Evolution Minute

Britain’s National Academy of Science reprimands teachers for bringing religion into the classroom

2008-11-11T14:51:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Schools have come under attack by Britain’s National Academy of Science for misrepresenting evolution in order to promote Christian dogma. The Academy has singled out educators who teach intelligent design. These teachers, the Academy asserts, are partial and selective in the facts they present and treat gaps in scientific knowledge as proof of their own theory. According to the Academy, this amounts to a blatant neglect of scientific method, which is a fundamental standard in all sciences. [source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Isn’t it interesting that in the UK, where polls show an overwhelming bias against atheistic science, that the Academy has the good sense to chastise those teachers with a religious, creationist agenda? This is an example of checks and balances that we here in America would do well to emulate.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This reprimand expresses an outright arrogance of the scientific community. What will it take for Intelligent Design theory to be given respect and thoughtful consideration? Any scientist would want this: to be heard with unbiased, objective open-mindedness. The scientific community has been playing unfairly, seeking to control the flow of knowledge in the belief that their accepted ideas and theories are supreme and paramount. The arrogance of science, I believe, is rooted in a fear of the spiritual and all things unseen. And this arrogance, when expressed through public and private education, deprives young, open minds from exploring greater vistas of possibility, understanding, and meaning.

Culture Wars in Kenya

2008-11-02T11:18:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

The National Museum of Kenya is home to the bones of the famous Homo erectus man, discovered by anthropologist Richard Leaky. But the bones may soon become banned from public display, if the Pentecostal church gets its way. The church is leading an intense campaign to remove the exhibit, which they believe discredits creation theory. Leakey and other scientists are outraged and promise a bold fight to keep the exhibit intact. source: Bill Redeker/ABC

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
I am unceasingly amazed how fundamentalist thinking can so directly interfere with science. As an American travelling to international scientific gatherings, I am constantly embarassed by the "American Problem" of Christian fundamentalism and it encroachment on scientific education. Here now in Africa, we see this same Problem, in the very backyard where the story began. The cord of terror this story raises is the epidemic-level spread of religious fundamentalism in the world, and its interest in dominating the cultural, social, and political landscape along the way.

The people of Africa, in my experience of them, are proud of the fact that their land is the birthplace of the human race. Many African people believe in their homo sapien ancestry and feel deeply connected to it. The Penecostal Church and its intractable rejection of the homo sapien bones, is confusing these people, just as Creation theory and intelligent design advocates seek to confuse the young people in America. More disturbing still is the danger that this culture war become fodder for yet another civil war in the ravaged Africa. Why must religion, again and again, sarifice the innocent in order to convince and conquer the non-believing and independent-minded?; The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
If there ever was a more legitimate reason to listen to other points of view, certainly this controversy in Kenya is a most lucid example. Just as some scientists do not want to "allow" a single book with an alternate version of the creation of the Grand Canyon in it's bookstore, now First World countries are trying to tell Africans what to believe. Many Christians are offended that their beliefs are not acknowledged -- whether in national park bookstores or history museums. If the great majority of Kenyans are offended by the Leakey bones, then they need to be listened to. The Kenyan Christian conversion happened on their own soil. We did not make them slaves in their own country by telling them they must adopt the "White Man's Religion." Their position comes from their own faith and the strength of their belief. Please, let's just try and respect that and mind our own business!

Palin vs. "Palin"

2008-10-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Time magazine recently reported that Tina Fey has seized vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin’s public image. While Fey spoofs Palin as a beauty queen who has to phone a friend to answer interview questions, the real Palin accuses Obama of befriending terrorists. The Tina Fey version of Sarah Palin appears harmless -- making it harder to see the real candidate as the Spiro Agnew-like hatchet woman she really is.

Tina Fey & Amy Poehler start the Palin dialogues

2008-10-01T09:31:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Tina Fey recently made a special guest appearance on SNL impersonating Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The real candidate who believes that both Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught in schools has had difficulty proving herself fit for national office. Comedic impersonators Fey and Poehler came back to satirize another actual interview between CBS anchor Katie Couric and Creationist Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin brings back the Culture Wars

2008-09-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Just when we thought the presidential campaign was settling into a discussion about the issues, Creationist Sarah Palin enters the race. Although Hillary Clinton did not take the bait to have a smack down with the pro-life, death penalty diva, Tiney Fey and Amy Pohler did manage to portray them together on Saturday night live.

The Sarah Palin Church Video

2008-09-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

With the return the Creationism to national politics brought by vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the atheists have already jumped into the fray. Less than a week after her nomination, Richard Dawkins, atheist superstar par excellence and one of creationism’s most vocal critics, distributed a video of Palin titled: "US VP Candidate Sarah Palin Exposes Herself as a Religious Nut". Palin gave a commencement address at her old church in Alaska whose pastor claims “that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a 'world war' over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.”

Here are the unedited videos - you decide:

The Sarah Palin Church Video Part One

The Sarah Palin Church Video Part Two

A Creationist enters the presidential race; and she's no friend to the Polar Bears

2008-08-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

John McCain’s decision to choose an anti-abortion, pro-creationism, death penalty diva as his vice-presidential running mate has stunned the nation. Some creationists are asking why McCain chose unknown Alaska governor Sarah Palin instead of the immensely popular national figure and avowed creationist Mike Huckabee. Besides wanting to drill for oil everywhere, Palin is also not a friend of the Polar Bear.

Sounds too strange to be true? Read on:

Palin is pro-life and a prominent member of Feminists for Life. When she was pregnant with her fifth child, Palin was told the baby had genetic abnormalities consistent with Downs Syndrome, but still chose to go through with the pregnancy. In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life" and refuse an abortion. She and her husband stated that they had "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose."

As for that man who hypothetically raped her daughter, Palin would "choose death." She is a staunch supporter of the death penalty. In 2006 she said "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again."

While running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes, Palin answered: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Since being announced as McCain's running mate, she has shamelessly voiced her belief that global warming is man-made. As Governor, in May 2008, she had threatened to sue the federal government over the decision to list polar bears as a threatened species due to effects of climate change. She questioned the scientific basis for the listing, and warned that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Governor Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

More on Sarah Palin next week as she becomes the first female Republican candidate for the vice-presidency.

"Leave us alone!"

2008-07-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle and talk-show host superstar Oprah Winfrey are not backing down from their evolution position in their weekly web cast A New Earth. Despite being portrayed as Satan by some evangelical church groups, Oprah continues to support Eckhart’s position that evolution and Christianity are not in conflict. They both appealed for religious tolerance. As one Oprah.com message board respondent said, "I don't picket churches on Sunday, so please, leave us alone!”

Eckhart Tolle squares off with Creationists

2008-07-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Spiritual teacher & New York times best-selling author Eckhart Tolle has found himself directly in the middle of an evangelical defamation campaign. While teaching his book A New Earth with Oprah Winfrey, highly organized evangelical creationists have bombarded Oprah’s message boards with hundreds of thousands of derogatory comments and apocalyptic warnings about Eckhart’s simultaneous embrace of evolution and the teachings of Jesus.

Is Obama catering to the creationists?

2008-07-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

Taking a page from President Bush, Barack Obama wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups. Calling the Bush faith-based program "a photo op", Senator Obama says he would scrap the office entirely and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his new administration.

A leading creationist accuses Barack Obama of pushing a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution

2008-06-25T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hear the 1 minute show:

As Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Dobson told millions of his listeners on his weekly radio program, Focus on the Family, that Obama is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.

Is Pope Benedict the American Pope?

2008-06-18T10:00:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Pope Benedict made his first papal visit to the US this April. Is this Pope an ally to creationists? Last year we reported on Vatican holy cards, praised by creationists, that declare that humans are not a casual and meaningless product of evolution. And yet, Time magazine portrays this new pontiff as celebrating America’s separation of church and state -- calling him the "American Pope".

[source: Time magazine]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an article published in April 2007 in the Daily Mail:

Pope Benedict has aired his views on evolution fo the first time - and says he partially believes Darwin's theories.
The Pontiff said science had narrowed the way life's origins are understood and said Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
However, he did not adopt a strictly scientific view of the origins if life, believing instead that God created life through evolution.
He said he "would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture".
As well as praising scientific progress, the Pope's views, published in a new book 'Schoepfung unt Evolution' (Creation and Evolution), did not endorse the creationist, or 'intelligent design' view of life's origins.
[read full story]

from a comment posted on the Daily Mail in response to the above article:

As we understand more and more about DNA, Scientists are proving that there is intelligent design behind the creation of human beings. Darwin's theory was exactly that, a theory, but because people choose not to believe in God or Creation, they have adopted his theory as fact.

Darwin's theory is increasingly becoming flawed with more and more medical and scientific evidence proving we are created by an intelligent design, although some Scientists won't tell you this truth, why, what are they afraid of?

quoted from Pope Benedict XVI:

Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. [more]

Barack Obama promises a return to science

2008-06-11T08:05:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

In a direct fire across the bow of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity, the presumed Democratic candidate for US president has clearly stated where he stands on the evolution-creationism controversy. In his first speech after winning the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama took this very public opportunity to remind voters that his administration will be renewing a commitment to science, as had Bill Clinton when he was president.

Listen to the 1 minute show:

Judgment Day in Texas

2008-06-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Like the PBS documentary about Intelligent Design, Judgment Day was equally harsh for Texas Child Protective Services. The Texas State Supreme Court upheld an appellate court’s ruling that the 450 girls forcibly removed from a Mormon cult in Texas be returned. The court ruled that the Fundamentalist Mormon’s polygamist and other sexual practices were protected by the separation of Church and State as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

The order signed by Texas District Judge Barbara Walther, responding to a state Supreme Court ruling last week, allowed parents in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to pick up their children from foster care facilities around the state almost immediately.

In exchange for regaining custody, the parents are not allowed to leave Texas without court permission and must participate in parenting classes. They were also ordered not to interfere with any child abuse investigation and to allow the children to undergo psychiatric or medical exams if required.

However, it does not put restrictions on the children's fathers, or require parents to renounce polygamy or live away from the sect's Yearning For Zion Ranch in West Texas. "We're really grateful to get the order signed," said Willie Jessop, an FLDS elder.

The FLDS denies any abuse of the children. Church officials have always maintained that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. The FLDS, whose members believe polygamy earns glorification in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

Walther's order does not end a separate criminal investigation. Texas authorities last week collected DNA from jailed FLDS leader Warren Jeffs as part of an investigation into underage sex with girls, ages 12 to 15. He has been convicted in Utah as an accomplice to rape and is jail in Arizona awaiting trial on separate charges.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Creationism, the Constitution, and the Mormon Mess in Texas

2008-05-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

Somehow, the same constitutional law that scientists invoke to keep creationism out of the classroom has now appeared to favor polygamy in the bizarre case of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas.

Hundreds of pro-bono lawyers looking to distinguish their careers by being associated with the case (& staying in the national news cycle), have won their appeal in a citing that uses the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution to guarantee the rights of the FLDS, a plural marriage fundamentalist religious cult that established itself near Austin, Texas.

Scientists will have to support this pro-Creationism decision, because if religion cannot influence secular education, then secular education cannot influence religious practices. This means that the court's decision is a left-handed compliment to secularists invoking the Constitution's establishment clause to keep creationism out of the classroom.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Vatican Chief Astronomer says Bible is not a science book

2008-05-21T10:00:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The new Chief Astronomer for the Vatican Jose Gabriel Funes says science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion. He believes the Big Bang Theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Oprah Winfrey and the creationism controversy

2008-05-07T10:00:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Much to the surprise of webinar participants, Oprah Winfrey and spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle were directly confronted during their New Earth webcast with a question about the use of the word 'evolution' in his teachings. Eckhart responded that most Christians world-wide don't have a problem with evolution. Oprah added that it's obvious everyone is evolving every day. To learn more, visit OprahEckhart.com.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

The Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Creationism and Darwinism

2008-04-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, criticized both extremes, saying: "Neo Darwinism and Creationist science deserve each other. Creationism is a version of slightly questionable science pretending to be theology, and Neo Darwinism is a questionable theology pretending to be science." Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn't.

[source: Times Online]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the blog Faith Central of Times Online:

The Archbishop hit out against the "two extremes" in the range of theories of how the world began in his Holy Week lecture on Faith and Science last night. He said "Science has more to do than is simply covered by these theories."

Creationists believe in the literal version of creation as told in Genesis, and argue that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.

