War on science - Evolution v Intelligent Design

Video on YouTube features David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins...

Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

by Professor Steve Jones

Reposted from:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4400&tip=1

Click here for the Real video version

Click here for the Windows Media version


Audio Only Podcast:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/podcast/audio/stevejones.m4a

Science is about disbelief. It accepts that all knowledge is provisional and that any theory might in principle be disproved. Some theories are better established than others: the earth is probably not flat, babies are almost certainly not brought by storks, and men and dinosaurs are unlikely to have appeared on earth within the past few thousand years. Even so, nothing is sacred in 1905 classical physics collapsed after a seemingly trivial observation about glowing gases and the same is potentially true for all other scientific theories.

Many biologists are worried by a recent and unexpected return of an argument based on belief by the certainty, untestable and unsupported by evidence, that life did not evolve but appeared by supernatural means. Worldwide, more people believe in creationism than in evolution. Why do no biologists agree? Steve Jones will talk about what evolution is, about new evidence that men and chimps are close relatives and about how we are, nevertheless, unique and why creationism does more harm to religion than it does to science.

Steve Jones won the Aventis Prize for Science Books (then known as the Rhone-Poulenc Prize) in 1994 for 'The Language of the Genes'. In 1997 he was awarded the Royal Society's Michael Faraday Prize - the UK's foremost award for communicating science to the public.

reposted from: rd
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

The Descent of Dissent

to view a larger image go to the clipped from link

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

Textbook Disclaimer Stickers

Wording for the first disclaimer (top left) is taken verbatim from the sticker designed by the Cobb County School District ("A community with a passion for learning") in Georgia, which actually plagiarized Alabama's evolution disclaimer (view). Really, I'm not making any of this up. The other 14 are mildly educational variants that demonstrate the real meaning of a scientific "theory" as well as the true motivations of the School Board members and their creationist supporters. Ideally, the above stickers will deter other districts from using textbook disclaimers as a way to undermine the teaching of evolution.

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

Journey of Mankind: The Peopling of the World, an interactive map

An intriguing, interactive map that provides a virtual migration of man from our African origins, based upon genetics, archaeological and anthropological evidence, and climatology. Very educational!

clipped from www.bradshawfoundation.com Who were our ancestors? From where did we originate? If we came out of Africa, what factors governed our routes? And when? Now finally this interactive map reveals an exciting journey of opportunity and survival, confirmed by genetic science and documented by ancient rock art. The Bradshaw Foundation, in association with Stephen Oppenheimer, presents a virtual global journey of modern man over the last 160,000 years. The map will show for the first time the interaction of migration and climate over this period. We are the descendants of a few small groups of tropical Africans who united in the face of adversity, not only to the point of survival but to the development of a sophisticated social interaction and culture expressed through many forms. Based on a synthesis of the mtDNA and Y chromosome evidence with archaeology, climatology and fossil study, Stephen Oppenheimer has tracked the routes and timing of migration, placing it in context with ancient rock art around the world.

clipped from: www.cosmosmagazine.com

---

SYDNEY: Part of the human ear evolved from jaw bones of our reptilian ancestors, according to a new mammal fossil find.

---

Three tiny bones found in the middle ear of all mammals are widely thought to have evolved from bones that in reptiles form part of the lower jaw. However, no fossil demonstrating the transition were known until now.

---

Researchers reported today in the British journal Nature that Yanoconodon allini, a newly-unearthed ancient mammal from China, has ear bones that appear to be at an intermediate stage.

---

"Now we have a definitive piece of evidence, in a beautifully-preserved fossil split on two rock slabs," said study author and evolutionary biologist Zhe-Xi Luo from the Carnegie Museum of Natural history in Pittsburgh.

---

It is remarkable that such tiny bones as those in the ear have survived 125 million years, said the study authors.

reposted from: cosmos mag via clipmark - wildcat
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Humans ear bones began as reptile jaws

Friday, 16 March 2007

by Sarah Bartlett

Cosmos Online

Yancodon was found split in half onto two mirror-image siltstone slabs. The 15-cm-long fossil has middle ear anatomy intermediate between reptiles and mammals. Image: Zhe-Xi Luo/CMNH

SYDNEY: Part of the human ear evolved from jaw bones of our reptilian ancestors, according to a new mammal fossil find.

Three tiny bones found in the middle ear of all mammals are widely thought to have evolved from bones that in reptiles form part of the lower jaw. However, no fossil demonstrating the transition were known until now.

