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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Atlas of Creation makes an academic splash in the US

Transcript of today's show:

In a follow-up to a previous story about a Muslim creationist coffee table book appearing in France earlier this year, US college professors are seeing the same Atlas of Creation in their mailboxes this week. The Atlas claims that evolutionists are responsible for fascism, communism and terrorism. Professors across America are wondering who financed the one hundred dollar 800 page book and why they received it? [source: New York Times]

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

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

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A letter to the author of Atlas of Creation:

Dear Mr. Harun Yahya,

Or shall I call you Adnan Oktar, which your web site tells me is your birth name. I also see that you have a very impressive CV. Many universities in America would likely confess interest in your education and background, except that it is hopelessly peppered with Islamic fundamentalist ideology, a relentless disgust of Darwin theory, and an unusual penchant for blaming Darwin theory for the world's social, political and economic ills. Our educational system at all levels tries to respect America's embrace of equal opportunity in employment, but I dare say there are some biases that you just couldn't get around or charm your way out of.

Not that your purpose in sending thousands of your big and very pretty books to our universities was to pick up a little work in the land of opportunity. You obviously don't need to. On the contrary, your gift appears to be a good will package designed to win some of us over to your side. A form of what we would call proselytizing, which can be effective, but frankly, you have to go after the ones who you think might have a teeny tiny chance of being open to your alternative viewpoints. I'm not sure you took time to research that, or perhaps you didn't care, or you have a self-confidence that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a wallflower.

If I were you, I wouldn't expect a high return rate on your promotional effort. Look at France's weak response. We are just as stubborn and intractable as they are. And honestly, America does not need another variety of religious fundamentalism. The Christians are causing way too much trouble already. The introduction of Islamic fundamentalism into American society could potentially devastate our culture, educational system, and national mental health. I'm sure national cataclysm isn't what you had in mind when you took the time and expense to print and send all those books to the intellectual elite.

As a concerned American citizen, I beg you, please stay away from our children.

Sincerely yours,

S. Greene

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
As I noted when news of this book first appeared in April 2007, science cannot make faith go away. Where faith exists, secularism has no power nor sway. People of faith around the world indeed do not trust secularism because deep down inside people do not want to live in an atheistic, godless universe. I am not of the Muslim faith, yet I can understand their desire to offer the world a grander vision of life and our origins.

The Atlas of Creation is an inspiring work, and like the beauty of a cathedral, will lift the spirit of those who enter. Even those who aided and abetted the faithless in the Dover case grudgingly admitted The Atlas of Creation is truly a beautiful book. God works in mysterious ways!

When public opinion in Turkey overwhelmingly supported the authority of the Islamic Holy Koran (with roots in the Old testament), the government brought their educational policies in line. Here in America, Christian believers must endlessly contend with the ACLU, atheistic scientists, and liberal judges like Judge John Jones, who turned a deaf ear to the voice of a growing majority, and in the process, turned his back on his own Christian faith.

Poll figures on the American view of creation

Today's show:

In a June 2007 Gallup poll of American adults:

48% said they believe that God, in a single act, created human beings in their present form, sometime within the last 10,000 years

30% of the respondents believe in a divinely guided evolution, in which man evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

13% believe that God played no part in the evolution of human beings.

[source: USA Today]

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

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

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These polls reveal a dual disaster of diminished science (and excellence) standards in our schools and the strengthening tide of Christian fundamentalism in the US. Polls on this issue have been taken in America for over 2 decades. Here are what a few earlier polls have shown:

Gallup poll November 2004

34% of respondents regarded the Bible as to be taken literally
48% regarded it as divinely inspired but not always to be taken literally
15% regarded it as a collection of fables, etc., and
3% expressed no opinion.


Channel One News poll Jan 2002
Which theory should be taught in schools?

31% creationism only
17% evolution only
52% both

Gallup poll August 1999
Should creationism and evolution be taught in US schools?

68% yes
29% no
3% no opinion

Should creationism be taught instead of evolution?

40% yes
55% no
5% no opinion

Excuse me while I cry in my coffee.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
American is, and I do hope always will be, a nation of faith. Godlessness should not be wished upon any adversary, let alone our own country. A people of faith do not have to reject science in order to embrace their beliefs. Let's be clear that looking at this issue from a black and white standpoint will only be culturally divisive and cause needless confusion in the educational system. We can make room for both. I ask the scientists to make room for faith; I ask believers to make room for science.

These poll results tell me that we are not a country yet divided in a 'culture war'. We have a heritage of pride in our diversity, and I believe we are managing to find a healthy middle ground.

The Bible meets biology in an Oregon classroom

Transcript of today's show:

After only eight days on the job, part-time teacher Kris Helphinstine was fired from Sisters High School in Oregon. In the biology class he taught, Helphinstine referred repeatedly to the Bible and gave a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution, Nazi Germany, and Planned Parenthood. School officials were swift in his termination. In his defense, Helphinstine said, “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and get the students thinking.” [source: New West]

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:
The swift response of school officials at Sisters High School in Oregon reminds me of Judge Jones’ unequivocal response that intelligent design is indeed creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing. This tells us too, unfortunately, that classroom teachers need to be watched. The most unassuming new hire may have an agenda of zealotry lurking in their lesson plans. Our schools have by necessity become policed -- students are searched for drugs and hidden weapons; now it seems, teachers must be surveilled for surrepitious propaganda activities.

Those who think they can bring religious belief and dogma into the scientific climate of a biology classroom do know better. They know they're crossing a line, and they know where that line lies. Their intent and purpose are to push that line, and push and push, budging it ever more to their benefit. Their goal is nothing less than to confuse our understanding of science and, in the cacophony, infuse their Bible-based notions as equal or superior.

It would have been interesting to see the faces of Mr. Helphinstine's students when he presented slides of the Nazi cross dissolving into the Planned Parenthood logo. Are high school students sophisticated enough to know when propaganda is being thrust upon them? Let this event be a lesson to all about 1) the growing reach of religious zealotry into academia, 2) how innocuous it can appear to the unwary eye, and 3) how these educational hi jinx should be quickly and permanently dealt with. I wonder what Dembski and his friends at the Discovery Institute think when some lunatic claiming to be on “their side” stirs up a negative news story like this.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Although the appropriateness of his subject matter is questionable, Mr. Helphinstine is being quite obviously scape-goated. The information he presented -- albeit not suitable for such a young audience -- has basis in real events. Evolution theory has been an ideological cornerstone of those who favor eugenics. The nefarious Nazi philosophy was in fact based on Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest. This theory in and of itself is not villainous, but when applied by hateful atheists and those who do not believe in Christian love for one's neighbor, the theory can be twisted to diabolical ends. The Nazis erronneously believed that only they were the fittest, declaring themselves the UberMensch – the Super Race of Super Men. And did the Nazi’s control every aspect of the birthing process, killing thousands of innocent retarded and defective children? Yes, they did and they kept accurate records.

Just as critics of Mr. Helphinstine can claim him as a bizarre example of Bibilical creationism gone wild, the Nazi agenda of the Holocaust could be seen as evolutionary ideas taken to an ultimate perverted extreme. Let us be careful, in our outrage at Mr. Helphinstine, that we not gloss over the horrible history from which his ideas emerged. There are centuries of unjust, unloving, inhumane historical events that deserve our outrage. Let's put our criticism and anger where they rightly belong.

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.