Saint Matthew's Churches -- They're back

I don't know if it's the anti-evolutionist who sent me letters and a Chick tract (Big Daddy) sending my address to these bozos, but this is the third time I've received an invitation to mail money to the Church Of The Post Office Box. I posted about this scam before, and I've heard a few people mention it. Their emphasis seems to be on asking God for money (or other worldly goods, like new cars or "big 6 room houses"); heck, the yellow-colored free crucifix is referred to as a "prosperity cross." Of course, in order to receive these blessings the mark is urged to send in a generous "seed" gift, i.e., first you have to send them money, the more the better (for them).

These scammers have become more sophisticated. They now have their own Web page, where they inform us that this is a very old church with a rich (so to speak) heritage: You are welcome to view the website of this very old church ministry. First established in 1951. Imagine that--they've been scamming wretched people for just over 50 years!

It's stuff like this that reminds me not to laugh at the poor benighted Cargo Cultists or Haitian voodoo practitioners. We have plenty of people right here in America wishing for magical interventions.

Expelled? Execrable!

I'm not going to review the anti-science pseudo-documentary film "Expelled."

For one thing, it's getting a bit late, and the film is being shown in fewer and fewer theaters. It opened in 1,052 theaters on 18 April, and on 8 May it was showing in 656 theaters (data from here).

Furthermore, there have been numerous reviews of Expelled, some by people who have actually seen it. Some reviewers managed to see it despite efforts by the producers to keep them away (i.e., expelled). The reviewers all agreed that Expelled is a lousy film from an artistic viewpoint, but, more importantly, it is exceedingly dishonest. It misrepresents science and scientists, it relates a false history, it ignores facts contrary to its premise, and it insults any viewers capable of rational thought. Expelled is the quintessential manifestation of the phrase, "Lying for Jesus." Judge John E. Jones III made a comment in his opinion in the Kitzmiller &al. v. Dover Area School Board &al. (Document 342, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005, p. 137) that perfectly fits Expelled:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

The purpose of this post, then, is merely to direct anyone who hasn't been there already to visit Expelled Exposed, hosted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Get the facts. Check the sources.

From the Research Labs of Intelligent Design

Okay, I'm a little behind in my reading. So the article I'm about to discuss may stir a memory because it was mentioned (and probably reviewed) a couple years ago. It comes out of, not the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, but from the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute of the Biblical Theological Seminary. I'm referring to IBRI Research Report #56, presented online in 2005: Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents, by Robert C. Newman.

The title evokes Peter L. Berger's A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Berger contends that sociological arguments support the notion that "theological thinking" is possible in modern society. His small volume is not, Berger notes, a book about angels. He does suggest that our perception of reality may be improved by a "rediscovery of the supernatural"--and this rediscovery might allow for more meaningful relationships between people. He notes that existentialist ponderings need to be tempered with an occasional laugh.

Newman provides us with plenty of laughs and guffaws in his essay. Here is his abstract, in its entirety:

Most discussions of God's action in nature since about 1900 have ignored angelic activity, perhaps in reaction to White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Here we take another look at the biblical data on angels, and then consider what scientific data might be relevant in light of recent interest in intelligent design.

What does this abstract tell us appears in the paper? Very little, and absolutely nothing of what was concluded.

Angels are real, Newman tells us, and are capable of interacting with the material world. Yet they are immaterial beings. So how do they interact with a material world? No explanation is provided. But we know that angels are real because of the evidence--the Bible tells us so, just as it is evidence that there are such other spiritual beings as seraphim and cherubim. Oh, yes--and demons, too. Newman's research report goes on to tell us what it is that angels do, according to his laboratory research (i.e., reading the Bible). His "research" covers what demons do, as well.

Newman reasonably states that people live and act in a real world, a world that has objective existence. So why can't those "other intelligences" (by which he is not referring to chimpanzees or dolphins) live and act in the same world? How can they be detected? In posing these questions, he takes it for granted that angels exist--to doubt their existence, Newman says makes one a liberal--a modern Sadducee.

After presenting several hoary examples of how detection of design can be difficult, Newman proposes

...angelic activity is not like natural laws, which are operating continuously. Rather, they are more like human actions, which are sporadic. But here we have the additional complication that we cannot see the actors.

Then after admitting that science can, indeed, study unrepeatable events, he says

So the only way to find and study such phenomena would be if they leave traces that are detectable and (preferably) unmistakable.

At this point Newman introduces William Dembski's Explanatory Filter, suggesting that it can be used not only to detect God's designs, but

...such an approach could also be used to recognize an intermediate scale of intelligent design, between that of God and humans.

In other words, angels and demons.

