... In This Issue.

May Meeting: "Evolution and Intelligent Design" by Frank Farsad.

Quote of the Month by Victor Stenger.

"HAOC 5th Anniversary Luncheon" by Dave Silva

Philosopher's Corner by Juan Bernal.

"Where Was That Poor Child" by Robert Reichert.

"Victor Stenger on the Creation of the Universe" by Dave Silva.

CSICOP: Fourth World Skeptics Conference.

Secular Humanist Recipe for the Advancement of Humanity - Humor.

No June meeting because of Father's Day and no June newsletter.

At the May 19th Meeting:

"Evolution &Intelligent Design"

by Frank Farsad

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a series of workshops designed exclusively for the Anaheim Union High School District Science teachers. One particular presentation with the title of "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" piqued my curiosity where the presenter, a science teacher, urged his colleagues to "expose themselves to facts about evolution which are excluded from the adopted textbooks."

Furthermore, the blurb in the program, promised that each teacher would "receive videos and fact sheets which can be used in [the] classroom to allow students to critically assess the scientific merit of the theory of evolution from Big Bang to man." Well, I took his offer. My report to you will detail the contents of the presentation and participants' reaction to; yet, another Creationist's feeble attempt to discredit Darwin and evolution

using the "Intelligent Design" argument!

Quote of the Month:

"It is a convenient excuse for religions to call anything they cannot explain a mystery beyond human comprehension. Science is unwilling to make any assumptions about the limitations of the human mind in understanding the mysteries of the universe, including its origin and the source of the order that is observed."

...Victor Stenger, "Not By Design" Prometheus Press, 1988

HAOC 5th Anniversary luncheon

By Dave Silva

The luncheon on the Queen Mary, held April 28th was by all measures a success. It was attended by 48 people and was preceded by a personalized tour conducted by Roy Sorge, an HAOC member and Captain of the Queen Mary.

Our dining room was the "Royal Salon" which had rich wood panel walls and an architectural elegance typical of the early 19th century. Lunch was soup, bread, Cantonese Chicken Salad with a ginger sauce, a layer raspberry cake and tea or coffee. Some tables chose to have wine.

President Peter Anderson introduced HAOC board member and prominent guests like Lois Lyons an AHA Board member and co-president of HALA; John and Lisa Jo Singletary who originally founded the Orange County outreach group that became HAOC and is co-founder of the Las Vegas Chapter; and, of course, our gracious host Roy Sorge.

In a surprise presentation, Dave Silva gave an engraved plaque, on behalf of the members, to Peter Anderson in recognition of his five years of service and leadership as president of HAOC. Pete also received a gavel to keep us in line when the philosophical debates heat up.

After dinner Dr. Anderson introduced our featured guest speaker Dr. Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist who is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) since 1987. Eugenie is also the winner of the Isaac Asimov Science award, the Skeptics Society James Randi award, received the 2001 Public Service Medal from the Geological Society of America and is the President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Dr. Scott travels all over the country speaking on behalf of science education. She used a notebook computer to project graphics on a screen as she talked. This method is much more effective and flexible than using slides. She talked about Henry Morris, who is the most important figure in promoting "Scientific Creationism" in their battle against science and evolution. Weather these Biblical literalists are young-earth creationists like Morris, or "Intelligent Designers" like Michael Behe they attack the theory of evolution in three ways.

Evolution is a theory in Crisis! This is the "Big Lie" technique of swaying public opinion. Simply by repeating this often enough people will believe it. Of course, evolution is a theory adapting to new facts, but the evidence to support the theory has never been stronger. One important function of the NCSE is to inform politicians of the facts when creationists try to slip in anti-evolution language into legislation.

Evolution and Religion are incompatible. I would agree with that, but the point is they try to make it an either, or choice when it isn't. Many religious people see evolution as God's method of operation. For them, accepting evolution eliminates many of the most glaring contradictions between science and religion.

Fairness! Eugenie points out that Americans strongly believe in being fair. When polls ask weather competing theories to evolution or, evidence against evolution should be taught, they say "Sure that seems fair. Let's present all points of view."

The problem here is we are talking about teaching science and that limits what should be taught to ideas that can be tested and supported by evidence. There are no scientific alternatives to evolution when you exclude scientific creationism and intelligent design, which are based on faith.

At our board meeting on May 5th we voted to send $100 to the NCSE, because it is an organization that promotes humanistic goals and deserves our support. We also subscribe to their publication, so if you want to read a copy let us know.

