University of Missouri-ColumbiaMeetings are usually held in on the last Wednesday of the month in 305 Middlebush Hall on the UMC campus and are generally followed by a trip to The Heidelberg. Contact: Will Morris Contact: Carol Ward, Ph.D.
Lecturer to make his case vs. GodBy CRISTI PARKER June 4, 2007
While in graduate school at the University of California, Los Angeles, Victor Stenger went to a Protestant church near campus to meet people. “It was a very liberal church, and they had a good young people’s group there,” he said. “That’s where I met my wife.” By the time he became a professor at the University of Hawaii, Stenger had stopped going to church. He is now one of the most well-known atheists in America.  Stenger will lecture on his new book, “God: The Failed Hypothesis,” at 6 p.m. today at the Columbia Public Library. His lecture in Columbia, the first in a series of lectures, is sponsored by the MU Brights and the Show-Me Skeptics.
Stenger, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, has written several books disputing the existence of God. “God: The Failed Hypothesis” reached the New York Times bestsellers list in March. Other books on the bestsellers list at the time were “The God Delusion,” by Richard Dawkins, which claims that religion is a dangerous illusion, and “Letter to a Christian Nation,” by Sam Harris, which criticized the religious right. While Stenger considers himself in the same genre as other atheist authors, his book deals with physics and cosmology, the study of the universe. In his new book, he argues that the inability of science to prove the existence of God proves that God does not exist. “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” he said. “I argue that the god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam should be detectable. It is a god that has an important role in life and in the universe, and the effects of interference should be apparent.” This swell of interest in atheism is not surprising to Stenger, who sees it as a response to the influence that religion has over public life in America. “I hope there is at least a backlash against what the religious right has been doing in this country,” Stenger said. There are scientists who hold the opposite belief — that the existence of God can be proven using the scientific method. It is called intelligent design, a theory that everything in the universe had a designer. John Marshall, a doctor of internal medicine at MU, is a proponent of intelligent design. After learning of Stenger’s lecture, he said he plans to attend. Marshall believes that there is no compelling evidence for atheism. “I think we are looking at the same evidence, and I can empathize to some degree because we are finite beings with finite knowledge,” he said. “But agnosticism is much more sustainable. To me, that is a coherent view, but atheism is not coherent.” Marshall also believes that there is a cultural battle going on that explains the proliferation of atheist books such as Stenger’s. “Over the last 20 years or so, I think people have become more vocal, and Christians have said, my faith can translate into my actions,” he said. “I think it’s possible (atheists) are threatened by it, they are trying to mobilize their forces, and one way to do that is to say it is irrational to believe that God exists. That is way overstating the evidence, no matter how you look at it.” Stenger, however, thinks the evidence against intelligent design — that is, the lack of evidence of God — is compelling. Central to Stenger’s argument is his claim that no law of physics was violated or needed to be violated in order to create the universe. “There is this tendency in nature to go from simple to complex,” he said. “It’s all spontaneous, it just happens in a natural sequence.” Stenger also believes that America will become more secular in the next few decades, and that it is even more secular now than it appears to be. “A lot more people are nonbelievers than the polls indicate,” he said. “What they believe in is their culture and heritage.”
Link to Source
Physicist argues vs. existence of GodBy DUSTIN ARAND June 5, 2007
“Yesterday there were 400 talks in this town on the existence of God. Tonight we’re going to have one with the opposite point of view.” With that, Kenny Duzan of the Show-me Skeptics welcomed between 50 and 60 people to a lecture by Victor Stenger at the Columbia Public Library on Monday night. The retired professor of physics from the University of Hawaii came to Columbia at the invitation of the Show-me Skeptics and the MU Brights to discuss his new book, “God: The Failed Hypothesis.” The thrust of his argument is that the question whether God exists is one that can be answered by applying the scientific method. “The point is that the God that most people worship plays such an important role in the universe that you should be able to use the scientific method to detect his presence,” Stenger said. If the kind of God that most people in the West believe in existed, it would have effects that would violate the laws of physics and that would be empirically measurable. Otherwise, a universe with God would look exactly like a universe without God, and there would be no rational reason for assuming God’s existence. Stenger said he was motivated to write the book by what he saw as the “misuse of science” by New Age mystics like Deepak Chopra or advocates of Intelligent Design. Asked whether he thought applying the scientific method to what many people believe to be a spiritual question would only contribute to the confusion, he said he felt the question of whether God exists was not outside the competence of science “as long as we handle it in a rational way.” Not everyone was convinced. “I do not disagree with his conclusion,” said Atish Sem, of Columbia, “but I find his arguments restrictive. His arguments are made based on his definition of God.” John Marshall, a doctor of internal medicine at MU, said he also thought science could potentially answer the question whether God exists, but he came to the opposite conclusion of that reached by Stenger. “I think it is much easier to prove God than to disprove God,” Marshall said. Marshall is a proponent of Intelligent Design, the idea that the universe and life are too complex to have arisen spontaneously by natural processes. But many others gave favorable reviews. “It’s nice to hear rational thoughts, rational arguments,” said Mike Ferro, a doctoral student in entomology. “The reason I appreciate this is because it is based on evidence and falsifiability.” Is he afraid that his book will be viewed by some on the religious right as just another salvo in an ongoing assault on religion in contemporary culture? “I find it amusing that they think they’re victims,” he said. “Scientists don’t feel you have to go out and shove things down people’s throats,” Duzan said. “We just present the evidence. We don’t take a bunch of 6-year-olds and tell them they’re going to hell if they don’t believe what we tell them.”   Letter to the Editor: May 5, 2007 I was intrigued with the announcement in the May 4th MU mass email, Tiger Treasures Rummage Sale, which is sponsored by Campus Facilities. I think it's a great idea that MU's Recycling Coordinator is finding ways to do something useful with students' castoffs, but I found the Salvation Army as the sole beneficiary very concerning. If MU, for some reason, cannot use the proceeds for an MU program like a general scholarship fund, it seems to me they could pick a nonsectarian charity such as the Central Missouri Food Bank, which does not include a religious litmus test in its hiring process or pressure aid recipients to attend religious services. While a 2004 lawsuit between the ACLU & The Salvation Army might have excused religious discrimination for this state-funded organization in New York, it is no justification for our University's symbolic endorsement. If a charity would not hire a non-religious or non-evangelical MU graduate based solely on their religious convictions, it may be their right, but MU as a state university should think twice about using money created by its students and graduates to fund such an organization. Will Morris
UMC Brights President
.jpg)
 First and foremost, I would like to extend my appreciation to The-Brights.net & Secular Student's Alliance for their gracious financial support for my trip to The New Humanism conference held at Harvard this past weekend. Our BLC is currently organizing the first Brights conference for next Spring, and this trip was a fantastic opportunity to explore the variety of issues intertwined in planning such an affair.
 Two of the more memorable highlights were the lifetime achievement award presentation to Salman Rushdie & being one of about ten people who got to meet with Steven Pinker to discuss whatever came to mind (Picture: Pinker declaring his humanism in his office). He was the first of six fellow Enthusiastic Brights I was lucky enough to run into over the course of the weekend. On that note, I would like to express my appreciation for their time to Steven Pinker, August Brunsman, Hemant Mehta, Herb Silverman, Matt Cherry, and Mel Lipman. It was a pleasure to meet you all!
Dr. John Marshall teaches medicine here at the University of Missouri-Columbia in addition to his role of Ass. Director of Education for the School of Medicine. In response to his public invitation for an anti-evolution lecture, I notified our local newspapers which generated the following articles:  Medical professor questions evolutionJohn Marshall’s lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin of the first cell.By GRACE ASSOUAD April 24, 2007 For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share a common biological origin. But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, or ID. In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too closed-minded to evaluate — let alone accept — the scientific evidence for ID. “A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they arise outside the box of naturalism,” said Marshall, an MU professor of medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology and also the associate director of education at the School of Medicine. “There’s no reason we can’t at least look for evidence. But one of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don’t publish intelligent design material.” Marshall said his lecture, “Intelligent Design: Is it Religion or Science?,” will question the origin of the first living cell and raise what he called problems with the fossil record, which scientists have used to understand how species evolved. Sponsored by the Christian Medical and Dental Students Association, Marshall’s lecture comes just a few months after the Kansas