New Commenting System

Due to repeated problems with the default Blogger commenting, I installed a new add-on for commenting that is much nicer.

All of the old comments have been restored and put into the new commenting system.

Local author spotlight: Kenny Luck

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Local author spotlight: Kenny Luck" Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Atheists protest in Harrisburg: "Keep gods out of government"

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Atheists protest in Harrisburg: 'Keep gods out of government'" Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

----

This article was featured on the Friendly Atheist blog.

Atheists to protest Harrisburg mayor Linda Thompson

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Atheists to protest Harrisburg mayor Linda Thompson." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

----

This article was featured on the American Atheists' homepage.

Conservatives, Teachers, and Education: Free Will on Steroids?

Earlier today, after a bad day (and these are quite rare, actually), I had a discussion with a self-identified right-wing conservative (I'm not just attributing this to him) about education. While I'm no 'expert' in this area and haven't read much about specific arguments aimed to find problems and fix problems with our education system in the United States, I entertained a discussion and did my best. As always, if I'm way off base, please call me out.

I had mentioned in a discussion, at some point, that I think more money should be spent on education and that teachers often are not paid enough to be attracted to teaching. My 'opponent' explained that 'throwing more money' on the problems of education won't help the issues and that too many bad teachers are teaching that should be fired. Throughout the argument, the constant theme of 'bad teachers should be fired' was the main point.

I asked for a definition of a bad teacher and how to determine if a teacher is a bad teacher. I was told that teachers should be evaluated/paid on a '50-40-5-5' scale in which 50% is judged by students' performance on standardized tests, 40% is evaluation by persons from the state board of education who enter schools and evaluate teachers (how they do this, and by what standards, I was not told), 5% was accomplishment by teachers' colleagues, and I don't recall what the other 5% was.

I objected to evaluation on this scale primarily because judging teachers as 'good' or 'bad' by looking at the results of standardized tests can be very problematic. I noted various issues:*

• While a teacher may be a good teacher, students might perform poorly on a standardized test simply because they are poor test-takers - this may not be the teacher's fault.
• While a teacher may be a good teacher, students might just 'not care' and may perform poorly.
• What about the student's parents, home life, and other variables? If students are raised by a very poor family that is largely absent, uncaring, etc, can we really put the blame on the teacher for the student's poor performance?
• What about learning disabilities?
• A teacher can be a very poor teacher, but students can still perform well.
• A teacher can be a very poor teacher, but students have no initiative.
• Many students have different learning styles and a specific teacher may not 'click' with a student.
• Some students simply might not like certain teachers although they are good teachers and may refuse to do work for the teacher.
• Factors such as student absenteeism or not doing work, even though the teacher is a good teacher, may lead to poor performance.

With many of these problems, can we really judge 50% of a teacher's 'worth' on how students score on standardized tests? If we're going to fire teachers mainly based on standardized test performance, many good teachers are going to be cut and more problems will persist. Of course, there may be situations in which standardized test scores can represent how well a teacher performs, but issues still remain.

Some of the sentiments from my 'opponent' were similar to those of my conservative neighbor

that I mentioned in a previous post. Conservatives often hold the idea that, no matter what one faces, individuals can be 'self-made' and can accomplish virtually anything without problems. This idea was applied to students when my opponent noted that my objections were 'abstract excuses' and students, regardless of home life and other issues, can perform well on standardized tests. He pointed to someone he knew who had many brothers and was very poor, but he still performed well. Hell, I've even had serious problems at home during high school (my parents divorced and my father was largely absent from my educational development), but pointing to one or two counter-examples of students who performed well despite a bad upbringing or other issues does not take away all of the children who have educational difficulties because of factors outside of the teacher's control.

My opponent than attacked my idea of giving more money to teachers and spending more money from our budget on education and said something along the lines of, "What are you kidding me? School taxes went up $45 and that money...you know where it went? It didn't go to the student down the block, but rather to the teacher who retired with a pension at the age of 50 and not to that student!" This objection, as you may have guessed, is a very bad one. My opponent fails to understand that money received by the state to go to education is distributed to various areas (it doesn't just go to one teacher who retired).

It's also not the case that just because money doesn't directly go to the students that it is not spent well (consider renovations to schools, wages paid to facilities staff...and even the retirement bonuses for teachers!). If teachers are allured with an attractive retirement plan, then great. The positions, then, ought to become more competitive and more qualified teachers should be willing to apply for positions.

Currently, qualifications of teachers have been declining, particularly in high-poverty public schools. Some schools will even let teachers slide with a degree from a program like the ones found on Online Teaching Degree if they are willing to accept low enough compensation. By bringing in more qualified teachers, competition -- a concept conservatives should be found of -- will increase. More competition should produce better teachers being placed in key positions. Better wages should attract these better teachers.

Conservatives like the one I mentioned often take a very 'one answer fixes everything and it's really simple' approach, but neglect to address other important factors. With a philosophy of 'free will on steroids' which underlies this type of thought in which anyone can accomplish whatever they want despite all problems, the argument is very problematic. Of course not all conservatives think like this, but this has been a common thread I have been experiencing recently.

I thought it was very easy to arrive at the conclusion that spending on education is very important, more money should be spent on education, and teachers should be paid more, but I was mistaken ... or so the conservatives say.

Again, education isn't my 'field' of experience and posting, so if you find any of my claims problematic, feel free to address them.

Here's some outside commentary from a teacher that is relevant here from the blog "Apples in the Orchard"

"These kids are not stupid, they have just been allowed to get away with doing nothing for the previous 11 years of their education. Listen, I'm not faulting the students so much as I am the system that got them so dysfunctionally screwed-up in the first place.

When NCLB was introduced, the focus was no longer about whether students perform well, it became more about how well teachers can get the students to perform. If students are not achieving, then it is the teacher’s problem. If students are not passing classes, well, that means that the teacher must be doing something wrong. By the time students get to high school these days, they have been trained that they are not responsible for their education—the teachers are.

I will admit that there have been (and still are) some pretty bad teachers out there. I’ve even had a few in my day. However, I fail to see the merit in having teachers be disproportionately responsible for motivating students. What about the parents? What about the students goals for themselves? I think that there is this attitude that has developed in the last twenty years or so that you don’t have to work hard in America to be perceived as successful. That fallacious notion starts with the message that students are given in school, and then it continues with the availability of easy credit and the ability to live beyond one’s means without taking responsibility for poorly considered decisions. That attitude is what has gotten our country in the dire economic straights we are facing today in America. Students have no idea how to make crucial decisions because they are being force-fed a bunch of horse puckey in order to pass some arbitrary standardized test, and they have no idea how to think for themselves."

*All of these issues might not apply in all cases, but even if one of them does apply, the idea of rating teachers' performance based on standardized testing appears to be problematic. Might some of these problems 'net out' on standardized tests and not be significant or otherwise already be accounted for when determining teachers' performance ratings? I don't know. I admit of ignorance and will be happy to respond and read objections.

"Seven in Heaven Way" Controversy

This post in no way is an endorsement of FOX News. I think FOX is incredibly biased and Hannity, especially, is way off track. I watched "Hannity" because Michael De Dora was on the show. I thought that this would be clear from this post and countless jabs at FOX on my Facebook profile, but I suppose I was mistaken.

