Kansas, have I got a deal for you.

Bone Wars is a card game that’s billed as “The Game of Ruthless Paleontology” and can be ordered at http://www.zygotegames.com/.

I’m not familiar with the game but it sounds like a take-off on the competitiveness rampant in many scientific fields including Paleontology. The publisher, Zygote Games, is offering a discount to anyone in the state of Kansas that buys the game or to anyone who is shipping the game to someone in Kansas. Why you ask? Here’s Zygote’s explanation.

Why give a discount to Kansas? Why not Wyoming or Vermont? Simple: the Kansas Board of Education has attempted to give equal space in the state public school biology curriculum to the doctrine of "Intelligent Design," claiming that it is a "scientific theory" about the origin and development of life. It isn't, of course, and when real scientists complained that "Intelligent Design" fits none of the criteria for an actual scientific theory, the Board responded by redefining "science" so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations for phenomena.

So we're doing our part for science. BONE WARS is all about how scientific theories get developed and tested (along with being about lying, stealing, and conniving). Maybe our game can do what the schools in Kansas won't.

Not only that, but it sounds like Bone Wars might also give people a feel for how competative science and scientists are. If there was any conceivable weakness in the Theory of Evolution, grant hungry scientists would be hovering around it like sharks around a bleeding sperm whale.

Personally I’m thinking about buying a copy of the game just to support Zygote’s position! Compare this to the American Museum of Natural History being unable to locate any corporate sponsors for its current exhibit celebrating the life and work of Charles Darwin.

The great failing of American Society is that it has become afraid to stand up for the truth. And no I'm not talking about taking the side of evolution, I'm talking about taking the side of education and at least letting folks know how science works, what the Theory of Evolution actually hypothesises and that the acceptance of evolution by scientists is virtually unanimous.

Only once people understand these three basic points can a meaningful discussion about Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism really be held.

More from the Vatican

This time it’s the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory the Reverend George Coyne. The Reverend is quoted by the AP as saying "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

The AP also quoted Coyne from a June article in The Tablet magazine, "If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Coyne is further quoted as explaining that God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

So Reverend, have you ever considered Deism?

While it’s possible that Coyne is a Maverick and simply pushing his own view, the fact that he hasn’t been muzzled so far would indicate that his statements have at least the grudging approval of the Vatican.

The Vatican’s outlook on the world is Eurocentric and religion is taking a beating in Europe much more than it is in the United States so I would guess the Vatican is reacting to that reality.

The Vatican is also smart enough to know that American Evangelical Protestantism is no friend of Catholicism and appears to be willing to come to an accommodation with science and secularism. These statements by Coyne, as well as previous statements relating to the bible not being a science textbook, directly attack Christian Fundamentalist Doctrine with respect to the literal truth of Genesis

The only concession the Vatican seems to be looking for, based upon statements from Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict XVI himself, is that science not claim it can demonstrate that the universe was created without direction or order.

In other words, quid pro quo, you stay out of my domain and I’ll stay out of yours. Personally, I could live with that kind of arrangement.

However I'm not quite ready to embrace the Church as a trusted ally since, while we appear to be on the same side in this debate, we're on opposite sides just about everywhere else.

A Dallas Mosasaur

The AP reports that an amateur fossil hunter from Dallas has, after 16 years, gotten the recognition due him for the discovery of what is being called “the first well preserved early mosasaur found in North America.”

And what the hell is a mosasaur? Well, apparently it’s a rather large, ocean going, predator that livened things up around 92 million years ago. According to the AP, the beastie, officially named Dallasaurus turneri in honor of the discoverer and place of discovery, is believed to be an early version of the mosasaur with tiny feet and hands rather than the paddles which developed later.

The AP quotes the curator of earth sciences at the Dallas Museum of Natural History as saying "This is exciting to us. It tells us the origin of mosasaurs."

So I guess you don’t figure mosasaurs were created during those six days we heard about in the bible? The ability of the American public to compartmentalize itself is amazing. The “majority” supposedly rejects evolution, yet news organizations routinely print stories like this one.

Now let’s be fair. The AP got several quotes from paleontologists about this beastie, so why didn’t they get quotes from Intelligent Design and Creationist folks? I would like to know what the local Evangelical nutcase thinks about Dallasaurus turneri (*cough, cough*).

Still going in Circles

The fact of the matter is, since election day and Robertson’s tirade against the little town of Dover, there hasn’t been a whole lot to talk about.

I’ve sort of been trying to categorize the various points of view in the Intelligent Design versus Evolution debacle and here’s what I’ve come up with.

