Young evangelical writer: 'Move on' from evolution-creationism debate - USATODAY.com

Young evangelical writer: 'Move on' from evolution-creationism debate - USATODAY.com

There are two problems here. See if you can find them.

Rachel Held Evans had a choice while growing up in Dayton, Tenn., site of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Believe the Bible or believe evolution.
"I was taught that if you don't interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally, then you don't take the Bible seriously," said Evans, 29. "I held on tightly to that for a long time."

Evans says creationism — the belief that God created the earth around 6,000 years ago in six days — was commonplace in her town. Unable to reconcile science with her faith, Evans embraced evolution.

"I learned you don't have to choose between loving and following Jesus and believing in evolution," she said. She chronicled her personal journey in a new memoir Evolving in Monkey Town.

Evans is part of a movement of mostly Protestant writers and scientists trying to reconcile faith and science, 85 years after the trial ended. Instead of choosing sides, some prefer the middle ground of intelligent design, which claims God designed how life evolved. Tennessee gubernatorial candidates Ron Ramsey, Zach Wamp and Mike McWherter all advocate teaching intelligent design in schools.

But conservative evangelicals still reject any compromise.

Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., says the two views — creationism and evolution — are incompatible for evangelicals.

"No one is going to read the Bible and be able to accommodate a natural reading of the biblical text with naturalistic evolution," said Mohler.

Unlike Catholics and Orthodox Christians who rely on church teaching and tradition along with the Bible, evangelicals rely on the Bible alone as the authority for their faith.

"The entrenched hostility to evolution in American evangelism is very deep," says Karl Giberson, a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, Mass.

Giberson, the son of a Primitive Baptist pastor from Canada, grew up believing evolution was wrong, but his views changed once he studied physics in college. Now a member of the Church of the Nazarene and a teacher at a Christian college he's convinced evolution is true.

He is one of the co-founders of the BioLogos Forum which teaches faith can co-exist with science. He founded the organization in 2008 with Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health. Collins, 60, a one-time atheist converted to Christianity when he was 27.

The group runs a website, biologos.org, and sponsors seminars on how faith and science can work together.

"It's a place for people who understand that evolution is true to stand together," said Giberson.

For Giberson, evolution describes the mechanism of life — how it works. But faith addresses the meaning of life, something science can't do.

Recently, three candidates running for governor in Tennessee endorsed the idea of teaching intelligent design in public schools.

"We can blend science and religion in that regard and the two do not have to contradict each other," said Mike McWherter, a Democrat.

Wamp, a Republican, suggested teaching intelligent design as a balance to teaching evolution.

"If they are going to teaching evolution in schools, it better be counteracted by teaching a faith-based, God-centered education," he said.

The Republican Ramsey described himself as a creationist. "I know I was created by God," he said. "That's what I want my children to learn."

For Christian schools like Bryan College, evolution can be a tricky subject. Their biology professors teach it in class but without violating the school's statements of faith.

Brian Eisenach, assistant professor of biology at Bryan, says he teaches evolution straight from the textbook in his classes. Then he has a separate discussion about other views.

He does not endorse any particular belief. Instead, Eisenach says he wants his students to know all the options for understanding the origins of human life. It's better, he says, than confrontation.

"The argument has escalated into a lot of name-calling and stereotyping on all sides," he said.

Evans says Eisenach's approach is the correct one because her teachers handled it poorly.

Pastors and professors at Bryan College once told her if she questioned creationism she was no longer a true Christian.

"My generation of evangelicals is ready to call a truce on the culture wars. It seems like our parents, our pastors, and the media won't let us do that. We are ready to be done with the whole evolution-creation debate. We are ready to move on."

1) If your way of finding common ground between evolution and faith is to say "intelligent design", then you really do not understand evolution. You are not compromising so much as holding onto that aspect of your faith. 2) Referring to evolution as a "belief" is wrong. Evolution is something you accept, just like any other view of science, such as gravity.

Daily Herald | Don't be scared by creationism

Daily Herald | Don't be scared by creationism

Bill Hartman is an idiot. I'll let him speak for himself.

My hero Lindsey Stevens is correct. Creationism is real science. Disbelievers are those who have not studied the subject since they were in grade school. They have accepted the bazaar teachings that one day there was water, then tadpoles, then apes, and then - presto - man.

Wow, it has to take some really strong faith to believe anything so ridiculous. It is a "theory".

I don't know why evolutionists are so afraid to expose students to creationism along with evolution. Let me suggest one book for starters, "The Case for a Creator." The "science" of creationism is amazing and educational. Lindsey and I are not afraid of evolution - why are you afraid of creationism. All we say is, teach a little of both. Do some current research. Don't let it scare you!

It does scare. People actually buy into this sort of, "creationism is science" crap. It's not science, it's religion. A bad one at that.

EUobserver / EU to hold atheist and freemason summit

EUobserver / EU to hold atheist and freemason summit

LEIGH PHILLIPS

19.07.2010 @ 21:16 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Brussels is to hold an EU summit with atheists and freemasons in the autumn, inviting them to a political dialogue parallel to the annual summit the bloc holds with Europe's religious leaders.

