Is my blog an ID blog?

My blog has taken on a decidedly Intelligent Design slant.

I don't know how long it will last. When I started this blog I was somewhat adamant about staying away from science. The first two years of posts are almost exclusively theological. To be honest, I find theology more interesting than Intelligent Design. At the moment, however, I think championing cosmological ID is my most effective ministry.

(I will, however, finish posting my Sunday School lectures on Church History. And there will still be a sprinkling of theological posts.)

My adversaries, if that is the correct term, are both the scientist/atheists and Christian fundamentalists. Both make the same, erroneous assumption: Christianity and science are incompatible. While this is an understandable error for an atheist, it is completely illogical for a believer, because the scientific laws come from God—Christianity and science must be compatible.

Sadly, the most insidious approach, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists who actually believe science is at war with the bible, but pretend otherwise. How do they accomplish this misdirection? By using "bad" science instead of real science. I am referring to the so-called creation scientists who try to use "science" to disprove science. They accomplish this with bizarre Rube Goldberg theories including (but by no means limited to) postulating that independent radiometric dating methods are not just wrong, but they somehow conspire to give the same wrong answer.

The bottom line is that they postulate a God who is tricking us. He has created a universe that not only has apparent age but also false memories of its birth. Remnant heat (at just the right temperature) from a big bang that never occurred; arriving light which details exploding supernovae that never actually existed.

There is not a single iota of evidence in the bible that God decreed the scientific method and planted fake evidence to test the faith of believers.

I have posted this (in a slightly different form) before, but I think it bears repeating:

1. When the bible and science disagree, the bible is always right.
   
   
2. When Christians and science disagree, science is usually right.

The first point is really just to create a contrast with the second. The bible and nature, the study of the latter being the chief concern of science, are both from God. The bible and correct science will never disagree. A good example is the steady-state theory of the universe, which posited (in various forms) that the universe always has been and always will be. This is clearly at odds with the bible's clear teaching (interpretation independent) that God created the universe ex nihilo. Something had to give—and what gave was science. The steady-state theory was jettisoned in the face of compelling and biblically compatible evidence that there was a creation event: the big bang.

The second point is where the problem lies as far as fundamentalists are concerned. Christians are not infallible in their biblical exegesis. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not six thousand. If all the science that gives us that answer is wrong, then nothing that we have built that uses that science should function. It always amazes me that someone would use a computer, with semiconductor components designed using quantum mechanics, to write an essay claiming that the same quantum mechanics fails in radiometric dating.

If you think the bible teaches that the earth is six thousand years old I have news for you. Science is not wrong. The bible is not wrong. You are wrong. You have (correctly) assumed biblical inerrancy, but have overlaid an incorrect literalist hermeneutic on Genesis 1.

How do I know this? Why am I so confident that I am right and you are wrong? Because our intellect, our curiosity, and our planet's superior observability are gifts from God, not snares to test our faith. The simplest explanation for the supposed incompatibility places the blame squarely on you: you are interpreting God's inerrant bible incorrectly.

As for the other group of adversaries, the atheist/scientists, I had my eyes opened in the last year or so. Having spent all my adult life among physicists, I never, not once, encountered one who was antagonistic toward Christianity. But as I started to read the evolution blogs I discovered that biologists, at least those who blog, are a particularly nasty breed who write, quite often, with irrelevant invective.

The evolutionist bloggers reflect rather poorly, I suspect, on actual scientists in the life science disciplines. They write like arrogant bullies, using locker-room language to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree. They claim to be scientists but they don't publish any science. In short they are, in fact, our best friends and their own worst enemies—their strident fundamentalism is a boon to our cause. No reasonable person would want to be associated with them.

Here are some of the common ways in which the evolution blogs are duplicitous:

• They love to state that the Catholic Church, from the pope on down, is OK with evolution. They omit the fact Rome places a big caveat on her approval: evolution is acceptable, as long as it does not exclude divine causality and does not oppose Genesis. While no atheist evolutionist is willing to accept the restriction of divine causality, they are happy to trot out, when it suits them, the Catholic Church, as a paragon of progressive thinking in matters of science, especially when compared to conservative Protestant mouth-breathing rubes. But they never, ever mention the conditions Rome places on her flock. And of course, they are not so kind to Rome if the subject of abortion or gay marriage or female clergy arises. And sometimes, displaying their true colors, they are just downright repulsive.
  
  
• They love to point out that IDers are, universally, theists (except for a few token ID atheists). At the same time they deny that evolutionists are biased toward atheism. So at least in the (reasonable) model that you are either an evolutionist or an IDer, they are willing to proclaim a mathematically impossible position. The truth is, if IDers are biased toward theism, then evolutionists are biased toward atheism. And in fact, it is not easily discerned whether the cause is theists drifting toward ID, or atheists toward evolution.
  
  
• They like to argue, when it suits them, that there are many examples of speciation (macro-evolution.) And they like to argue, when it suits them, that the concept of species is ill-defined and possibly an anachronism.
  
  
• They like to argue that it is unfair for IDers to talk of design while setting aside, as irrelevant, the attributes of the designer. Yet it is more than fair, they claim, to talk about evolution while setting aside the troublesome question of how life began in the first place.
  
  
• They like to argue that ID is not science because it doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. (And when it does, it doesn't count; and ironically some of the greatest criticisms on this front comes from bloggers who claim to be scientists but have no continuous record of peer-reviewed publications of their own.) At the same time, they argue ID should not be published in peer reviewed journals because it is not science. And they proclaim a myth of a "level playing field."
  
