Language Log takes frequent note of strange things science journalists say. Their most recent is about the neuroscience of mothers watching children in distress. Here is part of what LL’s Mark Liberman’s had to say:

It’s rhetorically interesting that Ms. Parker-Pope takes the existence of brain differences observed by fMRI as evidence that the reactions in question are “hard-wired”, i.e. innate. No doubt the ability to recognize one’s children and the impulse to empathize with them have a substantial evolved biological substrate. But the fact that the psychological states in question are distinguishable in fMRI scans tells us nothing whatsoever about the balance between Nature and Nurture, in this case or in any other.

….

I guess that it’s the bizarre inference from observation in fMRI scans to innateness that makes this story at all newsworthy.

This is akin to the inference neuroscientists have made (examples here and here) that because they see no soul in their scans, therefore there is no such thing. (The Language Log posts notes later that the researchers themselves were partly guilty for the “bizarre inference.”) There’s an unjustified logical leap in both instances.

In the case of the soul, I suspect this reflects a bias that “if it isn’t science, it isn’t true,” or at least, “if it isn’t science, it isn’t knowledge.”

Now posted at Fish and Cans.

Media reports on Intelligent Design, with their frequent misunderstandings and distortions, can make a person cringe. Unfortunately, there are times when ID defenders and creationists can make you cringe, too. There are plenty of good ways to stand in sympathy with Intelligent Design, to support creationism (not the same topic, but closely enough related to be included in the same post), or to attack evolutionary theory. There are also some not-so-good ways.

Here are the three most serious mistakes to avoid:

1. Speaking Of What We Do Not Know
As an undergrad at Michigan State, I was for a time involved in the controversy on “scientific creationism,” which was drawing a lot of attention in Christian circles at the time. The discussion hinged around whether the fossils, rocks, and stars really pointed to an ancient earth, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 really demanded a young-earth interpretation. I came to a very freeing realization at the time: this is a very complex subject. Much of it is really for specialists. And I was a music major! Sure, I could read evolutionists’ opinions or creationists’ opinions, but could I form a knowledgeable opinion on the science? As for Genesis 1 and 2, even that was a matter of discussion among strongly principled Christian scholars. How literal is it to be taken? It has much of the characteristics of poetry–is it meant to be (at least somewhat) figurative?

I settled on this: I don’t know about the age of the earth. I am not qualified to settle the issue, even in my own mind. I’m thoroughly convinced (on other grounds) that God was intimately involved in whatever happened. I’m firmly convinced (also on independent grounds) that humans are uniquely made in God’s image, that we were created to be in fellowship with Him, that we went wrong in some way that Genesis 2 and 3 accurately portray even if some of it is figurative, and that Jesus Christ is the way back to a right relationship with God. The rest is complex and I need to study more before I decide.

I’ve done a whole lot of study since then. I know a whole lot more than I did then, and I have convictions now about some things I suspended judgment on earlier. But I’m still not a biologist or paleontologist. I could wish that I could study all the books and papers, and form my own independent conclusions on every aspect of the ID controversy, but it’s not possible. So I try to speak to topics on which I’ve done my homework.

Too often ID supporters, creationists, or Christians in general will dismiss evolution for reasons that are just wrong. Too often, it’s because all they’ve read is what ID supporters and creationists have written about it. You can’t understand ID by reading what Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers say about it, and you can’t understand evolution by reading what the Discovery Institute says about it. You have to read what each position’s supporters say. Otherwise you’re not ready to take a stand.

I am not saying you can’t have an opinion where you haven’t done your homework. I’m also not saying that what you know about God from other sources–revelation, apologetics, faith in general–has to be put on hold on account of this one topic. I am saying that we allought to admit what we don’t know, especially when the topic is as complex as this one.

ID skeptics aren’t asking my opinion, but the way they often misread and/or distort ID’s claims, it’s clear to me that many (not all, but many) of them have also not done their homework. (’Nuff said.)

2. Speaking Without Respect and Courtesy
ID supporters and creationists take note: evolution is not stupid, and evolutionists are not idiots. Evolution supporters also take note: ID and creationism are not stupid, and their supporters are not idiots. Ravi Zacharias said it well: “To the extent that you can make your opponent’s position look ridiculous, to that extent you probably do not understand it.” He could have added (and knowing how he speaks, I’m sure somewhere he has), to the extent you make it your business to make your opponent ridiculous, to that extent you’re defeating any purpose you have of being persuasive.

