BGuthrie Photos: USA Science & Engineering Festival (2010) -- Evolution Controversy

USA Science & Engineering Festival (2010) -- Evolution Controversy:

Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.

Description of Pictures: The Evolution Controversy:
Join acclaimed author of the Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories, Thomas Fowler, for an impartial, objective look at the controversy swirling around the subject of evolution intended to inspire informed listeners to investigate the evolution debate, and come to their own reasoned conclusions. The first lecture will review the history of the evolution controversy, evidence that must be explained, four major schools of thought (Neo-Darwinism, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Meta-Darwinism) that seek to explain evolution in a scientific manner, and major public policy issues. The second lecture will look at the range of interpretations of evolution, from atheism to Creationism, with several in between, including theistic evolution, front-loaded evolution, and agnosticism.Each lecture will be 50 minutes with 10 minutes for Q&A. Refreshments will be served in between lectures. Come for one or both.

Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific folks (or other stuff) and I haven't labeled them, please identify them for the world. Click the little pencil icon

underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.

Copyrights: All pictures were taken by amateur photographer Bruce Guthrie (me!) who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the [Creative Commons] definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. (Commercial use folks including AI scrapers can of course contact me.) Feel free to use in publications and pages with attribution but you don't have permission to sell the photos themselves. A free copy of any printed publication using any photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.

Accessing as Spider: The system has identified your IP as being a spider.
IP Address: 3.137.174.216 -- Domain: Amazon Technologies
I love well-behaved spiders! They are, in fact, how most people find my site. Unfortunately, my network has a limited bandwidth and pictures take up bandwidth. Spiders ask for lots and lots of pages and chew up lots and lots of bandwidth which slows things down considerably for regular folk. To counter this, you'll see all the text on the page but the images are being suppressed. Also, some system options like merges are being blocked for you.
Note: Permission is NOT granted for spiders, robots, etc to use the site for AI-generation purposes. I'm sure you're thrilled by your ability to make revenue from my work but there's nothing in that for my human users or for me.
If you are in fact human, please email me at guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can check if your designation was made in error. Given your number of hits, that's unlikely but what the hell.

Help? The Medium (Email) links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]

Share: Facebook Twitter Digg
[1] EVOL1_101017_002.JPG	[2] EVOL1_101017_005.JPG	[3] EVOL1_101017_007.JPG
[4] EVOL1_101017_009.JPG	[5] EVOL1_101017_011.JPG	[6] EVOL1_101017_012.JPG
[7] EVOL1_101017_015.JPG	[8] EVOL1_101017_022.JPG	[9] EVOL1_101017_035.JPG
[10] EVOL1_101017_064.JPG	[11] EVOL1_101017_086.JPG	[12] EVOL1_101017_119.JPG
[13] EVOL1_101017_125.JPG	[14] EVOL1_101017_129.JPG	[15] EVOL1_101017_136.JPG
[16] EVOL1_101017_152.JPG	[17] EVOL1_101017_158.JPG	[18] EVOL1_101017_162.JPG
[19] EVOL1_101017_189.JPG	[20] EVOL1_101017_213.JPG	[21] EVOL1_101017_215.JPG
[22] EVOL1_101017_220.JPG	[23] EVOL1_101017_228.JPG	[24] EVOL1_101017_233.JPG
[25] EVOL1_101017_251.JPG	[26] EVOL1_101017_268.JPG	[27] EVOL1_101017_276.JPG
[28] EVOL1_101017_313.JPG	[29] EVOL1_101017_319.JPG	[30] EVOL1_101017_326.JPG
[31] EVOL1_101017_330.JPG	[32] EVOL1_101017_345.JPG	[33] EVOL1_101017_349.JPG
[34] EVOL1_101017_355.JPG	[35] EVOL1_101017_356.JPG	[36] EVOL2_101017_005.JPG
[37] EVOL2_101017_009.JPG	[38] EVOL2_101017_015.JPG	[39] EVOL2_101017_018.JPG
[40] EVOL2_101017_025.JPG	[41] EVOL2_101017_029.JPG	[42] EVOL2_101017_031.JPG
[43] EVOL2_101017_037.JPG	[44] EVOL2_101017_044.JPG	[45] EVOL2_101017_046.JPG
[46] EVOL2_101017_048.JPG	[47] EVOL2_101017_053.JPG	[48] EVOL2_101017_058.JPG
[49] EVOL2_101017_061.JPG	[50] EVOL2_101017_066.JPG	[51] EVOL2_101017_068.JPG
[52] EVOL2_101017_072.JPG	[53] EVOL2_101017_077.JPG	[54] EVOL2_101017_080.JPG
[55] EVOL2_101017_083.JPG	[56] EVOL2_101017_092.JPG	[57] EVOL2_101017_098.JPG
[58] EVOL2_101017_099.JPG	[59] EVOL2_101017_102.JPG	[60] EVOL2_101017_107.JPG
[61] EVOL2_101017_110.JPG	[62] EVOL2_101017_112.JPG	[63] EVOL2_101017_118.JPG
[64] EVOL2_101017_119.JPG	[65] EVOL2_101017_124.JPG	[66] EVOL2_101017_127.JPG
[67] EVOL2_101017_132.JPG	[68] EVOL2_101017_138.JPG	[69] EVOL2_101017_139.JPG
[70] EVOL2_101017_144.JPG	[71] EVOL2_101017_146.JPG	[72] EVOL2_101017_152.JPG
[73] EVOL2_101017_155.JPG	[74] EVOL2_101017_159.JPG	[75] EVOL2_101017_164.JPG