  
• They formed a grandly named National Center for Science Education, which is nothing of the sort. Go there and look for something on new methods of teaching physics or chemistry. It should be there unless the organization is engaging in false advertising.
  
  
• They use the term creationist in inconsistent ways. By the usual reckoning, I am not a creationist, but I often get called that. Fair enough; if creationist implies a belief that God created the universe, then I am proud to bear the title. However, they never use the term when they put pro-evolution Christians on display. They never say you can be a creationist and evolutionist, only that you can be a Christian (usually a Catholic) and an evolutionist. They never call their biggest prize, Brown Professor Ken Miller, a creationist. But in the sense they call me a creationist, all Christians, including Ken Miller, are creationists. In the broad way they want to use creationist, it applies to their trophy adherents just as well.
  
  
• They tend to be very libertarian: The government should not interfere with reproductive rights. The government should not prevent gays from getting married. However when it comes to education, they are totalitarian. The Federal government must use all power at its disposal to intervene in school districts and ensure that local communities do not create their own curricula. And they are willing to label parents who raise their children as Christians as child abusers and Christians (IDers) as Taliban.
  
  
• With no scientific achievements of their own, they characterize Nobel Laurates as babblers and scientific frauds if they happen to question evolutionist dogma.

Strangely enough, in spite of what I've just written, I never engage in the evolution debate. I even believe that evolution, as the currently best theory, should be what is taught in the classroom. And I do not think that biological ID should be part of the science curriculum.

I do, however, think that a biology teacher should be allowed (but not required) to mention ID. One result of all the legal battles the evolutionists are waging against ID is a severe restriction on the ability of teachers to follow rabbit trails. Teachers going outside the curriculum, in any course, even when it is clear that it is just their opinion they're spouting, is incredibly valuable. I argued with teachers all the time and was better off for the experience. It won't be long (if it is not already here) until a teacher who mentions ID gets fired. School should not be like this. Students have discernment, and it is beneficial that they learn to evaluate the teacher's beliefs. What the evolutionists are creating is a sterile, unexciting, formulaic classroom where the teacher had better consult and attorney before deviating a micron from state-imposed lesson plan.

Of course I have always harbored a bias when it comes to the sciences: physics rules the day. Compared to physics, biology is kind of wimpy, if you ask me. Physics makes grand predictions: There should be anti-matter, look here to find it. Mercury's orbit should precess, look here to find it. Carbon must have an unknown energy level, go look and you'll find it.

Evolution makes no such gutsy predictions. Is there life on Mars? No prediction. If there is life on Mars, will it be microbes or something more complex? No prediction—there is just the sense that whatever is found will be accommodated into the framework.

Evolution is exceedingly weak in the falsification front. When that subject is brought up, there are two particularly annoying responses: (1) evolution is so well established that it has progressed beyond the falsification stage or (2) sure you can falsify evolution, just find evidence of a miracle such as pre-Cambrian human remains. (The latter is akin to claiming gravity is falsifiable, just wait to see if the Reverend Al Sharpton floats off into space in mid diatribe.)

The bottom line is that evolution is just not that important and not that big of a deal. YECs like to use the analogy that evolution is like a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747. That analogy misses the boat: the amazing fact would not be that the 747 was assembled, the real miracle would be that all the components of a 747 just happened to be there. Likewise, evolution is not the big deal, the fact that we have galaxies and stars and planets and at least one of them is habitable is far more astounding. I wish the battle were being fought on the cosmological front rather than on the tiny battlefield known as evolution.

Fine tuning: a new result

Cosmological ID is based on two facts:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe
2. The uniqueness of the universe

I have argued many times that cosmological ID is falsifiable, by disproving either of these points.

How does one disprove fine tuning? It is not in the way that is commonly believed. Take a simple example of fine-tuning: the strength of the strong nuclear force. If it were about two percent weaker, life-essential heavy elements would be unstable. If it were about two percent stronger, then quarks would not form into protons, so there'd be no ordinary matter at all. Two percent either way, and there would be no life.

Does this fine tuning rely on the fact that we do not have a fundamental theory regarding the strength of the nuclear force? No, not at all. If it did, then it would be legitimately subject to a God-of-the-gaps criticism. A more fundamental theory that calculated from first principles the strength of the force would not save the day for those who seek to discredit fine tuning. ¹ A theory that predicts the strength of the nuclear force says nothing about the sensitivity of a habitable universe to the calculated value. We would still have the same fine tuning "problem." If anything, the appearance of design would be strengthened, for no longer would the "just right" value seem to be the result of a lucky accident, but rather the inevitable result of a highly designed first-principle law.

No, to disprove fine-tuning you have to show that the sensitivity to small changes in physical constants is an illusion. This will be exceedingly difficult. The disastrous effects of varying the strengths of the fundamental forces, the expansion rate of the universe, Planck's constant, etc. are straightforward and non-controversial.

And today, via Hugh Ross's daily reason, we have another example of fine-tuning, and example of a type which would still survive an unlikely dismantling of the sensitivity of life to the values of the physical constants.

A little background:

The moon is essential for life for a variety of reasons including the cleansing effects of the tides and the stability of the earths tilt and rotation.

The moon is big enough to provide these benefits, but if it were slightly bigger it would be unstable. ²

The moon probably formed as a result of a collision of a Mars-sized object with the earth, when our planet was about 250 million years old. This collision blasted away a poisonous atmosphere and left the earth with a "just right" mass such that its gravity can retain water vapor but not the slightly lighter (and toxic) ammonia and methane.