Researchers reported today in the British journal Nature that Yanoconodon allini, a newly-unearthed ancient mammal from China, has ear bones that appear to be at an intermediate stage.

"Now we have a definitive piece of evidence, in a beautifully-preserved fossil split on two rock slabs," said study author and evolutionary biologist Zhe-Xi Luo from the Carnegie Museum of Natural history in Pittsburgh.

"This fossil, some 125 million years old, [reveals] the last stage of this most interesting evolutionary process," said Luo. "The middle ear bones have already acquired similar proportion and size to the modern mammal middle ear, yet the ear structure is still connected to the jaw."

Reptiles today have a single bone (the stapes) in their middle ear, while mammals have three (stapes, incus and malleus). These tiny bones act to amplify sound waves and transfer them from the air to the liquid contained in the inner ear's spiral-shaped cochlea.

Painstaking anatomical studies in the early 1900s suggested that the middle ear bones of mammals and the jaws of reptiles share the same origin. "We can trace this developmental process in developing mammalian embryos," said Luo. "In the early embryonic stage of modern mammals, the middle ear was still attached to the jaw. Later, the middle ear becomes separated from the jaw, and … starts the adult function [of hearing]."

Because of these differences in ear anatomy, reptiles today are not as sensitive as mammals in the higher frequency range of sounds. The unique hearing adaptation is thought to have been critical for nocturnal mammals to succeed, helping them to compete in a world of limited visibility. Today mammals have the best hearing of any vertebrates.

"The reptilian middle ear connected to the jaw can pick up the ground vibration, whereas the middle ear fully separated from the jaw is certainly much better at receiving the air-borne sound," said Luo, who collaborated on the study with experts at the University of Nanjing in China.

He argues that the fact that Yancodon's middle ear bones were still connected to the jaw structure might have made the species capable of hearing vibrations in the air and in the ground - "although not developed to the same high-pitch sensitivity as the modern mammal ear."

"This early mammalian ear from China is a Rosetta Stone type of discovery which reinforces the idea that development of complex body parts can be explained by evolution, using exquisitely preserved fossils," said Richard Lane, an earth scientist at the U.S. National Science Foundation in Washington D.C.

It is remarkable that such tiny bones as those in the ear have survived 125 million years, said the study authors.

The fossil find is very interesting, commented Graeme Clark, auditory scientist and founder of the Bionic Ear Institute in Melbourne. Though "the paper has perhaps drawn a few more conclusions than they should have" about how the fossil ear would have functioned in the living species, he said.

Yanoconodon - which would have been about 15 cm long – had a long body, short and sprawling limbs and claws that were ideal for either digging or living on the ground. It lived during the Mesozoic-era and likely fed on insects, worms and other small fauna.

More information:

Anatomy of the ear, Wikipedia

A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals, Nature

Zhe-Xi Luo, University of Pittsburgh

Clouded leopards of Borneo should be considered a separate species

Island leopard deemed new species

The mainland clouded leopard (left) has been separated from its island cousin (right) for about 1.4 million years, research suggests Film of leopard

Clouded leopards found on Sumatra and Borneo represent a new species, research by genetic scientists and the conservation group WWF indicates.

Until now it had been thought they belonged to the species that is found on mainland southeast Asia.

Scientists now believe the two species diverged more than one million years ago, and have evolved separately since.

Clouded leopards are the biggest predators on Borneo, and can grow as large as small panthers.

It's incredible that no-one has ever noticed these differences Andrew Kitchener

The separation of the species was discovered by scientists at the US National Cancer Institute near Washington DC.

"Genetic research results clearly indicate that the clouded leopards of Borneo should be considered a separate species," said Dr Stephen O'Brien, head of the Institute's Laboratory of Genomic Diversity.

"DNA tests highlighted around 40 differences between the two species."

Tell tails

Supporting evidence came from examination of fur patterns. Leopards from Borneo and Sumatra have small "clouds" with many distinct spots within them, grey and dark fur, and twin stripes along their backs.

On the prowl Enlarge Image

Their mainland cousins have large cloud markings on their skin with fewer, often faint, spots within the cloud markings, and are lighter and more tawny in colour.

"The moment we started comparing the skins of the mainland clouded leopard and the leopard found on Borneo, it was clear we were comparing two different species," said Dr Andrew Kitchener from the National Museums of Scotland.

"It's incredible that no-one has ever noticed these differences."