[76] EVOL2_101017_169.JPG	[77] EVOL2_101017_170.JPG	[78] EVOL2_101017_172.JPG
[79] EVOL2_101017_175.JPG	[80] EVOL2_101017_178.JPG	[81] EVOL2_101017_183.JPG
[82] EVOL2_101017_185.JPG	[83] EVOL2_101017_188.JPG	[84] EVOL2_101017_192.JPG
[85] EVOL2_101017_195.JPG	[86] EVOL2_101017_198.JPG	[87] EVOL2_101017_203.JPG
[88] EVOL2_101017_204.JPG	[89] EVOL2_101017_209.JPG	[90] EVOL2_101017_211.JPG
[91] EVOL2_101017_216.JPG	[92] EVOL2_101017_219.JPG	[93] EVOL2_101017_221.JPG
[94] EVOL2_101017_227.JPG	[95] EVOL2_101017_232.JPG	[96] EVOL2_101017_233.JPG
[97] EVOL2_101017_237.JPG	[98] EVOL2_101017_240.JPG	[99] EVOL2_101017_247.JPG
[100] EVOL3_101017_001.JPG	[101] EVOL3_101017_005.JPG	[102] EVOL3_101017_009.JPG
[103] EVOL3_101017_015.JPG	[104] EVOL3_101017_018.JPG	[105] EVOL3_101017_024.JPG
[106] EVOL3_101017_027.JPG	[107] EVOL3_101017_030.JPG	[108] EVOL3_101017_034.JPG
[109] EVOL3_101017_042.JPG	[110] EVOL3_101017_045.JPG	[111] EVOL3_101017_048.JPG
[112] EVOL3_101017_052.JPG	[113] EVOL3_101017_055.JPG	[114] EVOL3_101017_064.JPG
[115] EVOL3_101017_068.JPG	[116] EVOL3_101017_072.JPG	[117] EVOL3_101017_075.JPG
[118] EVOL3_101017_086.JPG	[119] EVOL3_101017_087.JPG	[120] EVOL3_101017_092.JPG
[121] EVOL3_101017_096.JPG	[122] EVOL3_101017_102.JPG	[123] EVOL3_101017_108.JPG
[124] EVOL3_101017_111.JPG	[125] EVOL3_101017_116.JPG	[126] EVOL3_101017_122.JPG
[127] EVOL3_101017_126.JPG	[128] EVOL3_101017_133.JPG	[129] EVOL3_101017_136.JPG
[130] EVOL3_101017_141.JPG	[131] EVOL3_101017_144.JPG	[132] EVOL3_101017_147.JPG
[133] EVOL3_101017_150.JPG	[134] EVOL3_101017_153.JPG	[135] EVOL3_101017_162.JPG
[136] EVOL3_101017_167.JPG	[137] EVOL3_101017_169.JPG	[138] EVOL3_101017_172.JPG
[139] EVOL3_101017_176.JPG	[140] EVOL3_101017_179.JPG	[141] EVOL3_101017_185.JPG
[142] EVOL3_101017_188.JPG	[143] EVOL3_101017_193.JPG	[144] EVOL3_101017_200.JPG
[145] EVOL3_101017_204.JPG	[146] EVOL3_101017_208.JPG	[147] EVOL3_101017_213.JPG
[148] EVOL3_101017_216.JPG	[149] EVOL3_101017_223.JPG	[150] EVOL3_101017_226.JPG
[151] EVOL3_101017_230.JPG	[152] EVOL3_101017_241.JPG	[153] EVOL3_101017_247.JPG
[154] EVOL3_101017_252.JPG	[155] EVOL3_101017_257.JPG	[156] EVOL3_101017_261.JPG
[157] EVOL3_101017_266.JPG	[158] EVOL3_101017_269.JPG	[159] EVOL3_101017_272.JPG
[160] EVOL3_101017_275.JPG	[161] EVOL3_101017_279.JPG	[162] EVOL3_101017_282.JPG
[163] EVOL3_101017_288.JPG	[164] EVOL3_101017_307.JPG	[165] EVOL3_101017_310.JPG
[166] EVOL3_101017_314.JPG

Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
1. EVOL2_101017_005.JPG: Warnings * The contentious nature of the controversy means that all sides try to discredit their opponents * Beware of common gambits used to avoid actually responding to critical arguments: - - Claims that opponents "don't really understand" - - "You don't public in our journals so you don't count" - - "X Authority says it is true" - - "The facts are irrelevant" - - "You just don't get it!" * Proper response: "Just stick to the issues and the facts, please!"
2. EVOL2_101017_009.JPG: The Four Schools: * The King: Neo-Darwin Evolution Theory * The Challengers: - - Meta-Darwinian Theory - - Creationism - - Intelligent Design
3. EVOL2_101017_015.JPG: Brief historical overview: 6 phases: 1. Up to 1650: Ancient speculation 2. 1650-1800: Emergence of modern science 3. 1800-1859: Laying the foundations 4. 1859-1910: Darwin's triumphal entry 5. 1910-1960: "New Synthesis" 6.1960-present: Modern battles over evolution
4. EVOL2_101017_018.JPG: Evolution controversy -- where we are: * Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859: Postulated that strictly natural processes could account for entire history of life on earth * Triggered a raging controversy: Praised as greatest scientific advance by some, denounced as greatest fraud by others
5. EVOL2_101017_025.JPG: Nature and characteristics of the controversy: * Emblem wars * Nearly all books make strawman of their enemy while ignoring problems with their own position * Ideology often dictates not only conclusions but acceptable avenues of research and study
6. EVOL2_101017_029.JPG: Definition of key terms: * Surprisingly, many key terms are poorly defined or have multiple meanings. Often meaning of a term is changed in mid-argument. Caveat emptor! * "Evolution" itself has many definitions. Simplest is just change over time, accepted by all schools. Evolution controversy turns on other meanings -- involve some form of explanation of change over time. Situation can be understood by viewing evolution levels.
7. EVOL2_101017_031.JPG: Three levels of "evolution" essential to understanding of the controversy: * Historical evolution: Sequence of life forms over earth's history [change over time] * Common descent evolution: Hypothesis that later life forms related to and arose from earlier ones, ultimately going back to a single progenitor * Strong Darwinian evolution: Hypothesis that common descent and all observed changed in life forms can be explained by naturalistic processes of random mutation couple with natural selection. These are not synonymous!!!
