then political debates to adopt intelligent design curriculum how should we influence the public educators that is a subject that we spend some time on in the intelligent design community and we've had a little bit of success which is remarkable even a little bit of success now is is something considering the power of the Darwinian steamroller that's been operating for the past a century the state of Ohio you know has taken an a teach the controversy position in the State Board of Education and and I would say that if you the way to influence and public authorities is to present a proposal for a new standard a rule in the precise language of the Santorum amendment don't vary it ask them simply to endorse that principle now the reason for that is that this is language that was endorsed by the Congress of the United States by a vote of the Senate 91 to 8 C so that is much more powerful than any language that a local citizen might dream up there's a really bad idea for local people to get the idea oh we can do it better we'll make something up and and and that's when they come up with something that the newspapers can ridicule and that even if it's well drafted it looks like something that you know people have no authority have imagined what what my not use instead the language that the United States consulate as endorsed by a vote of ninety one to a however I also want to add to that answer that don't place all your hopes on influencing the officials of public education we here in the Christian world have the resources that we need to do the job of Education ourselves the real problem is not what the public educators are doing it's what the leaders in the Christian community are not doing to teach the people these issues so I'll leave it I could go on a while on that theme but I I'll leave it there who's next dr. Johnson what would you say to those friends of mine who say that they are believers that they believe in God but that the God that they believe in set into motion Darwinian evolution on the fact that we can't recreate any meaningful evolution only proves that we're not God so the you're asking me to comment on the position that God created by setting in motion Darwinian evolution yes this is essentially a position which is known historically as deism God started the ball rolling downhill I say and then he left it to go where it would and and now it is important to understand that evolution in the scientific understanding is not God guided evolution in the scientific understanding of the term evolution means an unguided a purposeless process that involved only the material forces of of chance random movement of particles on the one hand or law like combinations chemical and physical laws as it isn't following any direction that it evolution is unguided as a basic principle of the scientific understanding of evolution because see otherwise it would not be naturalistic the God guided evolution isn't evolution at all yeah slow creationism as a slow variety and now it is a logical possibility that God could have if he wished to do so it started an evolutionary process going and then left it alone to develop as it would the God could have done that so Minh could God possibly have done something it's the most boring question in the world the answer is always yes but so the so then the question is does the scientific evidence considered impartially show us that that's what God must have done and the answer is no it doesn't say it shows rather that natural selection has no creative power whatsoever so it isn't the kind of thing that would have done the job and that's why God didn't choose to use it so thank you and now we have another question I hope who's next I'm just wondering but couldn't it kind of be like where God sort of not not just set in motion evolution but continually nudged us in the direction that it would be they would cause us to be us that is possible and some people believe that and I I don't think you can prove that it's false that if one possibility that has been discussed you see is that God could have put all the information necessary for the whole history of life into the first living organism an amoeba let's say you know are a bacterium packed with information see this would be like a computer program that had enough information in it to to manage a space flight that goes to Pluto and back let's say over a period of years and so so that's conceivable but again the evidence is against it as a real possibility but it's it's kind of thing it's okay to think about yes okay dr. Johnson okay I'm trying to you can't post my thoughts here all right a few months ago well I'm sure that those people here that have extensively followed a creation lately they already knows something about a book that was written by several creation scientists that was sold in Grand Canyon bookstores suggesting not necessarily Noah's Flood but at least a catastrophic origin for the Grand Canyon and when I'm having a little trouble I'm sorry my right my hearing isn't all that it should because you put what a brief question to me that I okay um you genius Scott from the net national center of science education she said that a catastrophic origin of the Grand Canyon was a worse proposal than saying that the Grand Canyon had polar bears living at its bottom could you please respond to that Oh on the Grand Canyon and what what did you genius can't say that that it could have had a catastrophic origin she said that that that polar bears living in the Grand Canyon was a better proposal actually if I remember correctly okay I I'm not sure I don't know what what it is that you're referring to but I will say that I write regularly for a magazine called touchstone which might be in a church library here or a touchstone magazine you can look at it up on the web if you want to and