WWF, which maintains a large conservation operation on Borneo, estimates there are between 5,000 and 11,000 clouded leopards on the island, with a further 3,000 to 7,000 on Sumatra.

"The fact that Borneo's top predator is now considered a separate species further emphasises the importance of conserving the 'Heart of Borneo'," said WWF's Stuart Chapman, co-ordinator of a project seeking to preserve the island's wildlife.

The three governments with territory on the island - Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei - signed an agreement earlier this year pledging to protect the "Heart of Borneo", 200,000 square kilometres of rainforest in the middle of the island thought to be particularly high in biodiversity.

links: Wildfacts - clouded leopard

reposted from: bbc
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Cold is hot in evolution

Reposted from PHYSORG:
http://www.physorg.com/news93190618.html

University of British Columbia researchers have discovered that contrary to common belief, species do not evolve faster in warmer climates.

UBC Zoology PhD candidate Jason Weir and his mentor Prof. Dolph Schluter, director of the UBC Biodiversity Research Centre, charted the genetic family tree of 618 mammal and bird species in the Americas over the last several million years.

By analyzing the DNAs of species that are closely related to one another, the researchers found that speciation – the process in which one species splits into two – takes place faster in temperate zones than in the tropics. Their findings are published in today's edition of the journal Science.

"It's been long established that the tropics have more species, but it's not clear why," says Weir. "The common assumption is that species simply evolve faster in warmer climates."

"Our analysis shows that new species actually evolve faster as we move towards the poles. It would take one species in the tropics three to four million years to evolve into two distinct species, whereas at 60 degrees latitude, it could take as little as one million years."

The higher speciation rate in higher latitudes, however, is counteracted by a high extinction rate, both likely due to more intense climate fluctuations, says Weir.

"In comparison, even though there is a lower speciation rate in the tropics, the stable environment contributes to an equally low extinction rate. As a result, more species survive. This could help explain why there are more species in general in warmer climates," says Weir.

"In other words, there's a higher turnover of species in places like Canada, making it a hotbed of speciation, not the Amazon," says Schluter.

Source: University of British Columbia

reposted from: richarddawkins
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

We must face our prejudicial urges

Editorial: We must face our prejudicial urges

• 17 March 2007
• From New Scientist Print Edition.

HAVE you ever judged a stranger by some superficial marker - their shoes, how they speak or what's on their bookshelves? In the absence of any better information, it is only natural to resort to crude indicators like these to get some idea of what kind of person you are dealing with. If the outward signs suggest the two of you have things in common, don't you respond more favourably to them? It is, after all, easier to interact with someone who is on your wavelength.

As this illustrates, humans have a deeply ingrained tendency to form groups. Now try replacing shoes or books by "race" or "ethnic group" and you will start to understand why some scientists see prejudice as a part of human nature (see "Born prejudiced"). They argue that we see other people in terms of "us" and "them" because we have evolved to identify others with whom we can interact productively. Two researchers have even gone so far as to show that a form of colour prejudice can arise spontaneously in a virtual world full of interacting agents, and that when it does it leads to greater cooperation.

At first sight the implications of this research seem shocking, but they deserve further thought. Even if it is in our nature to be prejudiced against people outside our group, and even if such discrimination evolved for a good reason, that does not mean we are stuck with it. Modern genetics tells us that we are all are pretty much the same: genetic variation is generally far greater within an ethnic group than between groups, so what we recognise as racial markers are biologically next to meaningless.

What's more, most of us realise that judgements based on these superficial markers give only crude stereotypes. This may have worked just fine for our prehistoric ancestors, living in small groups with few outside interactions, but it will not get you far in today's global melting pot where we meet people from a huge variety of backgrounds. In any case, there is a more effective way to identify people with whom to do business - get to know them as individuals. Seeing how they behave is a far more accurate guide than crude markers.

The challenge facing us is to confront our true nature. Instead of denying that our tendency to prejudice exists, we would do well to understand why and when it is most likely to be triggered. This might give us the chance to set aside the urge to crudely pigeonhole people, and instead deal with them as individuals. Such behaviour is certainly more constructive and civilised, and it stands to improve our success as social, political and business animals. It would be naive to suppose that such self-knowledge will instantly dissolve the deep-seated prejudice that exists around the world, but it is a start.

reposted from: new scientist
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

1986 Oxford Union Debate - Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith

The 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith (Professor of Pharmacology and consultant) and Edgar Andrews (Materials Scientist & President of the Biblical Creation Society).