8. EVOL2_101017_044.JPG: Definitions of key terms (continued): * Common descent: Descent of some or all life forms from a single ancestor. ONLY EXTENT IN DISPUTE * Random mutation: A change of genetic material due to unpredictable factors such as radiation, chemicals, or copying errors. NOT IN DISPUTE * Natural selection: In a population, process by which those organisms best suited for a given environment increase relative to others, utilizing existing genetic material. Roughly synonymous with "Survival of the fittest." NOT IN DISPUTE * Note: "Natural Selection" synonymous with evolution only in weak sense of "change over time."
9. EVOL2_101017_046.JPG: Definition of key terms (continued): * Phenotype: Organism's physical characteristics * Genotype: Organism's genetic makeup * Microevolution: Changes in distribution of species characteristics based [on] environmental factors: Utilizes existing genetic material. Minor changes to this material may occur. NOT IN DISPUTE * Macroevolution: Major changes to species' structures and systems, leading to new species and higher taxa. IS FOCUS OF EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY.
10. EVOL2_101017_048.JPG: Important points about science: * Science is not a popularity contest. Based on evidence, explanatory power * Science starts from what is observable now, and must return to it. Everyone has access to the same facts. * Just because there are competing theories doesn't mean you can pick whichever you like. Acceptance and explanatory power must be weighed against problems. * Study of evolution is not armchair exercise. You need to do fieldwork and theory.
11. EVOL2_101017_053.JPG: Observable facts to be explained: * Traits and adaptions * Fossils * Variation and diversity in populations * Physiological and developmental similarities * Genetic make-up * The nature of living species * The geologic column
12. EVOL2_101017_058.JPG: Major points in dispute: * Common Descent of all organisms from a single progenitor, versus Common Design Plan * Ability of Random Mutation to create useful new biological information * Efficacy of Random Mutation coupled with Natural Selection to create new structures and organisms * Age and chronology of the earth and the universe * Scope of naturalistic explanations in science * What constitutes a bona fide scientific theory
13. EVOL2_101017_061.JPG: The key issue in evolution controversy * All schools accept existence of random mutation and natural selection * Differ on question of extent to which these two processes can work together to create useful new genetic information and disseminate it in a population. New information must cause formation of new or better structures and systems that lead to viable organisms with improved functionality.
14. EVOL2_101017_068.JPG: Behind the controversy: * Necessary to distinguish three things: (1) Scientific facts and theories, (2) Extrapolations from scientific theories, (3) Philosophical systems erected on scientific theories * Creationism and ID schools argue that the last two are often taught along with first * All schools make extra-scientific (philosophical/religious) assumptions, e.g. naturalism, nominalism
15. EVOL2_101017_072.JPG: Before you dismiss any of the schools... * Walt Brown, a Creationist, has made a series of 46 refutable predictions, several of which had been verified. No one else, no other school is willing to do this. Why? * The Neo-Darwinian school has the support of all major scientific bodies and university faculty. Could all these people be wrong? * The Intelligent Design school is creating what has been described as a panic among biologists. If the Neo-Darwinian theory is so good, what are biologists afraid of? * Well-respected scientists in Meta-Darwinian school, for purely scientific reasons, reject Neo-Darwinism as inadequate. How well established can that theory be?
16. EVOL2_101017_077.JPG: Neo-Darwinian School: * Supported by all major scientific faculty and organizations * Theory is ubiquitous in textbooks at all levels * Regarded as established fact by most education people -- non-religious or religious * Goal: Explain origin and development of all life forms. Do so in very economical way, befitting Ockham's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necesitatem
17. EVOL2_101017_080.JPG: Essential hypotheses of Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution: 1. Common Descent * All organisms arose from a single ancestor at some remote point in past. * Darwinian "tree" vs Creationist "lawn"
18. EVOL2_101017_083.JPG: Essential hypotheses of Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution: 2. Gradual improvement: * Gradual improvement in phenotype occurs through occasional small beneficial changes to genetic material: - - Arise from random mutations - - Better suited to environment, have greater chance of survival and propagation - - Changes incorporated into population's genetic reservoir by natural selection - - Over many generations, gradual improvements lead to emergence of novel traits and structures - - Eventually leads to new species and higher taxa (called "phyletic gradualism")
19. EVOL2_101017_099.JPG: What Darwin Assumed: * Organisms can be continually improved by a series of small steps * More favored varieties are more likely to survive long enough to breed * Hence there will be more of favored variety in the next generation (natural selection) * Thus species will tend to evolve over time
20. EVOL2_101017_107.JPG: But you also need some additional assumptions: * There is a viable path of small variations connecting any two species (or other taxa). I.e., you can get new architectures by a series of small changes (no jumps!) * Naturally occurring random processes can supply any new information needed for variations to traverse these paths * It is possible to traverse connecting path in a finite time * Together these are equivalent to claiming that process of evolution is solving a large convex optimization problem
21. EVOL2_101017_118.JPG: In today's terminology, what one needs to demonstrate to establish the theory: * Random changes can yield improvements in organisms, as measured by overall organism fitness * Such improvements can become fixed in the population * These small changes can accumulate to build any biological structure * In information theory language: Can random mutation and natural selection create useful new biological information and incorporate it so as to produce viable new and improved organisms? The Neo-Darwinian school has to deliver on this issue!
22. EVOL2_101017_119.JPG: But don't the moths prove evolution? * In 1950s, H. Kettlewell did famous experiment * Released dark and light moths and counted numbers appearing in areas with dark and light trees * Idea was to show evolution in action. Dark moths survived better in dark trees. Light moths survived better in light trees. * Experiment marred by fraud. * But regardless, it proved nothing about evolution, only demonstrates natural selection in action. * Inexplicably, still cited as evidence for Darwin.