But where did this planetoid come from, and why didn't it obliterate the earth? Here is the abstract of a recent paper that tackles this question:

The current standard theory of the origin of the Moon is that Earth was hit by a giant impactor the size of Mars, causing ejection of iron-poor impactor mantle debris that coalesced to form the Moon. But where did this Mars-sized impactor come from? Isotopic evidence suggests that it came from 1 AU radius in the solar nebula, and computer simulations are consistent with its approaching Earth on a zero-energy parabolic trajectory. But how could such a large object form in the disk of planetesimals at 1 AU without colliding with Earth early on, before having a chance to grow large or before its or Earth's iron core had formed? We propose that the giant impactor could have formed in a stable orbit among debris at Earth's L4 (or L5) Lagrange point. We show that such a configuration is stable, even for a Mars-sized impactor. It could grow gradually by accretion at L4 (or L5), but eventually gravitational interactions with other growing planetesimals could kick it out into a chaotic creeping orbit, which we show would likely cause it to hit Earth on a zero-energy parabolic trajectory. We argue that this scenario is possible and should be further studied. (Belbruno and Gott, The Astronomical Journal, 129, 1724-1745, 2005)

Now, I have no clue whether this hypothesis will stand the test of time. But what is impressive about it is how "finely tuned" their hypothesis is—that a planetoid of just the right size could have struck the earth (at just the right time) with just the right type of glancing blow—it requires that the planetoid formed at one of the earth's Lagrange points. (Lagrange discovered five special points where a third, smaller mass can orbit at a fixed distance from the sun and earth. These are the only positions where the gravitational pull of the earth and sun precisely equals the centripetal force required for the smaller mass to rotate with them.)

If this result stands, it is a big "W" for team Cosmological ID.

---

¹ More fundamental theories would effect the (in my opinion ill-advised) calculations of the probability of the universe, such as those made by Hugh Ross. That is why I do not include those calculations as a "plank" of cosmological ID. A hypothetical theory of everything would, in some sense, leave us with a probability of unity for a habitable universe. It would however, have no effect on the validity of the fine-tuning argument.
² Dave Waltham, Astrobiology 4, No. 4: 460-468 (2004)

What's in it for me?

I'm usually the last person to hear a joke. By the time I repeat it, I get the "heard that one" look or comment. But since I can neither see nor hear any of you, I'm going to take a chance with this one.

A ship was sailing near a small, remote island when the crew noticed three huts near the shore, with smoke coming from the hut on the left. Since the island was supposed to be uninhabited, they sent a team ashore to investigate.

They a found a man in the hut that was spewing smoke.

"Man am I glad to see you guys," he said. "I've been stranded alone on this island for ten years."

"What's the middle hut for?" One of the crew asked.

"That is my church," the man replied.

"And the last hut, the one on the right?"

"Oh, that's my previous church."

People switch churches all the time. Often for the wrong reason—because they aren't "getting something" out of their current church. Not long ago we had someone leave our church because he and his family were not being "fed", but neither the parents nor the children came to Sunday School. A young man left with the same complaint, along with the concern that he was the only twentyish guy in the congregation. (On a related note, a bible study aimed at a specific adult age group is a pet peeve of mine. Once you're an adult, you're an adult. Any programs aimed at the "special needs twenty-somethings in the church" should be eradicated.)

While church shopping, the ennui crowd is treated like royalty. That convinces them that their current church is not user friendly. The idea that church is for glorifying God gets lost in all the excitement of a fresh start at a place where they just know they'll experience greater spirituality.

Book Availability Update

Here, Eyeball This! is available

• From the publisher
  
• From Amazon
  
• From Barnes and Noble
• Electronically

---

The Anthology CyberTales (in which I have a short story) is available

• From the publisher
  
• Electronically

Something about Luke (my son)

My older son Luke is autistic. In perhaps my most popular post ever, I wrote about him here. (Sadly I lost all the comments when I changed providers.)

Luke plays the piano and violin. (He made all-state on the violin this year--and he is better on piano.)

We were at church Wednesday, and Luke was sitting at the piano ready to play some hymns before prayer. First I asked Luke to choose one, which he did. Then I asked if anyone had a request.

A lady began flipping through her hymnal. "Is Like a River Glorious in here?" she asked. Almost before she finished her question, Luke calmly announced, "Number 498."

I've seen him do it before, but it always amazes me. In fact, he can do it for two different hymnals, the one we used at our previous church and the one at our current church. He can do it both ways: name→number and number→name. And he can tell you the key, which often is different for the many hymns that appear (at different places) in both hymnals.

I am sure Luke has a photographic memory. The first time I realized this, we were sitting in the café at a Barnes and Noble in Virginia Beach. Luke was about seven. He wasn't in a great mood, so I wanted to do something that I knew he liked. There is an old, beautiful, brick road from Yorktown to Jamestown called the Colonial Parkway. Luke loved driving on that road, but we hadn't done it for at least a year, probably closer to two. I asked him if he wanted to go, and he giggled and said yes.

The parkway has quite a few tunnels. By tunnels, I include underpasses, because over the years highways and roads have gone over the parkway so that it could be preserved. Anyway, Luke did not distinguish, at that time, between a tunnel and an underpass.

I don't know why, but I decided to ask Luke how many tunnels were on the parkway. He looked out the window and began counting.