Sean Hannity, on his show last night, discussed controversy regarding the "Seven in Heaven way" sign that is supposed to commemorate NYC firefighters who died on 9/11. One way or another, Michael De Dora was invited to speak on Hannity's show in a ' fair and balanced debate' that was almost nothing more than a shouting match of people talking over others. De Dora wasn't able to say much because Hannity and the ACLJ representative kept speaking over him. FOX News is really painful to watch.

I'm certainly no accomodationist (I've been involved with a church/state battle of my own centering around a nativity scene) and want atheists to present worthwhile legal challenges that are very necessary, but I wouldn't advocate challenging this street sign. While anything can make bad PR for atheists and almost anything atheists can lead to atheists being vilified, challenging this street sign, I think, has little to no positive promise. I part ways with American Atheists here, disagree with their press release, and have many of the same concerns that are highlighted in Matt Dilahunty's post. I won't detail my objections here, but rather will focus on the Hannity segment. You can simply look at Dilahunty's post because he beat me to the punch. Feel free to click the previous two links in order to better inform yourself of the situation surrounding the issues discussed on the Hannity show.

Around 0:56, Hannity makes an inappropriate appeal to emotion and distorts the issue. Hannity says, "What's the world coming to when we can't even commemorate the ultimate sacrifice." No one is saying that the firefighters can't be commemorating, but rather the complaint is that "Seven in Heaven way" is a religious commemoration.

At 1:32, Hannity says,

"It seems that those on the left are not happy until we actually remove the name of God from the public square. We can't have nativity scenes, kids can't mention God in their [sic] valedictorian address, and you can't have this honor for these brave men that nobody except a few people that don't even live on the street are offended about. Why? Where's your tolerance?"

Nativity scenes and mentioning of God in valedictorian addresses are separate issues here, but nonetheless Hannity conflates them and makes it seem like 'people on the left' are at war with religion. Many on the left, actually, aren't atheists who want to 'remove the name of God from the public square.' Whether or not people on the left want to remove the name of God from the public square really has no bearing here regardless. Hannity mentions that people who don't even live on this street are complaining...so what? People don't need to live on a street to object to the name of the street. If a street were named [insert racial slur here] street, would complaints of those who don't live there be invalid? This also isn't an issue of 'tolerance;' if the law is broken and people object, it's not a matter of intolerance. Surely, if people wanted to implement Sharia Law, objecting to this would not be intolerance and Hannity wouldn't accept "where's your tolerance" as an objection to the objection. More specifically on the matter of the street sign, questioning the legitimacy of something isn't intolerant.

De Dora responds saying the family has every right to commemorate the firefighters and Hannity interrupts, "I didn't ask you that. I asked you where's the tolerance of people on the left and why is this your mission to push God out of the public square."Hannity seemingly forgot his own statement because, above, he says, "Why can't you have this honor for these brave men..." and asked what the world was coming to because we couldn't "commemorate the ultimate sacrifice."

Around 2:25, after De Dora mentioned that the "mission" was separation of church and state, Hannity asks De Dora where that comes from and says that separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Here's the 'old routine' once again... while the constitution doesn't explicitly state 'separation of church and state,' the establishment clause and the intentions of the founding fathers are and should be understood by reasonable learned people as intending to keep religion out of the government. The constitution also doesn't state that automatic armor-piercing weapons are illegal in the hands of civilians even though the constitution speaks of the right to bear arms. Everything isn't written out for you, Sean.

At 2:51, the ACLJ representative says, "What religion is being established here? Do you believe [...] that by saying Seven in Heaven way [...] you've established what, a national religion in the United States?" More word play here... the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This doesn't only mean, when interpreted, that "the government is not allowed to create a national religion." "Respecting an establishment" is key here. Violations of the Establishment Clause occur when the government favors one religion over another religion or religion over non-religion. In ACLU of New Jersey vs Schundler, for example, the court noted, "[I]t remains clear that government celebration of one particular religion, or even more than one religion, can constitute government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause." Whether or not Seven in Heaven Way constitutes government endorsement is the issue here, not whether a national religion is being established (like FOX News wants you to believe).

At 3:40, the ACLJ representative states, "What national religion is put in place by saying Seven in Heaven." More word play and missing the point...

At 4:45, the ACLJ representative levies a personal attack by saying, "You know it and I know it"[talking about the soundness of his arguments] "That's why the atheist association is not showing up tonight." Earlier in the segment, at 1:20, Hannity said that the New York Atheists group was not able to show because of a previous commitment. Regardless, them not showing up doesn't entail that their argument is a bad one. According to their event calender, the NYC Atheists actually had an event planned! So what if they didn't show up...they have De Dora to talk to.

Part 2:

At 0:07, Hannity mentions our "founding document," the Declaration of Independence. De Dora rightly responds and says, "that has no [legal] binding." The word "creator" in the Declaration, anyway, is a deistic god...and isn't a founding document in the way that the United States Constitution is.

At 0:40, the ACLJ rep says, to De Dora, "Everytime you say it's not establishing, it's not endorsing ... you've gone through every Establishment Clause document and so far it doesn't violate any of them." This mischaracterization of De Dora's argument is a really inaccurate. When does De Dora say that this street sign doesn't endorse religion? What does it mean when he says "you've gone through every Establishment Clause document."

at 1:37, Hannity says, to De Dora, "You're not a lawyer, are you ... it's clear that you don't understand the Establishment Clause." De Dora responds, "Are you a lawyer?" This is one of the funniest parts of the 'fair and balanced debate' because De Dora calls Hannity out on what I call the 'military superiority fallacy' in which one unjustly tries to exclude someone from a discussion because he or she doesn't have a certain qualification or experience. Anyway, while De Dora is no lawyer, he has a master's degree in political theory.

The rest, unfortunately, is merely a shouting match of De Dora being strong-armed by Hannity and the ACLJ representative while Hannity accuses De Dora of intolerance.

I'm the Scranton Atheism Examiner!

View my Examiner.com page here!

Here's my first article: "Priestly abuse: The Diocese of Scranton and beyond"

Recently, I was hired by Examiner.com and now have the position of 'Scranton Atheism Examiner.' I'll be doing some of what I'm already doing in my blog, but the position at Examiner.com is not one of blogging. Blogging, unfortunately, gets a 'bad rap' because virtually anyone can write a blog and needs no credentials to do so. Over time, perhaps, readers of blog will 'self-police' and judge the content of posts, but many blogs that are not well-researched, full of misrepresentations and outright lies, and are havens for conspiracy theorists, still get many views.

Positions at Examiner.com are more exclusive and much unlike blogging. The recruiting staff requires applicants to submit writing samples, credentials, and other materials. Examiner.com also reviews articles and has many guidelines for their writers. Examiner.com is not a blog.

On my blog/website, I post some very long articles and articles written in the first person. Not all of my blog posts deal with local issues or have a local angle, but all of my Examiner.com posts will. My Examiner.com articles will also be much shorter than my average blog posts and focus specifically on issues relevant to atheists. I also do not want to 'double down' and reproduce/rehash my blog posts as Examiner.com articles.

