BLOG

What a relief.

But only because this radical animal-rights group didn't have "legal standing" to argue on the monkey's behalf. It was an easy way for the court to sidestep this controversial issue, as another court did back in April.

 The animal-rights group will appeal to Austria's supreme court--and if the case is accepted I'd give the decision a pretty good chance of coming out in the chimp's favor. This is what happens when Christianity is replaced by Darwinian ethics.

Jane Goodall, I hear, has lent her public support this guardianship case. 

It's four months away from being released, and Ben Stein's intelligent design documentary, Expelled, is stirring up controversy left and right. The New York Times put up a story yesterday that quoted several evolutionists, like Dawkins and Eugenie Scott, who said they were misled into thinking the film wouldn't be pro-ID.

A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

. . . . 

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.

. . . . 

If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said.

Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.

“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”

. . . . 

Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.

Walt Ruloff, a producer and partner in Premise Media, also denied that there was any deception. Mr. Ruloff said in a telephone interview that Rampant Films was a Premise subsidiary, and that the movie’s title was changed on the advice of marketing experts, something he said was routine in filmmaking.

 However, doesn't Dawkins own admission (that he wouldn't have appeared in the film had he known who he was talking to) make the point Stein himself is making with the documentary? It is: If you believe God was involved in creation, you don't have a right to dialogue with scientists or discuss scientific topics. You are a radical religious nut, and you are now expelled.

Who knows, maybe Stein became pro-ID right after he interviewed Dawkins. 

Also: See Dembski's post on the Council of Europe's draft resolution against the teaching of ID and creationism.

A study of an African tribe revealed that deep-voiced men had more kids on average than their higher-pitched brothers. Since both the divorce and infidelity rates were high in the particular group observed, researchers concluded that a rich baritone is simply more attractive to women than a sensitive tenor. Must explain why us small-chested guys have such a hard time finding a date. . .

An artificial reef? With real coral? Why didn't someone think of that before? 

The Times is doing a series on space exploration, from Sputnick and beyond, remembering the successes and disappointments of the "space age."

If space travel hasn't taken off like some thought it would, Dave's Daily Dose of Science wonders if science journalism is ready to come in for a crash landing. He argues that journalists aren't aware of all the assumptions scientists make when developing models and theories (which is often true), so they can't normally report on science in a fashion that is balanced and reliable. But Dave also says scientists wouldn't be able to report in a balanced and reliable way either, since their personal interests and prejudices would undoubtedly bias the story (probably also true). So the public is left with science journalism that is sensationalized and quickly outdated.

True again.

It's the journalist's job, however, to investigate as deeply as within his power to discover where biases and assumption's lie, to get second opinions, and to report what the scientist is reporting, not simply what the public wants to hear. As much as the journalist tries to do these things, it's impossible for him (or her) to forget his audience. The audience, after all, is his paycheck.

But let's not forget that the audience is ultimately also the scientist's paycheck: Provocative research projects mean grant money for the researcher, and the more attractive he can make his press release, the better for him and his organization. Understandable of course, but journalists shouldn't take all the blame.

This from the Cincinnati Post:

Two leading creationism advocates, including Boone County's Answers in Genesis, have decided to settle their differences like Christians.

Rather than fight in court, last month the board of Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International met in Hawaii and reached a tentative agreement to settle the lawsuit they're parties to.

"We feel very, very satisfied about it," CMI Managing Director Carl Wieland said. "We were pleased to end it this way, and glad to have had the chance to have face-to-face communication."

The two organizations hope to have a final, written agreement by mid-October, Wieland said.

Answers spokeswoman Melany Ethridge was not able to get a statement from the Answers in Genesis leadership about the proposed settlement in time for inclusion in this story.

This is happy news for all of us fans of AIG and CMI. It was also a difficult step for both organizations. There must be sighs of relief being exhaled all around.

As Wisconsin Dells Events reported, private collector Bill Mielke hopes to establish an artifact display
in the Dells area showing humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries. . .

Mielke said these museums include artifacts from the Grand Canyon, Cambodia, Congo, Japan, South America, Mesopotamia, Mexico and Peru. The artifacts include burial stones, engravings, pottery and drawings depicting dinosaurs and humans co-existing as well as fossils and DNA models disproving evolution.

