Wisconsin Anti-Creation Bill Dies

WISCONSIN ANTICREATIONISM BILL DIES

(News-release courtesy of the NCSE.)

Assembly Bill 1143 died in the Wisconsin State Assembly on May 4, 2006, the last day of the last general-business floorperiod. Announced at a press conference on March 7 and introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education on March 21, AB 1143 would have, if enacted, directed the school board to "ensure that any material presented as science within the school curriculum complies with all of the following: (1) The material is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes. (2) The material is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences."

Although neither creation science nor "intelligent design" was explicitly mentioned in the bill itself, they appeared to be its primary targets. Its main sponsor, state representative Terese Berceau (D-District 76), told the Madison Capital Times (February 7, 2006) that her bill was intended to counteract recent attempts to undermine evolution education around the country and within the state, and Michael Cox and Alan Attie, both professors of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reportedly applauded the prospect of preventing any incursion of the "intelligent design" movement in Wisconsin. In a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 2006), a number of AB 1143's supporters, including Attie, Berceau, Cox, the philosopher of science Elliott Sober, and the historian of creationism Ronald L. Numbers, explain the origin of the bill -- ultimately prompted by a protracted controversy over evolution education in Grantsburg, Wisconsin -- and its objectives. In addition, the article reviews the history of the antievolution movement from Epperson to Kitzmiller, describes and refutes a few common misrepresentations used by the proponents of "intelligent design," and suggests a number of ways for scientists to defend the teaching of evolution.

The DaVinci Code: Why Are Catholics Mad?

Well, the movie version of Dan Brown's novel, The DaVinci Code, is finally about to hit the movie theaters. I plan on being one of the millions who stand in ghastly long lines waiting to see the film. But as it nears, the Catholic Church is screaming bloody murder about how ridiculously false its claims are. Some groups are even calling on Catholics to boycott the film.

Now, I'll admit that the premise of the story is a bit far-fetched: a quest for the Holy Grail, no less. But the book's plot is based on the idea of concealing a dark truth so damaging to the Catholic faith that it could destroy it forever. The secret? That Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually married and had kids! If true, that would put a damper on Jesus being the true Son of God, wouldn't it? But stating that this would destroy the Catholic Church is, in my mind, going a bit too far. Catholic doctrine said that the Ptolemaic solar system, with the Earth at its center, was the Biblically correct version. It was wrong, as Galileo tried to show. Catholic doctrine said it was okay for certain sins to be absolved if large enough monetary contributions were given to the Church. That was also wrong, as Luther tried to show. Again, Catholic doctrine said that Adam & Eve were literal, historical people. Again, they were wrong (and here's the connection with this blog) as Darwin tried to show.

According to the DaVinci Code, the Catholic Church would pay any amount of money to make sure that the secred of Jesus marriage and fatherhood remained a secret. But this is ridiculous. If Galileo, Luther, and Darwin didn't destroy Catholicism, nothing will! Least of all, Mary Magdalene having Jesus' kids! Theologians would just find a rationalization to divorce Jesus' divinity from that of his earthly progeny, and leave it at that. The Catholic Church would go on, as it always does. It found a way to dodge Luther's schism. It found a way to re-define the solar system without losing too much face. It found a way to declare evolution as not being in conflict with Church doctrine. In more recent times, it found a way to face the crisis of pedophile priests without self-destructing. Put frankly, the Catholic Church is the Rocky Balboa of religion, taking blow after blow to the face from a clearly superior opponent, and yet NOT GOING DOWN! How it does this is a complete mystery, as they make stupid mistake after stupid mistake.

And their stupid mistake this time? Why, they are protesting the DaVinci Code! If enough protesting takes place, the conspiracy theorists will take this as a confirmation that there might actually be something TO the contentions that the story makes! But, I suspect, even this will not be enough to do Catholicism in.

Another recent newsworthy item has been the flap over the recent South Park episode which lampoons the ridiculous beliefs of Scientology. I saw the episode (ain't the internet great?) and it's as brilliant as scientology is stupid. But it just goes to show: There is no belief system so dumb that someone, somewhere WON'T believe it! Perhaps that's why the DaVinci Code frightens people so much. The only thing more deadly to a phony religious belief system than the truth, is ANOTHER belief system which is far sexier!

Eric

Kitzmiller Judge Makes Time Magazine

KITZMILLER JUDGE AMONG TIME'S 100

Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in which teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional, was named one of Time magazine's "Time 100: The People Who Shape Our World." In the May 8, 2006, issue of the magazine, the science journalist Matt Ridley contributes a brief essay describing the significance of Jones's decision: "In a rebuke to the proponents of intelligent design, Jones called the phrase 'a mere relabeling of creationism,' intended to get around the 1987 judicial ban on teaching creationism as science in public schools, and a 'breathtaking inanity' that fails the test as science. He castigated its proponents and said Dover's students, parents and teachers 'deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom.'" Ridley adds, "Perhaps now, after Jones, people will accept that if they want to teach children about God, they should do so in church, not in science classes." Judge Jones told the Harrisburg Patriot-News (May 2, 2006) that although he was gratified by the honor, "This will pass, and I will be back to the more mundane things." What pleases him most, the Patriot-News reported, was the influence that the Kitzmiller decision is having in other school districts.