My Examiner.com position, then, will offer something different than my regular blog posts and will allow for my local readership to 'get a better take' on the articles. I'll be writing about local people, organizations, churches, and generally adding local angles to every Examiner.com story I write.

I'm really happy to have the Examiner.com position as 'Scranton Atheism Examiner' and hope that my readers continue to view my blog/website and will now also view my Examiner.com page. Two mediums should interest my readers and attract a new audience. Thanks for the support thus far! My blog has been very popular, of course, thanks to my readers. I will continue submitting content on my blog/website. I also might be a guest blogger on another website soon, too...but I'll keep that secret for now. I've added another tab on my website for my Examiner.com posts for easy access. I won't post single articles here, but rather will link to the article on my Examiner.com page in very short linked blog posts.

My Letter to the Editor (6/19/10)

It took a long time for the Times Leader to publish my letter to the editor, but it was posted today. As always, readers are limited in characters, but I still got my point across. A June 3 letter to the editor argued that our indiscretions (including divorce and homosexuality) are to blame for natural disasters. I respond (with edits by the Times Leader):

In the letter to the editor “Writer says indiscretions are to blame for disasters” (June 3), an author argues that our “immoral actions” are to blame for natural disasters that are caused by the Christian god.

While God’s existence is questionable, as I have argued in previous letters to the editor, the author commits various logical fallacies.

The first problem with the argument is surprisingly mentioned by the author himself: Natural disasters are noticed much more now. But this is primarily because of more news coverage and advanced technology – much more than we had a century ago. Natural disasters, of course, always have existed and have claimed many lives. The 1931 China floods, for example, according to CBC news in Canada, killed 1 million to 2.5 million.

The second fallacy is the “false cause fallacy.” The author sees various events and links them, although he provides no evidence to back his claim. The author sees “immorality” and says: “Aha! Look! This is to blame!”

We should look for more reasonable and probabilistic naturalistic explanations rather than assume that an all-loving God exists who created a universe with natural disasters that kill innocent people, including infants, who had nothing to do with others’ actions.

Is it reasonable to believe that because of divorce and gay marriage that God killed about 230,000 in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or about 222,000 in Haiti? There is no good reason to suppose that an all-loving god exists in a universe with so much destruction.

If you would like to read more of my arguments and counter-arguments against gods, view my website: www.JustinVacula.com.

My Skeptical Adventure with Chiropractic - Taking Dr. Dan Golaszewski to Task

Above is a paper I received from my recent visit to a chiropractor's office.

Credit: Dr. Dan Golaszewski

***Update***

I was on Dr. Dan's radio show for about three minutes today and levied various criticisms mainly dealing with his fusing of theology and science. I will link the podcast when it is up assuming that he doesn't edit me out.

I have been following a chiropractor in my area known as Dr. Dan. He has a website, a 'wellness practice' (that's what he calls it) known as "Power Chiropractic," and a podcast/live show on local radio that is broadcasted world-wide via the internet every Saturday. I follow a great deal of science blogs, podcasts, and keep in-the-know primarily thanks to James Randi and The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. I am not only skeptical about religion; I apply skepticism across the board and find skepticism about various forms of 'alternative medicine' entertaining and important. Those who offer ill-informed and misleading advice about health have the ability to harm people on a very wide-scale and inform the beliefs of others who share their beliefs with others... On May 1, I blogged about Dr. Oz in my "Dr. Oz is full of Logical Fallacies" post. Proponents of 'alternative medicine' like Dr. Oz often encourage their audiences or may influence their audiences (whether they intend to or not) to discard their current treatments, develop an unhealthy skepticism toward Western medicine to the point of complete distrust, and lead people to replace 'traditional medicine' with their 'alternative medicine.'

Recently, Dr. Dan advertised a free spinal examination and I took him up on the offer. I wanted to go to his office and experience what he has to offer, read the mission statements and claims in his office rather than his website, and have a one-on-one discussion instead of throwing him under the bus without actually going to his 'wellness center' (this is what it is called on his website). I did not go into his office as a rude, deceitful, and abrasive person, but rather announced that I am a skeptic from a local organization who was there to question his practices and see what he has to offer. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to directly experience Dr. Dan on my visit and instead worked with one of his assistants.

Before entering his 'wellness center' and even before traveling to his location I noticed several 'red flags.' I was prepared to see what was on a video on his website and I noticed the glaring large text on his place including "THE POWER THAT MADE THE BODY, HEALS THE BODY!" , "Natural Health Care for Families!" , "Aligning spines and lifestyles with God's ultimate intentions." These phrases are extremely vague, misleading, empty, and ambiguous. What, exactly, is the "power" that made the body? What does it mean that the body is made? Did power make the body? Did something with power make the body? Does the power heal the body? Does the thing that has power heal the body? Is Dr. Dan realigning with the intentions of God or is he aligning to fulfill the intentions of God? I thought, when I first saw these phrases, "Why would a doctor be talking about things like 'power' and 'God?' What, exactly, is 'Natural Health Care?' This isn't science; this is theology and new-age/'spiritual' stuff that is peddled by people like Deepak Chopra.

Dr. Dan, of course, advertises himself as a Dr. and calls himself a 'wellness physician' on his website. One would think that he is offering science and evidence-based treatment, but this appears to be far from the case just by looking at the outside of his place. Is Dr. Dan letting theology/mysticism inform his treatment? Surely he's not just using expressive language here... When I went to family doctors and other medical persons, I never heard God mentioned in any of my visits. I never heard anything about 'power.' What is Dr. Dan up to here?

After reading and entering information into about ten to fifteen pages of papers before my free examination, I saw even more red flags. One of the papers, "Informed Consent For Chiropractic Care," (linked at the top of the post) talks about 'vertebral sublaxations' (a fancy word for misalignment) and talks about God! The section on vertebral sublaxations reads, "...misalignment [of the spine] results in a lessening of the body's God-given, innate-ability to express its maximum health potential." What in the world is Dr. Dan talking about? How can one possibly measure or indicate God's potential and this 'innate ability' to express 'maximum health potential?' How does Dr. Dan know that the body is "made" (recall, he mentions this outside of the building)?

The same section also reads, "We do not offer to diagnose or treat any diseases or treat any diseases or conditions other than vertebral sublaxation...," but this is contrary to and is a mixed message when one reads Dr. Dan's website and listens to his podcasts. Dr. Dan believes that most problems and diseases are caused by misalignment and talks more specifically about asthma and heart disease on his website via an article from Dr. Axe noting that chiropractors can help people overcome these problems because they often originate from the 'arc of life.' If Dr. Dan only claims to treat sublaxations, why would he feature an article on his website claiming that chiropractors can help people overcome asthma and heart disease? Dr. Dan might argue, to defend his position by saying, "Well, I don't claim to treat heart disease, but rather I say that I can treat what leads to it," but this is playing word games. If you can treat something that leads to a disease, you are treating the disease in most cases. Say, for example, I have a tumor that causes cancer and a doctor treats me to ebb the effects of the tumor. Would we say that the doctor is not treating my cancer? Of course not.

Dr. Dan's paper further explains, "Regardless of what the disease is called, we do not offer to treat it. Nor do we offer advice regarding treatment prescribed by others." This is more wordplay and mixed messages. Dr. Dan, in an April 30 episode of his podcast during hour two (around 2:46), claims that long term medications will not create a healthier body, but rather will create a sicker body. He tells people to do assessments of themselves [it's between you and yourselves, he says]. Here's a direct quote from Dr. Dan's podcast,

"Now if you're just saying 'Well, I trust my doctor [muffled sounds] Don't trust me. Don't trust anybody but yourself. You are responsible for your outcome in your life. While your doctor is certainly knowledgeable in areas of disease management, in the areas of medications... certain areas when it comes to health, they really don't have all the answers for you. So what you need to do is go to someone who is educated in those areas and if you go on my website..."

Here, the mixed messages reign supreme. On his papers, Dr. Dan says that he doesn't offer advice regarding treatment of others, but he's telling people not to trust their doctors because they don't have all the answers in "certain areas when it comes to health," so you need to go to Dr. Dan's website and get the information...although you're not supposed to trust him according to his own words. Dr. Dan spouts an "it's all about you" mantra that can be really dangerous and is patently false. "Common people" aren't experts in areas of health and often have 'no idea' about certain matters, so they should go to licensed professionals and trust what they say. Dr. Dan notes that we are responsible for outcomes in our lives, but this doesn't make sense in the context in which he speaks in this part of the segment. What does responsibility for outcomes have to do with trusting doctors and ourselves?

Dr Dan's "Informed Consent For Chiropractic Care" paper further reads, "Our ONLY PRACTICE OBJECTIVE is to eliminate a major interference to the expression of the body's God-given, innate wisdom. Our only method is the specific adjustment of vertebral sublaxation." The first phrase is completely empty of meaning and is not defined at all. What are these 'major interferences' to the 'expression' of the 'body's God-given innate wisdom?' Does the body itself have wisdom? What does this even mean? Why, again, is Dr. Dan inserting theology into what should be evidence-based treatment?

After filling out and reading all of the papers (and crossing out some of the sections, too, talking about returning and paying for services) I needed to look at before my free appointment, I waited in the lobby for about fifteen minutes. I looked around the center and found many Bible verses on the walls and some propagandistic posters. One of the posters read something to the effect of, "If you wouldn't use this drug while pregnant, why would you use it when you aren't?" This argument was a really horrible one...and reeking more of the anti-'conventional medicine' sentiment. Some drugs should not be used while pregnant because they can disrupt the embryological development, but otherwise are fine to use when not pregnant. This logic falls to pieces when you consider, "If you wouldn't drink alcohol while you are pregnant, why would you drink when you are not?" Alcohol can be dangerous during pregnancies, but is otherwise just fine (if one does not abuse it) outside of pregnancies.

At the beginning of my appointment, I was told about the "Brain-Body Connection" and heard much of what was written on Dr. Dan's website under the same heading. I was told that the brain controls everything and that disruption to the spine can cause severe problems because it will disrupt the brain's function. Okay, whatever. I asked the person to define what he does for treatment and he noted, before I had the chance to say anything in response or ask anything about religious claims made on his papers and outside of his office, that chiropractic is not religious. After he was finished, I asked him why there are references to God that are made and I said that our body is not 'created' in a perfect way (this is claimed on Dr. Dan's website and was also claimed inside his place). Dr. Dan also claims that "we were created for at least 80 years of incredible health and happiness." This is blatantly false and a really misinformed. Many people die in early ages...and certainly don't experience "incredible health and happiness." If we were created for incredible health and happiness and God presumably intended this, why do our bodies have such problems? The evolution of the spine, curiously enough, was far from a "perfect" process.

The person offered the response of "it's a fact" to the claims of our bodies being created with the power of God, the innate wisdom questions, etc. He said that he wasn't here to debate me. I replied and said something to the effect of, "Ok, fine. We won't debate, but what you're saying here is not scientific, but rather is theological statements." (Regardless, "It's a fact" is no response to a question, but rather the logical fallacy of begging the question or arguing in a circle.How do we know that God made the body? Because God made the body!)

Next, I asked a question about the "Drug Free Basket" that was in the office. This was a water cooler container with all sorts of pill bottles and drugs. The person explained that these are from people who went off their medications and used natural methods instead. I asked what these 'natural methods' were and what the world natural means and was met with a response to the effect of "Medicines are made with man-made products and are synthetic. We don't do that here." I mentioned the naturalistic fallacy and asked why something that is natural is good while something non-natural is bad. I got no response to this other than what was previously said. I then said something to the effect of, "I'm worried about what's going on here. Do you think, perhaps, that people are going to give up their medications and think that they can get by just fine with your natural care?" The person responded by saying that people make their own decisions and that they aren't told what to do. The problem, though, as I previously mentioned in this post, is the huge mixed messages that are taken place. They don't tell people what to do or give advice...but then talk about how bad conventional medicine is and have anti-medicine propaganda throughout the place. Dr. Dan specifcally, in his podcast, as I previously mentioned, says that medicine creates a sicker body in the long-term!

The rest of the appointment was quite fast and included a spinal examination via some device that was connected to a USB port. I received a themography report and asked some questions about it - nothing was really interesting there. I gave the person my buisness card, invited him to defend his practices and attend one of my NEPA Freethought meetups, and thanked him for the information.

On the way out, I made sure that I had all of my papers (including the "Five Dangers of Swimming in Chlorinated Swimming Pools" paper that I took from Dr. Dan's receptionist's desk) and was on my way home (please click for a larger image if you can't read it). I wonder about the dangers of swimming in non-chlorinated swimming pools, personally... I could get into this, but that's a whole different post.

Credit: Dr. Dan Golaszewski

Surprisingly (or not), the God-language doesn't stop here. In the same April 30 podcast around 2:13, Dr. Dan claims that many people have a misrepresentation [sic] of what health is and notes that's it's not just physical and mental, but is also spiritual; all of these, he says, must be included in the definition of health. What, exactly, does Dr. Dan mean by this and what are the implications? Are all 'non-spiritual' people unhealthy by definition (one would assume so, according to Dr. Dan)? Does prayer need to happen on a daily basis as part of a health regimen? What about people who don't believe in God (with a capital "G," presumably the Christian version)?

Around 2:41, Dr. Dan says that people feel that they will be healthier when they are on more medications, but he thinks that they are wrong to believe this. Applying the same logic, Dr. Dan would have to believe the converse: People on less medications are healthier than those who are on more medications. Here we go again with the mixed messages from Dr. Dan.

Dr. Dan commits a slew of logical fallacies around 3:15. He says that people want to blame their unhealthy conditions on genes and old age, but there are people in their 80s and 90s and 100s who take zero medications and have a purpose to live for. He mentions a 110-year-old man who writes books and is a motivational speaker, for example. Just because there are people who are older, who take no medications, and are active does not entail that genes and age fail to cause health problems; Dr. Dan's argument is invalid (the conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises). Dr. Dan also commits a sample size error here - just because there are some people who are healthy does not mean that we can generalize from a small group and apply this to the population at large. It's profoundly wrong to believe that age and genes has nothing to do with poor health. Is Dr. Dan seriously claiming this?

