Thus from a purely ethical standpoint (aside from
   any consideration of the law) if I was on that jury
   and learned about his positions on God and
   government, I would question the defendant’s
   character.  Atheism and anarchism are inimical to
   ordered society.

   More importantly for me if I were on that jury --
   they’re antithetical to God’s Word.  Everyone must
   have an ultimate authority in life; mine is Scripture
   (so was that of our founders).  God not only
   exists, but He ordained the civil magistrate; by his
   own admission, Larken [the defendant] believes
   neither of these things.

   Reiterating:  If I didn’t know the law at issue one
   way or the other, and I was charged only with
   weighing a defendant’s honesty and character so
   I could decide ‘willfulness’ -- I would likely
   convict a fellow who claims to be atheist and
   anarchist.  And it would be right to do so.

  According to David M. Zuniga, atheists lack any moral
  foundation on which to stand.  Therefore, their testimony
  cannot be believed.  This used to be a common belief -- it's
  the reason why atheists were not allowed to give testimony
  in court cases.  It's also a very bigoted point of view: Zuniga
  would deny atheists the same rights and the same
  presumption of innocence accorded to others simply
  because they don't share a belief in some sort of god.

  It's no better than saying that racial minorities should be
  treated worse because only whites can be trusted to tell the
  truth, or that religious minorities should be treated worse
  because only those who accept Jesus Christ as their
  personal savior can be trusted to tell the truth.  People
  advocating such position would be condemned as bigots,
  and so should David M. Zuniga.

  It's not atheism that is inimical to ordered society, it's the
  hateful and spiteful bigotry of people like this who would
  relegate certain groups of people to second-class
  citizenship merely because of their need to feel superior
  to others.  Atheism does not point to a person having an
  untrustworthy character, but bigotry certainly does.  I
  wonder how David M. Zuniga would feel if he discovered
  that a jury which convicted him did so in part because they
  assumed that a self-righteous, hateful bigot couldn't be
  trusted to tell the truth?
 
     That is just a partial review of why I am on guard
against the fundamentalists getting a hearing for their
views as science.  If there is no "ultimate answer" in
Darwin, I will settle for the self-correcting method of
scientific, peer-reviewed investigation to dogmatic
certainty.  And of course, some fundamentalists are
more dogmatic than others, even rejecting ID as still
being evolution-based, thus heretical.  George
Johnson, a UW-Madison university teacher sent a link
to Reason Online's coverage of a recent Creation
Mega-Conference:

   Lynchburg, VA -- Science and scripture cannot
 contradict one another, and if they appear to do so, then
 there is something wrong with the science.  God created
 the world in six 24-hour days, according to Georgia Purdom,
 an assistant professor of biology at Mount Vernon
 Nazarene University in Mount Vernon.

     But if Phil & others are so moved to despair at the
thought of an unplanned universe that unscientific
creation stories are needed to sustain an otherwise
meaningless existence, that would seem at most to move
them into the deist camp, as he acknowledged in a recent
outcry (partially re-quoted below) that I had responded
to at length:
    
         Where did these (non-random) patterns come
 from?  Why are there laws? 

     As the belief of Tom Paine, Jefferson, Franklin &
others, deism it is at least inoffensive & compatible
with scientific method:
    

  deists opted for perhaps the most extreme form of
  transcendence available, completely rejecting the idea
  of God being immanent and involved in any manner
  with Creation and humanity.

  Because of this, deism supported the growing idea that
  humans should rely upon themselves first and foremost.
  Even though deists continued to believe in God, they
  did not believe that God had any continuing interaction
  with the world such that God could be called upon
  for assistance.
 
