In the interview, Schaeffer describes how he and his minister father, a friend of the Reagan’s and the Bush’s, helped organize the Christian right by means of the Pro-Life movement, how it evolved to take over Republican Politics, and the hypocrisy that finally drove him away from it.

There is so much that is fascinating in this interview. If you haven’t already heard it, you can listen by following this link.

Listen from the website.

It sure was fun talking about things I really haven’t talked much about in a while. It’s nice seeing my old friends trickling in to the blog again, too. Plus some new names–those never stopped, though, amazingly.

I have long expressed that empathy is a key factor in a person’s morality. Empathy is a state that the human brain evolved a capacity for. Guilt is another. Our social upbringing also comes into play, but only because an ability to experiences these things first evolved within the brain.

Gregg100 sent me a link to an article that tells of a recent study on this subject. I’ve pulled out a few statements that summarize the main points of the article but I recommend you read the whole thing so you know the specifics and the limitations to how far the study extends.

Damage to the part of the brain that controls social emotions changes the way people respond to thorny moral problems, demonstrating the role of empathy and other feelings in life-or-death decisions.

“Part of our moral behavior is grounded … in a specific part of our brains,” said Dr. Antonio Damasio, one of the study’s lead authors and director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at USC.

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain, which occupies a small region in the forehead, causes a diminished capacity for social emotions but leaves logical reasoning intact.

Researchers found no difference among groups in their responses to scenarios with no moral content, such as turning a tractor left to harvest turnips.

This study is not in isolation. Without even looking for them I come across studies with similar or related conclusions quite regularly. The conclusions have perspective-altering implications that might challenge the way religious believers expect their god to hold people accountable for their “sins.” Or the way societies deal with criminals. Such implications and how we should deal with them are complicated. But I think this is an extremely important area to learn more about if we are ever going to understand human nature and hope for a more peaceful world.

The concept no longer makes sense in light of evolution, unless we are willing to grant souls to chimps, dogs, sea sponges and celery. Since species evolve incrementally over time, insisting that we have souls, but other living things do not, requires us to come up with some pretty unlikely scenarios. At what point in evolution did the soul suddenly appear — and why didn’t the previous generation qualify?

Whatever sense of self and personal identity we have springs entirely from the constantly recomposed electrochemical symphony playing in our heads. Some find that horrifying; I find it utterly amazing. And asking where our “self” goes when that electrochemical symphony stops playing is just like asking where the music goes when an orchestra stops playing.

What a great analogy. Really, there is no more evidence or reason to believe in a soul than there is evidence or reason to believe in gods. Over time, more and more of what we have attributed to the soul falls to the wayside as scientific research finds that chemical reactions within specific areas of our physical brain are responsible for everything soul-oriented. Neurologists can even stimulate an area of the brain to cause many people to have “out-of-body experiences. Of course, they are not actually having them. The brain is just really good at deceiving.

I don’t find life any less amazing or beautiful for our lack of a soul. What do you think?

Today I am going to add an additional activity to what we did last year. I’m still working it out in my brain but I think I am going to explore color with the kids as a metaphor for how all of life is made up of just a handful of basic particles. Just as all color and all its variety come from three primary colors and black and white, everything we see in the world with all its variety comes from a limited number of elements (I’m still not sure what I should break it all down to. Any suggestions?)

We’ll play with paint, beginning with red, yellow, and blue, expanding to the secondary colors, then the tertiary. We’ll add black and white for varying tone. I may use that to explain mutations and how some mutations help a creature to survive environmental pressures, allowing it to reproduce more, and some mutations make it harder to survive, preventing it from reproducing as much.

And of course, we’ll also be doing the traditional AgnosticMom stuff that I outlined in my HNN article:

Feb. 12: Introduction of Evolution through Family Book Reading
Dinner focus: The first phase of evolutionary life: shellfish, jellyfish, worms
A. Read The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution by Ellen Jackson.
B. Dinner:
1. Very involved version: A smorgasboard of shellfish: shrimp, lobster, oysters
2. Simpler version: Shrimp dinner
3. After dinner treat: Gummi-worms (put them in cute gift bags or boxes on their
plates. The kids love that!).
C. Table decor theme: Under the sea

What are you doing today? Whether you have ever commented before or not, please leave a comment if you are celebrating Darwin Day and tell us what you are doing today! If you have a blog and have written about it there, leave us a link.

I have some ideas of activities I hope to add this year. I’ll be sure to post them to the blog. If you have some ideas to share, please leave a comment!

Also, HNN’s editor had asked for my thoughts on the Ashley story. If you’re interested in that controversy and would like to see how I apply my ethics, you can read my Letter To The Editor here.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, check out my article in the Humanist Network News. Normally I only contribute one article a month, but this month I will have a second article in HNN. This week’s article is a general description of what Darwin Day is. Next week is an outline of how my family celebrated last year. As we get closer to the day, I will post any extra activities that we may add this year.

“How are humans being classified as non-animals in Social Studies class?”
By teaching that animals have long been used to, say, work in the fields, regardless of their choice. Doing the same thing to humans is usually presented as wrong, thus making a distinction between animals and humans. The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.

“No one is being made to make ethical statements based on science in school.”
I don’t agree with that in all cases. I suspect that some would like ethical statements based on science to be made in schools. Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.

I agree that faith(s) can be discussed in school. I disagree that it should be taught. Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.

Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?

One of the themes on this blog that I’m interested in is: Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual? I understand Noell to be saying yes, there is, and I disagree. If you haven’t done so already, you may want to check out Noell’s post: http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/08/02/evolutionary-psychology-and-materialism-as-a-world-view/ and my response, which is approx #12.

I will now quote Dan in italics and then make my response.

“The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.”
I will agree with this statement. Humans are animals. And at the same time, humans are not animals. The statements only contradict because of semantics. The truth is, we evolved from animals, we are part of the animal kingdom. We share many similiarities with animals. We are animals.

And yet, we evolved a few other capabilities that distinguish us from animals. The greatest factor in this is the human development of advanced language. It is language that allowed us to form the communities that we have, allowed us to develop a capacity for empathy, allowed us to have an awareness of others, allowed us to have some choices beyond our instincts, allowed us to think about ourselves and evaluate.

Humans are the only animals we know of that can act against even our greatest instinct, which is to spread our genes (procreation). We have, for example, invented birth control. Daniel Dennett likes to point out this fact as he explains how language has made the human species unlike any other animal.

(Note to Dan: If you really want to understand this viewpoint, Daniel Dennet, atheist philosopher who knows his science, is the person to read or listen to.)

“Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.”
There is a distinction to be made here. Science must do its investigating and be kept wholly separate from ethics. Learning that nature selects that which is “most fit,” for example, does not mean it is ethical for humans to favor those most fit and allow to die those who are less able. Humans must make decisions on ethics from a philosophical stand-point. But many of the findings in science can direct us to a greater understanding of how things work, giving better clarity and accuracy to our philosophy about ethics.

For example, it will take science to better understand what is going on when someone is in a vegetative state. Science does not tell us whether it is ethical or not to take someone off life-support. But it might tell us whether someone has any chance for survival, whether there is any level of consiousness, whether there exists any pain or desire within the person. We can then take the scientific evidence to help us decide the ethics of whether to leave a person on life support or take them off. Science gives us the information we need. It does not give us the ethics. That is why, yes, we have discussed a link between science and ethics on this blog. And yes, I would submit that scientific findings are crucial information as we make choices in ethics. But there is still a vast separation between the two. Science gives us factual information. Ethics must derive from philosophical discussion with the facts at hand.

“Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.”
It does not take faith in a being that no one has seen to come to the conclusion that enslaving someone who desires freedom is wrong. Faith and ethics have nothing to do with each other.

Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?
This is an example of where scientific progress may shape our ethics on treatment of animals. It seems that my dog is in pure bliss living with us, even with our rules that he not leave the house without us. If it were to be discovered that dogs are unhappy as domesticated pets, that they have a will and desire currently unknown to us, then I would conclude that it is unethical to keep them. It’s not about the fact that they are animals (as we are, too). It has only to do with their ability to be content or “happy,” as far as animals can be happy. It appears that dogs are happy as pets. It is unethical to treat animals with cruelty, even if they are animals.

I do not allow my kids to cage up wild insects, as much as they would like to, because I know insects have a need to be free.

Cows were bred to live the lives they do. As far as we can tell, cows have no need to run free and pursue other interests in the wild because they were not bred to desire that. But, if it were discovered through science, that cows were, in fact, unfulfilled and depressed on the farm, it would become a matter of ethics whether we keep them there or not. Arizona just dealt with these issues politically as we passed a law that farmers give more space to pregnant cows and calves raised for veal (previously they had no room to even turn around).

Humans are animals that are extremely different from all other animals. Our particular difference requires we have more autonomy in order to be happy. Other non-human animals just don’t have as many needs for personal fulfillment as we do because they did not evolve in the direction we did.

So, I hope you see, Dan, that there is nothing contradictory here with the view of humans as animals. And there is nothing shady in terms of the relationship between science and ethics.

I call it a warm-up because the particular theory is one I doubt many of us will disagree on: it is a possible explanation for the human tendency toward religion (an explanation among a number of joint explanations). You’ll like it. In fact, the theory is similar to an article that my reader, Ed Darrell, provided a link to in a comment. But I’ll be using that article in my up-coming entry, so I’m holding off on posting it in this entry (thanks, Ed Darrell!).