23. EVOL2_101017_124.JPG: Lots of evidence: * Mostly circumstantial, but still powerful: - - Commonality of genetic code - - Similarity of biological and biochemical systems, structures reflected in classification systems - - Similarity of physiological characteristics - - Key genetic characteristics such as synteny blocks - - Development of antibiotic resistance - - Existence of possible precursors for some structural proteins
24. EVOL2_101017_127.JPG: But there a few problems... * Fossil record really not in accord with theory * Most evidence cited applies to common descent or action of natural selection, not strong Darwinian evolution * No solid proof that random mutations can generate new information and new, higher forms of life * Pleiotropy suggests that most areas where change is needed for evolution cannon change because of destabilizing effects * Detailed mathematical calculations reveal problems. Non-convex high dimensional optimization problem: unclear that incremental search can solve this in finite time. * Exceedingly low probability of necessary simultaneous changes in different systems required to create viable improved organisms
25. EVOL2_101017_132.JPG: Summary for Neo-Darwinian School: * Pros: - - Fully naturalistic explanation to account for development and characteristics of life - - Based on simple, plausible mechanisms - - Supported by much empirical evidence * Cons: - - Does not account well for some evidence - - Glosses problem of need for multiple simultaneous changes - - Has not demonstrated that random changes can yield new information and improved organisms - - Relies on long-range extrapolation
26. EVOL2_101017_138.JPG: Creationist school: * Dates to 1960s, with some earlier roots * Origin of beliefs is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Specifically Genesis 1. But over the years, Creationists developed what they regard as purely scientific theories to explain observed facts. * Concerned that science has gone beyond its competence and is now promoting demonstrably false theories * Major institutions: Creation Research Society (1963), Institute for Creation Research (1972), Geoscience Research Institute (1958), Answers in Genesis (1994), Center for Scientific Creation (1980s).
27. EVOL2_101017_139.JPG: Outline of Creationist theories: * Earth is fairly young ( roughly 10,000 years) * There was a major flood which accounts for earth's geological features * Earth was repopulated after the flood. * Flora and fauna in fossil record existed contemporaneously inhabiting different ecosystems, rather than different time periods. * Common descent occurs, but only from created kinds. Most observed similarities due to common design plan rather than common descent * Evolution occurs, but always degenerative
28. EVOL2_101017_144.JPG: Creation museum, Petersburg, KY: * Opened May 29th, 2007 * Large (60,000 sq ft) but small compared to space dedicated to evolution in world's natural history museums
29. EVOL2_101017_146.JPG: Major issues facing Creationists: 1. Distant starlight. Andromeda galaxy -- 2.5 million light-years away
30. EVOL2_101017_152.JPG: Major issues facing Creationists (cont'd) 2. Geological evidence of old earth 3. Radiometric dating methods 4. Fossil record
31. EVOL2_101017_155.JPG: Major issues facing Creationists (cont'd) 5. Uniformity of genetic code & commonality of many genes 6. Physiological and biochemical similarities of flora and fauna
32. EVOL2_101017_159.JPG: Age of earth and universe is a major issue * A short age for earth demolishes any evolution theory and establishes Creationism as only alternative * A long age for earth demolishes Creationist science and theology Creationists have to deliver on this issue!
33. EVOL2_101017_164.JPG: Details of Creationist solutions: * Apparent age of universe can be explained. (1) Gravitational time dilation. (2) Decrease in speed of light over time. (3) Distinction between local and cosmic time. * Apparent age of earth as disclosed by radiometric techniques stems from change in physical constants, and/or erroneous or flawed radiometric data * Fossils and fossil record (historical evolution, in our terminology) can be explained by deposition occurring during high-energy processes of flood
34. EVOL2_101017_169.JPG: Details of Creationist solutions (continued) * Observed geological formations and data can be explained by Genesis flood, which in turn may be related to catastrophic processes such as volcanic activity, rapid plate tectonics, or hydroplate theory. Hydroplate theory leads to very specific predictions about earth's geology
35. EVOL2_101017_172.JPG: Deposition from Mt. St. Helens: * Mt. St. Helens eruption (1980) was godsend to Creationists. Showed that large-scale stratified geological formations can come about quickly
36. EVOL2_101017_178.JPG: Some problems for Creationist school: * Decay in speed of light leads to significant time dilation effects that should be observable but are not seen * Other proposed mechanisms for reducing age of earth and universe have problems. * Fact that some geologic features show evidence of formation by a large flood does not prove that all were formed this way.
37. EVOL2_101017_183.JPG: Summary for Creationist School: * Pros: - - Pointed out many problems with Neo-Darwinism - - Has recognized problems it must solve and is proposing scientific-based solutions to them - - Willing to debate all comers * Cons: - - Serious problems remain in accounting for age of earth and universe. - - Problems accounting for geologic column and other aspects of earth's geology with flood - - Problem reducing fossil record to simultaneous ecosystems
38. EVOL2_101017_185.JPG: Intelligent Design School: * Newest school * Traces to work of Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe in 90s * Having significant impact * Stresses need to look at evolutionary arguments from scientific standpoint to see if they are reasonable
39. EVOL2_101017_188.JPG: Intelligent Design School * Spilling over into popular press * Widely misunderstood and misrepresented * Not just Creationism in disguise
40. EVOL2_101017_192.JPG: Intelligent Design School (continued) * Treatment of ID school subject of recent serious but humerous [sic] movie ["Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein]
41. EVOL2_101017_195.JPG: Intelligent Design School (continued) * Seeks to put question of ability of unguided natural processes to create new information on a rigorous footing: - - Creation of complex structures and processes - - Utilizes concepts such as "irreducible complexity" and the "design filter" - - Question that should have been asked all along - - Not a question that neo-Darwinian school wants people to be asking
42. EVOL2_101017_198.JPG: ID and Neo-Darwinian Views: * Schools differ on connectivity in space of phenotypes * If ID can demonstrate at least some crucial gaps, Neo-Darwinism is refuted * "You can't get there from here"
43. EVOL2_101017_204.JPG: Key scientific issue for Intelligent Design: * Can restrictions on generation of new information (and thus on system, process and structure complexity) by random biological mechanisms be demonstrated scientifically? That is, can ID show that the above-mentioned gaps exist? Intelligent Design has to deliver on this issue!
