PDF please?

Ebert: Sorry, that file is all I have.

Just use open office to view it and convert it there if you want. holy hell 80 pages! ill have to save this for later.

Conclusion regarding the main hypothesis: "It is evident that ... cosmological beliefs of origins are not predictive of science achievement within this study. This is consistent with the mixed findings of the literature."

So that's good news--kids that were taught to believe some improbable things can still be taught to believe some probable things. But the more interesting situation, the one causing all the problems in society, is the one in which the improbable things contradict the probable things. How each of us resolves this contradiction determines our place in the fundamental social divide, i.e., those who believe that the best morality in this life is shaped: (1) solely by empirical knowledge about human wellbeing in this life, or (2) by some other sense of wellbeing, such as spiritual wellbeing in the afterlife, that is at least somewhat incompatible with the first sense.

There are free programs you can use in windows that will create a PDF file from anything with the capability to print. cutePDF comes to mind. Remember that not everyone on the internet likes to use Microsoft products.

Ebert: Huh. I can save to PDF using the Mac OS itself. Have done so.

Holy cow. I was bummed that Ron Santo died and that I didn't have anything to do now that the dissertation was done. Then I was uplifted by this gift.
I am glad that at least one person actually took the time to read at least the abstract, giving me the opportunity to reply.

Duane | December 4, 2010 11:57 PM | Reply
"How each of us resolves this contradiction determines our place in the fundamental social divide, i.e., those who believe that the best morality in this life is shaped: (1) solely by empirical knowledge about human wellbeing in this life, or (2) by some other sense of wellbeing, such as spiritual wellbeing in the afterlife, that is at least somewhat incompatible with the first sense."

I think science and faith can co-exist, but not under the same standards of evidence.One cannot disprove a belief system.

It is obvious to me that our American "Great Debate" has not ceased. It would seem that the DNA project would put the final nail in the coffin of scientific creationism. But it didn't.

It would be interesting to find out why so Americans deny evolution, wouldn't it? Michael Shermer wrote a chapter on it in a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." In the book, Shermer points to a combination of freedom of speech and our Puritan roots.

I think it goes deeper, though. We elect leaders who deny evolution. I doubt we would ever elect a leader who denied the Holocaust or believed he/she had been abducted by aliens. See what I mean?

All one needs to understand the role Christian faith and a belief in a creator and creation can have on the world of science is to understand that Galileo, Newton and so many others of their day -- as well as days before and since -- have been devout believers in the Creator God of the Bible and his ability to create the world and the reality of that fact of Him creating it, just as the Bible said He did. It would take a vacuous nimnul fool to suggest that either man was a dupe for the religious leaders of their day, since both were reviled by the Roman Catholic Church for their views on science, but that a given church might have reviled certain discoveries or assertions in no way negates the greater truths or reality, for even Galileo and Newton, among others, rejected the church's positions as ignorant and heretical, in that those positions defied the revealed truth of the cosmos God created. So, gripe all you want about the role of creationism and Christians in the class room, but when you do, it forces you to eject no less than Galileo, Newton and even such great modern scientists as Hugh Ross, dozens of astronauts and millions more who know how to see science as a means of explaining God's creation or even contemplating how it came into being and concluding that it was through an act of creation.

reality of) created world

Thanks for posting this. Although the outcome was not what I expected, it does confirm what I've noticed in my professional life. I have a degree in engineering and spend all of my time at work dealing with engineers. A good majority of the engineers I work with are extremely conservative and believe in Creationism of some form. These are sharp engineers who have designed some great things. Being great engineers they will challenge explanations that they feel are hard to prove, yet they willingly accept Creationism (well maybe it wasn't willingly originally). I've always found this an odd contradiction in their professional work and personal beliefs. Dave's thesis doesn't explain why but it does confirm the validity of what I've observed.

Oops, I should have included instructions on how to convert to PDF on a Mac. Sorry.

I don't own Word and OpenOffice runs slower than all git-out on my 5-year-old non-Intel Mac, so I'm constantly begging Windows users for PDFs instead of Word files. And when I share my Nisus Writer files with Windows users, or need to print them at the library because my inkjet cartridge has dried out AGAIN, I just save them as PDFs without even thinking about it. So I kind of took it for granted that you'd know how to do it.

The day I found out saving as PDF was built into the Mac OS was a revelation. I think I just about stood up and cheered.

And thanks for the dissertation. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Ebert: For others: Just choose, Control-P, and choose "PDF."