I’ve gotten myself embroiled today in a discussion about ID and religion on Panda’s Thumb. As of this afternoon, there are several commenters who have engaged me in this discussion respectfully, on a substantive level. There’s one commenter whose tone has not been so pleasant. Guess which ones I’m more likely to listen to? In fact, I’m not responding to or even reading anything further by that commenter.

Aristotle said rhetoric–including persuasion–involves logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is the word, the logic, the force of the argument. By itself it produces little persuasive effect, and does little good. Ethos is roughly credibility, that which causes the person to believe that the person has a right relationship to the topic, by virtue of study, experience, trustworthiness, and so on. Pathos has to do with the person’s relationship to the audience. The audience is always asking, though usually not consciously: Does this person understand me? Does his/her view of the topic have any relevance to me? Should I care about what this person cares about? All three of Aristotle’s factors are vital to effective communication.

And need I remind us of Christ’s example and command to love even our enemies, and to treat others as we would have them treat us?

3. Not Speaking of What We Do Know
I don’t want to be misunderstood as advocating a timid stance. That’s not what humility is about. We ought to speak clearly what we understand clearly, and present our convictions as convictions–things of which we are convinced. What we don’t understand clearly, for that matter, we can still feel free to discuss openly.

Tying The Three Together
For those who are Christians, Colossians 4:6 summarizes it best:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

It’s being gracious, and knowing, and from that stance, speaking and answering.
And Applying The Principles
There’s a movie coming out soon, Expelled, which is going to be very favorable to ID, and will certainly raise the volume of this debate. ID sympathizers, let’s not make the mistake of acting triumphalistic over it, or speaking as the whole question is settled for good–even if the movie really succeeds in making its case.
As the volume of debate raises, let’s raise the tone along with it.

For The Chapel at Kingsmill, where I’ll be speaking this morning, here’s a short resource list for learning more on the topic of the discussion:

Books To Start With

• Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
• Kingdom Triangle by J. P. Moreland
• The Reason for God by Tim Keller
• God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox

Websites

• Breakpoint (Chuck Colson)
• Stand to Reason
• Ravi Zacharias
• William Lane Craig
• A Four-part series on this Thinking Christian blog on Thinking Christianly, especially for non-specialists
• See also the blogroll links, at the very bottom of this page in the right-hand column

Outstanding Podcasts

• Ravi Zacharias
• Tim Keller

Magazines

• Touchstone
• Books and Culture

… all of this of course is to supplement the main thing, the Word of God.

This made absolutely no sense to me at first:

‘The major finding is that both patients and their families feel relief, not increased anxiety, upon learning the [Alzheimer's] diagnosis,’ says study co-author John C. Morris, M.D., the Harvey A. and Dorismae Hacker Friedman Distinguished Professor of Neurology and director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centre.

‘Nobody wants to hear the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, but even that is preferable to recognising there’s a problem and not knowing what it is. At least having the diagnosis allows people to make plans for the future, including treatment as appropriate.’

One reason an Alzheimer’s diagnosis can be comforting to both family members and patients, suggests Carpenter, is that it provides an explanation for what’s been going on with the patient. Caregivers, he notes, are often quick to attribute symptoms of dementia to the person, rather than the disease, and patients wonder if they are going ‘crazy.’ This study confirms that most patients, regardless of their degree of impairment, tend to experience a sense of relief after getting their diagnosis.

[From Science Centric | News | Dementia diagnosis brings relief, not depression]

How could it be a relief to find out you have Alzheimer’s? My wife and I were at an Alzheimer’s patient’s funeral just last Monday. He was a friend’s father; we didn’t know him ourselves. One family member told me that in spite of the pain of the loss, his death “really was a blessing for him” because his last few years had been so difficult. It is truly an awful, dread illness.

So how can it be a relief to find out you have it? How can it help to know–for the study included people in very early stages of impairment–that this disease is going to rule your future? Only one answer seems to make sense to me.

Do you know what a relief it is when you find out a problem isn’t “all in your head”? If you poke around the web a bit–search for “it was all in my head”–you’ll read about people with Restless Leg Syndrome (which I happen to have), lupus, fibromyalgia and other syndromes with subtle beginnings. They’ve been told they’re imagining things, or they’re going crazy, or that they’re just trying to get attention. In other words, they have a psychological problem. When I first had RLS symptoms I thought, “what’s wrong with me–why am I so anxious?”

