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

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.

The Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Creationism and Darwinism

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]

Atheists are banned from an intelligent design movie

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]

A popular creationist links Darwin to racism

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”

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.

Florida counties reject evolution

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]

South African high schools may soon teach mandatory evolution theory

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

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.

Another academic makes a case for intelligent design

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.

Atlas of Creation makes an academic splash in the US

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

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 Scopes Monkey Trial on Broadway

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?

South Carolina questions the theory of evolution

Transcript of today's show:

New teaching standards in South Carolina public high schools encourage science teachers to criticize evolution theory. Opponents of this policy argue that this throws the door wide open to inclusion—and perhaps emphasis—on creationism and intelligent design in science classes. Proponents insist that questioning Darwin theory will improve the students’ education by expanding their viewpoints of the origin of life. source: American Institute of Biological Sciences

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:
It is the duty of education and educators to present students with a wide variety of viewpoints, especially those students with young and developing minds. This would include introducing students to alternatives to evolution theory. Yes, let them learn about and discuss creation theory and intelligent design. However, such discussions belong in a philosophy or religion class, NOT science. Unless a theory is empirically accepted by the scientific community as science, it does not belong in a science class. It especially should not be offered in a science class as a scientific theory, different from but equal to actual scientific theory.

The Brits have given this very issue some careful thought, and have chosen a wise solution. They allow open debate of creation theory, atheism, intelligent design, and Darwin. These debates are held in high school religion classes – banned altogether from science courses. Here, in American, this debate is stirring, like it or not. It will rage in our schools, in our churches, at home, in shopping mall parking lots, whether 'supervised' or not. In the schools, administrators and teachers can provide healthy containers for this debate, in any number of contexts: debate class, religion class, government, philosophy, sociology, ….. But please, keep this debate out of the science class. It will confuse the developing minds of our children.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The scientist or teacher who oppose an open criticism of evolution theory not only betray their integrity, they are dancing to the Double Standard two-step. It is a matter of integrity (or lack thereof) to abide (or not) by one's professional code. In the science community, that code is based on open-minded investigation and hypothetical inquiry. One is willing not just to question anything and everything, but to be questioned, with a willingness to be proven wrong and let the light of truth prevail.

It is a tremendous act of double standard when one chooses to selectively ignore or reject their own ethical code. The bottom line: scientists are afraid of truths they cannot explain. They relegate such truths to ignorance, immature thinking, religious blather, or the gibberish of foolish idealists. Secular scientists have claimed for themselves a holy ground of atheistic, materialist predetermination. They have drawn a neat and tidy circle around a realm of what is possible. They carefully guard its perimeter, lest any stray and questionable ideas enter and taint the purity of science.

They fear the loss of their science as they determine it to be. They fear it so much that they have turned their back on the very founding principles of scientific inquiry. It is an act of grave double standard and an unconscionable disservice to our children, who deserve to explore and discover the truth for themselves.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says to leave creationism out of the schools

Transcript of today's show:

In a recent interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury took Christians by surprise when he emphatically rejected the practice of teaching creationism in science classes. His reason? The creation story is too valid a category of knowledge to be presented alongside science. The Archbishop says that placing creation theory next to Darwinian theory will cause a belittling of Christian doctrine. [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:
A novel, yet interesting, stand on the separation of church and state. This understanding allows the faithful to be as passionate and enthusiastic about their faith without interfering with or stepping on the toes of science. However, as with many pronouncements on both sides of this debate, there is an underlying pre-supposition that religion and science are on the kind of equal epistemological footing that allows them to be compared in an either/or fashion. I argue that they are not to be compared nor made equal, but given their own unique and separate realms of existence. The one should not be threatening to the other.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The Archbishop has voiced a brilliant argument which we need to hear more of. The notion of our descending from apes is outrageous and belittling to the human soul. It is harmful to our society and to the individual's self-respect to teach such a theory, which is merely the speculation of secular scientists who can never prove their idea with absolute certainty. What arrogance to indoctrinate the young with this absurd lie. What a pity that those who teach this lie have the power to monopolize the education of our youth.

A typo gets the US Department of Education in hot water

Transcript of today's show:

A new education grant rewarding excellence in science has mysteriously omitted evolutionary biology from its list of eligible majors. Speculation is circulating that this demonstrates a deliberate bias against students in the evolutionary sciences, who apparently, need not apply. As for the Department of Education, who made the list, the omission has been blamed on a typographic error. This error was not intentional, just an honest mistake. [source: The Chronicle of Higher 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:
What is the true nature of such coincidental and convenient errors? We may never know with certainty if this typographical was indeed an honest mistake, or if it was a sneaky little strategy of the Bush administration, done in the hope no one would notice. As with WMD, we can never know with these guys. They seem to be quite comfortable substituting fiction for fact when it suits their ideologic agenda.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Speculation is speculation and should be treated with requisite doubt. It is, of course, disappointing when an honest mistake can be so easily misconstrued. Naysayers delight in such circumstances, which feed their need to discredit those with whom they disagree.