my next column in the May issue of touchstone out just now is on the controversy over whether the Grand Canyon had a catastrophic origin of a great flood or one or more great floods on the one hand or whether it's just the river is slowly powering its way through the Iraq is so uh if you want to get touch-tone magazine that's easy to do and you can read my views of that issue there good evening dr. Johnson today in my Bible study class I was introduced to a new scientific topic for me which was called Barrowman Barrowman ology are you familiar analogy yes yes can you tell us yes I can this is a term yes a Barrowman that would be not of course bærum analogy would be knowledge of Barrowman and and and Barrowman is a term from the hebrew which is used by creationists who believe in genesis literal Genesis where it says that that that God created you know and every kind of creature and then everything reproduced according to its kind so what are the kinds well the Hebrew word see there is Barrowman and a sense when people say well well if what are the basic units of creation now this is a field of study that you see the the the mainstream evolutionary as scientists don't pay they aren't interested in this because they say you see everything evolves from one one starting point and so there are no limits to evolution but if you think that there could be some evolution but it occurred within limits see you then you'd have to ask what are the limits and and those might be the basic created kinds they say that God created and then variation and change occurred within the limits of those kinds so that's what Barrowman ology is about and I can't go further into it at this point but but that's what it is I wondered what the constitutional potential constitutional challenges could be to the Santorum amendment you mentioned that you hope that the Supreme Court would side with the Ninth Circuit in removing the word the phrase under God from the party I have a I I hope for a basically ineffective right but you know they if they remove that wouldn't that if the courts proceed on the course that they're on wouldn't that set a precedent for removing or preventing intelligent design thank you for that suggestion it's rather delightful in a way because they might try I mean the the so-called Civil Liberties organizations that promote naturalism may indeed try that sort of saying but but consider what they're what they'd be arguing that intellectual freedom is unconstitutional that that teaching students to tell the difference between you know philosophical claims and testable theories of science is unconstitutional we would have to have a Supreme Court that's a lot crazier than the one we've got before I'd worry too much about that hahaha but but but but there are lawyers who will argue that sort of thing another okay well tomorrow morning I've got to be Charles Darwin and make a speech for my seventh graders and I don't really know how to make a compass sing kiss I don't really believing believe in a lot of his stuff he says so do you have like any tips for me well you know I might say something like this just having fun with you I say I Charles Darwin I proposed his theory a hundred and fifty years ago about how life might have evolved by natural means and I'm sorry that subsequently my theory was turned into a Dogma I think it ought to have been tested and debated as a scientific theory and I'm sorry that it's become a sort of religious dogma that's what Charles Darwin myself okay I'm wondering if these officials decided that perhaps God was imaginary wouldn't they have to face the idea that human autonomy is then the basis for decisions in future courts oh yes well let me take that and run with it just a little bit that you see a lot of things follow once you decide that God is imaginary that man created God out of the human imagination rather than God created man then one thing that follows is that humans are not created specially in the image of God and that we are you see we're just another animal species not different from any others and this is one of the reasons why you'll get terrorist groups attacking biologists who are experimenting on animals in their laboratories see that's just like experimenting on babies isn't it if there's nothing special about human beings so this is a brother ironic saying that the animal liberation movements follow from this notion there's nothing special about yah human beings it also follows that that there is no morality that comes from God no objective morality and thus we just make up whatever morality we like and can change it at any time and therefore the only thing that really matters is power and nice and so uh indeed these the the courts they have to have to have to consider that there is no moral basis for law no no morality behind law it's all perfectly arbitrary they can say it's arbitrary a to forbid abortion you see they have said that no but but it's also arbitrary to forbid people from killing the people who want to provide abortions everything's morally arbitrary because there are no objective moral principles it's just what we make up from time to time and some semion of the court have come close to stating that principle - that that leaves no basis for law at all so they've got to someday come to their senses and from that sort of thinking okay could you address like how many scientists say is a percentage or whatever are actually buying into the intelligent design movement and house guys like Dawkins are responding to those oh yes yeah if you go to were to go to the discovery org website you would find that we have their names of a few dozen scientific supporters now it takes a lot of courage for a person who makes a living as a professional scientist to support the intelligent design movement this is a career killer and