Dr Williams admitted that Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, is "most problematic" to theology, but he called it "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology."
[read full blog post]

from a comment posted on the blog Faith Central:

Surely there is a difference between 'stories' with no supporting evidence, and 'stories' with an abundance and growing body of observed and observable evidence to support them? This is an important distinction he fails to make when comparing the competing stories of Christianity and Neo-Darwinism.

from PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula:

Rowan Williams clearly has no idea what the neo-Darwinian synthesis says, because nowhere does it claim that evolution will weed out religion; even I, brutal opponent of all things godly, can see reasonable arguments for the adaptiveness of religion, or the absence of selection against religion, or that there are acceptable rationales for religion as an exaptation. But otherwise, the admission that science is a problem for theology, and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy. [read full blog post]

An Intelligent Design documentary offers rebates on movie tickets

2008-04-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Producers of a pro-Intelligent Design movie starring Ben Stein are raising money for schools by making donations in exchange for ticket stubs. Christian schools, in particular, are urged to book theaters during the opening weekend and receive up to $5 for each ticket stub returned. The film is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and opens in theatres April 2008.

[source: The Expelled Challenge]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the Expelled Challenge web site:

Welcome to the Expelled Challenge web site where we can help Christian schools raise up to $10,000 while educating their students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate. This is an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance. What is the Expelled Challenge? To engage Christian schools to get as many students, parents, and faculty from your school out to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. [visit the site]

from the blog The Frame Problem:

It is curious that on the one hand, leaders of the ID movement claim that ID is not about religion but about science, while on the other hand, the promoters of this movie are campaigning specifically to Christian schools. If it’s all about science, why not campaign to schools of all faiths and, dare I say it, public schools.

If ID is a secular scientific program, why direct act as if the only people who the film is aimed at is Christians—and not just Christians, but the kind of Christians that would attend or put their child in a Christian private school? Why describe your movie as being “an extremely important project for those of us who believe our world was designed by a creator and not an act of random chance”?

If it’s about science, then shouldn’t the movie be important to all of us? When early quantum physicists were promoting their colloquia and conferences, I’d be willing to bet that they didn’t run promotions exclaiming that the upcoming event was extremely important for those of us who believe in a non-deterministic probabilitistic universe. It was important to anyone interested in honest inquiry. [read full blog post]

from a comment posted on the Pharyngula blog:

These schools are disposed to favor ID already for the most part, but many of them would not ordinarily participate simply because schools (yes, even Christian schools) are hotbeds of competing activity. Without an incentive or strong leadership, even hardcore funded schools are not that likely to participate simply because teachers and staff have so many demands on their time.

But offer the school site a significant prize, and lo and behold, the full apparatus of administrative support is likely to manifest itself. Virtually all schools are chronically underfunded and looking for new, even one-shot revenue streams. The financial inducement is a clever strategy, because it will tip the scales in an area that is already conducive to being tipped---for both ideological and financial reasons.

Further, they are, according to the link, offering how much cash per school? 300 ticket stubs gets you a $2,500!! My friends, it might take as few as two teachers at a given school making viewing the film a required assignment to reach that goal. $2,500 is more than three times my annual classroom budget for supplies, so the incentive is definitely there…..

Add it all up, and we've got something that's going to have a considerable impact rebuilding the cottage industry of creationism within the churches. And make no mistake, that's the real motive, pumping up the market for creationism within Christianity. We can mock it from the outside for their marketing tactics, but the Christians who buy into this will see the financial incentives as a 'love offering' to Christian education, and they will be well-disposed to show it. I further predict that 6-12 months after it leaves the theatres many copies of this film will be purchased/donated by Christian high schools….

This film is going to make a big splash with the audience they are targeting, and it's going to cause problems for real science education, and it needs to be challenged. In particular, the slimy, under-handed way it was produced should be put out there, and those associated with the film's production should be challenged to justify it. [read full commentary]

Is Pope Benedict a Creationist?

2008-04-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

In our continuing coverage of Pope Benedict's US visit, the Holy Father has sent confusing signals about creationism and Catholicism. While the Pope and President Bush find common ground in opposing abortion and gay marriage, the Pope's new book ‘Creation and Evolution‘, does not endorse creationism or intelligent design. But this did not stop the Pontiff from firing his Chief Astronomer, Father George Coyne, for not supporting intelligent design.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Pope Benedict, speaking recently to the Italian Ecclesial Congress:

"At the roots of being a Christian, there is no ethical decision or lofty idea, ... but a meeting with the person of Jesus Christ. The fruitfulness of this meeting is apparent ... also in today's human and cultural context, correlation between its structures and the structures of the universe ... excites our admiration and poses a great question. It implies that the universe itself is structured in an intelligent fashion, in such a way that there exists a profound correspondence between our subjective reason and the objective reason of nature. It is, then, inevitable that we should ask ourselves if there is not a single original intelligence that is the common source of both the one and the other."

Pope Benedict, in his book Creation and Evolution:

"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason...and thus brought us new insights. But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it. The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost."

What does a creationist, FedEx, and McCain’s search for a vice president have in common?

2008-04-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

A secret list of 20 potential running mates was revealed by presidential hopeful John McCain today. Mike Huckabee, who wants to revise the U. S. Constitution to reflect more Biblical values, could help increase McCain's appeal among cultural conservatives. But McCain has repeatedly praised Frederick Smith, CEO of Federal Express, as an excellent VP choice from the business sector.

[source: Associated Press]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

Mike Huckabee, on the campaign trail in January:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Video clip of CNN report on Huckabee's above comment

comment posted at One News Now:

McCain should remember that a Christian serves God first - and that alone accounts for McCain's perception that he's "his own man." In other words, he won't bow to popular opinion but will stand by the commands of Jesus. [see complete story]

Atheists are banned from an intelligent design movie

2008-03-26T14:03:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The banning of atheists from a prescreening of Ben Stein’s film, Expelled No Intelligence Allowed, drew hundreds of postings in the blogosphere this week according to Technorati, a leading blogpost barometer. Producers of the film about intelligent design claim the furor is around the value of their message. Atheists question a film that associates Darwin with the Nazi Holocaust.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a blog post by PZ Myers, who was banned from the film screening:

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.

I complied.

I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins.

[read full blog post]

a comment posted on PZ Myer's blog Pharyngula:

The strategy of keeping the skeptical and rational sectors of society out of preview screenings of this movie makes a lot of sense. If we can't see it we can't destroy it's credibility before it is widely released, and it follows that they will be able to blindside uninformed people much more easily.

excerpt from a press release issued by the makers of the film Expelled:

Executive Producer Logan Craft noted: “EXPELLED makes it clear that academic freedom is at stake. Yet Dawkins and his friends continue to misrepresent the film and slander the producers. It is obvious that they do not want to debate the real issues raised in the movie. Their only interest is to control the damage their interviews have done to their cause. We are happy to let the public decide where the truth rests on this controversial issue when the movie opens nationwide on April 18th.”

Myers has apparently been asking supporters to sneak into the different private screenings for many weeks. After being denied his chance to see the movie, Myers blogged about his experience and expressed his outrage.

Executive Producer Walt Ruloff responded, “This is the typical reaction of Darwinists and atheists who are so blinded by their own self importance that they fail to understand what is really going on. They yell and scream when one of their friends isn’t allowed to see a movie weeks before it goes public. All this outrage while these same people organize witch hunts to expel those who disagree with them.”

[read complete press release]

Will John McCain choose a Creationist as his running mate?

2008-03-12T15:01:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

With McCain the Republican 2008 presidential candidate, the “Dream Team” may include Mike Huckabee as the vice-presidential nominee. Huckabee proved the strength of the evangelical vote by winning the first republican Iowa caucus & then stayed in the race long after big spender Mitt Romney bowed out. McCain-Huckabee vs. Clinton-Obama would be a presidential contest of Biblical proportions.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from The News & Observer:

Who will be Arizona Sen. John McCain's running mate? Party activists are more interested than usual in his pick for three reasons:
* He needs to shore up support from conservatives, and the running mate is his best chance to do that;
* The vice presidential nominee could be first in line to win the presidential nomination the next time it's open;
* Given McCain's age -- he'd be 72 on Inauguration Day -- the presidency could come open sooner than eight years .
The most-discussed name right now is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Here are the pros and cons of Mr. Huckabee, according to conventional wisdom among the Republican party:
Pro: He's shown his ability to win in the South and has support among evangelical Christians. A solid social conservative.
Con: He raised taxes as governor and supported equal benefits for the Arkansas children of illegal immigrants. Picking him might not excite conservatives.
[read full story]

from the blog A Lanson Boy:

Huckabee is becoming just too powerful a figure to ignore. Consider McCain's position. He is unpopular with the God brigade because he is perceived as weak on abortion and gay marriage. He doesn't play well in the South and he is viewed as weak on immigration. So the whole spectrum of the right are arrayed against him. As I said before, if Obama is the Democratic candidate then the GOP could face problems in traditional red states. McCain needs a good solid bible belt southerner to shore up his position. The trouble is that there just aren't that many credible candidates around. What Huckabee has going for him is that he hs proven he can win in these states and that he was brave enough to put his head above the parapet and compete. On Super Tuesday, Huckabee won 5 states and was second in a further 3. He is a force to be reckoned with even if he cannot win.
[read full blog post]

from a commentary by Abe Greenwald, published at Commentary Magazine.com:

Since Mike Huckabee’s surprise showing on Tuesday, talk about a McCain - Huckabee ticket has neared the level of legitimate speculation. The thinking is that Huckabee victories in southern states like Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia, demonstrate the value of an Evangelical-friendly name on a GOP ticket.

When this idea was floated on Fox News Tuesday night, Karl Rove, in his new talking head role, dismissed it immediately—with good reason. Christianity Today reports that evangelical voters are now more concerned with national security than with social issues such as abortion. (Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani made that clear.) John McCain’s vision of the enemy as a threat to the American way of life is comfortably close to the Evangelical vision of jihad as a threat to Christianity. Somewhat shockingly, unlike some of the conservative media, Evangelicals can prioritize. John McCain has said many times (including, once, to me) that he’s looking for a strong national security vice president. He’d have an impossible time defending his choice of the man who didn’t know of the existence of the NIE on Iran. The compulsion to over-strategize in speculating about the McCain campaign has grown directly out of the Limbaugh-right’s insistence that McCain is embattled within the party. And in a national election, few evangelicals are going to pull the lever for Hillary or Obama over him. But if, after running almost entirely on national security, he hitched himself to a foreign policy ignoramus like Huckabee, he may first face detractors en masse.
[read complete article]

Mike Huckabee rouses evangelicals in Texas

2008-03-05T17:09:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Mike Huckabee has focused his Texas primary campaign on his core constituency in the Texas Bible Belt. Huckabee may bring enough conservative fundamentalist voters to the polls on March 4 to swing the balance of power on the Texas school board to supporters of creationism. One school board seat may go to Republican Barney Maddox who calls Darwin's theories "pre-Civil War fairy tales."

[source: Time]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Greg Laden's Blog:

On one hand, we have the Huckabee factor ... Huckabee's draw on hard right voters in tomorrows primary may lead anti-evolutionists to victory. On the other hand, we have the Obama factor ... Obama's draw on moderate republicans may lead to a cleansing of pernicious liberal elements from the Republican party.
Hilary Hylton has an interesting and informative piece in, of all places, Time, about tomorrow's events in Texas. You need to know this.

Texas has a state-wide school board. This means that when it comes to textbook adoption, Texas is the largest single customer, and thus, traditionally, Texas has determined the fundamental nature of textbook production in the United States for years.
Fortunately, children nation wide are protected by the constitution even from Texans, and strong political efforts in Texas and elsewhere, including pressure on publishers, has meant that social studies and science textbooks available for adoption across the country for grade school and high school have not been as bad as they might have been had Texas conservatives succeeded in their plan to take over education nationally. [read full blog post]

from a comment posted on the Bad Astronomy Blog:

Some info for district 2 voters (which includes Corpus Christi) can be found in this article:
http://www.caller.com/news/2008/feb/26/teaching-of-evolution-may-be-affected/

The vote will be on electing a member to the State Board of Education, which determines text books used in TX schools.

Bad:

Lupe A. Gonzales wants to stop teachers from teaching science by insisting that the sound scientific theories of evolution be taught alongside creationism.

Good:

Mary Helen Berlanga wants to ‘leave God out of science’. Not because it promotes atheism, but because religion has no place in the science class.
[read full blog post]

Kathy Miller, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, quoted in an article in the Dallas Morning News:

When you think about the fact that the State Board of Education in Texas determines what every child in Texas public schools will be taught in K through 12, the impact that those members have is extraordinary on the future of Texas. These races are absolutely critical. ... Membership of the State Board of Education is clearly, very evenly divided between the far right faction of the board and everyone else. [read complete article]

A popular creationist links Darwin to racism

2008-02-27T13:35:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Ken Ham, evangelical creationist and founder of the very popular Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio, has just come out with a new book entitled Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots. Ken Ham and co-author Dr. Charles Ware reveal a compelling history of the effect of an evolution-based belief system on the history of the United States, touching on abortion, slavery, and the civil rights movement.

