Darwin and the Pythoness

No U.S. distributor for Charles Darwin movie because of fear of fundamentalists

Many of you will remember the Xtian angst that ensued when the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" was released in the USA. At that time, I was friendly with a married couple who ran the a 'mom & pop' size theater in my college town. They were fans of Python, and dearly wanted to show the film. But they had received a very pointed threat against them on their answering machine, if they decided to show the film. They agonized whether they should show the film. In this case, this threat of terrorism had the desired effect. One of the owners told me that although someone defacing one of their movie screens would be covered by insurance, the loss of revenue would ruin them. (This was before studio owned megaplexes dominated the market). They decided not to show the film.

Well, it looks like the factually challenged have won the day again. The 'good' news is that theater owners will not have to sweat the decision to show the film or not, as the film now has about zero chance of finding a distributor in the US. From Crooks&Liars:

...Good God, what is this country coming to?

It seems the film Creation, a major-production biopic about Charles Darwin starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, won't be seen in the United States because no distributor with the guts to stand up to the religious right in this country can be found...

The producer said:

"...The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.

Happy Birthday, Darwin!

Of Darwin, Dover And (Un)Intelligent Design

In order to honor Darwin's birthday, I'd like to post some snippets from the latest issue of Church & State Magazine, the zine of American's United. Please check out the above article, which is an interview with Kenneth Miller, who was a star witness in the landmark 'Kitzmiller v. Dover' case. Dr. Miller is one of the heroes who helped prove--in court--that 'intelligent design' is nothing but a scam:

Q. Religious Right activists would have us believe that all evolutionists are atheists. Is this true?

A. Of course not. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary geneticists of the 20th century, was a professing Christian, as are scientists like Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project. The tired stereotype of science vs. religion is often used as a weapon against the teaching of evolution in our schools, but it makes no logical sense. A recent survey of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the United States, showed that fully 40 percent believed in a God to whom one could pray, expecting an answer.

Q. As a Christian, do you ever find there is a conflict between your religious beliefs and your scientific work?

A. Certainly not in my own work. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, they should complement each other, not provoke conflict. To a person of faith, science is the activity of applying human reason to explore the work of God, and religion should support it completely.

Q. Are you optimistic that this battle can be won?

A. If I wasn’t an optimist, I wouldn’t be a scientist. Science is built around hope and faith – the hope that new discoveries and new ways of understanding are possible, and the faith that the world will be a better place as a result of that. If we apply those values to politics and popular culture, I am convinced that the American people will choose science every time. The outcomes of recent elections in states like Ohio and Kansas convince me that we can win the contest for public opinion – but only if we take our case directly to the people.

Well said! But it'd be nice if some Pagan scientists would speak up from time to time.

Is "Darwinism" a bad word?

Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism

Charles Darwin's name is right up there with the other giants of science, like Newton and Galileo. He is such a scientific super-star, the term "Darwinism" is often substituted for the means of evolution, "natural selection", described by Darwin. In fact, in the popular press, the entire field of evolutionary science is often simply termed "Darwinism". In "Let's Get Rid of Darwinism", NYTimes blogger Olivia Judson suggests that Darwin's fame and intimate association with evolution may be causing problems for the advancement of the field and it's understanding by the general public. Darwin's fame, it seems, comes with a price:

...But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It’s a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. “Why Darwin was wrong about X”; “Was Darwin wrong about Y?”; “What Darwin didn’t know about Z” — these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist , Darwinian....

...Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology...

...He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed...

The author brings up a number of recent discoveries in evolutionary science, all of which were unknown to Darwin, such as the concepts advocated by EO Wilson:

...natural selection does not just shape individuals — It can also act on family groups, and thus drive the evolution of cooperation and other altruistic behaviors...But because individuals have some genes in common with their family members, they can make an indirect genetic contribution if they help their relations to reproduce instead of reproducing themselves. Such “kin selection” is thought to have contributed to the evolution of the social insects — especially, ants, bees, wasps and termites — where only a few individuals reproduce and everyone else looks after the offspring...

Because the field of evolution is currently so diverse, the author has a suggestion:

...I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology...Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today...

...Darwin was an amazing man, and the principal founder of evolutionary biology. But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last....

Uncoupling Darwin's name from evolution at first struck me as somewhat odious. However, besides Darwin's name being overused in the serious press, isn't it also used nearly as a curse by Creationists, Young-earth Fundamentalists, and Dominionists? Such people love to demonize the man.

Many Wiccans and Pagans believe names and words have power. Darwin did enough for the Science of Evolution, literally risking all and dedicating his life to it. Why not let him rest. Maybe now is the time to gently take it from his arms and continue the fight ourselves.

Evolutionary Conversion

Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Fun (and short) interview from Wired News with former Evangelical preacher Micheal Dowd, who now embraces Darwin. There's a number of interesting comments. When asked if 'evolutionary theology' might trump scriptural truths, Dowd answers:

...God didn't stop communicating truth vital to human well-being thousands of years ago, when people preserved insights on animal skins. God communicates through science. Facts are God's native tongue. Who of us would let a first-century dentist fix our children's teeth? Yet every day we let first-century theologians fill our children's brains...

Heh, that one's a keeper! I have to admit I'd like to see a 'fire and brimstone' pro-evolution revival meeting. If the spirit called me, I'd start knuckle walking around the tent! :)

Twilight of the IDiots

The Collapse of Discovery's ID Frame

An important post over at Red State Rabble about the collapse of the ID/Creationist movement. I don't know if I'd be that optimistic. I think there's still some fight in these rascals yet, but some very good points are made:

...In an attempt to keep their "evolution is incompatible with Christianity" frame alive, Evolution News and Views was reduced to hyping a letter to The Yale Daily News urging churches not to participate in Evolution Sunday by Moonie Jonathan Wells.

That the Discovery Institute was forced to rely on a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church -- who believes that that Jesus was not put on earth to die, and that the "Lord of the Second Coming" must be a man born in Korea -- to counter the message sent to people of faith by Evolution Sunday, may also help to account for the increasingly frantic tone there...

Evolution Sunday/Darwin Day was a big success, in spite of much-hyped countermeasures by ID proponents.

Science wins in the UK

Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

It seems some flaky creationist organization called "Truth in Science" got the bright idea to peddle their propaganda in the British school system. They took it upon themselves to mail-out "information packs" to schools. Well, it looks like the Brits did not take to kindly too the effort:

...The government is to write to schools telling them that controversial teaching materials promoting creationism should not be used in science lessons. The packs include DVDs and written materials promoting intelligent design, a creationist alternative to Darwinism, that were sent to every school in the country by the privately-funded group Truth in Science...Last week, the Guardian revealed that 59 schools had told Truth in Science the materials were a "useful classroom resource...The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."

Don't you love the mature way this was dealt with! Congrats to the people of the UK! No arguments, protests, fights, or flame wars, or other Theocon funded media stink. I only wish it were so simple in the USA. How 'bout that name "Truth in Science"! Isn't it hysterical how an org which knows nothing about "truth" and nothing about "science", puts the two terms together, thinking that legitimizes their silliness.

Gradual Evolution in Kansas

Pro-evolution standards could take months

Two new State Board of Education members take office Jan. 8, ending a conservative GOP majority and giving control to a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans. That makes a return to standards treating evolution as well-grounded science - not a flawed theory - seem inevitable...