Evolution vs. Creationism [Archive]

TLOZ Link5

November 9th, 2005, 11:06 PM

The following is a transcript of yours truly quoting the Young-Earth arguments of a creationist and debunking them one by one. Watch and marvel as science pwnzes pseudo-science in an awesome display of intellectual superiority!

>>>Fact - the blast at Mt. St. Helens could not have happened, because according to Evolution the changes made afterwards must have taken thousands of years.>>>

Debunked:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young1.htm#16

Rebuttal: It is true that the ash from St. Helen's did form a deposit within a few days that was a few hundred feet thick in places. But it was a deposit of fine ash, of pumice. Any geologist can differentiate between layers of pumice and actual sedimentary rock -- i.e. sandstone or limestone. Their textures and colors are entirely different.

>>>Fact - the Mississippi River flood of 1993 could not have happened because according to Evolution, the amount of sediment moved would have taken thousands of years.>>>

Debunked:

River Deltas [DB 1507 (27); OAB 22] The claim is that the size and growth rate of river deltas proves that they cannot be very old. The error here seems to lie in thinking that the delta consists only of what are actually the very youngest delta deposits (the parts that still look like delta deposits). In fact, the Mississippi Delta, which is used by young-Earth advocates as an example, actually consists of a seven-mile-thick layer of sediment covering much of the south-central U.S. (by contrast, sedimentary rocks in most places on Earth are only one mile thick). The same is generally true at the Earth's other great river deltas. River deltas are actually a potent argument against the young-Earth hypothesis. Not only are the 7 miles of Mississippi delta sediments far more than could accumulate in 10,000 years (especially since delta deposits cannot accumulate underwater, and thus could not have been accelerated by Noah's Flood), but the observed sinking of the crust under the weight of the delta, which keeps the surface at sea level and allows the delta to continue forming, could only happen very slowly.

River Canyons [OAB 74] It is pointed out that "the meandering serpentine course of many rivers and canyons cut through many layers of strata." However, it is not completely clear what conclusion is intended to be drawn from this observation, so I will cover two different possibilities. One argument that I have heard is that meandering riverbeds will not maintain the same channel long enough to dig deep serpentine canyons, such as the San Juan River in Utah, because periodic flooding will break through to a straighter course, creating oxbow lakes, as happens with the lower Mississippi River. In fact there are two reasons why the riverbed of the lower Mississippi is not stable, and these two reasons are not necessarily present for all meandering riverbeds. The first is that the Mississippi floods rather frequently, and the second is that the lower Mississippi riverbanks are made of relatively soft material (soil and shale). In Utah, flooding is not as frequent, so the river will have time to cut a deeper canyon. Also, the riverbanks in Utah are made of hard sandstone, not soft shale. Both of these factors will make it much harder for floods to break through to a straighter course.

Not only are serpentine canyons easy to explain from an Old-Earth standpoint, they are virtually impossible within the Young-Earth model. A canyon formed in a short period of time by a huge torrent of water could not possibly be serpentine, because the flood would overflow the shallow meandering channel and form a more straight canyon. The only way for a river to be serpentine is for it to be flowing slowly (like the lower Mississippi River today), therefore a serpentine canyon can only be formed by a slow-flowing river. Since a slow-flowing river would take at least many tens of thousands of years to dig a deep canyon, these canyons cannot possibly be any younger than that.

Another possible argument simply notes that many present rivers are cutting into sedimentary strata (A.W. Mehlert, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v.25, no.3, pp.121-123 (Dec 1988), as cited in OAB). Of course, since rivers change their course relatively frequently, especially near their deltas, I see nothing implausible in the theory that a river flowed through a certain area, laying down sedimentary deposits, then changed course to a different area, and finally returned sometime later to erode its own sediment.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

>>>Fact - the picture of Neil Armstrong's footprint on the moon could not have happened because according to Evolution there should have been over 3 feet of moon dust on the surface after millions of years of solar wind. (And it only would have taken 10,000 years to get the 1/4 inch that was really there.)>>>

Here's an easy one. Go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

1. The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a SINGLE (my emphasis) preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a TOTAL FABRICATION (again my emphasis). As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.

Further:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Not_enough_moon_dust_for_an_old_universe

1. The total influx of dust on earth is about 40t per day (Source: H.H. Voigt, Abriß der Astronomie). It is easy to calculate that this would accumulate to only a few centimeters of dust in 5 billion years on earth. There is no reason why the influx density should be very different on the moon, so there should also only be a few centimeters of dust. In addition the surface of the moon is also often hit by larger meteorites and asteroids which turns-over the regolith layer (a loose layer of heterogeneous rocks and grains which is several meters thick and covers the surface of the moon) and mixes the dust into it.
2. Radioactive dating shows that the oldest rocks on the moon are about 4.4 billion years old, which is in excellent agreement with the oldest mineral found on earth (zircons with an age of 4.407 billion years).
3. Even if the moon were young, this would not say anything about the age of the earth or the universe.

>>>Fact - the riverbed in Texas with fossilized dinosaur footprints and human footprints overlapping could not be there because Evolution says these creatures could not have existed at the same time.>>>

Explain to me, then, why there are no cave drawings of primitive humans hunting dinosaurs. Further:

Human Footprints in Cretaceous Sediments [DB 1517 (96)] Although there are several claims of fossilized human footprints in "old" sediments, none is as credible (relatively speaking) or has received as serious consideration as the prints in the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas. At this location, supposedly human footprints are interspersed with undisputed dinosaur footprints. Yet upon closer consideration, even the Paluxy footprints are highly disappointing for young-Earth advocates. The "human" footprints are too far apart to fit the stride of humans, and the footprint size is also too large. Many of the "human" prints show dinosaur features like claw marks, and most damaging of all, some trails of "human" prints continue as a path of near-perfect dinosaur prints. Recognizing the overwhelming evidence, ICR president John Morris admitted in 1986 that the Paluxy footprints are probably not human but are eroded dinosaur footprints (ICR Impact #151). However, many young-Earth advocates, including many at ICR, unfortunately are still reluctant to give up on this now-discredited claim.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

>>>Fact - the fossilized tree going upward through many strata of sediment in the Grand Canyon cannot really exist, because according to Evolution, a dead tree would have to stand upright for many thousands of years for that to occur.>>>

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

By this, Dr. Hovind means fossils which cross several strata. Usually that means fossilized, vertical tree trunks. Creationists are attacking a straw man. No geologist claims that every little stratum requires thousands of years to be laid down! The strata associated with polystrate fossils invariably show evidence of relatively rapid deposition.

'Polystrate' trees show every sign of extremely rapid burial, generally when rivers flood over their banks.

(Eldredge, 1982, p.105)

An example of this very thing is given by Dunbar and Waage (Dunbar & Waage, 1969, p.52). They show a photo of the Yahtse River area in Alaska, which depicts a number of upright, broken-off stumps stripped of most of their branches. The taller stumps poke out above the alluvial mud. This is the result of natural processes accompanying river course change. A couple of pages later we find a photograph showing how trees can be buried fairly quickly in another way. In this case, volcanic ash has partially buried a forest whose trees are mostly reduced to broken-off stumps stripped of their branches. Continuing volcanic eruptions over a period of years (dead trees last a long time!) and the interaction with wind would create variations in the strata which finally bury the stumps.

In some cases, burial might well be less than instantaneous. In the San Francisco area fossils of cedar and redwood (dated at 23,000 years) are found in place 20 feet below present sea level. This may be due to a rising sea level from melting ice-caps. (Encyclopedia Americana, 1978 Annual [Geology].) A similar find exists off the coast of Japan where remnants of a forest of willows and alders are found in 70 feet of water. They are some 10,000 years old (Chorlton, 1984, p.90).

Thus, we have polystrate fossils in the making, without the aid of Noah's flood.

>>>Fact - the downed WWII era planes in Greenland could not possibly have been discovered as far under the ice as they were, because according to Evolution, it would have taken thousands of years for that amount of ice to have formed.>>>

http://evowiki.org/index.php/WWII_airplanes_are_now_beneath_thousands_of_annual _ice_layers

1. The arguments ignores the fact that ice-layers get compressed as more layers are laid down on top of them. Therefore the lowermost, oldest layers are much thinner than the uppermost, younger layers.
2. The argument implicitly presumes that all places get the same amount of snow/ice per year -- a presumption which is demonstrably false. In this case, the place where the airplanes were ditched was close to the shore of Greenland, while ice cores are taken from the interior where there is less snow-fall.
3. Weather records show that the locale of the "Lost Squadron" gets about two meters (6.6 feet) of snow per year. Therefore, the 'problem' addressed by this argument (which is supposed to be solvable only by accepting a Young Earth paradigm) is nonexistent.
4. The planes landed on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since then. Glaciers are not used for ice core dating because their movement throws the measurement off.
5. As a conclusion, the dating method did not work correctly in this case because ignorant creationists botched it. In the hands of experts, it works.

NYatKNIGHT

November 10th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Then how do we explain Bush, Cheney, et al???
You got me there!

One answer to the problem they've created: Intelligent RE-sign
I like that answer, except scrap the word 'intelligent', it shouldn't be used to describe anything about these clowns.

lofter1

November 10th, 2005, 08:36 PM

Of course "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with Religion ...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453

A Regular Look at the Worst from the Right brought to you by PFAW Foundation

Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election:

“Don’t turn to God if you need help”

November 10, 2005 - On today’s 700 Club, Rev. Pat Robertson took the opportunity to strongly rebuke voters in Dover, PA who removed from office school board members who supported teaching faith-based “intelligent design” and instead elected Democrats who opposed bringing up the possibility of a Creator in the school system’s science curriculum.

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Watch the video: Broadband (http://media.pfaw.org/video/pfaw/VideoDisplay.asp?headline=11/10/05-%20The%20700%20Club&caption=Rev.%20Pat%20Robertson%20strongly%20critic izes%20the%20decision%20by%20voters%20in%20Dover%2 C%20PA%20to%20remove%20all%20school%20board%20memb ers%20that%20supported%20Intelligent%20Design.%20&videofile=11-10-05-700Club-IntelligentDesign) | Dial-up (http://media.pfaw.org/video/pfaw/VideoDisplay-low.asp?headline=11/10/05-%20The%20700%20Club&caption=Rev.%20Pat%20Robertson%20strongly%20critic izes%20the%20decision%20by%20voters%20in%20Dover%2 C%20PA%20to%20remove%20all%20school%20board%20memb ers%20that%20supported%20Intelligent%20Design.%20&videofile=11-10-05-700Club-IntelligentDesign)

Ninjahedge

November 11th, 2005, 09:52 AM

If it is his God, the one that so many loyal followers prayed to in Mississippi and Louisianna, I don't think we need him.

What an ass.

lofter1

November 11th, 2005, 10:38 AM

The beauty of Robertson's inability to keep his mouth shut is that it completely undermines the often-stated position of the pro-ID gang.

***

Ninjahedge

November 11th, 2005, 10:52 AM

He is too out of touch with reality, which is fine when you are dealing with a smaller audience.

But the fact that he is dealing with so many people now and is so easily sited on widely accessed national TV does not lend much to his credibility.

Not only that, but he seems like he is turning into more of a fidgety old man. One that states his opinion to everyone no matter what it is.....

That combined with a self perceived religious edict and you have some sadly humorous commentary.

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 07:40 AM

There is such a lack of faith here it is alarming.

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. But it doesn't matter to me whether God created man in 6 days or in 6 million, I just believe God created him. If Evolution has any hopes of being convincing to the public, it has some serious rehashing that needs to be done, because despite what some of you have said here, it is a poor theory, made up by a man of "below average intelligence" as Darwin's professors would say. So you wonder why most Americans don't believe in Evolution? Because it doesn't make sense.

I am not looking to get into a debate, I just thought since no one was representing the other side, someone should step up. :)

redhot00

November 15th, 2005, 08:07 AM

Edward

November 15th, 2005, 10:36 AM

redhot00, I agree about the title, and I renamed it

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 10:40 AM

There is such a lack of faith here it is alarming.

Why do you find it alarming?

What if it is not YOUR faith people have?

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. But it doesn't matter to me whether God created man in 6 days or in 6 million, I just believe God created him.

Good for you. It really does not matter to me whether "he" did or didn't. If you get so caught up in the nitty gritty you lose sight of what the real message is.

If Evolution has any hopes of being convincing to the public, it has some serious rehashing that needs to be done, because despite what some of you have said here, it is a poor theory, made up by a man of "below average intelligence" as Darwin's professors would say.

BZZZZT! Wrong answer!

thank you for playing!

It has to be re-written? Excuse me, it has been revised and tweaked continuously since its inception by more than just Darwin. Pinning it on one man and then calling that man "below average" in intelligence is a straw man arguement.

you might as well say "Hitler believed in Evolution!!!! Evolution is Evil!!!!"

BS!.

So you wonder why most Americans don't believe in Evolution?

Nope. Most americans are dumb. Most americans do not know how to keep themselves healthy. Most americans havent got a clue about genetics, DNA, or even high school trigonometry.

Most americans would rather believe in a simple answer than admit they do not know the complicated one.

Because it doesn't make sense.

You are SO off base.

I am not looking to get into a debate, I just thought since no one was representing the other side, someone should step up. :)

You are getting an arguement. If you wanted a debate you would have presented theory and different factual points rather than thing things like "well most americans dont believe it" and "It does not make sense" and "he was below average in intelligence".

It does not matter if most Americans believe in creation. Most people also believed the world was the flat center of the universe created 6000 years ago.

Things that are stated as God Given law with no proof are not admissible in scientific discussion without proof.

And reliance on these fables is not a sign of a strong faith in the being and existance.

Let me put it this way. If God is omnipotent, who the hell says that "he" did not create everything just the way the scientists are discovering it? If he made all the damn rules, why are you people so quick to say that these rules don't count?

If he created everything, and the laws of nature are part of everything, aren't you being blasphemous by contradicting and denouncing them?

Rhetorical question. please don't answer until you come back with something solid.

:mad:

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 10:46 AM

Thanks David, for your post. I originally attempted, albeit rather feebly, to represent the other side, but got flamed immediately. I felt kind of intimidated trying to represent Intelligent Design against those on here that are so passionate about bashing it (most ultra liberals are quite passionate about what they argue about).

You did not get flamed, you got trounced.

And as for ultra liberal, why don't you have a chat with my mother. Devout protestant for 40 years now, church choir, whole 9 yards.

Also Biology, Anatomy and Physics teacher. Faith does not mean BLIND FAITH.

When the titile of the thread is calling you an idiot right off the bat, you kind of know going in what you're up against. I mean, I can imagine what kind of response I'd get if I titled a thread "Gay Rights Idiots" or "Pro-Abortion Idiots" or "Bush Bashing Idiots"....I wouldn't, but you get the idea...

An idiot is an idiot. I will not call a mountain a river. Creationists may actually be brilliant sociologists using a primitive simplistic analogy based on faith and culturally acceptable to convince people to follow them and give them creedence in any of their other suppositions of how to live their lives.

Or they could be people who genuinely believe in the creation of man in 6 days and that Eve was created by a rib from Adam.

That is only an "angels hair" away from Greek Mythology which most of nowadays treat as fiction.

How is this any different? Just because more people believe it today?

Anyway, thanks for stepping up.

Whatever.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 10:52 AM

Thread title change.... :mad: :mad: :mad:

This thread was not mean t as a debate Ed.

It was meant as an expression of the moral and intellectual outrage I, and others in the scientific community have felt from this group of people who come in and denounce all that we have learned and struggled to discover just because it does not fit with what they have been taught as "right".

It is an outcry of indignation that science can be looked on, yet again, as if it was some sort of evil tool from a Disney movie.

I am tired of that, the reactions from people, and the fact that people have the ability to force me, my children, and people in my community to follow a metaphor as the true story of the world and ignore anything anyone else tells them.

It sickens me and frightens me.

It is the same attitude that had people burning others in town squares and calling others that practiced "witchcraft and wizardry" banned from their communities.

I ironically thank God that we moved from those dark ages, but I see the pendulum swinging back into the other area, where the average Joe that does not understand science more than a hole in the wall decides that the story that makes them feel better is what should not be not only accepted, but forced into the heads of everyone else that does not believe in it as they do.

This is not presenting an alternate "theory". This is simply ignoring what they do not understand, or WANT to understand.

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 11:07 AM

Philosophers Notwithstanding,
Kansas School Board Redefines Science

New York Times
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 15, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html?ex=1289710800&en=8222cfc9c70fd951&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science.

In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth.
The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it.

On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.

The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations."

Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said removing those two words and the framework they set means "anything goes."

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com (http://kansasscience2005.com/), it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically "neutral."

But many scientists say that characterization is an overstatement of the claims of science. The scientist's job description, said Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, is to search for natural explanations, just as a mechanic looks for mechanical reasons why a car won't run.

"This doesn't mean that they commit themselves to the view that this is all there is," Dr. Weinberg wrote in an e-mail message. "Many scientists (including me) think that this is the case, but other scientists are religious, and believe that what is observed in nature is at least in part a result of God's will."

The opposition to evolution, of course, is as old as the theory itself. "This is a very long story," said Dr. Holton, who attributed its recent prominence to politics and the drive by many religious conservatives to tar science with the brush of materialism.

How long the Kansas changes will last is anyone's guess. The state board tried to abolish the teaching of evolution and the Big Bang in schools six years ago, only to reverse course in 2001.

As it happened, the Kansas vote last week came on the same day that voters in Dover, Pa., ousted the local school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design.

As Dr. Weinberg noted, scientists and philosophers have been trying to define science, mostly unsuccessfully, for centuries.

When pressed for a definition of what they do, many scientists eventually fall back on the notion of falsifiability propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper. A scientific statement, he said, is one that can be proved wrong, like "the sun always rises in the east" or "light in a vacuum travels 186,000 miles a second." By Popper's rules, a law of science can never be proved; it can only be used to make a prediction that can be tested, with the possibility of being proved wrong.

But the rules get fuzzy in practice. For example, what is the role of intuition in analyzing a foggy set of data points? James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science at the University of Toronto, said in an e-mail message: "It's the widespread belief that so-called scientific method is a clear, well-understood thing. Not so." It is learned by doing, he added, and for that good examples and teachers are needed.

One thing scientists agree on, though, is that the requirement of testability excludes supernatural explanations. The supernatural, by definition, does not have to follow any rules or regularities, so it cannot be tested. "The only claim regularly made by the pro-science side is that supernatural explanations are empty," Dr. Brown said.

The redefinition by the Kansas board will have nothing to do with how science is performed, in Kansas or anywhere else. But Dr. Holton said that if more states changed their standards, it could complicate the lives of science teachers and students around the nation.

He added that Galileo - who started it all, and paid the price - had "a wonderful way" of separating the supernatural from the natural. There are two equally worthy ways to understand the divine, Galileo said. "One was reverent contemplation of the Bible, God's word," Dr. Holton said. "The other was through scientific contemplation of the world, which is his creation.

"That is the view that I hope the Kansas school board would have adopted."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 11:13 AM

Evolution and Its Discontents

New York Times
By KENNETH CHANG
November 14, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/science/15evol_side.html

The Kansas Board of Education adopted new science standards last week that include required criticism of evolution. Some of the additions are below, paired with the mainstream understanding of evolutionary biology. (Words bolded for emphasis)

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernible direction or goal.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

"Unguided" is "a very slippery word," said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. Scientific explanations of all natural processes, from hurricanes to supernovas, are all "unguided."

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recently by such things as: Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

The family tree relationships of some of the early life forms remain unclear. But fossil and biological evidence argues that all life today descends from the earliest organisms. Not surprisingly, new methods like comparison of proteins or genes have generated family trees that differ somewhat from those deduced from fossils. But those differences have not fundamentally changed scientists' view of evolution or common descent.

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

Most biologists do not make the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution; the larger changes are simply the accumulation of small changes. Most also say that the issue is not controversial and that there is much experimental evidence to indicate that such changes have occurred.

The term "irreducibly complex" is used by Michael Behe, a professor of biology at Lehigh University who is one of the main proponents of intelligent design, but is not used by other biologists.

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a. A lack of empirical evidence for a "primordial soup" or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of protocells; and

c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

The issue of how life originated is different from that of evolution. Current ideas on the origin of life are incomplete and no consensus has yet emerged. Most scientists find that this means more research is needed, not that it is impossible for a theory to emerge.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 11:24 AM

This thread was not mean t as a debate Ed.All threads are subject to debate. It's what scientists do.

I ignored this topic because of the title, but was hesitant to change it to avoid complaints about censorship.

Although I disagree with their position, the few that expressed contrary (to this forum community) views are to be congratulated for doing so in a dispassionate manner.

In reading this thread, I am left with this observation:

If you were standing apart from two people who are discussing an issue and cannot hear what they are saying, and the person who has the correct position appears to be screaming, which one of the two would you think was an idiot.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 11:28 AM

which one of the two would you think was an idiot.

The one with the pointy hat.

redhot00

November 15th, 2005, 01:19 PM

the fact that people have the ability to force me, my children, and people in my community to follow a metaphor as the true story of the world and ignore anything anyone else tells them.

Ninja, re-read the article that you posted that started this whole thing. It says that the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution. It also goes on to say that it wants to teach that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and is not believed by all to be the truth.

Reading your posts in this thread you might think that every public school in the country wants to ignore Evolution and teach Creation as absolute truth.

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 01:49 PM

Rankings of US students internationally ( http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/ar04f.html#ex5 ):

For decades, studies have shown American students trailing their overseas counterparts academically. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's latest study of 29 countries, released in 2003, ranked American 15-year-olds 24th in math, 24th in problem solving, 19th in science and 15th in reading.

Education Dollars: Not Enough Bang for the Buck

American Students Lose Ground…

On international math and science tests, U.S. students' relative performance deteriorates as they move from the fourth to eighth to 12th grade. By the end of high school, they've fallen to near the bottom in educational achievement.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5a.gif

…Despite Hefty Outlays for Schooling

America ranks near the top in spending per student on secondary education, but its 15-year-olds lag in math, science and reading. The solid line shows the positive relationship between spending and test scores. The United States and the other countries below it are underperforming.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5b.gif

Teaching Gets Less of the Money

Over time, a smaller portion of America's education budget has been going to teaching and a larger share to administration. Recent measures show teaching's slice of the pie shrinking to an all-time low of 52 percent, the result of a steady decline that began in 1970.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5c.gif

Ignorance Is Misery; Knowledge Is Bliss.

Free economies get the most out of education. The top quarter of the 108 nations in the Index of Economic Freedom (in green) cluster toward the top of the chart, indicating they're getting a lot of per capita GDP from years of schooling. The least-free quarter (in orange) tend to get less from their education, which pushes them toward the bottom of the chart. The remaining countries (in purple) make up the middle two quarters of the index.

The solid lines summarize the positive relationship between years of schooling and per capita GDP for the three groups of countries. Nations above the line of their peer group are getting higher returns on schooling. Being below the green line suggests Americans aren't getting as much income as we could from our years in the classroom.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit3.gif

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 02:01 PM

Kansas Students at Grade 10; Test Results 2004-2005:

Kansas State Math Assessment Results

http://online.ksde.org/rcard/state_assess.aspx?assess_type=2&org_no=D%&grade=99&subgroup=1

Text Version

Kansas State Science Assessment Results

http://online.ksde.org/rcard/state_assess.aspx?assess_type=3&org_no=%&grade=10&subgroup=1

Text Version

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 02:15 PM

http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/evolution/

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 02:18 PM

http://www.statestats.com/edrank05.htm

2005-2006 Smartest State Award

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 02:18 PM

Ninja, re-read the article that you posted that started this whole thing. It says that the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution.

Well then, I say it was SATAN that did the intelligent design to make man, the most evil destructive creature incarnate.

The point is, if you force people to learn both as if they were somehow comparable, you get people believing that Saddam blew up the WTC.

It also goes on to say that it wants to teach that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and is not believed by all to be the truth.

Being that NO theory is absolutely proven. There are many things that do prove it. Please quote the passage that says this so that we are not sitting here arguing about an out-of-context paraphrasing.

And just because people do not BELIEVE it, does not mean it is invalid. How many times have I said that now? Do I need to bring up the flat-earth example again?

Reading your posts in this thread you might think that every public school in the country wants to ignore Evolution and teach Creation as absolute truth.

No, it is that the majority of Americans are ignorant of most things scientific and are outright afraid of it. Most enemies in movies are portrayed as someone who knows more science, or something we do not know.

In a society where kids are killed more by people who they know, to have most of their enemies as evil geniuses painted in dark colors is just not right to begin with, but to have the whole "evil science" thing brought up again and again does not help in MANY different fashions.

There are two main points that most scientists want to remain as the absolute truth of science and religion.

The first is that Science can be dis-proven, no matter how solid something may seem at the time. People may contest any theorem, but they must also do so with more than "because I said so". Religion never had this. They have no way to prove or disprove what they are saying, and disagreeing with religion is often met with more than simple disapproval.

The second is that science does not totally refute the existence of a Divine being. It researches the rules that we are forced to live our life by, and the possible connections that have been made through time. No matter how far back it goes, it can never really address what happens BEFORE the beginning of time.

As one thing Lofter pointed out, many scientists, my mother included, believe that there is a Divine being that created all of this. they also believe that they made the rules, and that somehow people saying that they not only made the rules, but keep nudging it is rather irritating.

if you are omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn't you know what is going to happen from the very start? Why would you have to "nudge" it if you know that your breaking shot will sink all the balls on the table, in all the pockets you called, at all the TIMES you called them?

And don't tell me "because he wanted to". that is as bad as "because I said so". It does not hold any weight in a discussion.

Edward

November 15th, 2005, 02:22 PM

... the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution.
Creationism is not a theory in scientific sense, by this logic you might insist that some peoples opinion that the Earth was created by aliens was also taught in schools alongside evolution.

... the Theory of Evolution has not been proven.
For scientific community it is as much proven as any other (scientific) theory. It is not proven for religious activists, but they are not in good position to judge science.

...and is not believed by all to be the truth.

That is not how scientific facts are established - in many cases they are opposite to popular opinion.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 02:29 PM

http://www.statestats.com/edrank05.htm

2005-2006 Smartest State Award

Wow, 1-4 are all NE/Tristate......

Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
NJ

Go fig...

Oh, the only thing that gets me about these standardized tests is that they are up to whoever makes them what they are measuring.

It was a contest in middle school to see which of us would be able to get the highest "grade ranking" in any one subject.

Most of us had the test scores to graduate HS by the time we ENTERED 7th grade.

None of these tests show any of that.

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 02:30 PM

Hypothesis
Theory
Fact

The Scientific Method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Hypothesis
Theory
Fact

The Scientific Method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)

Yep:

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by ...

Although he does call "blinders" "blinkers" in one of the sections.

I just pictured a bunch of guys in lab coats with turn signals on their butts... ;)

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 03:59 PM

Why do you find it alarming?

What if it is not YOUR faith people have?

i didn't specify the faith. I have observed a general lack of faith in A God, since He was being bashed as an "old man with a white beard." It is alarming because in secular institutions, it is thought of as primitive and silly to be theistic, when that should not be the case. It is perfectly plausible to be intelligent and simultaneously be religious.

BZZZZT! Wrong answer!

thank you for playing!

It has to be re-written? Excuse me, it has been revised and tweaked continuously since its inception by more than just Darwin. Pinning it on one man and then calling that man "below average" in intelligence is a straw man arguement.

you might as well say "Hitler believed in Evolution!!!! Evolution is Evil!!!!"

BS!.

I wasn't "playing" a game, I was stating a simple fact. Americans have been taught Evolution in public schools for years, but yet still more than half don't believe it. Why? Because, whether it is a substantial theory or not, it does not appeal to people because it is not as believable, for some reason, as an 'old man with a white beard' creating the earth. You may ask the question: "Why do Americans lean towards faith in God?" America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools. Of course, they could simply send their children to Private Christian schools, but one could argue that that is often expensive.

Most americans are dumb.

Poor argument. This would render the rest of the world as "dumb," since a HUGE majority of the world is theistic. I understand that most of the world believed that the earth was flat, and simply because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But there has been a rejection of secularism and evolution worldwide, and that says something. This has been researched by the socialogists Peter Berger (http://www.geocities.com/williamjamison/Berger/) and Christian Smith (http://www.unc.edu/~cssmith/).

But like I said, it does not matter to me whether or not Evolution took place, I simply believe God to be the creator of all things. I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution, so I can't really offer you anything more links to some websites (making attempts at) debunking Evolution, if you like. But I wouldn't be doing them justice by simply restating their facts here, quoting them as if they are my own. I'm not an expert on the subject and will not pretend to be.

But with that said, I can understand your frustration. It is sad that so many people (especially in the Christian right) have blind faith and refuse to think about the prospect of scientific evolution. It is sad that there is a general lack of enthusiasm for intelligence. This includes the arts, music, theater, science, ARCHITECTURE, and is certainly not limited to these things. Very sad indeed.

Edward

November 15th, 2005, 04:21 PM

America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools.You seem to be shy to follow the argument all the way - "since US is highly religious (Christian) country, Christianity should be taught at schools". That of course would violate separation of church and state principle.

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 04:26 PM

You seem to be shy to follow the argument all the way - "since US is highly religious (Christian) country, Christianity should be taught at schools". That of course would violate separation of church and state principle.

Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 04:51 PM

i didn't specify the faith. I have observed a general lack of faith in A God, since He was being bashed as an "old man with a white beard." It is alarming because in secular institutions, it is thought of as primitive and silly to be theistic, when that should not be the case. It is perfectly plausible to be intelligent and simultaneously be religious.

But your tone suggested that:

a) noone here that was refuting Creationisim was religious in any way
b) Scientists in general do not have faith
c) That the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject.

I wasn't "playing" a game, I was stating a simple fact. Americans have been taught Evolution in public schools for years, but yet still more than half don't believe it. Why? Because, whether it is a substantial theory or not, it does not appeal to people because it is not as believable, for some reason, as an 'old man with a white beard' creating the earth.

You use the believability/appeal arguement again.

You know that is not valid, why do you keep insisting on using it? Just because people did not WANT to believe that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and scientists were BODILY threatened for saying so, did not make it false.

People believed, in Rome and Greece, that there was a set of gods much like their own version of government, almost parlimentary, comprised of bickering factions that were in control of everything from the rising of the sun to the passing of sand through an hourglass. They all BELIEVED this as the absolute truth.

It is all story now because people do not want to believe in things of that sort. It does not fit their current feeling of self, and they wanted something more comfortable. So they chose the grandfather to rule the universe. They first made him vindictive and punative, but then as time went on and SOCIETY changed again, so did the image of God.

So you are basing your arguement on things that have no bearing on anything solid, provable or substantial. You are trying to put your faith as the absolute, and the lack of proof as irrefutable evidence of its existance.

You may ask the question: "Why do Americans lean towards faith in God?"

No I don't. In the same way that man has "lucky habits', , lucky horse shoes, salt over the shoulder and other superstitions. They want to believe in two things.

That somehow there is some control over seemingly random events they have no control over and that THEY have some influence over them as well.

Whether by being good to their God, or by practicing the rituals they believe will please him, or whatever mystical force is out there that controls the ways of the universe.

America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools. Of course, they could simply send their children to Private Christian schools, but one could argue that that is often expensive.