Lots to think about:

Admiral Spooner | December 5, 2010 8:44 AM | Reply
You are making a quantum leap by lumping Christians and creationists in the same camp. The vast majority of Christians throughout the world fully accept evolution.
Galileo and Newton both preceded Darwin, so I won't speculate as to how they felt about natural selection. (Newton's problems lied with the Anglican Church, by the way.) I would also disagree that Hugh Ross is a great scientist. Ross is an old-earth evolution-denier. There were quite a few paragraphs about Ross and the disagreements he had with new-earth creationists like Duane Gish and Kent Hovind.

Jack | December 5, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply
I've wondered why many times. Belief is creationism doesn't mean one can't accomplish anything. Our last President was a creationist. (Oh, okay, bad example.)

I should have written
"There were quite a few paragraphs about Ross and the disagreements he had with new-earth creationists like Duane Gish and Kent Hovind in previous drafts, no longer in cyberspace."

replied to comment from Monica | December 5, 2010 8:09 PM | Reply

First, do the answers matter? Ability to memorize facts and repeat them as expected of you is not evidence that one truly accepts them as fact.

Yes, they matter. The theory of evolution through its driving agent, natural selection, is the most important theory in all of life science. Indeed, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Getting students to memorize facts and repeat them as expected is exactly what good science teachers avoid. Remember when Ken Jennings was hailed as the smartest person in the world? He may be, but the fact that he can list off random facts is not indicative of intelligence: It means he has a good memory. Anyone can be an automaton. A good example is memorizing the measures of central tendency without understanding why measures of central tendency are needed and when they are not used.

In the unit, I tried to develop lessons in which the students "discovered" the evidence. For example, we learned parts of the cell and cell theory. (We looked at cell models, practiced diffusion with vinegar and eggs, placed a piece of cork under a microscope etc.)

To assess whether developed learning took place, students were given a multiple choice question listing three living things (mushroom, tree, dog, if I recall) and one nonliving thing (sand). The students were asked "Which of the following does not have cells?"
The question reflects understanding of cell theory, not which answer is memorized.

Second, I'm curious about the approval of human subjects in this study, particularly if any of the students who participated were regular pupils of the candidate.

They were. Each student's parent approved the study and all participation was strictly voluntary. See Chapter 5. :)

Most Christians fully accept that things evolve. As I wrote, mass evolution-denial is distinctly American, though there are pockets of natural history-deniers in the UK and Australia. Newton's search for the Philosopher's Stone doesn't discount the contributions he made by inventing calculus, nor does Galileo's recant (which preceded Newton, thus the ellipses denial) discount his contributions.

I really like this picture of Dave and I shaking hands with Roger. This was a real life visualization of Roger enjoying being one degree of separation for people who have met through his blog. Yes? I think that what Roger was expressing in this picture also was suprise that Dave and I were there at EbertFest together, after debating so strenuously on the Journal. "You two are here together?!!" Yes we were.

Then Dave (and Dawn) and I went and enjoyed the Japanese movie "Departures" at Ebertfest together. Possibly the best movie that I have ever seen. Certainly the most moving.

A good day it was.

Cheerful Christmas. Let all of your desires may well occur real for you personally and your family in addition to let us expect the following yr end up being flourishing for all those all of us. Merry Christmas

One annoying thing about sidewalks is how the squares light up when I step on them. #imjesus

Dave, I've been a big Ebert blog fan since the beginning.
I stumbled on this page today and read through your dessertation. I have been fascinated by how we tend to rationalize beliefs and convictions. I looked around on Google and found this confounding essay on the tenets of magical thinking. I think it's an excellent example how beliefs such as creationism can co-exist within an otherwise rational thinker. In this instance the writer appears to be total blind to his own bias even as he effectively defines the essence of critical thinking (cough cough Randy).

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-magical-thinking.html

Dan,
I don't think science and religion can co-exist because they operate under different standards of evidence. You can't prove a negative ("You can't prove there isn't a dinosaur in my pocket!").
Friday night I watched Bill Maher ask a US representative, Jack Kingston, R-GA, if he believed in evolution. Kingston replied that he didn't believe in evolution because he couldn't believe we came from monkeys. This is just shameful. In any other country industrialized country, the reply would be, "Of course, what a stupid question."

To be clear:
Monkeys (and more closely, apes) and humans came from a common ancestor on the evolutionary tree of life.

Update: The longest thread continues. Randy & I remain on the debate stage, now with another liberal and a history professor. Somehow we have gone full circle from whether Michelle Bachmann was lying by blaming Obama for the Iraq war back to whether ID was synonymous with creationism. (I'm right on both counts, btw.)
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=222078051191172&id=610203070&ref=notif¬if_t=share_comment

I'm right on both counts, by the way! And the debate continues...

