I feel compelled to say something about an article published by American Thinker yesterday -- an article strangely critical of critical thinking, titled "The Great Critical Thinking Dodge." The article describes critical thinking as the means by which liberals "shut out and shout down" the scientific method but in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Liberal academics absolutely love the scientific method, and actually use it as a weapon to discourage critical thinking skills. Liberal teachers don't want to teach their students to think for themselves -- they want students to simply believe what they have been taught. In July of 1925 the Scopes Monkey Trial was held because critical thinking in schools was literally illegal -- students could only be taught creationism in science class, not Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. From September to November of 2005, the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was held because critical thinking is still illegal -- students can only be taught the theory of evolution in science (not philosophy) class, and teaching intelligent design is illegal. Apparently the goal of education isn't really to teach young people how to think, but what to believe. Indoctrination is not optional. Most people believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is true, well supported by copious amounts of scientific evidence. Biologist Jerry Coyne even wrote a book titled Why Evolution is True. An overwhelming consensus of biologists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. "Critical thinking" about the theory of evolution … [Read more...]
Why evolution is probably false
I've never wanted nor pretended to be a biologist. I prefer to blame this possible character flaw on the fact I never liked dissecting animals, or the smell of formaldehyde. My approach to science has always been "need to know" -- meaning if I decide that I need to know something, I'll put a little effort into figuring out how it works. In the years since graduating from college I have certainly learned how to make children and grandchildren. For the longest time, I felt like that was enough knowledge of biology to satisfy my curiosity; I knew how to do my part to perpetuate of the species, and that was all I thought I needed to know. When these evangelists for atheism like Richard Dawkins began using their belief in evolution as justification for attacking belief in the existence of a creator God, I decided it was probably time for me to learn a bit more about this theory used to justify their claims of having eliminated the possibility that a supernatural God could exist. The Business Dictionary provides an excellent definition that I like which describes information as "Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty." As a former professional software developer, that definition seems both useful and apropos. Computers accept raw data as input. Software applications inside the computer process that raw data to convert it into useful information. The key phrase in the definition … [Read more...]
Oliver the humanzee, and The Origin of Species
The last thing on earth I want to do is create the impression that I'm obstinate, but I'm afraid that's may be my only choice -- unless I choose to go quietly into that good night, pretending that my curiosity has been completely sated, when in fact it hasn't. I almost wish I could fake it. But that will never be my style, I'm afraid. Long before I began writing Rocky Leonard detective novels, I admired the tenacity of fictional police detective Lieutenant Frank Columbo. I guess his stubborn refusal to never admit a problem might have stumped him rubbed off on me. Also, I graduated from the University of Georgia, which makes me a Bulldog -- creatures notorious for refusing to quit. Apparently, it's in my genes and chromosomes. Once I began writing detective novels, I realized I had to train my own mind to think like a detective. I had to learn to apply deductive reasoning in situations where I'm evaluating potential evidence. I'm afraid my reticence to simply believe and accept everything I'm told comes quite naturally to me, even when the information is coming from an authority figure. Trust, but verify. Those are words to live by. When I have questions I feel compelled to ask them, even if they don't get answered...because if I never ask my questions, no one even knows that I'm legitimately seeking answers. Of course, my stubbornness in refusing to believe something until I can understand it sometimes creates an impression that I'm unable, or unwilling to learn, and occasionally I alienate an acquaintance, sometimes even a friend. I have no desire to … [Read more...]
Reply from Dr. Ken Miller
Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University graciously took the time to respond to my onen letter that was addressed to him and Dr. Francis Collins. He has given me permission to publish his reply in full. I will not be making any editorial comments or raising additional questions at this time. I only wish to add my sincere gratitude to Dr. Miller for his kindness and the sincerity with which he answered my questions. I did take the liberty of highlighting excerpts from my original letter in bolded italics to make it easier to distinguish my questions from Dr. Miller's answers. Trust me, my questions are not more important than Dr. Miller's answers. That is not an impression I'm trying to create. Highlighting was added solely for purpose of improved readability. Without any further ado, it is my distinct pleasure and an honor to present Dr. Miller's unexpurgated, detailed reply: May 26, 2015 Dear Mr. Leonard, I don’t know if Dr. Collins will find the time, in the midst of his public duties, to respond to your open letter. But I do have a few minutes right now, after submitting all of my grades for the semester and having finished my last set of recommendation letters, to respond to your inquiries. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. I cannot speak for either Coyne or Collins, but I suspect they would answer this statement the same … [Read more...]
An open letter to Dr. Francis Collins (and Dr. Ken Miller)
Dear Dr. Collins, I'd like to begin by saying that I have tremendous respect for your work on the Human Genome Project. I enjoyed your book The Language of God so much that even quoted you a couple of times in my book, Counterargument for God. So, if there is a human being on planet Earth as qualified to answer my question as (atheist) biologist Jerry Coyne, it would appear to be either you, or (Catholic) biology professor Ken Miller, whose work I'm most familiar with from watching his lectures posted on You Tube that attack intelligent design. However, I did appreciate his calm and pleasant demeanor on display while he ridiculed my personal beliefs. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. Unsurprisingly, Professor Coyne didn't respond to his open letter. However, I didn't really try to hide the fact that I am a creationist and an advocate of intelligent design. Professor Coyne may have been hostile to the source, rather than the questions asked. In retrospect, I probably could have done a better job of framing my questions without antagonizing him. Professor Benoit LeBlanc was kind enough to attempt answering them, but unfortunately his answer required Deep Time that I don't believe is available in the scenario we're hopefully about to discuss. I don't believe my personal religious beliefs will keep either of you gentlemen from answering my questions because we are all … [Read more...]