We want to thank Eugenie Scott for being such a wonderful guest speaker.

PHILOSOPHERS CORNER

by Juan Bernal

Some people, including our HAOC luncheon speaker, Eugenie Scott, claim that science and religion are compatible. As far as I can determine, this is true only in a sense that is not too philosophically interesting, but false in another more interesting way. First let us consider the first interpretation. We can say that science and religions are compatible in the following ways:

(a) Some scientists have no problem in combining work in a scientific discipline and active expression of some form of religious faith. For example, physicists Paul Davies and John Polkinghorne find that physics is not only compatible with, but leads to, a faith in a deity of some kind.

(b) There are varieties of religious faith that are compatible with a scientific, naturalistic outlook. Some people say this about Buddhism, for example. Moreover, there are forms of personal "spirituality" that do not conflict with the scientific view of things. (Even Einstein held on to his notion of a deity.)

(c) One can define "science" and "religion" in a way that leaves plenty of room for religious faith, even the type of faith that entails a supernatural, theistic outlook. Steven J. Gould appears to go this way in some of his writings, e.g., in an article "Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)" in Skeptical Inquirer, (July/August 1999), he argues that there is no conflict between science and religion because their work does not overlap. Science develops empirical theories about the natural world. Religion's expertise is in the search for ethical value and spiritual meaning in life.

Setting aside this the alleged harmony between science and spirituality, when we probe a little deeper, we find good reasons for holding that science and religion are not compatible. Consider the following:

(a) Much of the work in the natural sciences tends to refute or, at least undermine, common religious doctrines regarding human existence and the world. (For example, neurology and evolutionary psychology cast doubt on the view that we humans possess immortal souls. And going back in history, Christian dogmas about the solar system, the age of the earth and the origins of human life have been refuted by natural scientists.)

(b) To the extent that religions (e.g., theistic religions) affirm doctrines about the nature of human existence and the world, those religions are engaged in a form of pseudo "science"; and, thus, are subject to rational, scientific critique. Such critique shows that religious faith of this type is not compatible with rational, scientific inquiry. (For example, Christianity includes doctrines about a deity who intervenes in human affairs and an afterlife that awaits us all. Are such doctrines about our world really compatible with natural science?)

(c) Underlying the scientific methodology is a rational, naturalistic philosophy that is not compatible with most religious outlooks, especially those theistic religions that posit a personal deity. (We could call this the "spirit" of the scientific inquiry.)

What is this rational, naturalistic philosophy? Maybe what Keith Campbell, writes in an article on "materialism" in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy * will help us here:

"Investigations in the physical sciences have a materialistic methodology; that is, they attempt to explain a class of phenomena by appeal to physical conditions alone."

Then Campbell then adds that the materialist holds that "there is no subject matter which cannot be adequately treated with a materialist methodology. [However] ..this claim cannot be established by any scientific investigation; it can be established, if at all, only by critical reflection on the whole range of human thought and experience."

Here Campbell refers to the approach that some call "philosophical materialism." The ideal here is that we apply a form of scientific methodology to our "whole range of human thought and experience." All subject matter can be adequately treated with a materialistic methodology. ** The implication is that all who work at being scientific-minded people should assume a naturalistic philosophy, not only while engaged in scientific work, but in all our sober, rational thinking. At the very least, we should work from the presupposition that what exists is a world of material-physical entities and processes, accessible to the investigations of natural scientists. Anyone claiming the contrary, for example, that a world of spirits and non-physical entities exists, would have to make a good case (i.e., supply rational, scientific grounds) for his view.

This tends to reject the various forms of theism, spiritualism, metaphysical idealism, Cartesian dualism, Platonism, and such. However, this rejection does not follow from an a-priori, metaphysical assumption, but grows out of the principle that certain rational, empirical, "scientific" criteria must be satisfied whenever people make substantive claims as to what exists, whether it be an ordinary entity or something in an immaterial, supra-physical realm.

Working from a base of philosophical naturalism, we would be less inclined to affirm that science and religion are compatible in any significant way.

