Chris Mammoliti
LETTER: Scharmann's example fails

In his July 12, 2000 letter to the editor, Dr. L.C. Scharmann, Professor
and Chair of Secondary Education at Kansas State University, asserted that
the "argument from design was ultimately recognized as both poor science
and questionable theology..." To illustrate the problems associated with
Intelligent Design, Dr. Scharmann uses an example of mammal body plans and
how "humans run a far greater risk of choking" because they walk upright
versus walking on all fours. He states that "the act of walking upright
causes a bolus of food to push against the trachea whereas in walking on
all fours, gravity pulls the swallowed mass downward away from the
trachea." Dr. Scharmann suggests that students weighing evidence for and
against ID theory might "begin to question the wisdom of the intelligence
of the designer." Dr Scharmann asserts that "while ID is emotionally
compelling, it leaves us (scientifically and theologically) in a risky
position to explain things we would rather ignore." Well, let's not
"ignore" his example and apply the critical thinking that some feel should
be reserved for only those with advanced academic degrees.

Perhaps the easiest way to apply some critical thinking to the issue is to
look at a middle school biology textbook, or the World Book Encyclopedia.
If we do that, we find that Dr. Scharmann's example has some very
significant errors. In humans, the trachea (commonly known as the
windpipe) is positioned in front of the esophagus, while in four-legged
animals the trachea is below the esophagus. Using anatomical facts, we
find that Dr. Scharmann's claims about gravity and choking are quite the
opposite of reality. In humans, the pressure from gravity on the trachea
is almost non-existent. The swallowed food is actually aided by gravity as
it moves down the esophagus to the stomach. In four-legged animals,
swallowed food travels a more horizontal path back toward the tail. The
effect of gravity does not aid this horizontal movement but does increase
the downward pressure on the animal's trachea which lies below the
esophagus. Contrary to Dr. Scharmann's claim, there is an obvious
advantage to the upright position because of less pressure on the trachea
and faster movement of swallowed food down to the stomach. Why then don't
four-legged animals choke? Because the trachea is supported by a series of
C-shaped cartilage along it's entire length to give it rigid support so
that it won't collapse.

This is a system that gives every appearance of being well designed.

Is it scientifically and theologically "risky" to weigh evidence for and
against ID theory? Will students begin to question the wisdom of the
intelligence? Only if the facts are misrepresented as was done by Dr.
Scharmann. I do not mean to infer that Dr. Scharmann intentionally meant
to misrepresent. As I don't know him personally, out of fairness, I can
only assume he was not fully cognizant of the anatomical facts.

In other letters, it has been argued that critical thinking can not be
accomplished within the time constraints of the high school biology course
or that critical analysis is not part of the scientific method.

I don't buy that argument! Consider this for a moment: Dr. Scharmann is
Chair of the Secondary Education Department at K-State. In essence, he
oversees the teaching of teachers. If his misrepresentations carry through
to the K-State classroom, they may also carry through to the high school
classroom, unless those future teachers have been previously taught to
think critically and objectively.

Chris Mammoliti
Pratt

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/July/19-427-news6.txt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" August 30, 2000

Adrian L. Melott
LETTER: Ruse misused in guest commentary

In his recent Guest Commentary, Chris Mammoliti quotes Michael Ruse to the
effect that "evolution is a religion", of course with the goal of
introducing creationist religion into the school system. Michael Ruse is
one of the favorite people for creationists to quote out of context,
because it is very easy for them to misrepresent his message by leaving
some of it out.

Michael Ruse's full statement can be found in the May 13, 2000 issue of
Canada's National Post. Ruse strongly criticizes those who "go beyond the
science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as
an all-embracing world picture" and then confuse this with the science,
making of it a religion. This is the sense in which the statement Mr.
Mammoliti quoted was made. Here is Ruse's closing paragraph, which
Mammoliti was careful not to tell you about:

"For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of
evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are
right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution,
is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the
classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying
ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times
and places to preach that gospel to the world."

Why did Mr. Mammoliti feel it necessary to misrepresent someone in order
to make his case?

Adrian L. Melott
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Kansas

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/August/30-366-news8.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune." August 30, 2000

Dr. Tom Morgan
LETTER: Darwin's flaws easy to discern

No doubt the Darwinian naturalists are feeling smug these days over the
results of the primary election and are looking forward to taking back the
board in November. While this may well happen, it would be naive in the
extreme for them to believe they have won the war. For amidst all their
panicked howling they have inadvertently exposed Darwinism's flimsy
foundation; a foundation they have so carefully kept hidden for so long.

Many who are perceptive and open-minded have seen it clearly for the first
time. Now it will no longer be possible for Darwinists to tell their "Just
So Stories" without someone asking those embarrassing questions about
where the actual evidence is for their wild extrapolations. A growing body
of knowledgeable scientists and researchers (including Behe, Johnson,
Dembski, Wells, Bradley, among others) will continue to point out the
increasingly obvious fact that clinging to 19th Century science will not
explain how our highly-ordered, information-filled world came to be.