  Instead, only human effort, human intelligence, and
  human ingenuity could be called upon
 
     Although seemingly harmless, it must be admitted that
there is no evidence for deism;  the problems with deism
is that its earliest proponents relied on two arguments,
first cause & the very intelligent design (ID) that we
have seen is not provable.  Given the undermining over
the centuries of the first cause (or prime mover) (& the
tedious but necessary question of infinite regression,
i.e., who created God? argument) & the recent
discrediting of ID (if you've been paying attention), I
simply have to rest my case.  Impersonal as this God is,
I would still like to know why an intelligent, rational
person should "respect the belief" any more than the
Great Manitou or Vishnu or any of many candidates
for inclusion in a balanced study of beliefs.
     For example, while Phil conveniently ignored the
Intelligent Falling (IF) theory advanced in the previous
Sunday Sermon, Rad Keener of Milwaukee sent a link
to another worthy viewpoint, that of the FSM:
    
       Let us remember that there are multiple theories of
  Intelligent Design.  I and many others around the world are
  of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying
  Spaghetti Monster.  It was He who created all that we see
  and all that we feel.  We feel strongly that the overwhelming
  scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes
  is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

     He built the world to make us think the earth is older than
  it really is.  For example, a scientist may perform a
  carbon-dating process on an artifact.  He finds that
  approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by
  electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact
  is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of
  Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years.  But what our scientist
  does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement,
  the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results
  with His Noodly Appendage.  We have numerous texts that
  describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons
  why He does this.  He is of course invisible and can pass
  through normal matter with ease. 

     The FSM has inspired much art, featuring his
meatballs & noodly appendages [see below].

                

     The FSM theory is supported by none other than the
author of The Population Bomb [1968] & the textbook
Process of Evolution in 1963:

 I have a message for members of the Kansas School
 Board. As a biologist with a Ph.D. from Kansas University
 (1953), I wish to support the teaching of the theory that the
 world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- about
 which you have already heard from Bobby Henderson
 (www.venganza.org).  It seems to me that the very existence
 of the evolution-creation controversy and that many of you
 support teaching “intelligent design” as science, is in itself a
 powerful argument against intelligent design.  Rather, it
 supports my more scientific theory of malign design (proven
 by thousands of years of theologians generating theodicies
 and the creation of George W. Bush).

 Paul R. Ehrlich,
 Bing Professor of Population Studies
 Stanford University,

     But it would be a shame to omit an earlier claimant
on our attention for Supreme Designer, the invisible Pink
Unicorn.  Her followers' Credo:

     "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual
power.  We know this because she is capable of being
invisible and pink at the same time.  Like all
religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink
Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith.
We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't
see her."
                              

     If the reader sniffs a contradiction here, I suggest
some research into the nature of a religion that is
monotheistic while worshiping a Trinity (& Mary), or
postulates an inerrant Creator who is omniscient &
omnipotent yet who inspired a demonstrably errant
Bible whose flawed interpretations he foresaw.  The
mind reels.
     Furthermore, since Christianity is noted for inspiring
much of the great art of the Renaissance, one can only
guess at the devotion of the followers of yet another
Saviour & the verities that motivate them to venerate the
Passion of the Shrimp [at least temporarily taken down, perhaps
because of recent publicity]  as seen in the the Last Shrimp
Supper & the rendering at left.
     On the other hand, there are those
that feel God Hates Shrimp.
     But, given that shifting tectonic
plates indiscriminately killed 100,00
people with a tsunami while Dick
Cheney lives on, I think Ehrlich is
onto something with his theory of malign design,
apparently another form of dystheism, or belief in an
evil God -- not unknown in many religions, including
Satanism and many polytheistic beliefs.
            [Your Thoughts]   [Read Comments]
                         Z-GUIDE     

has an extensive review (with
illustrations) of his art & aesthetic tradition based on a
Chicago exhibition that ran until January 2000 -- &
whatever else he may be noted for, a sign of his
earthiness is seen in his passion for engraving
heavily-outlined big-breasted "native" women with
huge, prominent nipples visible even under their rags, or
naked, at least until his first heart attack in 1993. 
 (Another "massive" heart attack left him bedridden
until 1-1/2 years before his
death.)   
     But the outpouring
initiated by his death at 81
is remarkable & touching; it
is obvious he was admired &
loved.  The

He believed that art should serve a purpose, and that
purpose more often than not was the liberation of the
working class.