Mielke also says he has trilobite fossil with a sandal footprint on top of it. Sounds interesting but I'm dubious that a sandal print could be easily verified. Stuff like this and this is what should shock most tourists. John Hawks and PZ Myers have commented on the planned museum, and even sound interested in visiting themselves. Maybe Mielke could give them a VIP tour or something.

Meanwhile, everyone else seems to be talking about the Robert Marks fiasco at Baylor. (If this is the first you've heard, go here for background.) Although Baylor president John Lilley may have finally made a peep, he can't hide for long now that Baylor's own student newspaper is criticizing him and his faculty:

[F]ormer president Robert B. Sloan Jr. is easier to get ahold of than Lilley. When The Lariat called the office of the Houston Baptist University president, we were patched right through.

However, when trying to reach our own president, we run into a string of red tape that media relations proudly declares is "the same treatment we give the New York Times." This is nothing to brag about.

By making itself unavailable to the press, the Lilley administration has forfeited its voice in major conversations. Even though representatives from media relations eagerly give statements to newspapers across the country, nothing has the same effect as a word from the president.

. . . .

Now the Lilley administration is declining to meet with the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary following intelligent design issues in higher education.

By hiding out, it's beginning to look like Lilley's got something worth hiding.

Nothing would silence the conspiracy theorists like undeniable physical presence. Show up to meetings, make public statements, maybe even hit up the Bear Trail while you're at it.

As your student body, we'd like to hear from you once in a while.

 Ouch!

NewsBusters has a story on strange goings-on with NASA's climate data, involving the Goddard Institute and its director, James Hansen, who last year made headlines when he claimed the Bush administration was censoring his ideas about global warming. Now, Stephen McIntyre, who helped expose problems with the infamous "Hockey Stick" climate graph, is wondering if Hansen isn't doing some censoring of his own--that is, changing the Goddard Institute data sets without notifying the public. I don't know enough about this to make a judgment, but go check out McIntyre's post.

What do the public, particularly Christians, think of global warming? According the latest Barna Research poll, 51% of America's born again adults view global warming as a "major" problem facing the country. Predictably, a higher percentage of Democrats (67%) than Republicans (38%) felt threatened by warming, and humorously--as I see it--many more atheists and agnostics (69%) than evangelicals (33%) felt global warming was a major problem.

That's partly because evangelicals believe moral and spiritual issues are the biggest threats we face. Atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, are not only ambivalent when it comes to moral issues, they also don't think there's any deity looking out for the planet. In their minds, our entire destiny is in our own hands, and our entire destruction might be lurking around the corner, whether in the form of climate change, a meteor, or whatever. Evangelicals are less concerned because they believe God is in control. To a worried atheist, that's very worrying.

However, just because many evangelicals and other Christians don't think warming is the biggest threat our country is facing doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the possible effects--especially the humanitarian effects--of climate change, such as storm activity. They just aren't yet convinced climate change is being driven by human activity. When it comes down to actually helping those effected by the climate, evangelicals and Christians, as it turns out, are the first in line to lend a hand--and open their wallets.

If Canadians are quiet people, apparently creationism is at least one subject that pumps their blood. Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory called down a firestorm when he suggested evolution was "still called [a] theory"--and said he was open to creationism being taught under the Conservative plan of opting private (aka Christian) schools into Canada's public school system. A few hours later his party clarified their position. Er, creationism should not be taught in science class. Tory is on the provincial election campaign trail for a seat in Toronto's Don Valley West, where he's running against the incumbant Education Minister Kathleen Wynne.

Liberal [see below] columnist Colby Cosh believes Tory has immolated himself with his comments and already lost the election. Is it all that bad in Canada? Here in the States half of our citizens doubt Darwinism already. The Star asked Canadians what they thought of teaching creationism in Ontario schools and got these responses.

On Tuesday Hurricanes Henriette (category 1) and Felix (cat 5) made landfall, the first time an Atlantic and Pacific hurricane have hit the coast on the same day since the 1940's. Felix left death and destruction behind in Nicaragua: 65 are confirmed dead, and another 200 are said to be missing. The AP has stats on the relief efforts that have already begun.

Forecast models vastly mis-predicted the intensity of Felix, a storm that grew to a category 5 in a record 51 hours, according to NG News. We obviously still have much to learn about our planet's climate.

Image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC