Should courts decide what is said in schools?

I know many people will say this is a case of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." But I am disturbed by news of a court case where the courts are deciding exactly what it is appropriate for school teachers to say about the Creation/Evolution debate. In this case, a student took an teacher to court for calling creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense". And he won the case.

Now, I am one who has challenged the assumptions behind evolution from time to time. I have read a lot of Creation Science, and a lot of Evolutionary Science as well. So, I am sympathetic to anyone looking to get equal time. But the courts do not belong in discussions like this. It can only lead to bad things. With rare exceptions, these kind of issues should be handled locally. Do you really want the Supreme Court taking a position on scientific issues?

Scientists claim to observe Evolution in action

I have tried to stay out of the Creaion/Evolution debate because in general I think it does more harm than good. But this article has the potential to drive the debate for the next decade. Evolutionary biologists claim to have actual observations of speciation in action. A species of fish in Lake Victoria appears to be diverging into two different species, based on pollution which is changing how they hunt and are hunted.

It should be noted that if this is true, then it is fundamentally different from the "coal moth" experiment which to now has been held up as the best experimental evidence of macroevolution in nature. That was simply a case where location conditions changed the proportion of dark and light moths in a population. This case instead may actually show one species becoming incapable or unlikely to ever interbreed.

Church of England apologizes to Charles Darwin

The Creation/Evolution debate continues to be a Hot War in America, and there are many who feel that Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are fundamentally incompatible. But it appears the Church of England no longer sees any problem here, and is offering a formal apology to Charles Darwin for the Church's overreaction.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.
"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

I have been of the opinion for some time that the Creation/Evolution Debate is, at best, counter-productive most of the time.

Deep Thought of the Day: Is Global Warming real or a product of cultural narrative?

Fair warning, this post will NOT address the science of Global Warming at all. I am not arguing for or against it here, just making an observation about human nature. Feel free to argue the science elsewhere.

I was watching several DVDs from the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series - a "comfort food" of DVDs for me - when I noticed something. The theory of Evolution has driven us to look at history as a series of responses to events greater than ourselves. Over and over again, Evolution is seen being driven by global events larger than any particular species of ecosystem: ice ages, comet strikes, volcanic activity, etc. Each challenge brings out a different set of evolved characteristics to cope (thick fur, keen eyes, large size, etc.) This narrative - of individuals and groups driven by forces beyond their control - has become a deep part of our cultural psyche.

At the same time, there is a different narrative that is a deep part of our cultural psyche which has arisen from the Industrial Revolution. This narrative looks at the transformations of societies, ecologies, and landscapes of the 20th century, and proclaims that there is nothing that humans can not do. There is nothing that we can not modify to meet our own needs. The individual, in this view, is not a helpless reactor to events, but a DRIVER of events as he or she molds the world around them to fit themselves.

Is it any surprise then that a theory like Global Warming has gained ascendance at the moment? It is the perfect synthesis of these two cultural narratives. Are we at the mercy of forces beyond our control? YES! The planet is warming around us, changing the climate, the delicate balance of ecology, weather systems, etc. We are due to be flooded at the coasts, subjected to droughts inland, and expect a rise in disease at the periphery. But are we also the masters of our world? YES! Humans made this disaster by environmental modification, and humans have the ability to head off this disaster (if we act quickly). The warming is due to the emissions of man-made machines and the deforestation of man-made agriculture. Global warming gives us both narratives in a single story, allowing us to view our world thru a lens that perfectly matches 21st century thinking.

Of course, this does raise a question. Have humans ever been good at doing long-term planning based on an idea that happens to match the current cultural narrative? At some momenta, we may say yes. The American founders created a Republic where none had existed before, because of the ideas of their particular moment in history. But at other moments in history, the ascendant syntheses gave us Communism, Fascism/Naziism, Crusades, Empires, and more. We need to take a step back and look at this idea to be sure that we accept or deny it based on its merits, and not merely because it fits the cultural synthesis we have at the moment.

Women Wobble But They Don't Fall Down

What do Weebles and pregnant women have in common? They may wobble, but they don't fall down. It turns out that men and women have a difference in the lower spine and hips that allows women to adjust their center of gravity so they don't fall over when the added weight of pregnancy come. Even though the article credits evolution instead of God, it's still an interesting article.