Robert Todd Carroll
March 25, 2004
In this issue: A new dictionary entry, some updates, and a few additions; good news from MetaFilter and James Randi; Newdow takes the pledge; gays, religion, and marriage; religion in America; the intelligent design on the stump gains a new ally from another planet; some feedback on teaching ID in the biology classroom; a howler; did George Harrison plagiarize Alice in Wonderland; an offer to make some fast cash; and two nominees for quackery of the hour.
Since the last newsletter I've added a new entry on displacement.
I updated the Bigfoot entry.
I posted several comments about science and the Bush administration:
I posted some comments on ID and evolution:
I posted some comments on a polio vaccine boycott in Nigeria.
I updated the Dr. Fritz entry to include some comments on the Brazilian faith healer "John of God."
I added a comment about Phil Plait getting some publicity regarding his continuing battle with Richard Hoagland.
I updated the pariedolia page with two stories: one about a man in Louisiana who found the face of Jesus in his pecan tree and the other about a Palestinian whose lamb was born with Arabic markings that look like "Allah" on one side and "Mohammed" on the other.
Finally, our friends in Iceland have begun posting translations of SD entries.
We received some very kind words on MetaFilter recently, including these from Chris Gregory:
But the really good news is that James Randi has announced that Richard Dawkins will be speaking at TAM3 (The Amazing Meeting 3) to be held once again in Las Vegas, this time at The Stardust, January 13th to 16th, 2005. Also speaking will be Joe Nickell.
On March 24th Michael Newdow, a part-time physician and part-time lawyer, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. By all accounts, he did an excellent job stating his case and answering the Justices' questions, even though he is not a practicing attorney.
The pledge, as most of you know, was created by a socialist minister. According to the completely unbiased Cato Institute,
Right. Anyway, before the rise of National Socialism in Germany, the pledge was said while raising one's arm in a gesture that resembled the typical Nazi salute. After the war, putting one's hand on one's heart became more fashionable. Congress added the "under God" phrase in 1954 as a response to the "atheistic communism" of our archenemy, the Soviet Union. Twenty-six states now require the pledge of allegiance in public schools. Many school districts, even in states that do not require the pledge, make the pledge a daily requirement. The Court has already ruled that nobody can be forced to recite the pledge. However, the question that Newdow raises is: Does requiring public school children to say "under God" imply that the state is favoring a religious belief over a non-religious belief? Is the pledge some sort of prayer?
The "under God" issue has brought out some very interesting comments from defenders of the status quo. For example, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter in whose name he is carrying on this battle, is quoted as saying:
Banning is a Christian and wants to keep "under God" in the pledge. But does she really understand what she is saying? The popular culture is on her side.
Jesse Stines, pastor of the Blue Ridge Mountain Church in Elk Park, N.C. said, "I want my kids to grow up in a country that acknowledges God. This whole country was built on the principles of God." Do we really want to live in a theocracy? It is one thing to allow people the freedom to worship and believe, or not, as they see fit. It is quite another to unite religious and secular institutions, as is done in theocracies and as various terrorist organizations would like to do in their countries. The "under God" in the pledge or the "in God we trust" on our money or the swearing to tell the truth "so help me God," etc., may seem like small things to some people. But they add up. They certainly don't constitute a theocracy or make this a "country built on the principles of God." You won't find principles like those embedded in the Bill of Rights in God's principles, at least not as they are understood by most Christians. God's principles--at least as they have been put forth by most Christians--are antithetical to freedom of speech, the press, and religion, due process, equal protection of the law, and so on.
What I personally find repulsive about the "under God" phrase in the pledge is the implication that the United States has God on its side. No concept can be more dangerous than to believe that your nation is protected by God. Such a view will lead to arrogant leadership and citizenship that is overly aggressive on the one hand or too complacent on the other. If there is a God, there is no reason to believe that this nation is more likely than any other to be "under God."
In any case, it is doubtful that the Court will rule in Newdow's favor, but if it does, will there be a push for a constitutional amendment to require an "under God" pledge in all public schools, public agencies, and athletic contests? Why not?
One Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible - Is the God of the Pledge of Allegiance a deity or a greeting card? by Dahlia Lithwick (Slate)
Speaking of constitutional amendments, the so-called "Marriage Amendment" got a boost when President Bush gave his support to it. The proposed amendment would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, effectively banning gay marriage for the second time. The Marriage Act, a federal law signed by President Clinton, has already defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The recent action seems to have inspired the Rhea County (Tennessee) commissioners, as they voted 8-0 to request an amendment to Tennessee's criminal code so homosexuals could be charged with crimes against nature. A few days and thousands of outcries later, they reversed their efforts to ban homosexuality. On the other hand, a Methodist minister went on trial in her church for being an avowed lesbian and she was acquitted. And Episcopalians recently ordained an openly gay bishop. Gay marriages, which were fashionable in San Francisco and a few other places in recent times, have stopped in most places until the courts can make some rulings. All of which brings me to the point of mentioning these things: gay marriage today is what miscegenation was yesterday, at least in one respect. It's an equal rights issue. Just as homosexuality is an equal rights issue, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June when it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas. On the other hand, it's also a religious issue for many people in this very religious country, so expect the sparks to fly on this one for many decades or centuries to come.
Speaking of religious issues, the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer has as its theme "Science & Religion 2004: Turmoil and Tensions." I found the article by Phil Zuckerman to be of particular interest. It's about the different religious beliefs and behaviors in Europe and the United States. Several reasons are given to explain why the U.S. is so much more religious and churchgoing than Europe. We are a nation of immigrants and people bring their religion with them. Religion provides some comfort and cultural continuity. We've never had a state religion, so religions have had to be very competitive. They advertise, proselytize, sermonize, and evangelize. This affects our educational system, which kowtows to religious sentiments when conflicts arise as they have in geology (age of the earth), cosmology (age of the universe), and biology (origin of species). Zuckerman writes: "Perhaps the Europeans have done a better job of conveying rational thinking, scientific methodology, and skeptical inquiry to their children than have American educators." Finally, there seems to be a correlation between the religiosity in a country and its social services. The fewer the services the greater the religiosity. I suspect the same holds true for superstition in general. Providing a great amount of social services would reduce a large amount of uncertainty in people's lives regarding employment, shelter, food, protection, education, health-care needs, etc. Stuart Vyse writes in Believing in Magic - The Psychology of Superstition: "If there is a universal truth about superstition, it is that superstitious behavior emerges as a response to uncertainty--to circumstances that are inherently random and uncontrollable" (p. 201). If so, we should see a continuing rise in superstitious belief and thus a greater need for skeptics to counteract the spiral of irrationality.
Speaking of irrationality, there is some very disturbing news regarding the status of science in this country. I've posted several comments on the Bush administration's assault on science (see Changes above). And, as most of you probably know by now, on March 9th the state board of education in Ohio approved by a 13-5 margin what is called a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan. An early draft of the plan made an explicit reference to Icons of Evolution, a book by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the energy behind the intelligent design movement. The final plan made no mention of Wells or his book, but critics of the plan say it contains many of the concepts in Icons. It is likely that the plan will be challenged in court. Defenders of the decision call it a victory for common sense over scientific dogmatism. In reality, it is a victory for those who would have politicians deciding what is proper science. The first question in the "student reflection" portion of the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" is "Why is it important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?" We call this a loaded question in my critical thinking classes. The question assumes that most scientists haven't or don't critically analyze evolution, or that they don't realize it is important to do so. It assumes that scientists need to be reminded of both the question and its importance. To provide students with a lesson plan that implies that scientists have put forth their views on evolution without critical analysis would be ludicrous if it weren't so dangerous. Gary Daniels of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the ACLU is considering a lawsuit. The National Academy of Science and the science faculty of Case Western Reserve University have criticized the lesson for allowing intelligent design, which both consider to be a pseudoscientific version of creationism. Bettysue Feuer, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, says that the "wedge theory" is at work here. If you teach that there is a controversy over evolution, intelligent design advocates get their foot in the door and can push their religious agenda.
Meanwhile in Missouri Rep. Wayne Cooper has sponsored legislation calling for the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in public elementary and secondary schools. Says Cooper: "We just want people to quit passing on their philosophic bias as though it is the truth when it's not proven." He also asserts: "If we're just a piece of matter in a meaningless universe, you're going to treat yourself different than if you're a designed product." Call me old-fashioned but I can't think of anything more degrading that being a piece of matter designed to fulfill some divine being's plan. I don't have quite the admiration Mr. Cooper does for the idea of being created to worship and obey a master. This might give his life meaning but it seems demeaning to me.