[source: Answers in Genesis]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from The Associated Press:

In the new book, Ham says that Darwin's theory - that natural selection caused gradual biological changes over time - puts some races ''higher on the evolutionary scale'' and others ''closer to the apes.''

''Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it,'' Ham writes. He further contends that the theory fanned the flames of ''ethnic superiority.''

''Stalin, Hitler and Mao were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions - and it can be shown they did this because of the influence of Darwinian naturalism,'' Ham writes.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a California group that defends teaching evolution in public schools, said Hitler rarely mentioned evolution.

''Darwinian evolution is based on natural selection, which means that any population can adapt to its environment,'' Scott said. ''The ironic thing for the creationists is that Hitler grounded Aryan superiority as a God-given quality.'' [read full story]

from the blog The Darwin Report:

Historically speaking, Charles Darwin came from a family of abolitionists. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, strongly disapproved of slavery. And Charles Darwin wrote negatively about the slavery he witnessed on his travels in his book, The Voyage Of The Beagle. Darwin’s The Descent Of Man is also an argument against racism, since one of the points in it is the common ancestry of all the humans races. And simply using the word “savage”, as Darwin did, in its 19th century context doesn’t make a man a racist. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity were more than a century away. [read full blog post]

from a report by WDC Media, a Christian Media relations firm:

Ham and Ware show that although racism certainly did not begin with Darwin, his beliefs did more to fuel racism than the ideas of any other single individual. "Racism is a consequence of sin in a fallen world infused with evolutionary thinking," Ham writes.

The subtitle of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin himself writes in "The Descent of Man" that he would rather be descended from a monkey than a "savage."

"As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy corollary to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others," the book says. [read complete article]

from PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula:

Just when you think these guys can't get any more dishonest, here comes Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. The tag line on the book is a quote from Ham: "Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it."

Wow. More than Martin Luther, who helped make anti-semitism a favorite German pastime? More than Nathan Bedford Forrest, who helped the Ku Klux Klan grow to half a million members? More than Hitler? More than our Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision? More than Richard Butler, founder of the Aryan Nations? More than Lester Maddox and Strom Thurmond? More than King Leopold II of Belgium? [read full blog post]

The Florida State Board of Education finally approves evolution - but only “in theory”

2008-02-20T07:32:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

In a precedent-setting decision, Florida education officials voted to add evolution to required course work in public schools, but only after a last-minute change depicting Charles Darwin's seminal work as merely a theory. Bending to pressure from religious conservatives, the compromise would require teaching that Darwin's proposal has yet to be conclusively proven. [source: Miami Herald]

See the press release from the Florida State Board of Education here.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Comments and opinions:

excerpt from a news report published by the National Center for Science Education:

The Florida state board of education voted 4-3 at its February 19, 2008, meeting to adopt a new set of state science standards in which evolution is presented as a "fundamental concept underlying all of biology." The adopted standards differ from those developed by the writing committee in adding the phrase "the scientific theory of" before mentions of plate tectonics, cell theory, atomic theory, electromagnetism, and evolution. According to the standards, "a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer."
The previous set of state science standards, adopted in 1999, received a failing grade in a national assessment by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2005, which observed, "The superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the grade 'F'." The word "evolution" itself was absent from the standards. In contrast, evolution is now featured as a "big idea" around which the standards are organized. [read complete article]

from a comment posted at NaplesNews.com:

Forcing a child to learn creationism, a biblical concept, in school is religious oppression ...not freedom.

Forcing a Muslim to deal with Christian concepts in verse and in print within government dealings, is not religious freedom.

Forcing a Jewish child to partake in Christmas (be it in celebration or in task ..such as a art project making wreaths) in a public school is not religious freedom.

Religious freedom is the right to choose your own beliefs, not have it forced upon you by others. Religious freedom does not come from imposing your beliefs on others or by coercing them to follow laws written in support of those beliefs.

from a post by Wesley R. Elsberry at the blog Panda's Thumb:

Florida adopted amended standards. We know from prior experience that when one agrees to language from the anti-science advocates, they have some angle for exploitation of that language. While Florida standards now do mandate the teaching of evolutionary science, they also have the antievolution back-door installed. There will be further years of dealing with antievolution efforts in Florida because of this action.

It’s Darwin’s Birthday and a creationist candidate declares he will fight on for his party’s nomination

2008-02-13T07:40:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Last year at this time, we reported on Evolution Sunday -- an annual event that coincides with Darwin’s birthday that celebrates the compatibility of Evolution with Christianity. This year on Darwin‘s Birthday the presidential primaries are in full swing, and despite John McCain’s impressive delegate lead, Mike Huckabee is not giving up his fight to become the first confirmed Christian Creationist President.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

MSNBC.com reporting on the McCain - Huckabee race:

Huckabee told reporters in Little Rock, Ark., that his close showing in Virginia proved that “there’s still a real sense in the Republican Party of a desire to have a choice.”

“We feel like if we’d had a few more days, maybe we could have closed the gap all the way,” he said.

Huckabee said he was the only “solid conservative, absolutely pro-life candidate” still in the race, and exit interviews in Virginia suggested that his message resonated. Huckabee got strong support from self-described conservatives, who made up nearly 7 in 10 voters in the Republican primary. Huckabee won half their votes.

In a surprising showing of weakness for McCain, independents, a group he has dominated, were about evenly divided. People calling themselves loyal Republicans, who have previously given McCain a slight edge, were also split down the middle.

White born-again and evangelical Christians, the keystone of Huckabee’s support all year, were favoring him by more than a 2-to-1 ration. McCain led heavily among the 6 in 10 Virginia voters who were not white born-again and evangelicals. Polls taken last week showed McCain with a double-digit lead over Huckabee, a Baptist minister, but Huckabee drew strong support in rural western Virginia, the state’s Bible belt. He appealed to Christian conservatives in Virginia, where he had the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., the namesake son of the late television evangelist.
[read full story]

An anti-evolution film is secretly screened in Florida

2008-02-06T15:10:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

While the state of Florida prepares to adopt evolution as the official new science standard, an anti-evolution film was secretly screened to
conservative Christian ministers at a conference in Orlando. Like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being privately previewed by the religious right before its general opening in April.

[source: Orlando Sentinel]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a blog post by Roger Moore, film critic of the Orlando Sentinel:

[The filmmakers are] showing the movie to what he and the producers hoped would be a friendly, receptive audience of conservative Christian ministers at a conference at the Northland mega-church next to the dog track up in Longwood. They're marking this movie, which they had said, earlier, they'd open in Feb. (now April) the same way they pitched The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, said Paul Lauer of Motive Entertainment, who introduced Stein.
In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn't a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it.
They postered the Orlando Sentinel with email invitations, then tried to withdraw the one they sent to me. No dice. They also passed out non-disclosure "statement of confidentiality" agreements for people to sign. [read full blog post]

Florida counties reject evolution

2008-01-30T14:11:00.000-08:00

click to enlarge

Today's show:

There's more than presidential primary news in Florida this week. In a surprise move against the state Department of Education, 8 small counties in northern Florida have passed anti-evolution resolutions. These resolutions signal the vehement opposition to new state science standards which refer to evolution as "a critical fact that every student should know." Florida's current science curriculum doesn't even mention Darwin's theory by name.

[source: St. Petersburg Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a story reported in the Florida Times-Union:

School boards across Northeast Florida are objecting to Florida's proposed new science standards that would, for the first time in state history, require schools to teach that evolution is the backbone of all biological science.

Backers of the resolutions contend they're not trying to drive evolution out of schools. Instead, they say they object to presenting evolution as - in the words of the St. Johns County resolution - a "dogmatic fact."

Some school superintendents say the resolutions reflect the religious nature of their constituents in Northeast Florida. [read full story]

from a story published in the St. Petersburg Times:

Dominated by Baptist churches and dotted with military bases, most of North Florida makes no bones about its political and cultural conservatism. Throw an election year into the mix, Blanton said, and it's no surprise that school officials in places like Bonifay and MacClenny are "going to try to do some things their constituents want."

The current science standards, put in place in 1996, do not mention the word "evolution" and instead refer to "changes over time." The proposed standards say evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." If the Board of Education approves, students will be tested on them next year.

The opposition resolutions have passed in five rural counties - Baker, Madison, Taylor, Jackson and Holmes - and in two suburban counties next to Jacksonville: Clay and St. John's. [read full story]

excerpt from an article by Brandon Keim, writing in Wired magazine:

"Alternatives" to evolution are essentially creationist, and usually rely on intelligent design -- a belief that the life's essential complexity can only be explained as the work of another (and generally divine) intelligence. Intelligent design was legally declared a religious rather than scientific explanation during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit; unlike evolution, it can't be tested, and there is no evidence to support it.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, four Polk County school board members publicly rejected evolution. Local coverage of their sentiments soon turned national; they backed down. The conflict seemed settled. However, persistent digging by the Florida Citizens for Science found that eight counties -- St. Johns, Holmes, Hamilton, Baker, Jackson, Clay, Taylor and Madison -- have passed anti-evolution resolutions.

The resolutions are non-binding, but may encourage members the state Board of Education to dilute the state's proposed science standards. If Florida opts for evolution-unfriendly textbooks and is followed by neighboring Texas -- also undergoing its own curriculum revision -- then other states, looking for less-expensive texts, may buy those same books. Much of an entire generation could be raised to think of evolution as a theory with no more grounding in reality than intelligent design. [read complete article]

from TampaBay.com:

A committee of teachers, scientists and others worked for months to update the current standards, which were written in 1996 and do not mention the word "evolution." Its revamp has won solid reviews from teachers and scientists. But some conservative Christians object, saying the standards should also include faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design, and/or air what they insist are evolution's flaws, faults and weaknesses.

"In my life time, I've never seen an ape turned into a human. I've never seen us come from slime," said Ruth Klingman, who identified herself on the sign-in sheet as a former educator.

"I don't think evolution should be taught in school as dogmatic fact," agreed Gary Tupper. "I wish people had priorities like putting Christ first." [read full story]

Republicans endorse evolution

2008-01-16T14:50:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

In stark contrast to Iowa Republican caucus winner Mike Huckabee, prominent republican Rudy Giuliani and independent Michael Bloomberg have publicly strongly affirmed their belief in evolutionary theory. Both agree that creationism devalues science and cheapens theology, while at the same time condemning students to an inferior education with less professional opportunities. Republican New Hampshire primary winner John McCain still seems to be playing to both sides of the controversy.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the article, Evolutionary Politics, by Ronald Bailey

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. ….

Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president's leadership. [read full story]

from a comment posted at the blog Gene Expression:

It doesn't matter what the candidates believe. What matters is whether the American people desire someone to parrot their beliefs back to them, and what those beliefs are.

Electing a Creationist won't cause people to become Creationists. It's a question of which groups will wield social and political dominance.

from a comment posted at the blog Capitol Hill Blue:

Why is evolution important to America? It is the future of repairing our medical problems and using every source of scientific research to find out why our American culture has turned into a violent culture. My own opinion is that forcing religion on a small child removes their critical thinking process. Instead of working themselves out of trouble they simply pray and hand their problems to the sky daddy. [read full blog post]

from a comment posted at the New York Times blog City Room:

I’m tired of all the praises on so-called “middle of the road” politicians or voters. You’re for the Iraq War or you’re not. You balance budgets or you don’t. You try to catch up in education to other countries, or fight to include creationism in school. You try to slow climate change (stopping seems out of the option already) or you try to make money before Earth melts. This is perhaps our last chance to restore American competitiveness - and global survival. Take a stance. It was all those “moderates” who put Bush in the office, voted us into Iraq, wrecked federal budget surpluses with billions of tax cuts to the super-rich, etc. etc. What have they wrought. [read full article and comments]

A creationist Candidate wins the first US presidential primary

2008-01-09T14:44:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

In a stunning victory for creationists, Mike Huckabee easily wins the Iowa Republican Caucus. Running on a platform of faith, family and freedom, the evangelical preacher turned presidential candidate confronts secular voters with the question, "is the US ready for a president who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old?"

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from comments made by University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn:

The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming. I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.... Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It's about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism. Holding deep religious beliefs is not incompatible with believing in evolution. But that's different to saying the two can be taught together in science class, because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world. They might not be incompatible but they don't overlap each other's spheres. Science class should not contain religious attitudes. [read more]

from Pride of America blog:

Since when has a President’s beliefs about the process of creation affected the world’s climate or oil supply? Maybe you can explain the parallels of that to me. It just seems random and off the wall. It seems to me that now that Governor Huckabee is in the media and news more often, attacks on him are becoming more frequent and quite frankly, more bizarre.