     It continues with the simple clarity of his
drinking-man's poem: 

Crystal-Gazing the Amber Fluid
    By Carlos Cortez

Sitting at this bar
Thinking of places
Afar
In my glass of beer
I see
Thru the smoke-filled haze
Of this room
Like a crystal vision
Looms
A ribbon of cement
Black line down the middle
Perdition bent
Like a galloping snake
On the make
Thru treeless prairies
And bottomless passes
Ever in motion
Over a moonkissed desert
Toward golden California
Grasses
Stopped only
By a big blue ocean,
Man----!
Give me the song
If you can
Of a greyhound motor's
Tirade
Crawling along
Some old ten-mile grade
Where life can be complete...

     The site features large examples of his work &
several tributes, mentioning some honors received late
in life:

  Few artists are honored while they live, but Carlos has been
 bombarded with praise, especially recently.  He has taken the
 cause of liberation and the IWW to many neighborhoods in
 Chicago, to many states of the union, and to many countries of
 the world.  In October, 1999 he was honored with an exhibition
 of his art in Madrid, Spain by the Foundation of Libertarian
 Studies.  They produced a very nice pamphlet of Carlos' art with
 his self portrait from 1985 on the cover.

 In 2001, he was honored in Chicago by the Mexican Fine Arts
 Center with a large three-month long exhibition of his art.  Then
 all of his art was permanently hung in the Mexican Fine Artes
 Museum in Chicago with the promise that if his art becomes
 too expensive for working people, they must produce more to
 reduce the price.  Those who profit from his passing beware
 visits from owls, coyotes, or ravens [his symbols].

     Another tribute is found at the activist IndyMedia site
for Milwaukee.
     A more restrained obit is on the IWW Web site, as
reprinted from the Chicago Tribune, which talks about
his Chicago basement studio of 30 years, in the house he
& his late wife Mariana  [Drogitis] reluctantly bought
with his inheritance because

      He dreaded supporting a capitalist system that he
 believed cheated the common man out of a living wage. . . .
      There, surrounded by the artist's black and white prints
 that inspired so many, poets and painters explored how art
 could incite social change, shed light on poor and
 disenfranchised populations, celebrate indigenous cultures
 and promote peace -- all principles that inspired Mr. Cortez
 to create art.

     An ambience worthy of that we both encountered as
guests at the Gibsons', a link -- one can hope -- in an
ongoing chain, though he has no immediate survivors.
[Next week:  Conclusion of Prodding the Beast, if
nothing intervenes]
        [Your Thoughts]   [Read Comments]
                           z-guide

  Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian
  conservatives to give intelligent design equal
  standing with evolution in the nation’s schools. . . .
  Bush . . . compared the current debate to earlier
  disputes over “creationism,” a related view that adheres
  more closely to biblical explanations. As
  governor of Texas, Bush said students should be
  exposed to both creationism and evolution.
  Yesterday the president said he favors the same
  approach for intelligent design “so people can
  understand what the debate is about.”

     (An opinion not shared by his own science advisor:
Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.)

    Bush's views were echoed in news reports on
Aug. 20 by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who said,
". . . a pluralistic society should have access to a broad
range of fact, of science, including faith. . . ." & that ID
should be taught "alongside evolution."  It may be a
coincidence that Frist recently damaged severely his
support by his conservative base in favoring expanding
federal stem cell research to the use of discarded
embryos.  In any case, the Associated Press story noted
that "Critics say it's nothing more than religion
masquerading as science."  

        And as Austin Cline writes in About.com:

 Of course, there is no scientific “debate” here, just a
 manufactured debate that has been “intelligently
 designed” by religious conservatives as a first step in
 an agenda that includes eliminating materialistic,
 naturalistic science and restructuring all of American
 society along their own religious preferences.

          “I think that part of education is to expose people
      to different schools of thought,” Bush said.
          "You’re asking me whether or not people ought to
      be exposed to different ideas; the answer is yes.”

Different ideas... like Satanism? Oh, we don’t need to go that
far. Why not just have a course taught by an atheist about
all the problems, flaws, and fallacies in both theism and in
organized religions? That will expose students to all sorts
of “different ideas” which they probably won’t hear at home.
President Bush supports this, right?  [Cline]

     Until that day, if they're interested in the problems
facing the ID theorists, your kids can check some
background from the Secular Blasphemy website, starting
with the little old watchmaker:

   Refutation of the 'by design' argument for theism

Paley's analogy draws a distinction between natural objects and objects that
are the products of human designers. The whole argument goes that if you
should find a watch on a beach, lying in between the sand, stones, grass and
waves, you would immediately recognize that it stood out from its
surroundings, and that it was different. So, you would conclude it was an
artifact. . . .