More and more people are looking for the most logical answers to these
questions rather than blindly limiting themselves to the naturalistic
explanations as the Darwinists would prefer.

The Darwinian establishment must now deal with the growing numbers who
have taken the time to investigate both sides, have seen through the
circular arguments and exaggerated claims, and will demand real evidence.
Darwinists who feared that students would not learn enough about evolution
now have something to really be afraid of: the increasing multitudes who
have learned, as Phillip Johnson has put it, "more about evolution than
the Darwinists want them to know."

Dr. Tom Morgan
Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/August/30-365-news7.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" August 30, 2000

Keith B. Miller
LETTER: No conflict between science and religion

This letter is in response to the recent op-ed by Chris Mammoliti claiming
that evolution is a religion in conflict with a belief in God. It seems
that only those who wish to discredit evolution on the one hand, or
religious faith on the other, insist that the two are in direct conflict.
This disregards the majority of those actually engaged in theological and
scientific work. In reality, the conflict view has been thoroughly
discredited by both theological and historical scholarship.

Mammoliti is incorrect in his portrayal of Darwin's views. Although an
agnostic, Darwin did not see evolution as excluding a creator God. In
fact, the word "creation" and its related terms were used over one hundred
times in the "Origin." The book ends with the well-known sentence - "There
is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into afew forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Mammoliti seems unaware of the complex historical relationship between
evolutionary theory and religious faith. Many evangelical Christians at
the time of Darwin found no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory
and scripture. In fact, several of the authors of the "Fundamentals" (the
set of volumes that gave us the term 'fundamentalist") accepted some form
of evolutionary theory. Even the theologian B.B Warfield, who argued
forcefully for Biblical inerrancy, accepted the validity of evolution as a
scientific description of origins. The primary advocates of evolutionary
theory in America included Asa Gray, George Frederick Wright, and James
Dana - all committed Christians. Christian theologians (including
evangelicals) have long recognized that a faithful reading of Scripture
does not prohibit God's use of evolutionary mechanisms to accomplish His
creative will.

Evolutionary biology (descent with modification from a common ancestor) is
no more atheistic than chemistry or physics. All scientific research
proceeds by the search for chains of cause-and-effect, and concerns itself
with the investigation of natural entities and forces. Evolution is
accepted as a well-substantiated theory by the scientific community
(representing widely different cultures and religious and non-religious
beliefs) simply because of the overwhelming body of data in its support.

Importantly, this body of data from discplines as varied as genetics,
population biology, paleontology, and geology continues to grow at a rapid
rate. As a Christian, I find it exciting to watch as the mechanisms of
God's creative activity are being unveiled.

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Kansas State University

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/August/30-367-news9.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" September 6, 2000

Robert M. Beattie Jr., Esq.
LETTER: The legal view

Rebuttal to 25 August 2000 Commentary "Evolution a theory and a religion."
 

"Neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that
evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause
purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary  definition of religion and the
clear weight of the case law are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has
held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the
universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of
life evolved from lower forms is not." That quote is from the 1994 U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified
School District.

The United States Supreme Court case referred to in Peloza is Edwards v.
Aguillard, where, in 1987, the court held that Louisiana's
"creationism-evolution balanced treatment act" is unconstitutional. The
court held that evolution may be taught because it is science, however,
creationism (or today's semantic variant, "intelligent design") may not be
taught because it is religion. A 1986 Friend-of-the-Court brief in the
Aguillard case signed by 72 NOBEL PRIZE recipients, essentially all the
available then living NOBEL science prize recipients, wrote that "To a
scientist or a science educator, the distinction between scientific
theories and scientific facts is well understood. A "fact" is a property
of a natural phenomenon. A "theory" is a naturalistic explanation for a
body of facts. That distinction permeates all fields of scientific
endeavor. By singling out one topic in science for special treatment, the
legislature, we may substitute the Kansas State BOE, conveys the false
message that evolutionary theory is less robust and reliable than all
other scientific concepts. This misleadingly disparaging treatment of
evolution confirms that the Act favors a particular religious belief."

"Evolution is a FACT, period. What is a matter of opinion is Darwinism.
That is a THEORY and it's unfortunate that many people, sometimes
deliberately, sometimes ignorantly, confuse the two." "Fact" and "Theory"
are all-caps in original. This quote is from Arthur C. Clarke, "The Menace
of Creationism," in SPRING 1984: A Choice of Futures, p. 250, paperback
(Ballantine Books, NY 1984).