While the EU is a secular body, the three European presidents, of the commission, parliament and EU Council, alongside two commissioners, on Monday met with 24 bishops, chief rabbis, and muftis as well as leaders from the Hindu and Sikh communities. The annual dialogue, which has taken place since 2005, is for the first time this year made legally obligatory under Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Under pressure from Belgium, which constitutionally protects and financially supports humanist organisations as well as churches, the EU has been forced to hold a mirror-image summit, but of atheists, scheduled for 15 October.

However, in a move that perplexed and annoyed humanist groups, the EU atheist summit will also welcome under the rubric of ‘non-religious groups', the Freemasons, the secretive fraternal organisation, according to commission spokeswoman Katharina von Schnurbein.

"I find it rather odd," David Pollock, president of the European Humanist Federation, told EUobserver. "Some of the Grand Lodges are secularist organisations, and strongly for separation of church and state, but they also retain all sorts of gobbledygook and myths such as the Great Architect of the Universe."

Emerging in the late 16th century in England and subsequently spread throughout the world, the Freemasons split in 1877 between the English-speaking lodges and their continental counterparts over the question of god. Anglophone Freemasons require that their members believe in a deity, while continental freemasons do not.

"Their public face is that they do charitable work and they do indeed engage in this, but there are also rituals involving blindfolded candidates with their trouser-legs rolled up during initiation," continued Mr Pollock.

"It's boys' games sort of a thing."

Mr Pollock told this website that humanists had opposed any inclusion of the ‘religion clause' in first the EU Constitutional Treaty and subsequently the Lisbon Treaty, arguing that "no one has any right to some special summit any more than any other type of organisation, and we should wait in line to speak to commissioners, to access at the highest level, like any other NGO, which is what churches are."

"Neither religious groups nor non-religious ones have any greater claim to taking up the time of commissioners."

"But sadly we lost that battle, and so with the atheist summit, at least we're being treated equally, although I'd rather if we were there along with the churches. Instead we're being bundled off with the Freemasons."

According to the commission's Ms von Schnurbein, Brussels views the Freemasons as a "community of conscience interconnected throughout Europe," and "a form of humanist organisation."

She dismissed concerns that while churches and atheist groups are free for anyone to join, membership in the Freemasons, a private organisation of men, with some separate Grand Lodges for women, is by invitation only and requires initiation fees and an annual subscription.

The EUobserver attempted to speak with the United Grand Lodge of England, the oldest Grand Lodge of masons in the world, regarding this development but without success.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has had its nose put out at the annual EU summit with religious leaders by the presence for the first time this year of Hindus and Sikhs.

According to La Croix, the French Roman Catholic daily, the church, happy to embrace an ecumenism of the great monotheistic faiths at the EU level, fears that the enlargement of the meeting to include such groups beyond those "more anchored across the whole of the continent," suggests the EU is being "religiously correct".

According to a spokesman for President Van Rompuy, next year the meeting could include a Buddhist.

Beyond the annual summit, religious leaders interpret Article 17, which commits the EU to holding "an open, transparent and regular dialogue with… churches and non-confessional and philosophical organisations", as meaning regular meetings with senior civil servants, not just on grand themes such as Monday's topic of the battle against poverty, but on more concrete legislative measures dealing with climate change, education, immigration, social services and labour laws.

In the future, they hope to have similar relations with EU agencies, notably the Fundamental Rights Agency, as well as with the bloc's new diplomatic corps, the External Action Service.

Are Atheists Fundamentalists? No. Why? Keep Reading

I'm writing this to address the claim made by Reza Aslan in this opinion peace for the Washington Times (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html) in which he makes mention of the existence of an atheist fundamentalism. That is to say: it doesn't exist.

First, let's begin by defining fundamentalism.

1.

A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.

the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Given that the first two definitions clearly apply to religion, we need not bother examining them. The 3rd definition applies best to the type of atheist fundamentalism you often hear people talking about but, they attempt to use this in the context that atheism is a religion, which it is not. If I hold the idea that the Toronto Maple Leafs are the greatest hockey team of all time and adhere to that idea despite their dismal record, you could call me a fundamentalist given this 3rd definition. However, in this way, it loses any negative connotation that those who argue in favour of the existence of atheist fundamentalism are trying to imply.

My Leafs analogy brings me to the next point I want to make. People appear to be confusing "atheist fundamentalism" with a passion for atheism. It is this passion that when strong can lead to statements that may not be wise to make. When you are speaking passionately about something, when you love the idea, your emotions flow and with that comes the good and the bad. For example, referring to believers as "stupid". It's not an accurate or kind description of believers and even comes off as being too simplistic in light of knowledge and research done into why people believe (http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-gods-brain-by-lionel/). The point is, we should not allow a person's strong opinion on an issue be viewed as fundamentalism. Otherwise, we start throwing the word around too easily.

De-baptism.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'

The dryer, it burns!

American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."

Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious education as "child abuse." He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done.

"I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all," said 24-year-old Cambridge Boxterman. "According to my mother, I screamed like a banshee ... so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist, and they were forcing me to become Catholic."