It is not the responsibility of the government to provide religion or religious instruction. Religion CAN be taught as a SEPERATE SUBJECT with an inclusion of all practicing faiths that time can allow, but you should NOT put it on level with science.

They are different animals, and somehow saying that their might be a God controling evolution has no place, WHATSOEVER, in a science class.

Poor argument. This would render the rest of the world as "dumb," since a HUGE majority of the world is theistic.

I thought you said a huge number was religious? That "America is a highly religiou country" that still believes in fad diets, that Saddam was part of the 9-11 attack although even the administration does not formally say so, and a host of other fallacies.

Human beings are dumb.

I understand that most of the world believed that the earth was flat, and simply because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But there has been a rejection of secularism and evolution worldwide, and that says something.

No it doesn't. Nobody has proven anything else. people like the happy ending story that fits in with what they are told by their spiritual leaders. It has always been that way.

"A rejection of secularisim"? As if that proves Divine Intervention? You are not backing your arguement.

1) Not all scientists are secular
2) Science does not refute the existance of God
3) Rejection od secularism does not validate EITHER the existance of god, or the invalidity of evolution.

This has been researched by the socialogists Peter Berger (http://www.geocities.com/williamjamison/Berger/) and Christian Smith (http://www.unc.edu/~cssmith/).

What, you post two guys, do not site any of their works, and do not quote anything by them and it is somehow up to us to read everything by them and refute them to prove OUR point against your rebuttal?

Not quite.

But like I said, it does not matter to me whether or not Evolution took place, I simply believe God to be the creator of all things.

Fine, believe what you want. But I do not want my tax dollars, in any form, supplimenting your religious views.

I also do not want religion to EVER be placed back in the same realm as science.

I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution, so I can't really offer you anything more links to some websites (making attempts at) debunking Evolution, if you like. But I wouldn't be doing them justice by simply restating their facts here, quoting them as if they are my own. I'm not an expert on the subject and will not pretend to be.

Which means, you don't understand the points of the arguement, so you are agreeing with the guys that you were told to agree with because it makes you feel better about your faith.

It is very common.

It takes a very strong faith to be able to question it and still hold it. Many do not have that. Most will simply reject anything that questions it and leave it at that.

But with that said, I can understand your frustration. It is sad that so many people (especially in the Christian right) have blind faith and refuse to think about the prospect of scientific evolution. It is sad that there is a general lack of enthusiasm for intelligence. This includes the arts, music, theater, science, ARCHITECTURE, and is certainly not limited to these things. Very sad indeed.

That is what I can agree with. The one thing that must be communicated is that science does not FORBID or DISPROVE religion. It only says that they are not the same.

the people who say they are the same, and only one is right, are usually the ones that stand to gain the most from the people that follow them, or are those that are doing the following.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 04:54 PM

Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial.

Um, what about Buddhism? What about Islam? What about all the other religions out there?

Do they all believe in Intelligent Design? Do they all believe in Creation?

Ed brings up the stickiest point in the whole arguement. That you say you want a middle ground, but that middle ground is being determined by the church A church in particular, and it is using its own yardstick to measure it.

It is a Christian belief that is being railroaded into the educational curriculum of the US by the christian followers, all others be damned....

Fabrizio

November 15th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Good reading:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1860310,00.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

BTW: In Catholic schools and Universities (among the most prestigious in the world) the theory of evolution is taught... science and scientists are respected ( the Church learned the hard way... a long time ago.... ) there is no "mirror" course for "creationism". You have your science studies and your theology studies. They are basically not mixed.

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 05:23 PM

I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution,

so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools,

Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial
You are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design, the actual subject of this thread.

The middle ground that you advocate is a clear-cut violation of church and state. The proponents of Intelligent Design understand this fact completely, which is why the concept is being promoted as a science discipline.

Science does not preclude belief in God, but faith is not part of the job description. Einstein once stated, "God does not roll dice with the world," to illustrate his disagreement with the indeterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics accepted by most of his colleagues, but he spent the rest of his life being a scientist in an attempt to disprove it.

.

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 05:41 PM

But your tone suggested that:

a) noone here that was refuting Creationisim was religious in any way
b) Scientists in general do not have faith
c) That the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject.

You interpreted my tone that way, I never said that Scientists in general do not have faith, or that the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject. That was your interpretation, which, with all due respect, seems evident that you are looking for an argument. You interpreted what I said with your own supposition.

You use the believability/appeal arguement again.

You know that is not valid, why do you keep insisting on using it? Just because people did not WANT to believe that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and scientists were BODILY threatened for saying so, did not make it false.

People believed, in Rome and Greece, that there was a set of gods much like their own version of government, almost parlimentary, comprised of bickering factions that were in control of everything from the rising of the sun to the passing of sand through an hourglass. They all BELIEVED this as the absolute truth.

It is all story now because people do not want to believe in things of that sort. It does not fit their current feeling of self, and they wanted something more comfortable. So they chose the grandfather to rule the universe. They first made him vindictive and punative, but then as time went on and SOCIETY changed again, so did the image of God.

So you are basing your arguement on things that have no bearing on anything solid, provable or substantial. You are trying to put your faith as the absolute, and the lack of proof as irrefutable evidence of its existance.

Right, and I said that at the end of my post. "Just because everyone believed the earth is flat, doesn't mean it was true." But my point here was that Americans are religious, so would it not make sense to teach Creationism in the classroom?

And you could basically use that argument with anything, for many years Scientists believed that there was an unknown element causing fire, when really it was simply oxygen. (I'm sure you could explain it better.) So because of that misbelief, are all Scientists requests to be taken seriously laughed at, or trashed?

I thought you said a huge number was religious?

I did, perhaps you took me using "theistic" as a typo for "atheistic."

Human beings are dumb.

Human beings came up with Evolution.

No it doesn't. Nobody has proven anything else. people like the happy ending story that fits in with what they are told by their spiritual leaders. It has always been that way.

"A rejection of secularisim"? As if that proves Divine Intervention? You are not backing your arguement.

I never said it proves anything, I said it says something. That something is, that for some reason the majority of the planet finds something completely valid in a relationship with God, and it is true to them. To you it may be silly, but to most people it is desirable, and they find fulfillment in it. What I'm saying is, religion deserves its due credit, and should not be dismissed as silly superstition.

1) Not all scientists are secular
2) Science does not refute the existance of God
3) Rejection od secularism does not validate EITHER the existance of god, or the invalidity of evolution.

Right, we can agree on these points. Like Gallileo believed: there is God's world, and science is the study of it.[/quote]

What, you post two guys, do not site any of their works, and do not quote anything by them and it is somehow up to us to read everything by them and refute them to prove OUR point against your rebuttal?

Not quite.

They were there simply for reference. I didn't expect you to read all of their works, they are simply interesting socialogists. And their studies are highly respected on the topic of secularism, which is something that I research heavily. I guess if this was a messageboard on secularism I could simply say their names and everyone would know whom I was talking about, and what their research entailed.

Fine, believe what you want. But I do not want my tax dollars, in any form, supplimenting your religious views.

I also do not want religion to EVER be placed back in the same realm as science.

But you see, my Mother could use the same argument: that she does not want her tax dollars to support a theory like Evolution in public schools.

And what you want, and what the American people want are two different things. I think it should ultimately be up to tax payers as to what happens with their money, and the majority of the country does think it would be fair to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools.

Which means, you don't understand the points of the arguement, so you are agreeing with the guys that you were told to agree with because it makes you feel better about your faith.

It is very common.

It takes a very strong faith to be able to question it and still hold it. Many do not have that. Most will simply reject anything that questions it and leave it at that.

You take a lot of liberties with my posts. You assume that I agree with others simply because it makes me feel better about my faith? Perhaps I can assume about you that your devoutly religious Mother abused you or mistreated you and you now have a presuppositional hatred against religion and/or Christianity. But I won't do that, because it's not fair. I understand the arguments, and like I said, Evolution or not, I believe in God, and their are many Christians who believe in Evolution and God as well.

And trust me, I live in New York City, I question my faith, and have often doubted, but yet I still adhere to it.

That is what I can agree with. The one thing that must be communicated is that science does not FORBID or DISPROVE religion. It only says that they are not the same.

the people who say they are the same, and only one is right, are usually the ones that stand to gain the most from the people that follow them, or are those that are doing the following.

Absolutely. And I am not saying that simply one is right. Science does not forbid or disprove Religion. Correct.

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 05:52 PM

You are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design, the actual subject of this thread.

Ah, perhaps we should change the title then? At this point it stands "Creationism vs. Evolution."

Also, the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, which I think is interesting. (Interesting in that so many people assume that it does.) But that doesn't strictly mean the constitution does not promote seperation of church and state.

I can see how it would conflict with the seperation of Church and State though. Many make the argument however, that America is in fact a "Christian State," which I do not believe, but it's important to look at all arguments.

I really do wonder what the harm is in giving a brief discussion on Intelligent Design in addition to Evolution in a class, since most Americans believe in God anyway?

This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith. But like Ninjahedge stated: Science/Evolution does not negate faith. I strongly believe both can co-exist.

Fabrizio

November 15th, 2005, 06:09 PM

"This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith."

I´ll take the scientist!

Comes in handy. Thanks to him I can ride in a car, a train, a plane, ....light, heat and cool my home, communicate long distances, live longer than the previous generation.... and on and on and on and on......

Who would YOU choose to be lost on a desert island with?

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 06:19 PM

The term separation of church and state originated from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in which he stated "a wall of separation between church and state."

The Constitutional reference is the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The misinterpretation of the meaning of separation of church and state has led to the current hostility of many religious groups toward enforcement of the First Amendment. The establishment clause was not enacted to remove religion from American life, but to protect all religions from an attempt to form a Church of State.

Ninjahedge

November 15th, 2005, 06:26 PM

David, you are going off again.

I am not going to quote you on everything, but you continue to state you are right just because you believe it so.

You will not be convinced otherwise.

Net is going down in 5, so I will leave it at that....

redhot00

November 15th, 2005, 06:33 PM

"This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith."

I´ll take the scientist!

Who would YOU choose to be lost on a desert island with?

Ah, but when you come to the realization that you are never getting off the desert island, what good will the scientist be to you than? I bet at that point your faith in God would increase immensely.

It's funny how when people near death they become more devout. Why do you think senior citizens fill churches every Sunday?

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2005, 06:47 PM

Well, if I wasn't getting off the island, I wouldn't need either one of them.

At that point, I would only hope that he was a woman.

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 07:23 PM

davidcaspian

November 15th, 2005, 07:24 PM

David, you are going off again.

I am not going to quote you on everything, but you continue to state you are right just becaiuse you believe it so.

You will not be convinced otherwise.

Net is going down in 5, so I will leave it at that....

Fair enough.

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 10:49 PM

And then there are those little problems that arise when you mix things up ...

Report Details F.D.A. Rejection of Next-Day Pill

New York Times
By GARDINER HARRIS (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=GARDINER HARRIS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=GARDINER HARRIS&inline=nyt-per)
November 15, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15pill.html?pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - Top federal drug officials decided to reject an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill months before a government scientific review of the application was completed, according to accounts given to Congressional investigators.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded in a report released Monday that the Food and Drug Administration's May 2004 rejection of the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, application was unusual in several respects.

Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was "very, very rare," a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's "novel" rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded.

The pill, called Plan B, is a flashpoint in the debate over abortion, in part because some abortion opponents consider the pill tantamount to ending a pregnancy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/pregnancy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). In scientific reviews, the F.D.A. has concluded that it is a contraceptive.

The report suggested that it quickly became apparent that the agency was not going to follow its usual path when it came to the pill. "For example," it said, "F.D.A. review staff told us that they were told early in the review process that the decision would be made by high-level management."

Top agency officials denied many of the report's findings, including its conclusion that the top officials' involvement was unusual and that they had decided to reject the application before the agency's own scientific review was concluded. Julie Zawisza, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said the agency stood by its rejection of the morning-after pill application.

"We question the integrity of the investigative process that results in such partial conclusions by the G.A.O.," Ms. Zawisza said.

Earlier this month, after Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, denounced the agency's decisions on the pill, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt also said the agency had acted appropriately.

But on Monday, Dr. Susan F. Wood, former director of the agency's office of women's health, said that what she described as the F.D.A.'s willingness to ignore science in the service of abortion politics has "only gotten worse" since the events that were the focus of the G.A.O. investigation. Dr. Wood resigned in August after the agency decided to delay its decision on the morning-after pill once again.

Senator Murray and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of New York, issued a statement saying that the report "has confirmed what we have always suspected, that this was a politically motivated decision that came down from the highest levels at the F.D.A."

The investigation was requested by 30 House members and 17 senators. On Monday, 18 Democratic House members signed a letter of protest to Mr. Leavitt.

The letter noted that Congressional investigators had been unable to uncover the role in the Plan B decision played by the former agency commissioner, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, because agency officials told investigators that all of his e-mail messages and written correspondence on the subject had been deleted or thrown out. The Democrats charged that these acts contravened federal records laws.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest provider of abortion services, issued a statement saying, "The G.A.O. report confirms the F.D.A. has been playing politics with women's health all along."

Wendy Wright, executive vice president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative women's advocacy group in Washington, said that the report's finding that top agency officials had overruled staffers was comforting. "The F.D.A. has been making some pretty serious mistakes lately," Ms. Wright said.

Plan B is manufactured by Barr Laboratories and is now available only with a prescription. Manufacturers rarely criticize the F.D.A., fearing that doing so might anger agency officials. Carol Cox, a Barr spokeswoman, chose her words carefully.

"While we're disappointed that the F.D.A. has not approved Plan B for over-the-counter use, we continue to seek that approval," Ms. Cox said.

Plan B was originally manufactured by Women's Capital Corporation, which won approval from the F.D.A. in 1999 to sell the drug by prescription. The pill contains high doses of the medicines present in birth control pills.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B generally prevents pregnancy. But it is most effective taken soon after sex, prompting the efforts to make it available quickly and without a prescription.

In April 2003, Women's Capital applied to make Plan B available over the counter. Barr bought the rights to the drug and continued to pursue the application. An advisory committed voted 23 to 4 in December 2003 to recommend approving the switch.

Within days of the committee's vote, however, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the F.D.A.'s acting deputy commissioner of operations, and Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of its drug center, told four top staff members that the application would be rejected, even though the agency's scientific review of the application had yet to be completed, the staff members told Congressional investigators. That review was completed in April.

Drs. Woodcock and Galson denied to investigators that they had made such statements.

Dr. Galson told them that "although he was '90 percent sure' as early as January 2004" that he would reject the application, he made his final decision only after reviewing the scientific evidence.

From 1994 to 2004, F.D.A. advisory committees reviewed 23 applications to switch drugs from prescription to over-the-counter status. Plan B was the only one of those 23 in which the agency went against the committee's advice.

Dr. Galson said in a May 2004 news conference that while he had consulted other top officials at the agency, the decision to reject the Plan B application was his alone. He decided to issue a "non-approvable" letter to Barr, he said, because only 29 of 585 participants in a Barr study of the drug had been ages 14 to 16. None was under 14.

Dr. Galson said younger teenagers might act differently than older ones and might engage in riskier sex if they knew an emergency contraceptive was easily available. The company needed more data to ensure that this was not true, he said.

But the G.A.O. called this rationale "novel" and said it was not in keeping with earlier agency decisions in which the behavior of older adolescents was routinely used to predict that of younger ones. The report also noted that the December 2003 advisory committee had voted 27 to 1 that Barr's study had demonstrated that consumers, adolescents included, could use the drug appropriately.

In his rejection letter to Barr, Dr. Galson suggested two ways it could receive approval. First, it could perform another study that included more young adolescents. Or it could seek to sell the drug "behind-the-counter," making it easily available only to women 16 and older, with younger women still needing a prescription.

Barr took the second approach in an application filed in July 2004. Although the agency's rules required it to issue a decision in January, it has delayed doing so indefinitely.

It is unusual for the agency to suggest a means of approval to an applicant only to decide later that its own suggestion might not be appropriate.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

Ninjahedge

November 16th, 2005, 10:06 AM

Ah, but when you come to the realization that you are never getting off the desert island, what good will the scientist be to you than? I bet at that point your faith in God would increase immensely.

Um, no.

I would like to stick it out with the guy that would probably try to find a way to solve the problems you are facing rather than pray to god to do it for him.

Not saying that either is the case, but I would rather have a construction foreman on my side than a politician. One talks about how everything can be done very well, the other knows how to do it.

It's funny how when people near death they become more devout. Why do you think senior citizens fill churches every Sunday?

Because they want someone to fight off Death. They are willing to believe in anything if that entity will either stave it off, or promise them a happy afterlife.

Why do you think the 72 virgin thing is so popular?

TLOZ Link5

November 16th, 2005, 12:07 PM

"When you get to be my age, you see Death everywhere.

AAAGGH! DEATH!"

Ninjahedge

November 18th, 2005, 03:03 PM

Even the Vatican says "What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

lofter1

November 18th, 2005, 05:25 PM

Exhibit on Darwin creates
Bush bash at museum gala

Friday, November 18th, 2005

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/366907p-312314c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/366907p-312314c.html)

It was supposed to be a fund-raiser for the American Museum of Natural History. But a new exhibit on Charles Darwin caused the Wednesday evening gala to evolve into something of a rally against President Bush's preferred theory of intelligent design.

"This is a time when those of us who care about science and Darwin have to take a stand," museum patron Tom Brokaw told the black-tied and bejeweled species, including Caroline Kennedy, Princess Firyal of Jordan, Viacom big shot Tom Freston, Michael Eisner, Eva Longoria, Jimmy Buffett, Jonathan Demme, Nora Ephron, Brian Williams, Lorne Michaels and most of the "Saturday Night Live" cast.

Clearly aware that Bush favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes, the museum's patrons erupted in applause.

Brokaw reminded us later that the exhibit, which opens tomorrow, is "about Darwin's life and how he came to these conclusions. We aren't looking to pick a fight."

But, he added, the exhibit "doesn't attempt to argue the theory of evolution — because there is no argument."

"Daily Show" anchor Jon Stewart marveled at the museum's collection of specimens demonstrating Darwin's discoveries.

"It just makes you wonder," deadpanned Stewart. "Why is Jesus trying to trick us?

"I do wish George Bush would start paying attention to issues that are important for the country," Stewart went on. "Gay marriage, for instance. I don't understand why the religious right fears homosexuality. They say it's an abomination. The Bible says that shellfish are also an abomination. … They who oppose sodomy must also oppose scallops."

Stewart introduced Neil Young. Along with singing his hits, the venerable rocker sat down at an antique organ and performed "When God Made Me," his challenge to fundamentalism.

Young agreed that the Darwin show "couldn't come at a better time, with what's going on with the neocons." He allowed that Bush might truly believe in Genesis and not be pandering to the evangelicals. "I've never met him," he told us. "I've seen some of the things he does, but I'm not sure."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/314-young_gala.JPG
Evolution rock Neil Young —
no dinosaur, he — wowed a
Museum of Natural History crowd

Fabrizio

November 18th, 2005, 05:42 PM

"Even the Vatican says...."

Ninja: you have to understand, America´s Christian right does not consider Catholics to be Christian.

TLOZ Link5

November 18th, 2005, 06:12 PM

At the very least, you can't not attribute intelligent design to reinvigorating scientific debate, however pointless it might be to question something that is universally accepted in scientific circles.

Crouching fundies, hidden agendas. Anyone want to start a pool to bet when the Kansas Board of Ed will start teaching that the world is flat?

lofter1

November 18th, 2005, 08:55 PM

Even the Vatican says "What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution
Of course, he's a Jesuit ...

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

ryan

November 21st, 2005, 12:26 PM

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
Jesus, Meet Evolution

By Bryan Collinsworth, Campus Progress
Posted on November 21, 2005, Printed on November 21, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/28483/

[Editor's Note: This interview was originally published on Campus Progress (http://campusprogress.org/features/652/jesus-meet-evolution).]
It used to be that if you wanted to provoke the wrath of God, you had to do something really horrific, like enslave an entire race of people to build your pyramids.
These days, though, you just have to vote for the wrong school board candidate. At least that's televangelist Pat Robertson (http://campusprogress.org/tools/543/know-your-right-wing-speakers-pat-robertson)'s take on the ousting of eight Dover, Pennsylvania school board members who had mandated the teaching of intelligent design in local science classrooms.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson warned on the November 9 broadcast of his televised insanity (also known as The 700 Club). "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city."
Of course, even many conservative Christians dismiss Robertson as a shamelessly immoral fraud (http://www.msmagazine.com/sept03/sizemore.asp) (though the White House apparently does not (http://www.nydailynews.com/09-06-2005/news/wn_report/story/343712p-293471c.html)). His tirade, however, was only the latest in a series of attacks on the religiosity of those Doverites who dared oppose teaching intelligent design as science. During the campaign even neighbors (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20051114&s=zengerle111405) accused the challengers for school board of being un-Christian, anti-God, and in bed with the dreaded ACLU, terrorists, and pedophiles (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91835/).
There's only one problem: Most of the newly elected board members are people of sincere and devout faith. Of the four Republicans and four Democrats (although they all ran on the Democratic ticket), at least two hold leadership positions in local churches, and even the group's stance on intelligent design (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_KSvDN-pJNsJ:www.dovercares.org/+dover+cares&hl=en) can't be construed as anti-religious: They simply assert that since the concept is more about faith than science, it is more properly broached in religion and humanities courses.
For the countless Americans who comfortably balance belief and science every day, the discovery of Christian evolutionists in Dover won't raise any eyebrows. But it will strike many others as a rare contradiction. This is understandable: Conservative Christian leaders have been working for twenty years to reshape the American lexicon and popular consciousness until the word "Christian" refers not to a broad range of self-professed--and often progressive--followers of Jesus Christ, but solely to right-wing fundamentalists like themselves.
These efforts, however, cannot mask the reality that it is perfectly possible to be a good Christian and embrace evolution at the same time.
How? The simplest explanation is that science answers "how" questions while faith answers "why" questions, and never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately, it's not always that easy: Faith often embraces and builds upon certain assumptions about how the universe works, and science often digs beneath those assumptions, seeking to unlock the secrets of what many consider the divine.
Evolution is a case in point: For certain Christian traditions, science's contention that all life on Earth developed through millions of years of mutations clearly invalidates their assertions that everything originated exactly the way it's described in Genesis.
This might not be so bad, except that that "how" creation story is intimately tied to the "why" of these believers' faith. For very conservative and fundamentalist Christian traditions, a literal reading of Genesis sets up many of the religious concepts and morals they hold dear: that men and women were created for biological partnership with distinct gender roles, say, or that our ancestors' eating of forbidden fruit makes all humans sinners, with salvation available only through Jesus Christ.
Moreover, this approach to the creation story is the first expression of a central tenet of fundamentalist faith: that the Bible is the literal and infallible word of God, and that as such it offers clear, unquestionable lessons for how we should live our lives. After interpreting Genesis in this way, conservative Christians proceed all the way through Exodus and Leviticus to the Book of Revelation, constructing their entire edifice of theology and morality from a narrow reading of carefully selected passages.
An admission that things in the beginning were not so cut-and-dry, then, wouldn't just undermine the creation story and its religious lessons; it could cast doubt on the entire concept of scriptural authority and the uncompromising moral code that religious conservatives derive from it. If we question the Bible's account of creation, could questioning its stance on homosexuality or original sin be far behind?
While intelligent design abandons this literal approach to Genesis, it too is an effort to defend a narrow understanding of Christian theology--namely, that God acts primarily through overt interventions in the physical world, and that a theory of evolution which makes such intervention unnecessary could be taken as evidence that God is not present in any aspect of existence. This is why ID advocates are struggling to force Godly interventions back into biology by any means necessary.
What motivates all of this pushback against evolution, then, are fears that science threatens not only the "how" but the "why" of Christian faith. The real danger, though, is only to exceedingly narrow and literalistic interpretations of that faith. The best way for Christians to resolve this conflict is not to attack science, but to embrace a broader and deeper approach which can not only accommodate evolution but fulfill the full potential of Christianity itself.
Conservative preachers sneer at this approach as a cop-out or a concession to "secular humanists," but they push the limits of their own rigid standards all the time--starting with Genesis. After all, the well-known "Biblical" story of creation is actually a combination of two different accounts. In the first (Genesis 1 - 2:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%20%20%201:1-2:4)), God makes the world in seven days, with plants first, then animals, and humans last of all. In the second (Genesis 2:4 - 3:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%20%20%202:4-3:24;&version=31;)), God makes everything in one day, starting with a human, then plants and animals, and finally splitting the human into man and woman.
This contrast illustrates the limits of narrow literalism from the first verse of the Bible, but it also points to the real power of the text. Millions of believers have dwelled on these stories with all their contradictions not because they were desperate for a simple account of human origins, but because they found in them immense insight into the mysteries of the universe and our existence within it. While a literal reading of the seven-day account leads only to petty disputes and outrageous questions, a meditation on its spiritual significance inspires awe at the vast complexity of our cosmos, our earth, and ourselves.
This is where the Bible begins to take on its real power and authority: not as a precise account of physical truth, but as a deeply resonant revelation of moral and spiritual truth.
If we insist on approaching the tale of Adam and Eve as literal truth, we come out of the story with little more than frustration that our ancestors could be so stupid as to condemn all humanity by trusting a talking snake. But if we let go of this literalist fixation and dig to the moral and spiritual heart of the story, we confront a fundamental tenet of Christianity: that the Garden of Eden drama is played out every day, by our neighbors and ourselves; that we are not just condemned by the temptation and sin of our predecessors but by humanity's perpetual weakness in choosing evil over good; that we have all made choices to eat forbidden fruit for which we desperately want and need redemption.
Opponents of evolution fear that modern science advances a "materialist" worldview in which every aspect of existence is approached only on a crude, physical plane. But the literalist approach to scripture is precisely this--only when Christians move beyond it do we encounter the most meaningful realms of spiritual understanding and revelation. Thus, while intelligent design advocates desperately try to make science validate a clumsy interventionist God, C.S. Lewis envisions in The Screwtape Letters (http://members.fortunecity.com/phantom1/books2/c%2e_s%2e_lewis_-_the_screwtape_letters.htm) a Deity for whom the linear progress of evolution means nothing, because It operates beyond the bounds of space and time, intimately involved in "the whole, self-consistent creative act."
The greatest Christian believers throughout history have understood and embraced these depths of the faith, and continue to do so today. In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared of science and belief that "truth cannot contradict truth (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)," acknowledging that while evolutionary theory may challenge literal creationism, it can never challenge the basic spiritual message of Christianity: that humans face suffering and need redemption; that the vision, light, and life of Christ offer, for many, the means of that salvation. Many U.S. denominations, including the Episcopal Church (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm), United Methodist Church (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1820), and Presbyterian Church (http://www.pcusa.org/ga213/business/OVT0155.htm), USA have taken similar stances.
The Bible is not a scientific text. But neither modern science nor modern fundamentalism can challenge it as an incredibly powerful historical, psychological, moral and spiritual document. As the great sage of another religion, Master Yoda, once said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." We should approach Christian scriptures and faith in the same way.
Brian Collinsworth is a student at Sarah Lawrence College and an intern for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
CampusProgress.org (http://campusprogress.org/) is a progressive, youth-oriented online magazine run by the Center for American Progress.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/28483/

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 12:54 AM

Good Riddance ...

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
December 4, 2005
Ideas & Trends

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=feb51306425b8c81&ex=1291352400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.

"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.

At Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical university in Illinois, intelligent design surfaces in the curriculum only as part of an interdisciplinary elective on the origins of life, in which students study evolution and competing theories from theological, scientific and historical perspectives, according to a college spokesperson.

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution
.
Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."

John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific "fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.

"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West said.
"The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."

In the Dover trial, where intelligent design finally got its day in court, the movement faces perhaps the greatest potential for a serious setback.

The case is the first to test whether intelligent design can be taught in a public school, or whether teaching it is unconstitutional because it advances a particular religious belief. The Dover board voted last year to read students a short statement at the start of ninth-grade biology class saying that evolution is a flawed theory and intelligent design is an alternative they should study further.

If the judge in the Dover case rules against intelligent design, the decision would be likely to dissuade other school boards from incorporating it into their curriculums. School boards might already be wary because of a simple political fact: eight of the school-board members in Dover who supported intelligent design were voted out of office in elections last month and replaced by a slate of opponents.

Advocates of intelligent design perceived the risk as so great that the Discovery Institute said it had tried to dissuade the school board in Dover from going ahead and taking a stand in favor of intelligent design. The institute opposed the Dover board's action, it said, because it "politicized" what should be a scientific issue.

Now, with a decision due in four or five weeks, design proponents like Mr. West of Discovery said the Dover trial was a "sideshow" - one that will have little bearing on the controversy.

"The future of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned, has very little to do with the outcome of the Dover case," Mr. West said. "The future of intelligent design is tied up with academic endeavors. It rises or falls on the science."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Darwin on Trial

The New Yorker
Issue of 2005-12-05

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051205on_onlineonly01

This week in the magazine, Margaret Talbot reports from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In January, the presiding judge, John E. Jones III, will render his verdict and decide whether Dover biology students will be read a four-paragraph statement casting doubt on the validity of Darwinian theory and endorsing intelligent design as an alternative. Here, with Daniel Cappello, Talbot talks about the case, the state of science, and what Americans believe about evolution.

DANIEL CAPPELLO: What first attracted you to the Kitzmiller case?

MARGARET TALBOT: For one thing, it was the first time that the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools was going to be tested, so I knew it was going to be an influential decision for the teaching of science in this country and for the ongoing negotiation between the courts and American fundamentalists. For another, I had a sense that there was a drama—a neighbor-versus-neighbor, even family-member-versus-family-member, debate about science and religion—taking place within this small Pennsylvania town. I hoped that the trail would open a window onto that, and it did. At one point, one of the plaintiffs testified that her teen-age daughter had come home from school one day, announced, “Evolution is a lie,” and demanded, “What kind of Christian are you?”

What, briefly, is the history of the teaching of evolution? Most Americans know about the Scopes trial, in 1925. What are the other milestones?

Scopes was a young schoolteacher who volunteered to participate in an A.C.L.U. challenge to a law in Tennessee; the law forbade teaching that “man has descended from a lower order of animal.” Scopes lost the case, and never appealed it beyond the Tennessee Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the law but overturned Scopes’s conviction on a technicality. But since then the courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution or mandating the teaching of creationism side by side with evolution are unconstitutional—that they violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, because they breach the separation of church and state. The key Supreme Court decision in this area was Edwards v. Aguillard, in 1987, in which the Court overturned a Louisiana statute that mandated the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. Scalia wrote a sharp dissent, which is an indicator of how he might vote if an intelligent-design case ever made it to the Court.

And recently—as in a Cobb County, Georgia, case involving what you might call “warning labels” on high-school biology textbooks, which say that evolution is a theory, not a fact—courts have gone further, seeing such invitations to look askance at evolutionary theory as violations of the establishment clause. In that case, the U.S. District Court judge said that the stickers were tacit endorsements of a fundamentalist-Christian viewpoint, even though they did not mention anything explicitly religious.

What is at the crux of Kitzmiller—the validity of evolution or the legality of teaching intelligent design in schools? Or are those two issues impossible to separate?

I think the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools is what is at stake—is it constitutional or not. But, of course, in order to show that intelligent design is not good science, and therefore that it’s unsound pedagogy to be touting it as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, it helps to remind people how broadly supported the theory of evolution is by recent developments across the sciences—in genetics, for example, as well as in paleontology. That was part of the case the plaintiffs’ lawyers made—quite convincingly, I think.

How does the town of Dover compare to the rest of America, politically, religiously, and demographically?

It sounds pat to say it’s a microcosm, but I think there’s something to that. There’s a joke about Pennsylvania, that it’s Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with southern Alabama in between. Dover itself has fundamentalist-Christian elements, quite clearly, but it also has people who worry about the influence of fundamentalism, people—some of them quite religious themselves, some Republican, some Democrat, some college-educated, some not—who really believe in the separation of church and state, and really believe in promoting what they see as sound science education, which for them includes a thorough, not a reluctant or halfhearted, grounding in the theory of evolution.

In polls, Americans are divided on evolution. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, for instance, forty-two per cent of Americans said they believed that “humans and other living things” have “existed in present form only”—have not, in other words, evolved. This is an astonishingly high percentage, and one that obviously reflects American religiosity (and maybe the inadequacy of our science education). Forty-eight per cent said that humans and other living things had evolved over time (though only twenty-six per cent of those said that evolution was through natural selection; eighteen per cent said it was through guidance by a supreme being, and fourteen per cent didn’t know). Dover was divided, too. Its citizens elected a school board that wanted to add intelligent design to the curriculum—and several of whose members were pretty open about their religious motives for doing so—and then they resoundingly voted the board out, on November 8th of this year, fed up, evidently, with how far the board had pushed this agenda, and how much they may have to pay in legal fees if the board loses. Some version of this drama could have taken place almost anywhere in America. I think part of what happens is that while many Americans will acknowledge, in a poll, say, that they personally have a spiritual view of how life on earth developed, some of them may have quite a different feeling when a religious interpretation is grafted forcibly onto a science curriculum.

Has any one of these factors in particular—politics, religion, age—been an indicator for which side of the case Dover residents come down on?

Interestingly, the division didn’t conform neatly to any of these lines. One consistent division I noticed, and that I wrote about, was between people who read and trusted the very good local newspapers (nearby York has two, which is pretty unusual for a small American city these days) and those who just didn’t trust them. The plaintiffs were the newspaper readers; the pro-intelligent-design school-board people were the newspaper rejecters.

Where does this notion of intelligent design come from? Is it merely creationism by another name, or not?

Some notion of intelligent design—that there are things in nature that are so intricately put together that they seem to bear hallmarks of design by a master intelligence—has been around for a long time. The most recognizable antecedent, perhaps, is the argument for the existence of God made by the Reverend William Paley in the early nineteenth century, in England; for him, the marvels of the human eye were proof of design by a supreme being.

But, in its modern form, it emerged in the nineteen-eighties and nineties as a legally palatable substitute for teaching creationism, which really had its last day in court with Edwards v. Aguillard, in 1987. The courts have made it clear that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools, but until now they have not addressed the possibility that something like intelligent design could be. There is a document called “The Wedge Strategy,” which has been circulated on the Internet, which was apparently produced by someone at the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent-design think tank based in Seattle. “The Wedge Strategy” came up at the trial, and has been extensively written about by Barbara Forrest, a historian of the intelligent-design movement. In that document, the movement’s goal is said to be to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Some of the board members who voted in favor of mandating the teaching of intelligent design in Dover admitted to having no definition of what, exactly, it is. Did you get a sense of why they voted the way they did? Did they view intelligent design merely as a lesson in critical thinking or did they believe in it as a theory?

I would say there was a certain amount of, to put it delicately, disingenuousness in how they presented these arguments in court. Several of the board members said they thought they were promoting good pedagogy, critical thinking, the chance to learn about another theory, and so on. But at the board meetings, one of the members had said, for example, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for Him?” and “This country wasn’t founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution.
This country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such.” There was evidence presented that they had started off wanting to teach creationism, before they latched on to intelligent design. And, as you say, they didn’t seem to have a particularly sophisticated understanding—or, in some cases, an understanding at all—of intelligent design.

You write that, in the years following the Scopes trial, the battle between evolution and creationism was fought not in courts but in the pages of textbooks, and that the books that minimized Darwin sold better. How is that being played out today?

Yes, one reason there were few court challenges for several decades after Scopes was that textbook publishers got very timid and omitted evolution from biology books. One contemporary estimate was that by 1930, seventy per cent of American high schools were not teaching evolution. And that continued pretty much until the early sixties, when public support for science in America was triggered by Sputnik and competitive anxiety about the Soviets. At that point, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded an effort to get biologists to write biology textbooks and to put evolution back in. (This is a history that is discussed in a great book titled “Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Science and Evolution,” by Edward Larson, who also wrote a fascinating history of the Scopes trial itself, “Summer for the Gods.”) That, in turn, triggered the first legal challenges to evolution since the twenties.

Now, though textbooks certainly include evolution, a lot of public-school teachers feel that students and parents push them to include alternatives to evolution or even to omit it. In a survey taken last spring by the National Science Teachers Association, for instance, thirty per cent of the teachers responding—mostly high-school teachers—said they felt pressured to de-emphasize or drop evolution and related topics from their science courses—a disturbing phenomenon, I think, when you consider how central evolution is to understanding everything from the fossil record to the classification of species, from antibiotic resistance to the commonalities between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

Intelligent-design proponents also tout another approach to the issue, which is the “teach the controversy” movement. Can you talk about that a bit?

The Discovery Institute has been a big proponent of that language, which is subtler and perhaps constitutionally safer. The idea is not to say anything as blunt as, “Intelligent design is a good alternative,” but, rather, to emphasize criticisms of evolutionary theory. It’s funny, because a lot of people associate “teaching the controversy” with the left-wing academy, but now it’s rhetoric associated mainly with trying to introduce doubts about evolution. It sounds kind of appealing—the free marketplace of ideas, let a thousand schools of thought bloom, that sort of thing. But most scientists don’t like it, because they say there is no real debate over the fundamental validity of evolutionary theory, though there are certainly unanswered questions and debate about the relative importance of various mechanisms of evolution. As Steven Gey, a law professor who has written about the intelligent-design movement, said to me, “It’s like saying we want to be able to teach that the earth is round, but also that it’s flat, that it revolves around the sun, but also that the sun revolves around the earth. Science doesn’t work that way. We know these things are wrong.”

Intelligent-design advocates often present themselves as revolutionary thinkers who are going up against the scientific establishment, and they like to point out that a lot of people thought the big bang was a crazy idea, too.
But as evolutionary scientists counter, Well, maybe you do have a revolutionary idea, but, if so, then do the experimental work to prove it, and publish that work in peer-reviewed journals, which the intelligent-design people have not done. Don’t try to get it taught in high schools—even as part of a “teach the conflicts” approach—before you’ve done the science.

“The interesting question is not whether revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science” is how Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown, put it at a forum recently. “The interesting question is, How do revolutionary ideas win out? And the big bang won out because of scientific research, because Arno Penzias [and Robert Wilson] found the background radiation to the big bang.
They completed the theory. They stitched it together. It is a predictive theory that said you ought to go out and find this in nature. Now, the curious thing is that the advocates of that theory did not try to get this injected into the curriculum. They did not produce pamphlets on how you could get the big bang taught in your school and avoid the constitutional questions. They did research. They won the scientific battle.”

The trial isn’t over, but the school-board elections seem to give some sense of the community’s feelings about the issue. Evangelicals like Pat Robertson, who denounced Dover as having turned its back on God, aren’t happy about this. Will the debate rage on forever?

Well, maybe not forever, but I don’t think court rulings will quash it, either. It goes back to a very deep division in American history—between the Puritans, whose main objective in shaping this country was the desire to implant and live out their faith, and the side represented by Thomas Jefferson, for instance, the sort of Deist, Enlightenment figures who developed the metaphor of the wall of separation between church and state.

At one point, a British documentarian following the trial asked if America has a love-hate relationship with God. How does the rest of the world see a case like this? Or, for that matter, how has America perceived this case?

Well, many Europeans probably see it as another example of bizarre American exceptionalism. There were reporters from around the world at the trial. I met one young journalist from Italy at the Dunkin’ Donuts in Harrisburg, and I couldn’t tell whether he thought Dunkin’ Donuts coffee or a trial about evolution was weirder. But I think there were some great, very American things about this trial, too—the really standup Doverites, grassroots rationalists, who took this case to court, though they stood nothing to gain financially and some were criticized as atheists when they weren’t; the sensible judge, a Bush appointee and former state liquor-control chairman, with a great sense of humor, an impressive command of the precedent, and a genuine, if slightly bemused, interest in all the science. And the trial was a great, even thrilling, science lesson—civic pedagogy at its best.

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 01:22 AM

The Seed of the Intelligent Design incursion ( http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html ) ...

More reading on The Wedge:

"The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html )

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science.

Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Phase I.

Scientific Research, Writing & PublicityPhase II.

Publicity & Opinion-makingPhase III.

Cultural Confrontation & RenewalTHE WEDGE PROJECTS

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

Individual Research Fellowship Program
Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

Book Publicity
Opinion-Maker Conferences
Apologetics Seminars
Teacher Training Program
Op-ed Fellow
PBS (or other TV) Co-production
Publicity Materials / PublicationsPhase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanitiesFIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication
Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
GOALS

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)
2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)
3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows
4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theoryACTVITIES

(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)
(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)
(3) Teacher training
(4) Academic Conferences
(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences
(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets
(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking
(8) Op-ed and popular writing
(9) Documentaries and other media productions
(10) Academic debates
(11) Fund Raising and Development
(12) General Administrative support

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY

Books

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

Academic Articles

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

Television and Radio Appearances

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 01:34 AM

And the Source:

The Discovery Institute ( http://www.discovery.org/ )

Some of what they have to offer ...

Join The Free Speech on Evolution Campaign

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

Scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution - Help us Help Them

Unlocking The Mysteries of Life: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=459 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=465)

The Privileged Planet: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=457 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=465)

Icons (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=466) of Evolution: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=458

Join (http://www.discovery.org/membershipReg/) Discovery Now! (Free DVD offer for new members!)

Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.

High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to a group of honors students.
A biology professor at George Mason University was recently banned from teaching her students about the theory of intelligent design.
Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, for example, has called for "the public firing and humiliation of some teachers" because they question Darwin.Free speech and academic freedom are cherished principles in America. They are too important to be sacrificed to the intolerant demands of extremists on any issue.

If you support the right of scientists and teachers to speak their mind about evolution, will you help us?

Click here to join Discovery Institute. (Free DVD offer for new members!) (http://www.discovery.org/membershipReg/)

Discovery Institute is the nation's leading public policy center that defends "teaching the controversy" about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. We have launched a national campaign to defend the rights of scientists, teachers, and students who are being threatened because they dare to raise critical questions about evolution.

What is the "Free Speech on Evolution" Campaign? (http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCamp2.php)

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 01:50 AM

The bloggers at Discovery Institute waste no time (see below) ...

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
December 4, 2005

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

*************************************

Posted by John West at 01:07 AM

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker?
Ignorance on Display in the New York Times

If you want another example of superficial analysis from the once-venerable New York Times, check out Laurie Goodstein's ill-informed effort to disparage intelligent design (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html) in today's edition. Among other things, Ms. Goodstein mangles the definition of intelligent design, misrepresents the content of the Kansas science standards, and displays her ignorance of evangelical Christian higher education and the academic supporters of ID.

Some background: Last Thursday Ms. Goodstein contacted Discovery Institute because she wanted to interview me for a story. Her deadline was later the same day, so she contacted Discovery right before she planned to file the story. When I called her, it was clear she already had written most of her story. All she was looking for was window-dressing.

*********************************

Posted by John West at 01:13 AM

Did New York Times report the whole story? You decide.

Here is the e-mail I sent to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein after she interviewed me last Thursday for her predictable hatchet-job on intelligent design (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html) in Sunday's Times. Decide for yourself whether her story accurately reflected all of the information she was given:
Laurie,

It was good to talk with you. In follow-up to our conversation, here is a link providing a list of the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications favoring intelligent design and/or fundamental critiques of the claims of neo-Darwinism: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC.

To reiterate: We think that the debate over intelligent design will eventually be decided among scientists and scholars, and that's why we put most of our resources into supporting the work of scholars on intelligent design and challenges to neo-Darwinism. That's why we oppose efforts by school districts to mandate ID; we think such efforts politicize what should be a scientific controversy.

Furthermore, we think that our scholars have made great progress in the face of a lot of spurious attacks, and the evidence of that is the publication within the last year of articles in mainstream science journals supportive of ID or challenging neo-Darwinism--including Steve Meyer's peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington; Michael Behe and David Snoke's peer-reviewed article in the journal Protein Science; and Jonathan Wells' technical article on centrioles in Rivisti di Biologia, one of the world's oldest still-published biological journals. In addition, we've seen during the past year the publication of a scientific paper by Scott Minnich and Steve Meyer in a book of conference proceedings published by a major academic science and technical publisher in Great Britain, as well as an academic anthology on Debating Design, From Darwin to DNA co-edited by William Dembski and published by Cambridge University Press.

As I mentioned on the phone, our biggest concern about the future of intelligent design is the effort to deny freedom of speech to scientific critics of Darwin's theory and supporters of ID. During the past year we have seen numerous college campuses try to adopt what are in effect evolution speech codes restricting what faculty can say about evolution. We've also seen effort to fire or otherwise intimidate scientific critics of Darwin--e.g., the failure to renew the contract of biologist Caroline Crocker at George Mason University after she favorably discussed ID in one of her classes; the current effort to deny a doctorate in science education to Brian Leonard at Ohio State University; and the effort to attack attack tenure-track astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State and microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho. If the Darwinists are so certain that the evidence is on their side, why are they increasingly resorting to intimidation and harassment to preserve their monopoly? If they really think ID is going nowhere, why are they spending so much time trying to refute it?

I've also attached a couple of documents about Kansas. One documents the fact that the definition of science in Kansas is consistent with the definition used in virtually every other state; the other provides the actual wording of the science standards relating to evolution--and clearly shows that the standards do not deal with intelligent design, only scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory.

Cordially,
John

*********************************

Posted by John West at 01:14 AM

New York Times Reporter Misrepresents Kansas Even After Being Given the Correct Info.

In her new article dumping on intelligent design (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html), New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein presents a fantasy version of the new Kansas science standards, claiming that "in Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design."

Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory.

They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin's theory such as intelligent design. Indeed, the Board included the following explicit statement in the standards:
"We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design...." [emphasis added] This isn't merely a case of sloppy reporting. When Ms. Goodstein interviewed me, I emphasized that the Kansas standards do not include intelligent design. I then sent her an e-mail making the same point. I even attached a copy of the relevant parts of the science standards so she could check for herself. Did she bother to read the document? If she did, what part of "Standards do not include Intelligent Design" didn't she understand?

lofter1

December 5th, 2005, 02:14 AM

One more (then I'm off to bed) ...

The Discovery Institute's Hidden Religious Agenda

by Lenny Flank
(c) copyright 2005
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html

In all of its court documents and arguments, the Discovery Institute goes to great lengths to claim that it is only interested in science, and has no ulterior religious motives, aims or purpose, and emphatically is NOT out to advance any religious opinions. A quick review of published statements made by DI members, however, shows this to be at best mere legal evasion and sophistry, and at worst a deliberate lie.

In 1999, an internal Discovery Institute document was leaked to the Internet by an internal source. The document outlined the Discovery Institute's longterm plan to, as it states, produce a "broadly theistic understanding of nature" (Discovery institute, The Wedge Document, 1999), and its tactic of using the evolution "controversy" as a "wedge" to do this. The authenticity of the "Wedge Document", as it quickly became known, was later admitted by the Discovery Institute.

The very first sentence of the Wedge Document makes plain the underlying religious aim of the Discovery Institute and its anti-evolution campaign: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was built." (Wedge Document) The Discovery Institute, like other fundamentalist Christians, refers to the rejection of this religious idea as "the philosophy of materialism" or "naturalism" or sometimes "darwinism" (all are phrases which have long been the fundie code words for "atheism"), and explicitly states that this materialistic atheism is the direct result of science: "This cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art." (Wedge Document) Thus, as the Discovery Institute's basic complaint can be summed up as "science is atheistic". Under the heading "Governing Goals", the Discovery Institute lists, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." (Wedge Document, 1999)

The goal of Discovery Institute's "intelligent design theory", then, is to replace "materialism" with . . . . well . . . they are very careful in court and in legislation to NOT name their replacement. However, since "materialism" and "naturalism" have long been the fundie code word for "atheism", and since nothing but a god or deity is capable of using any NON-"materialistic" or SUPER-"naturalistic" mechanism or process, it seems pretty certain that what Discovery Institute wants is to introduce theism into science and to force science to bow before its religious opinions. As the Wedge Document puts it, "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature."

The Discovery Institute, after a long silence, has attempted to deflect concerns about the Wedge Document in a web article ("The Wedge Document; So what?", Discovery Institute website, March 1, 2004). Their "response" is fraught with deception and evasion.

The Institute first tries to downplay the significance of the document, by dismissing it as a mere "early fundraising proposal". Even a cursory reading of the document, however, demonstrates this claim to be nonsense. Nowhere in the entire document is there any appeal for funds, nor any mention of fundraising. What IS mentioned, however, are things such as "The Wedge Strategy", "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary", "Governing Goals", "Five Year Goals", "Twenty Year Goals", and "The Wedge Strategy Progress Summary".

The document also lists a number of steps to be taken to advance the ID agenda --- every one of which Discovery Institute subsequently carried out (or attempted to). The DI's claim that the Wedge Document is just a "fundraising proposal" and not actually a planning document outlining the goals of the Institute and the steps it plans to take in order to reach those goals, is laughable and not worthy of any serious consideration.

Even the Discovery Institute's denial that the Wedge Document sets out a religious agenda confirms that it has a religious agenda. "We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture. (Discovery Institute, "The Wedge Document; So What?", 2004)

Not only is the DI's dismissal of the Wedge Document as a "fundraising proposal" dishonest and plainly untrue, it is also completely irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the Wedge Document is a strategy guide, a fundraising proposal, or a memo for the Institute's janitor. What DOES matter (and what the Discovery Institute's "response" fails utterly to acknowledge or defend) is that the Wedge Document clearly, unequivocably and unmistakably declares, in print, that the "governing goal" of the Institute is to advance their religious beliefs, that "intelligent design theory" is the primary method they have chosen through which to pursue that goal, and that they have an articulated pre--planned 20-year strategy to use ID "theory" as a method of advancing their religious goals. Despite all the DI's arm-waving, the Wedge Document demonstrates with crystal clarity that the sole and only aim of the Institute is to use "intelligent design theory" as a means of advancing religion -- exactly what the US Constitution says they CANNOT do. And when they claim that ID "theory" has no religious aims or purpose, the Wedge Document demonstrates that they are flat-out lying to us.

More recent published statements by DI associates confirm that replacing "scientific materialism" with "God" or a "theistic understanding of nature" is indeed the only aim and purpose of "intelligent design theory". DI associate George Gilder wrote an entire piece entitled "The Materialist Superstition" which decries "the Darwinian materialist paradigm", and advocates replacing it with "intelligent design", which, Gilder implies (but is very careful NOT to explicitly state), is NON-materialistic. ("The Materialistic Superstition", Discovery Institute Website, 2005). Other ID advocates, however, have at times been less circumspect. DI guru Phillip Johnson, who talks much more openly than the others about the explicit anti-atheistic goals of "intelligent design theory", specifically contrasts "scientific materialism" with "divine intervention"; "It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life -- the strict materialism of the orthodox theory -- that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." (Johnson, "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism", First Things, November 1997, PP 22-25) "Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. . . . The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe." (Johnson, "The Church of Darwin", Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999). "For now we need to stick to the main point: In the beginning was the Word, and the 'fear of God'- recognition of our dependence upon God-is still the beginning of wisdom. If materialist science can prove otherwise then so be it, but everything we are learning about the evidence suggests that we don't need to worry. (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship; A Call to Separate Materialist Philosophy from Empriical Science", address to the 1996 "Mere Creation Conference") Johnson explicitly calls for "a better scientific theory, one genuinely based on unbiased empirical evidence and not on materialist philosophy" (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship). Johnson doesn't tell us what this NON-materialistic philosophy might be that he wants to base science on, but it is crushingly clear from the rest of his statements that he, like every other IDer, wants to base science on his religious beliefs.

DI associate Michael Behe also makes the connection between fighting "scientific materialism" and "theistic understanding of nature" explicitly clear. "Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history, and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for intelligent design." (Behe, "The God of Science", Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, p. 35) "Naturalism is a philosophy which says that material things are all that there is. But philosophy is not science, and therefore excluding ideas which point to a creator, which point to God, is not allowed simply because in public schools in the United States one is not allowed to discriminate either for or against ideas which have religious implications." (Behe, Speech at Calvary Chapel, March 6, 2002)

Another DI associate, William Dembski, makes the connection between ID and Christian apologetics even more explicit: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ.

Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005). Indeed, Dembski titled one of his books "Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology" (Dembski, 1999). In that book, Dembski makes the religious basis of ID "theory" explicit: "The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." (Dembski, 1999, p. 210).

Other statements by Dembski make it clear that his designer cannot be anything other than God: "The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." (Dembski, "The Act of Creation", ARN website, Aug 1998) "From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda.

What's more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false. What's more, we regard the ideological agenda that has flowed from it to be destructive to rational discourse. Our concerns are therefore entirely parallel to the evolutionists'. Indeed, all the evolutionists' worst fears about what the world would be like if we succeed have, in our view, already been realized through the success of materialism and evolution. Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term "Wedge" has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial." (Dembski, "Dealing with the backlash against intelligent design", 2004) " "But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." (Dembski, address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004) "Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Dembski, Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design, 2005)

In these public statements by DI associates and its own internal documents, we see the legal and political strategy of "intelligent design theory" in a nutshell --- ID wants to eliminate "materialism" and "atheism" in favor of "theistic understanding", but since it's illegal in the US to advance religion in public schools, ID advocates have no choice but to downplay and evade mentioning their clearly stated goal of doing exactly what the law says they cannot do --- using the public schools to advance their religious beliefs. As the Wedge Document puts it, "We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID).

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wedge Document, 1999)

Some idea of the Discovery Institute's real aims can be revealed by looking at its funding sources. Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money comes in the form of grants from wealthy "conservative" fundamentalist Christians. In 2003, the Discovery Institute received some $4.1 million in donations and grants. Twenty-two different foundations give money to the DI; two-thirds of these are religious institutions with explicitly Christian aims and goals. In its first year of operations, DI got around $450,000 from the Maclellan Foundation, a fundie lobbying group in Tennessee. The executive director of the Maclellan Foundation was explicit about the purpose of its donation; "We give for religious purposes. This is not about science, and Darwin wasn't about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of the world." (NY Times, Aug 21, 2005) DI has also received donations from the Henry P. and Susan C. Crowell Trust of Colorado Springs. The trust's website states, "OUR MISSION: The teaching and active extension of the doctrines of Evangelical Christianity through approved grants to qualified organizations." Another DI donor is the AMDG Foundation in Virginia, run by Mark Ryland, a former Microsoft exec and Discovery vice president. According to the New York Times, "the initials stand for Ad Majorem Dei Glorium, Latin for 'To the greater glory of God,' which Pope John Paul II etched in the corner of all his papers." (NY Times, Aug 21, 2005) The Stewardship Foundation gave the group more than $1 million between 1999 and 2003. According to their website, "The Stewardship Foundation provides resources to Christ-centered organizations whose mission is to share their faith in Jesus Christ with people throughout the world."

The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution fight, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other politically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Ahmonson has, by himself, provided about one-third of the toal donations to the Discovery Institute during its existence, and funds about one-fourth of the Institute's annual operating expenses. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist -- a fringe group of fundies who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be "reconstructed" under "Biblical law".

It is important to understand that intelligent design "theory" is, if you will pardon the pun, intelligently designed specifically and solely to attempt to evade and get around all of the Federal court cases which make it illegal to use the schools to advance religion. Why does the Discovery Institute backpedal and avoid talking about the "governing goals" listed in the Wedge Document? Because they know that their stated goal --- using "intelligent design theory" to advance religion -- is illegal, so they MUST pretend they don't have any religious aims or goals. Why does the Institute fall all over itself to disassociate itself from creation 'science'? Because creation 'science' has already been ruled illegal in the 1987 Supreme Court case. Why does the Institute bend over backwards to avoid answering questions about what their designer is, what it does, how old their "theory" concludes the universe to be, or whether humans are evolved from apes? Because each of those points were included as defining characteristics of creationism in the Arkansas and Louisiana cases, and DI has no choice but to avoid mentioning them (it's also a political ploy on behalf of DI's attempt to hold together young-earthers and old-earthers in its creationist "big tent"). Why does Discovery Institute currently declare that it does NOT favor teaching intelligent design "theory" as an "alternative scientific theory"? Because when it DID try to have ID taught as an "alternative theory" in Ohio, they lost crushingly and embarrassingly. Why has the Institute been advising the Dover School Board to end the lawsuit over intelligent design "theory"? Because DI knows as well as anyone else that they HAVE no "scientific theory", and that a court case that established this would be the end of the entire ID movement.

However, as I have long noted, fundamentalists are their own worst enemies, and their own incessant compulsion to attack "materialism", "atheism", "darwinism" and "naturalism", gives the lie to their claims to be non-religious.

Intelligent designer "theory" is, as the Discovery Institute admitted from the beginnning in its own internal documents, a legal and political strategy to "wedge" their religious opinions into public schools. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It has the sole and only aim of advancing religion by attacking science's presumed "atheism" and "materialism". ID "theory" is nothing but an illegal advancement of religious beliefs, and IDers are flat-out lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Return to Creation Science Debunked Home Page (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/index.htm)

Ninjahedge

December 5th, 2005, 12:57 PM

What a crock.

At least they skipped right to phase II of the Wedge.

Or maybe they did phase I and noone wanted to actually publish any of the thinly disguised christian beliefs and lame pseudo-scientific affirmations they would have undoubtedly have "discovered".

Are they this insecure about their own religion that they think that they will somehow be "corrupted" by knowledge? That they can't teach their own kids their views on religion?

Are they afraid that their own following is so stupid that they cannot tell science from religion, and the contrary statements made from one "ursurping" the faith of the other?

I can't believe it is not butter!

lofter1

December 6th, 2005, 11:51 AM

What a crock...

Are they this insecure about their own religion that they think that they will somehow be "corrupted" by knowledge?
http://www.kansas.com/images/common/spacer.gifhttp://www.kansas.com/images/common/spacer.gifProfessor beaten; attackers cite KU creationism class

The Wichita Eagel
Associated Press
Tue, Dec. 06, 2005

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/education/13337930.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

LAWRENCE - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after what appeared to be a roadside beating.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."

One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments.

Lt. Kari Wempe, a spokeswoman for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department, said a deputy was dispatched to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after receiving a call around 7 a.m. regarding a battery.

She said Mirecki reported he was attacked around 6:40 a.m. in rural Douglas County south of Lawrence. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

"I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind," he said. "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."

He said the men beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object.

Wempe said Mirecki drove himself to the hospital after the attack.

Mirecki told the student newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth.

"I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he told the Lawrence Journal-World.

Wempe said Mirecki described the suspects as two white men between 30 and 40 years of age. One of the men was described as wearing a red, visorlike ball cap and wool gloves. Mirecki said the men left in a large pickup.

Wempe said the department would investigate "every aspect," but couldn't discuss specifics.

Andrew Stangl, president of the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the university, described the attack as "bizarre and terrifying." He said Mirecki, who is the group's faculty adviser, was adamant that the beating was related to the recently canceled course.

"That absolutely shocked me," he said, "because people don't do that in a civilized society."

State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said there is no excuse for someone physically assaulting the professor -- regardless of their politics.

"I have zero tolerance for thugs," she said. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner. This was just thugs. They used a flimsy excuse, if they had one, to behave as thugs. They can talk about the ID (intelligent design) course if they want to, but that's not an excuse."

© 2005 Wichita Eagle

Ninjahedge

December 6th, 2005, 03:46 PM

Scary crap there.

I can understand them being pissed at him making a class to deride them and their beliefs, no matter how juvenile they may be. But to do a roadside beating of a man?

These two good old boys need to grow up.

And the Prof needs to remember how to read license plate #'s.....

lofter1

December 8th, 2005, 10:05 AM

another twist on this one ...

Prof. Critical of Creationism Resigns Post

By JOHN MILBURN
Associated Press Writer
Wed Dec 7, 2005

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_re_us/creationism_professor

A University of Kansas professor who drew criticism for e-mails he wrote deriding Christian fundamentalists over creationism resigned Wednesday as chairman of the Department of Religious Studies.

Paul Mirecki stepped aside on the recommendation of his colleagues, according to Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

"This allows the department to focus on what's most important — teaching, research and service — and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks," Romzek said in a statement after receiving Mirecki's resignation.

Contacted by The Associated Press, Mirecki declined to comment about his decision, only saying he was still a member of the university faculty and planned to continue teaching.

Mirecki had planned to teach a course in the spring that examined creationism and intelligent design after the State Board of Education adopted science standards treating evolution as a flawed theory.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

Later, other e-mails written by Mirecki that surfaced were deemed "repugnant and vile" by Chancellor Robert Hemenway for their views toward Catholics and other Christians.

On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.

Mirecki, who joined the university in 1989, is an expert in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions.

Ninjahedge

December 8th, 2005, 10:36 AM

Question is, were these e-mails sent out to everyone, or to small sects?

Is it their buisness to bring these emails to public attension when there is absolutely no CRIMINAL case being brought up concerning them?

And if he is calling the "Fundies" idiots, is that what these guys find "repugnant" or is it just teh schools administrators trying to protect against any loss of support?

Just goes to show, sometimes it is not what you know that makes the difference, but what everyone else doesn't.

lofter1

December 10th, 2005, 11:17 PM

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan was known to say:

"You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

These folks at the Discovery Institute certainly do have opinions ...

New York Times
Letters to the Editor
December 10, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/opinion/l10design.html

Questioning Evolution

To the Editor:

Contrary to "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker" (Week in Review, Dec. 4 : http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=75401&postcount=74 ), more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism. A recent European conference on intelligent design - held in Prague and ignored by The Times - attracted 700 attendees, and featured leading scientists from Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the United States.

At home, recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder papers have described intelligent-design scientists at major universities (including Iowa State, the University of Minnesota and the University of Georgia). One National Public Radio story alone featured 18 intelligent-design scientists, though most "would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs." There is far more support, indeed, than appears on the surface.

Meanwhile, the number of scientists who have signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin" list has now passed 470.

Yes, there is strong, organized opposition to intelligent design, but that is nothing new. To my knowledge, none of the critics quoted in your article supported the theory in the past. So their opposition now is hardly a surprise.

Bruce Chapman
President, Discovery Institute
Seattle, Dec. 5, 2005

Ninjahedge

December 12th, 2005, 10:23 AM

Wow, so that means if a bunch of people, who DON'T GIVE THEIR NAMES IN FEAR OF LOSING THEIR JOBS AS SCIENTISTS, now support a questionable thelogical postulate, then that must mean it is true.