Board of Education repealed teaching guidelines that included language suggesting many evolutionary concepts have never been proven and were, in fact, being challenged by new research. The credibility of ID was also dealt a blow in December 2005 in a case involving the Dover, Pa., school district. John E. Jones III, U.S. District Court judge, ruled that teaching intelligent design in public schools violates the First Amendment because it promotes religious belief in creationism. Jones wrote that ID “is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.” Marshall said teachers should have the right to discuss both Darwinian evolution and intelligent design in the classroom. However, he said, teaching ID should not be required until it becomes better established in the scientific community. But for Kenny Duzan, the president of Show-Me Science Alliance, which promotes the teaching of science, ID has no place in the public school curriculum. “It’s a shame that I and others have to waste time trying to prevent them from putting this in the schools,” Duzan said. “Where do we draw the line? Are we gonna teach about fairies and aliens and alien abductions?” Will Morris, president of the local chapter of Brights, an international naturalist movement whose members reject belief in the supernatural, said no one has ever made the scientific case for ID. “If it is really a scientific theory, they should be able to get articles published and peer-reviewed,” he said. “They don’t do that. Rather, they go through political systems.” Marshall said it is difficult to publish articles on intelligent design because mainstream science’s opposition to the theory is so strong. Indeed, the National Center for Science Education, The National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are just a few of the organizations that reject ID. Richard Schwartz, associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2005 that intelligent design is “a medieval theological position that is based on faith, not logic, and certainly not science.” While his conversion to Christianity explains his skepticism of evolution, Marshall said that belief in intelligent design does not necessarily require adherence to a religious doctrine. And, despite the setbacks in court and the skepticism of an overwhelming majority of scientists, the intelligent design debate isn’t going away anytime soon, Marshall said. Many states are considering legislation that would require schools to teach that Darwinian evolution is just one of the theories on the origins of the earth, he said. “In the end, we have to ask: Has Judge Jones really given us the final answer on whether ID is science?” Marshall said. “I think it is safe to say that his ruling won’t be the last word on the ID.” http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331  As if Jesus Camp didn't make Missouri look bad enough.
Heart of the Beholder, however, is a dramatized movie based on a true story. You can watch the movie for free in the Web Theater section of it's webpage (which happens to use a player called brightcove) :
 Dr. John Marshall teaches medicine here at the University of Missouri-Columbia in addition to his role of Ass. Director of Education for the School of Medicine. For years, he has embarrassed the University with his ignorance of living systems with public displays in the Columbia Tribune and elsewhere.
Here is the recent invitation he had published in the Columbia Tribune to promote his upcoming lecture, as well as some other fine pieces of his work: OPEN COLUMN
Intelligent design based on science, not theology Published Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Editor, the Tribune: Robert Boldt’s letter published in the Tribune on March 14 called intelligent design "an untenable theology disguised as science" foisted by "fanatical religious ideologues." This misrepresentation of ID is a typical tactic used by opponents who wish to scare and mislead the public about it. The basic claim of ID is only that there is evidence of an intelligent cause behind the source of information and design found in living things, and that we can scientifically detect the evidence. ID relies solely on scientific evidence and does not depend on the bible or any religious doctrine. Does that sound like an untenable theology disguised as science foisted by fanatical religious ideologues? Let me personally invite Boldt to a lecture I am giving on at 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 24, at the University of Missouri School of Medicine: "Intelligent Design: Is it Religion or Science?" The lecture will be in the Lester Bryant Auditorium M(105), and is free and open to the public. I will show that the discipline of ID fits quite well with the classic methodological definitions of science and that ID is as much science as "Neo-Darwinism" is science. As a theory, ID fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution. Listeners are free to form their own conclusions. John Marshall, MD
Professor of Medicine
Department of Internal Medicine
University of Missouri
School of Medicine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPEN COLUMN
Allowing gay marriage will bring destruction to society Published Thursday, June 24, 2004 Editor, the Tribune: In a May 23 editorial, Hank Waters labeled Christians who are opposed to homosexual marriage as intolerant bigots and hatemongers. Remarkably, Christians are about the only group that is politically permissible to slander by such names. Genuine Christians, while believing that the Bible gives absolute and unchanging moral standards, are tolerant of those with opposing views and practices - within bounds. The Bible says we should live in harmony with everyone, genuinely accepting others - homosexuals included - without approving their behavior. Waters’ view of "tolerance" holds that every individual’s beliefs, standards of morality and lifestyles are equal. If this is true, why shouldn’t we legalize polygamy, adult-child marriage or marriage between a man and his goat? Are all truth claims really equal and equally healthy for our society?  The real reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman is that it’s good for society. Numerous studies show that children do best when they have a committed father and mother. In countries such as Norway that have permitted homosexual marriage, a majority of individuals no longer get married, and the family is breaking down. The traditional family has been under attack in America for several decades, and homosexual marriage will further hasten its demise, promoting greater social chaos. Not granting homosexuls the legal right of marriage does not take any rights from them.
