LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ccroft)

Is this a joke? PLEASE someone tell me that this is a spoof...

Project Pterosaur.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

From BBC News:

Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist.

In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford is to warn that core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East"...

"Ahead of us lie dangerous times... There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more. Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today. And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies. Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ccroft)

Here is what the BBC News Company from the UK makes of the dominionist movement so far, in an interesting article from their Washington correspondant posted today. No facts within that we aren't aware of, but one should notice the language used by a media outlet that enjoys a global audience:

"We are having dinner at the house of some friends who are supporters of President Bush.

Their five-year-old son, a classmate of our children, takes me upstairs to see his collection of dinosaurs.

Little Meade is a passionate palaeontologist and this is a land of plenty so the room heaves with prehistoric life.

I am suitably impressed, but unknown to Meade I am not here to admire the bone structure of the mammals.

I am in this room on assignment, because in modern America Meade's dinosaurs are at the heart of the travails of a political party and I need to find out something about Meade's parents which will affect our relationship.

I need to know what they told him about when the dinosaurs existed.

Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party, believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago as per the account in Genesis and the dinosaurs can only date from then, so the Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around with Adam and Eve. Read More...

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY njtech)

Ha-Ha. The best part about this story is it's taking place in the middle of the Bible belt.

University of Kansas to teach ID... as part of a course on mythology

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY hummingwolf)

University to Teach 'Intelligent Design' as Myth

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.''

"The KU faculty has had enough,'' said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

"Creationism is mythology,'' Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.''

livescience

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

I found Evolution and God...Again on the "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog. It's long, but well worth your time.

An excerpt:

With prominent conservatives like George Will and Charles Krauthammer speaking out strongly in favor of evolutionary theory and against ID lately, you knew there would be a reaction from some of their ideological brethren. George Neumayr, executive editor of The American Spectator, offers this commentary in an attempt to argue that evolution and atheism are one and the same. He begins by trying to poison the well with a false charge of disingenuousness:

Only a small percentage of the American people support the evolutionary claim that life arose through purely material causes. Consequently, many Darwinists, recognizing that they need to win new converts lest they completely lose control over the debate, now loudly argue that Darwin's theory harmonizes with religion. As Brown professor Kenneth Miller put it in the New York Times recently, Darwin's theory isn't "anti-God." But this PR strategy of emphasizing the compatibility of Darwinism and religion is running into a problem: Darwinism's most celebrated experts -- that is, the scientists who understand the theory most purely and deeply -- admit that it is an intrinsically atheistic theory.

Notice how he automatically assumes that Ken Miller argues that evolution is not anti-God purely because of "PR strategy"? This is an example of what I call the preemptive accusation - if you accuse your opponents of doing the very thing that you yourself are doing, it puts them on the defensive and distracts attention from your own behavior. He has not a shred of evidence that Miller is not entirely sincere, nor does he attempt to produce any. I don't know Miller personally, but we have many mutual friends. To a person, all would testify to his integrity and sincerity. Indeed, even the most deeply convinced IDer would not stoop so low as to claim that he is not entirely sincere both in his advocacy of evolution and his deeply held Christian faith.

On the other hand, there is solid evidence that tying evolution to atheism is an integral part of the PR strategy of the intelligent design movement. The Wedge document, for example, is full of arguments conflating evolution and atheism. It's also important to note that it is the ID movement's main thinktank, the Discovery Institute, who has hired a PR firm to help shape their arguments, not Ken Miller or evolutionary scientists.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

The Darwin exhibition frightening off corporate sponsors
By Nicholas Wapshott in New York
(Filed: 20/11/2005)

An exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin has failed to find a corporate sponsor because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution.

The entire $3 million (£1.7 million) cost of Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York yesterday, is instead being borne by wealthy individuals and private charitable donations.

The failure of American companies to back what until recently would have been considered a mainstream educational exhibition reflects the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians, who are among President George W Bush's most vocal supporters, over all walks of life in the United States.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY farklebarkle)

Someone got nice and sarcastic in the Journal and Courier (Lafayette, IN) Letters to the Editor section today. Kudos to you, Mike Sloothaak.