you know the the hatred and particularly as the mandarins have become more frightened they that they say see this is getting somewhere then they become more desperate to prevent scientists from supporting us nonetheless we do have a few dozen who will sign petitions that go to States for school boards and and all but it's not surprising that we don't have more thank you yes some sub administrators of schools maybe in the past have been reluctant to bring in any thing smacking of creationism or intelligent design because they might fear that they'd have to teach the Christian version or if they did they'd have to eat all the other religious versions and do you think it would be a good idea to it for starters to teach students there are limits to science to sort what it can answer whether or not the universe has the purpose or meaning or destiny and sort of not be overreaching all the time like Carl Sagan was with yes statements of ultimate well you know what you are stating it seems to me is basically what is enacted in the Santorum amendment this is what you want now I often point out that there isn't really any need to talk about teaching creationism or teaching intelligent design in the public schools that all we have to do is teach evolution honestly for a change see that is teach the controversy teach the reason why it's so controversial and the suspect that a filosophy is being put over as if it were a testable theory that in short it's not honest and and and you don't have to get into the question any questions beyond that just teach evolution honestly instead of the way it's been taught for the past century that's enough dr. Johnson there's a statement attributed to you in the book entitled by design by Larry witam and the statement is made by Frederick Cruz I would like to read it to it's very brief and I'd like to have you comment on it interestingly perhaps significantly it's a paraphrase it is not a direct quote and he latches on to another admission by Philip Johnson who says that if there is no God then naturalism and Darwinism surely makes sense for Cruz this is a surrender of the first order quote yes the inch up shall I stop I was just crew finishes up with what he okay what would he figures is the devastating final word as far as you're concerned the intelligent design team has handed argumentative victory to its opponents before the debate has even begun thank you for bringing that up because it makes the point I want people to hear see what I've said and what I would say at any time is that if there is no God God does not take part in the world at all then something roughly like Darwinism must be true it's the only alternative the only way the creating could be done so it'd have to be something at least in a general way like Darwinism and so a Fred Cruz who's a professor of English literature at Berkeley by the way I know well I says well now that you've surrendered because of course everybody knows there is no God so this this shows the starting point the starting point is in atheism or naturalism materialism all there is as matter and there is no God and that is the true basis of Darwinian belief and and a Cruz being he's been miss educated at the great universities of our country that so that he thinks that everybody with any intelligence at all knows that there's no God and that's the mis-education we have to correct thank you dr. Johnson as an engineer I hid this in the in the front row all the time what kind of points pointers could you give me to spread the gospel to people who use this as their only stumbling block or the main stumbling block to Christianity evolution well I recommend starting small you know they start starting with a a narrow point rather than trying you know to argue too much all at once because you'll get into complications and you ask people to change their view more than they're psychologically able to do in one I sitting so ask a question like well what is the best evidence you know that natural selection really has great creative power well what does natural selection actually been shown to do can you tell me and then you know they'll probably say something like oh mosquitoes become resistant to DDT I've covered that in the lecture some something of that order Ennio say well does it is there any evidence that natural selection has ever brought something completely new into existence they may also cite something like dog breeding well dog breeding is intelligent design is it needed the purposeful intelligent breeder and it's not easy to do so so those are the kind of points that I would make but if you can get the person to move just a little and admit a little bit of uncertainty then you've done enough for one day okay for one conversation give them a break let them move at their own pace yes a next question do you have a reference for a booklet or a pamphlet that has this are turian amendment Lange Santorum of them and yes I and also maybe it would have some examples of curriculum that might teach evolution in a good you know in a way that looks at it critically yes first on the Santorum amendment a chapter one of my latest book the right questions discusses the Santorum amendment and sets it out so that dancers that now as to curricula this is a project underway with the Discovery Institute our research arm and where you should look for information about this is at the websites of the Discovery Institute and access research network which is right here in Colorado Springs AR n dot org the the folks from access research network will be here I believe as selling videotapes there's a book table and there will be video tapes and so on if you come to the people at the videotape table you might ask them what progress they're making on curricula because this is something that we're working at all the time something