Vatican Chief Astronomer says Bible is not a science book

Transcript of today's show:

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


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

Comment on this story.

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]

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]

A church-state controversy erupts in New Jersey

Transcript of today's show:

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


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

Comment on this story.

from The New York Times Opinion Page:

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

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

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

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

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

from Blog from the Capital:

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

from The Lippard Blog:

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

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

from the Crime & Federalism blog:

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

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

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

Another academic makes a case for intelligent design

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.

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.

Creationism for sale at the Grand Canyon

Transcript of today's show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Moderate Pope: religion and science need not clash

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

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

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.

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.

Bill Maher sneaks into the Creation Museum

Transcript of today's show:

Left-wing political satirist Bill Maher may be the first celebrity to visit the Creation Museum, the 27 million dollar crowning achievement of evangelical Ken Ham opening this Memorial Day. Maher, who says Christians suffer from a neurological disorder that “stops people from thinking,” covertly snuck in the back door of the museum as part of a video crew filming under the fake moniker First Word Productions. Ken Ham and museum staff were not amused. [source: World Net Daily]

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:
Ken Ham was so not amused, he later called the visit from Maher part of "an elaborate media deception." Here is some elaboration on the Ham-Maher meeting from World Net Daily:

Nothing could have prepared Ham and the Creation Museum team for its surprise reconnaissance mission by Maher – known for his biting criticism of fundamentalist Christianity.

"When someone like a vehement anti-Christian Bill Maher goes to elaborate lengths to get into AiG, it tells me how threatening our museum must be to their worldview," said Ham. "But it was a good wake-up call for us, and our security crew is already taking measures – ahead of the museum's opening on May 28 – to prevent a reoccurrence."

While there is no word from Maher and HBO as to how the shoot will be used, Ham said he did answer the comedian-commentator's questions.

"Bill Maher did interview me; though respectful in one sense, most of his questions were just mocking attacks on God's Word," he said.

Albeit a prank befitting a rowdy schoolboy, you have to hand it to Bill Maher for trying to lighten things up a bit. Evangelical self-righteousness, after all, can be so redundant and boring. And, actually, scary. Evangelicals and fundamentalists have begun to take themselves way too seriously. They're becoming a social hazard! And the problem with this is: if you aren't willing to laugh at yourself, you're probably not willing to look at yourself – or your sacred cows -- with an objective and critical eye. You just go on pretending that you possess The Truth. You go on unquestioningly believing, "We have been saved and are blessed knowers of The Truth. It is our sacred duty to open the eyes and minds of all non-knowers, to show them the light of The Truth."

To followers of a religious (or political) group, a leader's self-righteousness is a measure of his greatness, and of course, his rightness (look how effectively George W. Bush has snowed everyone). And this is how organized insanity tends to propagate: seeding itself in the rich soil of blind faith, where, as Bill Maher might say, the neurologically challenged lead the neurologically challenged.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Few could argue that Mr. Maher's cunning and deceit were a bold display of arrogance, insolence, and utter disrespect. Attacks of this kind demonstrate a vulnerability, however, on the part of the perpetrator. Does the Truth so frighten Mr. Maher, a self-described atheist, that he must attempt to squash it underfoot with an underhanded and cynical affront of humor? Mr. Maher, be courageous! Be a man! Please, use the front door next time.

Public mockery is still free publicity

Transcript of today's show:

The Memorial Day Opening of the Evangelical Creation Museum is heating up the evolution-creationism controversy. While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah’s Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman Mark Loy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest reminding creation critics that “Mocking publicity is still free publicity.” [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:
Yes, there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I'm not so sure I want the foreign press making fun of a pseudo-science museum, when the US is already carrying such a low image in foreign policy and the environment. As Al Gore says in his new book, The Assault on Reason, the U.S. is a country whose informed electorate has a long history of making reasoned decisions based on the best available information. A Holy Book written in primitive times when everyone still believed the Earth was flat should not be used as a scientific guide for the origins of life.

Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Mockery is indeed free publicity. And I say "bring them on!" The opening of the Creation Museum, mockery or not, is proving to be an Evangelical media event of Biblical Proportions. Despite this inordinant lavishing of attention on the mockery, petitions, and naysayers, the Creation Museum is receiving robust and quite positive media attention. Ken Ham's tireless promotional tour, in which he's talked about the museum's opening Memorial Day, has been well received. And the Louisville, Kentucky daily recently carried a touching story about museum construction workers who's lives have been changed by the experience. One man says he found the Lord after working at the museum for a few months. ("I came to work for the museum, now I'm working for God"). He says he owes his transformation to the Creation Museum itself, both from what he learned while working on the installationos, but also from the loving attitude of those he worked with. As I expected, the Creation Museum will indeed be a beacon of light, of hope, and of God for many, many souls -- those who already believe, those who are looking, and those who are neither.

Internet Petitions Oppose the Creation Museum

Transcript of today's show:

Petitions asking educators to voice their opposition to evangelical Ken Ham’s Creation Museum have begun to circulate on the Internet. Our offices received one from an organization called Defending the Constitution. The petition calls the museum the most recent example of the religious right’s war on science education -- whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom. [source: Defcon Blog]

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:
Educators can sign the online petition here. If you're not an educator, you can sign this petition. By doing so, you are voicing your stand against religion's war on science. If you are concerned about the integrity of science education in our country, I urge you to take part in this small bit of advocacy. Every voice counts.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
As Ken Ham himself has noted, scientists and atheists are clearly and profoundly threatened by the Creation Museum. Perhaps one reason is the fact that the Evangelical Community spared no expense at making the exhibits as realistic as possible. They may also fear the very dramatic and public message that there is a compelling alternative to Darwinism.

A new skirmish in the war between God & Science

Transcript of today's show:

Ken Ham’s Creation Museum may become the biggest controversy yet in the God vs. Science wars. The museum depicts the origin of life according to a literal interpretation of the Bible -- including the premise that the Earth is only 6,000 years old -- a notion violently opposed by most of the scientific community. The Museum opens this Memorial Day. [source: Christian Post]

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 urge all scientists and sane-thinking people to make some kind of protest. We who remain silent will ironically voice approval, not just for this museum, but for the others of its kind to make their promised appearances in the coming years. Do something! Get online and sign a petition. Inform friends and family. If you live near Cincinnati, get on a bus and protest. This whole affair is being carefully watched by bloggers and media. Any little bit of activism can be noticed and have some measure of impact.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The outcry in response to the opening of this museum smacks of 'double standard.' For decades and decades, evolutionary science has held a monopoly on science museums and the historical and biological portrayal of the origin of earth and man. To deny Christian believers the opportunity to build museums that portray this history according to their truths, is the attitude of a poor sport. The scientific community, it appears, is deeply threatened; it recognizes the vulnerability of its pre-eminent theories in the face of Gospel Truth. The scientific community has demonstrated, again and again, that it will not share power with any world view that in any way is deemed contradictory.