Nine Mp3 downloads totalling 4 hours debate.

reposted from: Richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Understanding Evolution - Daniel Dennett Interview

Daniel Dennett videos

TheTech.org, Daniel Dennett

Thanks to Ben Hope for the links.

An interview with Daniel Dennett at the Future of Science Conference in Venice, Italy September 2006.

Part 1
What is it about Darwin's idea that is so dangerous?


Part 2
You've described the design of natural selection as "brilliant" but "mindless." Can you explain?


Part 3
How do you explain evolution to skeptics? How can you convince them? Can you?


Part 4
You said earlier that you think secular institutions are failing us? Do you include museums?


Part 5
In discussing your book, Breaking the Spell, you've said that part of what the book does is to "reveal how the magicians do their tricks" when it comes to organized religion. Can you elaborate?


Part 6
You've talked about teaching a course on World Religions in public schools. What do you think that would accomplish?

reposted from: richarddawkins
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

You can't trust science!

This cartoon parodies the debate between Evolution and Creationism / ID (with a dig at George Bush).

by This Modern World

Reposted from:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22047

Is the Earth sphericated or flaticular?


reposted from: Richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Understanding Evolution

reposted from: clipmarks.com
my highlights / emphasis / comments
clipped from: evolution.berkeley.edu

---

Search | Glossary | Home

---

What is evolution and how does it work? Detailed explanations of the mechanisms of evolution and the history of life on Earth Includes: Examples of evolution, Genetics, History of life on Earth, Macroevolution, Microevolution, Natural selection, Speciation ... How does evolution impact my life? The relevance of evolutionary theory to our everyday lives Includes: Agriculture, Conservation, Medicine ... What is the evidence for evolution? Multiple lines of scientific evidence relating to evolution Includes: Homology and analogy ... What is the history of evolutionary theory? The history of ideas, research, and contributors in the study of evolution Looking for information on controversies in the public arena relating to evolution? See our frequently-asked questions.

---

---

Where species come from - November 2006 Cries of "Save the rainforest! Save the coral reefs!" may rally the conservation movement — but what about the arctic tundra, or the semiarid desert? Are those ecosystems unthreatened? Far from it; ecosystems all around the world and at every latitude are endangered in some way by human activity. So why do rainforests and reefs get so much attention? Read the whole story to see the evolution connection >>

---

---

Phylogenetic systematics, a.k.a. evolutionary trees All life on Earth is united by evolutionary history; we are all evolutionary cousins — twigs on the tree of life. Phylogenetic systematics is the formal name for the field within biology that reconstructs evolutionary history and studies the patterns of relationships among organisms.

---

Evolution 101 This in-depth, multi-part course takes you through evolutionary theory and mechanisms, from definitions to details, natural selection to genetic drift, mutations to punctuated equilibrium .

US School Teachers defend Evolution

by Kristen Philipkoski, with Randy Dotinga and Scott Carney

Saturday, 17 February 2007

Awards Show AAAS's Political Focus
Topic: AAAS Meeting,Evolution

In a story earlier this week for Wired News, I wrote about how the AAAS isn't shying away from confrontations over hotly political issues like global warming. Case in point: the AAAS Awards for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.

The winners -- who will get their awards today -- are all advocates of the teaching of evolution. Eight are science teachers who fought attempts to water down the teaching of evolution in Dover, Pa.

The awardees are Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a prominent pro-evolution advocacy organization, along with Dover High teachers David Taylor, Bertha Spahr, Robert Linker, Leslie Prall, Brian Bahn, Jennifer Miller and Robert Eshbach. Also honored is teacher R. Wesley McCoy, head of science department at North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, Georgia. According to the AAAS, he "took on a public role in opposing a decision by the Cobb County School Board to require stickers on biology textbooks that read, in part: 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.'"

According to an award committee, "each of these individuals has confronted efforts to undermine sound scientific thinking and has defended the integrity of science both locally and nationally."

Posted by Randy Dotinga 10:26 AM

reposted from: http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/02/awards_show_aaa.html
my highlights / emphasis / comments

What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?

by A. Khajavinia

Wojciech Makalowski, a Pennsylvania State University biology professor and researcher in computational evolutionary genomics, answers this query.