Of course, the morality discussion we’ve been having is a little more controversial and challenges some current views. So, to help you out, I’ll warm you up to Evolutionary Psychology with theories you will like!

Head on over and read that article (or if it is too detailed for you, read the synopsis on Panda’s Thumb.

You may start to realize that theories in Evolutionary Psychology are everywhere. And you’ve already read a number in various articles, many of which I have linked to over the course of my blog. As long as I don’t call it “Evolutionary Psychology,” or associate it with the word, “morality,” I always get a 100% positive reponse. It’s a funny thing. In fact, there is a theory for that as well.

Too many topics, too little time.

If you’re not already a subscriber and haven’t yet read my article in the Humanist Network News, make sure you head over and take a look. Read the other articles while you’re at it and feel free to write HNN a letter with your feedback or leave your comments here on my blog.

I’ve had some time to read some of the earlier posts. I’m interested in the idea that “nature is all there is”. [I’m thinking, nature = the physical world] If I understand post #8 correctly, this is a position you hold.

I see two, somewhat different, implications:
1) the universe, as a whole, quite likely produces a consciousness; something that might be called “a god”
2) there is no meaning or value in life, other than what a particular individual attaches to it. And related: concepts of good and evil must be relative to the individual.

So, would you be interested in a conversation in that direction?

(Disclosure, if it matters: I hold a Christian worldview.)

Dan, you are accurate to sum up my position that “nature is all there is.” I am a materialist.

But when we look at the two implications you listed, I do not subscribe to either of them. The reason I don’t agree with either of the two optional implications is that I am aware of a third implication.

There is a growing science that says the human species evolved certain psychological traits. As a quote on my previous post on Darwin Day stated, our understanding of evolution is creeping into all kinds of areas. It is changing the way we understand medicine. And it is changing the way we understanding human psychology and human nature. While Evolutionary Psychology is still young in the field of science and has much work yet to do in substantiating its claims, it contributes a third implication to Dan’s list of only two; an implication to which I currently subscribe.

In his book, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker explains:

In the study of humans, there are major spheres of human experience–beauty, motherhood, kinship, morality, cooperation, sexuality, violence–in which evolutionary psychology provides the only coherent theory and has spawned vibrant new areas of empirical research. Behavioral genetics has revived the study of personality and will only expand with the application of knowledge from the Human Genome Project. Cognitive neuroscience will not shrink from applying its new tools to every aspect of mind and behavior, including the emotionally and politically charged ones.

Later he clarifies what evolution means for psychology:

Natural selection works to homogenize a species into a standard overall design by concentrating the effective genes–the ones that build well-functioning organs–and winnowing out the ineffective ones. When it comes to an explanation of what makes us tick, we are thus birds of a feather. Just as we all have the same physical organs (two eyes, a liver, a four-chambered heart), we have the same mental organs.” (pg. 142)

What does this have to do with finding meaning in life or understanding whether concepts of good and evil are relative? Here is what a materialist view implies when combined with the view that evolution provided us a certain innate psychology:

To quote Pinker again on pg. 145:

Regardless of IQ or physical strength or any other trait that can vary, all humans can be assumed to have certain traits in common. No one likes being enslaved. No one likes being humiliated. No one likes being treated unfairly, that is, according to traits that the person cannot control. The revulsion we feel toward discrimination and slavery comes from a conviction that however much people vary on some traits, they do not vary on these. This conviction contrasts, by the way, with the supposedly progressive doctrine that people have no inherent concerns, which implies that they could be conditioned to enjoy servitude or degradation.

Do you see how this homogeny implies a certain generality when it comes to the meaning of life or ethics/morality?

We all have the capacity to feel pain and happiness. We all want to avoid pain and increase pleasure and happiness. We also all know this is true of one another (the ability to understand even that is likewise inherent in our natural cognitive abilities). These three simple facts are enough to provide us both a compass for ethics/morality and for meaning to life.

I find meaning in the fact that I can increase my own happiness and I have the ability to help increase happiness in others. So I guess in some ways a materialist point of view may imply that “there is no meaning or value in life, other than what a particular individual attaches to it.” But in consideration of a shared human nature, or the idea that humans share certain innate traits, I do not agree with the implication.

I find value in life from the mere fact that I have approximately seventy years (if I live an average life-span) of conscious existence. If that is all you think you have, and you do not imagine another life after, what can you possibly value more than life? Not only your own life, but the lives of others?

I personally find meaning in the fact that I can do things to increase my own personal happiness and the happiness of other people. The quotes from Steven Pinker above imply that this could be a universally human objective when it comes to finding meaning in life. It implies that all humans want to be free and pursue their own happiness.

But what about the other half of the implications you listed for a materialistic worldview? Dan said it was that “concepts of good and evil must be relative to the individual.”

Some materialists do hold this view, but it does not necessarily follow as the only consistent conclusion to materialistic thought. Many scientists, philosophers and atheist writers speak of an innate “moral sense” in the human species which evolved through Natural Selection.

A few of the more popular ones that I have been referring to recently are Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Robert Wright, Daniel Dennett, and James Joyce.

Wright lists a number of traits that combine to make up this natural moral sense:

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice–all of these things, the things that hold society together, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis (The Moral Animal, pg. 12).

I have to qualify this quote with my own statement that I would have to review his book to find out what Wright’s sources are for the “firm genetic basis” of the traits he listed. But Pinker agrees with him when he makes a similar list which he referred to as an innate “emotional repertiore–-sympathy, trust, guilt, anger, self-esteem.”

Pinker gave this explanation for the evolutionary endowed moral sense while discussing the dilemma of conflicting self-interests among individuals:

. . . there are reasons to believe that the solution to it–a moral sense–evolved in our species rather than having to be deduced from scratch by each of us after we’ve picked ourselves up out of the mud. Children as young as a year and a half spontaneously give toys, proffer help, and try to comfort adults or other children who are visibly distressed. People in all cultures distinguish right from wrong, have a sense of fairness, help one another, impose rights and obligations, believe that wrongs should be redressed, and proscribe rape, murder, and some kinds of violence (The Blank Slate, pg. 187-8).

And this is what I meant when I told Dan that there was a third implication:

The alternative, then, to the religious theory of the source of values is that evolution endowed us with a moral sense, and we have expanded its circle of application over the course of history through reason (grasping the logical interchangeability of our interests and others’), knowledge (learning of the advantages of cooperation over the long term), and sympathy (having experiences that allow us to feel others pain).

Steven Pinker, then, made a comparison of a religiously endowed morality to an evolutionary endowed morality:

How can we tell which theory is preferable? A thought experiment can pit them against eachother. What would be the right thing to do if God had commanded people to be selfish and cruel rather than generous and kind? Those who root their values in religion would have to say that we ought to be selfish and cruel. Those who appeal to a moral sense would say that we ought to reject God’s command.

. . .The history of religion shows that God has commanded people to do all manner of selfish and cruel acts: massacre Midianites and abduct their women, stone prostitutes, execute homosexuals, burn witches, withhold medicine from dying children, shoot up abortion clinics . . .(pg. 189).

But let’s also compare the theory of an innate moral sense to the theory that morality is relative and should not be part of the human dialogue at all. Pinker gives one example (among others) of why it is dangerous to disregard and deny this innate nature that provides us with a moral sense:

Feminism, far from needing a blank slate, needs the opposite, a clear conception of human nature. One of the most pressing feminist causes today is the condition of women in the developing world. In many places female fetuses are selectively aborted, newborn girls are killed, daughters are malnourished and kept from school, adolescent girls have their genitals cut out, young women are cloaked from head to toe, adulteresses are stoned to death, and widows are expected to fall onto their husbands’ funeral pyres. The relativist climate in many academic circles does not allow these horrors to be criticized because they are practices of other cultures, and cultures are superorganisms that, like people, have inalienable rights. To escape this trap, the feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum has invoked “central functional capabilities” that all humans have a right to exercise, such as physical integrity, liberty of conscience, and political participation. She has been criticized in turn for taking on a colonial “civilizing mission” or “white woman’s burden,” in which arrogant Europeans would instruct the poor people of the world in what they want. But Nussbaum’s moral argument is defensible if her “capabilities” are grounded, directly or indirectly, in a universal human nature. Human nature provides a yardstick to identify suffering in any member of our species (The Blank Slate, pg.172).

This understanding of human nature is vital in preserving the freedoms of all people. White southerners justified their actions against black people, both while they were slaves and after, by pretending blacks were less than human in order to deny them the characteristics that would make their enslavement wrong. They created stereotyped caricatures of black people to portray a difference in the nature of black people compared to white people. A universality in human nature defines this as clearly wrong, not just morally but also factually.

To summarize, theories in Evolutionary Psychology regarding innate and homogeneous needs and desires across the human species provides its own implications to the materialist. In addition to the idea that humans can find meaning in life by virtue of the fact that we exist with capacities for pain and happiness, we can assume a shared concept of the meaning of life: the pursuit of happiness, both for ourselves and others. It also means that morality is not relative. The subjugation of and infliction of pain on another being is not acceptable and good to some people in some cultures. Human beings cannot be socialized to desire servitude and pain. Human beings, no matter the environment or culture, do not want pain or servitude. Therefore ethics and morality exist in real terms as revolving around this idea: we do not have the right to purposely cause others pain or deny them their happiness and freedom.