"One, two, three," (pause) "four, five, six," (longer pause) "seven" (short pause) "eight, nine, ten", (long pause), "eleven", (very long pause) "twelve." ^†

I knew he was driving the route in his mind, counting tunnels, and the length of the pause was proportional to the distance between one tunnel and the next.

I had to see this.

We drove to Yorktown and got on the Parkway. In no time we went under three adjacent underpasses and, after just a bit, three more.

Just like he said.

And so it went, with everything matching his count and pauses. We came upon the eleventh tunnel just past Williamsburg, not far beyond the halfway point of the road, which has a total length of twenty-three miles.

On and on we drove. I remembered that final, really long pause. Still it seemed to take forever.

Just as we were running out of road (it ends at a ferry station where you can cross the James River), where we had to turn off into Jamestown, we finally came upon number twelve.

Luke is so cool.

---

^†I’m working from my highly flawed memory, so if you live in Yorktown don’t put me to the test. I could ask Luke, but he is practicing piano. The most dramatic part, the long distance until the last tunnel, on that detail I am certain.

Lesson 23 Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Martin Luther was born in Eisleben, Germany, a century after the death of John Wycliffe. His father was a miner, and his parents provided Martin with a first class humanist education, with the hope that he would become a lawyer. God had different plans.

In 1505, Luther received his Master’s degree and proceeded to study Law. He wouldn’t be a law student for long. One day Luther was returning home from a visit to Mansfeld. As he neared the village of Storterheim, he found himself in the rages of a severe thunderstorm. Suddenly, a bolt of lightning struck the ground next to him, throwing him off his horse (and killing his friend and traveling companion). Terrified, Luther cried out, "St. Anne, help me! I will become a monk!" He kept his word. On July 17, 1505, Luther entered the most rigorous of the seven major monasteries at Erfurt, the Augustinian priory. Luther's father was outraged at the decision, and remained alienated from his son for some considerable time.

In 1507, Luther was ordained as a priest. He was sent from Erfurt to Wittenberg to become a tutor at the university. There he obtained his first degree, a Bachelor’s degree in the bible. After one year he was transferred back to Erfurt. There, at age twenty-six, he obtained his second degree in theology.

While teaching in Efurt, Luther was sent to Rome on monastery business. While there he was shocked by the city’s decadence. He also visited many shrines, including Scala Santa. The twenty-eight marble stairs carefully preserved in this handsome building are said in Catholic tradition to be the steps walked up by Christ on his way to trial before Pilate. St. Helena, mother of the Constantine, was a collector of relics, and the staircase is supposedly among her finds, brought to Rome in c.326 AD.

According to Luther’s son Paul (there is no other confirmation of the episode), when Luther was crawling up these stairs, about halfway up, he heard a voice saying “The just shall live by faith.” It is said the realization of what he was doing and its inconsistency with the words he heard caused him to get up, turn about, and walk down the stairs. Nevertheless, at this time Luther returned to Efurt as a loyal Catholic.

Shortly thereafter Luther returned to Wittenberg and earned a Doctor of Theology degree. For the rest of his life he would lecture on the bible at the university.

In the monastery, Luther lived a life of severe asceticism. He prayed, fasted, and chastised himself well beyond the strictest standards of the monastery. From fasting, he wasted away until he was skeletal, and even in the dead of winter his cell remained unheated. He would, at times, beat himself bloody with a whip. It is said that other priests dreaded taking Luther’s confessions, for each daily confession, covering only the sins since the previous day, could take up to six hours. Luther, in spite of the (perhaps apocryphal) insight on the steps of the Scala Santa, was trying to obtain salvation through his works. But no matter how hard he tried, he could never convince himself that he had done enough.

Some light shone in the darkness. He found comfort in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, who stressed the free grace Christ of salvation. He was greatly influenced by the writings of Augustine, so much so that although it occurred over a millennium after his death, some have said that Augustine, not Luther was the father of the Reformation. But most of all, he studied the bible.

Sometime toward the end of 1512, Luther was in his cell, having launched into a study of the book of Romans. There he read:

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Rom. 1:17)

He would later say an unspeakable joy flooded his heart and his oppressive burden to prove himself worthy was lifted away. For Luther, Romans 1:17 was “a gate to Paradise”.

Indulgences Revisited

Indulgences grew out of the system of penance developed by the Catholic Church. In an indulgence, the Catholic Church allowed the penitent to substitute a cash payment for other forms of satisfaction. The Church would even issue an official statement saying that one had been released from other penalties. It was this official document that was called an indulgence. In a sense, the indulgence amounted to e receipt for payment of a fine.

Additionally, one could purchase indulgences for those who were dead, to reduce their time in purgatory. This was based on the Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit.

Catholicism and Merit

Catholics speak of three types of merit, each of which plays a role in salvation:

• 
  Condign Merit. This is merit attributed to our works for which God is obligated to give reward. This is like paying a laborer his due wages.
  
• 
  Congruous Merit. This is merit that is “reasonable”, but not obligated. In secular terms, it is something like a waitress’ tip. It is attained through works and penance.
  
• 
  Supererogatory Merit. This is the stuff of saints. It is their “excess” merit and it is deposited in a treasury of supererogatory merits. It can then be drawn upon to free people from purgatory. Attaining supererogatory merit is also possible for a priest living a life of celibacy in devotion to Christ. A layman can accrue supererogatory merit through regular church attendance and constant attention to the sacraments. Mary is thought to have contributed enormous excess merit into the treasury.

The Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit is based on an interpretation of the story of the rich young ruler.