Kagin doned a monk's robe and said a few mock-Latin phrases before inviting those wishing to be de-baptized to "come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water."

Ironically, Kagin's own son became a fundamentalist Christian minister after having "a personal revelation in Jesus Christ."

"One wonders where they went wrong," he chuckled to the TV show.

"Monkey Trial" 85 Years Old Today - Tech Talk - CBS News

"Monkey Trial" 85 Years Old Today - Tech Talk - CBS News

From Charles Cooper:

Later this month Dayton, Tenn. will host a weekend festival capped off by a dramatization of the trial which engraved this small town's name into the nation's cultural narrative. Exactly 85 years ago today, a Dayton schoolteacher named John C. Scopes went on trial, accused of violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution.

What came to be known as the "Monkey Trial" (subsequently immortalized by journalist H.L. Mencken), the case was a showdown between progressives and creationists, who wanted to ban the teaching of Charles Darwin's writing about evolution from local schools.

William Jennings Bryan, a three-time candidate for president, led the prosecution. He was pitted against the famous Chicago attorney Clarence Darrow. The trial lived up to the hype, but it ended on a flat note.

Toward the end of the trial, Darrow asked the jury to find Scopes guilty because he intended to appeal the verdict to the state's Supreme Court. The jury complied and Scopes was fined $100.

The following year, Tennessee's Supreme Court reversed the decision on a technicality.

Writing for the majority, the court's chief justice dismissed the case, saying "We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case. On the contrary, we think the peace and dignity of the State, which all criminal prosecutions are brought to redress, will be better conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein. Such a course is suggested to the Attorney-General."

But the battle over evolution continues. Only last month, a federal court prevented the Institute for Creation Research's plans to award master's degrees in science education from "a Biblical scientific creationist viewpoint.

85 years on and America still remains as ignorant as ever when it comes to evolution.

Atheist ads appear on billboards - National - NZ Herald News

Atheist ads appear on billboards - National - NZ Herald News

From The New Zealand Herald:

Controversial billboards promoting atheism today appeared in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, after NZ Bus refused to run the ads on bus sides.

The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign last year raised more than $22,000 to fund ads to run on buses, but NZ Bus declined to run them after receiving a number of complaints from the public and staff.

The group announced last month the ads would appear on billboards instead, while taking a discrimination case against NZ Bus.

The New Zealand campaign organisers had chosen three winning phrases from more than 900 public submissions to an online billboard generator.

The three slogans appearing on billboards were: "In the beginning, man created God", "Good without God? Over one million Kiwis are" and "We are all atheists about most gods. Some of us just go one God further".

The ads also featured the phrase "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life", borrowed from the British Atheist Bus Campaign which caused a storm when it launched last year.

The New Zealand campaign organisers were now asking for more donations from people who wanted to see the billboards spread to more cities.

About $10,000 of the group's funds would go towards the billboards, Mr Fisher said last month.

In March, the group applied for legal representation from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to pursue its discrimination case against the company.

NZ Bus said it declined to run the ads because the campaign had drawn a "significant reaction" from passengers and staff, with a number finding it distasteful or distressing.

"NZ Bus has the right to decline advertising that may, in its perception, be considered controversial or divisive," spokeswoman Siobhan O'Donovan said.

Mr Fisher said the billboards would get the atheist message out into the public while the group awaited the office's decision.

- NZPA

Glad to see this going forward. I frequently see religious signs, often biblical quotes, as I'm driving through my region. I may disagree with them but I'll never get up in arms about the right of others to display them. A point that seems to missed by those who protest against the atheist ads.

Atheists sue Florida city over prayers at meetings - Florida AP - MiamiHerald.com

Atheists sue Florida city over prayers at meetings - Florida AP - MiamiHerald.com

From the Associated Press:

Atheists in central Florida are suing the city of Lakeland over its practice of opening city commission meetings with prayers.
Atheists of Florida filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Tampa.
A federal appeals court has ruled that Lakeland's invitations to local clergy to offer prayers is constitutional, but the judges also stipulated that governments must make a reasonable effort to include all religious faiths.
The director of the atheist group's Lakeland chapter says Lakeland hasn't made that effort. The lawsuit claims the group was made to feel uncomfortable because they did not stand during the prayers or say "under God" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Gow Fields says he had expected the lawsuit. He declined further comment.

Friendly Atheist by @hemantsblog � Church Members Sue after Doomsday Fails to Occur

Friendly Atheist by @hemantsblog � Church Members Sue after Doomsday Fails to Occur

It's sad to see these scum preying off of people's fears.

UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers: An Examination of Morals

UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers: An Examination of Morals

From guest blogger, Cory Derringer:

When arguing for the validity and justice of infinite punishment for finite crimes, Christians often appeal to the reasoning that sins against a higher authority are more serious than sins against a lesser authority. Since God’s authority is infinite, they claim, we deserve infinite punishment for transgressions against Him. There are two reasons why this line of reasoning does not pass my smell test: first, the standard by which we are judged is not the standard by which we were created. Second, the application of infinite punishment counteracts what should be the end goal of punishment to begin with.