I mean, if 700 scientists say it is true, the 2 million others must just be CRAZY!

lofter1

December 16th, 2005, 10:32 AM

Appeals Panel Criticizes Evolution Ruling

A federal district judge had ordered the removal of stickers in a Georgia county's science textbooks that called evolution a theory.

By Ellen Barry
LA Times Staff Writer
Dec. 16, 2005

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evolution16dec16,0,3710616.story?track=tothtml

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Judge Ed Carnes of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the lower court judge had misstated facts in his ruling, overstating the influence religious protests had on the school board's actions. He also said the words on the sticker are "technically accurate," and that the Cobb County school board was justified in singling out the theory of evolution for comment.

"From nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific theory," Carnes said. "There is less evidence supporting it than there is for other theories. It sounds to me like evolution is more vulnerable and deserves more critical thinking" than other subjects.

The three-judge appellate panel heard oral arguments in the case Thursday and may not release its decision for several weeks. But attorney Michael Manely, who argued against the stickers at trial last year, said the judges' questions suggested they might seek to overturn U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's original ruling.

"I'm certainly more worried than I was when I walked in this morning," Manely said.

The sticker debate played out in Cobb County, an area north of Atlanta where science teachers used to rip pages out of textbooks rather than discuss evolution. When the school board adopted a new biology textbook that addressed Charles Darwin's theory in detail, some conservative Christian parents protested.

As a compromise, the school board decided in March 2002 to apply a sticker to the inside cover of every textbook. It read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

A group of parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school district, charging that the sticker endorsed religious beliefs.

In a 44-page decision released in January, Cooper agreed. He acknowledged that the disclaimers had a secular purpose, and avoided religious reference. But, he continued, "the sticker communicates to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders."

On Thursday, Linwood Gunn, an attorney for the school board, argued that the stickers were part of a larger effort by school officials to enhance the teaching of evolution, which had been "a long-standing problem" in Cobb County.

"The whole genesis of the stickers is because people were upset by an improvement the school made," he said.

In his questioning, Carnes alleged several significant errors of fact in Cooper's decision. He said Cooper suggested that a petition had influenced the sticker policy when, in fact, the petition was dated six months after the plan was in place.

He went on to chastise Jeffrey Bramlett, who was arguing for the ACLU, for duplicating the fact in his brief, telling him to "justify to me that that's not misrepresenting the facts."

Following the oral arguments, Gunn said he was pleased with the judges' line of questioning. They were "struggling to see why there's a constitutional problem with an accurate sticker," he said. Gunn's satisfaction was echoed by John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle group that supports the concept of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design contend organisms are too complex to have developed by chance.

"They found pretty serious sloppiness on the part of the judge and on the part of the ACLU," West said of the appellate panel. "Finally, we have a group of federal judges who are being properly skeptical of what we regard as overreaching claims."

Gerry Weber, an attorney for the ACLU, said the plaintiffs' central argument — that the stickers communicated the influence of a religious group — did not rely on the petition. Before it printed the stickers, he said, the school board had received numerous e-mails and letters from parents carrying the message, "Preserve our faith."

A disclaimer about evolution was included in textbooks "to favor a particular faith," Weber said. "The key focus is what a reasonable observer will perceive from the stickers."

In order to overturn a district court ruling, appellate judges must show that the lower court relied on facts that were "clearly erroneous," said Michael Broyde, director of the law and religion program at Emory University's law school. Broyde said that Cooper "wrote a very crafty opinion" that relied heavily on fact-finding — probably in anticipation of the appeals process.

A wit on the Supreme Court once put it this way, he said: "District court facts are like mud. They stick to you."

Ninjahedge

December 16th, 2005, 10:45 AM

The problem with calling the Theory of Evolution a Theory, with an explicit sticker pointing it out, is that it singles it out.

We should also put stickers on the book about the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Gravity and all other Theories presented in the book.

Even Laws are pretty much still well proven Theories.

The placement of the sticker was not to clarify anything, but to use the current vernaculars definition of Theory to somehow discredit Evolution.

Saying it is nothing is just like saying that the Holocaust was nothing more than "Ethnic organization and delineation".

Just because it is "technically true" does not warrant it to be said that way and it sure as hell does not make it worth putting on the front cover.

RandySavage

December 16th, 2005, 11:53 AM

I really get fumed over this issue.

"organisms are too complex to have developed by chance."

This assanine tenant of creationism is a crutch. A crutch for the weakminded and the cowardly. If you really believe God created the earth, the heavens, all life, and man in his own image in the six days of Genesis, then have the balls to come out and say it upfront. But don't try to poke holes in a rock-solid theory - one that has withstood a 150 years of scrutiny and continues to get stronger with each new discovery in genetics and biology - with a ridiculous statement like the one above. You might as well be living 200 years ago, saying, "That 875,000 pounds of steel is too heavy to fly around like a bird". Now it happens every day, all day. Over time, the human mind learns and grows, and old, disproven and useless ideas (like a geocentric solar system) must be cast aside.

Countless observations and experiments have proven that organisms are NOT too complex to have developed by chance. We can now observe viruses and other microbes mutate by chance and develop into new species with new adaptations. Some mutate into killer forms of flu. Was that intelligent design? It was intelligent for the flu if our antibiotics can't kill it.

Give a few microbes a billion years, and you might get jellyfish. Another 100 million and you'll may see something like fish. 5 million more and there could be reptiles. Then birds. Then mammals. Then primates. Finally man.

Before Newton, no one could tell you why an apple falls down from a tree. Now most people know that bodies are attracted to each other by an invisible force we call gravity. Evolution is just as defendable.

Ninjahedge

December 16th, 2005, 12:41 PM

Don't be a Macho Man Randy... ;)

lofter1

December 18th, 2005, 02:34 PM

Evolution Trial in Hands of Willing Judge

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
New York Times
December 18, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html

Driving home one day last December from the courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa., Judge John E. Jones III tuned in to a radio news report about 11 parents in the nearby town of Dover who had filed a lawsuit challenging their school board's decision to include intelligent design in the high school biology curriculum.

"It piqued my curiosity," the judge said. Not only was the suit likely to be the nation's first full hearing on the legal merits of teaching intelligent design, but it also had been filed in the federal court in Pennsylvania (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/pennsylvania/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) where he was serving.

The next morning Judge Jones turned on the computer in his chambers and found that the case had been randomly assigned to him.

"Any judge will tell you that they welcome the opportunity to have important cases on their dockets," he said in an interview. "That's why they take these jobs."

Judge Jones presided over the six-week trial with discipline, decorum and a quick wit that produced eruptions of laughter.

Next week he is expected to issue his decision, which will almost certainly be regarded as a bellwether by other school districts in which religious conservatives have proposed teaching intelligent design as a challenge to the theory of evolution.

Legal experts said the big question was whether Judge Jones would rule narrowly or more broadly on the merits of teaching intelligent design as science. Proponents of the theory argue that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.

One of his clerks hinted last week that the decision was long.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/12/18/national/18judge184.jpg
Kalim A. Bhatti for The New York Times
John E. Jones III, a Pennsylvania judge,
will rule in a trial involving the teaching
of intelligent design.

In American courts, the battle between science and religion over the origins of life dates back 80 years to the trial of the Tennessee teacher John Scopes.

Now this political hot potato has fallen into the lap of a judge who is highly attuned to politics. He is a lifelong Republican appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President Bush.

He ran for Congress 10 years earlier (he lost by one percentage point) and later considered running for governor. His supporters include Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and his mentor is Tom Ridge (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/tom_ridge/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former governor of Pennsylvania and homeland security secretary.

But Judge Jones is praised by people on both sides of the aisle as a man of integrity and intellect who takes seriously his charge to be above partisanship. He appears to define himself less by his party affiliation than by his connection to the Pennsylvania coal town where he still lives, and to a family that grabbed education as a rope to climb out of the anthracite mines, and never let go.

Clifford A. Rieders, a lawyer in Williamsport who is past president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, said he had found Judge Jones to be "moderate, thoughtful" and "universally well regarded."

"I think that his connections are not so politicized, nor is he so ambitious that he would be influenced in any way by those kinds of considerations," said Mr. Rieders, a Democrat.

Mr. Ridge called him a "renaissance man" and "the right kind of person to be presiding over a trial of such emotional and historic importance." He added, "I don't think he goes in with a point of view based on anything prior. I really don't. I think he loves the challenge."

In an interview in his chambers in Williamsport during a break in the final weeks of the trial, Judge Jones said he had been rereading Supreme Court decisions on religion.

He said he was aware that Mr. Bush and Mr. Santorum had endorsed the teaching of challenges to evolutionary theory, but he said, "It doesn't have any bearing on me."

Judge Jones said he learned speed-reading in prep school and consumes five newspapers a day before work.

He said he considered opening the Dover trial to television cameras because of "a bias in favor of disclosure." But after consulting with colleagues he decided against it. The judge said he had expected the Dover case would attract attention, but was stunned by the amount. One weekend, he said, he did a double take at a supermarket magazine rack. "I'm on the cover of the Rolling Stone!" he said to his wife. "Not my picture, but the trial." He bought a copy.

Judge Jones lives in Pottsville, a long commute from Harrisburg and Williamsport, where he hears cases. On his wall hangs a picture of his grandfather, a Welsh orphan who worked as a boy in the Pennsylvania coal mines, took correspondence courses, became a civil engineer and built a chain of golf courses.

His father, a Yale graduate, went into the family business.

The oldest of four brothers, Judge Jones, who is 50, attended a private school, Mercersburg Academy, and later Dickinson College and the Dickinson School of Law. Asked if he was religious, he said he attended a Lutheran church favored by his wife, but not every Sunday.

He had his own law firm when he ran for Congress in 1992 and lost to Tim Holden, a Democrat who had been a friend.

He helped Mr. Ridge's campaign for governor in 1994 and was later named to the board that runs the state's liquor stores. "One of these days," Mr. Ridge said in an interview, "a bunch of Republicans are going to recruit him to run for governor, but I think it's going to take a while. He loves being judge."

Of running for governor, Judge Jones said, "I wouldn't envision it, but I'm 50 years old, and it's probably imprudent to say never."

Among his cases, he has ruled that employees who refuse to authorize a background check on themselves can be fired and that a college's speech code prohibiting "acts of intolerance" violated the right to free speech.
He was reversed once on appeal in a case involving a disability claim.

In the recent trial, a lawyer grilled an intelligent design proponent on why a textbook the witness helped to write substituted "intelligent design" for "creationism" in a later edition and with "sudden emergence theory" in a draft of a future edition.

"We won't be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, will we?" the lawyer asked.

To which Judge Jones interjected, "Not on my docket."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

Ninjahedge

December 20th, 2005, 10:51 AM

the only thing I am worried about in a legal case is if it is actually found to be legal to force a religious doctrine not only into the schools, but into a SCIENCE CLASS!

That is a dangerous back-step.

The second thing that I fear is that it actually BECOMES legal at some point because of the intensions of the gradually diminishing religious majority.

The thing that gets me is that most people on both sides to not go for this. Most of the religious leaders support evolution. Some of the radicals reject it as well as ID. Most scientists (99%) go with evolution, but a good deal of them still have a belief in God.

We are just facing another situation where people want to force their own insecurities down the throats of others. "I may not be right, but if everyone else is forced to believe the same thing, it will not matter".

Bleh.

NYatKNIGHT

December 21st, 2005, 06:08 PM

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)

December 21, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.

The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote.

"However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.

But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.

Judge Jones's decision is legally binding only for school districts in the middle district of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely to be appealed because the school board members who supported intelligent design were unseated in elections in November and replaced with a slate that opposes the intelligent design policy and said it would abide by the judge's decision.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the judge's decision should serve as a deterrent to other school boards and teachers considering teaching intelligent design.

"It's a carefully reasoned, highly detailed opinion," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "that goes through all of the issues that would be raised in any other school district."

Richard Thompson, the lead defense lawyer for the school board, derided the judge for issuing a sweeping judgment in a case that Mr. Thompson said merely involved a "one-minute statement" being read to students. He acknowledged that his side, too, had asked the judge to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design, but only because it had to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments.

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones's ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited.

"That was a real drag," said Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who was the star witness for the intelligent design side. "I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say."

Dr. Behe added: "He talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments."

William A. Dembski, a mathematician who argues that mathematics can show the presence of design in the development of life, predicted that intelligent design would become much stronger within 5 to 10 years.

Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Mainstream scientists who have maintained that no controversy exists in the scientific community over evolution were elated by Judge Jones's ruling.

"Jubilation," said Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University who has actively sparred with intelligent design proponents and testified in the Dover case. "I think the judge nailed it."

Dr. Miller said he was glad that the judge did not just rule narrowly.

Jason D. Rosenhouse, a professor of mathematics at James Madison University in Virginia and a fervent pro-evolution blogger said: "I was laughing as I read it because I don't think a scientist could explain it any better. His logic is flawless, and he hit all of the points that scientists have been making for years."

Before the start of a celebratory news conference in Harrisburg, Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent of two daughters in the Dover district and the named plaintiff in the case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, joked with other plaintiffs that she had an idea for a new bumper sticker: "Judge Jones for President."

Christy Rehm, another plaintiff, said to the others, "We've done something amazing here, not only with this decision, but with the election."

Last month, Dover, which usually votes majority Republican, ousted eight school board members who had backed intelligent design and elected the opposition that ran on a Democratic ticket.

Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who helped to argue the case, said, "We sincerely hope that other school districts who may have been thinking about intelligent design will pause, they will read Judge Jones's erudite opinion and they will look at what happened in the Dover community in this battle, pitting neighbor against neighbor."

The judge's ruling said that two of the most outspoken proponents of intelligent design on the Dover school board, William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, lied in their depositions about how they raised money in a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," to put in the school library.

Both men, according to testimony, had repeatedly said at school board meetings that they objected to evolution for religious reasons and wanted to see creationism taught on equal footing.

Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."

Mr. Bonsell did not respond to a telephone message on Tuesday. Mr. Buckingham, a retired police officer who has moved to Mount Airy, N.C., said, "If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar."

Mr. Buckingham said he "answered the questions the way they asked them." He called the decision "ludicrous" and said, "I think Judge Jones ought to be ashamed of himself."

The Constitution, he said, does not call for the separation of church and state.

In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

Opponents of intelligent design said Judge Jones's ruling would not put an end to the movement, and predicted that intelligent design would take on various guises.

The Kansas Board of Education voted in November to adopt standards that call into question the theory of evolution, but never explicitly mention intelligent design.

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said in an interview, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum like the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, Ms. Scott said, "for several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

ZippyTheChimp

December 22nd, 2005, 09:11 AM

December 22, 2005

Schools Nationwide Study Impact of Evolution Ruling

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

When the school board in Muscatine, Iowa, sits down next year for its twice-a-decade evaluation of the district's science curriculum, the matter of whether to teach intelligent design as a challenge to evolution is expected to come up for discussion.

Board members disagree about whether they will be swayed by a sweeping court decision on intelligent design released on Tuesday in Pennsylvania. A federal judge there ruled intelligent design "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" that must not be taught in a public school science class.

"I don't think that a judge in one state is going to be able to tell everybody in all other states what to do," said Paul Brooks, a school board member and retired principal in Muscatine who favors teaching intelligent design. "So I don't get too excited about what he said."

The board's vice president, Ann Hart, demurred. "This determination in Pennsylvania will help the cause," Ms. Hart said, "for those of us who think intelligent design should not be taught in public school science classes because of separation of church and state."

Educators and legislators in Muscatine and other communities that are considering intelligent design said they were learning about the results of the trial involving the school board in Dover, Pa., and had not read the decision.

The Dover board voted in October 2004 to have students listen to a statement at the start of biology class that said that evolution was a flawed theory and that intelligent design was an alternative they could study further. It was a limited step, but opened the door to a lawsuit from local parents that became the nation's first test case of the legal merits of teaching intelligent design.

The federal district judge in the Pennsylvania case, John E. Jones III, ruled after a six-week trial that intelligent design was "an interesting theological argument, but it is not science." He concluded that it was "unconstitutional to teach I.D. as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life is so complex that it could not have randomly evolved, but must have been designed by an intelligent force.

Lawyers for the parents who sued the Dover board hailed the decision as a cautionary one for any state or school board flirting with intelligent design because Judge Jones ruled broadly on the very legitimacy of intelligent design as science.

The judge's 139-page decision dealt not only with the specific missteps of the Dover school board, but also traced the growth of the intelligent design movement from the remnants of creationism and creation science - which the Supreme Court declared in 1987 to be unconstitutional to teach in public school science class.

Intelligent design proponents gained support in Dover and across the country with the rallying cry to "teach the controversy" over evolution and open students' minds to competing theories. The National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., has tracked efforts in at least two dozen states to introduce challenges to evolution in the curriculum. Some efforts hew more closely to the approach in Kansas, where the State Board of Education changed its standards to teach about flaws in evolutionary theory.

In South Carolina, State Senator Mike Fair has introduced a bill to encourage teaching criticism of evolution. Mr. Fair is also on a state education committee that is evaluating biology standards. He said although he had not read the Pennsylvania ruling, it offended him because it impugned board members' motives because they were Christians.

"This case hasn't settled anything," Mr. Fair said.

Kristi L. Bowman, a law professor at Drake University in Des Moines, said that technically the judge's ruling was legally binding only in part of Pennsylvania and that no other courts in the country must follow it.

"That aside," Professor Bowman said, "this is such a thorough, well-researched opinion that covers all possible bases in terms of the legal arguments that intelligent design advocates present, that I think any school board or state board of education thinking about adopting an intelligent design policy should think twice."

Professor Bowman attended part of the Dover trial and expects her article on intelligent design to be in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

The legal fees incurred may be "an even stronger cautionary signal to school districts around the country than the actual decision," Professor Bowman said.

The Dover school district is now liable for the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs - which plaintiffs lawyers say could exceed $1 million. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as wells as lawyers with Pepper Hamilton, a private firm.

Eric J. Rothschild, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer, said in a news conference after the ruling that holding the Dover board to a financial penalty would convey to other school districts that "board members can't act like they did with impunity." But Mr. Rothschild said the fees were still being totaled, and he left open the possibility that the lawyers might go after individual board members who voted for the intelligent design policy to pay the legal costs.

In Muscatine, the superintendent, Tom Williams, said he expected that the possibility of a legal battle would deter his board from adopting intelligent design.

"We do expose ourselves to some kind of risk if we go out on a limb," Mr. Williams said.

He added that he was not in favor of it because he saw intelligent design as creationism with "just a little different twist of terminology."

"We need to stick with what our teachers are trained to do, and they're not trained to teach religious philosophies," Mr. Williams said.

Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge

December 22nd, 2005, 10:15 AM

He said although he had not read the Pennsylvania ruling, it offended him because it impugned board members' motives because they were Christians.

Pandering on aisle 5

Pandering on aisle 5.

lofter1

December 31st, 2005, 01:32 PM

Why Is God Sending Grass Fires to Texas? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/why-is-god-sending-grass-_b_13066.html)

Chris Durang
12.30.2005

I've been trying to figure out why God has been sending all those horrible grass fires to Texas. At first I thought it was because God dislikes George W. Bush, and so is punishing Texas.

But then in fairness, I realized that God's time is different than man's time, and it may be that God is having a delayed reaction to the governorship of Ann Richards, which means the grass fires are the Democrats' fault.

Or maybe God doesn't like Molly Ivins and is punishing Texas because of her.

Maybe he's having a conniption fit about Brokeback Mountain. Of course, most of the sex scenes take place in Montana, while it's only Jake Gyllenhaal's pretend marriage that takes place in Texas. So if God was being more exact, He should send grass fires to Montana, not Texas. So maybe it is Molly Ivins.

Of course, Oklahoma is getting grass fires too. I'm not sure what God is saying through that gesture. Can it possibly be he disapproved of the Hugh Jackman British version of Oklahoma, and he thinks only Americans should do Oklahoma?

And why hasn't he sent grass fires (or a plague of toads) to the people of Dover, Pennsylvania, who voted out the school board who had insisted the topic of Intelligent Design be introduced in science class before evolution could be taught. And who also advised students to go to the library and read a book called Of Pandas and People, whose title certainly fascinates me. Though not quite enough to go get a copy.

Or maybe God doesn't micromanage the world the way I'm assuming.

Maybe it's all like the character Jean says in the second-to-last scene of John Osborne's play The Entertainer: "Here we are, we're alone in the universe, there's no God, it just seems that it all began by something as simple as sunlight striking on a piece of rock. And here we are. We've only got ourselves. Somehow, we've just got to make a go of it. We've only ourselves."

I was assigned that play my Freshman year at Harvard; it was taught by a wonderful professor, William Alfred (author of the play Hogan's Goat). Mr. Alfred was famously Catholic, and went to mass every single day. He was also sweet-natured and open-minded, not to mention brilliant.

If I were a Freshman now, and in a state-funded school, does the government now require that we be told about Intelligent Design and asked to read Of Pandas and People before we can read that speech? And if it doesn't so far, when will it?

We've only got ourselves. That concept makes me feel not a little despair in terms of what's happening to our country, and what may be happening in the world. Will the planet exist in 100 years? What will it be like even in the next 20 years?

I'm not actually an atheist, by the way (in case you're holding your breath), and I've sort of returned to one of my beliefs from my Catholic upbringing, that the soul has a continuing life. As Thornton Wilder says in Our Town, "everybody knows in their bones that something is eternal." To my surprise, in my later years, that kind of feels right to me.

But my concept of a Higher Power is extremely vague; and it cannot be, in my mind, some Being fashioned after quirky human beings and their messy emotions. "Man is created in the image of God," was one of the things Catholic school children were taught in the 50s and 60s. That's a highly debatable idea; obviously it's more likely that man, thinking of what God might be like, came up with "oh he's probably like a father, I know fathers."

Understandable, but leads to all that confusion about is God is causing grass fires, and is he punishing people for sex, and is he helping actors win the Tony Award.

As more than one stand-up has pointed out, the God of the Old Testament most resembles a raging, alcoholic father. And Republicans, it seems to me, are always drawn to the firm, strict, overbearing fathers, aren't they? Like they think some Robert Duvall character, inexpressive and angry but oh so moral, is somehow the ideal view of the father.

I've tried to write this for several days, but have been in a bad and depressed mood. We've only got ourselves. Makes me a bit gloomy. No wonder the Rapture people are so happy – chaos and war in the Middle East means Jesus is coming soon. To me it means maybe the end of the planet. Not to mention, will all the advertising and the dirty tricks that passes for governing in the Bush administration continue to work with masses of our fellow citizens? Sigh. Well, Happy New Year.

(Postscript: The movie Brokeback Mountain is set in Wyoming (and Texas), not in Montana. Annie Proulx, the author of the story on which the movie is based, was born in Connecticut, but now lives in her "adopted home" of Wyoming. Sorry, faulty memory on my part. Chris Durang.)

NewYorkYankee

December 31st, 2005, 04:35 PM

My opinion after skimming the entire thread. I havnt been able to follow much, not enough time. I believe if they teach a theory on evolution, then they should include all ideas of creation. No matter the religion, they should teach them all. I dont understand peoples fear of a Christian belief being mentioned briefly? Im a Christian and I dont believe in Evolution, what if Im offended by it being taught? Lets get over it people and learn from all aspects.

lofter1

January 1st, 2006, 06:33 PM

My opinion after skimming the entire thread
Skimming seems to be the crux of the problem here. That makes it so easy to pick and choose between what one wants to focus on. So once again we are subjected to someone clearly not willing to take the time or energy to even attempt to understand the use of the word "theory" regarding scientific work.

It is not a question of being Christian -- or whatever religion a person might choose to follow.

lofter1

January 1st, 2006, 06:37 PM

Here is a link to Judge Jones' ruling in the Dover case, which gives a very clear perspective as to why ID should not be taught as science:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf

Swede

January 2nd, 2006, 01:37 PM

I believe if they teach a theory on evolution, then they should include all ideas of creation. No matter the religion, they should teach them all. I dont understand peoples fear of a Christian belief being mentioned briefly?
Indeed they should teach them all. In Comparative Religion class, not Science class. Also there's a vast difference between a scientific Theory and how the word is defined in every-day use. Evolution isn't a matter of faith, it's pure science - hence it being taught in science/biology class around the world.

infoshare

January 2nd, 2006, 01:50 PM

Indeed they should teach them all. In Comparative Religion class, not Science class.

Amen!

ZippyTheChimp

January 2nd, 2006, 02:04 PM

From U.S. Dept of Education webpage:

Teaching About Religion

Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.

The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations.

These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.

Ninjahedge

January 3rd, 2006, 10:45 AM

lofter1

January 3rd, 2006, 10:54 AM

CHURCH-STATE SHOWDOWN IN INDIANA....

Political Animal
January 2, 2006
Guest: Steve Benen

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007908.php

It's not unusual for state legislatures, like the U.S. Congress, to start the day with an official non-denominational prayer. On the Hill, the House and Senate have chaplains to cover this, while many states invite local religious leaders to handle the invocation. Yes, this is all legal -- the Supreme Court cleared the way for these prayers in 1983, ruling that a legislature could hold nonsectarian invocations, in part because they reflect "elements of the American civil religion."

The fight over invocations in Indiana's legislature, however, is anything but civil (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100723.html). For years, pastors have been brought in to lead state lawmakers in prayer at the start of their work day with increasingly evangelistic language. Matters came to a head in April when the Rev. Clarence Brown delivered an invocation that included thanks to God "for our lord and savior Jesus Christ, who died that we might have the right to come together in love." He said he had been thinking about the separation of church and state, but decided to ignore it because "I have to do what Jesus Christ says for me to do as a witness."

Once his prayer was complete, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) announced that Brown would "bless us with a song," leading to an energetic rendition of "Just a Little Talk With Jesus."

It was the tipping point. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed suit in the name of four people -- a retired Methodist minister, two Roman Catholics, and a state lobbyist for a Quaker group -- arguing that the practice of legislative invocations had crossed the line from nonsectarian civil religion to state-sponsored promotion of Christianity.

About a month ago, a federal judge agreed (http://blog.au.org/2005/12/indiana_assembl.html), ruling that the Constitution insists that "one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Indiana's legislative prayers represent "a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders."

So, state lawmakers are prepared to be more inclusive now, right? Not so much (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100723.html).

[U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton] ordered the House to avoid mentioning Christ in the formal benedictions. As the House prepares to open its 2006 session on Wednesday, a number of politicians have vowed to defy Hamilton, whom they accuse of undermining a 188-year Indiana tradition and interfering in legislative branch affairs.

Terry Goodin, a Democrat who rejects Hamilton's order, is among at least two dozen House members who have asked to give Wednesday's prayer. He said he would "absolutely" speak Christ's name if given the chance.

"Really, who do you pray to? If you're offering up a prayer, you're praying to a deity. You don't offer prayers to just an open space," Goodin said. "I will give the same type of prayer that's been given for 100 years. I won't change my words because of someone in the judicial branch who tells me I must."

Judge Hamilton, who is the son and grandson of Methodist ministers, said he intends "to take appropriate steps to insure compliance," suggesting that lawmakers who ignore the ruling will likely be held in contempt of court. This could get ugly.

I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to church-state separation, but this case does raise legitimate questions about drawing the civil religion line.

Opponents of the status quo believe it's ridiculous for lawmakers to officially promote and endorse Christianity on the floor of the legislature. They're right. Supporters of evangelistic legislative prayers believe it's ridiculous to insist that prayers are fine so long as they're watered down and generic in order to make everyone feel comfortable. They're right, too.

I have a compromise solution to offer: Indiana lawmakers can pray, alone or in groups, to any god they like, and with any language they like, before and after the legislative work day begins. Lawmakers who don't want to pray, or prefer a more inclusive, non-faith-specific prayer, can get together alone or in groups as well. The floor of the legislature would be reserved for official legislative work, while everyone, including lawmakers, could worship however they please, just not on the floor of the state capitol. There'd be no need for lawsuits, or defiance of court orders, because everyone could worship, or not, on their own time and with no restrictions or church-state questions.

What do you say, Indiana?

Ninjahedge

January 3rd, 2006, 11:01 AM

Yep.

NO PRAYER ON THE STATE FLOOR!

You can pray to whoever you want to, so long as:

1. You do it on your own time.
2. You do it on your own space.
3. You do it on your own DOLLAR.

BrooklynRider

January 3rd, 2006, 11:40 AM

Christian Fundamentalist Extremists are as dangerous to this country as Muslim Fundamentalist Extremists. The insurgency taking place in this country is the greater concern to me than anything have a world away in the land of oil and poverty.

ZippyTheChimp

January 3rd, 2006, 02:53 PM

Ninjahedge

January 3rd, 2006, 03:02 PM

Oil and poverty are what make Islamic Fundamentalism much more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalism.

Also, segments of Christianity denounce the bigotry of fundamentalists, but I have heard almost nothing from the mainstream Islamic community.

Zip, when you have a psycho in the room with you, you are usually not the first person to go "HEY!!! He's a PSYCHO!!!!" right before the authorities leave you for the night.

ZippyTheChimp

January 3rd, 2006, 03:13 PM

Sorry, I don't accept it.

If people of religion won't set an example and stand up for principle, who should?

No different than Pope Pius XII during WWII.

Ninjahedge

January 3rd, 2006, 03:56 PM

Sorry, I don't accept it.

If people of religion won't set an example and stand up for principle, who should?

No different than Pope Pius XII during WWII.

The odd thing is zip, the people that do not volunteer to be martyrs in the name of their religion usually do not want to be martyrs.

Asking someone to stand up against the catholic church is one thing. But this is like asking an individual to stand up to the clan in the 30's and 40's.

When an individual stands up to a radical, they end up dead. When a small country does it, they end up targets. Look at how much money Israel needs to spend to keep their lands reasonably secure.

Although if some of the Saudis would denounce support of the radicals and their blind interpretation of Islam I doubt it would be as bad for them as it is for Israel (for many reasons, not the least of which being Israels own myopia). But look at what is happening in Jordan.

A political leader risks being KILLED, not just displaced by his people, when he poses opposition to a radical group in their own back yard.

They are just keeping quiet now until they think it is safe enough to come out.

Do I think this is an admirable course of action? Nope. But I also do not blame them for it.

It also has nothing to do with Creationism vs. Evolution, but such is the way of religious discussion on a BBS... ;)

lofter1

January 3rd, 2006, 11:43 PM

Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy

By MARTHA RAFFAELE
Associated Press Writer
Jan 3, 10:06 PM EST

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EVOLUTION_SHOWDOWN?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gifhttp://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif
DOVER, Pa. (AP) -- Dover's much-maligned school policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night.

On a voice vote, and with no discussion beforehand, the newly elected Dover Area School Board unanimously rescinded the policy. Two weeks earlier, a judge ruled the policy unconstitutional.

"This is it," new school board president Bernadette Reinking said Tuesday, indicating the vote was final and the case was closed.

A different group of school board members had been in control when the policy was approved in October 2004. The policy required that a statement be read to Dover public school students about "intelligent design" before ninth-grade biology class lessons on evolution.

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gifhttp://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif
The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It also referred students to an "intelligent-design" book, "Of Pandas and People."

Eight families sued, and on Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with their argument that the concept of "intelligent design" - which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause - is religious, not scientific. The judge said that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller was relieved Tuesday night to know the policy was officially off the books.

"I will feel comfortable again teaching what I'd always felt comfortable teaching," she after the meeting, attended by a crowd of about 100 people.

School board members declined to comment after the vote.

