BLOG

The New York Times has an Op-Ed by April D. Deconick about the gnostic Gospel of Judas, publicized (and translated) by the National Geographic Society last year. Deconick has translated the gospel for herself and says the translaters employed by the Society got it all wrong: According to the text, Judas wasn't a hero, he was a demon.

Deconick criticizes the Society's decision to not allow outside scholars to review the translation before it was published with so much fanfare:

That said, I think the big problem is that National Geographic wanted an exclusive. So it required its scholars to sign nondisclosure statements, to not discuss the text with other experts before publication. The best scholarship is done when life-sized photos of each page of a new manuscript are published before a translation, allowing experts worldwide to share information as they independently work through the text.

Another difficulty is that when National Geographic published its transcription, the facsimiles of the original manuscript it made public were reduced by 56 percent, making them fairly useless for academic work. Without life-size copies, we are the blind leading the blind. The situation reminds me of the deadlock that held scholarship back on the Dead Sea Scrolls decades ago. When manuscripts are hoarded by a few, it results in errors and monopoly interpretations that are very hard to overturn even after they are proved wrong.

To avoid this, the Society of Biblical Literature passed a resolution in 1991 holding that, if the condition of the written manuscript requires that access be restricted, a facsimile reproduction should be the first order of business. It’s a shame that National Geographic, and its group of scholars, did not follow this sensible injunction.

Deconick is the author of The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says.

. . . just published in Science. Heh.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," Oglesby said. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

The root of the conundrum is Loope's ongoing research in the Colorado Plateau that began when he was working on his doctorate at the University of Wyoming in the early 1980s. A sedimentologist and an expert on dune formation, he eventually saw that from central Wyoming into central Utah, ancient dunes preserved in the region's 200 million- to 300-hundred-million-year-old sandstone formations all faced southwest, meaning that the winds over that extensive area were almost constantly from the northeast. As his study progressed, he discovered that the direction of the dunes shifted to the southeast in what is now southern Utah, meaning the wind direction shifted to the northwest. What's more, those prevailing winds were consistent over the entire 100 million years in question and the shift in wind direction could only have occurred at the equator.

"I thought that was very curious," Loope said. "It didn't seem to fit with what we think we know about where the continents were."

Hanna Rosin, author of "God's Harvard," has written a four-page article about the young earth creationist movement for the New York Times. Her tone is of course skeptical, or even beyond skeptical to sweetly tolerant, and she gives creationists plenty of room to defend themselves while at the same time portraying them as conflicted and schizophrenic. I won't blame her, but at the same time doesn't it imply that our theories aren't as valid as those of secularist scientists, whose "conflictedness" is the very wax that moves science forward? If scientists were in agreement on everything 50 years ago, where would we be today?

The history of science is littered with ideas that got thrown out--and the fact that the YEC and ID movements are growing, not fading, is evidence of their merit and the growing problems of neo-Darwinism and uniformitarian thinking.

Of course, even if new evidence came to light virtually proving creationism, many would continue to disbelieve, simply because they've accepted the Bible to be false a priori. Secular geologists might one day be convinced to believe in a global flood, for example, but it's unlikely they'd believe in Noah without a change of heart. . . 

Paul Davies also has a piece in the Times, an Op-Ed called "Taking Science on Faith," in which he explains scientists need as much faith as the devout:

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe.

. . . .

[T]he laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Finally, Robin Finn writes about what might turn into another Dover-style trial in New York. One Robert Harrison has been teaching a night class on creation science at a Northpoint school district adult learning center. The New York Civil Liberties Union is threatening the school district with litigation. A law firm representing the district says the class falls under free speech protection.

A new book is coming out from William Dembski and Jonathan Wells called The Design of Life. It's supposed to provide a good overview of intelligent design to general audiences. It's available to pre-order for a price a bit below Amazon here.

The Ledger, a Florida paper, reports on the Polk County school board. The board is debating whether they support new science standards that would specifically include the teaching of "evolution," instead of the current teaching of "biological change over time." Four out of seven of the board members say they'd support teaching ID alongside evolution. More coverage from The Ledger here, here, and here.