Dave, I count myself very lucky to have met you through the Journal and enjoy any chance to talk with you (virtually), debating or not.

Not sure at all if I can attend EbertFest this year. But, ever the optimist, I bought a pass any way. My number one hope for that week would be to have some time in person with Dr. and Mrs. Van Dyke. All my best here to you and your family. And I'll see you over at the other place - where I seem to be taking on multiple parties again. How does that happen? :)

Hello Dave,

I read the thesis. Was it accepted? Did you graduate? If yes, congratulations! I appreciate how much work such a research is when done as a working adult. It’s been a long time since I read this type of document; it sure is repetitive, isn’t it? I found it very informative and I admire your willingness to arrive at a null conclusion and to add new parameters.

As a French Canadian, I am totally flabbergasted that 75% of the respondents believed in some sort of divine intervention. Creationism isn’t an issue in schools here, and since 85% of French Canadian are Roman Catholic, and the church accepts evolution, it isn’t an issue in our churches either (most of which are empty, since only 10% practice their religion).

Did you find a correlation between previous science education and a belief in natural evolution? It wasn’t the focus of the study but I am curious. I understand though the sample gets rather small.

As your exchanges with Randy Masters have shown in Roger’s blog, as well as your discussions with mr Corvig, data and argument does not seem to be able to change faith! I wonder if it has something to do with the actual wiring of the brain that takes place as we grow older? (read a good article on the subject recently in National Geographic about adolescent brains) Perhaps once a belief is in place it cannot be rooted out because it is hard wired? Or is it more because the issue is mixed up with emotion and therefore non rational?

Best Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park, Qc

Hello Dave,

Well congratulations then!

To be honest, with ‘whether’ rather than ‘how’, I think you’re leaving them an escape route, a way to chicken out, somewhere between faith and atheism, which is wise! Believe in science or believe in God is a dichotomy that goes beyond the science class curriculum!
You can’t prove a negative anyway, but as time goes by, the evidence for the existence of God is getting more and more remote and abstract. But this is also beyond the science curriculum; everyone should come to their own conclusions.

‘Puritan roots, lack of a state-sponsored religion and freedom of speech’
Hum, I’ll disagree on some of that, Canada, France, Germany, England: freedom of speech, yes, no state religion, yes (is the Anglican religion a state religion? Not really), argumentative, yes (especially the French, it’s an art form there!), Puritan roots… where the puritans fundamentalists? The English obviously have a puritan heritage as well, and the Germans a protestant one, of course, and yet they are not particularly anti evolution.

It is something truly American.

How about religious fundamentalism? The literal interpretation of the Bible, and especially of the old testament, versus a metaphorical one (such as for part of Roman Catholicism) might be the root of the ‘problem’. Why do so many American insist on taking the bible literally? That is a mystery to me. Is that particularly puritan? There where some very strong religious movements in the US during the nineteenth century: Mormons, Shakers, Christian Scientists and others; there was a very strong ‘repent, the end is near element’ and a ‘search for yourself, beware of authority’ ; might this be the source of the American particularity?

In the same vein, there is also a strong anti-science, anti-authority element somewhere in US culture. And science is a very authoritarian system. Might it be the mystique of the self made man, the independent thinker, the libertarian that won’t have some outside authority force him how to think? ‘Science? To hell with science! I’ll believe what I want to believe!’

So, perhaps a specifically American cultural mistrust of authority?

Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park.

Hello Dave,

Thanks for the reply.
Googled Crationism bill, Indiana. Wow, I wonder how you would have dealt with that in your teaching? I guess the final bill might have varied in wording but the version that says “the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation” seems quite coercive. Wow. Require.

This state of mind is quite prevalent in western Canada. We now have a majority conservative federal government (power base from the west), and they are slowly changing the country. For example: “Gary Goodyear isn't just your everyday creationist, he's also a chiropractor. Oh. And Canada's Minister for science and technology.” Goodyear said that he believed in evolution during an interview with CTV News. When asked to clarify this belief, Goodyear responded "We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment." Nicely sidesteps the issue, don’t you think? Well, he is a politician, that’s for sure.

The conservatives have just abolished the ‘arms registry’, a database of “all” firearms in Canada. What gets to me is how triumphant they where with this, how righteous. But, the registry was created in reaction to the murder of 15 engineering students, all girls, in 1989, with a legally acquired semi automatic rifle. I graduated from engineering school in 1988 (not the same school), and my wife is also an engineer. This one hit very close to home. I guess what really hurts in this case is the triumph of ideology. Of course, what I defend is another ideology, but at least (I believe) it tries to be grounded in reality.