I am sure many of you will find yourself disagreeing with my first statement, thinking something along the lines of: “Of course we should be judged by God’s standard of morality.” But this is merely a statement of your position, and doesn’t really solve anything. Let’s get to the root of the matter: WHY should we be judged by God’s standard of morality? One argument is that God decides justice, and so actions or decisions He makes are just by definition. This “Richard Nixon” God is always just, even when he violates our own moral compass. In short, proponents of this argument believe that we must trust the Bible’s morality over our own. I would echo Sam Harris in contending that the reason Christianity is so popular in our modern world is not that it boasts an omnipotent God, but that in general, it is morally in tune with the majority of the population. (This is especially convenient because the majority of the population does not read the fine print, I am sure. However, that is the topic of a different conversation) In short, most Christians use their moral compass to decide that the morals advocated by Christianity are valid. They conclude from their moral compass that the Bible is true, and then to decide from the Bible that the Bible is more valid than their own moral compass. This reasoning manages to be both circular and contradictory. The only way to avoid unnecessary circular reasoning at this point is to judge the Bible based solely on one’s own moral sense. If this is true, then it is reasonable to make a conclusion on the morality of the Biblical God based on whether or not God outrages the moral compass.

Another popular argument is that God’s justice is preserved because he gives humanity a way out: all those who accept Christ escape judgment. To counter this, we must only be reminded that it is God who put us into this dilemma in the first place. The idea of sending a “savior” so that the credulous may escape punishment does not even come close to making up for sending even a single person to everlasting anguish in Hell, much less sending the overwhelming majority of humanity there. It is unjust to place humanity in this crisis of free will in the first place (assuming for the sake of argument that we do indeed have free will). This point is one that I will later expand on: infinite punishment for a finite crime is never just.

Now that we have concluded that the “savior” is insufficient to justify sending the great majority of humanity to everlasting punishment for comparably insignificant crimes, we must again ask why our actions should be judged by God’s perfect standard rather than our own imperfect one. The only conclusion I have been able to come to is that God’s standard of perfection is unachievable, which is a point that many of my Christian friends will agree on. Where we disagree is my second conclusion: that it is immoral to hold an imperfect being to a perfect standard.

We were given the ability to achieve the human standard of morality, but we are to be judged by the Godly standard of morality. That is unjust in itself. If God wanted to judge us on the basis of perfection, he should have thought to invent a perfect species. In short, the fact that God creates us with shortcomings and then condemns us for possessing them is unjust, much more so when you take into account the fact that we are condemned to eternal suffering on this basis. In my next section, I will explain how eternal punishment is unjust in any circumstance.
In order to evaluate the justice of infinite punishment, let us examine the purpose of punishment. When a small child steals a candy bar from a convenience store, a concerned parent may make the child apologize to the store owner and repay the cost of the stolen item in some way. The parent may take away privileges or even resort to corporeal punishment. When someone steals a car, our society thinks it appropriate to send them to jail for a period of time. When a drug addict is caught, they may serve prison time accompanied by rehab. The vast majority of punishments (with the exception of the death penalty or a lifetime prison sentence without the possibility of parole) have the goal of reforming the convict, or at least deterring them from committing the offense again. When we punish our children, it is not for the sake of their suffering, but so that they may learn not only that stealing (or lying, or cheating) is wrong, but why it is wrong as well. This is the goal of punishment, and it is the reason infinite punishment for finite crimes is ultimately immoral. An eternal punishment in Hell offers no chance of reformation or improvement for the guilty party, and thus defeats the primary purpose of punishment in the first place. Infinite punishment is punishment for the sake of punishment, not for the sake of justice. This is sadism by definition.

To conclude, the God of the Bible uses neither a just system for judging humanity, nor a just punishment for those who are found guilty of breaking His laws. If the Bible is true, He creates mankind without the ability to be perfect, and then judges them to be worthy of eternal punishment on the basis of this imperfection. Because of this, and because eternal punishment is by definition unjust and sadistic, the Christian God, if He exists, can and should be considered a tyrannical and malevolent God.

No, You are Wrong

Letters to the editors from Creationists are always good for a laugh:

I'm writing in response to the recent article featuring Susan Mule searching for a non-creation science textbook for her home-schooled daughter. I'm also home-schooled, and I love studying science. I believe in creation; however, I enjoy learning about evolution too. Knowing both sides of science is important to me because that's the only way to decide what I believe.

Well I'm glad this person enjoys learning but, creationism is not the other side. No credible science will make that claim.

Although evolution is often referred to as proven, it's the theory of evolution - which means that it's not 100 percent correct. It assumes many important things, such as the formation of the world, how geological formations were formed, millions of years for the formation of life, etc.

I'm getting tired of actually typing out the rebuttal to these washed-up arguments. If you follow this blog, you know what's wrong with this statement.

The rest of the article is filled with similar crap.

Get the Crucifix Out of the Classroom

From Victor L. Simpson:

An emotional debate over crucifixes in classrooms is opening a new crack in European unity.

It all started in a small town in northern Italy, where Finnish-born Soile Lautsi was so shocked by the sight of crosses above the blackboard in her children's public school classroom that she called a lawyer to see if she could get them removed.