The problem is that Paley suddenly turns around and says that everything
in nature bears evidence of a designer! The analogy is thus self-contradictory
even on the most basic level. In the analogy, the differences between the
natural objects and the human artifact is what makes an observer conclude
that the latter is designed. How come, then, can anyone conclude that the
stones, grass and indeed the whole universe is created by a Designer,
too? . . .

     The author continues:

First, theists apply the argument from design selectively. Assuming that
the complexity of the universe shows it has to be design, they say that this
proves the existence of an even more complex entity: God. Now, if the
universe has to be created because it is complex, an even more complex
deity will have to be the product of an even more powerful meta-god. Theists
don't like this train of thought, and produce some ad hoc arguments with
little merit.

     But Phil goes off on a tangent with some statistics that
apparently delight him, though they should discourage
any rational person; that is, the 51% of us who don't
believe Noah rescued the dinosaurs on his ark:

According to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject (2004),
45 percent of Americans believe God created human beings
in their present form 10,000 years ago, while another 38
percent believe that God directed the process of evolution.
Only 13 percent accept the prevailing scientific view of
evolution as an unguided, random process.

     This leads to Phil's celebratory boldface:
     I’m in the middle (38%).  I’m a minority.  At last!
     This is meant to be humorous, as he has not generally
identified with any of the country's groups commonly
recognized as minorities since, oh, sometime in the late
60s, I'd guess.
     But his real point is that, minority or not, a
substantial number of Americans seem to agree that
while evolution may be a fact, there is room yet in the
equation for God the designer.  Though I'm sure he
wouldn't put many of his other beliefs & practices to
this test, he seems to find it reassuring -- never mind the
well-worn observation that a substantial number of
humans once believed the sun revolved around the
earth -- & not an indication of a deficient educational
system.
     On the other hand, he quotes statistics that should be
unsettling, unless as a conservative American one
automatically concludes most Europeans are somehow
less educated & furthermore are eternally damned:
 
Look at this 1993 NORC survey: In the United States, 63
percent of the public believed in God and 35 percent
believed in evolution. In Great Britain, by comparison, 24
percent of people believed in God and 77 percent
believed in evolution. You can believe in both—but not
many people do.  [Italics mine --M.Z.]

     Again, in a somewhat uncharacteristic celebration
of American yokelism, Phil exults: 
                             I do.
And look at the difference between America and Britain.
       America is  much more religious than Europe
                               WOW !

     So much for the idea that Europe, the birthplace of
the Enlightenment, could teach us anything.  (Of course,
anybody who has been paying attention knows that
America has been far more religious -- at least with lip
service -- for decades, if not centuries, going back to
when outbreaks of revivalism swept the land.
     (A phenomenon partly attributable to our very lack of
a state-supported religion:
    (It has been observed that religious liberty in America
has benefited greatly from the strict separation of church
and state. Without a powerful government attempting to
define and impose religious orthodoxy on the people,
significantly more religious pluralism has developed in
America than in most other places. This has allowed
people to create religious groups based upon personal
experiences and divorced from historical traditions or
orthodoxy.)  [About.com] 