John Marshall ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPEN COLUMN
Christian purpose isn’t to minimize suffering Published Saturday, September 18, 2004 Editor, the Tribune: With the Olympics ending, an Aug. 28 Tribune article by Jeffrey Weiss compared religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks with Christianity. Weiss concluded that the various religions exist because: "People thought it worked. They believed that it helped explain their world and that it let them invoke powers to make their lives better." Our planet has many different philosophical systems and religions. The prevailing belief is that if any religion works to bring meaning or minimize pain and suffering, then it must be good and "true" for that person. Truth has become relative; what is true for one person might not be true for another person. However, the critical issue is not whether religion is useful for giving life meaning or minimizing pain and suffering for a season. Rather, it’s whether the religion is objectively true. Religions that aren’t objectively true can at best only provide short-term benefits. Followers of Jesus have a faith that has historical evidence to help demonstrate its objective truth. Jesus died on the cross and proved he was God when resurrected. While he paid for the sin of all, it’s only useful when one accepts him as savior and lord. The Bible was given as an absolute reference guide to humankind. Our purpose on this Earth is not to minimize pain and suffering but to prepare us for eternity by developing a deep, personal relationship with the loving creator of the universe. For the Christian, the best is not now but is yet to come. John Marshall I just wanted to compliment the president of the Show-Me Science Alliance, Kenny Duzan, on his letter-to-the-editor submission in one of our local newspapers:
.jpg)
Who needs scientific facts when creationism will do? Editor, the Tribune: I have some questions and comments for Rick Kaufmann, who wrote a letter to the editor published Feb. 24, in which he claims "Darwinism" is "pseudoscience" and "intelligent design" - creationism - is not. If evolutionary science is wrong, as he suggests, I wonder what he thinks should be taught in our children’s science classes. Because he is a creationist, he is obviously a religious fundamentalist. I guess this also means he thinks we should all believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Adam and Eve had dinosaurs for neighbors and that they collected trilobites when they visited the beach. Kaufmann might be onto something. We could save a lot of money if teaching institutions shifted to a creationist slant. We wouldn’t have to teach genetics, Earth science, paleontology and physics to understand how we got here. Students wouldn’t have to rely on hundreds of boring, fact-filled books. We would need only one book - or is that Book? - for all of the answers about our origins. It would also be a lot easier to get kids to study and do their homework. No more bad grades or detention time - just tell them they are going to hell if they don’t believe what you’re teaching. One more thing: All those "gaps" in the fossil record are a problem for scientists. Gosh, every time they fill one of those gaps Kaufmann is talking about, it creates two gaps. This science stuff really is complicated. Why bother trying to understand it?
Kenny Duzanhttp://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Mar/20070311Comm004.asp
What is a Bright?By GRACE ASSOUAD March 10, 2007 They are but a small minority, making up less than 5 percent of the U.S. population. And until recently, they have kept a low profile. For good reason: People who do not believe in God are the most distrusted group in the country and are viewed by many as a threat to the American way of life. That’s according to researchers at the University of Minnesota, whose 2006 study found that Americans see an atheist as someone who rejects “cultural membership in American society altogether.” It seems, the study concluded, that as Americans become more tolerant of different religious faiths, they are increasingly intolerant of those who have no faith in God. Perhaps no one is more aware of this attitude than the Brights, an international movement whose members reject the existence of or belief in “supernatural and mystical elements.” Brights possess what they call a “naturalistic” world view, which attributes everything that exists to the laws of science and nature. Columbia has the largest local constituency of self-identified Brights, according to the national organization, which maintains an online worldwide network of members from Sacramento, Calif. Many of the Columbia Brights are affiliated with MU, including Carol Ward, who chairs the student organization of Brights on campus. “The thing I like about the Brights is although some of the leading figureheads have been active atheists, the whole point is whatever your religious beliefs are, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with the natural world,” Ward said. “Really, the whole point of the Brights is... we can explain the natural world without invoking necessarily supernatural explanations.” Though the Brights reject supernatural explanations of the world, and the national Brights organization says that most of its members are atheists, the group doesn’t subscribe to the atheist label. Will Morris, the founder and president of the local Brights, said he doesn’t like to use the word atheist because it only describes a tiny portion