Some friends sent me a couple interesting links this week: One is of an AP story about a fossilized 8-foot-long "bug," that is, a sea scorpion, found in Germany. (Well, a least a claw was found--the rest of the creature's size is inferred. Some think high oxygen concentrations once caused bugs to grow to their enormous sizes.) The second link is to a page from the Northwest Creation Network about global flood theories the world over. In case you aren't aware, it's well known that nearly every culture in the world has a flood theory that varies on the biblical account. The implication is that all originated from a true historical event, as I believe.

Lastly, although I'm not sure when it was first published, here's some good stuff from Duane Gish highlighting the severe problems facing an evolutionary origin of life.

This week's News to Note from AIG is out, and links to a short article by Georgia Purdom (who's on staff at AIG) about the new "Japanese" method for culturing adult stem cells. This promising new technique alters the genes of adult skin cells to make them pluripotent--bypassing the morally problematic creation of new embryos. The man who cloned Dolly the Sheep, Ian Wilmut, believes the Japanese method has more potential for producing medically valuable stem cells than cloning does. How about that?

 This is a little off the beaten path of science, but Advertising Age has an article about "Millennials"--the age bracket of today's younger college students--and their perceptions of brands and advertising. Probably not many of you work in a marketing department but it's interesting stuff nonetheless.

Without further ado, follows here a hodgepodge of responses to this week's anti-ID NOVA program, "Judgment Day":

Mark Looy of Answers in Genesis has the best detailed review of the program I've seen so far. He says AIG was "disappointed" by PBS and NOVA. David DeWitt also has a review up on AIG's site.

The National Center for Science Education has a page of links to writers who liked the production and generally dislike ID, and further, assures us the docudrama was accurate.

The Discovery Institute's blog says, no, it wasn't, and provides 10 instances of false claims or inaccuracies.  For his part, anti-theist and ultra-Darwinist PZ Myers says the DI's points aren't worth refuting.

Greg Anrig, Jr. calls the NOVA production "superb" and says it generally parallels what he views as "lame-brained agenda items of the well-financed, relentless conservative movement."

John Daly thinks ID advocates are "unduly vain" for believing that unknown causes should be attributed to a designer.

Lawrence Seldon says the NOVA producers and many of those in featured in the documentary just don't understand intelligent design, and has some criticism for the critics of the former Dover school board.

(Suprise coming) Michael Lollar at commercialappeal.com writes that some PBS affiliates didn't air the NOVA special--at least not on Tuesday--because of worries about the controversial nature of the program.

 O'Leary has posted a transcript of an interview with Phillip Johnson about the Dover trial and NOVA.

On another note: My current favorite talk show host, Michael Medved, has become a Discovery Institute fellow. 

Tomorrow evening's (Tuesday's) NOVA documentary "Judgment Day" seems to be the talk of the net and (from the looks of NOVA website) promises to be a hoot. Robert Crowther at Evolution News and Views believes the "docudrama," which will reenact the events of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, will be anything but fair and balanced. At NOVA's PBS website there are interviews with all the public opponents of ID, and only one proponent. (In the link above Crowther explains why.) The NOVA website also has several "interactives" expounding the usual, angel food cake arguments: Darwin made many wonderful predictions; fossils prove themselves to be transitional forms; different colored salamanders prove evolution is acting today, etc.

I should point out that NOVA is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives $400 million a year in federal funds.

 The New York Times has a predictable story about the docudrama. Meanwhile there is a new ID website at intelligentdesign.org.

William Dembski has a post about Antony Flew's conversion from atheism and upcoming book. 

It's a breath of fresh air: some creative thinking on space and dark energy from an Oxford theoretical physicist--Subir Sarkar. He proposes that our galaxy is surrounded by a gigantic bubble of empty space. Wish there were more guys like this willing to think outside the box. . .

At the other extreme, science news really doesn't get any nerdier than this. Homemade electronic apparel? Do the inseam mikes come with a sew-on disclosure label?

You may remember the fungus identified in the deaths of amphibians around the globe. It's been discovered that the basic antibiotic for human pink eye is effective against the fungus. Not solved: how to rub down all the frogs in the world with chloramphenicol ointment.