Why don’t we stop attacking someone’s beliefs or personal life and focus on their character or policies? I think George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, to name a few, were some of our finest Presidents and they believed in creationism. I don’t remember hearing how their beliefs negatively affected our planet or the sea life. If anything, they helped build America up and make her what she is today. [read full blog post]

from the blog Stumbling and Mumbling:

Mike Huckabee's victory in the Iowa caucus raises the possibility that the next US President won't believe in the theory of evolution. Is this worrying? I'm not sure. There are two possible reasons why it might be, and neither are convincing.

First, what worries liberals is not so much creationism itself, which has no obvious policy implications, but rather that belief in creationism is correlated with views they find unpleasant. People who believe the bible is the word of God are disproportionately likely to oppose homosexuality and inter-racial marriage and favor tougher penalties for criminals; data are here. But insofar as Huckabee shares these attitudes - and on crime he seems not to - he can be judged on them separately.

The second problem is stated by Danny:

Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

But this raises a false dichotomy. An acceptance of the theory of evolution is no evidence that one is rational. And there's no reason to suppose that a Darwinist president would make policy according to perfectly rational Bayesian principles. We are all prone to cognitive biases that make it impossible for us to hold scientific political beliefs; even Richard Dawkins falls way short of following the "basic principles of science" when he thinks about politics. Why pick on creationism when it's just one of countless irrationalities?

Indeed, there might even be a case for favoring a creationist candidate. A man who enters the White House with a reputation for being unreasonably irrational might make more effort to dispel this reputation, and so be unusually reasonable in office - in a similar way that Richard Nixon's reputation as a fierce anti-communist enabled him to pursue a policy of detente.

There may be good reasons not to want Huckabee in the White House. But his creationism isn't obviously one of them. [read full blog post]

A look back at the controversy in 2007

2008-01-02T13:35:00.000-08:00

Today's show:

2007's first big story opened on Darwin's Birthday, February 11, with the release of the feature film documentary Flock of Dodos. In May, Ken Ham proudly placed baby dinosaurs in Noah's Ark at the Creation Museum, while a Turkish publisher spent millions FedExing the Atlas of Creation to European and American universities. Also in 2007 three presidential candidates went on the record that they don’t believe in evolution.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

A creationist group my soon offer master's degrees in science

2007-12-26T13:19:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

In Texas, the Institute for Creation Research has won initial approval to offer accredited master’s degrees in science education. Science education groups are angry that none of the approval board's vote-casting members are professionally trained in science. Even more upsetting is the fact that the master's degree program will train future teachers in creation science. Texans will have the final vote in January.

[source: The Dallas Morning News]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Background Facts: The Institute for Creation Research

Offices: In Dallas, TX and Santee, Calif.

Annual budget: $7 million

Faculty members: four full time

Students: more than 50

Degrees: master of science degree in science education with minors in astro/geophysics, biology, geology and general science.

School: The institute runs its own graduate school that offers master's of science education degrees. Its stated mission: to "research, educate and communicate Truth involving the study and promotion of scientific creationism, Biblical creationism, and related fields."

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School sets out its educational philosophy and beliefs on its Web site, www.icr.org.

On its philosophy: The institute says its administration and faculty are "committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism." It says the two "are compatible ... and all genuine facts of science support the Bible."

On public schools: The institute "maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of evolutionism in tax-supported institutions."

SOME TENETS OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM

•The physical universe "was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity."

•Life "was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."

•All plants and animals were "created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism."

•Evolution since creation is "limited to 'horizontal' changes (variations) within the kinds, or 'downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

•Humans "were specially created in fully human form from the start."

SOME TENETS OF BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

•The creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

•The universe was created "in the six literal days of the Creation Week" described in Genesis.

•All human beings descended from Adam and Eve.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education:

They teach distorted science ... Any student coming out from the ICR with a degree in science would not be competent to teach in Texas public schools.

from Josh Harkinson at Mother Jones blog:

Because Baylor University is not doing enough to plumb the seas for Noah's Ark, an advisory committee of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has recommended that the Institute for Creation Research be given the authority to grant Master's degrees in science education. Perhaps the training will help graduates stay employed in the Lone Star State, rather than getting fired like the state's former director of science curricula, a shameless Darwin booster.

Is Texas devolving? Not at all. According to the Institute's mission statement, it will only enroll the self-motivated, responsible student who "is more self-disciplined ('whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God;' I Cor. 10:31) and takes education seriously ('And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;' Colossians 3:23)."

The Texas Observer reports that the same guys brought us the Creation Museum in Kentucky (see Adam frolic with the dinosaurs!), and are at work stumping for Mike Huckabee in Iowa.

Texas debates intelligent design

2007-12-19T09:44:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Last month's resignation of the Texas state science curriculum director has ignited a highly charged and politicized debate over the teaching evolution in the state's schools, which come up for state-wide review In January. Most members of the State Board of Education, including the chairman, have said publicly they don't want to introduce intelligent design into the curriculum, and many of them also have said they want to keep the current language on evolution. To some, this exercise could turn into a pivotal opportunity for change. Even small changes in the language could mean big changes in textbooks later on. "Emphatically, we are not trying to 'take evolution out of the schools,'" said Mark Ramsey of Texans for Better Science Education, which wants schools to teach about weaknesses in evolution. "All good educators know that when students are taught both sides of an issue such as biologic evolution, they understand each side better. What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

[source: The Dallas Morning News]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial published in the San Antonio Express-News:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released the results of a test that assesses science and math skills of students in 30 industrialized countries. The results showed American students scored in the bottom half — worse than their peers from 16 other countries, and better than only those from Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico.

U.S. students do not reach "the baseline level of achievement ... at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology," the report says. The comparative results for math were even worse.

Many explanations exist for the lagging performance in science by American students. One that cannot be avoided is that some of the adults who are responsible for their science educations don't take science seriously enough.

Do Texans truly want their educators to be neutral on the teaching of religious faith versus science in schools? If so, then the State Board of Education and the Texas Education Agency are well on their way to making students in Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico feel proud. [read full editorial]

from Eric Berger of the SciGuy Blog:

The state's science curriculum director, Chris Comer, recently resigned from the Texas Education Agency as part of a flap surrounding her endorsement of a lecture by Barbara Forrest, a critic of the intelligent design movement. We peripherally discussed the issue here.

Now biologists from the state's leading universities have taken to the defense of Comer, saying it's ridiculous that she was essentially fired for not adhering to the TEA's policy of remaining neutral on the issue of evolution versus intelligent design.

There should be no neutrality on an issue that is scientifically and legally clear-cut, they write. Evolution should be taught at the K-12 as it is in universities, they say, and the TEA should work to bolster evolution education in Texas rather than undermining it. [read full blog post]

from a news report by Rod Rose, published in Texas' Mineral Wells Index:

The Texas Education Board has taken a significant action to protect the American public from the horrors of scientific knowledge..... Next year, the state of Texas will choose new science textbooks. With California and New York, Texas is the largest single buyer of public school textbooks. Because of their buying clout, those states can influence what is said in those texts.

If Texas tells a publisher it wants creationism in a biology textbook, it will probably get books that espouse creationism as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution — because publishing is a for-profit business.

The United States faces critical scientific challenges in the next few years. The solutions to those challenges cannot be based solely on the philosophy that “it’s in God’s hands.”

If any religion ever scientifically proves the existence of God, then science classes should include that proof. Until then, the existence of God is a matter of faith.

Faith may move mountains, but it can’t be grown in a petri dish.

[read full article]

Creationism and the candidates

2007-12-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee bristled when asked recently if creationism should be taught in public schools. Huckabee, one of 3 candidates who has confessed his disbelief in evolution, now asks why there is such fascination with his beliefs. He expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are. "That's an irrelevant question to ask me - I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
[source: Associated Press]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial by Daniel Finkelstein in the London Times:

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.

from the blog Uncommon Ground:

Huckabee wants to avoid the issue, because “I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” He seems to think that it's irrelevant that his personal beliefs contradict an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And don't think he can escape by arguing that he's a theistic evolutionist, a la Mitt Romney. He clearly doesn't accept the idea of common descent. He clearly doesn't understand that he shares a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas (and fruit flies and fungus and sunflowers, for that matter). It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States. [read full blog post]

related news story, Huckabee Declines Theology Discussion, published December 7, 2007 by the AP:

Republican presidential candidate and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee says he won't discuss "intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine," such as the role of women in the ministry, because the issues aren't relevant to the presidency.

The former Arkansas governor said that while he's open to discussing the basic pillars of his faith - and praised rival Mitt Romney for opening up in a speech Thursday about his - he won't voice his views on the often-discussed controversies in Southern Baptist denominations.

"I think (discussing faith) is an important part of helping people get to know the candidates," Huckabee said Friday morning after a breakfast fundraiser in Charlotte. "(But) sometimes the questions get a little laborious when they start asking you about intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine that's probably not all that relevant to being president."

As in his decision not to discuss his views on the creation of the earth, Huckabee passed on a chance Thursday night explain his views on whether women should be able to serve in pastoral leadership roles.

"It's so irrelevant to being president that I wouldn't even get into that," Huckabee said before meeting with about 350 supporters in Greensboro, N.C. "Churches have different views on that and my personal views are completely immaterial as it would relate to being president." [read complete article]

The Creation Museum emerges as a learning institution

2007-12-05T14:13:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

Six months after its opening, the controversial Creation Museum has attracted over one quarter of a million visitors, double the number predicted. The largest audiences are home-school families and Christian school students, who come to learn the creation-based science that the museum so vividly portrays. Museum founder Evangelist Ken Ham, who has focused his ministry extensively on education, has added afternoon lectures and plans several children's workshops.
[source: Northern Kentucky News]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial by James K. Willmot, appearing in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

There is a great educational injustice being inflicted upon thousands of children in this country, a large percentage of whom come from the Kentucky, Ohio and, Indiana areas…. If adults want to believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth, that dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony (all dinosaurs were vegetarians, you see) and that Noah saved all of the Earth's animal species by placing them on his ark, then they have the right to do so. What I object to is that thousands of children, particularly the growing number of Christian home-schooled children in this country, are visiting the museum in droves, much to the delight of the museum's founder, Ken Hamm….

The obstruction of scientific information is nothing new in the history of fundamentalist theology. What is new is the way this organization is using the power of radio (AIG is broadcast over 850 radio stations), the Internet and, now, a pseudo-natural history museum to convince well-meaning, hard-working people that science is not to be trusted, that the theory of evolution is evil and that belief in scientific theories of our creation leads to barbaric behaviors…. Unfortunately, the creation museum in Northern Kentucky has been very successful at encouraging their non-thinking, anti-reasoning philosophy, especially among young, dinosaur-loving children. Inaction in this matter may come back to haunt us in the future. [read full story]

from Evolution Blog:

The issue is not that someone knowledgeable about science will go in understanding the evidence for evolution and come out a fire-breathing creationist. Rather, it is the people who have never really thought carefully about the subject, who go out of curiosity or because a friend roped them in, we have to worry about. Such people rarely consider the possibility that such slick and expensive propaganda could possibly be wall-to-wall nonsense. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?

Furthermore, the success of the creation museum leads to favorable press coverage…. That leads to young-Earthism being a ubiquitous and accepted part of the social discourse. If the polls are to be believed, fully half the country is already in thrall to this garbage. Add in a lot of neutral to favorable press coverage and you bet people are going to start being persuaded. If not of full-blown YEC, at least of the idea that this is something that needs to be presented in science classes….

The fact is that if the courts ever step out of the way we will have some sort of creationism taught in virtually every school-district in the country. Frame your way out of that. We're one Supreme Court justice (and the right case, of course) away from having it found constitutional to teach this dreck in public schools. If, as seems a distinct possibility, we have President Giulliani in January of 2009, I'm afraid I see little hope for keeping the forces of darkness and ignorance from finally getting what they want. [read full blog post]

excerpt from an article in Answers Magazine, published by the Answers In Genesis ministry, which funded the Creation Museum:

Most parents who take their children to church on Sunday also send them off to a secular school the rest of the week. This is the case in approximately 88% of U.S. households with school-age children. If the teacher teaches from secular textbooks, the child’s Christian education is challenged.

At church they are taught that they are special in God’s eyes; in fact, they are created in His image. In most secular schools they hear the philosophy of naturalism, the idea that mass and energy are all that exist and that the universe and life all arose by natural processes. There is no supernatural Creator God.