Most of the previous board members who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate the policy.

Policy defenders had said they were trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives with the policy. But the judge said the board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom," and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.

"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster and obviously I was not persuasive enough," said Jeff Brown, a former board member who resigned in protest after the policy passed. He said the costly court battle could have been avoided.

The Dover policy and high-profile lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over "intelligent design."

In Kansas, where state officials have been arguing over the teaching of evolution since 1999, education officials recently approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

In Georgia, the state schools superintendent drew protests in 2004 for proposing a science curriculum that replaced the word "evolution" with "changes over time." Last year, a federal judge ordered Cobb County schools to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

ZippyTheChimp

January 3rd, 2006, 11:56 PM

Asking someone to stand up against the catholic church is one thing. But this is like asking an individual to stand up to the clan in the 30's and 40's.

I was referring to religious hierarchy, not congregation members. I thought my reference to Pope Pius XII made that clear.

If I'm afraid of heights, I don't become an ironworker.

Ninjahedge

January 4th, 2006, 09:53 AM

I was referring to religious hierarchy, not congregation members. I thought my reference to Pope Pius XII made that clear.

If I'm afraid of heights, I don't become an ironworker.

It didn't, really. The pope has been used as "an example for all" on many an occasion.

I think some of these religious "leaders" are in a similar position that Arafat was in a little while ago. they do not want to come out against the radical faction for fear of splitting their own power base.

they do not want to show how weak and unable they really are to control what they have been calling "their followers" for generations.

Religious heirarchy has always been political. Sometimes at the exclusion of God "him"self.

lofter1

January 11th, 2006, 11:28 AM

1st Suit in State to Attack 'Intelligent Design' Filed

By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
LA Times
Jan. 11, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-design11jan11,0,7737779.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A group of parents in the small Tehachapi mountain community of Lebec on Tuesday filed the first lawsuit challenging the teaching of "intelligent design" in a California public school.

The suit targets what appears to be the latest wrinkle in the continuing national fight between supporters and opponents of teaching evolution in public schools — a course that says it examines the debate as an issue of "philosophy."

Supporters of intelligent design lost a court fight in Pennsylvania last month that both sides had seen as a test case. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III rejected the Dover, Pa., school board's decision to teach intelligent design as part of a science course, ruling that design was "an interesting theological argument, but … not science."

In this case, the parents say in their suit that school officials in Lebec — a town of about 1,300 just west of Interstate 5 in Kern County and about 63 miles north of Los Angeles — designed their course as a way of getting around that decision.

At a special meeting of the El Tejon Unified School District on Jan. 1, at which the board approved the new course, "Philosophy of Design," school Supt. John W. Wight said that he had consulted the school district's attorneys and that they "had told him that as long as the course was called 'philosophy,' " it could pass legal muster, according to the lawsuit.

The board approved the course 3 to 2.

A woman who identified herself as a secretary at the school district said Tuesday that Wight was out of town and unavailable for comment and that no one else was authorized to comment on the suit.

In a Jan. 6 letter to lawyers who challenged the class, Wight wrote that "our legal advisors have pointed out they are unaware of any court or California statute which has forbidden public schools to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."

He added that he would "promptly intervene if anyone should stray into teaching or advocating the tenets of any religion or creed, including intelligent design."

But the plaintiffs argue that the school district has no intention of setting up an open debate on comparative religion or competing philosophies.

An initial course description, which was distributed to students and their families last month, said "the class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. The class will discuss intelligent design as an alternative response to evolution. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions."

The course, which began Jan. 3 and is scheduled to run for one month, is being taught by Sharon Lemburg, a special education teacher with a bachelor of arts in physical education and social science, according to the lawsuit.

The suit adds that Lemburg "has no training or certification in the teaching of science, religion or philosophy," and is "the wife of the minister for the local Assembly of God Church, a Christian fundamentalist church, and a proponent of a creationist world view."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the plaintiffs, said the course is "the wave of the future throughout the United States," for backers of intelligent design.

"It is my understanding that this school district has been approached by other school districts to clone this course and use it elsewhere. That is why this is of national significance. We would like to build a retaining wall against that wave in this case," he said.

The course description shows that the class "is not philosophy or comparative religion," Lynn said, but, instead, "is a teacher trying to trump science with religion."

Casey Luskin, the legal affairs director of the Discovery Institute, an organization that supports intelligent design said he had not read the lawsuit but that if Americans United is trying to keep students from hearing about alternatives to evolutionary theory that would be "censorship."

On the other hand, Luskin said, if the school district is trying to teach "young-earth creationism or biblical creationism as fact, that will get them into legal trouble. I would like to see the full course syllabus before making a definitive judgment."

Intelligent design holds that some biological systems are so complex they could not have evolved through random mutations as the vast majority of biologists teach. They argue that complexity is proof that life was formed by an intelligent designer.

Advocates of the theory generally do not identify who they think the designer was. Judge Jones, an appointee of President Bush, said the extensive testimony in the Pennsylvania case made it clear that "no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed" by members of the intelligent design movement.

The 11 plaintiffs in the current case — parents whose children attend Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec — said in their suit that the course "was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot 'intelligent design.' "

Because of that, the course violates provisions of the U.S. and California constitutions barring establishment of religion, they say.

With one exception, the suit asserts, "the course relies exclusively on videos that advocate religious perspectives and present religious theories as scientific ones — and because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of the presentation."

The parents are asking a U.S. District Court judge in Fresno to issue a temporary restraining order barring the course.

One of the parents, Kenneth Hurst, who has a doctorate in geology and is a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, said in court papers that the class "conflicts with my beliefs as a scientist. I believe this class undermines the sound scientific principles taught in Frazier Mountain High School's biology curriculum and is structured in a way that deprives my children of the opportunity to be presented with an objective education that would aid the development of their critical thinking skills."

Hurst, who has children in 10th and 12th grades, said the class also interfered with his personal religious views as a Quaker and "reflects a preference for fundamentalist Christianity over all other religious and scientific viewpoints."

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times

Ninjahedge

January 11th, 2006, 12:57 PM

The class is a direct religious course directed at the teaching of intelligent design AGAINST that of Evolution.

It is NOT a science class, but it is a religious one. They might as well hand out a bible as a textbook.

If they want it to be a true debate, they would include OTHER religions bases for creation rather than this newly indoctrinated "Creationism-Lite".

Fabrizio

January 11th, 2006, 04:38 PM

A good article about Pope Pius XII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

ZippyTheChimp

January 19th, 2006, 01:21 AM

January 19, 2006

In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome

By IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN

ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

But Robert L. Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization where researchers study and advocate intelligent design, dismissed the article and other recent statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention to them was little more than trying "to put words in the Vatican's mouth," he said.

L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

In July, Christoph Schönborn, an Austrian cardinal close to Benedict, seemed to call into question what has been official church teaching for years: that Catholicism and evolution are not necessarily at odds.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times, he played down a 1996 letter in which Pope John Paul II called evolution "more than a hypothesis." He wrote, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, but advocates for intelligent design posit that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source.

At least twice, Pope Benedict has signaled concern about the issue, prompting questions about his views. In April, when he was formally installed as pope, he said human beings "are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution." In November, he called the creation of the universe an "intelligent project," wording welcomed by supporters of intelligent design.

Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican Observatory. "Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be," he said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA. "Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

In October, Cardinal Schönborn sought to clarify his own remarks, saying he meant to question not the science of evolution but what he called evolutionism, an attempt to use the theory to refute the hand of God in creation.

"I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained," he said in a speech.

To Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a Catholic, "That is my own view as well."

"As long as science does not pretend it can answer spiritual questions, it's O.K.," he said.

Dr. Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs in the recent suit in Dover, Pa., challenging the teaching of intelligent design, said Dr. Facchini, Father Coyne and Cardinal Schönborn (in his later statements) were confirming "traditional Catholic thinking." On Dec. 20, a federal district judge ruled that public schools could not present intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

In the Osservatore article, Dr. Facchini wrote that scientists could not rule out a divine "superior design" to creation and the history of mankind. But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a design fashioned through an evolutionary process.

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," he wrote.

Neither Dr. Facchini nor the editors of L'Osservatore could be reached for comment.

Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, said Dr. Facchini's article was important because it made the case that people did not have to abandon religious faith in order to accept the theory of evolution.

"Science does not make that requirement," he said.

Ian Fisher reported from Rome for this article, and Cornelia Dean from New York.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Fabrizio

January 19th, 2006, 06:29 AM

^^Something to savor:

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

Amen.

Ninjahedge

January 19th, 2006, 10:24 AM

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," he wrote.

That is what I have been trying to say.

If God is omnipotent, who is to say that HE DID NOT FRIGGING CREATE EVOLUTION AS THE MEANS AND METHODS OF MAKING MANKIND??!?

If God knows all, is all, and all of that, it is not too difficult to see that he shot the perfect break shot that sunk all the balls on the table on the first try. But somehow that is not enough for religious egoists that still want to believe that mankind is SO much better than anything else on the planet that they need a devine being to push us more than a step or two above the animals.

The only people that I usually see arguing this kind of thing are ones that are the least secure about themselves and their own feelings of worth and importance.

JMGarcia

January 19th, 2006, 11:53 AM

There is a basic human need to make the world fit into their current basic brain patterns that are involved with self-identity. It is actually quite uncomfortable for humans to create new ones at such a low level as it involves a drastic change in self-identity.

In this case the current basic brain pattern is a literal interpretation of the bible and a self-identity of an evangelical fundamentalist. Human beings will go to almost any length to rationalize this basic brain pattern of self-identity. This includes everything from self-deception to violent reactions against anyone and anything that threatens this. They seek to shape the world to fit their beliefs and violence becomes a perfectly logical and acceptable way to achieve this.

This most dangerous people on the planet are those that incorporate a fallacy into their basic brain patterns of self-identity. Religious fundamentalists have proven this to be true since time began.

Fabrizio

January 19th, 2006, 01:21 PM

The Bible in the hands of idiots. The Bible ...an ancient and obscure text ...is not to be interpreted literally or personally ( no that´s probably not God talking to you... ) it is to be interpreted by scholars ....and an enlightend scholarly clergy. The right-wing American Christian fundamentalists are proudly anti-intellectual..... and there is nothing more dangerous than ignorance combined with arrogance.

JMGarcia

January 19th, 2006, 01:55 PM

The right-wing American Christian fundamentalists are proudly anti-intellectual..... and there is nothing more dangerous than ignorance combined with arrogance.

The "right-wing American Christian" bit is replaceable with any number of other groups. It seems to have reached epidemic proportions lately.

ZippyTheChimp

January 19th, 2006, 02:10 PM

I think they were more scary and pervasive in the '80s and early 90s, when they challenged the soaps for daytime TV dominance.

Remember Jim and Tammy's PTL network, with their air-conditioned doghouses, and that nut Orel Roberts who announced that if he didn't get a certain amount of money in contributions, God was going to call him.

I remember some group set up an alternate contribution ad, something like "Send your money here, and help Orel get to heaven." :)

Fabrizio

January 19th, 2006, 02:21 PM

That stuff was kitsch and corny and almost endearing... what´s happening today in the US with the right-wing fundamentists is much more insidious...

antinimby

January 19th, 2006, 02:35 PM

Right-wing Christian fundamentalists don't scare me as much as Muslim extremists. With the extremists, it's either their way or DEATH.

ZippyTheChimp

January 19th, 2006, 02:39 PM

To you and me, but they were raising a lot of money, and that benign appearance was pulling in a lot of people who didn't realize what was going on.

We can thank Bill Clinton for derailing it.

TLOZ Link5

January 19th, 2006, 02:50 PM

A good article about Pope Pius XII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

I vaguely remember doing a report on him in high school, noting that he'd written some sort of papal bull (that's the official term for it) denouncing evolution as "fictitious."

Ninjahedge

January 19th, 2006, 02:59 PM

We all know that theologians are the best people to ask about science.

Just like Astrophysicists make the best politicians!

Fabrizio

January 19th, 2006, 06:28 PM

TLOZ Link5

January 19th, 2006, 06:38 PM

Re: Pope Pius XII: "I vaguely remember doing a report on him in high school, noting that he'd written some sort of papal bull (that's the official term for it) denouncing evolution as "fictitious.""

TLOZ: then you either have a very bad memory or you did not do your homework.

I present the encyclical entitled Humani Generis:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Section 6:

6. "Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

Fabrizio

January 19th, 2006, 06:52 PM

tloz: read ALL of what he wrote. I can pull quotes too. From the same encyclical:

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God".

In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. Which is exactly the position of the Church today.

ZippyTheChimp

January 19th, 2006, 06:53 PM

The papal encyclical of 1950 neither endorses nor condemns evolution. Pius XII does take issue with those who use the tenets of evolution to make arguments on theological issues.

The official Catholic Church position since that time to the present has been that both evolution and creationism are consistent with Church dogma. Catholics are free to believe whichever they choose.

TLOZ Link5

January 20th, 2006, 01:20 PM

I stand corrected. :p

BrooklynRider

January 22nd, 2006, 07:59 PM

Right-wing Christian fundamentalists don't scare me as much as Muslim extremists. With the extremists, it's either their way or DEATH.

Both groups are equally dangerous. The christian "fundamentalists" are extremists, despite your willingness to call them by another name. The muslims are largely a dangerous external force as long as we keep meddling in their internal affairs. The christians are far more dangerous because they are an internal problam that must be dealt with.

Fabrizio

January 25th, 2006, 04:24 PM

Pope Chooses an Uncontroversial Topic for First Encyclical: Love

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 25, 2006

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI said Wednesday in his first encyclical that the Roman Catholic Church has no desire to govern states or set public policy, but can't remain silent when its charity is needed to ease suffering around the world.

In the long-awaited document ''God is Love,'' Benedict explores the relationship between God's love for mankind and the church's works of charity, saying the two are intrinsically linked and the foundation of the Christian faith.

The 71-page encyclical, eagerly watched for clues about Benedict's major concerns, characterizes his early pontificate as one in which he seeks to return to the basics of Christianity with a relatively uncontroversial meditation on love and the need for greater works of charity in an unjust world.

Even Vatican officials have expressed some surprise at the topic, considering Benedict was the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog and could easily have delved into a more problematic issue such as bioethics in his first authoritative text.

In the encyclical, Benedict said the church's work caring for widows, the sick and orphans was as much a part of its mission as celebrating the sacraments and spreading the Gospels. However, he stressed that the church's charity workers must never use their work to proselytize or push a particular political ideology.

''Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends,'' he wrote.

''Those who practice charity in the church's name will never seek to impose the church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love.''

He rejected the criticism of charity found in Marxist thought, which holds that charity is merely an excuse by the rich to keep the poor in their place when the rich should be working for a more just society.

While the Marxist model, in which the state tries to provide for every social need, did respond to the plight of the poor faster than even the church did during the Industrial Revolution, it was a failed experiment because it couldn't respond to every human need, he wrote.

Even in the most just societies, charity will always be necessary, he said.

''There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbor is indispensable,'' he said.

Benedict stressed that the state alone is responsible for creating that just society, not the church. ''As a political task, this cannot be the church's immediate responsibility,'' he said.

However, he said the church wants to be involved in political life by helping ''form consciences in political life and stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.''

He said the church was ''duty-bound'' to offer such a contribution, and that the lay faithful, who as citizens of the state, are duty-bound to carry it out through works of charity.

While stressing that the church has no direct political role, he did offer a prescription for what the state should do.

''We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything, but a state which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need,'' he wrote.

ZippyTheChimp

January 27th, 2006, 08:48 AM

January 27, 2006

Democrats in 2 Southern States Push Bills on Bible Study

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

The Democrats who introduced the bills said they hoped to compete with Republicans for conservative Christian voters. "Rather than sitting back on our heels and then being knocked in our face, we are going to respond in a thoughtful way," said Kasim Reed, a Georgia state senator from Atlanta and one of the sponsors of the bill. "We are not going to give away the South anymore because we are unwilling to talk about our faith."

In Georgia, the proposal marked a new course for the Democratic Party. The state's Democrats, including some sponsors of the bill, opposed a Republican proposal a few years ago to authorize the teaching of a different Bible course, which used a translation of the Scriptures as its text, calling it an inappropriate endorsement of religion. The sponsors say they are introducing their Bible measure now partly to pre-empt a potential Republican proposal seeking to display the Ten Commandments in schools.

In Alabama, a deeply religious state where Democrats support prayer in the schools and a Democratic candidate for governor recently introduced her campaign with the hymn "Give Me That Old Time Religion," the Bible class bills reflect Democrats' efforts to distance themselves from the national party.

"We have always had to somewhat defend ourselves from the national Democratic Party's secular image, and this is part of that," said Ken Guin, a representative from Carbon Hill, leader of the Democratic majority in the State House and a sponsor of the measure.

Democrats in other states are moving in the same direction, jumping into a conversation about religion and values that some party leaders began after the 2004 election, when President Bush and the Republicans rode those themes to victory.

In Indiana, Democratic legislators are among the leaders of a bipartisan effort to preserve the recitation of specifically Christian prayers in the Statehouse. In Virginia, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine relied heavily on religious themes and advertised on evangelical radio stations to win election last fall; Democratic Party leaders have called his campaign a national model.

In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."

Christian conservatives, however, say they have been pushing public schools to offer courses on the Bible for decades, and Republicans in both Alabama and Georgia say some schools already offer such electives.

"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees," State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. "This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."

Saying he found "a little irony" in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

Betty Peters, a Republican on the Alabama school board who opposed the initiative in that state, also dismissed the initiative as "pandering." Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."

For the last dozen years, most efforts to promote teaching the Bible in public schools have come from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a conservative Christian group based in Greensboro, N.C., that advocates using the Bible as the primary textbook. The group says about 320 school districts in 37 states offer its curriculum.

But its curriculum often draws attacks from civil liberties groups. Democratic sponsors of the Bible class bills say their efforts would help shield local school districts from First Amendment lawsuits, in part by recommending a more neutral approach.

The textbook they endorse was the brainchild of Chuck Stetson, a New York investment manager and theologically conservative Episcopalian who says he was concerned about public ignorance of the Bible.

Mr. Stetson helped produce "The Bible and Its Influence" as the centerpiece of a course that seeks to teach about the Bible and its legacy without endorsing or offending any specific faith.

The textbook came to the attention of Democratic legislators in Alabama and Georgia through the advocacy of R. Randolph Brinson, a Republican and founder of the evangelical voter-registration group Redeem the Vote.

Mr. Brinson, who said he was working with legislators in other states as well, described his pitch to Democrats as, "Introducing this bill will show the evangelical world that they are not hostile to faith."

Some liberals are unhappy, however. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that "The Bible and Its Influence" was "problematic" because it omitted "the bad and the ugly uses of the Bible," like the invocation of Scripture to justify racial segregation.

Conservative Christian groups have been skeptical, too. "This appears to be a calculated effort by the Democrats to try to out-conservative the conservatives," said Stephen M. Crampton, a lawyer for the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group that supports the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.

"To mention any curriculum by name is suggestive of some back-room deal cut with the publishers," Mr. Crampton said.

For his part, Mr. Stetson, founder of the group that produced the textbook, said a political fight was not what he wanted. "We are the first English-speaking generation to have lost the biblical story," he said, lamenting that studying the Bible had become "a political football."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Fabrizio

January 27th, 2006, 08:59 AM

Why in public schools? What are churches for?

Ninjahedge

January 27th, 2006, 10:57 AM

People are SO stupid.

They ARE the sheep that are being led by their emotion rather than by what they know is the right way to do things. And now the Dems are trying to feed of that same religious idealism.

Great. Just great.

BrooklynRider

January 27th, 2006, 11:39 AM

American Theocracy. It is upon us.

How long before burning a Bible becomes a crime?

lofter1

January 27th, 2006, 11:58 AM

... burning a Bible ...
Get Thee behind me, Satan!! ;)

And the appropriate punishment for the offense? Perhaps a one-on-one with ...

GET OUT OF MY HOUSE IN JESUS' NAME I PRAY!!!!!!!!!

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=75111&postcount=35

http://home.earthlink.net/~linda.watson/images/lhj.jpg

Vid: http://media.putfile.com/Lady-Goes-Crazy-on-Trading-Spouses

ZippyTheChimp

January 27th, 2006, 12:15 PM

If I see this woman's face on this forum again, I will take drastic measures.

lofter1

February 11th, 2006, 11:44 AM

A bit off topic, but related ...

In Small Town, 'Grease' Ignites a Culture War

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DIANA JEAN SCHEMO&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DIANA JEAN SCHEMO&inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
Feb. 11, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/national/11fulton.html?ei=5090&en=69f393f73f12ba55&ex=1297314000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1139672086-4HMbfoWmk5p4mvnzerN1yw

FULTON, Mo. — When Wendy DeVore, the drama teacher at Fulton High here, staged the musical "Grease," about high school students in the 1950's, she carefully changed the script to avoid causing offense in this small town.

She softened the language, substituting slang for profanity in places. Instead of smoking "weed," the teenagers duck out for a cigarette. She rated the production PG-13, advising parents it was not suitable for small children.

But a month after the performances in November, three letters arrived on the desk of Mark Enderle, Fulton's superintendent of schools. Although the letters did not say so, the three writers were members of a small group linked by e-mail, all members of the same congregation, Callaway Christian Church.

Each criticized the show, complaining that scenes of drinking, smoking and a couple kissing went too far, and glorified conduct that the community tries to discourage. One letter, from someone who had not seen the show but only heard about it, criticized "immoral behavior veiled behind the excuse of acting out a play."

Dr. Enderle watched a video of the play, ultimately agreeing that "Grease" was unsuitable for the high school, despite his having approved it beforehand, without looking at the script. Hoping to avoid similar complaints in the future, he decided to ban the scheduled spring play, "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/arthur_miller/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

"That was me in my worst Joe McCarthy moment, to some," Dr. Enderle said.
He called "The Crucible" "a fine play," but said he dropped it to keep the school from being "mired in controversy" all spring.

To many, the term "culture war" evokes national battles over new frontiers in taste and decency, over violence in video games, or profanity in music or on television. But such battles are also fought in small corners of the country like Fulton, a conservative town of about 10,000, where it can take only a few objections about library books or high school plays to shift quietly the cultural borderlines of an entire community.

The complaints here, which were never debated in a public forum, have spread a sense of uncertainty about the shifting terrain as parents, teachers and students have struggled to understand what happened. Among teenagers who were once thrilled to have worked on the production, "Grease" became "the play they'd rather not talk about," said Teri Arms, their principal, who had also approved the play before it was presented.

"Grease" and "The Crucible" are hardly unfamiliar; they are standard fare on the high school drama circuit, the second-most-frequently-performed musical and drama on school stages, according to the Educational Theater Association, a nonprofit group. The most performed now are "Seussical" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

But challenges to longstanding literary or artistic works are not unusual, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's office of intellectual freedom. Complaints generally are growing; in 2004, the last year for which figures are available, 547 books came under fire, an increase of nearly 20 percent over 2003, when 458 books were challenged.

"That a literary work is a classic does not protect it from being challenged, or even removed from a particular community," Ms. Caldwell-Stone said. Fulton, about 90 miles west of St. Louis, is best known as the home of Westminster College, where Winston Churchill (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/winston_leonard_spencer_churchill/index.html?inline=nyt-per) gave his Iron Curtain speech in 1946. Presidents since Harry S. Truman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/harry_s_truman/index.html?inline=nyt-per) have spoken in Fulton, lending the town a more cosmopolitan image.

Joseph Potter, an assistant professor of performing arts at William Woods University here, has staged dozens of shows for the community, including "Grease," and said he had never received a complaint. But politically and socially, Mr. Potter said, the town's core is conservative.

The three complaints about "Grease" reached Dr. Enderle within the same week.

Mark Miller, a 26-year-old graduate student, said he was moved to complain after getting an e-mail message about the show from Terra Guittar, a member of his church. Her description of the pajama party scene offended him, he wrote, adding that one character should have worn a more modest nightgown. Mr. Miller did not see the play.

"It makes sense that you're not going to offend anyone by being on the conservative side, especially when you're dealing with students, who don't have the same power as a principal or a theater director," he said.

A tape of the dress rehearsal showed that while most of the girls in the scene wore pajamas or a granny gown, Rizzo, the play's bad girl, wore just a pajama top. After the other girls fell asleep, Rizzo slipped her jeans on to sneak out for a date.

Ms. Guittar was so outraged by the drinking and kissing onstage that she walked out on the performance. She said she was not trying to inhibit artistic creativity. "It was strictly a moral issue," she said. "They're under 18. They're not in Hollywood."

But other parents were happy with the play. Mimi Curtis, whose son John played the lead, said the principal and drama teacher went out of their way to respect parents' wishes, changing the script in response to her own objections to profanity.

Ms. Curtis, who ran a concession stand during the play, saw all four performances.

"I didn't view it as raunchy," she said, adding that children who watch television are "hearing worse."

Dr. Enderle said he did not base his decision to cancel "The Crucible," which was first reported by The Fulton Sun, a daily, just on the three complaints and the video. He also asked 10 people he knew whether the play crossed a line. All but one, he recalled, said yes.

"To me, it's entirely a preventative maintenance issue," Dr. Enderle explained. "I can't do anything about what's already happened, but do I want to spend the spring saying, 'Yeah, we crossed the line again'?"

Nevertheless, the superintendent said he was "not 100 percent comfortable" with having canceled "The Crucible."

The absence of public debate meant that students heard of the cancellation as a fait accompli from their principal, Ms. Arms, and Ms. DeVore, the drama teacher. Others learned "The Crucible" was off limits through an internal school district newsletter. In it, Dr. Enderle said he dropped the play after seeing this summary on the Web: "17th century Salem woman accuses an ex-lover's wife of witchery in an adaptation of the Arthur Miller play."

Mr. Miller wrote "The Crucible" in the 1950's, in response to the witch hunt of his own day, when Congress held hearings to purge Hollywood of suspected Communists, pressuring witnesses to expose others to prove their innocence. The affair is not acted out in the play, which focuses on how hysteria and fear devoured Salem, despite the lack of evidence.

Dr. Enderle said Fulton High's students had largely accepted his decision and moved on. They are now rehearsing "A Midsummer Night's Dream" as their spring drama.

But in interviews here, students, who had already begun practicing for auditions of "The Crucible," expressed frustration and resignation, along with an overriding sense that there was no use fighting City Hall.

"It's over," said Emily Swenson, 15, after auditioning for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." "We can't do anything about it. We just have to obey."

Both the students and Ms. DeVore seemed unsure of why "The Crucible," which students study in 11th grade, was unacceptable.

Jarryd Lapp, a junior who was a light technician on "Grease," said he was disappointed that "The Crucible" was canceled. But he had a theory. "The show itself is graphic," he said. "People get hung; there's death in it. It's not appropriate."

Ms. DeVore believes it was canceled because it portrays the Salem witch trials, "a time in history that makes Christians look bad."

"In a Bible Belt community," she added, "it makes people nervous."

The teacher and her students are now ruling out future productions they once considered for their entertainment value alone, like "Little Shop of Horrors," a musical that features a cannibalistic plant, which they had discussed doing next fall.

Torii Davis, a junior, said that in her psychology class earlier that day, most students predicted that "Little Shop of Horrors" would never pass the test.
"Audrey works in a flower shop," Ms. Davis said. "She has a boyfriend who beats her. That could be controversial."

Ms. DeVore went down a list of the most commonly performed musicals and dramas on high school stages, and ticked off the potentially offensive aspects. " 'Bye Bye Birdie' has smoking and drinking. 'Oklahoma,' there's a scene where she's almost raped. 'Diary of Anne Frank,' would you take a 6-year-old?" the drama teacher asked.

"How am I supposed to know what's appropriate when I don't have any written guidelines, and it seems that what was appropriate yesterday isn't appropriate today?" Ms. DeVore asked. The teacher said she had been warned that because of the controversy, the school board might not renew her contract for next year.

For the moment, Dr. Enderle acknowledged, the controversy has shrunk the boundaries of what is acceptable for the community. He added that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was "not a totally vanilla play."

But asked if the high school might put on another Shakespeare classic about young people in love, "Romeo and Juliet," he hesitated.

"Given the historical context of the play," the superintendent said, "it would be difficult to say that's something we would not perform."

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

Fabrizio

February 11th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Well, the ARE right about Oklahoma! Listen to this:

"I can´t say no"

It ain't so much a question of not knowing what to do.
I knowed whut's right and wrong since I been ten.
I heared a lot of stories and I reckon they are true
About how girls're put upon by men.
I know I mustn't fall into the pit,
But when I'm with a feller, I fergit!
I'm jist a girl who cain't say no,
I'm in a turrible fix I always say "come on, le's go"
Jist when I orta say nix!
When a person tries to kiss a girl,
I know she orta give his face a smack.
But as soon as someone kisses me,
I somehow, sorta, wanta kiss him back!
I'm jist a fool when lights are low
I cain't be prissy and quaint
I ain't the type that can faint
How c'n I be whut I ain't?
I cain't say no!
Whut you goin' to do when a feller gits flirty, and starts to talk purty?
Whut you goin' to do?
S'posin' 'at he says 'at yer lips're like cherries, er roses, er berries?
Whut you goin' to do?
S'posin' 'at he says 'at you're sweeter 'n cream,
And he's gotta have cream er die?
Whut you goin' to do when he talks that way,
Spit in his eye?
I'm jist a girl who cain't say no,
Cain't seem to say it at all
I hate to disserpoint a beau
When he is payin' a call!
Fer a while I ack refined and cool,
A settin on the velveteen setee
Nen I think of thet ol' golden rule,
And do fer him what he would do fer me!
I cain't resist a Romeo
In a sombrero and chaps
Soon as I sit on their laps
Somethin' inside of me snaps
I cain't say no!

Not to mention:

The Farmer and the cowman

"The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends".

I wonder what that´s all about...

lofter1

February 11th, 2006, 12:26 PM

Well, the ARE right about Oklahoma! Listen to this:

Not to mention:

The Farmer and the cowman

"The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends".

I wonder what that´s all about...
and let's not even talk about those sheep-herders ...

ZippyTheChimp

February 11th, 2006, 12:29 PM

I don't know about the rural Midwest, but my aunt was raised in a small rural town in eastern Pennsylvania called Milanville - population something like 500. I spent a few boyhood summers there, and the area was loaded with some of the strangest people I've ever met.

ZippyTheChimp

February 16th, 2006, 12:10 AM

February 15, 2006

Ohio Board Undoes Stand on Evolution

By JODI RUDOREN

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 14 — The Ohio Board of Education voted 11 to 4 Tuesday to toss out a mandate that 10th-grade biology classes include critical analysis of evolution and an accompanying model lesson plan, dealing the intelligent design movement its second serious defeat in two months.

The board, which became the first in the nation to single out evolution for special scrutiny under the academic standards it adopted in 2002, stripped the language from the curriculum partly out of fear of a lawsuit in the wake of a December ruling by a federal judge that teaching intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., public schools was unconstitutional.

While the Ohio lesson plan does not mention intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone, critics contend that the critical analysis language is simply design in disguise.

"This lesson is bad news, the 'critically analyze' wording is bad news," Martha W. Wise, the board member who offered the emergency motion, told her colleagues during 90 minutes of contentious debate here Tuesday afternoon. "It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science."