I mostly ate fruits and vegetables while there. I love the tropics because of the wide availability of fruits, the mango being my very favorite. But since we drank a bit more than usual (just a bit; I’m not a big drinker) I was concerned about all those extra calories.

Not to worry. There was plenty to do at the resort to keep us active. Besides the fact that we walked everywhere and never once took the elevator to our third floor room, we rode bikes and played tennis, rode kayaks, went snorkeling, and danced in the evenings. We also played pool and table tennis. I doubt those two activities burned very many calories but I know they burn more than lying on a lounge chair at the pool consuming chips and pico de gallo.

We also spent a lot of time with our camera. My husband taught me some of the technical details of photography: setting the shutter speed, the F-stop, and light sensitivity. We went around the resort taking lots of cool photos. Maybe some day I’ll take the time to learn the simple art of putting those photos on my blog. Or into my empty flickr account. Yes, I realize I am probably the only blogger who hasn’t taken the five minutes to learn how to do that. I just have too many interests.

Our last evening in Cancun led me to an unexpected conversation. After three days of small talk with people from the company that I see once a year, I found out that one of the wives is a professor of Archaeology. Well, of course, that perked my ears. Not long ago on this blog there was a weeks-long debate that spanned at least four or five blog-entries in the comments. The debate was a bit confusing as it covered a few different topics at once, but one of those topics was Evolutionary Psychology, a subject that will probably appear in my next blog entry. One reader, whose degree was in Archaeology, could not stomach the field of Evolutionary Psychology and seemed to think it conflicts with all things archaeological.

So, not wanting to start a debate with this new friend on our vacation, but curious to see her reaction, I asked her, “Do you know about, and if so do you despise, the field of Evolutionary Psychology?”

And her answer was, “Yes! I despise it! All these years we have been moving successfully away from racism, and Evolutionary Psychology comes right back to racist beliefs.”

When she said she despised E.P, I hoped she’d have a more compelling disagreement than the racist card. I already know about claims of racism. I have studied enough of E.P. to know that that point is not valid. It is untrue. In fact, there are many reasons why the claims of E.P. should lead us to more compassion and understanding toward our fellow human beings.

She also made the common argument that it is deterministic. This is also not necessarily the case. In my readings, I have only come across one proponent of the field who is a determinist and he admitted that when his peers reviewed his book, they all disagreed with him on that point. When I hear claims of racism and determinism with regard to E.P, it usually means the person has read about the field from its opponents, but have not read the research itself.

I wanted to hear valid arguments against this field. I told the professor that I was trying to determine the various weaknesses and strengths of Evolutionary Psychology and that, while I have heard the claims that the field leads to racial and deterministic beliefs, my readings show otherwise.

I asked her if archaeologists unanimously disagree with Evolutionary Psychology, as one of my readers implied. She said it is split, practically down the middle. And then a funny thing happened. She admitted that as she has just begun reading on the subject recently, she is warming up to it. She read the work of one scientist about the differences in male and female sexuality and she said she could not deny it sounded accurate. And there are a few other things she has been learning from the field that also sound right to her.

We both agreed that some scientists, in an effort to get their name on a new theory, propose theories within the field that do not have strong evidence or support. Of course, these theories don’t go far. They also do not invalidate the rest of the entire field of research.

So in the end, the discussion evolved from her “despising” Evolutionary Psychology, to the fact that she is just beginning to learn about it and, in the process, is warming up to it.

In addition to the topic of E.P, she also told me that she teaches Evolution and that every semester she has a student(s) who make a point to challenge her on its validity.

I told her about my blog. She asked me if I know of Michael Shermer and the Skeptic Society. We played the “Do you know so-and-so?” game of scientists we read, as well as the “Have you read such-and-such?” game regarding books.

It was a nice detail to add to my trip of tropical fun and relaxation.

Dear Noell Hyman,

First let me thank all of you for providing your names or e-mails as supporters of Darwin Day — the Celebration of Science and Humanity. If there is anything our nation currently needs, it is a better understanding of Science and a mutual appreciation of all Humanity.

I’m very pleased to be able to report that this year’s celebration on February 12, 2006, was a tremendous success, with more that 650 events being held around the world. Most of the Celebrations were held in English speaking countries, but in recent years there has been a growing participation in Darwin Day throughout the world. For instance, events were held in 13 different countries, including 26 events in Italy, where 15 of the major universities held celebrations. Other countries with Darwin Day celebrations include Canada, England, Ireland, Chile, Australia, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Germany, Guatemala, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Together we made news this year receiving Darwin Day coverage in over 150 newspapers, E-news articles, and even on prime time TV news! In addition, our Website www.darwinday.org remains on-line year-around as a source of educational material about Charles Darwin’s life and the science of evolution.

Together we have created a very effective system for communicating the history and logic of Charles Darwin’s pioneering discoveries and the convincing scientific evidence for evolution. We have nearly 1500 people who have a strong interest in Darwin Day’s activities, and we have communicated with nearly 67,000 academic and medical people who have advanced understanding of the scientific process. We can e-mail to them at low cost to coordinate the public Celebrations on Darwin Day, when we who understand Science and respect Humanity share with the rest of the world the importance of evolution for interpretation of biomedical research.

Darwin’s bicentennial birthday will arrive on February 12, 2009, and we need your help. If you could make a donation of 25 to 50 dollars it would make it possible for us to expand our communication network to the entire world. For US taxpayers this donation can be tax deductible. Your support will enable our staff to develop the Web site so that by the fall of 2006 it will appear in at least 8 of the major world languages. Your support will enable us to create downloadable posters, songs, lesson plans, banners and slogans that can be used at any time to keep Darwin Day and science advancing. By going to http://darwinday.org/englishL/donate/index.html, you can make a donation conveniently through Pay Pal or by other means.

Please make a donation to this very worthy cause that we all support intellectually!

Yours sincerely,

Robert J. (”Bob”) Stephens, Ph. D.
Emeritus Director, Cell Biology Program
SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute)
President, Darwin Day Celebration, a nonprofit, tax-deductible 501(c)3 corp.
http://darwinday.org

This first one is regarding the encroachment of religion into science education in the name of Intelligent Design. Remember the book, Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement? It is compilation of articles from 16 leading scientists regarding the fallacy of Intelligent Design. Those same scientists wrote and signed a letter, which they sent along with a copy of the book, to each and every member of Congress.

Here is the letter:

June 16, 2006

To Members of Congress:

We, the authors and editor of Intelligent Thought, are sending you a copy of the book in hopes that you will consider its message. The book is largely about Intelligent Design (ID), the latest incarnation of creationism. ID is a movement that threatens American science education and with it American economic predominance and credibility.

The recent federal court decision in Dover, Pennsylvania found that ID was not a scientific theory, but a form of religion in disguise. Judge John Jones III, a churchgoing Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that teaching this doctrine in the public schools represents both bad education and an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. President Bush’s science advisor, John H. Marburger, has affirmed that ‘evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology’ and ‘intelligent design is not a scientific concept.’ And Newt Gingrich has stated that ID has nothing to do with science and shouldn’t be taught in science courses.’

Reason and law triumphed in Dover. But ID and its spinoffs continue to threaten American education by ignoring the massive evidence for evolution-the central principle that unites all the biological sciences- and by substituting adherence to religious dogma for the scientific method.

Our country cannot afford substandard science teaching. Indeed, a national science test just administered by the Department of Education showed a decade-long erosion of scientific proficiency among American high school seniors. We won’t cure this problem by questioning scientifically established facts (evolution) and theories (natural selection) and replacing them with unsupported conjectures based on faith.

The controversy over ID vs. evolution is not a scientific controversy. Every scientific body in the US has opposed ID and affirmed the reality of evolution. The “controversy” is about whether sectarian religious views should be taught in the science classroom. Most theologians readily accept evolution, finding it compatible with their faith. In 1996, Pope John Paul II officially endorsed evolution, and even with a recent change in Vatican leadership, the Catholic Church’s position has remained unchanged.

As the world grows more complex, and we face scientific challenges such as addressing global warming, developing sustainable energy sources, and preventing the spread of pandemics, it is critical that America remain in the forefront of science. And the key to our preeminence is education. The study of evolution has practical benefits: it is the basis for breeding food crops, choosing animal models that can be used to treat human disorders, conserving species and their habitats, predicting which vaccines should be made to prepare for epidemics like avian flu, and manufacturing those vaccines. Science education that incorporates unscientific issues like ID is a sure path to America’s failure against competing countries. Conversely, given its importance for biology and for science in general, evolution deserves to be properly taught in American classrooms.

I love this letter! I thought they did a phenomenal job with it. One thing that stood out to me, and surprised me, was the statement that Evolution is a fact and that Natural Selection is the theory. I don’t recall seeing scientists state it that way. I know they regard it as fact, as it is the basis of so much of our medical success. But it is quite different to make it a public statement.

Has anyone ordered and received their book yet? I admit, I keep forgetting to get online and order it. It’s on my list of things to do this weekend.