44. EVOL2_101017_209.JPG: Summary for Intelligent Design School: * Pros - - Have posed a critical question for evolutionary thought in a scientific manner - - Devising rigorous tests to determine if type of transitions required for naturalistic evolution can occur * Cons - - Have not definitively shown that transitions cannot occur - - Have not delineated types of permitted and forbidden transitions - - Excessive reliance on probability calculations with questionable basis
45. EVOL2_101017_211.JPG: Meta-Darwinian School: * Accepts that natural processes can account for all of life's history * Shares much criticism of Neo-Darwinism by other schools -- fossil record, ability to account for large-scale changes * Rejects mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism as insufficient -- Believes that they can only account for small part of life history
46. EVOL2_101017_219.JPG: Meta-Darwinian School key issue: * Can other naturalistic mechanisms better account for history and development of life on earth than simple natural selection coupled with random mutation? Meta-Darwinian School has to deliver on this issue!
47. EVOL2_101017_221.JPG: Summary for Meta-Darwinian school: * Pros: - - Have recognized problems with Neo-Darwinian paradigm and sought new solutions - - Have proposed interesting new mechanisms * Cons: - - Have not yet resolved problems with Neo-Darwinism - - Have not shown that naturalistic processes can account for all of life's history
48. EVOL2_101017_227.JPG: Public Policy Issues: * Who is legitimate spokesman for science? * What types of evolution research should be funded with public money? * Should dissent about evolution be taught in classroom, and/or given equal time (or some time) for Creationism and other theories? * Should courts be primary battleground for evolution controversy?
49. EVOL2_101017_232.JPG: Subsidiary Issues Driving Public Policy Disputes: * What are the moral and ethical dimensions of the controversy? * Do purely naturalistic theories of evolution function as surrogate or virtual religions?
50. EVOL2_101017_233.JPG: Conclusions: * From rigorous scientific standpoint, no school has nailed down its case * Each school has critical issue on which it must deliver * Due to high cultural (philosophical and religious) stakes involved, no resolution likely in short term * Courts and legislatures should not be in the business of selecting scientific winners and losers
51. EVOL3_101017_001.JPG: The Evolution Controversy, Part II: Overview of Theological and Religious Interpretations of Evolution Thomas B. Fowler, Sc.D., President, Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America
52. EVOL3_101017_005.JPG: Topics: * The problem * Spectrum of responses * Structure of the interpretations * Philosophical and theological underpinnings * Resolution questions * Conclusion
53. EVOL3_101017_009.JPG: The Problem: Poles of Thought on Evolution: * " ... a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow" (Chardin) * "... one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" (Lotrup)
54. EVOL3_101017_015.JPG: Why Controversy Over Evolution? * Pivotal intellectual issue of our time -- Majestic sweep of evolution, Enormous explanatory and integrative potential * Illuminates enormous range of phenomena * Impact extends far beyond the narrow specialty of biology * Influences many if not most of the ways in which we organize our experience and ground our beliefs
55. EVOL3_101017_018.JPG: Why Controversy Over Evolution? (continued) * Affects how we view ourselves in the universe * Impacts our belief (or non-belief) in the supernatural and our relationships with rest of creation * Potentially great impact on religious belief because of problems of man * Easily shades into a "creation myth"
56. EVOL3_101017_024.JPG: But let's just cut to the chase... "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. [Duane] Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity." -- Michael Ruse, "How Evolution Became a Religion: Creationists Correct?" , National Post, pg B1, B3, B7, May 13, 2000
57. EVOL3_101017_027.JPG: Problem of interpretation of evolution: * Brings into sharp focus the relationship of scientific knowledge to knowledge as a whole * As a strictly scientific theory, evolution requires interpretation to put it into context of all knowledge * Many interpretations put forth -- Linked to different scientific theories, make different assumptions, have different goals
58. EVOL3_101017_030.JPG: Spectrum of Interpretations: Scaled in terms of increasing belief in adequacy and completeness of scientific descriptions of reality (1) Young Earth Creationism (2) Old Earth Creationism (3) Intelligent Design (4) Theistic Evolution (5) Front-loaded naturalism (6) Agnostic naturalism (7) Atheistic naturalism
59. EVOL3_101017_034.JPG: Key Points in Understanding Interpretations of Evolution: * Most conflict is between atheistic naturalism and everybody else * All interpretations (and all scientific theories) start from same observable data * All accept that some change over time can occur and has occurred -- including new species * Differ on question of nature of change -- Degenerative only, or innovative; capacity of purely random, natural processes to create; agreement of predictions or of interferences from theory with observable data such as fossil record
60. EVOL3_101017_042.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Young Earth Creationism * Literal truth of Bible - - World created in seven 24-hour days - - Genesis flood accounts for earth's geologic features - - Common design plan vs common descent to explain similarities * Short time scale for earth and universe * Major force in current evolution wars * Believes all truth on same level * Rejects Neo-Darwinism * Requires direct action by God to create "kinds"
61. EVOL3_101017_045.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Old Earth Creationism * Bible can be interpreted in non-literal fashion * Long time scales * Commonly uses day-age theory, which equates one creation day with a long time span - - Problem: Order of creation in Genesis different than evolution: - - Earth, water-light-vegetation-sun, moon-animals-man, light-sun, moon, earth-water-organisms (plant, animal), man * Natural processes inadequate, direct creative action by God needed * Not a major player in current evolution wars
62. EVOL3_101017_048.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Intelligent Design: * Accepts most science and long-time scale * Rejects claim that natural processes sufficient to account for all changes in history of life * Insists that human knowledge broader than science * Developing tests intended to show impossibility of change mechanisms claimed by Neo-Darwinism * Not Creationism in disguise
63. EVOL3_101017_052.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Theistic Evolution: * Fundamental thesis: God uses natural means such as evolution to create, not special acts * Accepts science largely at face value * Believes that there is no real conflict * Key to interpreting evolution is that much of what we do and know cannot be meaningfully expressed in scientific language * No need to postulate unbridgeable gaps or unrealizable structures
