Tina Fey & Amy Poehler start the Palin dialogues

Hear the 1 minute show:

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

"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!”

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

Hear the 1 minute show:

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

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:

Judgment Day in Texas

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creationism, the Constitution, and the Mormon Mess in Texas

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

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

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


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

Comment on this story.

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.

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?

Trying to have it both ways

Transcript of today's show:

William Dembski, a leading intelligent design theorist, has an apparent knack for parlaying his theory into one-size-fits-all proselytizing. When addressing Christian audiences, Dembski has named God as the mysterious designer. Yet, when debating scientists on CNN, he insists that intelligent design does not require the designer to be God. Much as Dembski may try to distance his science from the church, blatant contradiction may not be the best approach. [source: Respectful Indolence blog]

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:
Here is a double-headed Trojan Horse. We know it's common for politicians and salesmen to adapt their parlance for the purpose of resonating with different groups and their different interests. It's ingenious, really, but unfortunately it's disingenuous as well. Perhaps pragmatically, it is the moral price society must pay for winning the race or making the sale.

So, can we really blame Dembski, who is merely putting to practice one of the oldest sales tricks on the books? Yes and no. No because, come on, he's selling a product that has been patently rejected by the whole scientific community! This is a hard sell. He deserves a trick or two.

Yes, we should blame Dembski, because in his effort to sell his Intelligent Design theory to the people, he is a) misrepresenting science, and b) concealing the fact that ID theory is simply creationism dressed up. What Intelligent Design advocates want to sell us is not a cool, alternative 'origins of life' theory, but an entire theocratic agenda which would seek to change fundamental aspects of American society itself. Dembski et al, should indeed be blamed, not only for their fraudulent misrepresentation of science, but ultimately for attempting to perpetrate a fundamentalist-based covert operation on the American public.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Christians, of course, do believe the Designer is God. Mr. Dembski is not out of line speaking agreeably to this belief when he addresses a Christian audience directly. He himself a believer, so would it not be dishonest for him to say otherwise? As for the secular audiences, it is altogether appropriate for Dembski to state no opinion on the matter, given that the scientific method insists on impartiality and the absence of personal beliefs.