DOCSLIB.ORG

Proquest Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Copyright © 2009 Franklin Todd Belcher All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation and instruction. THE SCIENTIFIC VIABILITY OF W. A. DEMBSKI'S DESIGN INFERENCE: RESPONSE TO B. FORREST AND R. PENNOCK OF THE KITZMILLER TRIAL A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Franklin Todd Belcher December 2009 UMI Number: 3401804 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Dissertation Publishing UMI 3401804 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 APPROVAL SHEET THE SCIENTIFIC VIABILITY OF W. A. DEMBSKI'S DESIGN INFERENCE: RESPONSE TO B. FORREST AND R. PENNOCK OF THE KITZMILLER TRIAL Franklin Todd Belcher Read and Approved by: dh~£L9 Chad O. Brand Date II In JO 9 To Maria, full of patience and encouragement, beyond measure TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES viii PREFACE ix Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Explanation of the Problem 2 Background 3 Methodology 6 Chapter Summaries 10 2. DEMBSKI AND THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID) MOVEMENT 17 Brief History of ID Thought and Research 18 William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy 18 Twentieth Century Criticisms of Darwinian Theory 21 Phillip E. Johnson and His Critique of Darwinism 23 Following Johnson's Lead 25 Secularist Support for ID as Real Science 32 Scholarship's Debate on ID's Scientific Viability 35 The Problem in Context of Previous Research: Thomas Woodward 40 The Wedge Strategy 49 The Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document 49 Dembski's Role in the Wedge Agenda 54 Conclusion 55 iv Chapter Page 3. THE DESIGN INFERENCE (DI) 58 The Explanatory Filter 58 How the Filter Discloses Characteristics of Design 58 Differentiation between Necessity, Chance, and Design 60 Probability and Specified Complexity 64 Design as Information 67 Dembski's Confidence in the Design Inference 70 The Logic of the DI 70 The Reliability of the DI 71 The Application of the DI 73 Detecting Information-Rich Systems in Microbiology 78 Chapter Summary 82 4. DEMBSKI, FORREST, PENNOCK AND THE KITZMILLER TRIAL 84 Events Leading to the Suit 85 The Court Setting 87 Judge John E. Jones, III 87 The Plaintiffs and Their Representatives 88 The Defendants and Their Representatives 89 Proceedings of the Trial 90 Expert Witnesses from Science and Philosophy 90 Closing Arguments 102 Judge Jones's Ruling and a Brief Analysis 106 Reaction to the Trial and to the Jones Decision 110 v Chapter Page Criticisms of Dembski from Expert Witnesses 116 Barbara Forrest 116 Robert Pennock 133 Summary of Forrest and Pennock 146 5. DEMBSKI'S RESPONSES TO FORREST AND PENNOCK 148 ID, Evolution, and Religious Bias 149 ID and Creationism 151 Methodological Materialism 154 ID and Scientific Advancement 157 Lack of Positive Evidence and Testability 160 ID as Negative Rhetoric 160 Testability 161 Effect to Cause Reasoning 165 ID's Theological Favoritism 167 CSI and Improbability 168 Explanatory Modes and Physical Logic 170 Law of Conservation of Information 172 Cumulative Selection Explaining Appearance of Design 175 Dembski's Progression to Evolutionary Informatics 177 Dembski's Response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober 181 Chapter Summary 187 6. CONCLUDING ANALYSIS 190 "The" Scientific Method 190 Scientific Materialism (Naturalism) 191 Intelligent Design and Scientific Method 193 vi Page Inference to the Best Explanation 199 Dembski's Legitimate Method 201 The DI vs. Forrest and Pennock 202 Conclusion 206 BIBLIOGRAPHY 210 vn LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The Original Version of the Explanatory Filter 61 2. The Modified Version of the Explanatory Filter 62 viii PREFACE This research has been exciting, rewarding, and, at times, exhausting. I am very thankful for those who came alongside and helped me carry the load. Most of the time, they carried more than their fair share. My wife, Maria, just like our first years of life together, has been an unbelievable rock of encouragement throughout my higher education. As you read this for the first time, Maria, we made it! I realize that you always believed that we would make it, although I sometimes had my doubts. And now we can look forward to entering another exciting chapter of life, hand in hand. My parents, Levy and Clodean Belcher, have also gone the extra mile in their love and support. They've supported me unconditionally, despite often having trouble understanding the exact nature of my work and its significance. I thank God for such godly parents who have toiled all their lives to make the best life possible for my two brothers and myself. Much