In a key 1995 statement, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) affirmed that naturalism is a fundamental tenet of science education:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

“Unsupervised” means no Creator God. “Impersonal” means life has no special meaning. “Unpredictable” means we are a product of blind chance. “Natural process” means processes inherent in matter. It should be noted that in 1997, the NABT removed the words, “unsupervised” and “impersonal” when they realized they were distancing themselves from religious people, but the words “unpredictable” and “natural processes” remain. [read complete article]

Signed statement from concerned scientists in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana

"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis." [see full statement]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster goes to the American Academy of Religion

2007-11-28T07:59:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

When religious scholars gathered at the American Academy of Religion annual meeting this weekend, pasta was on the agenda. There to give talks was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a satirical pseudo-religion bent on raising serious questions about science and religion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster first emerged in Kansas in 2005 to challenge the decision to teach intelligent design in the state's public schools. In protest of the "junk science" of ID, the group demanded equal time at the debate to present their theory that an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe.
[source: Associated Press / Justin Pope]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a comment posted at the NPR blog by Michael Hollifield:

Indeed, when an argument was clearly refuted by Scottish philosopher David Hume as long ago as 1779 in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and more recently by scientist Richard Dawkins in his The Blind Watchmaker then ridicule and satire become appropriate responses.

The last attempt to insert this god in the gap argument was defeated in Dover, Pennsylvania and one only hopes that the United States will catch up with the remainder of the Western world and live in the 21 century instead of continuing a pre-Enlightenment way thinking. But I won't hold my breath.

from a comment posted on the blog Boing Boing:

The fact the AAR is discussing the role of FSM in contemporary dialogue is actually quite intriguing to me and as someone with a bit of exposure to philosophical theology and philosophy or religion it actually makes quite a bit of sense.

Although intentionally non-sensical, FSM is presented as an alternative to the traditional idea of God and thus represents the ultimate resolution of what is currently unknowable, unknown or plausibly debatable. FSM seems to be most enjoyed by those who are explicitly atheist and as such disavow anything "Transcendent" or (classically) metaphysical. In these instances, FSM is employed to ridicule (by absurdity) any reference to a Transcendent with the implication that all unknowns will eventually be resolved through purely scientific inquiry. Thus at one level, FSM is a derisive atheistic construct which serves as a scientifically optimistic placeholder in discussions involving the limit of their own or others' current knowledge.

No one doubts that the limit of human knowledge exists. What FSM boils down to is whether or not a portion of that
unknown is inherently transcendent. Atheistic use of FSM would say 'no' while a great many others (who may or may not believe in "God") would say 'yes'. Thus FSM represents the age-old issue as to whether scientific inquiry will eventually answer all questions.... [more]

from a comment posted on the blog Reason.com:

My initial, very very broad definition of religion would be anything you accept on faith alone. So, christianity is a religion because you accept some things on faith alone, e.g., God. While "science" is not a religion, it is possible to have relgious beliefs in different scientific principles. For example, if you believe in the theory of combustion simply because your teacher told you so, that would qualify as a religious belief. I don't religious belief is necessarily a bad thing - it can be useful sometimes to trust what others tell you without having to "reinvent the wheel."

The Discovery Institute accuses PBS of airing false facts

2007-11-21T14:51:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

A day after PBS aired a documentary on the court trial that indicted intelligent design as "creationism in disguise", advocates of the theory are crying foul play. [See our previous show]. A report published on the web claims that the documentary contains at least ten blatant misrepresentations. The report, which offers detailed rebuttals to the false information, calls the film nothing more than "inaccurate propaganda".
[source: The Discovery Institute]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the blog WindowView Press:

Public Broadcasting (PBS) on November 13, 2007, aired their best shot at dogmatizing evolution in the name of countering the concept of Intelligent Design (ID). The television show is based on the Kitzmiller versus the Dover Board of Education trial that was concluded by the decision written by Judge Jones in 2005. The trial is over, the debate is just beginning. NOVA, in the episode entitled “Judgement Day - Intelligent Design On Trial” shows examples of evolution without critique, but in cases where examples of ID are illustrated, the show adds a negative or a rebuttal spin. As a scientist with a doctorate, as the author of this piece you are now reading, I’ve learned to be more the detective, more discerning, than what PBS has done with their programming. If I were to give ID a chance to be known for what it is, I’d engage in a more objective review. Which NOVA did not do … to the detriment of us all.... [more]

from Pharyngula, the blog of biologist PZ Myers:

[The Discovery Institute's rebuttal] misses the point of the program entirely. If you've seen it, think back. What was the story it told? It has two parts. First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science…. Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise…. These are the premises that were tested in the court case, and these were the ideas illustrated in the documentary. The Discovery Institute "rebuttal" doesn't even touch these issues; their objections don't address the thrust of the court decision, which was accurately portrayed. The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions.

from the blog Uncommon Ground:

P.Z. Myers points out that the Discovery Institute has its predictable “rebuttal” of Judgment Day. Their eight-point rebuttal is, as he says, picking nits. But I think he's wrong about it missing the point of the program entirely.

Basically, the Discovery Institute's Center [for Science and Culture] was in the business of marketing--not research. It had a product to sell - intelligent design -- and was focused on doing whatever it could to sell that idea. (Conservatism's Unintelligent Design, Greg Anrig, Jr.)

The Discovery Institute's “rebuttal” isn't intended to rebut the arguments against intelligent design. It's intended to rebut arguments that they aren't very good at marketing. They aren't in the business of doing science. They're in the business of marketing, and they're trying to protect their business – ineffectively.... [more]

from a comment posted on the blog Darwinian Fundamentalism:

John Stuart Mill had some very good advice for evaluating arguments:

"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion…. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. This is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of, else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. ... So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful devil's advocate can conjure up."

Intelligent Design on trial

2007-11-14T08:55:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

The PBS program NOVA brings the historic Dover trial to light in a two-hour documentary, titled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". The Dover trial exploded in a tiny Pennsylvania town in 2005 when parents sued their school board for introducing intelligent design into the science curriculum. To see the show online, visit pbs.org. And see our stories about the Dover trial at evominute.com.
[source: NOVA/PBS]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

excerpt from Judge Jones' verdict:

TThe evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

It is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution. We do not question that many of the leading advocates of intelligent design have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that intelligent design should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.... [more]

from an interview with Phillip Johnson, a key proponent of intelligent design:

What if the Darwinian mechanism doesn't have the creative power claimed for it? Then something else has to be true. It's two sides of the same coin as I look at it, and that's why I've always devoted my energies to making the skeptical case about Darwinism. Others have evidence of a positive nature—irreducible complexity and complex specified information are part of that.

To understand the positive evidence I think we have to realize that Darwin was writing a long time ago. He didn't understand anything about complex specified information or the irreducible complexity of the cell. In Darwin's day it was thought that cells were simply globs of a kind of jelly-like substance, a protoplasm. So it didn't seem to be very difficult to imagine how you could get a blob of some substance like mud at the bottom of a prehistoric pond, lake, or ocean. But since Darwin's day an enormous amount has been learned about the cell.

This is why my colleague Michael Behe's famous book is titled Darwin's Black Box. The point there is that to Darwin the cell was a black box. It did something, but you didn't know how it did it. So the cell was a black box in Darwin's day, and now it's been opened. Thanks to the work of biochemists and molecular biologists since that time, we know that the cell is so enormously complex that it makes a spaceship or a supercomputer look rather low-tech in comparison. So I think the cell is perhaps the biggest hurdle of all for the Darwinists to get over. How do you get the first cell?

It's not just that if they get the cell then everything else will be easy. But it was thought in Darwin's day that the cell was no problem at all. The only problems came after that. How do you get from cells to complex animals and then to apes, and from apes to human beings? That's the story that he told. Now, I don't think that story will hold water when you look for proof rather than just accept it as an inevitable, logical consequence of a naturalistic philosophy that you're starting out with.... [more]

from an interview with Dr. Kenneth Miller, professor of Biology at Brown University:

Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it's tested every day in the field. I can't think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they're right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.

Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it's survived that test of time.

Evolution has great strengths in that it unifies biology and gives us a coherent explanation. Its only weakness is that it hasn't explained everything yet. Evolutionary theory has never been more active in terms of an area of inquiry and an area of scholarship than it is right now. Evolution as an idea has never been more useful than it is right now, because we use evolution everyday to interpret genomes, to develop drugs, to prolong the useful lifetime of antibiotics, to grow genetically modified crops—all these things have components of evolution in them.

If you look at the major scientific societies in the United States and around the world, not a single scientific society has made a statement or claim in support of intelligent design, in support of scientific creationism. In fact, quite the contrary. Every major scientific organization that I'm aware of that has taken a position on this issue has taken their position four-square in favor of evolution. So the notion that evolution is in some sort of crisis is just not true.... [more]

from a news release issued by Discovery Institute:

More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called "Inherit the Wind" that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in "Judgment Day" was corrected by ID proponents long ago.... [more]

South African high schools may soon teach mandatory evolution theory

2007-11-07T12:16:00.000-08:00

Transcript of today's show:

In 2008, public and private high schools throughout South Africa will begin teaching evolution. This recent decision has already ignited a tremendous uproar among parents, teachers and religious groups. Those responsible for these new standards say that evolution teaches students to think critically and analytically. Critics say, however, that it may be confusing to some students because of their religious beliefs.
[source: Thabo Mohlala/The Guardian]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Josef de Beer of the University of Johannesburg:

There is an urgent need to train teachers to deal with this complex issue in the classroom. My experience in teaching evolution in a foundation-year program at the University of Pretoria is that many students find evolution problematic because of their religious beliefs. I do not think that all teachers are ready for the challenge to teach evolution in grade 12 life sciences next year.

comment posted at RichardDawkins.net:

As an African, I can vouch for some of the sentiments expressed in the Guardian article. I was born and spent the first two decades of my life in Cameroon, a country with a fast growing Christian fundamentalist population. All my parents and siblings but one would describe themselves as biblical literalists, and thus creationists. I have relations and close Cameroonian friend, who although are in the most rational of professions (doctors, scientists and engineers) are totally unpersuaded by the evidence of evolution largely for religious reasons.

To the best of my memory, evolution was only given a cursory glance in our biology programme in high school. I have two reasons for that; the poor preparedness of the teachers and secondly the dissonance it would have caused to teach a subject that contradicts the basis of fundamentalist Christian ethos. When I last traveled to Cameroon 10 years ago, I was appalled at the rampaging inroads Christian literalism was making into the fabric of the society. My personal impression is that if this is left to continue unchecked, the intellectual fibre of the population may be irreparable damaged. I know these are strong sentiments, but we all know how long it takes to correct societal malaises (think of slavery, prejudices - racial, gender, sexual, etc).

This Christmas I have resolved to give as present to close friends and family the brilliant book by Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God. All I can hope for is that it gets read, since this is a book by a Christian scientist.

from the science blog of Chris Rowan, geologist at the University of Johannesburg:

I'm starting to think that South African schoolchildren would be better off if they weren't taught about evolution; they're about to be caught between the clashing rocks of creationist straw-men, and the treacherous whirlpool of post-modernist baloney, and the chances of them actually coming out the other side with any sort of understanding of science, or evidence-based reasoning, seem rather slim.... [more]

from Claidheamhmor's Blog:

I'm glad that it's being introduced (and a little surprised it isn't being taught already); I'm afraid that opponents are just going to have to deal with the fact that it's science, and the prime underpinning for most of biology. Countries in Europe have also recently been stopping any teaching of Creationism (which is really something that should be taught in Quackery or Philosophy classes).

This quote is daft: "No child would be compelled to “adopt” or “defend the viewpoint or any way subscribe to evolution”. So there could be no reason for parents to take legal action, Vinjevold said." People should not be compelled to adopt the viewpoint of evolution any more than they should adopt the viewpoint of gravity. It's there. Deal with it.... [more]

Florida educators mandate evolution education

2007-10-31T15:38:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Florida may soon adopt new teaching standards that will require public school students to learn about evolution. These standards will be a step toward improving the state's poorly rated science education. Officials fear that without changes Florida students will be ill-prepared for college and a technology-based workplace. Said one author of the new standards , "If we want to be competitive in the world, we have to do this." The draft standards require in-depth instruction on the subject and clearly state "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
[source: Orlando Sentinel]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the opinion page of Florida Today:

These standards -- written by a group of Florida professors and teachers, and based on recommendations of national science groups -- reflect volumes of undeniable evidence underpinning evolutionary concepts.

But it's a quantum leap from the state's abysmally inadequate current standards, which avoid use of the word evolution and which helped earn Florida an F for science teaching in 2005 from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonpartisan organization that researches educational issues.

Religious groups that deny the validity of evolution and want to mix faith-based ideas such as creationism in with science are likely to protest the move.

But the board should approve the frank teaching rules, which are part of a broader revamp to strengthen science education in public schools.