I quoted two AgnosticMom readers who contributed to the discussion about death in the comments section. Since it would have broken the flow of the article to name them, I wanted to acknowledge Jen and Hifi in this blog entry and thank them for their insight.

To begin reading HNN from the beginning, click here (and make sure you subscribe if you haven’t already!).

One of the other regular columnists, Doug Thomas wrote an article on ethics called, The Evolution Of Kindness, that is another version of the arguments I have been making about morality (no, Hifi, I have not had time to respond to your last three or so comments. I hope to get to them soon). Thomas uses slightly different wording than I do, words like “love” and “kindness” which he lifted from Bertrand Russell, where I prefer to use words like “empathy.”

But utlimately Thomas is making the same claim I made: that evolution provided us with some helpful characteristics in addition to some hurtful ones. We can use another of our evolved traits, rational thought, to choose the helpful characteristics (love, kindness, empathy) in our dealings with others. Here is a quote:

How do humanists explain their need or desire to perform charitable acts? Oh, of course, there is the pragmatic argument — what goes around comes around — a kind of “What’s in it for me?” approach. However, that does not explain the altruism performed without thoughts of pay back that I notice among my fellow humanists. I think it goes beyond a secular belief in “karma.”

Go enjoy some time with other humanists reading this week’s HNN. Feel free to start a discussion on one of the article topics in my comment area.

Note to the fans of my “Leaving The Church” series. I am glad that a number of you have been enjoying it and have expressed anticipation of part 3. Please be patient as I have a few topics to work on first. It’ll come, I promise.

If you ask my son what his favorite holiday is, he’ll tell you it’s Christmas. Then he’ll tell you that his second favorite is Darwin Day.

What is Darwin Day? It is a “global celebration of Science and Humanity.” Charles Darwin’s birthday is on February twelfth. There is a giant movement to make this day an “International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity” (this reference is from www.darwinday.org, the official site for the international recognition of Darwin Day).

Why single out Charles Darwin for the celebration of what science has offered us? An article on the website of Rutgers University had an articulate answer to this question. The article is called, Why is Evolution Important in Teaching, Science, and Society? (Dobzhansky, T. 1973) and contains the subtitle, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

Here is a summation of why:

“Evolution is the central theory of life. An understanding of evolutionary process and evidence is necessary for considering, not only the history of living things, but also many modern questions. For example; Why should we be concerned with a bird-flu epidemic? Why is HIV so difficult to treat? How does research on lab rats apply to humans? How did humans evolve from apelike ancestors? What is the best strategy for delaying the onset of pesticide resistance? Increasingly evolutionary understanding is required for appreciating basic questions in fields traditionally apart from basic biology and anthropology. Major areas of psychology, philosophy, computer sciences, and other fields now require a solid grounding in evolutionary thinking.”

What better cause have we to celebrate? I hope that the religious and non-religious alike will recognize the benefits that Darwin’s work has given us and join us in the celebration.

A goal of the Darwin Day movement is to build momentum and increase the number of celebrants and celebrations until the year 2009, when it will be Darwin’s 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of his book, On the Origins of Species.

How do we celebrate Darwin’s Day? If you go onto the website, www.darwinday.org, you can click on the events page which contains a world-wide list with links, ranked by country alphabetically (U.S. celebrations are toward the bottom under “U”).

Most events have speakers. A humanist organization in my hometown has had fish at a seafood restaurant (as in the Darwin fish). The organization pushing the Darwin Day movement describes having a “Phylum Feast”, a feast with an enormous variety of meats from various phylum.

Some groups celebrate for one day, on the actual birthday. Others extend the celebration out for the entire week.

As a mom who wants her kids to grow up with an appreciation for science and an understanding of evolution and our origins, I have created our own tradition of celebrating that is both fun and educational.

We have a five to six night celebration over the dinner hour. Our celebration centers on the book, The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution by Ellen Jackson. Our meals over the evenings represent the various stages of life forms as Jackson outlines them in her books. I decorate the table according the the life form we are focusing on (two evenings take place under the sea, one has to do with dinosaurs, etc) and we quiz the kids with questions and evolution trivia throughout the meal. Each meal ends with a surprise treat that has to do with the life forms for that evening.

Mark your calendar for February twelfth and join us as we celebrate the advancement of humanity through scientific discovery!

Happy upcoming Darwin Day!

INTELLIGENT THOUGHT: SCIENCE VERSUS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT is a compilation of articles by some of our favorite scientists.

In the Editor’s Note is a copy of an email he received which should be “a stark reminder of why this book is necessary, why it belongs on your bookshelf, and why sixteen of the world’s leading scientists (and Edge contributors) dropped everything to write essays on a crash schedule so the book would be published before the end of the school year.”

The email:

Date: Mon, 8 May 2006
From: Maulik Parikh
To: John Brockman
Subject: Intelligent Design

John,

I have been teaching a new course on the frontiers of science, required for all freshmen at Columbia. These students are mostly sharp, capable, and open-minded. Still, many of them think that intelligent design should be studied in the interest of being fair and balanced. What’s troubling is that even those who accept evolution often treat it as a matter of belief, of political persuasion, as if it were akin to being for or against free trade. And if they reject intelligence design it’s often not because they can see its vacuousness as a scientific theory, but merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool. As for science, reason, evidence — what’s that?

—Maulik

These articles are sure to be worthy of your ownership when you consider the list of contributors:

Steven Pinker, the scientist with which I am most enamored (and not because of his curly hair, but because he strikes me as being one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable men on the earth today), contributed an article with the title, “Evolution and Ethics.” The summary: An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one.

(Hmmm, that reminds me of my on-going discussion with Ron and Hifi on Morality. Looks like I’m not the only one who talks of that subject. In fact, I can think of some other scientists who do too. I still need to get back to them on that. But now that I think of it, Pinker is a proponent of Evolutionary Psychology, along with his allies Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. That’s some serious intelligence backing up that Evolutionary Psychology, isn’t it? But that’s another topic, heehee).

Speaking of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, they are also contributors to this book on why Intelligent Design has no part on the scientific debate.

Dawkins’ article is called, “Intelligent Aliens.” Here’s the summary: Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity.

I love a scientist who is also a powerful writer. Did you notice that language?

Dennett’s contribution is called, “The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated.” And again, the summary: Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.

The article that Quantum Mechanical Engineer, Seth Lloyd, wrote interests me. It is called, “How Smart Is The Universe?’ and the summary is: Scientific knowledge is by definition resilient. In societies where government or religion has tried to replace it with ideologically inspired fictions, scientists and nonscientists alike have resisted. Scientific lies can fool some of the people some of the time (even to the extent of being published in reputable journals), but exactly because scientific ideas are designed to be tested, in the end scientific lies fool no one. The universe is scientific.

To see the list of the remaining contributors, along with their photos and a summary of their articles, go here and scroll down.

I’m ordering this book! Anyone else? Maybe we can discuss some of these articles once UPS pays us a visit!

Well, it’s not dear little ME making this connection. It is the Vatican’s astronomer!

The Northstate Science blog led me to this one. According to a news article in Scostman.com, this is what Guy Consolmagno, who works in an Arizona Vatican Conservatory, had to say about Creationism and Paganism:

“Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.

Hmmm . . .

So do you think that if reason and science-minded people everywhere began associating creationism to paganism, (kind of like Christmas and Easter) we might finally make a step forward in mainstream acceptance of Evolution?

Probably not. But it sure is funny.

Those pagan creationists . . .

The species anamensis is not new, but its location is what helps explain the shift from one early phase of human-like development to the next, scientists say. All eight species were within an easy day’s walk of each other.

Why is the location significant?

Modern man belongs to the genus Homo, which is a subgroup in the family of hominids. What evolved into Homo was likely the genus Australopithecus (once called “man-ape”), which includes the famed 3.2 million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found three decades ago. A key candidate for the genus that evolved into Australopithecus is called Ardipithecus. And Thursday’s finding is important in bridging — but not completely — the gap between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.

The location gives stronger indication that we evolved from one species to the next. It fills in a part of the possible map of how we got from there to here. It is further indication that we did, in fact, evolve.

Psst, Note to TXAtheist: I started writing up a post based on your question. As of right now it is completely incoherent and I am short on blogging time today. It’ll be up soon, I promise!

This according to New Scientist News about a team whose work has paid well:

After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt: a collection of several fish so beautifully preserved that their skeletons were still intact. As Shubin’s team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. “We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,” says Daeschler.

Tiktaalik had a mobile neck and had lost the bony coverings of the gills that fish use to fan water to maximise their oxygen intake. These suggest that the fish may have been at least partly air-breathing, like modern tetrapods (Nature, vol 440, p 757 and p 764).

The transitional features are not just in the gills. They are also in the fins:

They found a wrist-like arrangement near the tip of the fin, so that the end could bend forward and provide vaguely foot-like support. “It could flex the elbow and extend the wrist so the tip of the fin could lie against the ground. It could do a push-up,” says Shubin. In other words, our ancestors’ limbs were probably co-opted to serve as support structures before they had evolved to look much like legs at all.

Here are a few other general descriptions of Tiktaalik from a different article:

1) Some 375 million years ago, the creature looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile. It swam in shallow, gently meandering streams in what was then a subtropical climate, researchers say. A meat-eater, it lived mostly in water.
2) “This is clearly an animal that is able to support itself on the ground,” probably both in very shallow water and for brief excursions on dry land. On land, it apparently moved like a seal, he said.
3) The creature was dubbed Tiktaalik (pronounced “tic-TAH-lick”) roseae, and also had the crocodile-shaped head of early amphibians, with eyes on the top rather than the side. Unlike other fish, it could move its head independently of its shoulders like a land animal. The back of its head also had features like those of land-dwellers. It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.
4) Yet, the creature’s jaws and snout were still very fishlike, showing that “evolution proceeds slowly; it proceeds in a mosaic pattern with some elements changing while others stay the same,” Daeschler said.

Blake: In the Muslim Bible, does it say Jesus is God?

Me: The “Muslim Bible” is called the Quran and they call their god, “Allah.” The Quran doesn’t say Jesus is God. It says “Allah” is God, and Jesus was a good prophet.

Blake: So they’re bad then, aren’t they?

That was one of those questions that makes you wonder if someone is abducting your child at night and feeding them information you know you didn’t pass along. All the while I’d been thinking Blake was on the on-ramp to the Agnostic Highway. I guess somewhere along the way he exited for a pit stop at Christian Town.

Perhaps I haven’t been direct enough about my own beliefs. I like to encourage the kids to come up with answers themselves, so when they ask me questions, I usually say, “What do you think?” Still, I am pretty sure I have given a direct answer in the past that I don’t believe that Jesus is God, nor that there is any actual person who is a god. Of course, I usually turn it back to them with, “But what do you think?”

I could be more direct, but the kids seem to change the channel on their attention-dial when I start talking instead of asking. This time I figured out a way to be direct, impactful, and ask a question at the same time.

When Blake asked me if Muslims were bad because they were voting for the wrong god, I asked him back, “I don’t believe Jesus is God. Does that make me bad?”

First was the look of wide-eyed shock that stunned me as much as my question stunned him. And then, within seconds, a big smile crept upon his face as he laughed at the idea of Mom being bad and he belted, “NO! You’re not bad!”

While the ending was effective, there’s also that nagging question of why he would compartmentalize like that: good people vs. bad people. Why would he decide an entire group of people are bad because their religious beliefs differ? I know that part of it is his awareness of all the recent turmoil in the Middle East and Europe involving Muslims. But I always remind him that not all Muslims are that way; that most Muslims are good people.

Blake is a logical-thinker. While he loves fantasy, he is enthralled with math and science, which contribute to some of his fantasy world. I understand that linear-thinkers like Blake tend to see things more in black and white than artistic thinkers do. I have noticed this pattern again and again.

There is also the lingering affect of the primitive world humans evolved in, where we adapted and survived by aligning ourself with our own tribes against other tribes. Now that we live in a global world where we mix with sll types of races and religions, will we someday evolve away from this natural instinct to pit ourselves against groups of people unlike us?

I guess it will take time for Blake to have more exposure to different people, to various religions, to conversation between us. And that’s okay.

Gregg100 sent a link to this excellent article. It is fascinating and worth reading from beginning to end. The article describes the difficulties of high school Biology teachers when it comes time to introduce evolution to their class.

Teachers feel nervous and hesitant. Many of them avoid using the word, “evolution,” altogether. Most of the teachers have a very low-level knowledge of evolution, as it is only a small part of all they teach. Some don’t know how to answer the questions of the more savvy Christian students who have prepared to disarm the teacher with all kinds of talking points and questions they know the teacher doesn’t have the answer to.

In the article, one Christian student describes his battle plan, which is to “say as much about God as I can in school, even if the teachers can’t.” You can imagine how disruptive a determined student can be and how difficult one could make it to get the course material across to students. In fact, some teachers skip the evolution section altogether.

I think you’ll enjoy the article, so click on the link above, get a good read, and then come back here to share your thoughts.

The announcement, thanks to Panda’s Thumb:

Scientists doing work in Ethiopia have discovered the skull of what seems to be a new hominid, previously unknown. It appears to fit somewhere between the earlier homo erectus and current homo sapiens, and should give us an idea of how humans developed.

The original press release explains the significance of this find:

The Gawis cranium comes from a time of transition to modern humans from African Homo erectus that is poorly known. The fossil record from Africa for this period is sparse and most of the specimens are poorly dated. The few fossil crania that are known from the Middle Pleistocene of Africa present a narrow view of the range of potential anatomical variation during this period. The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors. Additionally, this fossil links us with the past by showing a face that is recognizably different and more primitive than ours. The face and cranium of this remarkable fossil are recognizably different from that of modern humans but it bears unmistakable anatomical evidence that it belongs to our ancestry. The form of the face and the brain are among the best means for exploring the evolutionary path of humans and the Gawis cranium preserves both areas. Work is in progress by the Gona team to determine the age of the cranium and associated archaeology, and to understand its evolutionary relationships with others known during the Pleistocene. Semaw concluded by saying that “I am happy that the Gona project succeeded to make a new hominid discovery from this least known time period in human evolution.

1. Is a theory a fact or a belief?

2. Where did the gases (big bang theory) come from?

3. After the water was formed, what was the first creature to come out of it?

4. Was it amphibious? Or did it run in and out of the water until it developed lungs?

5. If, yes why would it develop lungs under water?

6. What are the true mathematical odds (ask someone in your physics department) of something evolving? Of course you won’t because you don’t like the physics department, because they always prove biologist wrong.

7. If any of these questions are answered with a no, then using science they can not be facts at all!

This would make the cartoon completely hypocritical. You see if you just simply BELIEVE in evolution, then you have a religion! The religion maybe Darwinism, but if you answer I don’t know to any of the questions above then you have a faith based concept of how we as a planet came about. Not a fact based!

I would challenge you to answer these questions, and give me a reply! I doubt you will, because most of you people are only interested in your truth and not actual truth. Try reading LEE STROBEL, “A Case for Christ.”

I see you won’t answer my questions, but I figured you wouldn’t because most liberals can’t handle the truth.

Meyers of Pharyngula did answer the questions (even the barely coherent comments) here. I learned some new things and had a good review of a couple of others. Go check it out.

I am going to quote one of the answers and one of the comments because they demonstrate the open-mindedness and honesty that science demands. I am doing this in response to Ben’s assertions in a previous comment that:

1. Scientists and science educators should be realistic about the reach of their field.
2. The answer to a given question should be pursued in the manner best suited to the intellectual discipline that is investigating it, with clear disclaimers as to the sense in which that discipline understands the question.

Given the context of the comment, Ben seemed to me to imply that scientists and educators make claims that are outside the bounds of their field and are not honest with their limitations. My response to him was that they already do exactly as he wishes. The problem is that the average non-scientist just doesn’t recognize it.

The post on Phyrangula has examples of two different scientists staying within Ben’s prescribed bounds. And I assert to Ben that, in my experience, this is standard among the scientific community. It is natural to how that culture thinks. Scientists also require it of one another. They’re picky that way.

In answer to the creationist’s question about whether a theory is a fact or a belief, PZ Meyers answers:

1. A theory is neither a fact nor a belief. A theory is a logical construct that explains a class of phenomena and has predictive power. We don’t hold a theory because we believe in it, but because it works—and if a better theory comes along, we abandon the old version.

The creationist’s second question was about the Big Bang. Meyers explained that he was unqualified to answer a questions regarding physics, as it is not his field. One of his readers, who seems to have a knowledge of physics, or at least of astronomy (I am not sure of his qualifications) gave an answer and used the same language of openness. After explaining how protons, neutrons and electrons interact and react with each other in a way that produces certain gases, Rob Knop explains how the observations “match very well with the predictions of the Big Bang! This is one of the three pillars on which the Big Bang theory rests, and is one of the reasons we believe that theory to be a good one.”

He did not say, “this proves the Big Bang Theory to be fact.” He did not say “this is why we believe in The Big Bang.” He said it is why scientists believe the theory is good. As long as the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang continue to make accurate predictions and get good results, scientists will continue to use them and build on them.

Knop made another comment relevant to Ben’s assertions regarding the Big Bang:

One of the interesting things about the Big Bang theory is that the theory as it exists today doesn’t really address the actual moment of creation. The Big Bang theory only really starts some 10^-40 or so seconds after the moment of the “classical Big Bang” — we can’t really predict what’s before that until we figure out quantum gravity. The earliest moment we can really say anything about right now is the “end of Inflation”– and Inflation is more of a paradigm than a theory. Yeah, the latest WMAP results help support it, but we’re shakier on that than we are on the rock-solid stuff that comes later (nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave background, etc).

Once again we have an example of someone outlining the limitations of what science understands. This is not unusual for scientists. It is just very different from how the non-scientists, especially religious people, think.

While these examples of scientists’ objectivity is interesting and important, PZ Meyer’s answers to the rest of the questions are also very interesting. Don’t forget to take a look and improve your knowledge on evolution.

Among numerous areas, I am mostly concerned about a (1) watering-down of science in lower level education (the infiltration of Intelligent Design being a symptom), (2) drops in the number of students in higher education science majors, (3) the current political climate which is stifling scientific input, and (4) increased competition from Asian countries who are advancing at a time when we are declining.