Her case went all the way to Europe's highest court — and her victory has set up a major confrontation between traditional Catholic and Orthodox countries and nations in the north that observe a strict separation between church and state. Italy and more than a dozen other countries are fighting the European Court of Human Rights ruling, contending the crucifix is a symbol of the continent's historic and cultural roots.

"This is a great battle for the freedom and identity of our Christian values," said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.

The court case underlines how religious symbols are becoming a contentious issue in an increasingly multiethnic Europe.

French legislators begin debate next week on a draft law, vigorously championed by President Nicolas Sakorzy, that would forbid women from wearing face-covering Islamic veils anywhere in public. Belgium and Spain are considering similar laws.

In its Nov. 3 ruling, the European Court of Human Rights accepted Lautsi's contention that a crucifix could be disturbing to non-Christian pupils and said state-run schools must observe "confessional neutrality." Rulings of the court are binding on the 47 members of the Council of Europe, Europe's chief human rights watchdog.

Crucifixes are on display in many public buildings in Italy, where the Vatican is located, and the Roman Catholic Church has encouraged support for keeping them. They will be taken down in schools, however, if the court ruling stands.

Despite the rhetoric, Italy has given no hint that the issue would be enough to compel it to quit the council, something no country has ever done.

Arguing the appeal Wednesday, New York University legal scholar Joseph Weiler stressed the importance of national symbols "around which society can coalesce."
"It would be strange (if Italy) had to abandon national symbols, and strip from its cultural identikit any symbol which also had a religious significance," said Weiler, an Orthodox Jew who wore a yarmulke while addressing the 19-judge panel.

Taken to the extreme, Weiler elaborated in an interview with Italy's La Stampa newspaper, the case for secularism could endanger Britain's national anthem "God Save the Queen."

Lined up with Italy are such traditional Catholic bastions as Malta, San Marino and Lithuania. The Foreign Ministry of the late Pope John Paul II's Poland — where crucifixes are displayed in public schools and even in the hall of parliament — says the country "supports all actions that the government of Italy has taken before the Council of Europe."

The list also includes such heavily Orthodox Christian countries as Greece and Cyprus, as well as Russia, Ukraine and Bulgaria, which lived through religious persecution under communism.

"The support from so many other countries — we are talking here about a third of the membership of the Council of Europe — has given the case great political significance," said Gregor Puppinck, director of the European Center for Law and Justice, a Christian lobbying group.

A final ruling is not expected before fall. Lautsi filed the first complaint in 2002, and both her children are now in their early 20s.

The debate over the role religion should play on the largely secular continent has been simmering for more than a decade.

For years, Pope John Paul called on the European Union to include a reference to the continent's Judeo-Christian heritage in a new constitution, lecturing European leaders whenever they came to Rome. But France and other northern countries blocked such wording.

John Paul's successor, Pope Benedict XVI, urged Europeans to defend their continent's religious and cultural heritage just a week after the November verdict on crucifixes.
Benedict has held up the United States as an example, saying he admires "the American people's historic appreciation of the role of religion in shaping public discourse." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of government displays of religious materials such as the Ten Commandments when their purpose was educational or historical rather than religious.

Some Muslims in Europe see supporters of crucifixes in classrooms as applying a double standard to religious tolerance.

Said Bouamama, a Muslim sociologist and specialist in immigration questions in France, says the push by Italy and other nations "reflects a clear preference for Christianity, meaning that tolerance is only extended towards one religion and not for all."

Such a measure must be "either for everyone or for no one. If not, it will produce even greater division," said Bouamama, a researcher at a French institute that trains social workers.

France has western Europe's largest Muslim population, about 5 million, and largest Jewish population, about half a million. Its generally moderate Muslim community has shown itself reluctant to pursue court action in cases involving clothing issues, as when France barred Muslim headscarves from classrooms in 2004.

The European Union calls for the separation of Church and State so all religious symbols should be removed from public places. The problem is the excuse being made that because Christianity is part of the culture those symbols can remain. That is not a secular position. Either ban everything or allow everything. No religion should be given preference.

Richard Dawkins Highschool

From Martin Beckford:

The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.

He also said that his “free-thinking school” would provide lessons about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality.

The former Oxford University professor and evolutionary biologist, now a bestselling author who has called for the Pope to be arrested for “crimes against humanity” during his visit to Britain, made his comments during a webchat with users of Mumsnet.

Prof Dawkins was asked to set up a “secular school” or an “atheist free school” as an antidote to faith schools by women who believe they are divisive and anti-scientific.

Under plans disclosed by the Coalition last week, parents, charities and voluntary groups will be able to set up “free schools” funded by public money but independent from state control.

He replied: “Thank you for suggesting that I should start an atheist free school. I like the idea very much, although I would prefer to call it a free-thinking free school.

“I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion. Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded.

“If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.

“I would also teach comparative religion, and teach it properly without any bias towards particular religions, and including historically important but dead religions, such as those of ancient Greece and the Norse gods, if only because these, like the Abrahamic scriptures, are important for understanding English literature and European history.”

In reply to another questioner, Prof Dawkins said: “The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture.”

