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.

"Leave us alone!"

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!”

Barack Obama promises a return to science

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:

Oprah Winfrey and the creationism controversy

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.

Republicans endorse evolution

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 look back at the controversy in 2007

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]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster goes to the American Academy of Religion

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."

Signs of the Controversy in Canada

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

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

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]

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.

In Texas, a surprising victory for science

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

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.

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?

Australian clergy push for intelligent design in public schools

Transcript of today's show:

Catholic and Anglican archbishops in Australia have said that intelligent design theory should be taught in public and private schools. Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey said intelligent design theory would give students a chance to question the mysteries of life that science can't explain. Education Minister Mark McGowan said he would not introduce intelligent design into the schools because it is not evidence-based. [source: Perth Now]

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 see a trouble maker in Australia's midsts. Archbishop Hickey caught flak earlier this month when he decreed that Catholic politicians who supported stemcell research would be refused holy communion or face excommunication altogether. Hickey is now under investigation by the Australian parliamentary committee as to whether his comments were meant to threaten lawmakers, and thus manipulate votes on the issue. Hickey says his comments were not intended to be interpreted as threats. He will, however, exercise his Archbishop powers and call on Catholic politicians "to examine their conscience before taking communion if they supported stem cell research." The Archbishop's assistant assures the media that no one will be bullied.

Okay, I'll go with that. But I will confess, I'm very wary of this guy. My mom always told me, "beware of men in cloaks who hold power over politicians." Yes, and what about men in cloaks who threaten these politicians? Do we want men in cloaks to meddle in educational affairs? Will Catholic teachers who refuse to teach intelligent design now be banned from confession? Stoned with rosary beads? Sent off to do missionary work in Darfur? Between you and me, I think Australia's Education Minister Mark McGowan should launch a national info campaign to keep Archbishop Hickey (and other cloaked do-gooders) far away from education decision-makers. Very, very far away.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The good Christians down under have lived in a spiritual leadership vacuum, ever since Ken Ham and Ray Comfort migrated to the US, where they believed they could reach more people and effect a greater impact. Sadly, it's true. I'm impressed, however, with Archbishop Hickey and his Anglican colleague-of-the-cloth, Archbishop Roger Herft. Herft has made a heartfelt appeal to the public that public school education has lacked an exploration of the spirit. He believes, as Hickey does -- and as I and many other truth-loving people do -- that our schools are doing a great dis-service to their students. Our educational systems, world over, north and south, are spiritually impoverished. One, small, infinitesimal step toward infusing our children's school experience with the deeper questions pertaining to soul, spirit, and our Creator, is the very proposal that Archbishops Hickey and Herft are offering. Introduce intelligent design into science courses. Incite healthy discussions. Get kids thinking about the question of human origin, free from the small and demeaning box of the ape theory. Open the door, let their minds soar, let them consider -- and discuss -- the inspiring idea that a Divine Creator-designer is the architect of all living creatures. I pray, and I urge others to pray, that the light go on in the Australian public school system. I deeply hope, and have a giddy optimism, that Archbishops Hickey and Herft can begin to fill the spiritual leadership void that many truth-seeking souls would benefit from.

Brits protest eccentric millionaire for pushing Creationism in his privately funded schools

Transcript of today's story:
Protests were held recently outside the office of Sir Peter Vardy, a British multimillionaire who has funded several state schools and colleges accused of promoting creationism in their curriculum. The protests are a reaction to a new Vardy school, the All Age Academy, where students as young as four years old would be taught creation theory. British parents are outraged. Sir Vardy shows no sign of changing his plans. [source: The Guardian]

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:
Which is it Mr. Vardy? Are you funding creationism or not? Plenty of reports reveal that he is denying altogether that his schools include creationism in their cirricula. Politaholic dishes up some news on this on his blog, summing it up thusly:

Peter Vardy was on Radio 4 this morning. He denied that creationism was being taught in any of the schools he has funded. They are not, he said, teaching anything "wild and wacky". He said that he believes in "a creator God" but denied that he is a creationist in the commonly understood sense of the word. But in the past the Guardian has reported that Emmanuel College at Gateshead has hosted a creationist conference and that "senior staff have given a series of lectures at the college urging teachers to promote biblical fundamentalism and giving tips and techniques making pupils doubt the theory of evolution."

Read the full blog post here, and a story by the British Humanist Association here.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Why are british parents outraged? Sir Peter is funding a private, parochial school. Attendance at such schools is optional. The appropriate protest on parents' parts is to put their children into a school whose cirriculum is more compatible with the family's values. Sir Peter is doing nothing out of the ordinary in having a hand in what is taught in his schools and what is not. When a college endowment is received, it's always accepted that the funding entity has a great deal of influence upon what is being funded.

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 US Department of Education makes a quick come back

Transcript of today's show:

Here is a follow-up to a recent story we aired. After being accused of discriminating against evolutionary biology students by excluding them from a science grant program, the Department of Education quickly back-pedaled. They claimed that the omission was an inadvertent typographic error and immediately issued a revised list. The new list now includes evolutionary biology, which once again, takes its place as a legitimate subfield of science. source: US Department of 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:
It's been said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Even though the Department of Ed. quickly made a correction, I still suspect a testing of the “creationist waters” with this kind of foolishness. I remain convinced that the omission was intentional, and the Department of Ed tried to sneak it by under the radar. Fortunately, we do have functional radar systems, paying attention to potential shenanigans. Gotta watch these guys. This is an Administration, after all, that saw fit to arm the hero of Desert Storm with hand-drawn representations of Iraqi WMD installations to the United Nations to make the case for war. Why the drawings when satellite surveillance is so good I can see my house and mailbox in Weather.com's satellite imagery?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This speculative blame of the Department of Education' motives in this matter is as politically motivated as the purported wrongdoing itself. I sense a degree of desperation on the part of those who are so eager to exaggerate and possibly, completely fabricate, the intentions of the Department and administration. The error has been corrected, promptly and with grace. Let us be appreciative and let lie the need to blame.