There are numerous reasons for our downward trend. Some of it has to do with political priorities run amok. Some of it is a disdain for science and the Religious Right’s new influential voice in the United States. Much of it has to do with the media’s tendency to create enormous hype based on one study. Their headlines announce definitive results when the data is actually preliminary.

To exacerbate the problems, Americans who don’t know the Scientific Method fall for the misleading news headlines. Later on, conflicting results from another study discourages them. They come to the conclusion that scientific results are inconsistent and untrustworthy. This has all contributed to an overall disinterest in the field that is necessary for our continued existence.

Let me start with a most scandalous scenario that highlights political corruption of science.

Last month, NASA public affairs officer, George Deutsch, resigned because of accusations that he was filtering information from NASA. He blocked reporters’ efforts to interview NASA’s top climate scientist whose findings contradict the policies of the Bush Administration. If you are wondering if Deutsch is a presidential appointee, you are correct. He is an appointee confirmed to have lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M.

We’ve heard numerous stories of this religious administration ignoring scientists whose findings don’t support conservative policy. This shouldn’t be a complete surprise.

In another effort to influence science, Deutsch was filtering scientific information by requiring NASA’s Web Designer to add the word, “theory,” to all mentions of the Big Bang. While it is, indeed, a theory, it is so in the sense that scientists use the word, not in the sense that non-scientists use it. Deutsch’s insistence on adding this word to the work of scientist is only an effort to cast doubt on scientific findings.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an article in the Florida Sun Sentinel regarding a hearing before Congress. I am sorry it is no longer available on the website:

The debate began three weeks ago after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused a political appointee in the office of public affairs of muzzling his views on global warming because they conflicted with those of the Bush administration.

Career public-affairs officers in the agency have since stated that interviews were denied to news organizations deemed too “liberal” and pressure was applied to hold down the number of news releases on earth science.

“It is entirely appropriate for the administration to announce or espouse whatever political views they have,” Griffin said. “It is not appropriate for scientists at an executing federal executive agency to be required to adjust, skew, alter or frame the tone of their scientific work to fit any particular political agenda.”

U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., expressed concern about the issue during his opening remarks Thursday.

“It [the Hansen situation] has become apparent that it isn’t isolated,” Gordon said. “I’m afraid this censorship permeates this entire administration, NASA being no exception.”

He is correct. The disgraces reaches past NASA according the the censured Hansen:

Hansen did however sympathize with the plight of scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“My colleagues at NOAA have told me their problems are worse,” he said. “They have to have a listener on the phone every time they talk to the press to examine what they are saying. This seems more like something Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would do.”

The question is, is it a crisis when the ruling political party of non-scientists censure the work of real scientists because it may sway the public opinion of their policy? Absolutely.

Let’s move on to Education. Here are some statistics and a summary from an article in Reader’s Digest called Losing the Global Edge:

* Several of our key agencies for scientific research and development will face a retirement crisis within the next ten years.

* Less than 6% of our high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down 36% from a decade ago.

* In 2000, 56% of China’s undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences; in the United States, the figure was 17%.

* China will likely produce six times the number of engineers next year than we will graduate, according to Mike Gibbons of the American Society for Engineering Education. Japan, with half our population, has minted twice as many in recent years.

There are many more unnerving developments, and they add up to this: As other countries create the learning centers and jobs to hang on to their best and brightest, the United States is losing a dependable pipeline of talent. Moreover, we are doing remarkably little to educate and train a next generation of scientists and engineers.

An article called Our Looming Science Crisis, from The American Enterprise Online, explains the crisis from a business standpoint:

As Craig Barrett, Intel’s CEO, put it, “We still do a very, very poor job of educating our kids” in science and math. In a comparison of high school graduates in the world’s top 25 countries, “an American kid is, on average, near the bottom 10 percent.”

The trouble begins in high school, or earlier, but it is showing up dramatically now in America’s high-tech universities and businesses. According to a 2004 National Science Foundation study, fewer U.S. undergraduates were enrolled in math and engineering courses in 2000-02 than in the mid 1980s. In 1975, South Korea and Taiwan had just two science and engineering degree earners per 100 college-age citizens; in 2000, that number was 11. In the U.S., the ratio has languished–just 6 percent in 2000.

Without foreign enrollment, the U.S. figures would be far worse. The majority of recipients of doctoral degrees in mathematics, computer science, and engineering at American universities today are not U.S. citizens.

In the past, the U.S. has benefited from these foreign graduates, since many have chosen to stay here, joining American companies or starting their own. But now, as prosperity increases back home, many are returning. It’s hardly surprising that American high-tech firms are looking abroad for research and development.

If a lack of interest in the vital field of science weren’t enough, educator and scientist, Lynn Margulis, describes a serious problem with the actual textbooks available to schools. In American Scientist Online, Lynn describes how the profit-based business of creating textbooks hijacks the books’ actual educational value:

Science for schools is written, controlled and produced by publishers whose goal is to sell materials in huge quantities to avoid sales taxes. Qualified scientists and teachers are not paid for comprehensibility, accuracy or logic, but rather bribed to rapidly approve “content” that no one understands. Such beleaguered experts rush to meet publishers’ deadlines for “up-to-date” consumer products that quickly earn money. To maximize profit, books, digital media, supplies, even equipment are planned to be obsolete within the academic year.

Ron sent me a link to a fabulous article on Panda’s Thumb. Professor Herbert Kroemer, who won the 2000 Nobel Prize for Physics, has activated himself in what I call the War On Science. He warns that Intelligent Design’s attacks on Evolution are actually “attacks on science itself — all of science.”

Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind. Indeed, many of the attackers of biological evolution attack those scientific disciplines as well. But these disciplines do not exist in isolation; they are areas where the recognized laws of physics are rigorously applied to the specific problems of the field. To attack them is an attack on physics itself, and with it an attack on the Galilean idea that the laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on scriptural traditions: We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

Professor Kroemer got his inspiration from physicist Marshall Berman who had an essay published by the American Physical Society:

Our nation is paying a heavy price for having failed to teach students critical thinking skills, reasoning, and good science for several generations. The consequences are an appalling science illiteracy among most Americans. In a recent survey (NSF, 2000), about half the respondents did not know:

* The earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
* It takes Earth one year to go around the Sun.
* Electrons are smaller than atoms.
* Antibiotics do not kill viruses.

Dr. Jon Miller, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, studies American views on and knowledge of science. His data reveal some major gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are. Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth (Dean, C., 2005).

Going back to the words of warning from Kroemer, I’d like to end my post with his admonition, and my own plea with AgnosticMom readers to get engaged:

Attacks on science are of concern not just to scientists; they threaten the continued prosperity and security of our entire nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States. If we wish to continue to prosper in this environment we need, first and foremost, a work force that is highly educated in science, and capable of mastering advancing technologies based on continuing advances in science. The United States public education system below the university level has never put a sufficiently high value on science to permit filling this need with US-born individuals alone, but we were always able to fill the shortfall with immigrants. Attacks on science, if not rejected by the American public, will further reduce the already-too-low percentage of US citizens who opt for a science-oriented education, and at the same time they will reduce the attractiveness to foreign citizens of coming to the United States for an education or a career in science and in technologies based on continuing advances in science.

So, what role will you play in the War On Science? What will you do to fight it?

My husband, Israel, found this post on a blog called, “Panopticist: Cultural Surveillance,” that announces an amazing documentary recently aired in Britain. Richard Dawkins narrates the documentary titled, “The Root of All Evil?”

You have to go check it out. If you click on the picture of Richard Dawkins, you can see a short segment of the two part film. There are also links on the post for you to click on to go download the entire documentary. Israel and I are going to watch it tonight on his laptop after the kids are down for bed. I guess it’ll be our educational at-home date-night.

Come back here to AgnosticMom once you’ve watched it and share your thoughts! We could have some lively discussion over the next couple of days.

What do you think is the proper relationship of philosophy to science? If you could also throw in a working definition of each (philosophy and science), I think that would really clarify things for me. In what sense do you think that this country is falling behind in the science arena?

I am happy to discuss any topics of interest to AgnosticMom readers. In this case, I am going to address the questions in two different posts, beginning with the relationship of Science and Philosophy and how modern science developed.

The word “Science” actually has very broad implications, but for our purposes, we are discussing it in terms of Biology, Physics and similar fields. A very simple definition, which I found on a children’s educational site is:

A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation.

I found a more academic explanation in a copyrighted paper. Ethically, I cannot quote it in part so the reference citation is:

Malhotra, Yogesh. (1994). Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective [WWW document]. URL http://www.kmbook.com/science.htm

To paraphrase a paragraph under the subtitle, “The Scientific Method,” there are multiple ways to know something. What sets science apart from other ways is its use of empirical testing. According to Dictionary.com, “empirical” means “proven by observation and experiment.” And “Guided by practical experience, not theory.”

While philosophy may be a means to understanding a particular subject, and while philosophical tools, such as deductive reasoning, may be used to form a scientific hypothesis, or maybe even to aid in the understanding of the results of an experiment, it lacks the actual material observation to classify it as science, or in particular, Biology or Physics.