He also disclosed that he plans to make a documentary about “the present education system and the role faith plays within it”.

Under current rules, all schools are supposed to provide “collective worship” each day, usually in assemblies, although parents can withdraw children. Schools also have to teach religious education under the National Curriculum, but “free schools” would likely be exempt from this.

I'll go one step further and say that this should be the model for public schools everywhere. Education should be about providing a multitude of views and allowing children to form their opinions based on the evidence.

Oh No! Not the Atheist Billboards! Please God No!

From Fox News:

New billboards that promote "one nation" -- but no "God" -- are causing a stir in a Florida community.

Atheists of Florida, a group that advocates the separation of church and state, put up five signs Wednesday in Lakeland, targeting the area’s devout Christian population, MyFoxTampaBay.com reported.

Members of the organization's Lakeland chapter say they aren’t looking to convert Christians to atheism, but send a message this Fourth of July that atheists are Americans, too.

"There's quite a strong representation of religion out here and we feel that this is really where the message should be," Atheists of Florida president John Kieffer told the TV station.

The billboards read "one nation... indivisible," excluding the phrase "under God." The reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was added by federal law in 1954, on Flag Day.

One of the billboards stands across from a VFW Post, and Vietnam veteran David Kissell told the station he thinks it's a disgrace to our country.

"Our nation was formed under God and its principles, and it's a shame we allow this to happen in our neighborhoods," Kissell said.

Kieffer, also Vietnam veteran, admits that gaining acceptance as an atheist and changing back the Pledge will not be easy.

"It's going to be a struggle and it's going to be hard work," said Kieffer. "We are fighting a majority. The majority of this country would not agree with our world view, however we're Americans too."

With all do respect to Kissell for what he went through in Vietnam, the man has no clue what he's talking about.

Creationism in Illinois Schools

From Jim Breeling:

Creationism is the name given to belief that the Judeo-Christian Bible story of Creation--creation of the universe and of humankind--is absolutely true. Vociferous belief in Creationism is more commonly associated with evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. However, various opinion polls have found that a majority of Americans subscribe in some degree to belief that the Bible story of Creation is true--that God created Heaven, Earth and Man. Degree of belief is shown to range from the fundamentalist convention that God created everything in its current unchangeable form about 10,000 years ago, to less rigid conceptions that God's act of creation occurred sometime in the past and then God stepped back to let everything run on its own within certain guidelines.

People who hold strongly to Creationist belief often see science, and the scientific method by which science is done, as a threat to their Creationist faith. This is especially the case for the Creationist view of the biological sciences--and most especially for the scientific understanding of biological evolution. The Creationist account of Creation of the universe and humankind is metaphysical--beyond human underatanding. It stands in opposition to alternative non-metaphysical explanation. It stands in opposition to the idea that non-metaphysical biiological evolution can explain how humans (Homo sapiens) evolved into our present form from earlier non-human and near-human biological entities.

People who believe strongly in Creationism often believe that it should be inerted into the science education curriculum in public schools, and be taught as an alternative metaphysical explanation for how the universe and humans came into being.

I bring this subject up because the question of whether or not to insert Creationism into the public school science curriculum may be forced onto the agendas of local and community school board in Illinois if Bill Brady wins the Gubernatorial election in November. Brady has spoken frequently (but not in his campaign for the Governor office) about his belief in Creationism. He has said that he would favor having the subject taken up by local and community school boards. (He has spoken of favoring dissolution of the Illinois State School Board).

The subject of Creationism in public education is inflammatory. Creationists may see it as fairness; opponents see it as a wrongful; and indeed un-Constitutional insertion of religion into public education. Battles over Creationism in public education can tear communities apart.I hope itdoes not happen in Illinois. I understand why believers in Creationism may try to make it happen.

I do not believe it is necessary because I do not believe that the way our ancestors explained Creation and how science seeks to understand and explain it are necessarily in opposition. Creation stories are common to all cultures. They represent Man's first addressing of the question that anstrophysicist Stephen Hawking has named the most fundamental question to be addressed by science: Why is there Something rather than Nothing?

We don't know precisely how the Creation stories came to be, but the poet W.H. Auden offered a definition of what they are--a poetic response to events beyond human control. Viewed through Auden's lens, Creation stories can be savored as poetry--often great poetry. The poetry has evinced poetic reponse through the ages. Stand in the great cathedral in Chartres and be stunned by the response of artists to the Christian story. Read Dante. I have five editions of his "The Divine Comedy"--four English translations and one in the original Italisn with Gustave Dore's magnificent steel engraving illustrations. I read Danto not because I believe he describes a physically existing Hell, Purgatory and Heaven but because I am moved by his description of the human condition. I read the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and understand how ideas about Creation were percolating through the cultures from which the Bible story arose.

If the Judeo-Christian story of Creation is taught as truth in opposition to science, should fairness not dictate the teaching also of Creation stories of India, the Navajo, the Mandan and the Maya? Or, would it be more enlightening tostudents to teach all of them, as the powerful poetry they are--not in opposition to science, but on their own terms as words that have held men in awe ror 5,000 years?