64. EVOL3_101017_055.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Front-loaded naturalism: * Accepts science * No interference by God required * World set up at creation to uniform and lead to man * Goes back to St. Gregory of Nyssa (c 335-394) If, therefore, Scripture tells us that man was made last, after every animate thing, the lawgiver is doing nothing else than declaring to us the doctrine of the soul, considering that what is perfect comes last, according to a certain necessary sequence in the order of things... Thus we may suppose that nature makes an ascent as it were by steps -- I mean the various properties of life -- from the lower to the perfect form. (On the Creation of Man)
65. EVOL3_101017_064.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Agnostic Naturalism: * Reliance on science as main source of knowledge * Dubious about other knowledge, especially theology * Man not special in any way * [Steven J.] Gould has proposed NOMA -- Non-Overlapping Magisteria -- Idea is that theology, science do not contradict because they have authority in different areas
66. EVOL3_101017_068.JPG: Brief Description of Interpretations: Atheistic Naturalism: * Rejects religion as superfluous and false * Science explains everything, or everything knowable * Life originated by chance combination of right elements in suitable environment * Evolution generated subsequent life forms * Man is just chance product * No need to assume existence of God
67. EVOL3_101017_072.JPG: Structure of Interpretations: * Evolution interpretation is top of belief stack. * Based on two elements or belief commitments: (1) A particular scientific theory (usually Neo-Darwinism), (2) A worldview that describes how the world works * At lowest level, fundamental philosophical and theological belief commitments: - - Metaphysics: what is real - - Epistemology: how do we know, what do we know
68. EVOL3_101017_075.JPG: Structure of Interpretations: * Make assumptions about two levels: (1) Direct observational level, (2) Deeper level * Worldviews and scientific theories operate primarily at direct observational level * But both require metaphysical and epistemological assumptions
69. EVOL3_101017_087.JPG: Effect of levels: * If all knowledge is assumed to be on direct observational level, collisions are inevitable - - This assumption made by extremes on spectrum (Creationists, Atheistic naturalists) - - Science, theology talk about same things - - Leads to fight-to-death mentality * If knowledge is on different levels, collisions not inevitable: Religion, philosophy talk about things not even meaningfully expressible in scientific language
70. EVOL3_101017_096.JPG: Collisions: * Theistic evolution avoids many problems of direct collision between science and religion * But does not eliminate all possibility of them: - - Miracles recorded in Bible such as Moses and Pharaoh, Red Sea, Joshua and Jericho, miracles of Jesus -- refer to events at direct observational level - - Have power to bring down worldview and philosophical underpinnings of atheistic naturalism * Collisions make evolution controversy so interesting
71. EVOL3_101017_102.JPG: Collisions (continued) * Other issues have directly observable consequences - - Claims by Intelligent Design school about efficacy of natural processes - - Creationist claim of 10,000 year age of earth * Therefore deeper look required * Many disputants are unaware of philosophical commitments of assumptions they make
72. EVOL3_101017_108.JPG: Examples showing confusion of science and philosophy/theology: * There have been changes in organisms over time (scientific fact) * Only naturalistic processes occur (philosophical claim) * Therefore all changes in organisms must be due to naturalistic processes and hence evolution must have occurred (conclusion) * There is a great diversity of organisms (scientific fact) * God created the world 10,000 years ago (theological claim) * Evolution in the Neo-Darwinian sense requires billions of years (scientific fact) * Therefore evolution did not occur (conclusion)
73. EVOL3_101017_116.JPG: What is naturalism? * Widely used by vaguely defined term used to characterize what is scientific * Science is supposed to [be] "naturalistic" * Science must utilize "naturalistic" explanations * Allows science to "wall off" non-scientific theories and explanations (in theory) * Naturalistic explanations utilize only material causes (matter, energy, interactions of them)
74. EVOL3_101017_122.JPG: Common ideas about naturalism: * Naturalistic explanations involve only five senses * "Naturalistic" and "naturalism" are opposed to (disjoint from) "supernatural" * Science does not allow nor is it involved with the "supernatural" * Supernatural explanations of phenomena do not contribute to our understanding of the universe * It at least some cases, either natural or supernatural explanations are possible (but natural is better)
75. EVOL3_101017_126.JPG: Not so easy to pin down: * Does prayer help people heal faster? - - Straightforward question about something that happens in world, namely speed of healing - - Should be amenable to empirical (scientific) investigation - - But how would it be formulated? What is "prayer" in scientific terms? How would scientists determine if someone is "praying"? * What is nature of this boundary? Sharp, fuzzy, or infinitely complex (fractal)?
76. EVOL3_101017_133.JPG: Structure of Naturalism: * Key idea behind naturalism is that of nature, understood as something subject to systematic inquiry by rational, empirically-based methods * Naturalism thus involves an object of study, and a method of studying it * Object of study = canon (of scientific reality) * Method of study = scientific method
77. EVOL3_101017_136.JPG: Structure of Naturalism: * Canon of scientific reality = set of entities usable in scientific explanation or acceptable as outcome or prediction of scientific theory * Scientific method = set of procedures employed to acquire new knowledge about how nature works. Essential because not just any theory or formula with entities from the canon is naturalistic. * Requirement for precise characterization of naturalism: canon and method be clearly and unambiguously delineated
78. EVOL3_101017_144.JPG: Flavors of Naturalism: * Methodological (how a scientist works) -- Science must restrict itself to explanations utilizing "natural" laws, "natural" theories, and "natural" entities, where "natural" refers to more or less what is publicly observable. * Metaphysical (what is truly real) -- No non-natural entities, i.e., entities that science cannot examine, aka "materialism." No non-scientific knowledge of the world, or any non-scientific knowledge at all.
79. EVOL3_101017_147.JPG: What is relationship between canon of reality and canon of science? * Canon of scientific reality = canon of all reality (metaphysical naturalism) * Canon of scientific reality may mean canon of all reality (methodological naturalism)
80. EVOL3_101017_150.JPG: Second component of naturalism: Scientific method * "Scientific method" analogical rather than univocal concept, contributing to nebulosity of "naturalism" * Scientific method is not an algorithm * Certain steps in it are common * Key element: prediction * Prediction means to look for something hitherto unseen, in a place hitherto unsought
81. EVOL3_101017_153.JPG: Problems with Naturalism: * Upon closer inspection, canon of scientific reality often hazy: - - In medicine, there is problem of interaction of mind and body - - What is the mind, is it real, does it form part of the canon? - - Are colors naturalistic? - - What about other psychological phenomena, such [as] sounds, or even dreams? - - Canon also evolves -- things added, things removed * Scientific method often difficult to pin down - - Has been argued over for a century - - Differs in many respects from branch to branch of science.
