First Blog

I love evolution theory ; I love creationism .  These are active and competing theories of human and life's existence, one based on contemporary scientific methodology and the other based on traditional, though religious beliefs.   Both involve a level supplemented by plausibility arguments. Both try to tell us where we are on a chronological scale and within a broad scheme of events.  The first tells us where we came from, how long it took, what were the steps, and ultimately how we got here.  It doesn't explain how it happened, but does assume it did happen.    The current evolution theory is consistent, contiguous, though evolving and incomplete.     Science should explain the how - but hasn't done so yet.  Science conjectures, theorizes, i.e. guesses on at the marvelous processes.  The problems are difficult.   In contrast, the creationist (i.e. religious) viewpoint explains the origins, with the "how" being a Devine intervention.  With the how "establi

The Academy - here in Texas. What is the Academy?  This translates to Universities and the like.  Lately, in Texas, there is a legislative push to hire creationists in some fair and proportional numbers. The TX HB 25 states, "An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms."  Roughly speaking, this means creationists should have a representation on the faculty, or at least not be denied representation.   The outrage of my colleagues is without limit.  In this short note we omit details about the definitions of who are the creationists and their latest reinvention as advocates of intelligent design.  Mostly, they give a secular argument that we, this world