Our genetic blueprint consists of 3.42 billion nucleotides packaged in 23 pairs of linear chromosomes. Most mammalian genomes are of comparable size—the mouse script is 3.45 billion nucleotides, the rat's is 2.90 billion, the cow's is 3.65 billion—and code for a similar number of genes: about 35,000. Of course, extremes exist: the bent-winged bat (Miniopterus schreibersi) has a relatively small 1.69-billion-nucleotide genome; the red viscacha rat (Tympanoctomys barrerae) has a genome that is 8.21 billion nucleotides long. Among vertebrates, the highest variability in genome size exists in fish: the green puffer fish (Chelonodon fluviatilis) genome contains only 0.34 billion nucleotides, while the marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) genome is gigantic, with almost 130 billion. Interestingly, all animals have a large excess of DNA that does not code for the proteins used to build bodies and catalyze chemical reactions within cells. In humans, for example, only about 2 percent of DNA actually codes for proteins.

For decades, scientists were puzzled by this phenomenon. With no obvious function, the noncoding portion of a genome was declared useless or sometimes called "selfish DNA," existing only for itself without contributing to an organism's fitness. In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe all noncoding sections of a genome, most of which consist of repeated segments scattered randomly throughout the genome.

Typically these sections of junk DNA come about through transposition, or movement of sections of DNA to different positions in the genome. As a result, most of these regions contain multiple copies of transposons, which are sequences that literally copy or cut themselves out of one part of the genome and reinsert themselves somewhere else.

Elements that use copying mechanisms to move around the genome increase the amount of genetic material. In the case of "cut and paste" elements, the process is slower and more complicated, and involves DNA repair machinery. Nevertheless, if transposon activity happens in cells that give rise to either eggs or sperm, these genes have a good chance of integrating into a population and increasing the size of the host genome.

Although very catchy, the term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage? Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. And it is because of them that in the early 1990s, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change. In fact, more and more biologists now regard repetitive elements as genomic treasures. It appears that these transposable elements are not useless DNA. Instead, they interact with the surrounding genomic environment and increase the ability of the organism to evolve by serving as hot spots for genetic recombination and by providing new and important signals for regulating gene expression.

Genomes are dynamic entities: new functional elements appear and old ones become extinct. And so, junk DNA can evolve into functional DNA. The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Elisabeth Vrba, now at Yale University, employed the term "exaptation" to explain how different genomic entities may take on new roles regardless of their original function—even if they originally served no purpose at all. With the wealth of genomic sequence information at our disposal, we are slowly uncovering the importance of non-protein-coding DNA.

In fact, new genomic elements are being discovered even in the human genome, five years after the deciphering of the full sequence. Last summer developmental biologist Gill Bejerano, then a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and now a professor at Stanford University, and his colleagues discovered that during vertebrate evolution, a novel retroposon—a DNA fragment, reverse-transcribed from RNA, that can insert itself anywhere in the genome—was exapted as an enhancer, a signal that increases a gene's transcription. On the other hand, anonymous sequences that are nonfunctional in one species may, in another organism, become an exon—a section of DNA that is eventually transcribed to messenger RNA. Izabela Makalowska of Pennsylvania State University recently showed that this mechanism quite often leads to another interesting feature in the vertebrate genomes, namely overlapping genes—that is, genes that share some of their nucleotides.

These and countless other examples demonstrate that repetitive elements are hardly "junk" but rather are important, integral components of eukaryotic genomes. Risking the personification of biological processes, we can say that evolution is too wise to waste this valuable information.

reposted from: SciAm
my highlights / emphasis / comments

In Turkey only 20% say Evolution is true, half that of the USA.

If you think the creationists are bad in the US, check out Turkey.

reposted from: Seed Magazine
my highlights / edits /

Is Evolution True? In other countries 40%-90% population say yes. In Turkey 20% of the population say Evolution is true.

by Matt Mossman • Posted November 4, 2006 12:30 AM

Turkey's Bosphorus Bridge, which spans the strait dividing Europe and Asia. ©Dave Bartruff/Corbis

To find the front lines of a culture war in Turkey, walk into a kebab shop in the Uskudar district of Istanbul. Meat sizzles on metal skewers, and Persian carpets adorn the walls. Look closely and you'll find a portrait of Charles Darwin—framed in dripping blood.

This is a "creation museum," the brainchild of Adnan Oktar. He's the 50-year-old founder of Bilim Araştirma Vakfi ("Scientific Research Foundation"), a creationist organization mounting one of the most potent offensives against evolution outside of the United States.