Finally, this just in from the Raelians:
I don't see why a "critical analysis" of evolution shouldn't include Rael's vision, especially since the master himself thinks ID fits with his godless religion and an atheistic Bible. Now, that's certainly an "alternative" viewpoint that you won't find in most science texts. I recommend that Ohio include it in the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan.
Instead of having our students spend valuable class time discussing ID and other "critical analyses" of evolution, they should be requiring them to read articles like this one from The Scientist: "A single mutation may have caused gross anatomical changes that spurred human evolution."
Evolution lesson renews intelligent design dispute By: Marrilyn H. Karfeld ClevelandJewishNews.com
Jeff Stein writes: "I’ve been enjoying skepdic.com for years. Today I read your recent posts about Intelligent Design. If I were a biology teacher, I would welcome teaching ID if I had to teach it. I’d use ID to explain the difference between good scientific reasoning and religion."
Jeff, if ID isn't defeated in the courts, then plan B will have to be to use it against those who oppose the teaching of evolution. In the meantime, however, I think the fight has to be try to persuade the public that politicians shouldn't be deciding how to teach science. The likelihood that evolution is the only idea in science that hasn't been critically evaluated enough by scientists so that science teachers need to be forced to consider "alternatives," i.e., be told that maybe some things can only be explained by bringing in a skyhook like "intelligent design," seems ludicrously implausible. The scientists working in this area are most likely just as intelligent, dedicated, knowledgeable, and critical as scientists working in other areas. So, why do politicians need to require teachers of evolution to "critically analyze" this one area of science? It has nothing to do with common sense or fairness. It has everything to do with trying to bring God into the science classroom to combat materialistic atheism (or is it atheistic materialism?).
If the battle with the politicians (i.e., school boards) is lost, and it looks like it is being lost, the first response should be a court challenge where the ID movement and the disingenuous tactics of the Discovery Institute will be exposed. But, in those states and communities where "critical analysis" of evolution is being required as part of the teachers' lesson plans, it would be a good idea for teachers to use the time to discuss the politics of ID and the danger of letting a few vocal critics with a religious agenda control the science curriculum. It would be better, of course, to spend the time studying science, but that is the last thing the ID folks want.
Howler of the Day
A group of creationist anti-evolutionists who want intelligent design taught in the biology classroom call themselves Missourians for Excellence in Science Education. The group is pretty slick. They got Eli Kintisch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to write that intelligent design is "a relatively new concept that amounts to an intellectual critique of evolution." (Actually, Kintisch's article is an otherwise fair and balanced account of the science/creationist debate.)
Julian Workman wrote to let me know that the quote I use from George Harrison belongs to Lewis Carroll.
Actually, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Chapter VI. Pig and Pepper) reads:
Yet, I found several places on the Internet where people attribute to the Cheshire Cat the line Harrison uses in his song "Any Road."
I received the following e-mail recently with the subject heading New Business Development- Webmasters
comment: It's true. If you do a Google search for fast cash my Too Good To Be True page about chain letter scams comes up fourth.
Wow! How can I pass this up? Especially if it maximizes my ROI.
Synergies! Maximizing my ROI and SEO! I'm hooked!
Well, Trent, I'll have to think about it for a millennium or two, but that bit about synergizing my ROI with an SEO almost hooked me.
Quackery of the Hour
1) The Doctor Buteyko method claims that the origin of many diseases is incorrect breathing. Dr. Buteyko opposes conventional medicine because it "mechanically tries to eliminate symptoms of an illness using drugs. It does not touch the origin of illness." This method is the brainchild of Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko of Kiev who became inspired by observations of the breathing patterns of dying patients.
2) Brandon Bays claims that she has uncovered a means to get "direct access to the soul" and to the "boundless healing potential inside all of us." She claims that she was able to use this method to make a tumor the size of a basketball disappear without the use of drugs or surgery. She has them waiting in line around to world to learn the craft and to take one of her programs. I'm thinking of signing up for the Seduced by Enlightenment weekend, which promises "A retreat offered solely for genuine lovers of truth who long to sit in the magnifying blaze of grace and have concepts and limitations stripped away in the obliterating fire of truth." She calls her work The Journey. I'd call it something else but this is a family newsletter.
Click to order from Amazon