Darwin's defenders celebrated the reversal as a sign of a backlash against the inroads made last year by critics of evolution. But leaders of the Discovery Institute, the intellectual home of intelligent design, warned that Ohio's move would create a backlash of its own.

"It's an outrageous slap in the face to the citizens of Ohio," said John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the institute, referring to several polls that show public support for criticism of evolution in science classes. "The effort to try to suppress ideas that you dislike, to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike, has a failed history," Mr. West said. "Do they really want to be on the side of the people who didn't want to let John Scopes talk or who tried to censor Galileo?"

But Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, called the Ohio vote "a significant victory" and said it should give pause to school districts and states considering changes in how evolution is taught.

The Discovery Institute had offered Ohio as a national model for its "teach the controversy" approach on evolution. Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have adopted similar "critical analysis" standards, and the South Carolina Board of Education is scheduled to vote next month on whether to add a similar phrase to its curriculum guidelines.

"This language from Ohio, the critically-analyze-evolution type language, is sprouting up all over, in both the local level, as well as with other state standards," Ms. Scott said. "The Ohio board has recognized its error, and other school districts should not make that same error."

The model lesson plan is voluntary, and it is unclear how many of Ohio's 613 local school districts use it. At Tuesday's meeting, Robin C. Hovis, a board member who urged its deletion, said that "we allow a Dover risk to remain if we leave this lesson plan on the shelf."

The vote followed Mrs. Wise's failed effort last month to kill the lesson plan, after which Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, called for a legal review of the lesson in light of the Dover ruling. On Tuesday, a board member who supports the critical-analysis approach tried to pre-empt Mrs. Wise's motion by asking the attorney general to take a formal look, but defenders of evolution prevailed in a parliamentary maneuver.

Michael Cochran, one of four lawyers on the 19-member board, criticized Mrs. Wise's supporters as undoing a lengthy process that had led to adoption of the standards with an emergency motion on an afternoon that four members, three of whom support the lesson, were absent.

"It is absolutely disgraceful that we've had this for three years, and we can't wait another month," Mr. Cochran said. "I think that's by design. Not intelligent design, but by design."

Deborah Owens Fink, who along with Mr. Cochran voted against eliminating the critical-analysis language, said after the meeting that the vote was just another round in the culture war, not a knockout.

"There are no permanent victories in politics," Ms. Fink said. "You do not get paradigm shifts overnight. Whether the ultimate victory is today or it's tomorrow or it's two years from now, people demand that they get open discussion of this issue."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

lofter1

February 16th, 2006, 01:21 AM

That tide ^^ turned quickly.

BrooklynRider

February 16th, 2006, 11:55 AM

The Ohio Board....

TLOZ Link5

February 16th, 2006, 03:55 PM

If I see this woman's face on this forum again, I will take drastic measures.

Self-blinding? :D

lofter1

February 21st, 2006, 12:41 PM

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition

By KENNETH CHANG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/kenneth_chang/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
Feb. 21, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?ex=1298178000&en=dedbd71075d864a0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

The petition was started in 2001 by the institute, which champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a "teach the controversy" approach, like the one scuttled by the state Board of Education in Ohio last week.

Institute officials said that 41 people added their names to the petition after a federal judge ruled in December against the Dover, Pa., school district's attempt to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

"Early on, the critics said there was nobody who disbelieved Darwin's theory except for rubes in the woods," said Bruce Chapman, president of the institute. "How many does it take to be a noticeable minority — 10, 50, 100, 500?"

Mr. Chapman said the petition showed "there is a minority of scientists who disagree with Darwin's theory, and it is not just a handful."

The petition makes no mention of intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it is best explained as the design of an intelligent being.

Rather, it states: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

A Web site with the full list of those who signed the petition was made available yesterday by the institute at dissentfromdarwin.org (http://dissentfromdarwin.org/). The signers all claim doctorates in science or engineering. The list includes a few nationally prominent scientists like James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University; Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philip S. Skell, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Penn State who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

It also includes many with more modest positions, like Thomas H. Marshall, director of public works in Delaware, Ohio, who has a doctorate in environmental ecology. The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.

Of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds but also say that evolution runs against their religious beliefs.

Several said that their doubts began when they increased their involvement with Christian churches.

Some said they read the Bible literally and doubt not only evolution but also findings of geology and cosmology that show the universe and the earth to be billions of years old.

Scott R. Fulton, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y., who signed the petition, said that the argument for intelligent design was "very interesting and promising."

He said he thought his religious belief was "not particularly relevant" in how he judged intelligent design. "It probably influences in the sense in that it makes me very interested in the questions," he said. "When I see scientific evidence that points to God, I find that encouraging."

Roger J. Lien, a professor of poultry science at Auburn, said he received a copy of the petition from Christian friends.

"I stuck my name on it," he said. "Basically, it states what I believe."

Dr. Lien said that he grew up in California in a family that was not deeply religious and that he accepted evolution through much of his scientific career. He said he became a Christian about a decade ago, six years after he joined the Auburn faculty.

"The world is broken, and we humans and our science can't fix it," Dr. Lien said. "I was brought to Jesus Christ and God and creationism and believing in the Bible."

He also said he thought that evolution was "inconsistent with what the Bible says."

Another signer is Dr. Gregory J. Brewer, a professor of cell biology at the Southern Illinois University medical school. Like other skeptics, he readily accepts what he calls "microevolution," the ability of species to adapt to changing conditions in their environment. But he holds to the opinion that science has not convincingly shown that one species can evolve into another.

"I think there's a lot of problems with evolutionary dogma," said Dr. Brewer, who also does not accept the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old. "Scientifically, I think there are other possibilities, one of which would be intelligent design. Based on faith, I do believe in the creation account."

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.

"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.

But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete.

"I can't make the jumps, the leaps they make in the explanations," Dr. Tour said. "Will I or other scientists likely be able to makes those jumps in the future? Maybe."

Opposing petitions have sprung up. The National Center for Science Education, which has battled efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution, has sponsored a pro-evolution petition signed by 700 scientists named Steve, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who died in 2002.
The petition affirms that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences."

Mr. Chapman of that institute said the opposing petitions were beside the point. "We never claimed we're in a fight for numbers," he said.

Discovery officials said that they did not ask the religious beliefs of the signers and that such beliefs were not relevant. John G. West, a senior fellow at Discovery, said it was "stunning hypocrisy" to ask signers about their religion "while treating the religious beliefs of the proponents of Darwin as irrelevant."

Discovery officials did point to two scientists, David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician and a senior fellow at the institute, and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."

Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

BrooklynRider

February 21st, 2006, 01:31 PM

MrSpice

February 21st, 2006, 02:06 PM

I wish someone would take up a campaign to m ake the ord "evangelical" as politically unpalatable and unpopular as the word "liberal." Honestly, whenever I see someone referred to as an evangelical, I think of an uneducated bigot who displays histrionic emotions and has a warped self-serving view of the world around him - and who also steals from the poor...

Maybe your view is such because you yourself are a bigot. I think you will find a lot of people who can be referred to as evangelical and who are highly educated and who certainly don't steal from the poor. I think you can be a bit more tolerant and understanding of other people's faith and ideas. I am not religious myself and I believe in science and technology first and foremost. But I would not judge other people who have religious faith as long as their belief does not affect my rights and my life.

JMGarcia

February 21st, 2006, 02:46 PM

... But I would not judge other people who have religious faith as long as their belief does not affect my rights and my life.

There's the rub. It seems there is a strong current in "evangelical" christianity which does seek to affect the rights and life of everyone in their own image. They should expect a backlash. No one likes a bossy scold and bully which is what too many evenagelicals have become.

ZippyTheChimp

February 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
If I see this woman's face on this forum again, I will take drastic measures

Self-blinding? :D Maybe I should adjust my avatar.
http://www.maxboxing.com/Media/SeeNoEvil.jpg

lofter1

February 23rd, 2006, 07:27 PM

'Jurassic Beaver' find stuns experts

19:00 23 February 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Jeff Hechthttp://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8759/dn8759-1_500.jpg
(Image: Mark A. Klinger/CMNH)
The discovery of a Jurassic beaver-like creature suggests
early mammals were more diverse than thought

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn8769.html

The discovery of a new, remarkably preserved fossil of a beaver-like mammal that lived 164 million years ago is shaking palaeontologists’ understanding of early mammals.

Looking as if it was put together from pieces of platypus, river otter, and beaver, the creature was nearly half a metre long and weighed about half a kilogram. This makes it the largest of its kind ever found in the Jurassic Period, from 200 million to 145 million years ago.

The fossil of the semi-aquatic mammal Castorocauda lutrasimilis was discovered in the middle Jurassic Jiulongshan formation in Inner Mongolia, China, by Qiang Ji at Nanjing University, and colleagues. It boasts the oldest fossil fur ever found.

Palaeontologists had long thought the mammals living under the feet of the dinosaurs were tiny shrew-like animals. But recent discoveries have challenged this notion.

Full pelt

In 2005, Repenomamus giganticus (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn6874.html) from China showed that land mammals had reached a metre in length about 130 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period.

But the newly found fossil reveals that early mammals were also far more diverse than thought. The discoveries "are completely reconfiguring our understanding of Mesozoic mammals," says Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History.

Castorocauda was preserved it in exquisite detail, flattened in sediments at the bottom of an ancient lake. Hair impressions surround the body, which includes a 20-centimetre-long flat, beaver-like tail. Two slabs of sedimentary rock include most of the body and part of the skull.

The animal had "a full mammalian pelt, with guard hairs and under fur, and scales on the tail" like a modern beaver, says Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, US, and one of the team.
Warm-blooded metabolism

Castorocauda’s webbed feet, limbs and broad flat tail are adapted for swimming, and its teeth specialised for catching fish, making it the earliest mammal known to live partly in the water. Another 100 million years would pass before ancestral whales and manatees turned to the water.

The creature probably lived like a modern platypus, says Luo, "digging a tunnel to nest and lay eggs, and going from the tunnel into the water to feed".

The discovery shows that fur and modern skin structures and warm-blooded metabolism originated very early in mammals. "Hair keeps us warm, and sweat glands help us to dissipate heat, so skin is part of the adaptation to constant body temperature," Luo told New Scientist.

"This is a pretty amazing find," Sues told New Scientist. What excites palaeontologists is the new-found diversity and complex evolutionary history of early mammals – a group previously known mostly from scattered teeth. More complete fossils have been very rare.

"Traditionally, Mesozoic mammals were not the path to glory," says Sues.

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

BrooklynRider

February 24th, 2006, 06:51 PM

Maybe your view is such because you yourself are a bigot. [/b][/color] I think you will find a lot of people who can be referred to as evangelical and who are highly educated and who certainly don't steal from the poor. I think you can be a bit more tolerant and understanding of other people's faith and ideas.

My post was specifically on topic of this thread and commenting on evangelicals. Your post opens with a rather nasty comment specifically about me and proceeds on about me, not the topic. As the word "YOU" is used repeatedly, it would be hard to argue that you are not talking about me as opposed to the topic.

I am not religious myself and I believe in science and technology first and foremost. But I would not judge other people who have religious faith as long as their belief does not affect my rights and my life.

See, this portion fits in nicely with the rules of conduct here. It speaks to the topic and relates your views - just like my previous post did. The subject of your post is not another forum member, it is not name calling (prohibited) or an inflammatory comment about another forum member (prohibited), or an attack on another forum member (prohibited).

Can you explain to me, and the other members of this forum who choose to follow the posting guidelines, why it is that you feel the rules of conduct do not apply to you here? Are you proposing we appeal Edward to change the rules so we can open each new post with a personal insult or attack on the previous poster, if we happen to disagree or find his views the antithesis of our own beliefs?

This is not a rhetorical question and one that I think deserves an answer. Why is it that you believe the rules do not apply to you?

lofter1

February 28th, 2006, 12:45 PM

Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah

By KIRK JOHNSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/kirk_johnson/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
Feb. 28, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/national/28utah.html

In a defeat for critics of Darwin, the Utah House of Representatives on Monday voted down a bill intended to challenge the theory of evolution in high school science classes.

The bill had been viewed nationally, by people on each side of the science education debate, as an important proposal because Utah is such a conservative state, with a Legislature dominated by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But the bill died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon who said he thought God did not have an argument with science. The amendment stripped out most of the bill's language, leaving only that the state board of education "shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction."

Legislative officials said the bill was not likely to be revived before the scheduled adjournment of the Legislature on Wednesday. The Origins of Life bill, in its initial form, would have required teachers to issue a disclaimer to their students saying that not all scientists agree about evolution and the origin of species. It did not mention any alternative theory to Darwinism, but was viewed by some supporters and opponents as part of the drive to encourage the teaching of intelligent design, which says that life is too complicated to have evolved without an architect.

Some Mormon legislators opposed the bill because they agreed with Mr. Urquhart that science and religion should remain separate, others because they thought intelligent design was not in keeping with traditional Mormon belief.

Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a research group based in Seattle that has promoted the ideas of intelligent design, called the vote "a loss for scientific education," but said it was a purely local Utah matter.

A spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joe Conn, said Utah's vote would resonate.

"If the creationists can't win in a state as conservative as Utah, they've got an uphill battle," Mr. Conn said.

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

lofter1

March 4th, 2006, 02:15 AM

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

By John Mills, News 4
KMOV.com
St. Louis
March 3, 2006

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html (http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html)

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.

© 2006 KMOV-TV, INC.

cyppok

March 7th, 2006, 12:40 AM

funny with msisispi. Maybe we could have some sort of a truce and have evolving creation or creative evolution. Like god is sperm and we all come from nature. Or jesus was the first ape in the garden of dna dying to cleanse the mutations in our double helix.

lofter1

March 11th, 2006, 11:03 AM

You are what you eat ...

Man Claims Jesus Appeared In Pasta Dish

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0310/7882719.jpg

"I looked at the plate and before I started to eat it I thought, I'm not
sure about this," Williams said. "So, we called the hostess. She came
over and just got chills. The next thing you know you got the cameras
coming out. You got people who are eating here coming to our table to
see it. They just had chills. There were about 100 people taking pictures."

Williams: 'They Just Had Chills'

SLIDESHOW: Photos Of Pasta Dish (http://www.local6.com/slideshow/news/7882714/detail.html?qs=1;s=1;dm=ss;p=news;w=400)

local6.com (Orlando)
March 10, 2006

http://www.local6.com/news/7882549/detail.html

A man in California claims the image of Jesus appeared to him while he was eating a plate of manicotti at an Italian restaurant, according to a Local 6 News report.

Leo Williams said the image appeared before his eyes in the form of a bubbling, burned portion of cheese on his pasta dinner.

Williams showed several people at the business who said they also saw the Jesus image and began to take photos of the discovery.

"I looked at the plate and before I started to eat it I thought, I'm not sure about this," Williams said. "So, we called the hostess. She came over and just got chills. The next thing you know you got the cameras coming out.
You got people who are eating here coming to our table to see it. They just had chills. There were about 100 people taking pictures."

Williams said since the lunch, a chronic stomach problem he has had since birth has vanished.

Copyright 2006 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com (webstaff@mycfnow.com).

lofter1

March 18th, 2006, 01:10 PM

Maybe G*D was just a little-bitty guy "in the beginning" ...

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NY Times
March 17, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Cosmic-Inflation.html

Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery -- which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation -- is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/16/science/0317-web-COSMOS-ch.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/science/space/17cosmos.html?pagewanted=2

''It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place,'' said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. ''This is absolutely amazing.''

Brian Greene, a Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) physicist, said: ''The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning.''

Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old -- long after inflation had done its work.

But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance.

Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference at Princeton University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/princeton_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org). The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_aeronautics_and_space_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in 2001.

Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research.

The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky -- only billions of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions.

Without inflation, the brightness variations over small patches of the sky would be the same as those observed over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers found considerable differences in the brightness variations.

''The data favors inflation,'' said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues, Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to the research.

Bennett added: ''It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe.''

The physicists said small lumps in the microwave background began during inflation. Those lumps eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets.

The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/)

lofter1

March 18th, 2006, 01:19 PM

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

...It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

Soup. Art.

written by Jane Wagner & Lily Tomlin

http://www.whysanity.net/monos/soupart.html

Trudy the Bag Lady: (near the play's beginning) Dial - switch me outta this! I got enough worries of my own. These trances are entertaining but distracting, especially since someone else has the remote control, and if the pause button should somehow get punched, I could have a neurotransmitter mental meltdown. Causes "lapses of the synapses." I forget things. Never underestimate the power of the human mind to forget. The other day, I forgot where I put my house keys --- looked everywhere, then I remembered...

I don't have a house. I forget more important things, too. Like the meaning of life. I forget that. It'll come to me, though. Let's just hope when it does, I'll be in...

My space chums say they're learning so much about us since they've begun to time-share my trances. They said to me, "Trudy, the human mind is so-o-o strange." I told 'em, "That's nothin' compared to the human genitals."

Next to my trances they love goin' through my shopping bags. Once they found this old box of Cream of Wheat. I told 'em, "A box of cereal." But they saw it as a picture of infinity. You know how on the front is a picture of that guy holding up a box of Cream of Wheat and on that box is a picture of that guy holding up a box of Cream of Wheat and on that box is a picture of that guy holding up a box of Cream of Wheat and on that box is a picture of that guy holding up a box of Cream of Wheat...

We think so different. They find it hard to grasp some things that come easy to us, because they simply don't have our frame of reference. I show 'em this can of Campbell's tomato soup. I say, "This is soup." Then I show 'em a picture of Andy Warhol's painting of a can of Campbell's tomato soup. I say, "This is art." "This is soup." "And this is art." Then I shuffle the two behind my back. Now what is this?

No, this is soup and this is art!

(near the play's ending)
Hey, what's this? "Dear Trudy, thanks for making our stay here so jam-packed and fun-filled. Sorry to abort our mission -- it is not over, just temporarily scrapped. We have ordered to go to a higher bio-vibrational plane. Just wanted you to know, the neurochemical imprints of our cardiocortical experiences here on earth will remain with us always, but what we take with us into space that we cherish the most is 'goose bump' experience."

Did I tell you what happened at the play? We were at the back of the theater, standing there in the dark, all of a sudden I feel one of 'em tug my sleeve, whispers, "Trudy, look." I said, "Yeah, goose bumps. You definitely got goose bumps. You really like the play that much?" They said it wasn't gave 'em goose bumps, it was the audience.

I forgot to tell 'em to watch the play; they'd been watching the audience! Yeah, to see a group of strangers sitting together in the dark, laughing and crying about the same things...that just knocked 'em out. They said, "Trudy, the play was soup...the audience...art."

So they're taking goose bumps home with 'em. Goose bumps! Quite a souvenir. I like to think of them out there in the dark, watching us. Sometimes we'll do something and they'll laugh. Sometimes we'll do something and they'll cry. And maybe one day we'll do something so magnifcent, everyone in the universe will get goose bumps.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6302899052.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6302899052/002-7865730-1135231?v=glance&n=404272

lofter1

July 16th, 2006, 05:54 PM

Creation Science Evangelist Indicted
for Refusing to Pay $500k in Taxes on Employees

taxprofblog (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/07/creation_scienc.html)
July 16, 2006

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/images/hovind.jpg (http://taxprof.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/hovind.jpg)

Kent Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind), the self-styled Dr. Dino of Creation Science Evangelism (http://www.drdino.com/) and owner of the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land Theme Park, Science Center, and Museum (http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/), was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes. According to press reports (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/607140333/1006):
Kent Hovind ... has been sparring with the IRS for at least 17 years on his claims that he is employed by God, receives no income, has no expenses and owns no property. "The debtor apparently maintains that as a minister of God, everything he owns belongs to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on money he receives for doing God's work," U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lewis Killian Jr. wrote when he dismissed a claim from Hovind in 1996.

Hovind, an avowed creationist, has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 to anyone who can provide scientific evidence of evolution....

In the indictment unsealed Thursday, a grand jury alleges that Kent Hovind failed to pay $473,818 in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes on employees at his Creation Science Evangelism/Ministry between March 31, 2001, and Jan. 31, 2004. The indictment alleges Kent Hovind paid his employees in cash and labeled them "missionaries" to avoid payroll tax and FICA requirements....

Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500 from AmSouth Bank ...The indictment also says the Hovinds' made cash withdrawals from AmSouth Bank in a manner that evaded federal requirements for reporting cash transactions. The withdrawals were for $9,500 or $9,600, just below the $10,000 starting point for reporting cash transactions....

In April, Circuit Judge Michael Allen ordered the buildings at Dinosaur Adventure Land closed because Hovind failed to obtain a building permit during the 2002 construction. The outdoor theme park was allowed to stay open. Members of Creation Science Evangelism said at the time that building permits violated their "deeply held" religious beliefs.

For Mr. Hovind's other tax troubles, see:

Hovind v. Commissioner (http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Hovind.TCM.WPD.pdf), T.C. Memo. 2006-143 (7/6/06)
In re Hovind (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html), 197 B.R. 157 (Bkrtcy. N.D.Fla., 6/5/96)
Hovind v. Schneider (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f8326b5d20c18392), 90 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-7373 (N.D.Fla., 10/31/02)
Hovind v. Kelly (http://lawschool.westlaw.com/shared/westlawRedirect.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewestlaw %2Ecom%2Ffind%2Fdefault%2Ewl%3Fcite%3D1998%2BWL%2B 422895%2B%26FindType%3DF%26ForceAction%3DY%26SV%3D Full%26RS%3DITK3%2E0%26VR%3D1%2E0&appflag=87.6), 79 A.F.T.R.2d 97-1650 (N.D. Fla., 3/17/97)
Hovind v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d 97-657 (N.D. Fla., 12/26/96

lofter1

August 2nd, 2006, 10:51 AM

Evolution issue tips board’s balance

Election a moderate success

Lawrence Journal-World (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/02/evolution_issue_tips_boards_balance/)
By Sophia Maines
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Darwin won.

Moderate Kansas State Board of Education candidates pulled off a victory Tuesday, gathering enough might to topple the board’s 6-4 conservative majority.

A victory by incumbent Janet Waugh, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Lawrence, and wins by Republican moderates in two districts previously represented by conservatives left the tables turned heading into the Nov. 7 general election.

“If we change the board around, we’ll be able to make decisions that we think are right for our students,” Lawrence school board member Craig Grant said.

Grant had worked to defeat the conservatives who attracted international attention and ridicule for the state after adopting science standards critical of evolution.

Waugh held onto her seat in District 1, rebuffing a challenge from conservative Jesse Hall who, according to the last campaign finance report, had raised about three times more money. But Waugh collected 63 percent of the vote.

“Obviously money can’t buy elections,” she said. “I think the people of Kansas are tired of being the laughingstock not only of the nation but the world.”

Not all the conservatives were defeated.

Conservative incumbent John Bacon held his seat in District 3, which includes parts of Johnson County. Bacon won by a slim margin, with 49 percent.

Challengers Harry McDonald, Olathe, the former president of Kansas Citizens for Science, and David Oliphant, also of Olathe, split the remaining vote.

Bacon faces Democrat Don Weiss in the general election.

In the District 5 race to represent a large part of western Kansas, conservative incumbent Connie Morris trailed moderate challenger Sally Cauble who at midnight had 54 percent of the vote with 556 of 609 precincts reporting.

Conservative Ken Willard held his seat in District 7 by a wide margin. He faces Democrat Jack Wempe in November.

And with few votes still to be counted at midnight, moderate Jana Shaver appeared to be the favorite for the District 9 seat. Shaver ran against Brad Patzer, son-in-law of outgoing conservative board member Iris Van Meter. At press time, Shaver had 58 percent of the vote. The winner faces Democrat Kent Runyan in the general election.The five races have attracted national attention as both sides battled for control of the board.Many wanted a shake-up after the 6-4 conservative majority altered the state’s science standards, rewriting the definition of science and adding criticism of evolution.

Proponents of Kansas’ latest standards say they encourage open discussion.

“Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin’s theory,” said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.

The conservative board majority changed the rules on sex education, requiring parental permission before students participate in classes, though districts including Lawrence opted not to change their ways.

And the conservative majority pressed the issue further, considering an “abstinence-until-marriage” approach to sex education.

It also filled the state’s top education administrative seat with Bob Corkins — a conservative activist with no educational background who lobbied against increased school funding.

© Copyright 2006 The Lawrence Journal-World

HoboSapian

September 13th, 2006, 12:34 AM

Just on the subject of creationism and creationist thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2342421,00.html

Human brain naturally inclined towards the supernatural

By Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gifThe human brain is hard-wired to be susceptible to supernatural beliefs as a result of tens of thousands of years of evolution, a British psychologist said today.
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.

This evolved credulity suggests that it will be impossible to root out belief in ideas such as creationism and paranormal phenomena, even though they have been refuted by evidence and are held as a matter of faith alone.
People ultimately believe in them for the same reasons as they attach sentimental value to inanimate objects like wedding rings or teddy bears, and recoil from artefacts linked to evil, as if they are pervaded by a physical "essence".
Even the most rational people behave in these irrational ways, and supernatural beliefs are part of the same continuum, Professor Hood told the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich today.
To demonstrate, he asked members of his audience if they were prepared to put on an old-fashioned blue cardigan in return for a £10 reward, and had no shortage of volunteers.
He then informed them that the cardigan used to belong to Fred West, the mass murderer.

"Most hands went down," he said.

"When people did wear it, most people moved away from them. It’s not actually Fred West’s jumper. But it’s the belief that it’s Fred West’s jumper that has the effect. It is as if evil, a moral stance defined by culture, has become physically manifest inside the clothing."

Similar beliefs, which are held among the most sceptical of scientists, also explain why few people would agree to swap their wedding rings for identical replicas. The difference between attaching significance to sentimental objects, and believing in religion, magic or the paranormal, is only one of degree, Professor Hood said.

These tendencies, he said, are almost certainly a product of evolution. The human mind is adapted to reason intuitively, so it can generate theories about how the world works even when mechanisms cannot be seen or easily deduced.
While this is ultimately responsible for scientific thinking, as in the discovery of invisible forces such as gravity, it also leaves people prone to making irrational errors about what cause and effect.

"In most cases, intuitive theories capture everyday knowledge, such as the nature and properties of objects, what makes something alive, or the understanding that people’s minds motivate their actions," Professor Hood said.

"But because intuitive theories are based on unobservable properties, such theories leave open the possibility of misconceptions. I believe these misconceptions of naive intuitive theories provide the basis of many later adult magical beliefs about the paranormal."

Ninjahedge

September 13th, 2006, 10:23 AM

It was brought up years ago in an episode, of all things, of Dr. Who.

The fact that mankind has the annoying habit of associaing things that have absolutely no connection to one another (cause and effect) and may just be thereby sheer coincidence.

Example would be the seasons. Yes certain constilations can be seen only during the cold months of the year, but they do not cause the chill. People associate other things with the placement of the stars, especially peoples behavior and fate, that have no more to do with them than any other periodic event but yet people have associated several unknowns into something that can be grasped by some simplistic, albeit wrong, reasons for being.

So I can see how we evolved with this "natural" tendency to associate unknowns, but it gets difficult to make it past that when they have already been established for an individual. We need to evolve one step further.

lofter1

September 15th, 2006, 01:13 PM

Creationists: Explain this, please ...

Researchers Offer a New Date for
Neanderthals’ Last Stand

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/science/14neanderthal.html)
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
September 14, 2006

An international team of scientists thinks it has solved the ultimate mystery of the Neanderthals: where and when they made their last stand before extinction. It was at Gibraltar 28,000 years ago, the scientists say, about 2,000 years more recently than previously thought.

The archaeologists and paleontologists reported yesterday finding several hundred stone tools in Gorham’s Cave, on the rugged Mediterranean coast near the Rock of Gibraltar. They were made in the Mousterian stoneworking style, usually associated with Neanderthals. So far, no fossil bones of the cave occupants have been uncovered.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060911/images/060911-8b.jpg
Natural History Museum

http://www.nature.com/news/images/spacer.gif
Gorham's Cave: a nice view, and
plenty of food nearby.

The researchers said, however, that the tools established the survival of a population of Neanderthals, a people closely related to human ancestors, in the southernmost point of Western Europe long after they disappeared elsewhere.

These were, they concluded, the last Neanderthals “currently recorded anywhere.”

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/14/world/0914-for-web-NEANDERTHALmap.gif
The New York Times
Scientists found tools linked to
Neanderthals in a Gibraltar cave.

The scientists, led by Clive Finlayson of the Gibraltar Museum, announced the discovery at a news conference at the museum. Their report was simultaneously published on the Web site of the journal Nature, nature.com (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060911/full/060911-8.html). It will appear in the journal at a later date.

In an accompanying commentary in Nature, two paleontologists not involved in the research, Eric Delson and Katerina Harvati, agreed that the date of 28,000 years ago was “later than any other well-documented supposed Neanderthal occurrence.”

They added a note of caution, however, saying that while Gorham’s Cave “might well pinpoint the newly extended end of a long lineage” of Neanderthals in Europe, only “time will tell” if the findings are correct.

Dr. Delson is a paleontologist at Lehman College of the City University of New York and the American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Harvati, an evolutionary scientist, is a specialist in Neanderthal research at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Dr. Delson said in an interview that the dates for the artifacts “appeared to be solid” and that southern Iberia “was indeed a region where Neanderthals survived long after modern humans were dominant elsewhere in Europe.”

Recently revised dating shows that anatomically modern Homo sapiens migrated to Europe from Africa by 35,000 years ago and over time they displaced Neanderthals, who had lived on the continent for about 200,000 years.

Erik Trinkaus, a Neanderthal specialist at Washington University in St. Louis who was not a member of the discovery team, expressed reservations about the accuracy of the date of 28,000 years ago, noting that it was based on analysis of tiny pieces of charcoal, which often move from one layer to another in sediments.

Gorham’s Cave has yielded many butchered animal bones and stone tools over the past 50 years. In fact, Neanderthal fossils were uncovered long ago in nearby Forbes Quarry, but were not recognized as such until after the first established Neanderthal specimen was found in 1856 in Germany.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060911/images/060911-8.jpg
Natural History Museum
http://www.nature.com/news/images/spacer.gif
Spear points like this, discovered in Gorham's Cave,
show that Neanderthals once lived here.

Dr. Finlayson and Spanish archaeologists began digging in earnest at the cave in 1999. They methodically excavated more than 60 square feet of the cave floor by 2005, penetrating several layers with evidence of occupation. The depth of the layers indicated that the cave had been home to Mousterian toolmakers over a long stretch of time.

Indeed, the Finlayson team reported that some layers holding artifacts appeared to be only 24,000 years old. But they conceded that these dates were suspect.

Dr. Delson and Dr. Harvati also pointed out that “evidence of Mousterian tools does not in itself indicate that their makers were Neanderthals: this is merely a reasonable assumption.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

© 2006 Nature Publishing Group

davidcaspian

September 18th, 2006, 05:16 PM

lofter1

January 2nd, 2007, 01:13 PM

Andrew Sullivan (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/christianism_wa.html)
02 Jan 2007

The National Park Service won't stop selling a book (http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801) that claims that the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old. The Christianists in Washington won't review or withdraw the preposterous book for political reasons. And it's not an oversight:
Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.***

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON?
PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY

Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801
December 28, 2006

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”

###

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf)

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf)

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation (http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder6.html)

Ninjahedge

January 3rd, 2007, 02:37 PM

That is beyond sickening!