Then they find out there’s a genuine organic cause for their malady. The cause may not be well understood–diseases with well-understood causes usually get diagnosed more quickly–but at least there’s consensus that whatever it is, it’s physical. It isn’t mental. It’s not a psychological problem. They’re not going crazy. People with depression often find it some comfort to think of it as a chemical imbalance.

Note again what Dr. Carpenter said:

Caregivers, he notes, are often quick to attribute symptoms of dementia to the person, rather than the disease, and patients wonder if they are going ‘crazy.’

First, caregivers find out the person is not the problem, it’s the disease. Second, patients learn they are “not going ‘crazy,’” they have an illness. This really is a source of relief, the relief of finding out “it’s not all in my head.”

But of course it is all in their heads. Where else would it be? That’s the question that takes this decidedly important and personal issue to an even broader level of application.

There are those who believe that we as persons (our intellectual, emotional, volitional, and personality aspects, that is which is how I’ll use “person” for the rest of this article) are fully explained by the physical processes in the brains. On that “physicalist” view, the person is the brain and its processes, and nothing else. And on that view it makes no sense to “attribute symptoms to the person, rather than the disease.” The disease is in the brain and gradually takes over. There’s no distinguishing the person from the disease, because the brain is all there is. The brain is ruled by the disease. The person has actually changed. It’s foolish and contradictory to say, “she’s the same person on the inside, she’s just suffering a horrible illness.” Like it or not, on a physicalist view, the person really is going crazy.

That is most decidedly not my view. I have often contested physicalism. I’m convinced we are more than physical. Our personhood is both physical and non-physical, and the non-physical–the soul–is the core. We interact with the physical world through the physical body, but the physical body is not the sum total of the person.

On this view, Alzheimer’s patients’ relief upon diagnosis makes sense. There’s a genuine and proper distinction: “It’s not me going crazy, it’s my brain getting fouled up.” Caregivers are right to distinguish the disease from the person.

Daniel Dennett, a leading physicalist philosopher of mind, calls these beliefs mistaken, a “folk psychology” attributable not to any correspondence with reality, but to some evolutionary advantage it has conferred. I acknowledge his objection. I can’t tell you how wrong I think he is.

I’ve argued this on a more formal level (a series beginning here, and also more recently here). This time, on an admittedly more emotional and informal level, I throw in my lot with the Alzheimer’s patients and their caregivers. The patients are not just their brains and bodies. They are not their disease. At their deepest core, they are not going crazy. Their souls survive the disease and, I think, actually escape it to become what they were apart from it. In the meantime they are experiencing a tragedy, but the tragedy is not who they are, it is something happening to them.

It takes a non-physicalist view of personhood to be able to say that. Most patients and their families have probably never thought about it in those terms–but surely if they view it that way, as most apparently do, they are on the right track.

The U.K.’s Register says Dawkins may protest too much:

Speaking at the Atheist Alliance convention in Virginia, Dawkins said: “I was never given a clue that these people were a creationist front,” adding that he wouldn’t have agreed to take part in the documentary if he had known its purpose.

Here at El Reg we are not known as supporters of the creationist or intelligent design camps, and we’d love to swing into a full and hearty rant about the evils of those crazy god-bothering loons in the US etc, really we would (you should see the letters bag when we have a pop at them. Hilarious).

But in this case, we can’t really see that Dawkins has much to complain about.

[From Fundy dunderheads make monkey of monkey man | The Register ]

Further:

But we suspect Dawkins and his mates are upset because their participation in the film makes them look a little foolish. Dawkins, of course, has made programmes himself in which his “opponents” don’t come off looking quite so hot, so perhaps this is a object lesson in karma, eh? (Not that this would exist in a completely random Universe)

Hat tip: Evolution New and Views

Jack Cashill writes:

Expelled opens nationwide on April 18th. The neo-Darwinists and their allies in the major media will do their best to kill it.

Co-producer Mark Mathis tells me that two network news producers have already chosen not to cover the film because it was “biased,” unlike, say, the much-covered Fahrenheit 911.

[From The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed ]

Neo-Darwinists are indeed lining up against this film. Controversy is rising. It remains to be seen how it will all play out: how many people will view this film? Will it seem believable to most of them? Will it succeed in making its case? Based on Cashill’s review it seems at least possible:

The choice of Stein as narrator is inspired for another reason. That reason becomes most apparent when he and two “creationist” allies, mathematician David Berlinski and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder, visit a remnant of the Berlin Wall, the central metaphor of the film.