[* pages 179-180, Volume 5, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, Editor, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1967]

[** This differs from the interpretation given by others persons, e.g. Eugenie Scott, who emphasize the distinction between methodological materialism, on the one hand, and philosophical materialism, on the other, and stress that the former does not logically imply the latter. Methodological materialism just has to do with the way of doing scientific work, but does not entail philosophical materialism, which is characterized as a "metaphysical" viewpoint that rejects the possibility that anything immaterial can exist. This distinction, thus, characterizes scientific work in a way that allows a generous compatibility between science and the supernatural, theistic, religion. For science supposedly remains neutral on questions of metaphysics, and presumably also neutral on questions regarding the intellectual respectability of religious claims.]

Announcing the next topic of the Long Beach "Challenges" book group:

Our Humanist/Unitarian Long Beach book group, which meets at the Unitarian Church in Long Beach, is in the early stages of reading and discussing a new book by Reuben Hersh entitled What is Mathematics, Really? Hersh is a mathematician with a good background in philosophy, and a strong interest in the philosophy of mathematics. The book does not require that the reader have a mathematics background, as it is not a book in mathematics, but a book about mathematics. Hersh presents a good overview of the history of various philosophies of mathematics (for example, Platonism, Formalism, Intuitionism), and develops his philosophy of mathematics, which he calls "humanism." I highly recommend this book to anyone with any curiosity about the nature and work of mathematics. Besides being a great introduction to the philosophy of mathematics, the book covers some important strands in the development of Western philosophy.

The "Challenges" book group meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7:30 PM, at the Long Beach Unitarian Church near the intersection of Bellflower and Atherton in the Cal. State area of Long Beach. (For additional information about this group, call Juan Bernal at 714 836 7448.)

'WHERE WAS THAT POOR CHILD'S MIRACLE?"

by Robert Richert

The news media loves disasters. A plane crashes, a terrorist attacks, or an earthquake strikes and many people die. If there are one or more survivors, especially under seemingly extraordinary circumstances, you can bet that you will hear the word "Miracle' used repeatedly to describe the incident. Some might argue that the media is using the word in a secular way. They mean that is a matter of good fortune that people survive disasters. However, why use the word Miracle, especially so often?

I think there is an implied religious meaning to the use of the word in the above context, even if not intended by the media. The implication is that from time to time, God intervenes in His natural order to help some people who would otherwise be doomed. Our society is so saturated with religious beliefs that this interpretation seems inevitable.

There is a dark side to the religious belief in miracles; it demonstrates gross insensitivity to those who don't survive disasters and implies a malevolent God. The following true story is a graphic illustration of my point.

In 1969, I served as an infantry soldier for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. One day my squad was on patrol near a small hamlet, when suddenly we were engaged in a firefight. Fortunately, it didn't last long and no one was hurt. The enemy hit us and fled. One of my squad members, visibly shaken, related that during the firefight he was literally dodging bullets, just like John Wayne in the movies. He was adamant that he should have been killed and that God must have intervened to save his life. His survival was a "Miracle".

Several months later our unit was working with a South Vietnamese Army Company. We bivouacked at their base camp; a crude assembly of buildings and hootches perched atop a small hill. The South Vietnamese lived here with their families. During the day, while our platoon went out on light patrol, two or three men stayed behind to guard our remaining gear. One day I stayed back along with one of our medics.

While relaxing in the shade, suddenly, I heard an explosion. "We're being mortared", I thought. I jumped up to see what was going on and saw a frantic group of Vietnamese hustling to the center of the compound. Then I witnessed a scene of horror that I will never forget.

A young Vietnamese woman came running carrying her child in her arms. Both were drenched in blood. The shiny wet blood soaked her black 'pajama' top, turning it a nauseating deep maroon color. Unfortunately, it was her child's blood. The American medic who stayed back with me came to help. He placed the two-year-old on a blanket on the ground and attempted a frenzied resuscitation. Meanwhile, the child's mother, her face twisted in agony, screamed hysterically. Near the center of the infant's chest, just above his tiny heart, was a hole the size of a nickel. I watched as the last of his blood oozed out of the hole, his lips turned blue, his eyes glazed over, and his life ebbed away.

Of all the ugliness of war that I experienced in Vietnam, this incident still haunts me. Can anything be worse than watching helplessly while a child dies? So, what caused this tragedy? Apparently, two South Vietnamese soldiers had a fight. One threw a hand grenade at the other. It exploded within inches of the soldier's stomach, killing him instantly. In a terrible quirk of irony, a piece of shrapnel from the grenade struck the nearby child in the heart.