     (Since each sect, in turn, develops its own following
with a tendency to grow, those turned off by a mainline
or possible state church thrive where they might
otherwise just disappear among the unchurched.)  
     Yet, curiously, he includes -- apparently because it
was a part of the original Slate analysis -- an argument
undercutting his own thesis, that Darwinism can't explain
the emergence of  the first bacteria, when of course it
can, or at least has made long strides in that direction --
& offers evidence -- while the ID people claim that
where any gap in knowledge exists, it requires a
designer.  This is known as the argument from ignorance,
which Cardinal Schonborn (below) implicitly adopts.
     In actual practice, ID proponents (such as Michael
Behe; see reviews) resort to outright lies about the state
of knowledge today about IC (irreducible complexity) in
such things as bacterial evolution & blood-clotting
mechanisms for example, as many of the links in this
journal will attest.  But where there are gaps, the
solution (a designer) is not testable, provable or
observable -- in short, not science.  Where the
mechanism is those things, Occam's razor tells us we
need look no further -- except maybe to a philosophical
discussion about the meaning of it all. 
     Now, if Phil & the like-minded grant they are trying
to elevate a pseudo-science -- or, conversely, claim that
science isn't even relevant -- there is nothing to discuss.
     But just claiming that something has to be the case,
because to a wishful observer, dammit, how could it not
be? -- or that something just doesn't make sense, as Phil
does below, even though it makes sense to those who
have generally disposed of these mysteries to the point
where the unanswered question is not how does the
universe work but why is there a universe with all it's
laws? -- this is just "an abdication of human
intelligence."
     As to the why of the universe, your guess is as good
as mine, but the answer does not require a creator,
unless -- since by the ID proponents' own admission,
anything self-evidently complex requires a creator -- the
even-more complex creator must require a creator, too,
thus substituting one mystery for another in infinite
regression.         
     Or perhaps the, shall we say, less militant ID
followers are merely positing a designer -- God --
whose sole attribute is the responsibility for a design,
whose existence is proof of the reality of the designer.
In other words, a circular argument:  What created the
universe?  God.  What is God?  That which created the
universe, dummy.  Fine, but useful only in giving us a
handy word for taking oaths -- any other actual attributes
will still have to be debated as they are trotted out, as
they have been for millennia.
     This may satisfy Phil, but in actuality, the ID people
have a much more activist program -- to advance
Christianity any way they can, but first by leaving God
out of the discussion until the ID theory is accepted as a
science.  This is pointed out in Wikipedia:

   From Religion and leading ID proponents:

Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular
terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the
designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating
ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which
are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism
is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the
Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson
emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the
Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have
separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact," only then
can "biblical issues" be discussed.^[14] Johnson explicitly calls
for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so
as to avoid having ID recognized "as just another way of
packaging the Christian evangelical message."^[15] Though
not all ID proponents are theistic or motivated by religious
fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including
Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and
Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in
their view the designer of life is clearly God.
    
     More discussion of the argument from ignorance also
appears in Wikipedia:

             Argument from ignorance

Some critics have argued that many points raised by
Intelligent Design proponents strongly resemble arguments
from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, one claims
that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another
view (e.g., "Science cannot explain this, therefore God did
it"). Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more
detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular
systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution
or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure
of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms,
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for
naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms.

      But Cardinal Schonborn, quoted by Phil, sidesteps
even the significance of the gaps & seems to boldly
assert  that design is immanent --  just because things look
designed, as Phil claims, & because it supports Catholic
doctrine  -- while even attacking the science that exists
where there once were gaps:  

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna,
was saying nothing very different when he argued in a New
York Times op-ed piece on July 7 that random evolution
can't be harmonized with Catholic doctrine. To be sure,
there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and even
Darwinists who call themselves Christians. But the
acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in
aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to
the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a
different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more
logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence.
Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the
emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much
room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to
flick the first switch.

     Unfortunately, the Cardinal's NY Times article is not
freely available, but his thinking is summed up here:

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Roman Catholic Cardinal
Christoph Schonborn on Catholic stance on evolution;
says evolution in sense of common ancestry might be
true, but evolution in neo-Darwinian sense -- unguided,
unplanned process of random variation and natural
selection -- is not; says immanent design evident in
nature is real; holds scientific theories that try to explain
away appearance of design as result of 'chance and
necessity' are not scientific at all, but, as Pope John
Paul II put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
[italics mine --M.Z.]
     Which apparently brings back the deist God, at least,
whose "role might have been to flick the first switch."
     That seems to be enough for Phil, who reacts with a
joyous hash of mostly previously disposed-of arguments
(in this blog & the included links).  One new one pops
up, the impossibility of creating something from
nothing -- specifically bacteria -- though no one claims
such a thing (as the reader who follows my links can
determine).  A variety of others are covered in the
citations following Phil's plaintive incantation: 

                 And what a mighty flick it was.
                      And there was light
 And eventually . . . Bacteria.  The “emergence” of these
 slimy, elegantly complex beasts can only be explained
 by intelligent design at some point in the process.
 Something from nothing really doesn’t make much
 sense.  Orderly laws of science . . . the 17-20 basic
 laws  of physics . . . (e.g. Gravity, speed of light, etc)
 . . .   at different levels down to quantum . . . all these
 “forces” interacting -- in order to “hold” the Universe
 together.  Where did these (non-random) patterns come
 from?  Why are there laws?  Why can’t I make Raquel
 Welch appear Right Now !!?

