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.

Is Obama catering to the creationists?

Hear the 1 minute show:

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

Is Pope Benedict the American Pope?

Transcript of today's show:

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

[source: Time magazine]


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

Comment on this story.

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

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

Pope Benedict has aired his views on evolution fo the first time - and says he partially believes Darwin's theories.

The Pontiff said science had narrowed the way life's origins are understood and said Christians should take a broader approach to the question.

However, he did not adopt a strictly scientific view of the origins if life, believing instead that God created life through evolution.

He said he "would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture".

As well as praising scientific progress, the Pope's views, published in a new book 'Schoepfung unt Evolution' (Creation and Evolution), did not endorse the creationist, or 'intelligent design' view of life's origins.

[read full story]

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

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

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



quoted from Pope Benedict XVI:

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

Is Pope Benedict a Creationist?

Transcript of today's show:

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


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

Comment on this story.

Pope Benedict, speaking recently to the Italian Ecclesial Congress:

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

Pope Benedict, in his book Creation and Evolution:

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

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."

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]

Is Wikipedia biased against intelligent design?

Transcript of today's show:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Christian clergy: leave science to the scientist and religion to the churches

Transcript of today's show:

Over 10,000 Christian church leaders have signed a letter that rejects the evangelical notions that Christians must choose between religion and science. On Sunday, February 11, one day before Charles Darwin's birthday, churches across the US participated in Evolution Sunday, celebrating that the Bible and evolution theory can co-exist. Advocates of Intelligent Design theory claim that Evolution Sunday is the height of hypocrisy. Evolution Sunday simply declares that science remain science and religion remain religion, different but compatible forms of truth. [source: The Clergy Letter Project]

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:
Evolution Sunday is in fact a celebration of the separation of church and state. It is encouraging to see such a large number of Christians willing to think for themselves, and to embrace the idea of inclusion in place of fundamentalist 'either/or' thinking. Is there not room in God's vast creation for Darwin theory to exist?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Frankly, I am appalled and outraged to learn of this letter being passed around and signed so carelessly by Christians. This amounts to a flat-out rejection of the Word of the Bible. Are these Christians jumping on a liberal bandwagon or simply lacking the courage to voice and live by their convictions?

The Grand Canyon caters to creationists

Transcript of today's show:

To avoid offending religious fundamentalists, park rangers at the Grand Canyon are prohibited from telling visitors how old the canyon actually is. Since 2002, park officials appointed by the Bush administration have suppressed policy guidelines that instruct staff how to talk to visitors about religion and geology. In absence of these guidelines, the park service has essentially been ordered to suspend its belief in geology, and take the official position ‘no comment.’ [source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility]

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’m sorry but this is simply shameful. The conservative Christian government of George W. Bush is pandering again to its power base. Never mind that the inquisitiveness of rationally-thinking school children who visit this extraordinary geologic wonder will be dismissed entirely. Never mind that the duty and public service of park rangers and geologists are to educate and inform the public. “No comment?” Shame on you, George Bush.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Kudos to George Bush. He has time and again proven to be a champion of Christian believers. The Grand Canyon is visited by Christians of all faiths and denominations from all over the world. They are our guests. And no decent host would knowingly offend its guests by exalting an unproven scientific theory that contradicts their entire worldview. This change in the park services response to the geologic age of the canyon is a long-deserved correction. A neutral stance will insure that all visitors to the Grand Canyon, no matter what their beliefs, are respected. That is the behavior of a good host.

Britain pulls the evolution controversy out of science classes

Transcript of today's show:

British students may soon be debating creationism and intelligent design alongside Darwinism and atheism in their high school religion classes. New government guidelines will pull this topic out of science classes, hoping to avoid the contentious debates that have pitted religion against science in the US. The British school officials endorse neither side of the debate, but they do believe that creationism and intelligent design should be understood and openly discussed by students. [source: Paul Majendie/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:
What a disastrous state of affairs when scientists have to band togther to defend the validity and legitimacy of science itself. Scientific method and understanding have produced most everything we enjoy and take advantage of in the living of our daily lives. I dearly hope this protest sends a signal to school board administrators that Biblical allegory is not equivalent to science and does not belong in our science classrooms.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Half or more Americans -- spanning every religious denomination -- say they do not believe we have descended from apes. Our children want to know where they came from, where the world they live in came from. They ask these questions. Are our children in fact silently crying out for an alternative explanation to their own origin? Do they not deserve to hear other viewpoints and possibilities? Sadly, the scientists who make this protest, and others certainly, are satisfied to offer only one account of the origin of life on earth, and it is neither a compelling nor inspiring one.