In its latest campaign, BAV has opened more than 80 "museums" in restaurants, malls, and city halls across Turkey, each stocked with fossils, posters, and eager volunteers. Oktar's disciples use tactics cribbed from US organizations like California's Institute for Creation Research, instructing passersby that evolution cannot explain biology's complexity and is against the word of God.

But unlike its western counterparts, Oktar's group claims Darwin is responsible for communism, fascism, and terrorism. Terrorists, according to Oktar, are "social Darwinists hiding under the cloak of religion," while communists, still active in Turkey, are in "bloody alliance" with Darwinism. "Evolution is a communist and fascist belief," offers Tarkan Yavas, BAV's president. "The Muslim community understands that now."

Terrorists, according to Oktar, are "social Darwinists hiding under the cloak of religion," while communists, still active in Turkey, are in "bloody alliance" with Darwinism.

Turkey is among the most Western of Muslim nations. It teaches evolution in its schools, but, even so, appears to be losing the science education battle. In 1985 the minister of education mandated that creationism be included in science textbooks. By the late 1990s, the BAV was attacking scientists who opposed a creationist curriculum via slander and death threats. The cumulative damage to science has been significant. Ümit Sayin, a neurologist at Istanbul University and outspoken critic of Turkish creationism, estimates that the number of university-educated Turks who understand evolution has dropped to 20 percent from 40 percent over the past 15 years.

BAV, founded in 1990, grew from the Turkish fringe into a global media empire. Oktar claims to have 4.5 million followers worldwide, who read his hundreds of books and essays and have seen the dozens of television documentaries that BAV produces and provides free of charge to Turkish TV stations. BAV's Web sites offer downloadable PowerPoint presentations and questions to challenge science teachers. The foundation organizes anti-evolution conferences and petitions and runs a telemarketing scheme to sell books by Harun Yahya (Oktar's pen name), which are available globally in 29 languages. Only Oktar and his lieutenants seem to know where the money for all these initiatives comes from, and they're not telling.

Critics denounce Oktar as a charlatan, citing his lack of science education and suspicious productivity. "Harun Yahya is not a person, but a brand that's cornered the market," says Taner Edis, a Turkish physicist at Truman State University in Kirksville, MO. Recently, Edis was asked to contribute to an Israeli professor's compilation of essays on religion and evolution. So was Oktar.

In August, Science published an analysis of global public attitudes toward evolution showing that, out of 34 sample countries, the US and Turkey had the lowest acceptance of Darwin's theories. While their cultures may be at war in other realms, the enemies of science in both the Middle East and Middle America are finding common ground: Last year, in a continuation of the collaboration between BAV and anti-evolutionists in the US, a BAV spokesman flew to Kansas to testify in support of intelligent design in the state's school-board hearings.

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus

By Wired News Staff 12:00 PM Feb, 12, 2007

Today is Darwin Day -- a kind of Christmas for the science-minded.

Instead of observing a religious holiday, today is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday and mankind's crowning achievement -- science.

Now in its fourth year, Darwin Day is the brainchild of a group of British and American scientists.

"Our long-term goal is to establish a new international tradition ... an annual secular celebration of Darwin, science and humanity," said Robert Stephens, one of the event's organizers, to MSNBC.

Across the country, universities, schools and libraries are celebrating with talks and lectures about science, evolution and education. Many will premiere Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus, a pro-science documentary by evolutionary-ecologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson.

On Sunday, hundreds of churches around the world took part in Evolution Sunday, which highlighted the connections between Darwin's theory of evolution and religion.

"Evolution Sunday is a day to celebrate the compatibility of science and religion, to recognize that evolution has no incompatibility with the Christian faith," said the Rev. Jim Burklo of California's Sausalito Presbyterian Church in an interview with KCBS.

reposted from: http://www.flockofdodos.com & Wired News
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Carl Sagan explains Evolution of Life (7 minute video)

In UK 70% say Evolution is True - in USA 40%

Science published a short comparative study of international acceptance of evolution. Thirty-four countries were polled.

United Kingdom scored 70% (6th) whilst USA scored 40% (33rd) - edging out Turkey - for last place!

99% of the Turkish population are muslims. Why is Turkey is so anti-evolution?

reposted from: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/go_usa_were_2_kind_of.php

Reference: Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006) "Public Acceptance of Evolution" Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,535,n,n
my highlights / edits

Will Kansas schools be teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism & Intelligent Falling?

by The Onion

Thanks to Mark for the link to this classic Onion piece (It's a joke).

Reposted from:
http://theonion.com

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."