This is why Intelligent Design is, at best, philosophy (at worst and more accurately, it is religion in disguise). ID comes to its conclusion of a Designer through reasoning only. It stops short of the definition of science because we cannot test its hypothesis. We cannot observe it. We cannot make predictions based on its claim.

Because of this, ID proponents want to change the definition of science and revert to Medieval Scholasticism, in other words, the pre-Galileo days of the a priori method, as opposed to the inductive method which Francis Bacon applied to philosophy, and which constitutes modern science.

From Bluepete.com:

Inductive Thinking:
§ I have always thought of it (inductive thinking) as thinking from the bottom up; as opposed to thinking from the top down (deductive). One who uses a deductive approach accepts notions (often having no basis in reality) and then proceeds to build on such notions; it is, more often than not, a fruitless (sometimes harmful) process; one ends up “building castles in the air.”

The inductive approach always builds up from a solid base. A theory, based on real experiences, is struck; it is then tested rigorously and continuously; all experiences must support the theory. Some theories have been so thoroughly tested over years that they have become accepted facts of nature. However, even though they may be well tested and put to considerable use, theories always remain theories.
It has been through the inductive method of thinking that men like Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642) and Newton (1642-1727) laid down the bricks and cemented into place the foundation of our modern age.

Intelligent Design is deductive reasoning, taking a top-down approach. If you read the interview of Philip Johnson I gave a link to, you will see that he wants to base all scientific knowledge on the presumption that there is a god, even Jesus Christ.

Is it not obvious that without the availability of material observation of a Creator, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science? It does not necessarily mean that no Designer exists. It just means we should not base our scienitific work, nor our criticism of it (evolution) on the assumption that there is one.

I will continue this topic in an upcoming post where I will focus more specifically on the implications of a religous and political movement aimed to destroy science. We will discuss Ben’s other question about why the state of science in the U.S. is in crisis. There are so many areas of crisis to cover, and I don’t have time to get to them all, so if any of you have articles or other evidence to share, hold onto them for the next post and you can contribute to the comments area.

As I am not an expert in science, and some of you readers are, I invite you to add to this current post by leaving a comment.

As soon as I walked into the living room, where Israel was on his computer, he exclaimed, “Happy Darwin Day!” Of course, laughter always accompanies the phrase when he says it. It truly amuses him.

My two oldest children also awoke with anticipation. They each, independently of each other, greeted me with the same well-wishing, “Happy Darwin Day!”

I want to quote an AgnosticMom reader who left a comment two days ago. I love what she did in honor of Charles Darwin:

Thank you so much for this website! I just found it the other night and have been anxious to see your ideas for celebrating Darwin Day. After searching all of our local libraries and bookstores, I was not able to find one single book about Darwin or evolution for my children. In fact, when I searched evolution as a subject in my library catalog, the results were all Bible related books!! I was shocked! I ended up ordering it from Amazon.com and I ordered a second copy to donate to our library. We are looking forward to a fun nature exploration in our backyard on Darwin Day. My kids are 5 & 3 so I think we will limit the celebration to 1 day and talk about all the living things we see outside and see what observations we can make. Have a wonderful weekend!

Donating the book to the library not only provides the public with easier access to books on evolution and Darwin, it also informs our local libraries that there is a demand for books on the subject. Let’s make this a regular part of our Darwin Day celebrations!

Now, for an important announcement. The timing is interesting. A few days ago, someone named Ben left a comment in response to my post, This Is Getting Scary. In this post, I wrote about Philip E. Johnson, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement. I outlined his strategy, what he calls the Wedge Strategy, to disguise Creationism as a nonreligious, scientific movement.

Ben asked the question, “Have you read any of Johnson’s books, or just what others have said about him?

It is a fair and important question. I sat down at the computer today to respond to various readers, including Ben. Before doing so, I surfed around some of my favorite Darwin-friendly sites. What a surprise to find the following in a post on Panda’s Thumb:

There is a quote that I’ve seen all over the place, and I believe even used myself over the years, from the founder of the ID movement, Philip Johnson. Here is the quote as it is usually given:

“The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”

The quote appears on over 400 webpages according to Google, and the source cited is the April 1999 edition of Church and State magazine. That magazine is published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and this article was written by Rob Boston. The problem is that this is not a quote from Philip Johnson, it’s a quote about Philip Johnson, and as it has gotten passed around it has often been attributed to Johnson himself.

Click here to read the entire post.

My blog is one of those 400 webpages. I got that very quote from Wikipedia and included it in the post Ben responded to. Wikipedia listed a number of quotes by Phillip E. Johnson stating his thoughts about his own strategy to legitimize Intelligent Design. I copied the entire list of quotes and pasted it onto my entry. I invited readers to go to Wikipedia, itself, so they can click on its links to the actual sources.

After the revelation in Panda’s Thumb, I returned to the Wikipedia article, rechecked all of the sources for the particular list, and from what I can tell, all of the other quotes by Johnson are good. In fact, all of their sources (except the botched one) are Christian.

I apologize for participating in the accidental spread of a misrepresentation.

Now, to answer Ben more directly. I have NOT read Johnson’s books. If I remember right, I read exerpts on websites. I read a lot about him and his speeches from a number of sources. If I were hyper-organized and more obsessive than I already am, I would be keeping a research log, and I’d be able to list all the sites, but that’s not the case (Althought I am considering it now! Would that push me over the OCD precipice?).

I feel I can say with confidence that I have read enough, not only from pro-evolution writers, but also from Christian pro-IDists, to know Johnson’s objective. One of the articles I read is an interview of him where he does all the speaking. He told all about how he came to believe what he believes and how he developed the Wedge Strategy.

If we eliminate the false quote I mentioned above, it does not change the story about how Philip E. Johnson wants to disguise Creation to make it look like neutral science. It does not change the fact that he wants to re-write the current definition of science, eliminate its emphasis of materialistic observation, and make the assumption of a god its foundation.

BUT, I was wrong before, and I could be wrong now. If someone can show me how the other quotes are wrong, how the things people are saying about him misrepresent his true motives, please inform us. My aim is for truth. I would be happy to devote more time to this important subject.

Sunday
Elementary age: Read Tree Of Life
Junior High and High School Age: Read parts of Evolution: Eye Witness
(AgnosticMom reader, Ed Darrell, suggested this book and it looks great!).

First Phase of evolutionary life: shellfish, jellyfish, worms

Dinner:
Very Involved Version: A smorgasboard of shellfish: shrimp, lobster, oysters
Simpler Version: Shrimp Dinner

After Dinner Treat: Gummi-worms (I will be putting them in cute bags on their plates).

Monday-Second Phase of evolutionary life: fish
Dinner: Fish! Use a recipe that keeps the fish whole.

After Dinner Treat: Swedish Fish or Gummi-whales

Tuesday-Third Phase of evolutionary life: the new existence of plant life on the ground makes it possible for some sea life to grow legs and crawl out of the water. Enter reptiles, and then dinosaurs.

Dinner:
For Daring Eaters: Frog Legs
For the Rest of Us: Vegetarian Night! Edamame and a recipe with leaves and lentils.

After Dinner Treat: Gummi-Dinosaurs

Wednesday-Birds evolved from some dinosaurs, many of which had feathers and claws like a chicken.
Dinner: A whole Roasted Chicken

After Dinner Treat: jelly eggs or jelly beans

Thursday-The mammals evolved next
Dinner: Pork or Beef
After Dinner Treat: Gummi-Bears

Friday-Going Bananas! Celebrate our closest ancestors, the monkeys!
Dinner: How many banana recipes can you come up with? I haven’t gotten that far in my research yet. But in this monkey phase, it’ll be all bananas. And no eating at the table. It’s on the floor for this meal. No utensils, either!

Desert: Banana Cream Pie, of course

Saturday-Moral and Rational Humanity
Formal Breakfast-whatever you like. Decorate the table. Play your favorite classical music (ours is Mozart). Celebrate capabilities of the human brain. Focus on the positive aspects of human nature.

Use these meals to help your children learn how life evolved. If your kids are toddler and preschool age, all of these details and books are unnecessary. I recommend activities that focus on observing the diversity of species, rather than origins. And I DO recommend playing up the Darwin Day celebration with the little ones, so they grow up with it as a regular tradition, like Christmas.

AgnosticMom reader, Ron, shared an idea for parents of babies. Click here to read his comment. If you scroll further down to Lynn’s comment, she provided a link to a great site highlighting children’s books about nature.

I had hoped to give some additional activity ideas, but I have run out of time. I will be away in Phoenix all day tomorrow, so I am not sure whether I will be able to post again by Sunday or not. All of you who celebrate the day in some way, whether it’s a party with friends, a visit to your local humanist group, or a holiday with your kids, please give us a report.

And if you do nothing else, light a candle Sunday night for Charles Darwin, who brought us out of the darkness of ignorance.

I have found one book that I like. It simplifies the concepts well as an introduction to Evolution. And I stress that it is an introduction. It does not explain mechanisms of Natural Selection, nor does it go into a detailed order of the development of the species. It is a very general story of the evolution of life, with words that inspire awe at the process.

The book is The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution by Ellen Jackson. The great thing about this book is that Jackson uses very simple language and concepts to explain an exceptionally intricate concept. It is a great introduction to young minds who are learning about life’s origins for the first time.