love and appreciation goes to my church family, Calvary Baptist Church, in Glasgow, Kentucky. They have greatly supported my many years of theological education. I only hope that I am now better able to give something back to them; that I can help in equipping the saints for God's glory. I will forever be indebted to the superlative faculty at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—as both M.Div. and doctoral student. I will take with me lasting memories from Dr. James Parker. Not only does he instruct with a wealth of philosophical and theological insight, but Dr. Parker's down home Texas humor has also carried me through many long days with a smile. In addition to Dr. Parker, Dr. Chad Brand is another member of my research committee from whom I have learned much and ix can never begin to repay. Most of all, I sincerely thank my committee chairperson, Dr. Ted Cabal. None of this would be possible without his superb academic knowledge, leadership, and encouragement. Dr. Cabal has always challenged me with the perfect balance of tenacity and warmth. There is little doubt that I will return to him many times for his wisdom throughout my academic career. Special acknowledgment must also be made for other kind, gifted scholars who have guided and advised me during my research. They include Thomas Woodward, Steven Fuller, Bradley Monton, Casey Luskin, and, of course, the primary subject of this dissertation, William Dembski. I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Dembski during his brief time at Southern. It was during his seminar that I began to fathom the true significance of Intelligent Design, how fascinating it is, and the magnitude of Dr. Dembski's work in particular. This dissertation has required long hours of work and thought, and I have often become lost in the minutia of the content. However, it is fitting that in the final days of this research I am starting to remember what is truly important; all of this work is wasted if it of no use to the Church. I pray that what is presented in the pages ahead will aid many Christians in confronting "every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). May it somehow contribute to the advancement of his kingdom and to the glorification of his Name. Franklin Todd Belcher Glasgow, Kentucky December 2009 x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION On December 20, 2005, Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Judge John Jones concluded that Intelligent Design (ID) was a cloaked form of creationist religion. The judge chastised the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board for their "breathtaking inanity" in adopting such an imprudent policy promoting ID, motivated by in "ill-informed" faction within the board.1 Therefore, according to his verdict for Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, the school board had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The board was ordered to cease the reading of a brief written statement to ninth grade biology students. The statement had informed students of ID research as an alternative to the status quo Darwinian model of origins advocated in public schools. Also within the statement, students were informed that the pro-ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, was on file in the high school library. This book had been available to any student who might pursue supplemental investigation of theories that challenge Darwinian natural selection. Such information is now legally prohibited in Dover schools. A serious issue within academia's debate about origins is whether research that infers Intelligent Design should be considered as scientifically justifiable. Jones's verdict has contributed to growing skepticism of ID within scientific and public discourses; the trial's legal and scientific ramifications, along with its influence on what should be considered as "true science," cannot be overestimated. Nevertheless, another substantial 'judge Jones, "Memorandum Opinion," Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District et al, 137-38 No. 04cv2688 (M. D. Pa. 2005). 2Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The Central Questions of Biological Origins, 2nd ed., ed. Charles B. Thaxton (Dallas: Haughton, 1993). 1 2 question is whether the Kitzmiller conclusion about the illegitimacy of Intelligent Design is based on an accurate weighing of ID's actual research. If not, then is the ruling grounded in any amount of unwarranted caricature? More specifically, the present research works toward a determination of whether two of the trial's most influential witnesses, Barbara Forrest and Robert T.
Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

    Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
  • Arguments from Design

    Arguments from Design

    Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Victoria S. Harrison University of Glasgow This is an archived version of ‘Arguments form Design: A Self-defeating Strategy?’, published in Philosophia 33 (2005): 297–317. Dr V. Harrison Department of Philosophy 69 Oakfield Avenue University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8LT Scotland UK E-mail: [email protected] Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Abstract: In this article, after reviewing traditional arguments from design, I consider some more recent versions: the so-called ‘new design arguments’ for the existence of God. These arguments enjoy an apparent advantage over the traditional arguments from design by avoiding some of Hume’s famous criticisms. However, in seeking to render religion and science compatible, it seems that they require a modification not only of our scientific understanding but also of the traditional conception of God. Moreover, there is a key problem with arguments from design that Mill raised to which the new arguments seem no less vulnerable than the older versions. The view that science and religion are complementary has at least one significant advantage over other positions, such as the view that they are in an antagonistic relationship or the view that they are so incommensurable that they are neither complementary nor antagonistic. The advantage is that it aspires to provide a unified worldview that is sensitive to the claims of both science and religion. And surely, such a worldview, if available, would seem to be superior to one in which, say, scientific and religious claims were held despite their obvious contradictions.
  • Polanyi Review Committee Report

    Polanyi Review Committee Report

    THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY The External Review Committee was convened to review the status of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor University, which was established a year ago with the primary aim of advancing the understanding of the sciences. In the early summer, members of the Committee received copies of books and articles relevant to the work of the Center. On September 8 and 9, 2000, the Committee met to discuss what they had read, to hear from persons who addressed matters about which the Committee was concerned, and to formulate a response to the charge the Committee had been given. The vigorous discussions about the issues contained in the charge reflected the variety in the backgrounds and perspectives of the Committee members. The outcome of these discussions was a thorough and even- handed review of the concerns before the Committee. It is important from the outset to emphasize that the sciences at Baylor University are the inheritors of a long and distinguished tradition. For many years, undergraduate instruction in the sciences at Baylor has been conducted in an exciting and effective manner. The graduate and research programs are solid and well respected throughout the scientific community. Not only have students and faculty been active in the mainstream of scientific disciplines, but they have also pursued initiatives in new areas and directions. Baylor’s heritage, in this regard, is clearly one of which it can be proud. The relationship of the sciences to other academic fields is a further responsibility that Baylor seeks to address. Relationships between the sciences and the humanities, as well as issues relating to the environment and public policy, are matters of real concern to the Baylor community.
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
  • The Impotent Fury of William Dembski

    The Impotent Fury of William Dembski

    THE DESIGN REVOLUTION? How William Dembski Is Dodging Questions About Intelligent Design By Mark Perakh Who is William A. Dembski? We are told that he has PhD degrees in mathematics and philosophy plus more degrees - in theology and what not – a long list of degrees indeed. [1] To acquire all those degrees certainly required an unconventional penchant for getting as many degrees as possible. We all know that degrees alone do not make a person a scientist. Scientific degrees are not like ranks in the military where a general is always above a mere colonel. Degrees are only a formal indicator of a person’s educational status. A scientist’s reputation and authority are based on his degrees only to a negligible extent. What really attests to a person’s status in science is publications in professional journals and anthologies and references to one’s work by colleagues. This is the domain where Dembski has so far remained practically invisible. All his multiple publications have little or nothing to do with science. He is a mathematician who did not prove any theorem and derived not a single formula. When he writes about probability theory or information theory -- on which he is proclaimed to be an expert -- the real experts in these fields (using the words of the prominent mathematician David Wolpert) “squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug.” [2] When encountering critique of his work, Dembski is selective in choosing when to reply to his critics and when to ignore their critique. His preferred targets for replies are those critics who do not boast comparable long lists of formal credentials – this enables him to contemptuously dismiss the critical comments by pointing to the alleged lack of qualification of his opponents while avoiding answering the essence of their critical remarks.
  • Evolution of Digital Organisms in Truly Two-Dimensional Memory Space

    Evolution of Digital Organisms in Truly Two-Dimensional Memory Space

    UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY BACHELOR THESIS Evolution of digital organisms in truly two-dimensional memory space Author: Supervisor: Mykhailo POLIAKOV Oleg FARENYUK A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Computer Sciences Faculty of Applied Sciences Lviv 2020 i Declaration of Authorship I, Mykhailo POLIAKOV, declare that this thesis titled, “Evolution of digital organisms in truly two-dimensional memory space” and the work presented in it are my own. I confirm that: • This work was done wholly or mainly while in candidature for a research de- gree at this University. • Where any part of this thesis has previously been submitted for a degree or any other qualification at this University or any other institution, this has been clearly stated. • Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly attributed. • Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work. • I have acknowledged all main sources of help. • Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made clear exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed my- self. Signed: Date: ii UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY Faculty of Applied Sciences Bachelor of Science Evolution of digital organisms in truly two-dimensional memory space by Mykhailo POLIAKOV Abstract Artificial life is the field of study where researchers use simulations to understand natural life. One of the notable simulations of artificial life is called Tierra.
  • ``Mathematics'' and ``Physics'' in the Science of Harmonics