My bullet-dodging comrade left for home before this tragic incident occurred. I would like to have asked him, "Where was that poor child's Miracle? Why is my comrade deserving of a miracle and not this poor infant? What kind of God acts in so capricious a manner?" We must always ask questions like this of religious believers and remind them that only the survivors of disasters are around to tell tales of miracles.

The least I can do is to speak out for one dead child of war who never had a chance... or a "Miracle".

VICTOR STENGER ON THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

By Dave Silva

Eight HAOC members attended Dr. Stenger's talk in Costa Mesa at 2:30 p.m., Sunday, April 21st. In the past these Center for Inquiry West meetings conflicted with HAOC's meetings. I understand that future meetings at Costa Mesa will start at 4:30 p.m.; so we can go to their meeting and they can come to ours. This should benefit both organizations.

Victor Stenger has taught physics at Univ. of Hawaii for many years and now teaches at the Univ. of Colorado. Dr. Stenger is a big man who knows his subject and clearly enjoys discussing it with others.

His first book was "Not By Design" Prometheus Press, 1988. Despite it being 14 years old it is an excellent book on basic cosmology and particle physics. However, "Not By Design" only briefly touches on the "Intelligent Design" (ID) arguments that have become so popular which religious fundamentalists.

In his talk Stenger addressed these issues and did his best to make the complex ideas of cosmology comprehensible to the layman. Stenger said that according to the known laws of physics the universe could have started as a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum of space that expanded exponentially to become our universe. Stenger described a vacuum as an inherently unstable state. Quantum fluctuations happen all the time but since our universe already exists their impact is small. The point is that our universe could have happened by purely natural events that had no cause, since quantum fluctuations are random, unpredictable events..

The alternative to this natural universe is the god hypothesis. Some problems with the god hypothesis is that if nothing existed you have to imagine a being (presumably immaterial) that existed before the universe and was capable of creating it. How does something immaterial store the information on how to create a universe, or to obtain that information without reference to a universe. Also, the god hypothesis violates the conservation of energy problem while the quantum fluctuation theory doesn't. The god hypothesis also violates the first cause argument while quantum fluctuation doesn't require a cause. Simply put god becomes an unnecessary complication that tells us nothing about how the universe was created.

Stenger writes, "We have already remarked that the universe appears to be balanced between open and closed. This is precisely the condition of zero total energy, with the total rest and kinetic energy of all the bodies in the universe canceling the total potential energy. Since the universe has zero total energy, little energy was required in its production."

Intelligent Design advocates, who are biblical fundamentalists in a new guise, argue that if you changed some physical law or constant even slightly that life couldn't exist. From that they conclude that the chances of a universe that would support life randomly occurring are so improbable that it must have been created. It is obvious that if our universe couldn't support life we wouldn't be here talking about "fine tuning." Maybe there are many universes where life cannot exist or where beings much different from us wonder if everything was created or whether it just happened. Since we only really know of one universe to try to generalize about the probability of life in theoretical universes seems pointless. What seems more likely is that universes are limited in the way they can naturally occur and ours may be rather typical.

Hypothetically, if the universe needed "fine tuning" to exist you wouldn't need the God of the Bible to do it; you would simply need "Fine Tuners." But the ID advocates couldn't be happy with that because they are making the unfounded assumption that the creation of the universe has a purpose. The purpose of the universe is to create intelligent life, and we are that life, and so we end up being the cause of and purpose for the universe. By a simply series of wishful speculations God and the universe is really all about us. Comforting as that thought may be one wonders why God would wait 13 billion years to create his ultimate achievement.

CSICOP: Fourth World Skeptics Conference.

June 20-23, 2002. Burbank Hilton Airport and Convention Center, 2500 Hollywood Way, Burbank, CA 91505. Phone: 818-843-6000. Standard room rate $89 + 10% tax.

Guest speakers; Paul Kurtz, Marvin Minski and Harlan Ellison.

Full registration $159. Phone (716)636-1425.

Secular Humanism Recipe for the Advancement of Humanity.

From Houstonians for Secular Humanism.

1 cup science

1 cup rationality

1 cup critical thinking

1 cup arts

1 cup skeptical inquiry

1 cup morality

1 cup human excellence

1 cup happiness.

Sprinkle all over with affirmation of life

Directions: Mix well. Filter out all prejudice, intolerance & injustice. Serve at all temperatures, anytime, anywhere, anyplace.

Serves: 6 Billion