¹⁷And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" ²⁰And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." ²¹And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." ²²Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:17-22)

According to Catholic teaching, the ruler was saved. The fact that he could do more means that there would have been further reward. That reward would have come in the form of supererogatory merit.

At Luther's time, the sale of indulgences had reached scandalous proportions. (Luther was not predisposed against indulgences, in fact at one time, lamenting over the spiritual health of his parents, he offered that, if they died, then at least through his purchase of indulgences there would be a way in which he could help them.) The most notorious of the salesmen employed by the Church to sell indulgences (and fund the construction of St. Peter’s) was a Dominican friar by the name of Johan Tetzel. Tetzel's territory included the area of Wittenberg. His sales pitch included the infamous: "The moment you hear your money drop in the box, your mother will jump out of purgatory."

The Ninety-five Theses

With his newfound peace—many would say as a result of his recent conversion while reading Romans 1:17—Luther could no longer tolerate the crass abuses of the church, personified by the indulgence salesman Tetzel. He went to his cell and put down his views in the form of ninety-five theses. Around noon on October 31, 1517, he nailed the theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. It should be noted that this was a common practice among academics of the time. Scholars would post theses (propositions) on any number of topics and challenge one another to public debates.

This was not the Reformation: Luther did not advocate a schism. But it was the first shot across the bow. Here are a few examples:

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

At this time, Luther was thirty-four years old.

The most striking thing about the theses is that they were far from central. They were concerned with relatively minor issues—questions of related to the sacraments, purgatory, and to indulgences and some criticisms of the pope. Nowhere in the ninety-five theses did Luther rise to defend the individual priesthood of believers or the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Although Luther, from his reading of Romans, was already stewing in Reformation juices, his theses were not very juicy at all. That is the reason why nobody was more surprised that Luther that his theses seemed to awaken all of Germany. The theses included a challenge, for any doctor of theology, to debate him. The challenge was not accepted for two years.

The news of the theses spread throughout Germany. Here we see God’s providence at work. The ruler of Saxony (the area that includes Wittenberg) was one Frederick the Wise. Frederick was a very pious Catholic. He had collected thousands of relics from all over Christendom. The Castle Church, whose door Luther utilized, had been built by Frederick to house the relics. He would put them on display for the public on All Saint’s Day, November 1st. Thus when Luther posted on All Saint’s Eve, the area was bursting with pilgrims who read his theses, copied them, and returned home to cities throughout Germany, spreading the word. Furthermore, printing had been invented, and soon the theses were translated from Latin into a number of languages, printed, and sent to cities throughout Europe.

The effect was tremendous, and almost stopped the sale of indulgences. The archbishop of Mainz, who was to receive a cut of all the proceeds from indulgences sold by Tetzel, was not thrilled. He sent a copy of the theses to Pope Leo X in Rome. At first, Leo did not regard it as a serious matter. He simply advised Luther’s superiors to tell Luther to keep quiet.

Tetzel published a set of theses of his own, defending the sale of indulgences. Mazzolini, a Dominican monk (and inquisitor) wrote a book highly critical of Luther’s position. A theology professor by the name of John Eck rebutted Luther in a pamphlet. Luther countered with a pamphlet of his own.

In April, 1518, the monasteries of the Augustinian Order held their annual meeting in Heidelberg. Luther encountered strong but mostly congenial opposition. Upon return, Luther wrote a book entitles Resolutions, addressed to the pope, in which he carefully defended his theses, point by point.

It has been said that from this time on, Luther lived in a glass house. Every word he spoke, and every word he wrote was carefully analyzed. He was on a cart, racing downhill, and he had no brakes.

Luther Summoned to Rome

The popularization of Luther and his theses hit the pope in two places: it challenged his power and it reduced his purse. When the pope was told that the meeting of the Augustinians had not silenced Luther, he summoned Luther to Rome, in July 1518. If Luther had responded to this summons, it probably would have meant death.

Fortunately Luther had a friend in the Elector Frederick (the Wise). He also had some history on his side: for years the German people had grievances against the Italian popes. A bit of German nationalism was Luther’s friend. Frederick had actually forbidden Tetzel to sell indulgences in Saxony—he did not want his country’s money ending up in Roman coffers. Furthermore, the university in Wittenberg was Frederick's pride and joy, and Luther was now its most famous professor. Frederick used all his influence to have the summons to Rome revoked. The reason the pope listened to Frederick was likely political. The emperor at the time, Maximilian, was dying. Frederick was one of three likely successors, and the one favored by the pope—who believed that Frederick would be easy to control. The pope granted Frederick’s request, both to signal favor toward him and a false signal that he had great respect for Frederick’s authority.

Cardinal Cajetan

At this time, the pope's legate, Cardinal Cajetan, was in Germany to attend a diet in Augsburg. The pope sent Cajetan a letter empowering him to summon Luther for an appearance. Cajetan was to speak to Luther in Augsburg and persuade him to recant. If Luther did not recant, Cajetan was to have him bound and sent to Rome. Having previously declared that Luther was "suspected" of heresy, the pope now dropped all pretenses and openly described Luther as a notorious heretic. Luther was once again in grave danger.

And once again, his patron Frederick came to his assistance. This time Frederick used his influence to obtain from the sickly Maximilian a promise of safe passage for Luther.

In October, 1518, Luther had three meetings with Cajetan, who by all accounts was imperious and arrogant. The discussions were hot and furious. In the end, Luther refused to recant. He stole away from Augsburg secretly in the night.