    ``Mathematics'' and ``Physics'' in the Science of Harmonics

    NISSUNA UMANA INVESTIGAZIONE SI PUO DIMANDARE VERA SCIENZIA S’ESSA NON PASSA PER LE MATEMATICHE DIMOSTRAZIONI LEONARDO DA VINCI vol. 4 no. 3-4 2016 Mathematics and Mechanics of Complex Systems STEFANO ISOLA “MATHEMATICS” AND “PHYSICS” IN THE SCIENCE OF HARMONICS msp MATHEMATICS AND MECHANICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS Vol. 4, No. 3-4, 2016 dx.doi.org/10.2140/memocs.2016.4.213 ∩ MM “MATHEMATICS” AND “PHYSICS” IN THE SCIENCE OF HARMONICS STEFANO ISOLA Some aspects of the role that the science of harmonics has played in the history of science are discussed in light of Russo’s investigation of the history of the concepts of “mathematics” and “physics”. 1. The rambling route of the ancient scientific method In several places in Russo’s writings on the history of science, one can find en- lightening discussions about the meanings of the concepts of “physics” and “math- ematics”, along with the particular notions of truth involved in them; see, e.g., [58, Chapter 6.6; 60, Chapter 15; 56; 57]. Both terms derive from the Greek: the original meaning of the former was the investigation of everything that lives, grows or, more generally, comes into existence, whereas the latter referred to all that is studied, thus deriving its meaning not from its content but from its method. In the Hellenistic period, the term “physics” continued to be used to indicate that sector of philosophy that addressed nature (the other sectors being ethics and logic), thus corresponding to what came to be called “natural philosophy” in modern times. On the other hand, the term “mathematics” was used to indicate all the disciplines (including geometry, arithmetic, harmonics, astronomy, optics, mechanics, hydro- statics, pneumatics, geodesy and mathematical geography) that shared the same method of investigation, based on the construction of theories by which “theorems” are proved, leaning on explicitly stated initial assumptions.
  • Multi-Agent Economics and the Emergence of Critical Markets

    Multi-Agent Economics and the Emergence of Critical Markets

    Multi-agent Economics and the Emergence of Critical Markets Michael S. Harr´e1 1Complex Systems Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Abstract The dual crises of the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the global financial crisis has prompted a call for explanations of non-equilibrium market dynamics. Recently a promising approach has been the use of agent based models (ABMs) to simulate aggregate market dynamics. A key aspect of these models is the endogenous emergence of critical transitions between equilibria, i.e. market collapses, caused by multiple equilibria and changing market parameters. Several research themes have developed microeconomic based models that include multiple equilibria: social decision theory (Brock and Durlauf), quantal response models (McKelvey and Palfrey), and strategic complementarities (Goldstein). A gap that needs to be filled in the literature is a unified analysis of the relationship between these models and how aggregate criticality emerges from the individual agent level. This article reviews the agent-based foundations of markets starting with the individual agent perspective of McFadden and the aggregate perspective of catastrophe theory emphasising connections between the different approaches. It is shown that changes in the uncertainty agents have in the value of their interactions with one another, even if these changes are one-sided, plays a central role in systemic market risks such as market instability and the twin crises effect. These interactions can endogenously cause crises that are an emergent phenomena of markets. 1 Introduction Multi-agent models have grown in popularity [2, 5, 64, 9, 34, 37] as a way in which to simu- late complex market dynamics that might have no closed form solutions.
  • Chapter 6.Qxp

    Chapter 6.Qxp

    Testing Darwin Digital organisms that breed thousands of times faster than common bacteria are beginning to shed light on some of the biggest unanswered questions of evolution BY CARL ZIMMER F YOU WANT TO FIND ALIEN LIFE-FORMS, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but Ihold off on booking that trip to the moons of getting pretty close.” Saturn. You may only need to catch a plane to East Lansing, Michigan. One thing the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve. “Avida is not a simulation of evolu- The aliens of East Lansing are not made of car- tion; it is an instance of it,” Pennock says. “All the bon and water. They have no DNA. Billions of them core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These are quietly colonizing a cluster of 200 computers in things replicate, they mutate, they are competing the basement of the Plant and Soil Sciences building with one another. The very process of natural selec- at Michigan State University. To peer into their tion is happening there. If that’s central to the defi- world, however, you have to walk a few blocks west nition of life, then these things count.” on Wilson Road to the engineering department and visit the Digital Evolution Laboratory. Here you’ll It may seem strange to talk about a chunk of find a crew of computer scientists, biologists, and computer code in the same way you talk about a even a philosopher or two gazing at computer mon- cherry tree or a dolphin. But the more biologists itors, watching the evolution of bizarre new life- think about life, the more compelling the equation forms.
  • What Is Important About the No Free Lunch Theorems? 3