I can understand that maybe they approve of a book to sell there, although it may not be appropriate, just to be able to keep the lines of discourse open, but to forbid the park staff from ever telling the scientific truth of the matter?

I always hate it when "freedom of speech" is brought up to introduce religious doctrin into the "debate" and then it is promptly rejected when scientists refute anything that is brought up by religious advocates that have no sound proof or basis.

Half truths are more dangerous than truths or lies, because if you put it right, people will always be able to find what they WANT to see in them, regardless of which side of the truth it may lie on.

ZippyTheChimp

January 14th, 2007, 11:03 PM

That is beyond sickening!
You need a vacation, Ninjahedge. How about a visit to Kentucky?

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum

By Andrea Hopkins

Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.

"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.

The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.

For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.

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 and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.

"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis and his family, who have toured the site.

FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN

While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.

Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.

"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.

Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.

The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.

"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.

"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.

"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.

The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.

The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.

The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Fabrizio

January 15th, 2007, 01:58 AM

From the article:

"... earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says..."

"Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics..."

Conservative or no....it is NOT the Church position on this subject:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

ZippyTheChimp

January 15th, 2007, 08:36 AM

A preview of one of the exhibits.

http://www.sfondideldesktop.com/Images-Movies/The-Flintstones/The-Flintstones-0001/The-Flintstones-0001.jpg

lofter1

January 15th, 2007, 11:09 AM

You need a vacation, Ninjahedge. How about a visit to Kentucky?

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum

You can take a virtual vacation from home -- enlightenment awaits ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/isroot/AIGUS/aig_products_enlarge/25-1-044.jpg

Bible Authority Room

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/images/Bible-Authority-Rm.jpg
The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God’s authoritative Word,
and everyone who rejects His history — including six-day creation and Noah’s
Flood — is ‘willfully’ ignorant.

Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/images/Aerial-1-copy.jpg

Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us.
And the Bible’s clear—heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun,
birds before lizards.

Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same
birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room
for compromise.

T. rex

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/images/T-Rex-F-Art2.jpg

T. rex — the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed!
You’ll run into this monster lurking near Adam and Eve.

How’s this possible? Find out soon!

The Plaza Fountain

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/images/Corner-Waterfall-merged-co.jpg

After your walk through history, relax by a waterfall, enjoy a refreshing drink
and reflect on everything you’ve experienced.

Lobby water feature idea

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/images/water_fountain.jpg
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/docs/displaypic.aspx?PhotoID=7)
BONUS!!!

Dinosaurs, Genesis & the Gospel

Watch Dinosaurs, Genesis & the Gospel videos (http://javascript<b></b>:openVideo('Dinosaurs, Genesis & the Gospel','30-9-089.flv','/isroot/AIGUS');)

Winner of a 2006 Bronze Telly Award

Join Ken Ham and Buddy Davis for this upbeat educational video.
In this 2-disk set, Ken and Buddy show kids that God created animals, including dinosaurs,
on Day 6. Did dinosaurs roam the earth with Adam? Did T. rex dine on fruits and vegetables?
How did dinosaurs fit on the Ark?
Ken and Buddy (and Casey the dog!) answer these questions and more.

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/isroot/AIGUS/aig_products_enlarge/30-9-089.jpg

***

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2007, 11:17 AM

>hurk<

I think I will sit with my lovely wife Hunga and drink by this pool with the lovely Velocoraptors over there in the corner!!!

And the Dino-Bible has to be one of the coolest things I have ever seen! I mean, even T-Rex is smiling (and banging a gong) about it!!!

>hurk<

lofter1

January 15th, 2007, 12:19 PM

"Hunga" ???

I thought her name was "Eve"?

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2007, 12:28 PM

Eves great great granddaughter...

I also love how they follow all of this stuff literally, but then ignore the fact that if they lived 500-600 years, that the timeline gets awfully crunched together. Also, they would have to have been breedinglike rabbits to get the number of people in the world in that ammount of time...

Where is a mathematician when you need one!!!!

Add to it the fact that there are nice little histories of nations that go back an awfully long way. I really want someone to bonk these guys in the head (preferrably Jesus) and tell them "Look, a parable is a PARABLE!!! It is a story to make the material irrelevant and the POINT the important part!!!!

They should hav emade Adam and Eve rabbits or something, at least SOME people would have caught on that it was an allegory!!!!

ZippyTheChimp

January 15th, 2007, 12:51 PM

Another mystery solved:

Yabba-Dabba-Doo was speaking in tongues.

lofter1

January 15th, 2007, 01:02 PM

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/isroot/AIGUS/aig_products_enlarge/25-1-044.jpg

... Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday.

The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

Who knew that Adam spoke greek and / or latin?

:confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2007, 01:43 PM

Bull Murray in "Lost in Genisis".

ZippyTheChimp

February 13th, 2007, 10:25 AM

New exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=147887#post147887

Punzie

February 13th, 2007, 12:00 PM

From the American Museum of Natural History website ^^^:

"The newly opened Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins presents the remarkable history of human evolution from our earliest ancestors millions of years ago to modern Homo sapiens. The innovative Spitzer Hall combines the most up-to-date discoveries in the fossil record with the latest in genomic science to explore the most profound mysteries of humankind: who we are, where we came from, and what is in store for the future of our species."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/?src=h_h

Eliot Spitzer's Mom & Dad!

ZippyTheChimp

February 14th, 2007, 07:56 PM

Kansas Rewrites Science Standards Again

Kansas Education Board Repeals Science Guidelines Questioning Evolution

By JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansas has repealed public school science guidelines questioning the theory of evolution that brought the state international ridicule, but educators aren't sure how long it will be before the decision is overturned.

The State Board of Education approved new, evolution-friendly science standards with a 6-4 vote Tuesday, replacing ones that questioned the theory and had the support of "intelligent design" advocates.

The change occurred because a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans won control of the board from conservative Republicans in last year's election. While conservatives said after Tuesday's vote they weren't planning to reopen the debate even if elections go their way in 2008, state law will require another review of the standards by 2014.

Another shift in power is possible. The latest science standards are the fifth for the state in eight years.

"I think we're good for two years," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who supported the new standards. "Who knows what the election will hold in two years?"

The new standards reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution. The board deleted language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts like a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones were controversial and being challenged by new research.

The board also rewrote the standards' definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what's observed in the universe.

Some scientists and science groups believed the board's latest action was significant because it turned back a subtle attack on evolution that encouraged schools to teach about an evolution "controversy," rather than mandating that creationism or intelligent design be taught. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe.

The board's vote came a day after the 198th anniversary of Darwin's birth, which the University of Kansas celebrated with a costume party and a showing of a pro-evolution documentary, "Flock of Dodos."

But many Kansans still harbor religious objections and other misgivings about the British naturalist's theories. The Intelligent Design Network presented petitions with almost 4,000 signatures opposing the standards the board eventually adopted.

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the group, accused the board of promoting atheism. And Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards undermine families by "discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters."

The state uses the standards to develop tests that measure how well students are learning science. Although decisions about what's taught in classrooms remain with 296 local school boards, both sides in the evolution dispute say the standards will influence teachers as they try to ensure that their students test well.

There were debates or legal battles in California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Nevada and South Carolina over evolution.

But none has inspired comedians' jokes or parodies like Kansas' ongoing battle has, such as the four-part "Evolution Schmevolution" series in 2005 on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

Hearings in 2005 drew journalists from Canada, France, Great Britain and Japan.

Associated Press Writer John Milburn also contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Proposed science standards, including a comparison with the existing guidelines: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid144

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Ninjahedge

February 15th, 2007, 10:41 AM

They were idiots and deserved the ridicule.

I do not care if they got 20,000 people to sign a petition saying they do not "believe" in evolution, it is a small margin and does not represent what is really out there.

The classic example was that MILLIONS believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, it was later proven that neither was true.

You can believe anything you want, but just do not try to force that against what actually happened.

ZippyTheChimp

February 15th, 2007, 10:53 AM

They were idiots and deserved the ridicule.No, they just need to evolve.

ManhattanKnight

February 17th, 2007, 08:24 AM

February 17, 2007

Lawmaker Apologizes for Memo Linking Evolution and Jewish Texts

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

HOUSTON, Feb. 16 — A leader of the Texas House of Representatives apologized Friday for circulating an appeal to ban the teaching of evolution as derived from “Rabbinic writings” and other Jewish texts.

“I had no intention to offend anyone,” said the lawmaker, Warren Chisum, a Republican from the Panhandle who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chisum said he had received the information from Ben Bridges, a Georgia legislator, and “I never took it very seriously.”

On Feb. 9, Mr. Chisum, 68, an 18-year veteran of the House and second in power only to the speaker, Tom Craddick, sent a memorandum to all 149 other state representatives in Texas.

The one-page memorandum, marked “From: Representative Ben Bridges,” declared that “tax-supported evolution science” was based on religion and therefore unlawful under the United States Constitution.

It continued, “Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called secular evolution science is the Big Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion.”

“This scenario,” the memorandum stated, “is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings on the mystic ‘holy book’ kabbala dating back at least two millennia.”

The memorandum said that inquiries could be directed to the Fair Education Foundation, a group in Georgia, and gave its Web address, fixedearth.com (http://fixedearth.com/). The site features items belittling the Holocaust and portraying Earth as stationary as depicted in the Bible, with Jewish thinkers like “Kabbalist physicist Albert Einstein” responsible for contrary scientific theories.

Representative Bridges, a five-term Republican from Cleveland, Ga., northeast of Atlanta, did not return calls to his legislative office on Friday.

The president of the Fair Education Foundation, Marshall Hall, said he had sent the memorandum to Mr. Chisum at the request of Mr. Bridges, whom he called a longtime friend and supporter. Mr. Chisum, in a letter accompanying the memorandum, said he distributed the memorandum “on behalf of” Representative Bridges. He said he knew Mr. Bridges through the National Conference of State Legislatures “and greatly appreciate his information on this important topic.”

The memorandum was condemned by some Texas lawmakers and by the Anti-Defamation League.

In a letter to Mr. Chisum dated Feb. 14, Mark L. Briskman, director of the league’s North Texas-Oklahoma regional office, said, “We are shocked and appalled that you would share this outrageous anti-Semitic material with your colleagues in the Texas House.”

Questioned Friday about his apparent endorsement of the memorandum, Mr. Chisum appeared to back away from it. “I read it, but he didn’t ask me to edit his memo,” he said. “It does not reflect my opinion.”

In a letter to Mr. Briskman, Mr. Chisum wrote, “I sincerely regret that I did not take the time to carefully review these materials and recognize that I may have hurt or offended some groups including some of my dear friends.”
Mr. Chisum said he had “engaged” a Jewish colleague, former Representative Steven D. Wolens, a Democrat, to intercede on his behalf.

Mr. Wolens, a lawyer who is married to the mayor of Dallas, Laura Miller, confirmed that he would. “I always found him respectful to me and people of the Jewish faith,” Mr. Wolens said.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp

February 17th, 2007, 09:19 AM

If you visited www.fixedearth.com/, and came across terms such as the Copernican Counterfeit, did you wonder if you were missing obvious satire?

Or maybe Marshall Hall is just a snake oil salesman, laughing all the way to the bank?

Educated crackpot?

Review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp)

With a core audience who believe the matter is closed from Genesis - the sun was created on the fourth day - Hall will continue to make money.

Texas state politics must be a riot. In his gubernatorial run, Kinky Friedman's campaign slogan was:

How hard can it be?

lofter1

February 17th, 2007, 11:02 AM

The late great Molly Ivens had this to say about Texas politics:

“….our very own dreaded Legislature is almost upon us. Jan. 9 and they'll all be here, leaving many a village without its idiot.”
from a December 2000 column.

BenL

February 20th, 2007, 05:27 PM

I really do feel for the sane people in your country that this debate is even taking place.

Punzie

April 14th, 2007, 04:12 PM

In August, 2006, Science magazine published the results of international polls assessing the level of public acceptance of evolution around the world in 2002-2003:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/images/Miller_etal_2006_Science_Public_Acceptance_Evo.gif

Source: Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006).Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766

The following is supporting (in-depth) material for the Science article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1

Analysis of supporting material ^^^ plus blog:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/well_at_least_w.html

ZippyTheChimp

April 14th, 2007, 06:37 PM

Hallelujah!

Having just come over from the Promoting Turkey thread, the first thing that popped in my head when I saw the chart was the title here...
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/well_at_least_w.html

MidtownGuy

April 14th, 2007, 07:16 PM

Wow, that is so embarassing!:eek:

BenL

April 15th, 2007, 06:22 AM

Well I'm sure if the poll was conducted amongst New Yorkers, we'd see responses more in line with other highly developed countries.

Bojangleman

April 19th, 2007, 08:06 PM

Hey, at least we beat Turkey :D

Sigh.

ryan

April 19th, 2007, 09:04 PM

What a strange list. Europe plus Japan & the U.S.? Europe is cool, but it might be useful to consider countries in addition to the 20-years-out-of-date "first" world. Even Canada didn't make the list.

Punzie

April 20th, 2007, 08:46 AM

Europe plus Japan & the U.S.? . . . it might be useful to consider countries in addition to the 20-years-out-of-date "first" world.

I had the same reaction when I first saw the list. Then I realized that this article is not a collection of raw material, but rather a compilation of online material that already existed.

The authors did not have enough (or reliable enough) material from the other countries.

Science magazine should have explicitly stated this ^^^ rather than leave it to the reader to infer it.

PDF:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1

infoshare

April 20th, 2007, 09:13 AM

I really do feel for the sane people in your country that this debate is even taking place.

Brilliant comment! Thank you. :)

Punzie

April 20th, 2007, 09:40 AM

Thank you, Ben.:)

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2007, 09:58 AM

June 26, 2007

Essay

Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

By DOUGLAS H. ERWIN

Is Darwin due for an upgrade? There are growing calls among some evolutionary biologists for just such a revision, although they differ about what form this might take. But those calls could also be exaggerated. There is nothing scientists enjoy more than the prospect of a good paradigm shift.

Paradigm shifts are the stuff of scientific revolutions. They change how we view the world, the sorts of questions that scientists consider worth asking, and even how we do science. The discovery of DNA marked one such shift, the theory of plate tectonics another.

Many scientists suffer from a kind of split personality. We believe that this is the most exciting time to be working while yearning for the excitement of a revolution. What ambitious scientist would not want to be part of a paradigm shift? Not surprisingly, this yearning occasionally manifests itself in proclamations that a revolution is at hand.

To understand the current tumult it helps to understand how our evolutionary framework developed. It was constructed from the 1930s to 1950s by early geneticists, paleontologists and others, who disagreed about the efficacy of natural selection in driving evolutionary change (Darwin’s big idea) and about the nature of the underlying genetic variation upon which natural selection could act. What they came to agree on was called the modern synthesis, and it established an intellectual zeitgeist that continues today, and has been continually adapted, in the best evolutionary fashion, to encompass new discoveries.

That synthesis holds that mutations to DNA create new variants of existing genes within a species. Natural selection, driven by competition for resources, allows the best-adapted individuals to produce the most surviving offspring. So adaptive variants of genes become more common. Although selection is often seen, even by biologists who should know better, as primarily negative, removing poorly adapted individuals, Charles Darwin understood that it was a powerful creative tool.

It is the primary agent in shaping new adaptations. Computer simulations have shown how selection can produce a complex eye from a simple eyespot in just a few hundred thousand years.

In the past few years every element of this paradigm has been attacked. Concerns about the sources of evolutionary innovation and discoveries about how DNA evolves have led some to propose that mutations, not selection, drive much of evolution, or at least the main episodes of innovation, like the origin of major animal groups, including vertebrates.

Comparative studies of development have illuminated how genes operate, and evolve, and this places less emphasis on the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes emphasized by the modern synthesis. Work in ecology has emphasized the role organisms play in building their own environments, and studies of the fossil record raise questions about the role of competition. The last major challenge to the modern synthesis came in the 1970s and 1980s as my paleontological colleagues, including the late Stephen Jay Gould, argued for a hierarchical view of evolution, with selection occurring at many levels, including between species.

Transitions between species documented by the fossil record seemed to be abrupt, perhaps too abrupt to be explained by the modern synthesis. If this were generally true, it could render irrelevant much of natural selection occurring within species, because just as mutations are produced randomly with respect to the needs of a species, with selection shaping these into new adaptations, new species might evolve randomly with species selection shaping them into evolutionary trends. This challenge was greeted with less than fulsome praise by evolutionary biologists studying changes within species. The resulting hubbub has yet to fully die down. But the newer work cuts closer to the core of the modern synthesis, and is potentially more revolutionary, because it addresses the fundamental question of how really new things happen in the history of life. What brought about the origin of animals, or the invasion of land?

The Achilles’ heel of the modern synthesis, as noted by the philosopher Ron Amundson, is that it deals primarily with the transmission of genes from one generation to the next, but not how genes produce bodies. The recent discoveries in the new field of evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo, that the gene Pax-6 controls the formation of eyes in mice and humans, Nkx2.5 heart formation, and a suite of other genes the formation of the nervous system, has provided a means to investigate the genetic and developmental mechanisms influencing how the form of organisms has evolved, not just their genes. Perhaps the most exciting area in evolution is in exploring how rewiring the circuitry of genes produces different arthropod appendages, or wingspots on butterflies.

Eric H. Davidson, a colleague of mine at CalTech, has dissected the network of interactions between the genes that build the gut of sea urchins and starfish during development. When he compares these gene networks, there is a core of about five genes whose interactions are essential to forming the gut, and which have been preserved for some 500 million years.

One advantage developmental biologists have over paleontologists is that they can experiment on the development of these animals. Most of the genes in this network can be removed, and the developing embryo finds a way to compensate. But these five core genes, which form what Davidson calls a kernel, cannot be modified: change any one of them and no embryo forms at all. There is no reason to think that there was anything unusual about how this kernel first evolved some 500 million years ago (before sea urchins and starfish split into different groups), but once the kernel formed it locked development onto a certain path. These events, small and large, limit the range of possibilities on which natural selection can act. These questions about mechanism were not even being asked under the modern synthesis.

The failure to consider how biodiversity grows reflects an even more troubling flaw in the modern synthesis: it lacks any real sense of history. This may sound odd, as evolution is about history. A geologist would describe evolutionary theory as uniformitarian: “The present is the key to the past.” This is the principle we use that by understanding how processes operate today we can understand past events. Evolutionary theory assumes that the processes we can study among fruit flies disporting themselves in a laboratory capture the broad sweep of evolutionary change.

But just as the erosive power of a river changes the future options for the course of the river, so evolution itself changes future evolutionary possibilities. This can happen in simple ways, as termites construct their own environment by building termite mounds. These mounds may last for dozens or hundreds of years and provide a sort of ecological inheritance for generations of termites.

The first cyanobacteria turned carbon dioxide into oxygen and set off a revolution that completely changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere. Most species modify their environment and this often changes how selection affects them: they construct, at least in part, their own environment. As evolutionary biologists we have little understanding of what these processes mean for evolution.

Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis? There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis.

Douglas H. Erwin is a senior scientist at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution and a research professor at the Santa Fe Institute.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2007, 10:00 AM

June 26, 2007

Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally

By NICHOLAS WADE

Historians often assume that they need pay no attention to human evolution because the process ground to a halt in the distant past. That assumption is looking less and less secure in light of new findings based on decoding human DNA.

People have continued to evolve since leaving the ancestral homeland in northeastern Africa some 50,000 years ago, both through the random process known as genetic drift and through natural selection. The genome bears many fingerprints in places where natural selection has recently remolded the human clay, researchers have found, as people in the various continents adapted to new diseases, climates, diets and, perhaps, behavioral demands.

A striking feature of many of these changes is that they are local. The genes under selective pressure found in one continent-based population or race are mostly different from those that occur in the others. These genes so far make up a small fraction of all human genes.

A notable instance of recent natural selection is the emergence of lactose tolerance — the ability to digest lactose in adulthood — among the cattle-herding people of northern Europe some 5,000 years ago. Lactase, the enzyme that digests the principal sugar of milk, is usually switched off after weaning. But because of the great nutritional benefit for cattle herders of being able to digest lactose in adulthood, a genetic change that keeps the lactase gene switched on spread through the population.

Lactose tolerance is not confined to Europeans. Last year, Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland and colleagues tested 43 ethnic groups in East Africa and found three separate mutations, all different from the European one, that keep the lactase gene switched on in adulthood. One of the mutations, found in peoples of Kenya and Tanzania, may have arisen as recently as 3,000 years ago.

That lactose tolerance has evolved independently four times is an instance of convergent evolution. Natural selection has used the different mutations available in European and East African populations to make each develop lactose tolerance. In Africa, those who carried the mutation were able to leave 10 times more progeny, creating a strong selective advantage.

Researchers studying other single genes have found evidence for recent evolutionary change in the genes that mediate conditions like skin color, resistance to malaria and salt retention.

The most striking instances of recent human evolution have emerged from a new kind of study, one in which the genome is scanned for evidence of selective pressures by looking at a few hundred thousand specific sites where variation is common.

Last year Benjamin Voight, Jonathan Pritchard and colleagues at the University of Chicago searched for genes under natural selection in Africans, Europeans and East Asians. In each race, some 200 genes showed signals of selection, but without much overlap, suggesting that the populations on each continent were adapting to local challenges.

Another study, by Scott Williamson of Cornell University and colleagues, published in PLoS Genetics this month, found 100 genes under selection in Chinese, African-Americans and European-Americans.

In most cases, the source of selective pressure is unknown. But many genes associated with resistance to disease emerge from the scans, confirming that disease is a powerful selective force. Another category of genes under selective pressure covers those involved in metabolism, suggesting that people were responding to changes in diet, perhaps associated with the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture.

Several genes involved in determining skin color have been under selective pressure in Europeans and East Asians. But Dr. Pritchard’s study detected skin color genes only in Europeans, and Dr. Williamson found mostly genes selected in Chinese.

The reason for the difference is that Dr. Pritchard’s statistical screen detects genetic variants that have become very common in a population but are not yet universal. Dr. Williamson’s picks up variants that have already swept through a population and are possessed by almost everyone.

The findings suggest that Europeans and East Asians acquired their pale skin through different genetic routes and, in the case of Europeans, perhaps as recently as around 7,000 years ago.

Another puzzle is presented by selected genes involved in brain function, which occur in different populations and could presumably be responses to behavioral challenges encountered since people left the ancestral homeland in Africa.

But some genes have more than one role, and some of these brain-related genes could have been selected for other properties.

Two years ago, Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, reported finding signatures of selection in two brain-related genes of a type known as microcephalins, because when mutated, people are born with very small brains. Two of the microcephalins had come under selection in Europeans and one in Chinese, Dr. Lahn reported.

He suggested that the selected forms of the gene had helped improved cognitive capacity and that many other genes, yet to be identified, would turn out to have done the same in these and other populations.

Neither microcephalin gene turned up in Dr. Pritchard’s or Dr. Williamson’s list of selected genes, and other researchers have disputed Dr. Lahn’s claims. Dr. Pritchard found that two other microcephalin genes were under selection, one in Africans and the other in Europeans and East Asians.

Even more strikingly, Dr. Williamson’s group reported that a version of a gene called DAB1 had become universal in Chinese but not in other populations. DAB1 is involved in organizing the layers of cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions.

Variants of two genes involved in hearing have become universal, one in Chinese, the other in Europeans.

The emerging lists of selected human genes may open new insights into the interactions between history and genetics. “If we ask what are the most important evolutionary events of the last 5,000 years, they are cultural, like the spread of agriculture, or extinctions of populations through war or disease,” said Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford. These cultural events are likely to have left deep marks in the human genome.

A genomic survey of world populations by Dr. Feldman, Noah Rosenberg and colleagues in 2002 showed that people clustered genetically on the basis of small differences in DNA into five groups that correspond to the five continent-based populations: Africans, Australian aborigines, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians, a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners and people of the Indian subcontinent. The clusterings reflect “serial founder effects,” Dr. Feldman said, meaning that as people migrated around the world, each new population carried away just part of the genetic variation in the one it was derived from.

The new scans for selection show so far that the populations on each continent have evolved independently in some ways as they responded to local climates, diseases and, perhaps, behavioral situations.

The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups.

“There are difficulties in where you put boundaries on the globe, but we know now there are enough genetic differences between people from different parts of the world that you can classify people in groups that correspond to popular notions of race,” Dr. Pritchard said.

David Reich, a population geneticist at the Harvard Medical School, said that the term “race” was scientifically inexact and that he preferred “ancestry.” Genetic tests of ancestry are now so precise, he said, that they can identify not just Europeans but can distinguish between northern and southern Europeans. Ancestry tests are used in trying to identify genes for disease risk by comparing patients with healthy people. People of different races are excluded in such studies. Their genetic differences would obscure the genetic difference between patients and unaffected people.

No one yet knows to what extent natural selection for local conditions may have forced the populations on each continent down different evolutionary tracks. But those tracks could turn out to be somewhat parallel. At least some of the evolutionary changes now emerging have clearly been convergent, meaning that natural selection has made use of the different mutations available in each population to accomplish the same adaptation.

This is the case with lactose tolerance in European and African peoples and with pale skin in East Asians and Europeans.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/25/science/26human-graphic.gif

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Capn_Birdseye

June 26th, 2007, 11:08 AM

I for one certainly do not believe in Darwin's theory! Here's why:

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

MidtownGuy

July 2nd, 2007, 02:28 PM

You've got to be joking.

Capn_Birdseye

July 2nd, 2007, 02:35 PM

You've got to be joking.
Why?? Seems perfectly sensible and straight forward to me.

Ninjahedge

July 2nd, 2007, 03:13 PM

No actual references, just things saying "well, since you have no outright proof thnigs evolved, you can say ANYTHING happened."

It is outright trash with nothing solid to argue against. It is all mush-fluff.

Dynamicdezzy

July 2nd, 2007, 05:16 PM

Why can't they not be one in the same?

"We were CREATED through the EVOLUTION of another species?"

[I'm not going to elaborate (yet) because I know the above will probably cause debate]

eddhead

July 2nd, 2007, 05:41 PM

Why?? Seems perfectly sensible and straight forward to me.
well, to begin with, the idea that "survival of the fittest" is an explanation for evolution is a fallacy. The term "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer and was used to describe the evolution of societies, not species. In fact, Spencer's theory is sometimes referred to as Social Darwinism.. .it is a theory about bureacracy, politics, and social hierarchies. It was never meant to describe the evolution of man.

Biologists and for that matter Darwin himself would NEVER use that term to describe the evolution of man, for the reasons the article hightlights i.e. the implication that species compete for survival, that there can be only one outcome, and the existance of non-fit organisms and their propensity to propogate.

Instead, the term favored by evolutionists and Darwin is Natural Selection which carries no such assumptions with respect to competition or survival. The fatal flaw in the author's argument is his assertion that these phrases are one and the same, when in the fact is they are not altogether interchangable. Natural Selection simply implies that species adapt to their enviornment, and that over time, inheritable traits that are condusive to survival become more and more predominant within a given species group . Big difference in my view.

Ninjahedge

July 2nd, 2007, 06:15 PM

Why can't they not be one in the same?

"We were CREATED through the EVOLUTION of another species?"

[I'm not going to elaborate (yet) because I know the above will probably cause debate]

The thing that gets me is the inability of some religious folks to just accept the fact that if their God was omnicient and omnipotent, maybe the "ways and means" for his creations were what we are discovering now.

I believe it is one of two things that make people want to believe in the simplistic societal "human creation" kind of creation.

First is ignorance. The blank stares yuo get from people when you talk about somethnig a little more advanced than a childrens story about just about any scientific theory.

Second, and it is closely related to the first, is insecurity. Noone really likes to admit that they not only do not understand something, but that they CAN'T understand it. You may not know something before someone tells you, but after they tell you, no light bulb, noone home.

Some peopel have built up their religious beliefs so precariously that they cannot take one part as a seperate existance from another. Some priest said everything in the bible is the "Word of God". Which later became interpreted as the absolute communication of unalterable unalienable scripture to the living masses.

Um, "word" can also be message, not direct transcription. If God told his prophets to tell people about the big bang and evolution, they would not have gotten past "4.5 billion years ago, the Earth..." before they were publicly stoned.

Look how they treated the astronomers that dared suggest that we were not the center of everything!

So you make an anecdote, a fable that is meant to convey meaning, but not to be taken literally.

God got up on Monday, just like every human does, and went to work. Made Heaven and Earth (Big Bang and eventual consolodation), Day and Night (lighting of the Sun through Fusion), Oceans and forests (Cooling of the earth and the first critters), then bigger critters, then Man. You know, if they hadn't specifically said "6 days", it would look a LOT like what we have said happened!!!! :duh:

Most of the stories in the bible are the same! All of Genisis can be looked at like that. Temptation, the dawning of knowledge and its inherent danger (associate that with children growing up). It was all meant to help guide us, not be taken literally!!

Imagine what would happen if, 2000 years from now, a group of people made the book of Winnie the Pooh as their "word of God" and took every story therein as an exact happening and instructions to live by.

I shudder at the thought of thousands of bouncing Tiggerophites........ ;)

Capn_Birdseye

July 3rd, 2007, 01:08 PM

Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, the serpent, the apple, Garden of Eden, incest, murder, ..... can you beat it? Makes Darwinism look boring ..... know which I'd go for if I was a film-maker!

Dynamicdezzy

July 5th, 2007, 12:20 PM

The thing that gets me is the inability of some religious folks to just accept the fact that if their God was omnicient and omnipotent, maybe the "ways and means" for his creations were what we are discovering now.

I believe it is one of two things that make people want to believe in the simplistic societal "human creation" kind of creation.

First is ignorance. The blank stares yuo get from people when you talk about somethnig a little more advanced than a childrens story about just about any scientific theory.

Second, and it is closely related to the first, is insecurity. Noone really likes to admit that they not only do not understand something, but that they CAN'T understand it. You may not know something before someone tells you, but after they tell you, no light bulb, noone home.

Some peopel have built up their religious beliefs so precariously that they cannot take one part as a seperate existance from another. Some priest said everything in the bible is the "Word of God". Which later became interpreted as the absolute communication of unalterable unalienable scripture to the living masses.

Um, "word" can also be message, not direct transcription. If God told his prophets to tell people about the big bang and evolution, they would not have gotten past "4.5 billion years ago, the Earth..." before they were publicly stoned.

Look how they treated the astronomers that dared suggest that we were not the center of everything!

So you make an anecdote, a fable that is meant to convey meaning, but not to be taken literally.

God got up on Monday, just like every human does, and went to work. Made Heaven and Earth (Big Bang and eventual consolodation), Day and Night (lighting of the Sun through Fusion), Oceans and forests (Cooling of the earth and the first critters), then bigger critters, then Man. You know, if they hadn't specifically said "6 days", it would look a LOT like what we have said happened!!!! :duh:

Most of the stories in the bible are the same! All of Genisis can be looked at like that. Temptation, the dawning of knowledge and its inherent danger (associate that with children growing up). It was all meant to help guide us, not be taken literally!!

Imagine what would happen if, 2000 years from now, a group of people made the book of Winnie the Pooh as their "word of God" and took every story therein as an exact happening and instructions to live by.

I shudder at the thought of thousands of bouncing Tiggerophites........ ;)

Ninjahedge................... You're the man. You put my thought into words exactly.