Cajetan, having failed, appealed to the pope to make an official pronouncement. The pope took an interesting approach. Without mentioning Luther by name, he issued a bull in which he declared that certain statements made by certain monks regarding indulgences were heretical. From then on, Luther could no longer make his claims while contending that the Church had not officially ruled on the matter,

A slight calm thanks to Von Miltitz

The pope's next strategy was to try to blunt the protection of Frederick. For this task he chose Charles Von Miltitz, who was a close friend of Frederick's private secretary.

Upon arriving, and before presenting his credentials, Von Miltitz went to see Luther. (He tried to see Tetzel as well, but was unsuccessful. (Tetzel was holed up in a convent, and expressed fear for his life.) Amazingly, Von Miltitz got Luther to promise not to speak about indulgences any more. The quid pro quo being that his opponents would also stop discussing indulgences. Luther also promised to send a submissive letter to the pope. (Luther did not completely trust Von Miltitz, and speculated to friends whether the kiss from Von Miltitz, signaling their agreement and the end of their meeting, was a Judas kiss.) The pope was so delighted upon receiving Luther's letter that he sent a very friendly response in which called Luther his dear son and invited him to Rome to make his confession. The pope even offered to pay the expenses of the journey.

After the reconciliation, the pope became preoccupied with another matter. In January 1519, the emperor Maximilian died. The pope busied himself in his effort to get Frederick the Wise selected. While the pope was distracted, two foes in Germany did not remain silent.

The Debate with Eck

One of Luther's university colleagues, Andreas Carlstadt, came out with a set of theses against Eck, professor of theology at the university in Ingolstadt. Eck was that man who had written a pamphlet attacking Luther’s ninety-five theses. Eck responded to Carlstadt with his own theses in which he expounded an extreme view of papal supremacy. Luther responded with counter theses of his own. In the twelfth of Luther’s theses, he argued that the claim of Roman supremacy over all other churches rested on only weak papal bulls of the previous four hundred years, and for the eleven hundred years before that, no such supremacy had existed.

The indulgences battle had a call for "internal reform." The challenge to Roman authority had the earmarks of schism. The reconciliation was history—the matter was even more serious than before.

An attack such as this on the papacy, from a man of Luther’s stature, was unprecedented. Eck (who may have been out to trap Luther) challenged Luther to a debate on papal supremacy. This debate was schedule for nine months later! During that time, Luther studied intensely, looking for arguments useful for refuting a doctrine that he had cherished most of his life. He engaged himself in a study of church history and canon law, and was dismayed to discover that many decretals of the church were forgeries.

The debate (disputation) took place in the city of Leipzig. Guards surrounded the duke's palace where the debate was held. More guards were stationed in the inns to keep the Leipzig and Wittenberg students from fighting.

As the debate began, it was obvious that both Luther and Eck were worthy opponents, matched in their verbal and intellectual abilities to defend their positions. However, not being able to argue his own position based on its merits, Eck cleverly got Luther to concede that he agreed with some of the teachings of Jan Huss, who had been condemned by the Council of Constance and sent to the stakes. Luther said Huss had been condemned in an unrighteous manner. As soon as Luther was perceived as siding with an officially condemned heretic, the psychological advantage went to Eck. A wave of astonishment swept over the listening audience. Duke George of Saxony was heard to exclaim, "God help us; this is the pestilence."

Despite the psychological advantage going to Eck, Luther did win the strategic advantage, in that he based his arguments on fact, using the historical process. Luther pointed out that the Eastern Greek Church had never acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops of Rome. Yet, it was admitted by all, that the Eastern Church was Christian. The papacy faced a dilemma. How could the pope claim supremacy over all the churches, and yet a large part of the Church, recognized as Christian, not honor that claim? In addition, Luther noted that the great ecumenical councils of the early centuries did not teach the supremacy of the papacy.

Though the immediate impression might have been that the debate at Leipzig was won by Eck, important results went with Luther. He was far from being defeated. Following the Leipzig debate, the supporters of Luther grew. Among those who joined in Luther's cause was Martin Bucer (1491-1551). In time, Bucer would become a leading Reformer in Strassburg and a colleague of John Calvin.

Besides gaining more converts, a second result of the debate at Leipzig was that Luther's own thinking was solidified. His motive all along was to reform the Catholic Church, not to leave it. But now Luther had publicly rejected the supremacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church councils. The Leipzig debate main it painfully clear that irreconcilable differences existed between Luther and Rome.

At this point, everything was in place. Luther was in a position where reconciliation was impossible. He also had a large following. Schism was just ahead. Soon after the debate, Eck went to Rome to recommend Luther's excommunication. The pope complied.

Schism was in the air.

Academic "Freedom" at Ohio State

Ohio State University Graduate student (and high school teacher) Bryan Leonard, who apparently argues in his thesis that the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution should be taught in high school, is under attack by unscrupulous professors.

At this moment, it looks as if they have succeeded in preventing him from defending his thesis.

For more background on this story, see this post by Rob Crowther.

A massive spin is underway, insisting that the sole reason behind the uproar is the fact that Leonard tried to "game" his committee, the makeup of which did not follow university guidelines.

It's no wonder. Leonard was between a rock and a hard place. Follow the rules and face certain failure (regardless of the quality of his work) or break the rules in an attempt to achieve a fair reading of his dissertation.

The spin is that Leonard was stacking the deck. The reality is that this was his only chance to receive a scholarly evaluation.

No matter. This is not really about the composition of a committee. That's just a red herring.