you could actually give to administrators at schools that kind of some you know as opposed to saying here's a whole book you know oh you know here's a chapter well but yes well we have we have lots of good books that discuss the issues but if you're looking for a curriculum manual that you can just Xerox a page off a day for the students we don't know it's talking about like as far as asking them to consider the whole idea oh yes well there's plenty of that uh to give them a book you see there the problem is that there are so many to choose from well one good one to start with these ideas get people to read my book defeating Darwinism by opening minds it might succeed in opening the mind a little and it has in some cases and and it's short they recommended because it's it's it's for it's made for the purpose of an introduction people who haven't thought about it before so that I'd recommend that short slim book inexpensive to high I know I was created I know it I know it as much as I know Christ rose from the dead three days later which I know is a whole nother argument but I'm also a nurse and I teach nursing if you want to know how complicated we are that we could never have just evolved teach how the body works because it's so the hip bone really is connected to the knee bone you know it will and it just couldn't have happened that way okay we all have that straight my Condry is 150 years ago Abe Lincoln was only known for how tall he was now 150 years later it's almost common we are I don't want to use the word evolving I don't like the word but we are still our brain we know things we can figure out things that we never could have a hundred rows so what's a word for that in fact sometimes people will say evolution just means change and any change is evolution we see then the term is is a meaningless of course if you feed a person or a pig better nutrients they'll grow larger and so we have better nutrition and medical care and so but but the the evolution that matters is the arrival of new kinds of creatures plants and animals or new body parts that didn't exist before so it's a see one of the things one of the tricks that a Darwinist can play is to set the bar so low they say I can say the question is whether I'm the greatest high jumper in the world and now we will demonstrate that but I will show you to how I can jump over a bar that is one inch high say this is basically what the Darwinist is doing when they say the people getting taller over a century is evolution no it's not hey which is more important that we have under God in the pledge or the reason we have it there what's what's more important that we have under God in the pledge or that or the war what is the reor the reason that we have it there oh well that the under God was added to the pledge in 1954 to make the point that we're doing the Cold War era and the the it was important to make the point that we are different in our outlook towards government from the way the Communists over in the Soviet Union think about it where the state is absolutely the highest thing and there's nothing above this the state is all-powerful we regard our public officials in our state as responsible to the Creator so that was the point that was being made and it seems to me it's quite a good point on the other hand I don't think it's overwhelmingly important well you know whether those words are used in the Pledge of Allegiance or even whether the Pledge of Allegiance is said every day in the schools this is an issue about which I'm not particularly passionate the in fact if we truly are under God we ought to be doing a lot more than just reciting those words as a ceremony we ought to be examining that in the curriculum academic retaliation I'm thinking of demske over at Baylor you're familiar with some other examples that you might want to share with us as far as the behavior of these academics ultimately it's all over the place happens that one example I can give if you want to know a lot about retaliation you could pick up the videotape here icons of evolution I'm sure the AR n excess research at Edward people will be selling it tonight and it tells the story of a high school teacher in the state of Washington who was trying to teach the controversy to his students and give them good education on the problems of Darwinian evolution as well as the official story well this group that has the calls itself the American Civil Liberties Union which should perhaps he called the American Society for the enforcement of naturalistic belief you know came in and objected and and a local Darwinist whipped up a kind of a lynch mob to run the teacher out of town say and end to to pressure the school board to do something see and when that happens a school board is there and school administrators there a reaction always is that we want to do anything to avoid being sued so the ACLU the people for the American Way also so-called C can threaten lawsuits and they will get the the officials to fold because they don't want to have to defend the lawsuit even if they know they're going to win so that that's as an example as you can see happened to Roger to heart this wonderful science teacher who is run out of town by these mobs whipped up by these organizations that's a kind of thing that happened that happens and of course people are intimidated yes I think hey well folks we had said we're going to stop at evening hour that's right so let's think dr. Johnson for coming back I have my bodyguard here

Channel: Access Research Network

Views: 6,012

Rating: 4.3703704 out of 5

Keywords: Creation–evolution Controversy (Literature Subject), Charles Darwin (Academic), Phillip Johnson (Author), Intelligent Design (Field Of Study)

Id: FDbSNKdTyZs

Length: 92min 9sec (5529 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 03 2015