The Creationists – The True Bible Believers, like Robertson, who see Intelligent Design as a way of getting around the principle of the Separation of Church and State. Most of these folks wouldn’t know science from a stale donut. These people I refer to the 9th Commandment (the 8th if you’re Catholic) and ask whether it includes a prohibition against lying in general?

These are the American Taliban. For the most part Evangelical Christians that would like to mold the country into their medieval view of the way things should be. They are intolerant, biased and opposed to the principles of American Democracy. As far as they’re concerned, only people who agree with them have any rights. In their opinion anyone who disagrees with them is persecuting them and needs to be silenced.

These people are dangerous. If the rest of the country doesn’t wake up and figure out a way to reduce their influence, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the next American Civil War will be a religious one. And I’m not talking about a war of words; I’m talking about a war with real bullets, and real blood.

The Intelligent Designists – People like Behe and Gonzalez that may in fact believe what they are doing has scientific substance. To them I say more power to you. Publish papers and debate other qualified scientists about your hypotheses. High school biology students shouldn’t be asked to be the peer review panel. Why are you trying to sidestep a process that has been proven to work? What is it that you are afraid of? As a direct question to Dr. Behe, why did you feel it necessary to change the definition of science so your hypothesis would fit?

You will notice that I didn’t mention William Dembski in this group. I think he belongs in the Creationist group.

The Evolutionists – I do believe there are some people, and I include folks like Barbara Forrest, Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller in this group, that don’t want to even consider that there may be some merit in ID. They are, perhaps, being as dogmatic as the Creationists.

The Technologists – These folks understand that ID is just not science and are concerned that it is at best a waste of time and at worst a threat to scientific research and science education. The people at the National Academy of Science are in this category as are the overwhelming majority of biologists, zoologists, paleontologists and so on and so forth.

Many educated folks of non-scientific disciplines are also in this group including most science teachers and an Engineer or two I happen to know. Generally they understand the question and can be relied upon to support evolution but at least took a hard look at ID. While they might even be willing to give people like Gonzales or Behe the benefit of the doubt, they would be adamently opposed to teaching ID in a high school science classroom.

I'm in the Technologist group (surprise, surprise).

The Ignorant – These folks either don’t have a clue about what’s going on because they're too busy watching the latest Reality TV show or are too dumb to be able to comprehend the question. The fact that this segment exists pretty much renders opinion polls moot. All of these folks should be answering “I don’t know,” but almost none of them are.

The Fair Playists – These folks don’t really understand what the fuss is all about. Why not just teach both and let the students decide would be their attitude. There probably aren’t any teachers in this group. Some of these folks understand the issues and just believe that it makes sense to teach both ID and evolution.

Other folks in this group know enough to be dangerous but not enough to make a really informed decision. A lot of these people think there really is a scientific controversy with respect to evolution and most, if not all, are scientific illiterates although they probably don’t realize it. These are the people that the press fails when they don’t provide adequate background.

The fact that we’re even seriously having this conversation is a disgrace in a so-called technologically advanced country.

Robertson Damns Dover

Evangelist Pat Robertson warned the little town that just voted out the boobs that introduced Intelligent Design into the school curriculun not to come looking to God for help.

"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city.”

Well THAT settles it. Now I'm abvsolutely convinced there was nothing religious behind the school board's decision. Clearly Robertson is only concerned with academic freedom.

Do these morons realize how idiotic they look? Just because they have compartmentalized minds doesn't mean NORMAL people do. Don't they understand how the sheer hypocrisy screams volumns?

Yet, I can hear the faithful even now praising brother Robertson and calling the blessings of the almighty down upon his silvered head.

Too bad the blessings of the almighty doesn't take the form of a block of concrete. That this jackass can have a million viewers breathlessly hanging on his every word is simply pathetic.

Here Comes the Vatican

According to the Free Market News the Vatican may now be getting involved in the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate. On the side of Darwin and Evolution!

FMN reports that Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is quoted by Australiannews.com as saying the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution are "perfectly compatible" if the Bible is read correctly.

And, in a direct attack on the creationist campaigners in America, Poupard allegedly said "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim."

Poupard also reportedly declared that the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator."

Personally I think the message in Genesis is related more toward the sort of trivial "disobedience is a bad thing" message and the more insightful "knowledge can be dangerous" message, but I can live with the Cardinal's interpretation.

Supposedly Poupard made his remarks at a Vatican News Conference and they have been interpreted in Italy as a flat out rejection of "Intelligent Design" by the Vatican.

Cardinal Poupard has a history of trying to smoothe out science and Christianity. At a conference on "Science, Faith and Culture" held at Oxford University in March of this year he called for "a strong alliance between reason and faith."