     Refraining from asking equally perplexing questions,
such as why Intelligent Design also created the influenza
virus which rapidly evolved to kill 20 million people
before their "free will" could begin to comprehend it,
I will take up another question.  The Raquel Welch
problem reminds me of the Wizard of Oz.  You
remember Judy Garland in Somewhere Over the
Rainbow sang about birds & asked

                If happy little bluebirds fly
                Beyond the rainbow
                Why, oh why can't I?

     To which my reply would be, "Because you're not a
bird."  Neither theologian nor Supernatural Creator, Phil
-- psychologist or not -- is apparently not much of a
scientist either, & probably wonders why he can't fly.
     Though the following material covers a lot of ground,
it is meant to be merely a guideline to fuller explanations
on the Internet, which surely the seriously interested
will want to check out at least once (please?)  Another
tack would simply be to type "Behe review" [good start]
or "intelligent design" [staggering] into Google &
follow one's curiosity.  But I rest after this, knowing I
have done my duty for the Phil's of this world.
     Some discussion of scientific method is appropriate,
for starters:

                  from Wikipedia:

Critics say ID is attempting to redefine natural science,^[7]
and they cite books and statements of principal ID
proponents calling for the elimination of "methodological
naturalism" from science^[8] and [to] replace it with what
critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means
belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality
inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity.^[9] Natural
science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori
knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called
empirical science).  Critics of ID consider the idea that some
outside intelligence created life on Earth to be a priori
(without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some
complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the
scientific method.  (For instance, abiogenesis, the generation
of life from non-living matter, is not completely understood
scientifically, although the first stages have been reproduced
in the Miller-Urey experiment.)  ID proponents infer that an
intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is
not understood scientifically.  Since the designer cannot be
observed, critics continue, it is a priori knowledge.

 This allegedly a priori inference that an intelligent
 designer (God or an alien life force^[10]) created life on
 Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that
 aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the
 pyramids^[11].  In both cases, the effect of this outside
 intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable,
 and it violates Occam's Razor as well.  Empirical 
 scientists  would simply say "we don't know exactly how
 the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known
 about Egyptian construction techniques.

     For even more discussion of Behe, see:
 
  A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
  Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe

by Robert Dorit

. . .  this argument makes a reappearance in Michael Behe's
Darwin's Black Box.  Adorned this time around with the
language of molecular biology, spiced up with charges of a
conspiracy of scientists, masquerading as an appeal for truth
and not for theology, it is nonetheless the same old thing:
There cannot be design without a designer.  Although I do not
doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with
a world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent
design put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep
misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization
and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry. Because
of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed on the central,
radical claim of Darwinian thinking:  Biological order and
design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process
and not from the hand of a designer.

     But Phil also can't deal with the notion that Nature &
its laws weren't supernaturally formed, essentially asking
Mr. Answer Man (me) these questions:

                 [Spontaneous Order]

 So, where did the order of the universe come from, if it
 did not exist at the "beginning"?  Where did the laws of
 physics come from, if not from some great lawgiver?
 We are now beginning to grasp how the laws of physics
 could have come about naturally, as the universe
 spontaneously exploded in the big bang.

     Fortunately, we have answers now for those who
wonder about the origin & applicability of  Newtonian
"laws" of physics:

                      Intelligent Design
       Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws
                         of  Physics
  Copyright © 1997 by Victor J. Stenger

Let me begin by addressing two commonsense notions:
(1) you cannot get something from nothing, and (2) the order
of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active
intelligence to do the ordering.  I will leave it to the theologians
to explain how the postulate of a creator God solves the
problem of creation ex nihilo, since God is something that,
itself, must have come, uncreated, from nothing.  Instead I
will address the physics issues implied by the creation of the
universe from nothing.  In physics terms, creation ex nihilo
appears to violate both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of
the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that
results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy
of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of
gravity.  Since the total energy is zero, no energy was
needed to produce the universe and the first law was not
violated.