    What Is Important About the No Free Lunch Theorems? 3

    What is important about the No Free Lunch theorems? David H. Wolpert Abstract The No Free Lunch theorems prove that under a uniform distribution over induction problems (search problemsor learning problems), all induction algorithms perform equally. As I discuss in this chapter, the importanceofthe theoremsarises by using them to analyze scenarios involving non-uniform distributions, and to compare different algorithms, without any assumption about the distribution over problems at all. In particular, the theorems prove that anti-cross-validation (choosing among a set of candidate algorithms based on which has worst out-of-sample behavior) performs as well as cross-validation, unless one makes an assumption — which has never been formalized — about how the distribution over induction problems, on the one hand,is relatedto the set of algorithmsone is choosingamong using (anti-)cross validation, on the other. In addition, they establish strong caveats concerning the significance of the many results in the literature which establish the strength of a particular algorithm without assuming a particular distribution. They also motivate a “dictionary” between supervised learning and improve blackbox optimization, which allows one to “translate” techniques from supervised learning into the domain of blackbox optimization, thereby strengthening blackbox optimization algorithms. In addition to these topics, I also briefly discuss their implications for philosophy of science. 1 Introduction arXiv:2007.10928v1 [cs.LG] 21 Jul 2020 The first of what are now called the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems were published in [1]. Soon after publication they were popularizedin [2], building on a preprint ver- sion of [1]. Those first theorems focused on (supervised) machine learning.
  • The Emergence and Development of the Religious Right in America

    The Emergence and Development of the Religious Right in America

    1 The Emergence and Development of the Religious Right in America homas Jefferson’s famous metaphor to the contrary notwithstanding, there has never been an absolute wall between church and state in American society. Ever since the Puritans came Tashore in the early seventeenth century, religious leaders have often sought to influence public policy on a variety of social issues, and political leaders of all persuasions have just as readily appealed to the divine. A generation before the Civil War, for instance, the churches had already clashed and divided over slavery; in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the social gospel inspired many churchgoers to pursue legislative remedies to urban, industrial ills; the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment on prohibition in 1919 was a crowning achievement for the religious establishment; and today many religious bodies maintain lobbyists in the nation’s capital to sway politicians on everything from prayer in public schools to racial justice. To many religious leaders, political activism in no way violates the separation of church and state, for in their view religion has a responsibility to address vital issues. Likewise, public officials have often invoked the authority of religion, hinting that a divine force directed American history. Both Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address and John F. Kennedy in his 1961 address, for instance, used a religious framework to explain national purpose. In 1949 Harry Truman described the Cold War as a contest between the powers of light and darkness, and in 1953 “God’s Float” led Dwight D. Eisenhower’s inaugural parade; and George W.
  • BEACON 2011 Annual Report

    BEACON 2011 Annual Report

    BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action ANNUAL REPORT November 1, 2011 For any questions regarding this report, please contact: Danielle J. Whittaker, Ph.D. Managing Director BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action 1441 Biomedical and Physical Sciences Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-884-2561 [email protected] BEACON 2011 Annual Report I. GENERAL INFORMATION Date submitted November 1, 2011 Reporting period February 1, 2011 – January 31, 2012 Name of the Center BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action Name of the Center Director Erik D. Goodman Lead University Michigan State University Address 1441 Biomedical and Physical Sciences East Lansing, MI 48824 Phone Number 517-884-2555 Fax Number 517-353-7248 Center Director email [email protected] Center URL http://www.beacon-center.org Participating Institutions Institution 1 Name North Carolina A&T State University Contact Person Gerry Vernon Dozier Address Department of Computer Science 508 McNair Hall Greensboro, NC 27411 Phone Number (336) 334-7245, ext 467 Fax Number (336) 334-7244 Email Address [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Member Institution Institution 2 Name University of Idaho Contact Person James Foster Address Department of Biological Sciences Moscow, ID 83844-3051 Phone Number (208) 885-7062 Fax Number (208) 885-7905 Email Address [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Member Institution Institution 3 Name The University of Texas at Austin Contact Person Risto Miikkulainen Address Department of Computer Sciences 1 University Station D9500 Austin TX 78712-0233 Phone Number (512) 471-9571 Fax Number (512) 471-8885 Email Address [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Member Institution Institution 4 Name University of Washington Contact Person Benjamin Kerr Address Department of Biology Box 351800 Seattle, WA 98195 Phone Number (206)-221-3996 Fax Number Email Address [email protected] Role of Institution at Center Member Institution BEACON 2011 Annual Report I.