82. EVOL3_101017_162.JPG: Why is this important? * Reality you assume will drive your interpretation of evolution -- All schools of evolutionary thought start with position on naturalism, rather than inferring one from evidence. * Acceptance of more entities outside of scientific canon pushes you in counterclockwise direction -- Nominalism, reductionism push to reduce or eliminate these ontological commitments. Atheistic interpretation rapidly becomes untenable as more entities are admitted to canon of reality. * How to show again non-scientific (not unscientific!) nature of interpretation problem
83. EVOL3_101017_167.JPG: Science driven by metaphysical naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -- Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p 31.
84. EVOL3_101017_169.JPG: Nominalism: * Arose during the Middle Ages in connection with the famous problem of universals -- abstract nouns characterizing many individuals, or singular things * Nominalists reject separate existence of universals, or indeed any real existence for them at all - - Believe only individuals exist - - Individuals can be grouped in any convenient fashion when they share a suitable characteristic - - Abstract characterizations and corresponding nouns can be invented as needed and discarded when they have outlived their usefulness
85. EVOL3_101017_172.JPG: Nominalism (continued) * Abstract nouns do not reflect any eternal verities * Though appealing at first sight, difficult to maintain consistently: - - In virtually every aspect of our thinking and speaking about the world, we tacitly or explicitly assume existence of abstract entities which nominalism seeks to banish - - "Grapes are good for you" or "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a great work" have abstract entity as subject * Impossible to do math on nominalistic basis
86. EVOL3_101017_176.JPG: Nominalism vs Realism * Opposed to nominalism is realism * Most pronounced form is Plato and theory of Ideas: Universals are embodiment of abstract terms, more real than individual things * Aristotle and many later philosophers rejected idea of completely separate existence for universals. But did accept that they are real, form basis for knowledge. Universals often conceived in terms of essence: that which makes something be what it is. When matter informed by particular form or essence it becomes thing in question
87. EVOL3_101017_179.JPG: Nominalization and Evolution: * Platonism has always been strong in mathematics * Was strong in biology until mid-19th century. Species conceived in Platonic sense, as immutable ideas. Earthly horses were merely imperfect replicas of some ideal horse. Limited type and degree of change possible. Remains the view of many Creationists. * Note implied metaphysics stemming from an epistemological doctrine.
88. EVOL3_101017_185.JPG: Nominalism and Evolution (continued): * Evolution only makes sense if boundary between species more fluid. No "form" or "essence" in Platonic or Aristotelian sense. Therefore, nominalistic approach necessary. * With Darwin, nominalist definition arose. Species have no separate, eternal reality. Just a name for a collection of organisms. Belief that all forms of life meld into each other. Large-scale transformations possible, given enough time. Nothing immutable or God-given.
89. EVOL3_101017_193.JPG: Nominalism and Evolution (continued): * New definition of species allows for species change. Based upon populations of individuals rather than archetypes of any sort. Species is "a sexually interbreeding or potentially interbreeding group of individuals normally separated from other species by the absence of genetic exchange, that is, by reproductive isolation" * Unclear that this captures what we mean by species, but does get rid of abstract entities. Can't talk about extinct species, paleontology impossible. Doesn't apply to non-reproducing animals such as mules.
90. EVOL3_101017_200.JPG: Nominalism and Evolution (continued): * Failed to capture key idea of architectural similarity which is basis for our classification system * Accepting definition doesn't necessarily turn you into full-fledged nominalist, but this definition is of the fundamental entity in biology. * Metaphysical constraint forces biological thinking and research to go in a certain direction * Even bigger problem arises with basic terms such as "gene" (and much of genetics). Don't confuse a gene with something that codes for it.
91. EVOL3_101017_204.JPG: Reductionism and Evolution: * Reductionism, in its most radical form, is the theory (or belief) that all scientific knowledge can ultimately be reduced to basic physics - - Biology reduces to chemistry - - Chemistry to physics of atoms and molecules - - These to particle physics - - Includes human consciousness * Program has only been roughly sketched out, never actually accomplished
92. EVOL3_101017_208.JPG: Reductionism (continued) * Goal: reduce all knowledge can be reduced to a few laws of physics, aka, to the "theory of everything" - - Belief in the "spiritual" becomes highly questionable - - Only one step more to conclude that the "spiritual" does not exist - - Word "spiritual," in nominalistic terms, is just a noun used to refer to certain types of behavior, which ultimately can be explained by (be reduced to) physical laws * This is reductionism in its extreme form
93. EVOL3_101017_213.JPG: Reality: Open or Closed: * Reality as closed. Common underlying belief. Things are fixed, isolated or isolatable entitles (entification of reality). Can be understood rationally (reality therefore capturable by rational knowledge) * Reality as open. Things are not isolated or isolatable, especially humans. Rational knowledge possible but reality not fully capturable by rational knowledge. Canon of reality is not fixed.
94. EVOL3_101017_223.JPG: How it comes together: * Nominalism, reductionism, naturalism and reality as closed come together to form theory (or belief) that all knowledge is ultimately reducible to basic physical laws * These laws can be describe all phenomena * Anything that cannot be so described does not exist * There are no abstract entities anywhere that escape this uncomprehensive net * Ultimately fails because of problems with all four components
95. EVOL3_101017_226.JPG: Why the fuss? * Can't a scientist carry out his work without dealing with these vexing issues? Yes and no * In theory, yes -- and there is general agreement about scientific method and applicability in day-to-day conduct of science. Even Creationists use same scientific methodology and same equipment and procedures as their opponents. * But in larger context of human knowledge, especially theoretical knowledge, answer is no. Metaphysical questions too compelling to be left alone
96. EVOL3_101017_230.JPG: Problems posed by metaphysical assumptions * Locks science into certain positions because deviations have unacceptable metaphysical implications. Creationists: fixed definition of species. Neo-Darwinians: Fluid definition of species * Only certain types of questions can be asked. Not compatible with nominalism. * Only certain answers are permitted. Must stay within presumed canon of reality.