Florida's children need strong science skills to compete for jobs in a global workforce, and evolution is a critical part of that package.

from Mickey Carter, pastor at the Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, FL:

These revisions are a disservice to students. There should be a balance between both intelligent design and evolution. We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side. The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom. When it's all said and done, folks just don't give God enough credit. Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident. You've got to give some credit to some intelligence.

comment posted on the Florida Citizens for Science blog:

The new science standards will most certainly not denigrate religion, religion is quite capable of doing that to itself without any help from science. Many main stream religions (Jewish Catholic )readily accept evolution within their faith structure. It is mainly a small minority of religious zealots who wish to impose their narrow minded, out dated religious ideologies on the rest of the country. Saying ”God did it” is not science and does not belong in a science class room unless of course we can show scientific evidence that a God was responsible, and we can not.

Signs of the Controversy in Canada

2007-10-24T16:55:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The evolution-creationism controversy is beginning to brew in Canada. Reports indicate that a growing number of science teachers are bowing to pressure from parents who want creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools. Canadian advocates of evolution theory are considering an offensive to prevent alternative theories from being taught. Meanwhile, some teachers are avoiding the controversy by excluding all theories from their lessons. But as one educator noted, this approach is hardly a solution.
[source: Toronto Star]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Stuart Laidlaw in the Toronto Star:

The Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University has found that about one-third of teachers report pressure from parents to teach creationism or intelligent design, the theory that God directs the development of life, in the class as an alternative to evolution.

Most respond by teaching neither evolution nor creationism, leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit, he says. Others tiptoe around the issue, acknowledging that people of some faiths believe in creationism.

Either way, he says, scientific education in our schools is undermined.

Alters warns that the danger of creationist theories such as intelligent design is that whenever something can't be explained scientifically, it is credited to divine intervention – which he says effectively shuts down further inquiry, the underpinning of good science.

The situation has become such a concern to scientists that an international team of biologists has put together a new journal to help teachers prepare lesson plans on evolution.... [more]

from John Volmers, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Obviously any country that separates Church and State should not be teaching religious myths as being anything other than religious myths. Unfortunately, the flat-earthers who want to drag science back to the stone-age have developed a real skill for nailing themselves to a cross in front of the ever sympathetic "secular" media and making the ludicrous claim that they are being discriminated against.

from Terence Rooney, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism does not belong in the school system as it has no scientific basis; it is merely an expression of religious belief by some Christians and others. The believers are free to expound their idea in a religious setting and in the media but not as a topic of education.

from Michael Henry, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism is at best bad science, and at worst dishonest. People who believe in Young Earth Creationism show ignorance of science as well as biblical history. It should not be taught in schools except to discredit it.

Teachers in Britain are suddenly caught in the evolution debate

2007-10-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The number of British students who believe in creationism is rising sharply. This is partly due to an increased number of Muslim students. Many teachers are uncomfortable with addressing creationism in their science classrooms. Education officials have proposed guidelines that will help teachers understand how to teach the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief.
[source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss:

The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families. The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins. By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others.

from Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering:

Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science. Professor Reiss suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true

from The Department for Children, Schools and Families:

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory.

Scientists hoodwinked by documentary filmmakers

2007-10-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Controversy surrounds a new documentary film hosted by Ben Stein and titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film criticizes scientists and educators for suppressing intelligent design theory. Several pro-evolution scientists appear in the production, including Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, Eugenie Scott of NCSE, and PZ Meyers. All claim they were mislead into thinking the film was a neutral investigation of science and religion. Dawkins said that had he known, he would have declined the invitation to appear in the film. [source: New York Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Ben Stein's Blog:

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.

America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom.

Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given. A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry. .... [more]

from PZ Myer's blog Pharyngula:

Well, actually, there was considerable deception.... Look at the copy they put online to mislead the people they planned to interview:
Crossroads—The Intersection of Science and Religion:
It's been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: how in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, "The Origin of Species." In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vase amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.
That would actually be an interesting serious movie, and that's the one I agreed to contribute to. It is correct that science has provided the answer, and it is also correct that millions of religious people reject and resist that answer. Of course, the movie Ruloff planned to make and did make says that science has got it wrong and that the answer scientists are rejecting is the nonsense of Intelligent Design. We were lied to, and they tricked us. It's that simple. They ought to simply 'fess up to it — it's not as if we can take legal action against them or do anything to suppress their movie, since we all signed quite legal releases. They ought to take a little pride in the fact that, in their dedication to Jesus, they successfully deceived Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, myself, and who knows how many others..... [more]

from a comment posted at the News Blog of The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Why is it surprising that media distort and misrepresent to entice prominent scientists to participate? The NYTimes, Nature, BBC’s Horizon show, and the like have set the standard for others in the field. See the New Energy Times Special Report of 2007 on Bubble Nuclear Fusion. What is needed is strong and effective retribution for such actions, which, unfortunately is often impossible for individuals when facing the legal might of the offendors.... [more]

from Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

The NY Times has an article about the forthcoming documentary Expelled, which purports to show how the jackbooted thugs of the Darwinian Priesthood horribly mistreat those brave truthtellers of the ID movement. This is a prominent facet of the anti-evolution PR campaign being run from Seattle, positioning themselves as victims to gain public sympathy no matter how much they have to distort reality to paint that picture.

The Times points out the clear deceit with which the producers of the film went about securing interviews with prominent scientists, including our own PZ Myers:

The Times points out the clear deceit with which the producers of the film went about securing interviews with prominent scientists, including our own PZ Myers:A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called "Crossroads."...
But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised -- and in some cases, angered -- to find themselves not in "Crossroads" but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," also has a different producer, Premise Media...
.... [more]

Europe poised to ban creationism in schools

2007-10-03T09:13:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The British government has issued a new set of guidelines that prohibit the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science classes. In a related development, Europe's main human rights body is voting on a similar resolution. The resolution says that attacks on Darwin's theory of evolution are rooted in forms of religious extremism and pose a threat to science and human rights. [source: Reuters/Tom Heneghan ]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a comment posted at South Korea News Online:

All the fossils in the world stacked up in order is not enough to get through to the fundamentalists' mind. All the scientific studies or data means nothing!

But when questioned about relative 'happenings' these same individuals fold up their tents with narry a word and are not heard from with an answer ever again!

Ask about when something occurred in the bible or the old testament a ready date is available 1200 1000 bc an important time, and 2300 2000 bc another important period. Both containing particular Religious Factual time periods. These were rudimentary time for the civilization of the Jews, in that they were not technologically developed.

Much of the society were cave dwellers and nomads. The gradually became strong enough to fight and conquer the Philistines(the land of Palestine), who had by comparison highly developed cities and technologies. And they had had these for numerous years.

In South America the Native Peoples also had had for thousands of years prior to the earliest biblical accounts of the Jews a highly developed society and a more 'just' Religious Beliefs!

The same is even more true of the Chinese. The Chinese were drilling deep wells and mining salt. And the Biblical accounts have no Knowledge of such things! When asked to explain the creationist fold up their tent and leave!
.... [more]

from Twmshanti at the Guardian UK Blog:

I think the teaching of religion has a valuable place in education but this should be confined to 'religious studies' where ideas such as creationism can be taught in proper context.

Steve Fuller's introduction to the Holloway debate perhaps unwittingly acknowledges this when he says: "...the first point that needs to be conceded, at least to be conceded for the purposes of argument, is that at a sociological level, it's quite clear that evolution is superior to Intelligent Design; in terms of which the way evidence is mobilized in the scientific literature, it is certainly more often mobilized in support of evolution that Intelligent Design."

This is because the scientific method is used.

Steve Fuller (continued from above): "That leaves open the question, of course, about whether the same evidence could be equally used to support Intelligent Design. And this, it seems to me, says something about the actual conceptual states of the two theories that we are talking about here. OK"

No, to the best of my knowledge and after rational analysis of the literature, the same evidence cannot be used to support ID. If anyone can demonstrate that the same evidence for evolution can be used to support ID then I am willing to examine it.

This leads me to the conclusion that, as in my day, religion and science are best taught seperately. It is good that this is recognised by those providing guidelines for educators....[more]

from the Truth in Science web site:

For many years, much of what has been taught in school science lessons about the origin of the living world has been dogmatic and imbalanced. The theory of Darwinian evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial and the only credible explanation of origins….

Pupils should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution).

Few schools have taught this controversy. This is partly because many popular textbooks present Darwinism as the only scientific theory of origins and give little coverage to alternative theories, sometimes misrepresenting them.

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views.

There is a modern controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and this has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications. Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.
... [more]

A church-state controversy erupts in New Jersey

2007-09-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

In New Jersey, high school student Matthew LaClair [pictured left] secretly tape-recorded a teacher to prove that he was preaching a pro-Christian, anti-science message to students. The recording affirms this allegation, but reaction to it has been mixed. Defenders of the teacher cite his First Amendment freedom of expression. Others argue that the First Amendment does not allow teachers to promote their private religious convictions in the classroom. [source: New York Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

from The New York Times Opinion Page:

The vast majority of Americans deplore such proselytizing in public classrooms. But the truly disturbing aspect of all this, described earlier this month by Times reporter Tina Kelley, is not that one teacher so blatantly crossed the church-state boundary but that so few school officials and community residents seemed bothered by his behavior.

One teacher, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Paszkiewicz “had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.” The school’s principal says action was taken against Mr. Paszkiewicz but won’t say what. At the same time, he describes Mr. Paszkiewicz as an “excellent teacher,” and says he remains in the classroom. And the town’s electronic bulletin board, KearnyOnTheWeb.com, contained many postings supporting the teacher.

The only reason anyone knows about Mr. Paskiewicz’s behavior is that one student, Matthew LaClair, 16, had the courage to speak up in September. Before doing so, he taped Mr. Paszkiewicz for eight classes because he feared officials would not believe him. He has since received one death threat, lost many friends, and says he can “feel the glares” when he goes to school.

Mathew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, says he is considering legal action unless the school corrects Mr. Paszkiewicz’ misstatements concerning science and straightens out the constitutional issues regarding separation of church and state for the entire student body.

In recent years, the divide between religion and the classroom has been narrowed as conservative courts have ruled in favor of tuition vouchers for religious schools, ruled that religion clubs can meet in public schools and allowed federal money to be spent on computers and other instructional equipment for parochial schools. But even groups like the Rutherford Institute, which provides legal help in religious freedom cases, says that Mr. Paszkiewicz appears to have crossed the line against outright preaching in the public schools.... [more]

from Blog from the Capital:

One of the reasons school boards have policies and the Department of Education has guidelines is to instruct teachers on how to conduct themselves properly and legally *without having to be prompted by a teenager.* If Paszkiewicz indeed said the things he's alleged to have said, they are inappropriate *even if no student in the class is discomforted.* Teachers may not simply do whatever they like so long as nobody complains. But when one does -- and especially as a minor -- he surely deserves the protection of the school and the school board in question from discrimination and harassment.... [more]

from The Lippard Blog:

The website KearnyontheWeb.com is an online forum for people in Kearny, New Jersey, where U.S. History teacher and Baptist youth pastor David Paszkiewicz has used his Kearny High School classroom (apparently for years) to evangelize students with his own brand of Christianity and conservative politics. I've already commented on how some Kearny High School students have made a poor case defending Paszkiewicz, now I'm afraid the adults of Kearny are no better.

The adults posting at KearnyontheWeb.com are noteworthy (just like the students) for a complete failure to address the issues raised by Paszkiewicz's actions--they ignore the content of what he's been teaching, they ignore the fact that he lied about what he had done until confronted with the recordings, and they ignore the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they accuse Matthew LaClair of having set the teacher up, invent new "crimes" like "premeditated entrapment" that they accuse LaClair of having committed by recording the class, and say that he should have been suspended, expelled, or jailed for creating this issue and "embarrassing the town." They say that LaClair, by protesting the Bush administration by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, "practically spits on our 'Pledge of Allegiance'" and "is free to leave this country if he does not agree with what we stand for!" They claim that Paszkiewicz is "the best teacher to hit town in years" and "A PROUD AMERICAN [who] IS 100% RIGHT!"... [more]

from the Crime & Federalism blog:

Matthew LeClair, a junior at the school, taped the classes, for fear no one would believe what he and his classmates were hearing. The school board is not saying what it has done in response to the teacher's proselytizing, but it does say it has "corrected" the teacher. The student has received at least one death threat. The boy's father is a lawyer, and some townspeople think that the teacher was baited into turning the lectern into a pulpit.

It is one thing to explain the role that religious belief has played in the behavior of the American people. The Great Awakening, for example, had vast social and political consequences. It is quite another thing to try to create an awakening of one's own in a high school history class.