The Catholic Church "gets it." With religion getting hammered in Europe the church realizes that it can't afford to buck heads with a growing secular culture firmly rooted in the acceptance of technology and science.

In the United States, or at least in certain regions of the United States, the picture isn't as clear and religion, based upon a resurgence of conservativism, believes it can win a confrontation with the secular wing and science. Somehow I doubt it.

Progress and technology tend to be pervasive and, although at times a hitch or two is encountered, usually move inexorably forward. We accept, and are dependent upon, things today that even 50 years ago would have been unthinkable! While one can debate the benefit of some so-called "progress," we tend to accept all of it in the long run.

Science and technology march on and, ultimately, anyone, or anything, which tries to block its path will get ground under. It's only a matter of time.

The Catholic Church "gets it." American Evangelicals don't.

Dover Kicks out School Board

According to a post on DEFCON by Michelle Goldberg, a reporter who covered the Dover trial, the good people of Dover Pennsylvania have booted out the members of the school board who made the controversial anti-evolution decisions.

I doubt that these folks have accepted evolution overnight, but based upon good old American practicality have realized 1) the money being wasted on the trial could have been MUCH better used in the Dover school system and 2) religion belongs in the home and the church and not in the science classroom.

What may belong in a science classroom is an acknowledgement that science, by its nature (except in Kansas), is limited to materialistic solutions. I see no real problem with making that clear. Ironically the Dover resolution could actually inhibit that point from being made.

Medieval Kansas

In Medieval Kansas the state school board, to no ones surprise, approved the new state science standards including the recognition of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution and a redefinition of science to include supernatural conclusions. It’s rumored that the University of Kansas is working on updated courses in keeping with the new theory of science in the state. I’ve been told that next semester the University will offer the following science electives:

- Alchemy 101
- Astrology and Tea Leaves
- Understanding the Natural World through the Interpretation of Scripture
- Witch Detection 101
- Modern Black Magic – a National Disgrace

I’ve been unable to verify whether or not the Department of Biology at the U of K has been closed down but I have it on good authority that a bill outlawing electricity in favor of candles has been presented to the Kansas State Legislature.

Museums get into the Fight

The Dallas Morning News ran a story about how some natural science museums appear to be taking up the gauntlet and teaching evolution.

This is a trend I’ve noticed before. A museum in Australia, after some suggestions that it should provide a “more balanced” view, put up a sign saying “Evolution is a FACT.”

The Morning News story quotes some museum curators as saying they’ve even decided to stop worrying about hurting some folk’s sensibilities.

"In the past, we took the word 'evolution' out of our exhibits and said 'change through time.' We did that because we didn't want to incite anything. But I think we have to use that word and say this is what science tells us. If they're not teaching it in schools and we're not doing it, where are they going to get it?"

Aha, the education problem! This is where the press should be helping out and educating the American People as to the facts. And NO I am not proposing that the press become a spokesman for evolution, I am proposing that passing on the simple fact that the scientific community is convinced of the accuracy of evolution is well within the area of responsibility of the fourth estate.

"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting."

The time has come the walrus said to speak of many things. Like the bible says, “Come now, and let us reason together… If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.”

In the past science and rationality have always taken the “live and let live” approach toward religion, partially because they just didn’t care, but some religions continue to be hostile toward science. Perhaps the time has come for science to be hostile toward religion.

I suspect that religion and science are in a death struggle. In order for one to thrive, the other must whither and die. Personally I’d rather have science than religion. Maybe the time has come to stop kidding ourselves that the two can co-exist and recognize that we must choose one or the other.

The fact is that a sense of impending doom might be precisely why religion has chosen to assault science once again. This is a good moment because society has become so complex that there is a yearning among many folks for a simpler life. As a result of that yearning, some people are turning back to religion so its feeling a little empowered at the moment. With that empowerment has come some aggresiveness. But if push comes to shove, how many folks would REALLY want to give up the benefits of technology for a little emotional comfort?

Now I can hear the responses already to the effect that one can have both religion and technology. Well, not really, because the foundation of technology is science. If you assault science and try to hog tie it with dogma, you have to ultimately also reject the future benefits of technology because the science that it's based upon will cease to exist.

Which will you chose? Personally, I'll take science and technology over medieval superstition.

And yes I'm serious when I imply that ultimately one may have to choose either science and technology or religion. Science will continue to peel away the fear and superstition upon which religion is based and the hostility of religion can only grow. Yet that very science is the foundation of technology; one cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of the science being assaulted and undercut by religion. Eventually something is going to have to give.

This is why I have a hard time "respecting" religious beliefs; I suspect that eventually the demise of religion is necessary for mankind to continue to advance.