The story of pi and intelligent design

I wish to congratulate House Speaker Brian Bosma and Indiana Republicans for pushing intelligent design in our state. This is a great act of Christian faith and responsibility.

But Indiana's Christians must challenge our representatives to even greater faith. 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 makes clear that what the Eastern liberal establishment, the American Civil Liberties Union and activist judges insist on calling "pi" is actually, simply 3. Do our Republicans in Indianapolis have the faith necessary to defy the liberals, embrace biblical truths and legislate that in Indiana "pi" will officially be equal to 3? Our great state will be blessed materially if we embrace that level of faith.

First, many technical calculations would be simplified, so science and engineering firms will flock to Indiana to do business, creating many new jobs. Second, our children will be spared the burden of memorizing a pagan Greek symbol in their mathematical formulas and can focus on other matters more fitting with the Christian values we so cherish.

God made ones, twos and threes, not pi, square roots and "e's." Even the mathematicians themselves doubt their own monstrous creations, or else why would they refer to the latter as irrational numbers?

Intelligent design is only the first step in a long journey to bring timeless biblical truths back to Indiana. Let's pray that a majority of our politicians are up to this task.

Mike Sloothaak
West Lafayette

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY loquaciousnut)

From an Australian newspaper: http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/how-design-supporters-insult-gods-intelligence/2005/11/14/1131951095200.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

How design supporters insult God's intelligence
November 15, 2005

The idea of a supreme being who leaves creation to chance does not sit well with some Christians, writes Neil Ormerod.

INTELLIGENT design has become the latest hot topic in the increasingly blurred distinction between secular and sacred in Australian society. It has received qualified support from the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, and is being promoted within some Christian schools as an acceptable "scientific" alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding of God's relationship to creation.

Much depends on what its proponents mean by the term "intelligent design". If they mean that the universe as a whole displays a profound intelligibility through which one might argue philosophically that the existence of God is manifest, their position is very traditional.

However, if by intelligent design they mean that God is an explanation for the normal course of events which would otherwise lack scientific explanation, then this is opposed to a traditional Christian understanding of divine transcendence. In seeking to save a place for God within the creation process, the promoters of intelligent design reduce God to the level of what the early theologian Thomas Aquinas would call a "secondary cause".

( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Tongue in cheek comparative chart for the curious.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

It's a long article, but definitely worth your time.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ellid)

Here's more on the Dover school board election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nocturnalseraph)

It looks like Kansas is the first to fall. Who will be next?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY tully_monster)

Maybe we lost Kansas, but for what it's worth, Dover expelled their wingnuts tonight.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sydneycat)

Evolution in the Bible, says Vatican
By Martin Penner
07-11-2005
From: The Australian


THE Vatican has issued a stout defense of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasized, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY cheap_laugh)

Vatican: Faithful should listen to Science


By Nicole Winfield, Associated Press Writer | November 3, 2005

VATICAN CITY --A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said.

But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 34 minutes ago

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

From Reuters, via CNN:

A bitter debate about how to teach evolution in U.S. high schools is prompting a crisis of confidence among scientists, and some senior academics warn that science itself is under assault...

"Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation," said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3...

In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection. Prominent scientists have also charged the administration with politicizing science by seeking to shape data to its own needs while ignoring other research.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have built a powerful position within the Republican Party and no Republican, including Bush, can afford to ignore their views.

Full Story

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY zarq)

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have denied the Kansas Board of Education permission to use their copyrighted materials as part of the state’s proposed new science standards because they will teach evolution and creationism. The NSTA’s page has links to their statement and a joint statement with the NAS.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY zarq)

The prosecution’s lawyers for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, “Intelligent” Design trial deserve a fee raise. They have elicited testimony from Michael Behe in which he counters his own theory of Irreducible Complexity, raised in his deeply-flawed 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box. The theory states that G-d must have designed the universe because there are biochemical systems which cannot be broken down into smaller functioning systems infinitely. Wikipedia tears that apart nicely, and so does Talk Design. TD’s Behe faq is here.

“Dispatches from the Culture Wars” explains what happened quite eloquently. Transcript is here. (pdf) The good bits start on page 42.