If we properly compute, according to statistical theory, the
probability for the universe existing with the properties it has,
the result is unity!  The universe exists with one hundred
percent probability (unless you are an idealist who believes
everything exists only in your own mind).  On the other hand,
the probability for one of a random set of universes being our
particular universe is a different question.  And the probability
that one of a random set of universes is a universe that
supports some form of life is a third question.  I submit it is
this last question that is the important one and that we have
no reason to be sure that this probability is small.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the
entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at
least stay constant with time.  This would seem to imply that
the universe started out in a greater state of order than it
has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant
volume.  [& not for sub-systems, either --M.Z]  The maximum
entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same
volume.  In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable
entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing
more and more room for order to form as time goes by.  If
we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable
time, the so-called Planck time (10^-43 second), we find that
universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total
chaos.  The universe had no order at the earliest definable
instant.  If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What
happened before the big bang?"  Since no time earlier than
the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion
of time before the big bang is meaningless.

We are gradually learning that several of the laws of physics,
those that seem the most universal and profound, are in fact
little more than statements about the simplicity of nature that
can almost go unsaid.  The "laws" of energy, momentum,
and angular momentum conservation have been shown to
be statements about the homogeneity of space and time.  The
first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, results
from there being no unique moment in time.  Conservation
of momentum follows from the Copernican principle that
there is no preferred position in space.  Other conservation
laws, such as charge and nucleon number, also arise from
analogous assumptions of simplicity.  [No, I didn't look those
last two up; let me know if you do & find them relevant --M.Z.]

     Any more questions?  I thought not, so we'll finish
with yet more examination of  the so-called "problem"
of irreducible complexity (IC).

                   Design Flaw [review]
                    by Norman A. Johnson

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology.
William A. Dembski. 304 pp. InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common
Ground Between God and Evolution. Kenneth R. Miller.
338 pp. HarperCollins, 1999.

Is "irreducible complexity" a problem for Darwinian evolution?
In Finding Darwin's God Kenneth Miller, a Brown University
cell biologist, deftly and correctly responds to Behe's
challenge, pointing out not just one but several examples of
evolution creating not only the appearance of design but also
the appearance of "irreducible complexity."  These examples
include demonstrations of bacteria evolving new metabolic
pathways and the tracing of the vertebrate blood-clotting
system's evolutionary history.  The blood-clotting system,
one of Behe's supposed prime examples of "irreducible
complexity," evolved via the divergence of several related
genes originally produced by a series of gene duplications.
Miller concludes: "In a general way, we really do understand
how nature works.  And evolution forms a critical point of
that understanding."

     All of which leads (finally!) to this summary, though
not in itself proof, of the anti-ID argument:

     Irreducible Complexity Demystified
                  by Pete Dunkelberg
        "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
                 --biologists' proverb

There was supposed to be a special reason why it was
impossible or at least very difficult for evolution to arrive at an
'all parts required' situation, but there is no such reason.  The
proposed reason was based on overlooking standard
evolutionary processes and making analogies to
manufactured items.  Comparing Behe's mousetrap to
Venus' flytrap confirms the reasonable suspicion that
analogies and arguments based on manufactured items lead
to underestimating nature.  Since IC can occur in the
ordinary course of events we have a known process,
evolution, which is acting in the present and which given time
is sufficient to produce the adaptations that Behe finds
perplexing.  This is like the raising of the Rocky Mountains;
a known process acting in the present is sufficient, given
time, to produce the result.  Of course there is no way to
predict all the details in either case, nor is it necessary.
     Still, creationists are clever at raising other
objections to evolution, & they may have won after all,
as this recent headline in the Onion
[August 2005 18-24] trumpets:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New
              'Intelligent Falling' Theory
               "Things fall not because they
                     are acted upon by some gravi-
                     tational force, but because a
                     higher intelligence, 'God' if
                     you will, is pushing them down,"
                     said Gabriel Burdett, who
                     holds degrees in education,
                     applied Scripture, and physics
                     from Oral Roberts University.
                     Burdett added:  "Gravity --
                     which is taught to our children
                     as a law-- is founded on great
                     gaps in understanding.  The
                     laws predict the mutual force
          Intelligent Falling from page 1
          between all bodies of mass, but they can-
          not explain that force. . . .
          there are many phenomena that cannot be
          explained by secular gravity alone, includ-
          ing such mysteries as how angels fly, how
          Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan
          fell when cast out of Paradise. . . . "
          . . . the Christian Coalition, and other Christian
          conservative action groups, is calling for public-
          school curriculums to give equal time to the
          Intelligent Falling theory.  They insist they are
          not asking that the theory of gravity be banned
          from schools, but only that students be offered
          both sides of the issue "so they can make an
          informed decision."
    