It probably won't happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year. It probably won't happen in the next 50 years, but eventually, it must happen if the human race is to survive and flourish. A race that refuses to apply its sole competitive advantage, its intelligence, is doomed wouldn't you say?

Dover Trial Ends

Well, the trial in Dover is over and the judge has promised to render his decision by the end of the year or early January.

Gee I wish I had his job. Do you suppose he has any other decisions to render in this time frame? Its going to take him somewhere between 6 and 10 weeks to render a 10 or 20 page decision with a few references? Like I said, I wish I had his job.

As to what he will decide, who knows? When this all started I said the most that could be hoped for was a decision that the Dover School Board’s decision was religiously based. I guess the worst would be some sort of declaration that it’s ok to mention and/or teach Intelligent Design.

I still suspect a very narrow decision related to the Dover board itself and I now suspect that any decision will be appealed looking for a reversal and/or a decision of wider scope.

I don’t see any way, given the evidence, that the judge can find the school board’s actions constitutional, but I’m biased. Like I said, I wish I had his job.

Testimony from a Dover School Board Member

There was a story in phillyburbs.com about the testimony of one of the Dover School Board members that had me shaking my head.

Without mentioning any names, this lady is reported to have made the following, to my mind almost unbelievable in their degree of ignorance, statements.

there was nothing wrong with using "Of Pandas and People" as a reference book because it doesn't make any references to God or the Bible.

Why would anyone expect a science textbook to mention God or the Bible? Why would anyone even think to check if a science textbook mentioned God or the Bible UNLESS one was trying to present religion under the guise of science? If I had ANY lingering doubts that the motives of the Dover School Board were religious, this statement eliminated them.

"acknowledged she didn't fully understand intelligent design, but knew it was another theory."

Are you using “theory” in the colloquial sense, because you’re certainly not using it in the sense of a “scientific theory?” Do you even understand the difference?

Do you often vote for something that you don’t fully understand? Don’t you think its incumbent upon you to UNDERSTAND the issues before voting on them? If you were too dimwitted to comprehend the question you could always have abstained. That would have been the honorable thing to do.

"I wanted our students to be made aware of other theories that are out there," she said. "I thought it would be good for education."

Same observation about what you mean by a “theory?” Do silly wild ass guesses qualify under your understanding of the word? Do you have ANY CLUE what a “scientific theory” is? Upon what were you basing your “thought” considering that every reputable science organization in the country has said ID is NOT science? Besides, if you couldn’t “fully understand” ID, what led you to believe that you had any conceivable notion of what would be “good for education?” Do you even have an education yourself? So far, from your statements, I see no evidence you ever got beyond the 4th grade.

When asked "Isn't it true that no board member explained or expressed how the change in curriculum would improve education at Dover High School?"

She responded, "I voted in my opinion what I thought was right."

And that opinion was based upon? You didn’t understand ID; you have no concept of science and you couldn’t even articulate a benefit to be accrued from the change in the curriculum, so what the hell was your conclusion that it “was right” based upon? Could it be because it lined up more closely with your religious beliefs? Could it be that you’re a liar as well as ignorant as burnt toast? Oh that wasn't a very nice thing to say. I'm so ashamed. That's ok though, I'll say an extra Hail Mary or two tonight to make up for it.

The really sad thing about this is she's probably not even embarressed by her scientific illiterancy and depth of sheer ignorance. I'll bet she's convinced she did the right thing and incensed, absolutely incensed that anyone would dare question it.

That people like this can get elected to school boards in this country is absolutely mind numbing. This country is beyond going to the dogs. Now where did I put that Amsterdam newspaper? I want to take another look at that apartment by the docks.

Oh yeah, one other thing. In the same article the Thomas More Law Center, the firm defending the Dover School Board, is quoted as saying that "its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians."

Now I have to admit that this confuses me a little bit (*cough, cough*). Can someone explain to me how this case has anything to do with the "religious freedom of Christians?" Here I thought it was a matter of "academic freedom." The "academic freedom" to confuse students getting their first taste of real science about what constitutes science and the scientific method. How does this relate to the "religious freedom of Christians" UNLESS one believes that Evolution is an assault upon Christianity and ID acts as its defender in the science classroom?

Two points. The first is that IF Evolution were in fact an assault upon Christianity, which of course it isn't, teaching it would be unconstitutional because in the United States, government must, according to the "Neutrality Test," be neither an ally nor an adversary of religion. Teaching Evolution is not illegal because it is in fact neutral toward any religion including Christianity.

The second point is if you have any doubt about my first point, consult with the Roman Catholic Church which has, quite maturely and wisely, made its peace with Darwin.