To answer the question, sure. Creation stories can be taught in schools but, not as an opposition to science. If it provides children with more knowledge that is fine as long as having knowledge is not mistaken for having the knowledge that is most likely true. The Judeo-Christian story in particular could be offered as an entire course. When you consider the impact it has had on Western society and culture it almost seems foolish to not teach children about it. Again, as long as we aren't calling it an opposition or alternative to science but a myth like any other creation story.

Creationism is not Science Says Speaker at Bible Institute

From Malea Hargett:

Creationism is a religious theory and should not be taught as science, Dr. Pauline Viviano told 110 participants during the Bible Institute at St. John Center in Little Rock June 18-20.


The event is hosted annually by Little Rock Scripture Study to enrich Bible study participants and religious educators.


Viviano, an associate professor of theology at Loyola University in Chicago, explored creation by explaining to participants what Genesis says about creation, whether the creation accounts are history, science or myth and how evolution got a bad name. She concluded the weekend by explaining what the Vatican says about evolution and creation.


Cackie Upchurch, LRSS director, said the subject is important for Catholics to understand because "there is a lot of confusion about what the Bible really teaches about creation. The creation accounts in Scripture are there to help us understand who we are and what our relationship is to the Creator, not to tell us how and when God created the universe."


Upchurch said Viviano was able to show participants that creationism "is not science. This is not history."


Creationism is supported by many Christians who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a "school of thought that denies Darwinian evolutionary theory by denying that natural selection can explain either the origin of life or the origin of new species. Biblical creationism relies upon the authority of the Bible. Scientific creationism relies upon scientific argumentation to establish the necessity for belief in God as creator of the natural world," Viviano quoted from "Evolution from Creation to New Creation."


"Creationism is not the same thing as belief in creation," Viviano said. "All Christians believe in creation, I'm sure, or that God created the world."


The topic has been hotly debated in the public school systems in Arkansas. From 1928 to 1968 biology teachers were banned from teaching evolution. In 1981 Gov. Frank White signed into law the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, requiring that creation science and evolution are taught equally. The state was under the spotlight in 1982 when a federal judge struck down the Arkansas law, saying it "was simply and purely an effort to introduce the biblical version of creation into the public school curricula."


According to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture, state legislators and school boards around the state have continued to push the creationism theory, and half of the state's biology teachers admit that they continue to teach creationism or ignore the topic of evolution completely in order to avoid conflicts with parents.


In one session titled "Neither Science nor Theology: Creationism and Intelligent Design," Viviano said many believe that Genesis is a "scientifically accurate account."


"They believe in the inerrancy of Scripture," she said.


However, she said the Catholic Church teaches that "the Bible is inerrant in respect to what we need to know for our salvation." Catholics "tend to be 'both/and' people. We have the Bible and we also have Tradition."


Supporters of creationism are against teaching about evolution, she said.


"As far as they are concerned, they see it as a threat to faith by removing a need for God," Viviano said.


She said creationists will select only the facts they believe support their point of view and don't take into account scientific data. For example, they believe the world is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but scientists have been able to prove it is 4.5 billion years old.


"It's bad science," Viviano said. "They get a black and white view of religious truth ... They take scientific data and conclusions out of context and they apply it where they do not belong. ... Anything they don't agree with, they ignore. ... They ignore a lot of evidence."


"It's bad theology because they say things appear ancient because God made it that way as a way to test us. It's not giving you a good image of God."


Viviano cited two encyclicals, one from 1950 and one from 1996, and one address by Pope John Paul II in 1981, showing that the Church has not supported the use of Scripture to prove "how the heavens were made, but how to go to heaven." The documents explain that faith and evolution don't conflict.

You see? Even theists reject the idea that creationism is science, which really goes to show that the creation-science crowd is the odd one out. As it should be.

Creation: The Movie

I saw the movie back when it was in theatres. My thoughts, Darwin: 1 Creationist morons (Ray Comfort: -99999999.

From Steven Newton:

No other scientific idea has endured as much unfounded hostility as evolution, and no scientist as much undeserved scorn as Charles Darwin. One hundred and twenty-eight years after his death, Darwin's good name is assaulted daily by all manner of creationists, who hold Darwin responsible for everything from the Columbine school shootings to the Holocaust.

It is refreshing, then, that the movie Creation comes out this week on DVD, which means you can finally see it. This movie -- released last year in very few theaters -- tells the story of how Darwin agonized over whether or not to publish On the Origin of Species. It was indeed a momentous decision, for as Darwin presciently understood, the controversy generated by his magnum opus would follow him the rest of his life -- and indeed, long after his life.

Creation, based on a book by Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great grandson, is well worth seeing. Paul Bettany plays Darwin, and in effect reprises his role as naturalist Stephen Maturin, from the 2003 film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. His tender and moving performance brings Darwin to life as a man driven by curiosity about the natural world, passionate about his family, and deeply worried about how publication of his revolutionary scientific ideas might affect them.

This view of Darwin as a full human being is a far cry from how Darwin is portrayed by many creationists.

"Darwin was nothing but a blatant racist, a bigot of a man." Thus intoned creationist Ray Comfort, who recently distributed thousands of free copies of Darwin's On the Origin of Species on college campuses. Comfort added his own introduction to Origin, blaming Darwin for a host of atrocities.