     As noted at the top, this is a two-week special, so
there will be a whole week until the next Sermon to
ponder some of these issues or design an intelligent
reply. 
         [Your Thoughts]   [Read Comments]
                        Z-GUIDE     

1) aggravating.  ". . . tattoos [on fruit] will be less
bothersome to consumers than stickers, which can be
really aggravating if you bit into one. . . ."  [laurels and
laments editorial, July 23] A  double repeat.
     Does not mean annoying or irritating, but to worsen
an existing condition.   

2) blog.  "The following blog offers snapshots of
scenes. . . ."  [Vikki Ortiz, front page of Cue section,
July 22]
     An apparent first for the JS, but not other
publications, as I've pointed out.  In any event, she is
merely writing an old-fashioned log, having nothing to
do with the Web & therefore not a web log, just an
attempt to seem hip.

3) phase / faze.  ". . . the company's stock price don't
seem to phase Amazon's eternally ebullient chief
executive. . . ."  [Associated Press (AP) story in
Business section, July 5]
     Managing Editor Stanley claimed in the same
Crossroads section quoted in Part I that

             We edit stories from wire services and
          outside contributors with the same rigor and
          concern. . . . Sometimes we fail to meet these
          standards.  When that happens, our policy is to
          admit our mistakes, correct them, apologize to
          our readers and work to improve.

     I'm still waiting for my apology, but I won't let it faze
me. 

4) shit / shat.  Got your attention, huh?  Actually, David
Doege wrote about an apparently racist confrontation in
Waukesha that "Weber later said that Bratton spit on
him." [Metro North, page 2, June 23]
     But the past tense is spat, analogous to shat.

5) moot.  Another repeat in another editorial [June 23],
claims that "these local [anti-smoking] laws will be
essentially moot if they are tougher than the state
standards. . . ."  As I documented, someone there
apparently thinks that moot means irrelevant, a
confusion no doubt stemming from moot court.  Of
course, it means debatable.  

6) throes / throws.  Meg Kissinger's Q & A with Patty
Duke about her mental illness [First Section, page 2,
June 14,] quotes her : "When I was I was in the throws
of this, I used to pray. . . ."
     Don't blame Patty; the weak copy desk (& Kissinger)
is responsible for the rendition into text.

7) oxymoron.  While it is indeed a linking of opposites,
derived from the Greek for sharp & dull, according to
Fowler's Modern English Usage, the problem is that it
is often used for terms that may not be apparently direct
opposites but ones which the user wishes to be seen that
way.  That is, army intelligence is not an oxymoron as
such (nor is jumbo shrimp), just a point the writer is
trying to (humorously) make by calling it such.  Little
giant, however, is.
     But Howard Schoenfeld, writing a guest opinion on
the Public Museum's need for change says that he
recognizes the "phrase 'typical turnaround' is an
oxymoron."  [Crossroads, June 12, page 1]  No, it's
not.  Of course, few turnarounds may be typical by his
lights, but they are not automatic opposites.  The weak
copy desk (& even strong copy desk is not an oxymoron,
though one might think of it that way) should have
suggested a change. 
     To be continued in Prodding the Beast  [Pt. 3]
         [Your Thoughts]   [Read Comments]
                          z-guide

a Greek favourite: Brian's Shrimp with Tomatoes
and Feta - ten minutes and you're on Corfu!

   Certainly cheaper than an airline ticket.  But the theological significance of the shrimp shouldn't be overlooked, since He died for us all.
      [Your Thoughts]   [Read Comments]
                            z-guide