The three yahoos at the heart of this story are OSU Professors Rissing, McKee, and McEnnis.

Spinmeisters like The Panda's Thumb would have you believe that Rissing, McKee, and McEnnis (who by all accounts have not read Leonard’s thesis) are valiant guardians of academic integrity, who undoubtedly investigate all Ph.D. committees for bureaucratic violations, and when found, respond just as quickly and forcefully regardless of the thesis topic.

Actually, this trio of cowards is not bright enough to hide their real motivation. If they had stuck to their fabrication that it was "all about the composition of the committee" then it would be difficult to discredit them. But like Panda Thumb's P.Z. Myers, who criticized (comment #8) Leonard's thesis as "substandard" (without having read it), they couldn't resist sermonizing. In a letter to the OSU graduate dean they reveal their true concerns. From this Inside Higher Ed article we read what's really bugging these academic titans:

…the letter [from the three professors] noted that two of the committee members were the only two Ohio State faculty members who have spoken publicly in defense of Leonard’s views on evolution. "The only qualification that these gentlemen bring to Mr. Leonard’s dissertation committee is an assurance of a non-critical hearing."

In other words, the integrity of a professor who agrees with Leonard is automatically suspect. Leonard must obey the rules even if it means populating his committee with faculty who, like Myers, have prejudged his work, sight unseen, as substandard.

Commenting on my criticism of the premature designation of substandard, another commenter on Myers's blog rose to his defense, writing (comment #15):

Proposing a program of science education based on non-scientific concepts IS prima facie evidence of doing "substandard work". He was obviously ignoring actual DATA that invalidated his thesis.

Which I think rather nicely sums up what is going on here. Leonard has the audacity to write a thesis that questions evolution's claim of unassailability on all fronts. He must not be allowed to pass, under any circumstances, no need to bother with the incovenience of reading his thesis.

A further, insightful OSU faculty complaint from the Inside Higher Ed article

…objected both to the idea that Ohio State appeared to be on the verge of awarding a Ph.D. for work questioning evolution.

No, we can't have any questioning of evolution. Slash. Burn. Fail. Then shout, over and over, this has nothing to do with academic freedom.

If OSU valued academic freedom, Leonard would not have had to break the rules. In a bygone era when professors possessed more integrity than Myers, Rissing, McKee, and McEnnis, a committee member radically opposed to your position was acceptable, even a badge of honor, because while he might give you a hard time, he could be trusted to judge your work on its merits.

In the same way, those two objectionable professors who allegedly agree with Leonard concerning evolution would, without a second's thought, be trusted to evaluate the thesis critically rather than being slandered as rubber-stamping minions.

Not at OSU. Not anymore. At OSU, your thesis is subject to failure based on the abstract placed on the announcement of your defense.

The three fundamentalist professors also wrote:

There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice we regard as unethical.

The ethics of these professors is so twisted that to be regarded by them as unethical is undoubtedly a good thing.

Questions are also being raised as to whether Leonard's high-school teaching violates university rules dealing human subjects in experiments.

This story, if nothing else, demonstrates two things:

1. The old aphorism that truth is stranger than fiction.
   
2. That the tenure system should be scrapped.

Good luck, Mr. Leonard.

All Hail the Conquering Hero

Over on Panda's Thumb, facts and science are often sacrificed for political expediency. This was evident in a recent post heralding a new anti-ID recruit, Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy Blog.

There is some urgency in the welcoming of this new warrior for truth. It appears that ID (Intelligent Design) is about to expand its propaganda machine into new domains. It has set its sights on physics and astronomy, opening new fronts in the war with its traditional enemy, evolution.

This revelation comes as a surprise to many of us. I first heard ID arguments relating to the special properties of water, the inverse square law of gravitation, the big-bang, and the relative strengths of the fundamental forces back in the early eighties, well before Behe introduced his idea of irreducible complexity (and before I was a Christian). The folks at Panda's Thumb must have missed all that. P.Z. Myers wrote:

The Privileged Planet debacle is a sign that the anti-evolutionists are eager to pollute national science institutions and all scientific disciplines with their garbage, and more and more scientists are going to be speaking out harshly against them.

Perhaps these scientists will be among those who will be shocked to learn that there is a nascent push to extend ID to physics and astronomy.

Not to worry, The Bad Astronomer will save the day. According to Myers, Phil Plait

[is] alerted to the bad physics, astronomy, and cosmology of the Discovery Institute, and plans to spend more effort fighting the distortions of the creationists.

Commenters on Panda's Thumb agreed that the threat is imminent. Expectations for a swift and decisive victory are running high. One wrote:

I’ve always wondered why the IDiotists and creationists did not go after other scientific fields. Took them long enough.

Another wrote:

I think it’s great that more scientists in disciplines other than biology are waking up to ID’s far-reaching anti-scientific goals, but they should be aware that these guys are not all YEC’s, and those who are not last generation’s Bible-waving YEC’s.

That last comment displays good but incomplete insight. Indeed, not only are cosmological IDers not YECs (Young Earth Creationists), but cosmological ID is routinely attacked by YECs.

Another commenter, arguing from convenient anecdote (a favorite method over at PT) wrote of his concurrence that there exists a clear and present danger:

only about twenty minutes ago, on my way home from work, I pulled up behind a B(ig)A(ss)P(ickup)T(ruck)ist with the gun rack in the back window and the ‘coon dogs sitting in the bed, their tongues hangin’ in the breeze. On the back window was a big yellow bumper sticker that said, simply, EVOLUTION-THE BIG LIE.