I’d love to blame Americans and conservative media, a typically Canadian reaction, but there has to be ground, for something to grow.

On another note, I drove through part of Indiana, and Missouri last year. Saw a lot of corn and soybeans. And we stopped at the Warren Dunes State Park, just a few miles from Buchanan! Beautiful lake, lovely beach. We’re used to the Atlantic here in Quebec, so it was quite a novelty to see a “fresh water sea”. And the size of the dunes!
Just a few miles before, we had stopped for lunch at St-Joseph, near the Silver Beach Carrousel, at a pizza place in the train station. There was a huge fountain there. Some kind of half abandoned pleasure park. I guess people left Chicago on the summer, if they could, before air conditioning. The same think happened here in Otterburn Park. It was once the first stop on the railway line out of a humid and unhealthy Montreal, at the turn of last century. Hence the Park part of the name.

Good for your grandparents, but still, it’s you got the PhD (after all, how many of your cousins have one?, if it’s all of them, then OK, no big deal). Although it’s none of my business, I hope it at least moved you up a pay scale!

And finally, Thank you, dear Americans, for rock and roll. Roller skates not quite so much. And Hip hop, eighhh….

Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park, Qc

I responded to this, but I guess it did not come through. (?)

I would quit and contact the ICLU before I would teach creationism as a valid theory.

So nice to read you visited St. Joe!

The carousel is back, as is a butterfly sanctuary.

Silver Beach (as you may imagine) is incredibly crowded during the two months of the year when its warm enough to swim.

Here's the band I perform with at the Fireman's Theater, right up the hill: www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9Nvtmf0OQ4

Oh Bill,
I'm so glad you have joined our conversation.

You are right about Biblical literalism in general. I should have substituted the word "creationism," as the words aren't necessarily synonymous. Creationism / evolution denial is more prevalent here than any other industrialized country on earth. Prior to Darwin & Lamarck, most theologians were satisfied with catastrophism, as it fit in nicely with the creation myths.

Last night, I was skimming over two articles & it got me thinking. The first, in "Time," described the "Not Church" movement. Basically, people get together to do good works without organized religion. Absent the prayer, I kinda like that idea.

The second, in "Reason," was an interview with Penn Jillette, avowed atheist. Jillette rightly pointed out that most agnostics / atheists get that way because they study. They do things like read the Bible, realize it is ridiculous & come to natural conclusions.

It got me to thinking. Maybe John Lennon was more right than he knew in that Maureen Cleave interview all those years ago. He was definitely right about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus, but perhaps Christianity (and religion itself) will vanish and shrink, too.

Do you suppose Lennon was right? With the internet, I can win every argument I have with theists. Think about this for a second. As the Information Age expands, people learn more physical laws, the history of religion, logic, etc. Research has shown the physical structure of the brain actual changes as learning takes place. People may artificially evolve in rationalists and Christianity Judaism & Islam will go the way of Polytheistic religions of the ancient past. What do you think?

There was a really good series on NPR a few years ago, "Is America too Damned Religious?" My vote is yes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7422542

Yeah, those belly dancers were part of The People's Festival in South Bend. The city still retains its Polish, Hungarian, German & (of course) Irish neighborhoods on the West Side.

Just today, the following letter appeared in the South Bend Tribune:

Creationism
The Tribune reported that the Indiana Senate would be debating creationism in our public schools (Jan. 29). "Indiana Opinion" (Feb. 5) says it's bad science. Regrettably the Supreme Court closed that door in1987.

If creationsim is unconstitutional, then so is the Declaration of Independence: " ... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ..."

Evolutionists do not want to discuss the whole truth. They assume uniform change over millions of years. They violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's inconceivable to accept the probability of our millions of cells including our DNA to form our bodies by "natural selection." They ignore Noah's flood, which can explain the fossils, Ice Age, dinosaurs and limited population on Earth. We don't have all the answers. Life is an amazing mystery created by an awesome God. Which is easier to believe?

The best evidence to change my mind was to see the effects of evolution in the last three generations since Dewey's Humanist Manifesto in the '30s. Dropouts want to believe evolution so they can live like animals, do as they please, abuse sex and it's survival of the fittest. This attitude is too costly.
Why are we teaching evolution? In the end, we will know who is right.

Mel Meyer
South Bend

I'll post my response soon enough. Sometimes I want to give up.

Oh boy. Sorry it took so long to respond. My wife's mother had a heart attack & her grandmother passed away in the last three weeks, so we have been very busy.

I checked out the link, thanks. I've found it simply doesn't matter to creationists that all evidence points to a conclusion different than their belief system allows.
DVD