And for examples, he cites the book of Job and offers the suggestion that they perform their actions by "influencing individuals and groups" (somehow) or by "doing genetic manipulation on individual organisms" (somehow).

One of the arguments used against Intelligent Design has been the existence of "designs" that are suboptimal or even injurious to humans and other organisms. These, Newman argues, are examples of malevolent design, springing from the drafting tables of Evil Spirits, or, alternatively, the misinterpreted work of God (and so not really malevolent) or space men (which, for some reason, is "consistent with a biblical theism"). "Designs" which are faulty, yet not injurious (such as the famous panda's thumb) are attributed not to evolution contingent upon existing material, but to design by "benevolent (but finite) spirit beings," namely, angels (Good angels, not bad angels). These designs are contingent upon existing material, but changes are not influenced by mutation and natural selection, only by the limited power and imperfect quality that we know is characteristic of angels. I guess angels don't have access to CAD software like God does.

Newman concludes that he doesn't know much about biology, yet he felt no embarrassment in attributing causes to biological observations and determining that his fantasies might seriously impact how science is done, specifically with respect to including the supernatural in scientific research.

Image from Wellcome Library.

Supernatural not religious?

The York Daily Record/Sunday News carried another opinion piece on 20 May 2007 by Richard Cleary, a retired alleged science teacher and devotee of Intelligent Design Creationism. He's still whining about Judge John E. Jones III's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which ID was dealt a mortal blow. He seems to be conceding that ID is supernatural, but saying that doesn't make it religious. He does not bother to define "supernatural" or "religious" in his piece, but obfuscation and fogginess are stanard operating procedures for Intelligent Design Creationists.

Cleary makes a series of arguments, all erroneous, misleading, or merely straw men. His favorite seems to be that the Intelligent Designer may be supernatural, meaning outside of this universe. He claims that's no more religious than the concept of multiverses, so maybe the Intelligent Designer lives in one of those parallel universes. Codswallop--that's no better than claiming said Designer lives in France. I suppose he would have to suggest there's a different Intelligent Designer in each universe, responsible for designing one of the others. In other words, it's turtles all the way down.

Cleary disingenuously claims

But sometimes we hear that ID is a religious belief because its advocates are frequently Christians. But if the metaphysical commitments of a theory's advocates are all that are necessary to make a theory religious, why is the naturalistic Darwinian view not considered to be an atheistic belief since many of its advocates are certainly atheists? Furthermore, if the naturalistic view is indeed an atheistic hypothesis, why is it permitted to be taught in our schools?

The old "if playing baseball is a sport, not playing baseball is another sport" contention. We teach science in school; evolution is science, a very important science, so we teach evolution. What is so hard to understand here? And what about the fact that many evolution scientists are not atheists?

Further foolishness:

But what is meant by saying that the designer can't be detected? Does it mean that we just can't see the designer and thus have no direct evidence that there is one? Or does it mean that the designer is in principle undetectable?

If it means the former, we should point out that there are dozens of entities scientists postulate which cannot be directly observed - quarks, neutrinos and dark matter, for example - but they can be studied and their existence inferred from their effects.

Likewise, there is abundant evidence of design in our world from which we can infer the existence of a designer. It may be that we can't study the designer directly right now because our technology doesn't allow it, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to study it.

How silly! What a child! Of course we study things we cannot see; we have special instruments to detect them and measure their properties. What instruments do we have for detecting Intelligent Design? What do we measure, and in what units? Measuring properties of quarks is not the same as seeing unicorns in the clouds, or concluding that, because humans design and manufacture (oops, sorry, I realize the ID folkses can't deal with the manufacturing aspect) pocket watches and Mini Coopers, anything more complex than a piece of chalk must therefore also be designed. We've seen that Dembski's Explanatory Filter is useless; what, then, Mr. Cleary, is the evidence indicating Design that you claim is so abundant ?

Cleary winds up his opinion with the claim that it is "[o]nly those who don't understand ID or who choose to misrepresent it, two groups which include almost all of its opponents, some of its advocates, and Judge Jones, do that [identify The Designer with God of the Bible]." He needs to listen to his leaders; the grand poobahs of ID have themselves identified The Designer as God and revealed their religious agenda:

Phillip Johnson, who reanimated ID in 1991: “[T]he materialist story thrives only as long as it does not confront the biblical story directly. In a direct conflict, where the public perceives the issues clearly, the biblical story will eventually prevail” [The Wedge of Truth, 1991].

William Dembski wrote in the July/August 1999 Touchstone Magazine: “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

UPDATE: My letter to the editor responding to Cleary's nonsense was published Saturday, 2 June. Another LTE critical of Cleary's article, was published the day before. That letter concluded, And as long as its proponents base their arguments on biblical references, ID is religious.