The Discovery Institute, the main hub of intelligent design creationism, regularly launches personal as well as "scientific" attacks on Darwin. One Discovery Institute fellow, Richard Weikart, has written not one, but two books arguing that the roots of the Holocaust can be found in Darwin. Another Discovery Institute associate, David Klinghoffer, has tried to link Darwin to Dr. Mengele, H.P. Lovecraft, Chairman Mao, and Charles Manson--although Klinghoffer hastens to point out:

I am not in any way blaming gentle Charles Darwin for murderous Charles Manson. But [the anniversary of Darwin's birthday] does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Darwinism's moral legacy.
It is rather strange to distinguish Darwin from Manson, then claim that Manson is part of Darwin's moral legacy. Klinghoffer is more explicit when talking about the evil of Dr. Mengele:

What would inspire a human being to such devilry? What influence, perhaps early in life, might have nudged him off the course of what could have otherwise been a conventional medical career?
Klinghoffer's answer, of course, is that Charles Darwin "nudged" Mengele toward evil.

Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Benjamin Wiker went to great lengths to attack Darwin in his book The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. As one reviewer of the book put it, Wiker went so far as to blame Darwin for:

...eugenics, Nazism, abortion, euthanasia, sex education and contraceptives for the poor, cyber-pornography, and cannibalism.
[Which is silly, of course. Everyone knows cannibalism is Jonathan Swift's fault.]

Why do creationists blame Darwin for such creative lists of malfeasance? To many creationists, Darwin is one of a triad of thinkers whose influence creationists blame for the horrors of the 20th century. In Marx, they see a "science of human history" manifested in systematic mass murder and unimaginable suffering. In Freud, they see a "science of the human mind" responsible for sexual licentiousness and the breakdown of traditional values. And in Darwin, they see a "science of the human species" responsible for eugenics and the denigration of man to the status of an animal.

The movie Creation is important because it shows Darwin as a man, a deeply thoughtful man, filled with compassion and fears over the implications, as well as the reception, of his revolutionary ideas. One striking scene from Creation follows the death and decomposition of a young bird. In another part of the movie, Darwin tries to comfort his children after they witness a fox killing a rabbit. Creation is not oblivious to what can seem like the brutality and pointlessness of an evolutionary view of the world. But rather than portraying Darwin as a blood-thirsty Hobbesian relishing a world red in tooth and claw, the film presents his empathy and sad acceptance of a world imbued with so much suffering.

Creation shows Darwin as human being, and his famous theory not as some scary conspiracy, but as a reasoned and reasonable scientific idea. This is a welcome contrast from the misinformed hyperbole and ad hominem attacks that so often flow from creationists.

Creationists will be hostile to Creation for its humanizing of Darwin. Indeed, the group Answers in Genesis found even the title of the film "offensive" and labeled it a "Hollywood hagiography." The Institution for Creation Research called the movie part of "a strategy of evolutionists to win the hearts and minds" of viewers. There is perhaps no better recommendation for the film than their scorn.

A truly wonderful that film I would recommend to anyone who wants to see a side of Darwin never portrayed by the willfully ignorant creationists. They try to blame Darwin and his ideas for the atrocities that have been committed since his time because it is the only (rather pathetic) argument that they have. They cannot win against the science and never will. So they are reduced to these attacks that in the end expose them for the useless idiots they are.

Texas Judge Rejects Creationism Degree. Non-Existent Hell Freezes Over

From Valerie Strauss:

Here’s education news from Texas that you can applaud: A federal judge has denied an effort by the Institute for Creation Research to issue master's degrees in science education from “a Biblical scientific creationist viewpoint,” instead siding with state officials who initially refused to allow the program to go forward.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks ruled in a lawsuit filed against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which in 2008 had denied an application by the institute for authority to award master's degrees, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

The institute rejects the theory of evolution and espouses what is called "Young Earth creationism," the belief that Earth and life were created by God between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.

The institute filed a lawsuit last year, alleging that the state, in refusing its request, was violating the First Amendment and practicing religious discrimination. Sparks, in a 39-page decision, said that the institute had not proven any of its claims and that the state had the authority to prevent the master's degree program from going forward.

Actually the state’s Certification Advisory Council initially recommended conditional approval for the proposed program at its Dec. 14, 2007 meeting, according to the legal ruling.

But Raymund Paredes, the Texas commissioner of higher education, discovered flaws in the site visit team’s report, and recommended to the board that a group of scientists and science educators re-evaluate the proposed degree program.

As Commissioner Paredes later wrote, “It seemed clear to me upon reading the various evaluation documents that the central issue of whether the proposed program met appropriate standards of science education had been insufficiently addressed. As a result, I directed staff to conduct a fresh review.”

The state board ultimately recommended that the institute’s application for a certificate of authority be rejected.

“Essentially, the panel reasoned much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world,” wrote the judge in Friday's ruling, which concurred with the state.

The last bit of education news to come out of Texas was the rewriting of social studies standards by right-wing ideologues. This is a welcome change.