For example, the book begins in the early days of the earth, before there is any life. It describes, how an new “almost alive” tiny thing came to be. Then the almost alive thing began to divide in two, reproducing itself again and again using gas and water.

“Did the new thing always copy itself exactly right? The answer may surprise you. Almost always it did copy itself exactly. But once in a great while, not very often, a copy would be different from the others.”

The book then goes on to explain how a good difference (mutation), perhaps making it faster, will allow it to live longer and copy itself more. Eventually we come to learn what the first of the animals are: shellfish, jellyfish, and worms. From here on out, the book gives a very general and simple description of the order of succeeding life: fish, plants, reptiles, birds, mammals and humans.

In the introduction of the book Jackson describes her disappointment with current children’s books on Evolution, which inspired her to write this one:

“Those books that attempted to explain evolution did so in a way that, though scientifically accurate, conveyed none of the wonder and excitement of this concept. The Tree of Life is my attempt to help young children to understand the beauty and power of this great idea.”

Some of you readers support Science, and appreciate the Theory of Evolution, but are also religious, or at least believe in God. You will be happy with this book. While it does not mention a Creator, it inspires a sufficient amount of wonder, that you could naturally interject your beliefs that a god or intelligent being directed the process, helping the “almost alive things” to make the jump to organized life.

My only regret with this book is the illustrations. They’re decent, but the colors are only purple and white. I can imagine much more beautiful imagery, details and colors that would reach further to draw the child into the magic of the story.

I will be reading this book to my children on the first day of Darwin Day, February twelfth. I will then use our dinner meals and a special treat over the following six days to review the order in which species developed. For example, since the first animals to develop were shellfish, worms, and jellyfish, we will have shellfish for dinner. The kids will get wrapped surprises with gummi-worms inside. I will share the specifics of the entire week with you in my next post.

If you are interested in the book, click on the title at the top of this post. As of yesterday, the book is listed at Amazon for a reduced price. There is a limited supply currently in stock, but they will stock up again.

In the meantime, I am here enjoying our sunny weather. It is 80 degrees in Arizona today. And I feel fine.

How do we celebrate Darwin’s Day? AgnosticMom is creating some family-oriented traditions for our families to adopt, because from all I have seen, the current celebrations are adult in nature. If you don’t have kids, look at this page of events. It is a world-wide list with links, ranked by country alphabetically (U.S. celebrations are down toward the bottom). The lists give a description of the event, and all the information. Most events have speakers. A humanist organization in my hometown, is having FISH at a restaraunt (as in the Darwin fish). The organization pushing the Darwin Day movement describes having a “Phylum Feast”, a feast with an enormous variety of meats from various phylum.

Some groups celebrate for one day, on the actual birthday. Some groups extend the celebration out for the entire week.

As I mentioned before, I have been formulating ideas for a family holiday, celebrated in the home, as a yearly tradition. My kids are on pins and needles. It should be a fun, highly anticipated, but also educational holiday for the kids, a cornerstone holiday for secular families.

Over the next few days, I will give you some ideas so you can decide how you want to celebrate it. These ideas will range for toddlers, to elementary ages, to young teens, whether you want a one-day celebration, or a week-long one. I will give food and actvity ideas. It’s going to be FUN! I can’t wait.

Why do I think Darwin’s accomplishment is important enough to warrant a holiday? What basis would there be in testing animals for disease research if we are not related, according to the theory of evoution? We have Darwin to thank for so many of our life-saving and life-extending accomplishments. One of AgnosticMom’s readers, Ed Darrell pointed me to an anti-evolutionist’s blog where Ed commented with a list of the many ways Darwin’s discovery of evolution has blessed our lives. I copied it for your reading pleasure.

“It’s the theory behind infectious disease control, crop development, animal husbandry, cancer treatments and cures, diabetes diagnoses, treatment and hope for cure, treatments for cystic fibrosis, the fight against crop pests (notably cotton boll weevils, wheat smut and wheat aphids, and imported Argentine fire ants), wildlife management, and flower development”.

Here is what you can expect at AgnosticMom over the next few days:

#1 A review of a children’s book which explains the evolution of life from the beginning lifeless days of the world, to the world in which men and women walk. I will be using this book as the guide to our weeklong celebration.

#2 A map of my weeklong celebration, with meal and treat ideas.

#3 Game and activity ideas for toddlers, elementary-age children, and teens.

If you have children’s books about Darwin, or activities to recommend, post your comments please!

One last thing. You can help move this cause forward by writing letters to your news editor to announce the upcoming holiday. AgnosticMom readers span the country, from Pennsylvania to Washington to California. Let’s get the word out.

Happy upcoming Darwin Day!

Since that initial writing, he has had a paradigm shift (thanks, I think, to the book, “End of Faith”) and absolved me of my responsibility to respond any further. I intend on writing about the morality issue, anyway. It is a legitimate fear that many people harbor, both religious and non-religious. I’ve also had a similar verbal debate with my dear, soon-to-be-lawyer brother-in-law. He doesn’t think it makes sense to be moral if there is no god. So I need to formulate these thoughts in writing!

Now, to the topic of tonight’s post. I’ve been wanting to start collecting the outrageous comments people make in letters and phone calls to my newspaper editors about evolution. DarkSyde from DailyKos beat me to it with a collection from chat rooms, IM’s, etc.

Go there to get a little entertainment, but also to remind yourself of the sad, sorry state of our country and its failed science education.

Didn’t I tell ya? By the comments he copied and pasted, it is clear that these people don’t understand science or the theory of evolution. One person thinks that what you eat changes your DNA (Oh my gosh!).

And I will have to eat my words, just a little. I have been blaming science for not educating in a way that will grasp the attention of us non-science-oriented types. I still blame them partially, but after reading those comments, I also realize there’s more to it. How can you educate someone on a subject to which they won’t listen?

One of my favorite holiday traditions is our Pre-Christmas evening with our best friends, Tami and Larry Keim. (Yes, you know Larry. And if you read my comments, you’ve heard from Tami, also). On this night, we get the kids down to bed right as Tami and Larry arrive at our home. We break open champaigne or Egg Nog, have some dessert, and exchange PRESENTS!

Tami is one of those more-thoughtful-than-average present-givers. I know this because, not only do I receive gifts from her, I have also gone gift-shopping with her. She will go from store to store to find just the right item, in just the right style. My awesome husband, Israel, is one of other best gift-givers I’ve known. He crawls to the end of the world for the most supreme presents for my birthdays, Christmas, and all those other days that bind us with the social requirement of gift-shopping.

But I digress . . . big-time. On this Christmas-For-The-Adults evening, we also exchange stories. We’re a story-sharing group, and are known for spending 5 hours at a restaurant (yes, we tip our servers well). Somehow, this evening, like most evenings, we got to the subject of evolution, and how it is so foreign to some people, that they can’t imagine any of their acquaintances actually accept it!

I told them of my dear sister-in-law, who says she has the WEIRDEST brother-in-law. When I asked her what made him so weird, she told me he actually believes in evolution! He read a book, and “automatically believes everything, just because it’s in a book.”

Then there is one of my husband’s aunts, who told me how she’s having to endure this awful geology class, wasting her time learning things that are just not true; for example, that some rocks are billions of years old. In her mind, if they say it is more than 6 or 7,ooo years old, they are wrong.

I love these two ladies. But I can’t believe people I am close with still think this way. Larry had his own contribution to the evolution-rejecting phenonemon. He told us about an article he read in a blog, where the writer describes a similar experience, and then shares a fascinating story of evolution and “Mother Acanthostega” (as opposed to Mother Eve). This is my first time hearing a description of the ancestor that links humans (and all mammals) to our ancestors of the sea.

Right after Christmas, Larry sent me a link to the blog with this article, so I got to read it for myself. What I love about the writer, darksyde, and his way of teaching, is his story-telling style. It’s almost like reading Dean Koontz, except that the names are harder to follow. So it takes a little more concentration. I have criticized science educators for failing to teach. They don’t know how to reach the masses: the majority of us who are not science-oriented. They need to learn from scientists like Carl Sagan, or like this blogger, darksyde.

So I encourage you to go check out this blog. It is my late holiday gift to you, which I am re-gifting from Larry.

He even said members of the school board lied to hide their religious motives.

This will hopefully set a precedent for others who are trying similar schemes of religious infiltration with anti-science agendas. Kansas is among those on the side of ineptitude. This doesn’t surprise me. I finished my last two and a half years of high school in a Kansas public school, and remember well my surprise, when a few different teachers proclaimed their belief in Jesus during class time.

The Discovery Institute, the monster driving the ID machinery, reacted with the expected spin. Their comments are entertaining, so check it out.

I have found that evolution doesn’t “make sense” to a high percentage of Americans. I will give two reasons for this: biblical beliefs of creationism have put blinders on many Americans, so that their minds are not open to understanding evolution; and our educators have failed. When people give reasons for evolution not making sense, it is often apparent, by what they say, that they don’t understand how it works.

When I was religious, I would not admit that much of creationism, and the Adam and Eve story, was confusing. Once I really learned about evolution, the puzzle pieces found their place.

If you don’t understand evolution, if it does not make sense to you, get educated! America cannot afford to continue falling behind on matters of science and education.