Chris Mammoliti makes a number of incorrect statements in the Aug. 25
commentary "Evolution a theory and a religion." The opening paragraph
asserts "What has yet to be discussed is the philosophical basis for
Darwinian evolution." My jaw dropped in astonishment at that untruth.
Precisely this topic has been addressed in many contemporary publications
and discussed in many recent Kansas public forums. It is the principal
topic in philosophy professor Michael Ruse's 1996 book "But Is It
Science?: The Philosophical question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy
(Frontiers of Philosophy)" which was featured in a prominent central
display near the entrance of the Wichita Public Library during Scopes
Week. Astonishingly, Chris Mammoliti then quotes this same Professor
Michael Ruse a couple of paragraphs later. If anyone is ignorant of the
years of ongoing spirited discussion of the philosophical basis of
Darwinian evolution, it is reasonable to believe that this is because they
have done not the slightest investigation of it.

However, to focus on the philosophy of Darwinian evolution not as a
philosophical question, but as a subject of contemporary educational
debate in the context of science education, is deceptive. To debate
Darwinian evolution unnecessarily qualifies "evolution." This is like
arguing that Newtonian gravity should be a subject of current robust,
wide-open, and uninhibited public debate in our public school science
curriculum. No, in this context such a debate is a red herring. Both
evolution and gravity are empirically well-established scientific
explanations for observed properties, and those who claim otherwise are
either not applying formal thinking operations, are uninformed on the very
topic they discuss, or are crackpots.

"Microevolution" is acknowledged reality even by the
creationist/intelligent design adherents, apparently including Chris
Mammoliti. To claim that "macroevolution" is a property distinct from
"microevolution" is error, but nevertheless, the truth of both
"microevolution" and "macroevolution" has been accepted beyond a
reasonable doubt by our institutions of science, business, and government.
Questions about lawful procedures and safeguards concerning, and legal
ownership of, newly created species, whether by public, private, academic,
or business interests, are being litigated and debated in courts,
administrative bodies (e.g., patent offices), and legislatures around the
world. Whether macroevolution takes place is a question being raised
principally by persons who have purposes unrelated to the accepted
bottom-line hard realities of science, business, and economics. In the
best interests of our mutual prosperity and safety, Kansas adults should
acknowledge these realities, and students in Kansas public schools should
be taught about them.

Robert M. Beattie Jr., Esq.
Wichita

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/6-513-news8.txt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" September 6, 2000

Chris Mammoliti
LETTER: Darwinian theory atheistic at its core

I truly appreciate the thoughtful critique of my Commentary provided by
Drs. Adrian Melott and Keith Miller and offer this response to their
comments.

Dr. Melott feels that Professor Michael Ruse was quoted out of context and
provides this additional quote: "... Darwinian evolution, is wonderful
science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us
leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be
worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to
preach that gospel to the world." This clearly shows that Ruse and I
essentially argue the same point - Darwinian philosophy has no place in
the classroom. The only difference is that Ruse argues as "an ardent
evolutionist and ex-Christian" while I argue as an ardent Christian and
ex-evolutionist. I do not see the claimed misrepresentation and
respectfully disagree with Dr. Melott.

Dr. Miller states that I incorrectly portray Darwin's views. As he noted,
Darwin was an agnostic and used "Creator" in Origin of Species. Since an
agnostic's basic claim is that the existence of God is unknowable, what
meaning did Darwin apply to the word "Creator?" He is quoted in several
sources as referring to natural selection as "my deity." Francis Darwin,
Charles Darwin's own son and biographer, admitted that "Darwin never
claimed his theory could explain the origin of life, but the implication
was there. Thus, not only was God banished from the creation of species
but from the entire realm of biology."

Dr. Miller also discusses "the complex historical relationship between
evolutionary theory and religious faith." That discussion, while
informative, misses the point of the Commentary. Many believe that
evolution is an expression of "the mechanisms of God's creative activity,"
but that belief is no more accepted by Darwinian evolutionists than is
belief in a 6-day creation. It is telling to note that neither Dr. Miller
nor Dr. Melott address the issue of science textbooks defining evolution
as undirected, purposeless, blind, or uncaring. With all due respect to
Dr. Miller, I believe my main point - Darwinian evolution is atheistic at
its core - still stands.

Adding more spice to the discussion, here's a quote from famous zoologist
and Darwinian evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

Chris Mammoliti
Pratt

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/6-511-news6.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" September 20, 2000

Adrian Melott
LETTER: Science vs. philosophy

Because this point is so important, I hope I may be granted a short reply
to Mr. Mammoliti. He said, "...Ruse and I essentially argue the same point
- Darwinian philosophy has no place in the classroom." They do agree on
that point (although it was philosophy based on Darwin, not Darwin's
philosophy, to make it very clear), and I agree too. But what is at issue
is science. It is clear from this reply that Mammoliti doesn't know the
difference between science and philosophy. And that is exactly the problem
with such folk - they have no idea what science is, and confuse it with
lots of other things.

What, Ruse, I, nearly all scientists, and the majority of voters in recent
Kansas primaries realize must be taught is the science.

Mr. Mammoliti, please don't try to confuse the issue again.

It won't work. The readers of this paper can see right through it.

Adrian Melott
Professor of Physics and Astronomy
University of Kansas

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/20-418-news9.txt

POWRÓT