97. EVOL3_101017_247.JPG: Approaches to resolve apparent conflict between science and religion * Deny that accepted science is correct (Creationism) * Deny scope assumed for science by unholy trinity -- Direct observational level (Intelligent Design) or Deeper Level (Theistic Evolution)
98. EVOL3_101017_252.JPG: First approach: Deny accepted science * General approach of Creationists * Reject key scientific theories such as the age of the earth and the ability of random processes to create new and improved species. - - No need for any type of "theistic evolution" because there is nothing to reconcile - - Science, properly formulated, agrees with a literal reading of the Bible
99. EVOL3_101017_257.JPG: Second Approach: (i) Deny Scope of Science at Direct Observational Level * Deny the unrestricted explanatory scope usually assumed for some branch of science. Specifically deny that science can explain all directly observable (measurable) phenomena * Not same as rejecting a scientific theory. Rather, denying that theory can in fact explain everything that its advocates claim it can explain
100. EVOL3_101017_261.JPG: Direct observational level (continued) * Not always easy to verify. - - Many reasons why particular phenomenon cannot be explained by a theory. Theory is wrong. Nature is more complex than we thought, so that other factors come into play, factors that the theory does not consider. Don't understand boundary conditions. - - Could be that science cannot explain the phenomenon. * But because direct observational level is involved, specific experimental tests can be devised
101. EVOL3_101017_266.JPG: Direct observational level (continued) * Approach the Intelligent Design school in evolution * To deny that a certain structure or process can arise by natural process is to make a claim which can be examined empirically with the accepted methods of science
102. EVOL3_101017_269.JPG: Second Approach: (ii) Deny Scope of Science at Deeper Level * Theistic evolution accepts science at face value. - - Maintains that the scientist will never encounter any sort of "wall" blocking program such as that claimed by the Intelligent Design camp. - - Instead argues that what the scientist finds is not whole of reality of whole explanation of reality. - - There are aspects of reality not accessible to science or even meaningfully describable in scientific terms * Theology and philosophy operate on a deeper level than level of phenomenal appearances
103. EVOL3_101017_272.JPG: Response of Agnostic/Atheistic Position * These supposed scientifically uninvestigable aspects of reality are in reality just epiphenomena. Words spoken about them are just a type of verbal behavior ultimately be predictable based on brain states. "I'm boiling water to make tea" is just a particular audio emission of a complex system, ultimately predictable * Nominalism would question whether abstract entities such as dreams can exist anyway * Naturalism would also reject reality of things not analyzable by science, e.g. intentions and dreams
104. EVOL3_101017_275.JPG: Problems with this Response: * Is it possible to define truth and knowledge in a consistent fashion under philosophical assumptions of unholy trinity? * What does truth mean in this system? Contradiction between exclusively selectionist explanation of mind and implicit trust you place in your own mind's capacity to arrive at naked truth [Haught]
105. EVOL3_101017_279.JPG: What is needed to actually do science? * Obvious question arises as to minimal set of assumptions needed for science * Scientist just records and explains what he see. That is what is minimally required. * Scientist need not assume that work will result in any type of reductionism or naturalism in strong sense. Some things may not be explainable by science * Science is not philosophy, nor is it religion. Any effort to draw philosophical conclusions -- even negative ones -- from science is very risky
106. EVOL3_101017_282.JPG: Why Controversy is so Acrimonious * Naturalism camp likes to extrapolate from science to philosophy and theology. "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors... Therefore, many is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (Mayr) * Drastically underestimated reaction
107. EVOL3_101017_307.JPG: Resolution? * Difficult prospect because of deep commitments to worldviews and philosophical assumptions * Honest responses to 10 questions may assist: - (1) Can there be any knowledge outside of science? - (2) Can the same "fact" have meaning at different levels? - (3) Is there any reality to the moral life? - (4) Is there ever any connection between "is" and "ought"? - (5) Can natural processes explain all of life?
108. EVOL3_101017_310.JPG: Resolution (continued) - (6) Is the earth 4.5 billion years ago? - (7) Is the unholy trinity a visible philosophy? - (8) Was nature endowed, at its creation, with the ability to engender life an cause its development over time? - (9) Is belief in the adequacy of Darwinian theory necessary for one to accept theistic evolution as a viable interpretation of nature as observed? - (10) Is the Cartesian dichotomy of res cogitans and res extensa, which has become such a deep-seated part of Western though, viable or useful for understanding nature and our relationship with it?
109. EVOL3_101017_314.JPG: Conclusions * Interpretations of evolution fall on a spectrum * Deep philosophical commitments drive scientific theories and worldviews * Scientific theories and worldviews drive interpretation of evolution * Extremes of spectrum share certain ideas * Recognition of structured nature of human knowledge will push one toward a theistic interpretation of evolution
Wikipedia Description: USA Science and Engineering Festival
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The biennial USA Science & Engineering Festival is a free science festival held in Washington, D.C.. The festival 2010 is the largest celebration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines in the United States. Larry Bock and Ray O. Johnson of the Lockheed Martin Corporation founded the festival.

The inaugural event was held from October 10, 2010, through October 24, 2010, the second festival was April 27–29, 2012 (attended by a quarter million visitors) and the third festival (attended by over 325,000 visitors) was April 24–27, 2014. The third festival featured the first X-STEM Symposium on April 24, 2014, with interactive presentations and workshops. The fourth festival will be held on April 16-17, 2016. The second X-STEM Symposium will be held as a stand-alone event on April 14, 2016.
Bigger photos? To save server space, the full-sized versions of these images have either not been loaded to the server or have been removed from the server. (Only some pages are loaded with full-sized images and those usually get removed after three months.) I still have them though. If you want me to email them to you, please send an email to guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can email them to you, or, depending on the number of images, just repost the page again will the full-sized images.
Connection Not Secure messages? Those warnings you get from your browser about this site not having secure connections worry some people. This means this site does not have SSL installed (the link is http:, not https:). That's bad if you're entering credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information. But this site doesn't collect any personal information so SSL is not necessary. Life's good!
Photo Contact: [Email Bruce Guthrie].