At the wall, the three discuss the value of freedom, the central idea of the film, and the need for the same in science. The audience has already met Berlinski, an amusingly sophisticated American living in Paris.

The audience has seen less of Schroeder, but he is wearing a yarmulke. All three are Jewish.

Indeed, it would be hard to imagine any three individuals on the planet who less resemble the Inherit the Wind stereotype that Darwinists have been scaring soccer moms with for the last half century.

And wait until you read what he said about Dawkins admitting to the real possibility of a designer!

So let’s suppose the film succeeds in its intent, which is to raise awareness of severe restrictions on academic freedom of thought and inquiry for those are sympathetic to Intelligent Design.

Then what?

I’m going to speak to people like me who at least sympathize with Intelligent Design, and who know that it is routinely misrepresented by the media and by its detractors. Sure, if this film makes its point, we’re going to feel some considerable satisfaction.

Then what?

Intelligent Design will not be proved by this film. It will remain a theory under siege. Skeptics will continue to claim that evolution can produce irreducible complexity and the massive information stores found within DNA. They will continue to prefer the many-worlds theory for the universe’s fine-tuning, rather than admit there might be a God who made it that way. And this film won’t change that.

So, then what?

Evolutionists have been telling us for years that no true scientist doubts the basic neo-Darwinian story, and that this whole controversy thing is a public relations scheme concocted by right-wing religionists. If Expelled comes across as credible, they’re in for some serious embarrassment. It might mean the beginning of the end of a dogmatic stranglehold they’ve kept on the universities.

So, then what?

Then Intelligent Design would still have to make its case. What Expelled might do for ID–not immediately, but in the course of time–is provide it some breathing room, some freedom to speak openly, to seek funding from more diverse sources. It might allow more scientists who now secretly sympathize with ID to actually do some work on it openly. It could certainly open the door for research to accelerate. But the research has to be done, and the scientific case has to be made in scientific ways (not, however, meaning that it has to assume the truth of philosophical materialism, as some scientists claim).

And in the meantime, what?

Many Christians believe we have a stake in Intelligent Design’s scientific success. There’s a modicum of truth to that: if ID were ever to be established on scientific grounds, that would strengthen grounds for belief in God. It wouldn’t prove God. If skeptics can resort to the many-worlds hypothesis to explain cosmological fine-tuning, they can find other non-theistic ways to explain anything ID might put forth. And really, the evidence for God is already there. So our stake in ID as an apologetic for Christianity, while it exists, is not huge.

Let’s put it more bluntly: God made it through centuries without our knowing about cellular nanomachinery or the complexity of the genetic code. He can get along without our proving he is behind it all now.

On the other hand, we have a real stake in a correct understanding of Intelligent Design (whatever that correct understanding may be) for the sake of truly knowing reality. It’s no less important than understanding optics or relativity or plate tectonics. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge. Expelled is saying that some of that pursuit has been shut down. Opening it up for broader–yet still responsible–research can only be good for science.

And also in the meantime:

If what we’re really after is an apologetic for the truth of Christianity, let’s remember it’s not just the answers we find but the way we conduct ourselves along the way: without manipulation, without gloating (if the film makes succeeds, for example), without bending data; and instead of these, with a strong determination to conduct our side of the controversy with respect, charity, and a commitment to the truth.

Related:

• Expelled: The Pre-Controversy
• Expelled: The Pre-Controversy (Part 2)

It’s Christian Carnival Time!

We begin with a collection of posts having to do with Biblical understanding and application:

At Light Along the Journey, John looks at the nature of the faith that transformed the life of Bartimaeus in the post Blind Faith.

Richard H. Anderson presents A Brief History of the Covenant Relationship, posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.

Tom Fuerst, at Theology for the Masses, discusses Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and a Reversal of Violence.

Also from Theology for the Masses, but by a different author, Henry Imler: Justice.

And again, Cheapham presents On creation posted at Theology for the Masses. (Check out the comments for some thoughtful ideas, too.)

Rey from the Bible Archive wades in the deep end of the pool with thoughts on Psalm 110, Melchizedek and Christian Theology.

From Weekend Fisher Blog: Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. One thing God has spoken; a look at the basis for the classical Jewish view that a verse may legitimately have multiple levels of meaning.