The next time someone does a story about what's wrong with American education, I suggest the situation in Kearney be studied. When we start talking about dinosaurs in an advanced placement course on the Constitution, we're in deep, deep trouble.... [more]

Another academic makes a case for intelligent design

2007-09-18T13:50:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

A professor of internal medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia recently praised intelligent design theory to an audience of 100 colleagues. Professor John Marshall [pictured right] said that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwin's theory of evolution. Marshall's audience, for the most part, criticized his ideas. John O’Connor, a water consultant and retired chairman of the MU Department of Civil Engineering, said: "I think intelligent design is a code word for God. I think that there’s no reason for us to mince around and pretend that that’s not really what" intelligent design "is trying to propagate." [source: Columbia Tribune]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
As an evolutionary biologist, I feel obliged to correct Professor Marshall’s statement that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution. It is well known in the scientific community that intelligent design researchers have repeatedly sought to discredit accepted scientific theory. They have emphasized incomplete areas of scientific understanding as a proof of a hypothesis that an unseen Designer is the only way by which certain heretofore unexplained phenomena can be explained.

It appears that intelligent design seeks only to poke holes in science while deftly dodging any outright alternate suggestions. What makes ID such a threat to science is what if we had used (as some indeed did) intelligent design to explain lightning, meteors, or eclipses as too complex to be understood by science?

When a scientific explanation for natural phenomena is still unproven by experimentation and the scientific method, this simply means there is more to be learned, not more to be explained. In the case of meteors, until after the Civil War, scientists believed that meteors were a weather phenomenon -- which is why weathermen to this day are called meteorologists! Imagine if science had just given up and said, "we don’t know what those streaks in the sky are -- they’re too complex for us to understand. But rest assured in knowing that they’re intelligent designed."

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
It’s a far stretch of the imagination to equate intelligent design and religion. While some of its members are men and women of faith, the Discovery Institute and its research supporting intelligent design theory are in no way aligned with a religious group or practice. Their research is founded on sound scientific principles and methods. The fact that an increasing number of scientists from all disciplines are embracing intelligent design theory appears, unfortunately, to threaten die-hard Darwinists, who exhibit a characteristic orthodoxy not unlike the Vatican.

In Texas, a surprising victory for science

2007-09-12T14:47:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Despite their pro-creation personal views, members of the Texas State Board of Education have voted to keep intelligent design out of public school science classes. Chairman Don McLeroy and three other socially conservative board members chose to set aside personal beliefs in favor of students' interests. Says McLeroy: "anything taught in science has to have consensus in the scientific community and intelligent design does not." [source: Dallas News]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Hearing this update on the shenanigans over at the Texas Board of Education gives me hope that democracy is still practiced in America, even in the hard core Bush Country of Texas. Board Chairman McLeroy realized he simply didn’t have the support from other state-wide elected officials to even begin the infamous 'Wedge' strategy (which authors Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross so eloquently outline in their book “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”). Hopefully, the majority of clear-headed Texas School Board members won’t sway back and forth on this issue as Kansas has done. Whatever positive bearing this may have, the fact that Texas hosts the NASA Space Program helps to allay my worried mind. I also perceive that Chairman McLeroy is one who, in a consensus-driven process, can set his personal views aside, acknowledge the group perspectives, and take rational action. This is, indeed, a victory for science in Texas.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
In my view, Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy has compromised his faith under the pressure of political gamesmanship. I am deeply disappointed that he reversed his standing on the matter of introducing Intelligent Design in Texas schools. I shake my head in sorrow at this missed opportunity.

This being said, I do want to point out to all secularists who describe creationists as irrational religious fanatics, that even in Texas, that “hotbed of Bush religious fervor”, Creationists are sane, reasonable people capable of respecting a majority opinion. While I am not supportive with the outcome of this decision, I do respect McLeroy's respect for democracy and his willingness to lead with deference to his board members.

It deserves clarification to point out that that McLeroy’s support of Intelligent Design in public school curriculum was based on the fact of there being inadequate evidence to support evolution as the sole possible model for the origin of life. His belief is not that Intelligent Design is nor necessarily should be the scientifically accepted theory. He, like many who believe creation theory, is merely seeking an opportunity to find an opening through the secularist citadel of exclusivity and shine the light of God through it.

The Kentucky tourism board promotes the controversial Creation Museum

2007-09-05T08:42:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

A Kentucky scientist is furious at the state visitor bureau for it's favorable description of the controversial Creation Museum. The bureau's tourism web site praises the museum as an alternative to natural history museums "that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture."

Daniel Phelps, president of Kentucky's Paleontology Society, who calls the museum and 'anti-museum', is speaking out against the visitor bureau's actions. He says: “Natural history museums don’t turn people against religion. If they did, there would be regular protests outside those museums.” [source: The Cincinnati Enquirer]

Editor's Note: Within days after this story originally broke, changes were made to the descriptions of the Creation Museum on both the Northern Cincinnati and the Northern Kentucky tourism web sites. Both web sites have removed the phrase "This 'walk through history' museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture."

Phelps review of the Creation Museum

The rebuttal of the Creation Museum

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
I agree with Mr. Phelps: natural history museums have co-existed quite respectfully with the church. This is evident in the fact that they do not post any material that discounts religious belief, nor do they post propaganda slogans or displays that attack religion. Like so many who have a fundamentalist orientation to the science/religion schism, Mr. Ham believes he and his museum are under attack by the scientific community. Perhaps this fear of attack is a misinterpretation of the threat that modern science poses to Biblical cosmology generally. For example, could it be that the Old Testament stories of the origins of life (conceived during a time when humans believed the Earth was flat!), are profoundly threatened by scientific theory that posits the universe is billions of years old?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This is much ado about nothing. The Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau simply picked up copy from the Creation Museum’s website and quoted it word-for-word, as they likely do for all businesses they feature on their website. This certainly doesn’t mean that the publicly funded Convention & Visitor’s Bureau is suddenly endorsing creationist belief nor that the Bureau is calling those who attend natural history museums “non-believers”. This is just another example of scientists so threatened by another point of view they have to lash out about any misunderstanding no matter how miniscule.

Conservative Christian takes the helm of the Texas school board

2007-08-29T12:23:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Don McLeroy, the new chair of the Texas state Board of Education, is threatening to throw out high school biology books because they don't list weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution. McLeroy’s opponents accuse him of harboring a shocking hostility both to sound science education and religious tolerance. Meanwhile, Texas parents and educators brace themselves for a new round of antievolution activity.
[source: National Center for Science Education]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These accusations come from the Texas Freedom Network. If you think these folks are a bunch of left-wing atheist-non-believers giving believers a hard time, here is what they say about themselves right on the home page of their own website.

Founded in 1995, the Texas Freedom Network is “a nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 26,000 religious and community leaders. Based in Austin, the Texas Freedom Network acts as the state’s watchdog, monitoring far-right issues, organizations, money and leaders. The organization has been instrumental in defeating initiatives backed by the religious right in Texas, including private school vouchers, textbook censorship and faith-based deregulation.”

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This story needs to be seen in the context of Mr. McLeroy's remarks during a recent lecture about Intelligent Design. Following the ideology of Phillip Johnson (the father of Intelligent Design), McLeroy portrayed ID as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design.”

McLeroy was referring to how Intelligent Design can encompass all creationist positions in way that is easy for even secularists on the Texas State School Board to understand. It should be clear to readers of this blog by now that my commentary comes from a place that welcomes anyone under McLeroy’s “Big Tent” of Scripture. I’ve even supported Muslim Creationism as portrayed in the Atlas of Creation because I find that even a faith very different from mine, a faith that historically is antithetical and violently opposed to mine, is still closer to the Word of God than secular naturalism.

Darwin under fire in Poland

2007-08-22T08:19:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

In a public outburst last fall, Poland's deputy education minister criticized evolution theory as a lie that science has cleverly sought to legitimize. Miroslaw Orzechowski has called for a debate on removing Darwin's theory from schools. To date, there has been no debate, but Polish teachers have grown fearful of repercussions from teaching evolution. Meanwhile, the deputy minister continues to criticize Darwin, whose theory, he says, was merely the ramblings of an old, feeble-minded vegetarian. [source: International Herald Tribune]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
What an irony that the former communist regime of Poland has chosen to attack science. It appears to be the irreversible swing of the pendulum — from an atheistic country that used the Catholic Church and the then Polish papacy as the primary vehicle of social change, to now throwing out the baby with bathwater. I applaud the Polish pope and the Catholic Church for helping Poland separate from the domination of the old Soviet Union. But what does that have to do with abandoning science?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Having thrown off the chains of faithless communist dogma, the people of Poland are finally given a choice and an opportunity to discuss the Darwin controversy. Despite decades of atheist communist domination, the Catholic Church of Poland remained strong and vital in Polish society. I find it so encouraging to see the Deputy Minister of Education speaking up for the religious beliefs of his overwhelmingly majority constituency.

Is Wikipedia biased against intelligent design?

2007-08-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

The Discovery Institute has been reporting unfair and erroneous Wikipedia entries on intelligent design that are biased against the theory. They claim that some statements incorrectly associate intelligent design theory with religious belief, and that in other instances, statements supporting intelligent design have been repeatedly removed. They also contend that critics dominate the Wikipedia entry, with as many as 50% or more of the references containing citations critical to intelligent design. [source: Evolution News and Views/Discovery Institute]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These allegations are correct. Wikipedia is trying to be factual. The fact is, ID is religious and a subterfuge for the fundamentalist religious right. Wikipedia isn’t falling for the Discovery Institute’s intent to portray themselves as secular.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
It is interesting to me that the Intelligent Design movement can repeat over and again that they are a secular belief system. Yet the left-wing press, and Wikipedia, keep insisting that they are not. A short visit to the Discovery Institute web site will make it luminously clear that the ID movement has no religious affiliation at all. Wikipedia was intended to be the encylopedia of the people, and yet this kind of cultural bias continues to show up in their entries.

The Creation Museum planetarium proves the universe is thousands of years old.

2007-08-08T08:32:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Ken Ham’s Creation Museum planetarium uses blue supergiant stars to prove that the universe is very young — only thousands of years old. Dr. Jason Lisle, astrophysicist for the museum, claims that because blue supergiant stars go supernova after a couple million of years, our Milky Way galaxy could not be billions of years old, since all of its stars would have self-destructed by now. [source: Answers in Genesis]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Dr. Lisle is indeed an astrophysicist. He has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder and joined the Creation Museum team after graduation. His claim that short supergiant supernova lifetimes prove a very young universe has yet to be published in any peer reviewed journals.

I’m not an astronomer, but I have to ask myself how someone could go through an ENTIRE doctoral program in astrophysics — where the big controversy and debate are centered on how many billions of years old the universe is (12billion? 13 billion? 14 billion?)— and not be affected by the overwhelming evidence. A 6,000 year old universe would mean that all the great cosmologist minds of the last century should be fired as science authorities:

Edwin Hubble, namesake for the Hubble Telescope, and his Hubble Constant, which defines the recessional velocities of galaxies: FIRED!

Albert Einstein, perhaps the smartest human being ever born, and his space-time continuum: PINK-SLIPPED!

And Stephen Hawkings with his big bang, black holes, and baby universes: POPPYCOCK!

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Ken Ham’s Creation Museum continues to go where “no man has gone before." By attracting a staff of qualified experts who have the science credentials to back up their claims, Dr. Ham continues to blaze new frontiers in science where few have dared to tread.

It is a great and noble effort, the reconciliation of the Word with science, and none has done it better nor more beautifully than the Creation Museum. The Museum has won the admiration of some scientists around the world. The majority of secular scientists, however, are still obviously frightened quite threatened by the notion that the true cosmological laws of the universe could be other than their own Bible – the Word according to Secular Science.

I applaud Dr. Lisle for his exciting, innovative cosmological theory and look forward to reading about it in scientific journals as well as seeing it included as part of astronomy curriculum in schools. Young Earth Creationism is a theory that is growing in popularity among Christians and others who find the evidence of secular science to be preposterous. Here are some of the groups on the web who support Young Earth Creationism, I invite you to visit them:

Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International
Institute for Creation Research
The Center for Natural Studies
EarthAge.org
Dr. Dino (Creation Science Evangelism)
Creation-Evolution Headlines

Creationism for sale at the Grand Canyon

2007-08-01T09:35:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Despite repeated complaints, bookstores at the Grand Canyon are still selling a book that claims the canyon was created by the biblical flood. The National Park Service has stonewalled for 4 years on a promise to pull the book from the shelves. Its officials claim that a broad range of viewpoints should be available to visitors. But park rangers adamantly disagree. They say that selling the book is simply a veiled endorsement of creation theory. [source: San Francisco Chronicle]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Another conservative Christian agenda slips innocently enough through a seemingly innocuous national agency. How did this happen, we ask in astonishment? I can hear Bush now, sitting around the Crawford ranch with his posse after a day of fishin' and cyclin': "Hey boys, why don't we get some of those Christian biblical flood stories into the bookstores of some of them national parks out west here? You know, written by some scientists of our persuasion. None of them Bible books with cartoon drawing, but those science-lookin' books. They got a lot of them now. Good way to get the word out. And the Christians will love these books! Buy 'em up by the case. What do they want with those big serious science books that say the earth's millions of years old? We have a responsibility to our people. Especially when they come to a government place. We need to get the truth out there. It's good for the people, it's good for us. I'm not just a war president, I am a God president. Got to get the word out. You know what to do boys, and don't let those liberal, a-religious park rangers cause you any trouble. We're on God's side."