Ninjahedge

July 5th, 2007, 01:19 PM

I hope your thoughts didn't have as many typos.... ;)

Eugenious

July 5th, 2007, 01:40 PM

Ninjahedge................... You're the man. You put my thought into words exactly.

The whole idea of religion is partly to be able to say "Just because" to many important questions. It's the rational abdication of the mind, to be able to say "I want to believe that I'm not just here for no reason, so I will believe in a God and that he created me somehow". When somebody tries to explain that there's a clear way that we came to being that is self evident in nature, people cant comprehend it because their belief's in "their" G_D are so strong that no amount of rational explanation are going to change them.

Religion relies on the total submission of ones intellect and rationality to the "Just Because" doctrine, and people then get it confused to me that "belief" in G_D means belief in EVERYTHING is "Just Because". Now this has been the reason why in America there are so many Christian sects, when pilgrims broke away from the yoke of Catholicism people realized they could believe what they wanted to believe and didn't need a priest to do it.

Evolution does NOT go against the belief there is a G_D, it just goes against the suggestion that everything happened as people "IMAGINED" it to be thousands of years ago when religion started to be the central basis of human thought and intelligence.

ablarc

July 12th, 2007, 11:28 AM

Faith is the certainty of what is not seen.

Edward

July 12th, 2007, 01:22 PM

I wonder if at some point scientists will announce that they found a gene combination present only in deeply religious people...

Ninjahedge

July 12th, 2007, 02:48 PM

True to form, those people posessing it will deny it.

lofter1

August 22nd, 2007, 08:49 AM

The folks who pulled this together give me re-newed faith in mankind ...

http://www.unicornmuseum.org/ (http://www.unicornmuseum.org/)

http://www.unicornmuseum.org/Background_r1_c1.jpg
http://www.unicornmuseum.org/Background_r3_c1.jpg

The Unicorn Museum presents a walk through history. Designed by a noted fantasy author, this state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the fantastical and highly implausible to life.

A fully engaging, sensory experience for intellectually undiscerning guests. Murals and realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animal-like replicas, life-sized giant and hill troll animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with elven air conditioning and dwarven hand-crafted drink holders. These are just some of the impressive exhibits that everyone in your family will enjoy.
Mission

Based on the idea of 'if it's in the Bible, it must be true', The Unicorn Museum promotes belief in the Biblical Truth of unicorns, a creature mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible.

This website has been published as an act of protest by the Brotherhood of Fantasy Creatures (MiddleEarth Div.157) in response to the injurious actions of the Creation Museum (http://creationmuseum.org/).

The Creation Museum is a new $27 Million facility designed to teach the ‘truth’ of Creationism and the Christian Bible. We of the BFC feel that this group represents a threat to continued belief in other fantasy creatures/BFC signatory members and have constructed this website as a protest against their monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.

In particular it pains us to witness the conduct of our brethren the Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel) and Demons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons). For over 2000 years, these members have acted in defiance of the BFC’s Code of Conduct through ongoing fraternization with the human special interest group ‘Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity)’. BFC members agree to conduct themselves at all times in the best interests of every BFC members, yet these scabs have consistently acted in their own self-interest, creating an enduring belief system that not only inflates their own importance in the realm of human affairs, but systematically oppresses belief in other fantasy creatures including Elves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf), Gnomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome), Naiads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naiads), and our Brothers Hippogriff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippogriff).

We, the signatory members of the Brotherhood of Fantasy Creatures, attest that the parties identified as Angels, and Devils did knowingly engage in the following activities

Violation of BFC Rule #32 Fraternization with Human Special Interest Groups
Intellectual property violations for unlicensed use of the Occult trademarks “Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys)”, “Pentagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram)”, and “Triquetra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra)”
Slanderous and unapproved characterizations of BFC members including the Serpent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28symbolism%29), Dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon), and Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn) in the Human publication “Holy Bible” (Gutenberg, 1457 A.D.)
Systematic oppression of human belief in alternative fantasy creatures (see “No Other Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)” Moses, 1446 B.C.)Our goal is to raise donations from the human population sufficient to place a Unicorn Museum billboard near the site of the Creation Museum.

This will help build awareness in the human community of alternative fantasy creatures and help us regain our rightful place among the human pantheon of gods and monsters.

Please Donate (http://www.unicornmuseum.org/wp/donate) and help us reach our goal.

***

lofter1

August 22nd, 2007, 10:16 PM

AHA!!

PROOF that Men & Dinosaurs never did co-exist (as is claimed by those at the Creationist Museum) ...

Had T. Rex & Homo whoever been walking the surface of the planet at the same time then TR would have kicked out butts (and eaten them, too) and our kin would never have survived ...

T.Rex was fast as well as fearsome: British scientists

AFP (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/T_Rex_was_fast_as_well_as_fearsome__08222007.html)
August 22, 2007

Tyrannosaurus Rex was not just a fearsome carnivore but would have been able to outrun a finely-tuned human athlete, according to research published by British scientists Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Manchester in northwest England calculated that T.Rex could reach speeds of up to 18 miles (28.4 kilometres) per hour, which is marginally quicker than a professional footballer.

Scientists have long questioned how fast the six-tonne beast could run. Some argued that it could only lumber around or walk because of its oversized leg muscles.

But biomechanics specialist Bill Sellers and palaeontologist Phil Manning believe they have come up with the definitive answer after using a supercomputer to determine the running speeds of five meat-eating
dinosaurs.

The calculations were based on the skeletal and muscular structure of the two-legged predators, optimum gait and posture.

A 70-kilogramme (154-pound) human with the muscle and bone structure of a professional sportsman was estimated to have a top running speed of 17.7 mph, just under the 17.9 mph for a T.Rex.

A 20-kg Velociraptor was found to have a top speed of 24 mph; a 430-kg Dilophosaurus 23.5 mph; and a 1.4-tonne Allosaurus 21 mph.

But a three-kilogramme Compsognathus, which lived about 150 million years ago, was found to be five mph faster than the estimate for the fastest living animal on two legs -- a 65-kg ostrich (35 mph).

The study was published by Britain's leading scientific academy The Royal Society.

lofter1

September 18th, 2007, 11:46 AM

This could prove interesting ...

Will the Court say that this is a frivolous lawsuit because the defendent does not exist?

Nebraska State Senator sues God
to stop plagues, terror threats

Raw Story (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/State_Senator_sues_God_for_plagues_0918.html)
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
September 18,2007

A Nebraska lawmaker is taking his complaints about frivolous lawsuits limits all the way to the top.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers is suing God.

"It's a lawsuit against a defendant who has perpetrated much harm and damage on the human race," Chambers said on CNN.

Chambers says his frivolous lawsuit against the Lord was meant to protest a suit filed against a Nebraska judge who banned the words "rape" and "victim" from a woman's rape trial.

Some Nebraska lawmakers are trying to pass legislation preventing frivolous lawsuits, but Chambers says anyone should be able to file a lawsuit against anyone else.

"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers tells (http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=7086874) a local Fox affiliate. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."

In his suit, Chambers seeks an injunction against God ordering the deity to stop natural disasters and terror threats. Fox News notes that Chambers is not a Christian.

"Apparently this Omaha senator, he also skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians," a Fox host notes. "So apparently this guy is not a man of faith, which is fine, but it's a little unusual he's suing God, I don't think he's going to get a response."

The lawsuit notes that Chambers tried several times to contact the defendant, KETV reported (http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html).

“Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon Defendant ('Come out, come out, wherever you are') has been unable to do so,” the suit says.

These video clips are from CNN's American Morning and Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast September 18.

lofter1

September 22nd, 2007, 11:15 AM

'God' Gets an Attorney in Lawsuit

Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ODD_SUING_GOD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-09-21-21-47-37)
ANNA JO BRATTON
Associated Press Writer
Sep 21, 2007

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- The mystery of one response to a lawsuit against God has been solved. Eric Perkins, an attorney in Corpus Christi, Texas, said Friday he filed a response to the lawsuit from Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers. "It's kind of a turn on 'What would Jesus do?'" Perkins said. "I thought to myself, "what would God say?"

"Defendant denies that this or any court has jurisdiction ... over Him any more than the court has jurisdiction over the wind or rain, sunlight or darkness," according to Perkins' response.

As for Chambers' contention that God made terroristic threats, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization," Perkins wrote that God "contends that any harm or injury suffered is a direct and proximate result of mankind ignoring obvious warnings."

Perkins, who said he is a Christian, faxed one of at least two responses to Chambers' lawsuit. He said while he hopes the lawsuit was just a stunt by Chambers, "maybe his timing has something to do with world affairs. I'd hate to be that person who sat back and did nothing."

The problem of serving God a summons could land the lawsuit in the earthly scrap heap of failed legal actions.

But whether the issue goes before a judge may largely depend on how hard Chambers pushes the issue. The senator isn't asking that notice be served to God, but says in his lawsuit that if he doesn't get a summary judgment in the case, he wants a hearing - "if the court deems such a hearing not to be a futile act."

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic, said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody. He said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous.

It's still not clear where a second response from "God" came from. There was no contact information on the filing, which turned up on the counter at the Douglas County Court office, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness.

Attempts to reach Chambers by phone Friday were unsuccessful.

© 2007 The Associated Press.

***

On the Net: Douglas County District Court: http://www.dc4dc.com/index.php (http://www.dc4dc.com/index.php)

Ninjahedge

September 24th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Babel Fish.

Jasonik

October 25th, 2007, 05:18 PM

Faith is the certainty of what is not seen.

Faith is a sustained hope that within the unseen, lies not an arbitrary entropy, but a benevolent life affirming order that gives meaning to consciousness.

The root of all ethics, acceptance of this faith demands we act harmoniously with humanity's inherent self realizing duty as an enlightened extension of this primary metaphysical intent.

Denial of this faith allows nihilistic abdication of ethics or morals of any kind, in other words, the renouncing of one's humanity and any responsibility thereto.

It can be argued that the very notion of humanity is an imperitive existential construct, evolutionarily necessitated by a socially dependent species i.e., living together as human neighbors demands what is commonly referred to as virtue.

The understanding that we create God because we have a preternatural need for this concept does not relieve us from upholding it, - since we did not create the need. For this we can thank... umm... uhh... ;)

Faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect critical thought and creationism may be. Wisdom and insight may be gleaned from ancient parables and fairy-tales, but unenlightened didacticism can be found anywhere that wrongheaded inquiry may blunder, as both atheists and fundamentalists attest. As long as ideologically obsequious masses are presented with unsophisticated unempowering dogma, wisdom and insight will continue to founder and we will continue the lament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead).

Ninjahedge

October 26th, 2007, 10:16 AM

Denial of this faith allows nihilistic abdication of ethics or morals of any kind, in other words, the renouncing of one's humanity and any responsibility thereto.

I disagree.

You do not need a dietal figure, promises of nirvana or threats of damnation to get people to behave well in society.

Religion is our construct to deal with the unknown. It is generated by our own intelligence and social leanings, and is made to give us comfort about things we feel we cannot control.

It is also a sign of what we are lacking in many aspects.

So associating faith, or the denial thereof, to an absulte abdication of humanity is an unfair assessment predicated on the very postulations put forth by the religious community.

No God /= No Humanity.

Jasonik

October 26th, 2007, 11:50 AM

The important word in the sentence you quoted is allows, as in: Taking the training-wheels off his bike allows him to fall over.

Secular Humanists surely believe they have a moral framework not rooted in a supernatural bestower of humanity. My conjecture, though nuanced and admittedly buried in my above remarks, denies this possibility.

The parental concern and self preservation that keeps a bicycle upright is a tacit acceptance of the value and worth of humanity, which I posit, is an inherent faith that human conciousness is not meaningless. Denial of this meaning allows one to devalue human life, and conversly acceptance of this meaning directly implies, if not a bestower of meaning, a bestower of the need for meaning.

Of course it's much easier to axiomatically state; God demands of all people, virtue!

Ninjahedge

October 26th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Religion allows people to kill others in the name of a belief or way of life.

It allowed human sacrifices and other things that are not exactly "user friendly".

By slipping in the "allows" as a buffer, it has the intended, but fallacious effect, of allowing a back door to the argument. The statement was said exactly as it was meant to be read, that without religion, without "faith", somehow society would be worse. That people would be more predisposed to barbaristic behavior than if they were not.

There is no direct link to this.

I am not saying that religion cannot have a positive effect on society, but that saying removing it is like removing societies safety harness is also not the best of associations.

So what I am saying is that your points are valid, just not the connection between them, at least not in the way that would correctly reflect the examples I brought up.

Jasonik

October 26th, 2007, 03:18 PM

When did I ever mention religion?

I did mention "unenlightened didacticism" and "unsophisticated unempowering dogma."

I'll try this one more time...

Ignoring the gift of reason allows one to be hoodwinked by demagoguery and dogma.

Ninjahedge

October 26th, 2007, 04:08 PM

Religion today, in its popular definition, is the social institution based on faith. Without faith, there would be no religion. It is a needed asset to have one with the other (although not necessarily conversely).

So, if there is just a belief, or faith in something there it bears absolutly no form until some sort of observance is played, which would be the start of religion.

Even just being nice to your fellow man, if done with the belief that this is something that aligns with your own "faith", you have practiced a religious rite or following. Social dictates that may be derived from the survival of the species, if they are followed in connection to a faith are then binded and held as a religious action.

But back to the core. Your position seems to be saying that faith is something that is good for society provided it stil bears observance to reason. True enough. But the removal of faith does not turn man into an animal willing to kill his fellow man. My point was that religion, a manefestation of faith, has had its own ill effects both with and without the interdiction of reason (although admittedly mostly without).

Somehow by saying that if there is no God or Divine Presence it devalues human life is something I do not agree with.

(BTW, I do believe there is something out there, so do not get me wrong, but I am a professional cynic, if not a professional PITA... ;) )

investordude

October 26th, 2007, 04:44 PM

I have 1 comment it doesn't seem like people are bringing up, which is the despicable comments made by Nobel Laureate Watson. I think it shows that when schools teach evolution (which they should), they should also teach the difference between science and social science, and in particular, the historical misapplication of Darwinism to justify genocide, racism, and imperialism especially in the 19th century. In other words, they should make sure kids know evolution is a lesson about science, not social science - and that there is every scientific indication that no one nationality or group has a biological monopoly on intelligence. They should also make sure kids aren't force to accept evolution as fact - but rather as the theory most consistent with the applicaton of the scientific method for studying biological history and genetics.

I don't actually see a need to choose between faith and science as this thread does. Most of the worlds best scientists, from Newton to Galileo to Einstein, were fascinated to study science to learn more about how the divine reveals itself in nature. The notion that faith and science are mutually exclusive seems more like a FoxNews myth than anything based on the real history of science.

Jasonik

October 26th, 2007, 05:29 PM

investordude, I agree, (and I may be professionally too clever by half.)

ZippyTheChimp

October 26th, 2007, 08:07 PM

I think it shows that when schools teach evolution (which they should), they should also teach the difference between science and social science, and in particular, the historical misapplication of Darwinism to justify genocide, racism, and imperialism especially in the 19th century.That's history, not science.

I don't actually see a need to choose between faith and science as this thread does.You should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but they are different skills.

Ninjahedge

October 29th, 2007, 10:59 AM

Odd Zip that the ones that seem to have the most problems with one have the most problems with the other?

;)

ZippyTheChimp

November 3rd, 2007, 12:36 PM

As noted in the article, the theory depends on a closed universe, where the expansion stops, and the universe begins to contract.

Evidence has been found that the expansion may be accelerating (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_expansion_020320.html).

I can't wait.

Alonzo-ny

November 4th, 2007, 05:11 PM

How could it accelerate without gaining energy in addition to the energy from the big bang? I glanced at the link, something about dark matter, not sure what their solid basis is??

Zea mays

November 4th, 2007, 07:09 PM

How could it accelerate without gaining energy in addition to the energy from the big bang? I glanced at the link, something about dark matter, not sure what their solid basis is??The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. Data from the Doppler shift of distant galaxies is conclusive. Dark energy, not dark matter, is hypothesized as the explanation. Some of the first work on the subject was done at Columbia. Wish I could recommend a book. Any help out there?

Alonzo-ny

November 4th, 2007, 07:34 PM

lofter1

November 4th, 2007, 07:55 PM

Isn't all matter moving in a constant stream and then turning back onto itself,
accelerating at certain points & slowing down at others?

Something like this (but endlessly in breadth, and spread out in multiple dimensions) ...

http://www.typophile.com/files/infinityJH.gif

This FRACTRAL (http://www.sgeier.net/fractals/fractals/07/Infinity.jpg) might show it more clearly ...

Zea mays

November 5th, 2007, 11:54 AM

Hmm this is interesting. My own theory was that after expanding the universes contraction would force it back into the infinitely small point from which another big bang would occur and this would cycle into eternity.Then you will have to revise your theory. :eek: The expansion of the universe is speeding up. I don't think it will slow down, come to a halt, and collapse back to a point, at least not in my lifetime. :D

Seriously, the most readable and fascinating paperback on the cosmos that I have come across recently is published by the Princeton University Press: the Extravagant Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Extravagant-Universe-Exploding-Accelerating-Princeton/dp/069111742X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2127305-3605212?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194273569&sr=1-1), written by Robert P. Kirshner, the Clowes Professor of Science at Harvard University.

The book also tells the story of the race to publish between the Lawrence-Berkeley Lab at U Cal Berkeley and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The most accepted list of the contents of the universe is:
Dark Energy — 60%
Dark Matter (of unknown atomic composition) — 30%
Dark Baryons (normal protons, neutrons, etc) but not visibly detected < 10%
Visible Baryons (normal protons, neutrons in stars, gases, etc) < 1%
[the above list is from Fig. 11.4, page 254 of the Extravagant Universe]

Note that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two disparate, unrelated entities. Evidence for dark matter comes from the rotation and movement of galaxies; evidence for dark energy lies in the increase in expansion rate of the universe. It is the preponderant dark energy that is driving this continuing increase in expansion rate.

Almost all cosmologists at the present time (2007) agree that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. The latter chapters of the book explain the astronomical observations that lead to this conclusion.

— Zea in Illinois

Capn_Birdseye

November 5th, 2007, 01:40 PM

Is it time for tea yet?

NYatKNIGHT

November 5th, 2007, 05:44 PM

infoshare

November 5th, 2007, 09:21 PM

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea) is a book about evolution that does not create more darkness than it dispels. :D

This book seems to be written for a lay audience and attempts to answer the question: Is intelligence, generically speaking (as in all sentient creatures), inherent in evolution?.

investordude

November 10th, 2007, 10:01 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1194746286-mc5LxcUyPsIgKGHmJoH6hQ

This doesn't mean we ignore the fact that evolution is real - but it does show the potential danger of misusing information we obtain studying biology. If we are going to teach kids about biological science, ethics probably needs to be part of the discussion.

Zea mays

November 12th, 2007, 02:09 AM

The scientists who discovered the acceleration of the universe were comparing the brightness of a type IA supernova (which provide a precise standard of brightness) in a far distant galaxy, to its redshift (the movement away). Comparing the values in the distant galaxies to those closer they found that the distant galaxies were much further away than they expected. Only an accelerating universe could explain it. So that expansion force that caused them to be as far away as they are is referred to as Dark Energy, though they don't know what it is.I like your explanation concerning evidence for an accelerating, expanding universe. It is concise and to the point. I would have taken twice as long to convey half the explanation.

I think the dimness of the distant Ia supernovae is due not from their being further away than their Doppler shift distances indicate, but rather due to the geometry of space-time. Radiation (from a star or supernova) decreases with distance squared only in a Euclidian, uniformly expanding universe. It decreases less rapidly in a closed decelerating universe and more rapidly in an open accelerating universe. Thus the dimness of the Ia supernovae indicates an accelerating, expanding universe. (The difference in supernovae magnitudes between accelerating and decelerating universe models is only about 0.5 mag at about +43 overall mag — very small indeed. But data on numerous supernovae tend to show that the universe will continue to expand ever more rapidly into the future, like dandelion seeds in a puff of wind.)

As for dark energy, it could be analogous to virtual matter, popping into existence for an instant and then recombining. The duration of virtual matter is much too short to be detected individually (on the order of 10^-20 sec) but its physical presence can be detected in laboratories. Perhaps dark energy is similar. It's an intriguing supposition.

ZippyTheChimp

January 4th, 2008, 09:53 AM

January 4, 2008

Evolution Book Sees No Science-Religion Gap

By CORNELIA DEAN

In 1984 and again in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most eminent scientific organization, produced books on the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and arguing against the introduction of creationism or other religious alternatives in public school science classes.

On Thursday, it produced a third. But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

“We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy,” said Barbara A. Schaal, a vice president of the academy, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University and a member of the panel that produced the book.

The panel, convened by the academy and the Institute of Medicine, its medical arm, was headed by Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest.

The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

In the book, which will be available on the Web site of the National Academies (www.nas.edu), the panel reports that evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming and growing. It cites findings from DNA research, fossil discoveries and the observations scientists have made about emerging diseases, like SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome.

The book also denounces the arguments for a form of creationism called intelligent design, calling them devoid of evidence, “disproven” or “simply false.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

http://www.nas.edu/

lofter1

September 15th, 2008, 12:47 AM

Southern Evangelicals And Torture

Andrew Sullivan / Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/southern-evange.html)
14 Sep 2008

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/09/14/wwjt.jpg (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/14/wwjt.jpg)

If you want to know why I cannot bring myself to call the base of the Republican party Christians,
and instead use the term Christianist, a new poll (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/torture/2008/09/southern-evangelicals-less-likely-to.html) helps explain why:

A new poll released Thursday (Sept. 11) finds that nearly six in 10
white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified, but their views
can shift when they consider the Christian principle of the golden rule.

The poll, commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University,
found that 57 percent of respondents said torture can be often
or sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected
terrorists. Thirty-eight percent said it was never or rarely justified.
Southern evangelicals are therefore the mainstay of the torture regime in this country.
The only point at which they even balk at torturing people who haven't been subject
to minimal due process is when they are reminded that this could come back to hurt
Americans. The idea that torture is immoral in itself seems alien to a majority
of the millions who lined up to see Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ.

Since the South was built on torture-slavery, this is not that historically surprising.
Many ancestors of today's Christianists tortured African-Americans routinely.
But the extent of Southern evangelicals support for violating one of the core
moral absolutes of Christianity is striking.

Southern evangelicals always cite Scripture when arguing that homosexuals
should be jailed or sent to therapy or denied basic rights in their marriages.
But on torture, they don't cite Scripture:

The new poll found that 44 percent of white Southern
evangelicals rely on life experiences and common sense to
determine their views about torture. A lower percentage, 28
percent, said they relied on Christian teachings or beliefs.
The one sliver of good news is that even the Christianist base knows that George W. Bush
is a liar on torture:

Pollsters also found that 53 percent of white Southern
evangelicals believe the government uses torture in its anti-
terrorism campaign, despite claims by government officials to
the contrary. About one-third, or 32 percent, said the
government does not use torture as a matter of policy.
These people are not in denial. They know what their beloved president is doing - to
other human beings and to American honor. And they love it. And guess what?
65 percent of them support the now pro-torture candidate, John McCain.
They know what they're doing.

(You can buy a t-shirt with the WWJT logo here. (http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers) Courtesy of Betty Bowers.)

Jasonik

December 11th, 2008, 04:59 PM

CNN guest: Bush Bible comment shocked evangelicals

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday December 11, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Brody_Evangelicals_surprised_by_Bushs_Bible_1211.h tml)

George W. Bush's recent statement (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_Bible_probably_not_literally_true_1208.html) that he believes the Bible is "probably not" literally true has apparently left many Christian conservatives reeling in shock.

David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network told CNN"s John Roberts on Thursday, "I think a lot of social conservative evangelicals were surprised -- probably grabbing the smelling salts as we speak."

Bush made the controversial statement during a Monday interview on ABC's Nightline. When asked whether he thinks the Bible is literally true, he replied, "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

One blogger at the conservative Washington Times, commented (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/potus-notes/2008/Dec/09/bush-bible-probably-not-literally-true/) the next morning, "I already have an e-mail from a former Bush administration official who writes, 'This just completely alienated his evangelical supporters.'"

Bush further stated in the interview, "I think that God created the Earth ... and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

Brody suggested that Bush may have merely been referring to what creationists call "microevolution (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm)" -- small-scale changes that do not rise to the level of creating new species. However, he didn't appear altogether confident, telling Roberts, "The problem was, the president didn't seem all that -- if you want to use the word -- coherent on the subject."

Brody, who has written that Bush would "have had to go into damage control mode" after these comments if he were still running for office, said that the remarks definitely "would have been an issue" in 1999, when Bush was actively seeking the support of the religious right in his bid for the presidency.

Brody concluded by suggesting, with what appeared to be a note of bitterness, that "George Bush has always been -- quote -- 'good' on the 'life' issue with social conservatives and good with the marriage issue. And it seems that he had cover because he had the public policy positions down."

Some evangelicals, however, claim they were not surprised by Bush's remarks. A blog titled "The Moral Collapse Of America" pointed out (http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/2008/12/george-w-bush-bible-is-probably-not.html) after the interview that "George W. Bush's religious beliefs are not compatible with evangelical Christianity," because "Bush has openly said many times that Christians, Muslims and all other religions pray to the same God."

"Evangelical Christians were conned into thinking that Bush was 'one of them,'" the Moral Collapse blogger concluded. "the reality is that he isn't one of them and he never was."

This video (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Brody_Evangelicals_surprised_by_Bushs_Bible_1211.h tml) is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast Dec. 11, 2008.

lofter1

December 11th, 2008, 05:06 PM

"George W. Bush's religious beliefs are not compatible with evangelical Christianity," because "Bush has openly said many times that Christians, Muslims and all other religions pray to the same God."

If they don't pray to the same God then how many Gods are there?

These so-called Literalists are beyond comprehension.

I guess donations to the GWB Library will drop off exponentially.

Ninjahedge

December 12th, 2008, 11:26 AM

If they don't pray to the same God then how many Gods are there?

These so-called Literalists are beyond comprehension.

I guess donations to the GWB Library will drop off exponentially.

They will have to eliminate 3 of the 5 books??!?!?!?!?

Alonzo-ny

February 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM

Belief in evolution

Untouched by the hand of God

Feb 5th 2009

From Economist.com

How people in various countries view the theory of evolution

IT IS 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which suggested that all living things are related and that everything is ultimately descended from a single common ancestor. This has troubled many, including Darwin himself, as it subverted ideas of divine intervention. It is not surprising that the countries least accepting of evolution today tend to be the most devout. In the most recent international survey available, only Turkey is less accepting of the theory than America. Iceland and Denmark are Darwin's most ardent adherents. Indeed America has become only slightly more accepting of Darwin's theory in recent years. In 2008 14% of people polled by Gallup agreed that “man evolved over millions of years”, up from 9% in 1982.

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w06/Darwin.jpg

ZippyTheChimp

February 11th, 2009, 07:36 PM

Who got a hold of my Thanksgiving family photo.

BTW,

Happy birthday, Charles Darwin.

TREPYE

February 12th, 2009, 01:14 AM

Yes indeed. Feb 12, 1809 a couple's of babies came into our world to truly change it. That is one Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln.....Happy 200th Birthday!

Thanks to Darwin he filled in the gaps of how we as a species came about. Had he not made this connection we would still be praying instead of researching to cure diseases.

Thanks to Lincoln for keeping this country together. Had he allowed the south to secede we have looked at decades of fighting over the western territories. We probably would have looked like India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine today.

TREPYE

February 12th, 2009, 09:10 PM

February 12, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The Origin of Darwin

By OLIVIA JUDSON
London
MY fellow primates, 200 years ago today, Charles Darwin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/charles_robert_darwin/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was born. Please join me in wishing him happy birthday!
Unlike many members of the human species, Darwin makes an easy hero. His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
At the same time, he was a humane, gentle, decent man, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. Judging by his letters, he was also sometimes quite funny. He was, in other words, one of those rare beings, as likeable as he was impressive.
For example, after his marriage, Darwin worked at home, and his children (of the 10 he fathered, seven survived to adulthood) remembered playing in his study. Later, one of his sons recounted how, after an argument, his father came up to his room, sat on his bed, and apologized for losing his temper. And although often painted as a recluse, Darwin served as a local magistrate, meting out justice in his dining room.
Moreover, while many of his contemporaries approved of slavery, Darwin did not. He came from a family of ardent abolitionists, and he was revolted by what he saw in slave countries: “Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal .... It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.”
He practiced a kind of ideal, dream-like science. He examined the minutiae of nature — shells of barnacles, pistils of flowers — but worked on grand themes. He corresponded with lofty men of learning, but also with farmers and pigeon breeders. He observed, questioned, experimented, constantly testing his ideas.
Could plants from the mainland colonize a newly formed island? If so, they would need a way to get there. Could they survive in the ocean? To find out, he immersed seeds in salt water for weeks, then planted them to see how many could sprout. He reported, for example, that “an asparagus plant with ripe berries floated for 23 days, when dried it floated for 85 days, and the seeds afterwards germinated.” The Atlantic current moved at 33 nautical miles a day; he figured that would take a seed more than 1,300 miles in 42 days. Yes, seeds could travel by sea.
He published important work on subjects as diverse as the biology of carnivorous plants, barnacles, earthworms and the formation of coral reefs. He wrote a travelogue, “The Voyage of the Beagle,” that was an immediate best seller and remains a classic of its kind. And as if that was not enough, he discovered two major forces in evolution — natural selection and sexual selection — and wrote three radical scientific masterpieces, “On the Origin of Species” (1859), “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” (1871) and “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872).
The “Origin,” of course, is what he is best known for. This volume, colossal in scope yet minutely detailed, laid the foundations of modern biology. Here, Darwin presented extensive and compelling evidence that all living beings — including humans — have evolved from a common ancestor, and that natural selection is the chief force driving evolutionary change. Sexual selection, he argued, was an additional force, responsible for spectacular features like the tail feathers of peacocks that are useless for (or even detrimental to) survival but essential for seduction.
Before the “Origin,” similarities and differences between species were mere curiosities; questions as to why a certain plant is succulent like a cactus or deciduous like a maple could be answered only, “Because.” Biology itself was nothing more than a vast exercise in catalog and description. After the “Origin,” all organisms became connected, part of the same, profoundly ancient, family tree. Similarities and differences became comprehensible and explicable. In short, Darwin gave us a framework for asking questions about the natural world, and about ourselves.
He was not right about everything. How could he have been? Famously, he didn’t know how genetics works; as for DNA — well, the structure of the molecule wasn’t discovered until 1953. So today’s view of evolution is much more nuanced than his. We have incorporated genetics, and expanded and refined our understanding of natural selection, and of the other forces in evolution.
But what is astonishing is how much Darwin did know, and how far he saw. His imagination told him, for example, that many female animals have a sense of beauty — that they like to mate with the most beautiful males. For this he was ridiculed. But we know that he was right. Still more impressive: he was not afraid to apply his ideas to humans. He thought that natural selection had operated on us, just as it had on fruit flies and centipedes.
As we delve into DNA sequences, we can see natural selection acting at the level of genes. Our genes hold evidence of our intimate associations with other beings, from cows to malaria parasites and grains. The latest research allows us to trace the genetic changes that differentiate us from our primate cousins, and shows that large parts of the human genome bear the stamp of evolution by means of natural selection.
I think Darwin would have been pleased. But not surprised.

Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/).

Copyright 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)