We continue with further discussions on the Christian life:

Rich Vosler presents Pruning makes growth for new life posted at Sales Training Tips.

James DeLelys has a parable to tell, Farming, at Healing Through Words.

FMF presents To Tithe or Not? Being Rich Toward God posted at Free Money Finance.

The Evangelical Ecologist provides us with a Book Review - One Month to Live.

Thoughts on how we live it all out through church:

Do you really know what is going on in your church’s youth department? You should visit sometime…you might be shocked! Diane R presents Your Church’s Youth Department? posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.

Thom presents The Importance of Silence posted at Everyday Liturgy, commenting on noisy church services, and offering thoughts on the place of silence in church.

Next, we move into ethics, theology, and apologetics:

Ali presents Stop Discrimination Against People With Down’s Syndrome. posted at Kiwi and an Emu: a post dealing with the abortion of fetuses who likely have Down’s Syndrome. Written from an Australasian perspective - “applicable to Americans,” says Ali, “but not at all related to ‘certain policital issues’ over there.”

Often Christians sidestep or give pat answers to the problem of evil. Doug looks at the possibility that evil was necessary: Necessary Evil posted at Bounded Irrationality.

“More people have slaughtered in religious wars than all other wars combined.” John asks, Do you think this statement is true? War and Religion posted at Brain Cramps for God.

Jeremy Pierce presents Muslims Worshiping But Not Worshiping God posted at Parableman. Do Muslims worship God, i.e. the same God Christians worship? This post argues that the answer is more complicated than a yes or no, but technically the answer is yes the way many people mean the question, even if that’s misleading in certain contexts (i.e. when people mean something else).

ChrisB asks, Is Systematic Theology Bad? posted at Homeward Bound: The Christian religion is certainly more than a set of facts. But there are facts that need to be kept straight. It’s an important tool in the Christian faith, and its occasional misuse should not deter us from its regular use.

At Thinking Christian I take a look at an approaching controversy over the Intelligent Design-related film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in a series beginning with Expelled: The Pre-Controversy.

And we close with some refreshingly creative-arts related topics:

At the Seek Truth Blog, Brett Martenson has a poem for us, A Long Winter’s Psalm, lamenting the current weather (in the US midwest anyway) and alluding to deeper, spiritual yearnings.

Henry Neufeld discusses Learning from Stories posted at Jevlir Caravansary: using stories from various perspectives in teaching–whether you agree with the characters or not.

Annette presents a hymn she likes; she says, “It’s one worth getting to know:” Saved By Grace posted at Fish and Cans.

Yesterday we heard about claims that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed employed deception in interviews with Intelligent Design opponents. Today, the other broiling controversy:

As for publicity, the filmmakers are apparently relying on bribery to promote their propaganda. Gotta spend money to make money, right? Schools will be “paid” according to the number of ticket stubs they collect. You’d think that a creationist propaganda movie would have other publicity options at Christian fundamentalist schools. But apparently, nothing is a sin when you’re doing the work of God. Bribery, brainwashing, crusading … it’s all for the greater good.

Aaron Elias, New University Online, University of California, Irvine

The charge is that the film’s producers are bribing Christian schools to bring their students to see it. L. Ron Brown (The Frame Problem) echoes:

Producers of the Intelligent Design propaganda film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed are trying to bribe Christian schools in America to facilitate or even force their students to go see their movie.

It’s a marketing tactic. Schools that purchase large blocks of tickets for their students will receive donations from the production company.

Does anybody remember the Golden Compass movie? Its producers tried to market it through an “Amazing Student Sweepstakes (pdf)” and by trying to persuade teachers to make the related books required reading. Sure, I raised a big complaint about that. It was not, however, that it was so horrible to try to market a film through schools, or to use monetary incentives. My complaint was just that it was wrong–on Constitutional grounds–to make required reading of materials that were so markedly hostile toward religion.

So what’s the problem with Expelled? It’s “propaganda,” says Aaron Elias, “brainwashing, crusading … ” The problem, in other words, is that Aaron Elias and L. Ron Brown disagree with the movie’s message. Which they haven’t even seen yet. What if the movie makes its case successfully? Maybe that’s the real fear.

Next in this series: How ID proponents ought to deal with the pre-controversy, and prepare for the real controversy when the movie appears.

Related:

Expelled: Then What?

The Best Headline Ever?

“Skywalkers in Korea Cross Han Solo”

It’s a real story, from Washingtonpost.com

Hat Tip to The Point