Dr. Dan appears to be endorsing some sort of libertarian do-it-yourself free will in which we have all sorts of control over our life circumstances, but this simply is not the case (in both a philosophical case and a health case). Specifically, in the podcast, Dr. Dan states that everyone has the ability to be healthy and can be what they want to be (16:49). We can't help but fall pray to certain diseases if our genetic structures are arranged in certain manners. Diseases also 'run in families.' Sure, some people can exercise, be healthy, and life lifestyles in which they avoid diseases, but we can't throw age and genetics out the window completely. Just because one 110-year-old is very healthy does not mean that all 110-year-olds can be healthy (and many people will never live to 110).

At 6:03, Dr. Dan echoes much of what he mentions in his website and asserts that our bodies were created to heal themselves. He says that if we cut our arms, the tissue will reform and bloodclotting will occur. Ok, great, but one example does not apply to every situation, but this, nonetheless, is exactly what Dr. Dan claims. The idea that the body was created is, yet again, a theological assertion. Can Dr. Dan provide evidence for this? What does this even have to do with science and medicine, anyway?

Dr. Dan is most likely 'playing' with the concept of homeostasis, the idea that our body works to achieve a balanced and well-functioning state. Why doesn't Dr. Dan just say this instead of 'spicing up' the science with the theology? I doubt that he is ignorant of homeostasis. He states, around 6:09, that your doctor will laugh at you if you tell them that the body was created to heal itself. The laughter is coming from me, but I also couple it with tremendous worry because many people are 'buying' these claims and assenting to Dr. Dan's claims without a skeptical mindset.

Dr. Dan says, "these are scientific principles and laws" when talking about "the body was created to heal itself." "God created humans" is not a scientific claim nor is it a scientific principle or law. "The body heals itself" is certainly not a scientific law. Can Dr. Dan please point out "The Law of the Body Healing Itself?"

Dr. Dan further demonstrates his lack of basic scientific understanding when he says, "If these laws are broken or if you just don't pay any attention to these different areas..." Scientific laws, by defintion, cannot be broken because they are principles that express relations that must be true in all cases. Ohm's Law, for example, specifically states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points, and inversely is proportional to the resistance between them. This law, like any scientific law, cannot be violated like a traffic law. If we find that there are exceptions to the rules, then the science is revised, but this is much different than what Dr. Dan says; he says that we can violate the 'law' that the body heals itself. This is simply incoherent.

Dr. Dan continues, talking about what happens when people don't maintain healthy lifestyles or otherwise ignore the body,

"Again you're hurting yourself and your body will begin to slowly silently develop disease which down the road will turn into a diagnosis and usually the major mainstream source is medicine. And, again, if you're taking medicine long-term, study, read the side-effects, question your doctor about it because there haven't been many long-term studies on the medications that are being put out now."

It's not the case that the body will slowly develop disease if people pay no attention to health. Some people, for example, may not exercise on a daily basis and be healthy with no major complications. Taking Dr. Dan's three components of health (physical, mental, and spiritual), we could reason, from his definition, that those who do not pay attention to the spiritual aspect of health that Dr. Dan believe exists would be profoundly unhealthy. If Dr. Dan's definition were correct, we should expect to see atheists and other 'non-spiritual persons' with a significant amount of complications compared to those who pray, but this simply isn't the case. In fact, we should see that every atheist or 'non-spiritual' person is profoundly unhealthy (or at least on the way to "slowly silently develop disease) if Dr. Dan were correct.

Dr. Dan claims (above) that there haven't been many studies on long-term medications that are put out now. Is Dr. Dan ignorant of PubMed? Does Dr. Dan think that clinical trials are imaginary? Perhaps, to be charitable, Dr. Dan means that long-term studies don't accompany new medications (it's not clear what 'put out,' in this quote, means). This, though, is an unreasonable demand and still ignores clinical trials. Doctors don't randomly prescribe new medicines that are not based on evidence. It's also not the case that long-term studies need to take place because other good evidence demonstrating the efficacy of medicine can accompany medicine. Again, Dr. Dan is sending mixed messages. He claims not to give advice and says that people should listen to their health professionals, but discourages people from taking medications [he says they are unnatural, will be horrible in the long term, and also says that there are not studies accompanying medications (see the subtle trick here?)].

Again, at 10:32 in the podcast, Dr. Dan reasserts that health is not just emotional and physical, it's also spiritual as well. He encourages people, at 9:40, to volunteer time in churches and teaching Sunday School. Sure, these activities can keep one healthy (personal interaction, being part of a community,and getting out is generally good), but it's not necessarily the case (and it's almost certainly not the case) that the supernatural beliefs make one healthy. It can, and almost certainly is, the case that the supernatural components to participation in religious activities are coincidental to the improvement of health.

At 10:35, he wants people to ask what they can do 'naturally' to get off of their 'toxic medications' (he says that the body can be a "toxic reservoir" of medications) and notes that vaccines, flu shots, and fluoride contain toxins and says that people should reduce toxic exposure the best they can. Here we go again, once more, with the mixed messages. Dr. Dan says that he is not telling anyone to stop talking medications, but says that they are "toxic" and tells people to do ask themselves what natural methods can help them get off medications and also tells people to reduce toxic exposure the best they can. Dr. Dan further attacks 'mainstream health' and accuses 'mainstream health' of not encouraging people to exercise and eat healthy, but this is very suspicious. Doctors regularly encourage their patients to do so.

Dr. Dan is very dubious. He sends many mixed messages to his audience and presumably his patients. He says, time and time again, that he just provides information and that people shouldn't abandon their medications and doctor's advice, but at the same time he tells people to trust only themselves, claims that medicines are toxic and says that people should avoid toxic exposure they best they can, says that medicine in the long-term will make people sicker, has anti-'conventional medicine' propaganda in his 'wellness center,' says that there haven't been many studies on long-term medications that are being "put out now," etc.

He adds theology to his practice by saying that the body has a "God-given, innate ability to express its maximum health potential," claims to be able to eliminate interferences to "the expression of the body's God-given, innate wisdom," states that he aligns spines and lifestyles with "God's ultimate intentions," and says that spirituality is one of three components to health. While I have only received a spinal examination from one of Dr. Dan's assistants and do not know about all of his services, Dr. Dan is extremely problematic. Simply listening to his podcast, viewing his "Informed Consent For Chiropractic Care" paper, and viewing his website raises a large amount of red flags.

You may wonder...why does this all matter?

---

I could imagine that some people in Dr. Dan's audience and especially in his office uncritically listen to what he has to say. Many people are drawn in by 'alternative medicine' because they see it as a viable alternative to conventional medicine. 'Alternative medicine,' though is a false category; there is no viable alternative to evidence-based medicine. Medicine that works...is called medicine. Some people might be drawn in because they see alternative medicine as a last resort or otherwise think that Dr. Dan is credible in various areas because there is a Dr. in front of his name and he has a business. To be fair, I haven't talked much about Dr. Dan's diet advice, but I have very little expertise in this area and want to narrow the focus here. He might, for all I know, give sound evidence-based exercise and diet advice, but that's a story for another day...

One of Dr. Dan's 'main tricks,' as I see it, is that he presents some evidence-based material (such as the brain is vital and controls bodily function), but then he inserts some mysticism and non-evidence based information. People might listen to the evidence-based stuff and then assume that the rest is also credible, but I'm not buying what Dr. Dan has to say. Not all people are skeptical thinkers and, especially when desperate and in pain, will look for remedies from virtually anyone.

Dr. Dan probably believes that he says and genuinely wants to and thinks that he can help people and probably is a very nice and friendly person, but his medical advice, or as he calls it 'information purposes only' is very unsound and non-scientific. All of the statements I made about him and his works are not intended to defame him or cast him as a 'bad guy,' but rather are to critique his beliefs, his work, and his methods. Posting like this is protected free speech. I gave my readers examples and direct quotes from Dr. Dan's website, podcast, and from my visit to his office. I welcome feedback from Dr. Dan.

Some chiropractic care out there, otherwise known as physical therapy, has some efficacy. Message therapists and physicians' assistants, for example, don't make claims like Dr. Dan does, but rather relieve pain, do not attack 'conventional medicine,' do not add mysticism to their work, and do not speak of 'sublaxations.' Power to them. Dr. Dan, though, is in a 'separate camp;' physical therapists who do work on the spine and back that may be known as chiropractors are not in the same camp as people like Dr. Dan. Dr. Steve Novella notes,

"chiropractors may argue that manipulation works by correcting non-existent spinal subluxations and restoring the flow of non-existent life energy, but that does not mean that manipulation does not work."

"Chiropractic is a tricky profession to discuss, because it covers so much ground. The above applies best to straight chiropractic – using spinal manipulation to treat asthma, for example. This is a very different kind of claim than that spinal manipulation causes a temporary decrease in back pain by relaxing muscles – a fairly non-specific effect of mechanical manipulation of muscles and not specific to chiropractic. In other words, it is highly unlikely that chiropractic would end up having very specific medical effects, even though the beliefs that led to the treatment turned out to be entirely fictitious. But it would not be surprising if there turned out to be some non-specific effects, like temporary muscle relaxation."

"There is no compelling evidence that chiropractic works for any disease, and there is only weak evidence that it is helpful for back strain (and no more effective than cheaper modalities, like physical therapy or massage)."

Hopefully you enjoyed my skeptical treatment of Dr. Dan and am enjoying my posts that are not exclusively focusing on religion. I'm trying to keep a general theme of skepticism about religion in many of my posts, but am not exclusively focusing on religion in every post. Branching out is fun.

Angry Atheist Podcast...with Special Guest Justin Vacula

Here's my recent appearance on the "Angry Atheist Podcast" with Reap Sow from Reap Sow Radio. I talk about all things atheism, philosophy, and theism...in the flavor of my blog :)

Enjoy the audio!

http://angryatheist.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-15T17_47_01-07_00

William Lane Craig ...The 'Progressive Creationist?'

I pay attention to William Lane Craig mainly because he is known and respected as a foremost debater, Christian apologist, and theologian by a vast amount of theists. Personally, I don't understand all of the pomp and circumstance he receives because his arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. While I profoundly disagree with him, this is not why I think his philosophical skills are lacking. His fine-tuning argument, his Kalam Cosmological argument, his moral argument, and his arguments for miracles have been shredded to pieces time and time again. Previously linked are some of my responses to some of Craig's common arguments.

Every now and then, Craig debates and indeed 'wins,' but this is mostly because his opponents aren't philosophically trained, they don't budget their time well to respond to his arguments, or Craig throws fifty claims out there in ten minutes. If you want to listen to a great debate [in which Craig gets demolished], please listen to his debate with Massimo Pigliucci. It's well worth the listen. Craig surely has the debating skills, but his arguments, on the other hand, are very problematic.

William Lane Craig and other Christian apologists often attack atheists (especially Richard Dawkins) for 'arguing outside of their fields' when they attack religion. This usually takes place in the form of the 'courtier's objection' [you can't discredit theology because you haven't read the works of x, y, and z and you haven't read books a, b, and c! How can you dismiss Christianity if you haven't done these things! You need to study more theology because you attack a simplistic version of Christianity...] I've tackled this objection in a previous post. Craig, in a recent podcast of his and in an answer to a worried observer, attacks the 'neo-Darwinian paradigm' and argues outside of his field... Tu quoque Dr. Craig!

Here are some direct quotes from Craig's answer (first indented and then indented in navy blue) with some commentary. I reference various creible, scholarly sources through this post in order to supplement my arguments and because I'm not a biologist.

As I explained in my exposition of the Doctrine of Creation, when it comes to questions of the origin of life and biological complexity, biblical Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads.

How is a 'Biblical Christian' following the evidence to where it leads when they are presupposing that 'Biblical Christianity' is true? If they don't presuppose, why bother appealing to the naturalist vs. Biblical Christianity dichotomy anyway? Why can't we just follow the evidence where it leads instead of applying labels to the people involved?

...the question of biological origins is for me a straightforward scientific question: what does the evidence indicate about the means by which God brought about life and biological complexity?

Any scientific question with "by the means by which God brought about life" is not a scientific question.

My honest, layman’s assessment of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory. [...] The neo-Darwinian paradigm is a synthesis of two overarching theses: the Thesis of Common Ancestry and the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary development. The evidence for these two theses is anything but compelling; indeed, the theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges to conclusions far beyond the evidence. (emphasis mine)

Really now? Does Craig suddenly not accept evolution? He states that these two (and it's really not only two) 'theses' support evolution [they are the 'neo-Darwinian paradigm,' according to Craig] and then says that these are "anything but compelling." The evidence for common ancestry is not limited by any means. What in the world is Craig talking about here? I really hope I'm not understanding what he is saying.

We know that in science such extrapolations often fail (take, for example, Albert Einstein’s failed attempt to extrapolate a general principle of relativity that would relativize acceleration and rotational motion just as his special principle had successfully relativized uniform motion).

What, exactly, is the 'extrapolation' for this 'neo-Darwinian paradigm?' He keeps using this phrase, but fails to define what he means. We look at the evidence for evolution...and come to the rational conclusion that it happened. Who cares about what has failed or other theories? We're worried what is the best interpretation of the evidence NOW. Sure, we can be wrong, but if there's no good reason to suggest we are now, we can't just attack a theory by saying "Oh, look, scientific extrapolations often fail." The analogy comparing evolution of relativity (special and general) is also a bad one. As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, Einstein was trying to make predictions about phenomena outside of what was already known. Evolution isn't doing this at all with this 'neo-Darwinian paradigm.' Common ancestry, for example, gives us good reason, along with other evidence, to suggest that evolution is true. There is no extrapolation like using some principles of relativity to make predictions about other phenomena.

Such failures make very pressing the question: how do we know that the extrapolation from local instances of evolutionary development to the grand story of evolution is a valid one?

The 'failures' of Einstein have nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true. Here, perhaps, Craig makes sense of what he means by extrapolation...but there is no extrapolation and biologists don't use the phase "grand story of evolution." Here are plenty of examples of 'local instances' of evolutionary development. If Craig really thinks that this "science has failed in the past, so we should radically doubt science" argument is valid for science, wouldn't it also be valid for Christianity/theology? Many claims made by apologists in the past have been discarded and their extrapolations have failed...

You misconstrue the notion of microevolution when you equate it with the claim of the fixity of species. Steve, not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species! [...] Microevolutionary change is simply change within certain vague limits, limits which fall far short of the wholesale development envisioned by the Thesis of Common Ancestry.

Microevolutionary change is not "simply change within certain vague limits."

More from TalkOrigins.org:

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Craig says that these 'vague limits' fall short. He defines these limits as vague, although they are not, and then asserts that they fall short. Sure, his contrived idea of 'vague limits' might, but microevolution, while properly understood, does not 'fall short.' Microevolution alone doesn't give us common ancestry, so I'm not even sure why Craig would say something like that. Craig poses his own faulty definitions, strawmans his opponents, and then says that what his opponents present is not good enough (note: after he set the faulty definition to discredit his opponents, he then says that this is not good enough). Common ancestry is established through evidence and there are no 'vague limits.'

Notice that just the single phylum of the vertebrates (Chordata) includes all fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. Seen in the context of the wider picture, typical examples of evolutionary change are seen to be microevolutionary changes. The evolutionary development of whales, horses, and elephants you mention are trivialities compared to the grand scenario envisioned by the theory. The transition from lower primates to humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale.

The Chordata phylum is not microevolutionary change in the context of the wider picture. The phylum includes fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, etc... and so what? Phyla have to be separated. The divisions separating the different phyla are established by particular features of organisms. Why, because so many organisisms are in the Chordata phylum, should there be a problem? Here are the classifications for the Chordata phylum, in case you are interested. More can also be found on this website.

All chordates share four basic features.

Chordates derive their name from one of their synapomorphies, or derived features indicating their common ancestry. This is the notochord , a semi-flexible rod running along the length of the animal. In those chordates which lack bone, muscles work against the notochord to move the animal. All chordates have a notochord at some stage in their lives, but in some (such as tunicates) the notochord is lost in the adult, whereas in others (such as the vertebrates) the notochord is present in the embryo, but in later stages is largely replaced and surrounded by the vertebrae, or backbones.

The notochord runs beneath the dorsal nerve cord, which is another chordate feature. This is in contrast to organisms such as annelids and arthropods, in which the main nerve cord is ventral. The chordate nerve cord is hollow, with pairs of nerves branching from it at intervals and running to the muscles. The anterior (forward) end of the nerve cord is often enlarged into a brain.

Pharyngeal slits are a third chordate feature; these are openings between the pharynx, or throat, and the outside. They have been modified extensively in the course of evolution. In primitive chordates, these slits are used to filter food particles from the water. In fishes and some amphibians, the slits bear gills and are used for gas exchange. In most land- living chordates, the "gill slits" are present only in embryonic stages; you had pharyngeal slits at one time. The slits are supported by gill arches, which have also been highly modified in various groups of vertebrates.

Lastly, all chordates have a post-anal tail, or extension of the notochord and nerve cord past the anus. This feature is also lost in the adult stages of many chordates, such as frogs and people.

Other chordate features

Chordates also have a closed circulatory system, and most, but not all, chordates have a heart. The blood of most chordates contains the oxygen-carrying molecule hemoglobin. The muscles of the body are segmented into blocks called myotomes. Like their relatives the echinoderms, chordates are deuterostomes: in early embryonic development, the anus forms before the mouth.

You’ll remember my quoting Michael Denton to the effect that for a bat and a whale to have a common ancestor there should be literally millions of transitional forms, which are not there in the fossil record.

Craig's going really low here and starting to sound like Kent Hovind. It's an unreasonable demand and exception for one to want to see every transitional form or suppose that there should be much more than have been found today. Not everything fossilizes and fossilization is not particularly common. Many organisms are not 'suitable' for fossilization. Fossils may have been destroyed by erosion and other natural processes. Some evolution is quite rapid in the scale of millions of years, so there would not be a chance for fossilization. Fossil discovery is rare, not many people are searching for them, money needed for such explorations is difficult to come by, and some continents have not been excavated to the extent that others have.

There are, though, many transitional forms from various species. While there may be 'gaps,' there are no contradictions. The beauty of the theory of evolution is that its predictions have been confirmed time and time again establishing its fruitfulness (the ability to make novel predictions outside of what is already known by applying the theory). We expect a transitional form to be a certain way...and find a fossil later on that is exactly like we thought it would be.

Even the evolution of amphibians from fish or birds from reptiles is miniscule compared to whole tree of life postulated by the theory, for it still only involves evolutionary development within a single phylum.

That's one step, not the whole picture...and of course that is evolutionary development within a single phylum. So what? Some transitions will not suddenly 'break' from one phylum to another. Craig's really not understanding the idea of transitional forms here and/or is raising an issue where there is no issue. TalkOrigins explains.

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

...what is the evidence that a bat and a sponge are descended via mutation and natural selection from a common ancestor?

There's molecular evidence and a unique, historical phylogenic tree among many other things. We're back to the basics here.

And now reflect that the above chart shows only some of the phyla within the Animal Kingdom, which is only a part of the domain of the Eukarya, which also includes the whole of the Plant Kingdom, and that in addition to the domain of the Eukarya we’ve also got the domains of the Bacteria and the Archaea to account for!

There are more charts out there, Dr. Craig, aside from the one you've shown us. These domains are indeed accounted for.

Clearly we’re dealing with a mind-boggling extrapolation from limited instances of microevolutionary change to conclusions that far outstrip the evidence. Caution certainly seems appropriate here.

Again, microevolutionary change doesn't stand alone amongst the evidence. Microevolutionary change is also not limited or, if you mean this in another sense, scientists do not only have a limited amount of documentation regarding microevolutionary change.

You complain that I mentioned only Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil. But my purpose here was to provide an example from the fossil record for the most significant sort of transition afforded by the evidence. Most of the examples you cite are trivialities by comparison, for they don’t involve change across large categories. To mention them would only have weakened the case for macroevolution from the fossil record, which is what I was trying sympathetically to present.

Ok, great. Let's assume that the commenter here only listed 'trivial examples..." there are many more examples out there that show change across large categories. Mentioning examples doesn't weaken the case for macroevolution at all. Just because Dr. Craig considers them to be trivial does not mean that they are, indeed, trivial. While some examples may seem trivial, a large pool of examples presents a much more compelling case. We can't just look at two or three examples to form a conclusion here.

Michael Denton’s point that we ought to see millions of transitional forms if the neo-Darwinian paradigm were true is hardly out of date and remains a pressing problem. (Your cheap shot against Denton, who is, by the way, a fine scientist, is all too typical of those who turn to ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute the evidence.)

I addressed the first part of this quote above.