If you want "true-life" stories about white-suited (double breasted) parsons preaching against "evilution" at school board meetings, or warning about mixing of the races, or justifying slavery via scripture, why it seems that quite a few visitors to PT have had an encounter with such an entity from central casting, and it drove them away from Christianity at an early age. They'll be happy to tell you about it.

Another warns, ominously,

No it’s not. It’s a struggle over political power and who gets to weild it. It’s a fight, literally, between democracy and theocracy.

And the sooner scientists realize that, the sooner we can beat the fundies. If we continue to view this as a scholarly science debate, the the fundies will kick our collective asses.

The piped piper of sorts for this bunch, P.Z. Myers, added, in response to a misguided pacifist:

Please don’t try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Encouraging their new recruit, we read (on Pharyngula):

Kickass. BA Phil is one of the few folks out there with the knowledge to wipe out stupid claims,

to which our hero Phil responded

Heehee. Thanks!

Let us take a gander at The Bad Astronomers first wartime post, entitled The Fort Sumter of Creationist Astronomy?.

Phil beings by praising his own prescience:

I have been saying for years that creationists would soon be turning their attention to sciences other than biology

Now that was not very hard to do, since for years creationists have paid attention to the other sciences.

What has precipitated this call to arms, this summoning of the Rambo of science? It was this statement from the Discovery Institute:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it’s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

Now that's incendiary.

Puh-leez. People like Hugh Ross (just to mention one) have been saying for years that the strongest evidence for design comes from cosmology. How can this be, as Phil called it, a shot across the bow?

Phil goes on to explain that if you take the bible literally, it contradicts everything we know about cosmology. There is some truth in that, but he needs to be precise. It is true that if you take the Genesis account literally, i.e., six twenty-four hour days, then you can not be reconciled with modern cosmology.

However, literality is not the acid test of evangelical Christianity. The important issue is inerrancy. Once inerrancy is accepted, one must still deal with the issue of a hermeneutic. One possible answer is to be as literal as possible—however no matter how literal of a hermeneutic one chooses, one can always be presented with passages that cannot be taken literally.

Another hermeneutic, equally respectful of biblical inerrancy but not literalist, leads to the day-age view, which Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer, in The Genesis Debate, describe. An overview of that view (which is that the Genesis account is chronologically correct but the days represent ages), mapped onto the creation account, gives

1. Big-bang, creation of the universe (ten space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) by God’s Holy fiat.
   
   
2. Singling out the earth for a series of creation miracles. At its beginning it is empty of life and unfit for life; the earth’s primordial atmosphere and the solar system’s interplanetary debris prevent the light from the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the surface. (End of day 1)
   
   
3. Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial clearing of the earth’s atmosphere so that light now penetrates to the surface of the ocean.
   
   
4. Formation of tropospheric water vapor and a stable water cycle. (End of day 2)
   
   
5. Formation of the continental land masses and the ocean basins.
   
   
6. Creation of plants on the land masses. (End of day 3)
   
   
7. Transformation of the atmosphere for perpetually translucent to occasionally transparent. For the first time, the sun moon and stars are visible on the surface as distinct objects. (End of day 4)
   
   
8. Creation of swarms of small sea animals.
   
   
9. Creation of sea mammals and birds. (End of day 5)
   
   
10. Creation of three kinds of land mammals (1) short-legged land mammals (2) long legged mammals that are easy to tame and (3) long legged mammals that are difficult to tame (wild).
    
    
11. Creation of man. (End of day 6)

This is not the only alternative to literality—one can imagine another day-age view that, for example, incorporates theistic evolution.

PT types want the choice to be between strict literalists, i.e., the YECs, and "enlightened" Christians who give up biblical inerrancy. They create a false dichotomy, zeroing out those who affirm inerrancy but not literality.

Phil goes on to rant about YECs. I have to admit about being confused. On the one hand, the Panda's Thumb and Phil are working themselves into a militaristic frenzy in preparation for waging war, in response to the so-called "shot across the bow" from the Discovery Institute, and then Phil goes off on YECs?

YECs have been battling evolution and cosmology since the nineteenth century. This is hardly a new war. Are rehashes of "tired light" refutations what we'll find on Phil's site? Hardly seems worth all the advance billing of a coming blood bath.

I am hoping that Phil will ignore the YECs and correct the bad science of the cosmological IDers like Hugh Ross (and myself.) Now that would be interesting.

Phil closes with

They may have fired the first shot, but we have plenty of ammo on our side as well. And we also have many, many scientists willing to accept this call to arms.

I’m one of them. Over the course of time, you’ll be seeing more rebuttals — no, debunking — of creationist claims here. I’ve had enough, and this threat is real. They want to turn our classrooms in a theocratically-controlled anti-science breeding ground, and I’m not going to sit by and watch it happen.

Dude! Let's get to it.

Meeting of the Minds

The next Meeting of Minds is coming up. Look here for the details.

100K

Well it took a really long time--three years and one month, but I just went over the 100,000 visitor mark.

Oh, and I wanted to tell you about a fantasy that came true. A few weeks ago I was on a flight from Boston to LA, heading to a company meeting in Palm Springs. I was sitting next to a beautiful woman who, get this, WAS READING MY BOOK!! We talked about the book and about life, and then, to make a long story short, that night we shared a hotel room. ¹

---

¹And on December 21, we'll celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary. (Because we were married on December 21, I always remind her that it was the longest night of my life.)