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The characteristic mark of America and the cornerstone of her greatness is the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion, Press and Expression. We are a country who has taken great pride in its embrace of religious tolerance. Does that not also extend to tolerance generally? Does our tolerance apply to science? Does scientific tolerance stand beside religious tolerance, as would racial tolerance, ethnic tolerance, and social tolerance?

The National Park Service is 'stonewalling' because what they are being asked to do flies in the face of the First Amendment right of press, as well as our national commitment to tolerance. Singling out one book among many whose viewpoint differs on ideological grounds is the behavior we would expect from a dictatorship. Removing this book from the National Park bookstore would set a disastrous precedent and would be a tremendous insult to American values, rights, and democracy itself.

A Moderate Pope: religion and science need not clash

2007-07-27T08:05:00.000-07:00

In recent remarks to a group of Italian priests, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the "absurdity" of rejecting evolution in favor of faith or rejecting God in favor of science, "as if they were alternatives that are exclusive." In is 2006 book Schopfung und Evolution, Pope Benedict revealed his belief in 'theistic evolutionism', in which God created life through the process of evolution. Science and religion, he says, do not need to polarize this issue.

[source: National Center for Science Education, New York Post]

Atlas of Creation makes an academic splash in the US

2007-07-20T14:57:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

In a follow-up to a previous story about a Muslim creationist coffee table book appearing in France earlier this year, US college professors are seeing the same Atlas of Creation in their mailboxes this week. The Atlas claims that evolutionists are responsible for fascism, communism and terrorism. Professors across America are wondering who financed the one hundred dollar 800 page book and why they received it? [source: New York Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A letter to the author of Atlas of Creation:

Dear Mr. Harun Yahya,

Or shall I call you Adnan Oktar, which your web site tells me is your birth name. I also see that you have a very impressive CV. Many universities in America would likely confess interest in your education and background, except that it is hopelessly peppered with Islamic fundamentalist ideology, a relentless disgust of Darwin theory, and an unusual penchant for blaming Darwin theory for the world's social, political and economic ills. Our educational system at all levels tries to respect America's embrace of equal opportunity in employment, but I dare say there are some biases that you just couldn't get around or charm your way out of.

Not that your purpose in sending thousands of your big and very pretty books to our universities was to pick up a little work in the land of opportunity. You obviously don't need to. On the contrary, your gift appears to be a good will package designed to win some of us over to your side. A form of what we would call proselytizing, which can be effective, but frankly, you have to go after the ones who you think might have a teeny tiny chance of being open to your alternative viewpoints. I'm not sure you took time to research that, or perhaps you didn't care, or you have a self-confidence that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a wallflower.

If I were you, I wouldn't expect a high return rate on your promotional effort. Look at France's weak response. We are just as stubborn and intractable as they are. And honestly, America does not need another variety of religious fundamentalism. The Christians are causing way too much trouble already. The introduction of Islamic fundamentalism into American society could potentially devastate our culture, educational system, and national mental health. I'm sure national cataclysm isn't what you had in mind when you took the time and expense to print and send all those books to the intellectual elite.

As a concerned American citizen, I beg you, please stay away from our children.

Sincerely yours,

S. Greene

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
As I noted when news of this book first appeared in April 2007, science cannot make faith go away. Where faith exists, secularism has no power nor sway. People of faith around the world indeed do not trust secularism because deep down inside people do not want to live in an atheistic, godless universe. I am not of the Muslim faith, yet I can understand their desire to offer the world a grander vision of life and our origins.

The Atlas of Creation is an inspiring work, and like the beauty of a cathedral, will lift the spirit of those who enter. Even those who aided and abetted the faithless in the Dover case grudgingly admitted The Atlas of Creation is truly a beautiful book. God works in mysterious ways!

When public opinion in Turkey overwhelmingly supported the authority of the Islamic Holy Koran (with roots in the Old testament), the government brought their educational policies in line. Here in America, Christian believers must endlessly contend with the ACLU, atheistic scientists, and liberal judges like Judge John Jones, who turned a deaf ear to the voice of a growing majority, and in the process, turned his back on his own Christian faith.

Poll figures on the American view of creation

2007-07-18T09:22:00.000-07:00

Today's show:

In a June 2007 Gallup poll of American adults:

48% said they believe that God, in a single act, created human beings in their present form, sometime within the last 10,000 years

30% of the respondents believe in a divinely guided evolution, in which man evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

13% believe that God played no part in the evolution of human beings.

[source: USA Today]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These polls reveal a dual disaster of diminished science (and excellence) standards in our schools and the strengthening tide of Christian fundamentalism in the US. Polls on this issue have been taken in America for over 2 decades. Here are what a few earlier polls have shown:

Gallup poll November 2004

34% of respondents regarded the Bible as to be taken literally
48% regarded it as divinely inspired but not always to be taken literally
15% regarded it as a collection of fables, etc., and
3% expressed no opinion.

Channel One News poll Jan 2002
Which theory should be taught in schools?

31% creationism only
17% evolution only
52% both; Gallup poll August 1999
Should creationism and evolution be taught in US schools?

68% yes
29% no
3% no opinion

Should creationism be taught instead of evolution?

40% yes
55% no
5% no opinion; Excuse me while I cry in my coffee.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
American is, and I do hope always will be, a nation of faith. Godlessness should not be wished upon any adversary, let alone our own country. A people of faith do not have to reject science in order to embrace their beliefs. Let's be clear that looking at this issue from a black and white standpoint will only be culturally divisive and cause needless confusion in the educational system. We can make room for both. I ask the scientists to make room for faith; I ask believers to make room for science.

These poll results tell me that we are not a country yet divided in a 'culture war'. We have a heritage of pride in our diversity, and I believe we are managing to find a healthy middle ground.

The Bible meets biology in an Oregon classroom

2007-07-11T16:01:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

After only eight days on the job, part-time teacher Kris Helphinstine was fired from Sisters High School in Oregon. In the biology class he taught, Helphinstine referred repeatedly to the Bible and gave a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution, Nazi Germany, and Planned Parenthood. School officials were swift in his termination. In his defense, Helphinstine said, “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and get the students thinking.” [source: New West]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
The swift response of school officials at Sisters High School in Oregon reminds me of Judge Jones’ unequivocal response that intelligent design is indeed creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing. This tells us too, unfortunately, that classroom teachers need to be watched. The most unassuming new hire may have an agenda of zealotry lurking in their lesson plans. Our schools have by necessity become policed -- students are searched for drugs and hidden weapons; now it seems, teachers must be surveilled for surrepitious propaganda activities.

Those who think they can bring religious belief and dogma into the scientific climate of a biology classroom do know better. They know they're crossing a line, and they know where that line lies. Their intent and purpose are to push that line, and push and push, budging it ever more to their benefit. Their goal is nothing less than to confuse our understanding of science and, in the cacophony, infuse their Bible-based notions as equal or superior.

It would have been interesting to see the faces of Mr. Helphinstine's students when he presented slides of the Nazi cross dissolving into the Planned Parenthood logo. Are high school students sophisticated enough to know when propaganda is being thrust upon them? Let this event be a lesson to all about 1) the growing reach of religious zealotry into academia, 2) how innocuous it can appear to the unwary eye, and 3) how these educational hi jinx should be quickly and permanently dealt with. I wonder what Dembski and his friends at the Discovery Institute think when some lunatic claiming to be on “their side” stirs up a negative news story like this.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Although the appropriateness of his subject matter is questionable, Mr. Helphinstine is being quite obviously scape-goated. The information he presented -- albeit not suitable for such a young audience -- has basis in real events. Evolution theory has been an ideological cornerstone of those who favor eugenics. The nefarious Nazi philosophy was in fact based on Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest. This theory in and of itself is not villainous, but when applied by hateful atheists and those who do not believe in Christian love for one's neighbor, the theory can be twisted to diabolical ends. The Nazis erronneously believed that only they were the fittest, declaring themselves the UberMensch – the Super Race of Super Men. And did the Nazi’s control every aspect of the birthing process, killing thousands of innocent retarded and defective children? Yes, they did and they kept accurate records.

Just as critics of Mr. Helphinstine can claim him as a bizarre example of Bibilical creationism gone wild, the Nazi agenda of the Holocaust could be seen as evolutionary ideas taken to an ultimate perverted extreme. Let us be careful, in our outrage at Mr. Helphinstine, that we not gloss over the horrible history from which his ideas emerged. There are centuries of unjust, unloving, inhumane historical events that deserve our outrage. Let's put our criticism and anger where they rightly belong.

The Scopes Monkey Trial on Broadway

2007-07-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

Transcript of today's show:

Now playing on Broadway: a revival of the 1955 play Inherit the Wind, which tackles the U.S. debate over Darwin's theory of evolution. It is the fictional account of the 1925 Scopes Trial, otherwise known as the "monkey trial," where science teacher John Scopes was tried and convicted for teaching evolution in his Tennessee school. Many are saying that the play is more topical now than when it was first staged more than 50 years ago. [source: Christine Kearny/Reuters]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Although I saw Inherit the Wind more than once as a child and teenager, I was a college student before I understood its underlying meaning. It was written not so much to chronicle the 1925 court case over evolution in Tennessee, but to highlight the bigotry and prejudice of the days of the McCarthy communist witch hunt some 25 years later.

Chiefly, the play is about beliefs and THINKING. From where do our beliefs arise and live? Are they handed to us by ready-made politics and religion? Do we accept them without question, not bothering with the troubling (and time-consuming) task of questioning them? How much do we really think for ourselves? And how easily do we jump on ideological bandwagons, because that's the new craze?… because that's what our family has always believed?… because it sounds pretty convincing?… because it's written in the Book, so it must be right?

The dark scar of McCarthy fundamentalism soon subsided and made room for the great space race with the Russians. Science was a prevalent component of education then, and, where there were scientific uncertainties, the debate was robust and rational. I had no doubt then that the rational debate would have flourished over time, become more refined, intelligent, and well-substantiated. But, how absolutely shocking that in 2007, not only has the debate devolved to levels of embarrassing irrationality, scientists are having to defend science itself! If someone had told my classmates and I that we would one day be defending the concept of evolution, they would have been laughed right out of our biology class.

Those of us in America who once called ourselves Progressives (and now Cultural Creatives) have naiively ignored a new disease spreading through America, affecting the most seemingly 'nice' and ordinary person. The disease is reactionary fundamentalism, marked by a grave deficiency of thinking for oneself. The afflicted experience an uncontrolled urge for cut and dry rules, distinct lines between right and wrong, and a ready-made religion that is served weekly in church or on the tele. What I fear most about this disease is how contagious it is among family members. Children are the most vulnerable. This disease is known to pass along family lines for generations and generations.

The revival of Inherit the Wind has been attracting a lot of media attention. I dearly hope this sparks an awareness and sense of urgency among the rationally thinking. I hope it helps our culture at large name the disease of fundamentalist thinking and question its impact. There are many unanswered questions about our world, ourselves, and our origin, and there will continue to be for a very long time. How we go about exploring those mysteries (from such a great diversity of viewpoints) says a lot about how we're doing as a civilization – how mature we are as human beings, how open-minded we are to truths yet uncovered, and how cooperatively we will shape and direct our future.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
William Jennings Bryan’s impassioned defense of his faith as portrayed by Frederick March in Inherit the Wind has stirred generations of Christians. The title of the movie comes from Proverbs 11:29, which in the King James Bible reads:

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

As a play, Inherit the Wind was rejected in New York despite its successful world premier in Dallas, TX. It opened at the National Theatre on Broadway in 1955 with Paul Muni, Ed Begley, and Tony Randall earning three Tony Awards.

A 1996 Broadway revival produced by Tony Randall’s National Actors Theatre starred George C. Scott as Clarence Darrow challenging the Bible and Charles Durning as William Jennings Bryan defending the Word.

Today’s story is about the 2007 Broadway production starring Christopher Plummer as Clarence Darrow and Brian Dennehy as William Jennings Bryan.

Why has this play been reprised so many times since 1955 and why is it more important now than “more than 50 years ago”? It’s really quite easy to tell you why: the issue of each human being’s faith is a deep one that penetrates to the heart of every single person on this planet regardless of sex, race or religious denomination.

When science asks us to deny our Belief, what freedom do we have left?