There was no 'cheap shot' against Denton at all. The commenter wrote that his book was not well-regarded and is outdated. Craig responds to what he thought was an ad hominem with an ad hominem; he claims that the commenter is resorting to ad hominem attacks because he can't refute the evidence! Saying that someone was not well-received is no personal attack. Denton's work was actually extremely problematic!

...theorists like Michael Behe embrace the Thesis of Common Ancestry. Their bone to pick (no pun intended) is with the postulated explanatory mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Here you had nothing to say to show that the staggering biological complexity which our world exhibits could have been created by such mechanisms in the span of four billion years.

Oh, the complexity bit...

Complexity is not created. Complexity is a term we use for something that appears to be intricate, magnificent, and complicated. Craig mentions the figure of four billion years, but fails to mention that many, many, many steps led to what we see now. Four billion years is quite a long time and is sufficient for the "staggering biological complexity." Complexity, also, does not imply design. Be wary of "I can't explain it, therefore God exists" arguments.

Recall Barrow and Tipler’s claim that there are at least ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth!

Here we go again with the probability; this is very similar to Craig's fine-tuning argument tactics. These type of arguments (that usually lead to "God did it" should always be extremely suspect. Think about the random, everyday events that happen throughout our lives. We see a particular line of cars on the road and particular people eating in a restaurant. What are the chances that all of these cars were lined up just like that or that those particular people - none more or none less - would be eating in this restaurant at a particular time? We easily make mistakes when probability is concerned and often don't realize exactly how probable 'common occurances' are that are actually really improbable. What are the chances that, right now, I would be authoring a post like this at 5:49 AM and selecting these words to relay my thoughts? Of all the things I could be doing (like sleeping), this is quite improbable. I'm commenting on this because I saw a post about this response from Craig on a friend's wall? What were the chances of that? What were the chances that would have popped up in my news feed on Facebook...?

While these ten steps that Craig describes may be improbable, he's merely compounding steps and, instead, these steps should be looked at from step one to step two and step two to step three... and not one to ten. Looking at the steps from one to ten seems like a great leap that is more improbable than the individual step to the individual step. Indeed the whole thing is improbable and 1-10 is more improbable than 1-2, but that shouldn't be the focus here. Don't be misled.

...and so what if the event was improbable? We have good evidence to suggest that it indeed happened. The universe, in the state that it is in now resulting from the Big Bang, is extremely improbable. What are the chances that the Big Bang happened? Asking "what are the chances" is interesting, but ultimately a distraction. The Big Bang happened...and we can look at the overwhelming evidence to suggest that it did. We can look at the evidence for human evolution and, voila!, we have a winner, probable or not.

Johnson’s insight is that the neo-Darwinian theory’s status as the best explanation of biological complexity depends crucially on excluding from the pool of live explanatory options non-naturalistic hypotheses. Johnson has often said that he would have no objection to evolutionary theorists’ claiming that evolution is the best naturalistic hypothesis available for explaining biological complexity. What he protests is the claim that evolutionary theory is the best explanation simpliciter.

Non-naturalistic explanations, right out of the gate, fail in the criterion of simplicity because they need to posit realities beyond the natural world. They raise more questions than they answer (and thus don't have good explanatory power). They go against what we already know about the world, thus they are not conservative (we have no good reason to posit some sort of supernatural reality that has not already been confirmed). They also are not testable. The competing non-naturalistic explanations are not good ones.

How are we, also, to distinguish between plausibility amongst non-naturalistic hypotheses? Can we honestly arrive at an epistemic conclusion of "God did it" is more plausible than "Some advanced alien technology did it" and be able to show evidence supporting the former; the 'God hypothesis' should not have fiat over other non-naturalistic explanations. If naturalistic hypotheses are going to be discounted, opponents of the established theories need to present alternatives and demonstrate why they are more plausible. What competing theories do we even have? Beware the false dichotomy of "Evolution is not sufficient to explain x, therefore God;" even if evolution were totally lacking in explanatory power and was seriously flawed, supernatural explanations would suddenly not be viable. What about other naturalistic explanations? What about "I don't know?"

Were we to admit into the pool of live explanatory options non-naturalistic hypotheses, then it would no longer be evident that evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the data. It is in that sense that the theory presupposes naturalism. The theory itself doesn’t imply naturalism; rather it is the theory’s current exalted position as the reigning paradigm which depends crucially on excluding from consideration non-naturalist alternatives.

What are these options? Craig fails to present them. Craig mentions God here and there, but does not satisfactorily (or at all, really) offer an alternative explanation. He can type all day and talk about how evolution is not the best explanation, but without a competing explanation, these words are pointless. Craig talks about 'presupposing naturalism' in regards to evolution, but he commits a fatal error here. He acknowledges a difference between best explanation and best naturalistic explanation, but then neglects to realize that the reason why people think evolution is the best explanation is because of the evidence.

People who accept evolution aren't saying, "We presuppose naturalism, therefore it's the best explanation." While science may be 'limited' to methodological naturalism, and for good reasons, we can talk about all competing theories as philosophers or even as scientists who would consider any evidence whether it be natural or alleged to be supernatural. If some supernatural evidence came in and was really good evidence, I'd ditch my naturalism, but until that happens, I am not going to forfeit beliefs without evidence. Evolution is the best explanation and is much better than the alternative explanations that are frequently offered such as creationism and intelligent design.

Craig talks of evolution as 'exalted' and says that it depends on excluding non-naturalistic alternatives. No theory in science is 'exalted' or otherwise beyond criticism. Scientists constantly critique others' ideas [peer review, anyone?] and face alternative explanations for established theories. When evidence comes in to change established belief, the paradigm shifts. While this may take time, evidence will prevail. No evidence, though, has come forth to discredit evolution and more importantly, no viable alternative has been proposed. Evolution doesn't depend on anything outside of the evidence currently supporting it. Craig tries to portray evolution is standing on a precipice waiting to fall in fear of the non-naturalistic alternative to knock it off a cliff, but this simply isn't the case at all.

For if naturalism is true, then as Alvin Plantinga likes to say, evolution is the only game in town. No matter how improbable, no matter how weak the evidence, evolution’s got to be true because there just isn’t anything non-natural to account for biological complexity. Hence, the confidence.

Regardless of whether or not naturalism is true, evolution is the 'only game in town' because of the current evidence supporting it and the lack of competing theories. It's not the case, at all, that 'evolution's got to be true because there just isn't anything non-natural to account for biological complexity.' The 'confidence' is a product of evidence, not because of presuppositions of naturalism or the truth value of naturalism.

While I am no evolutionary biologist, I'm well-read and well-informed about these matters. I supplemented my criticism with some philosophy [of science] and links from academic resources. If I've made any errors, as always, feel free to direct criticism at me. Hopefully, I missed something that Craig was trying to say and he can be redeemed, but I fear that he cannot be.

It is quite ironic and humorous that Craig writes that it is "enormously presumptuous to think that we can say with confidence what God would or would not do when it comes to His creating life on this planet. Better to keep an open mind and look at the evidence to see what he did, in fact, do!" So, it's presumptuous to think that we can talk about what God would or would not do, but it's not presumptuous to believe that we are made in God's image and that this universe was finely-tuned for our existence?