of your view of the world whereas the word bright incorporates an entire world view. “You don’t define yourself by the things you don’t believe in.” “Science and religion are apples and oranges. They have nothing to do with each other,” Ward said. And because they have nothing to do with each other, one can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim or a member of any other religion and still be a Bright, she said. “It doesn’t have to be either/or, accept religion or don’t ... You don’t have to mix religion and science. You can keep them separate. And many people do,” she said. Morris has been instrumental in bringing Victor Stenger, a committed atheist, to Columbia this summer. Stenger’s latest book, “God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist,” reached the The New York Times’ best-sellers list this week. He will come to Columbia on June 4. Stenger, who is a professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, and an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, said that beyond a reasonable doubt, God’s existence can be proved or disproved. “My book shows how it could happen either way and reports what the data say,” Stenger said in an e-mail interview. “I insist throughout that if the data showed there is a God, then scientists like myself would have to become believers. Obviously that has not happened.” Besides Stenger, many other authors have recently written books questioning the existence of God and criticizing religions’ effects on society. Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and Sam Harris’ “Letter To A Christian Nation” are both currently on the New York Times’ best-sellers list. In fact, “Letter to A Christian Nation” is number 21 on the list, and “God Delusion” has been on the best-sellers list for 22 weeks and is currently at number 10. Dawkins, who is a professor at Oxford University, said a distrust of atheists stems from a misunderstanding of the group. Some Americans believe atheists lead very different lives than their religious counterparts. In a recent interview on CNN he said, “If you’re an atheist, you know, you believe this is the only life you’re going to get. It’s a precious life. It’s a beautiful life. It’s something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days ... Being an atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily, and fully.” But the University of Minnesota researchers seem to suggest that Dawkins might have some difficulty in convincing Americans that atheists can be trusted. They found that nearly 40 percent of Americans feel atheists do not agree with their vision of American society and almost half of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. Americans distrust atheists, Stenger said, because “they have been brainwashed by their preachers into thinking that morality comes from God and that only a godly person can be moral. But the facts are otherwise. Studies show that atheists are at least as moral as theists and some of the worst social behavior is among the most fervently religious.” The local Brights use less controversial language than Stenger. But they do hope to change the perception that atheists, agnostics and naturalists are immoral heathens, Morris said. Peter Gardner, professor emeritus of anthropology at MU, who is familiar with the Brights movement, said that despite common misconceptions, “we (naturalists) really aren’t monsters. We love this world. We love people.” http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=24662  There is a small science museum called The Orion Center in Camdenton, MO, which has apparently adopted a non-scientific, creationist slant. Apparently, the head of the science department for Camdenton R-III school district (who is also the K-12 Science Curriculum Coordinator for the Missouri State Teachers Association!) is on the board for directors of the center, where federal funds have have been channeled from the school district. We do not know whether the folks who made that possible realized the creationist aspect of the center as of yet. Nice can of worms, eh?
Thanks to the Show-Me Science Alliance for uncovering these unconstitutional actions of the Camdenton school 'science' department.
This isn't Camdenton's only venture into the supernatural world of pseudosciences - see the bill their state representative tried to pass recently: The MO "Science Education" Act
Dennis A. BrunsK-12 Science Curriculum Coordinator, Missouri State Teachers Assn P.O. Box 324 Camdenton, MO 65020 (573) 346-4538 dbruns@mail.camdenton.k12.mo.us
BRIGHTS "TORNADO" STIRS ACTION A spanking new Brights Local Constituency is really booming, with 250 people joining it across the past couple of months. The Missouri Brights (named for a state centrally situated in the U.S.) is already the largest BLC in the nation. The whirlwind of activity in this BLC is a consequence of the ambitious vision and innovative leadership of Will Morris, who is 24 years old and one technologically savvy Enthusiastic Bright. The Missouri Brights generated a front-page article in the Columbia Tribune titled "Movement Places its Faith in Empirical Evidence." The group got across to the press the point of the brights, as this teaser quote shows quite well: "...Now there's an organization that aims to gather together the minority group whose worldview prefers the natural to the supernatural and relies heavily on empirical evidence as a way of knowing the world." You can check out the entire article at
http://www.mobrights.net/node/268 The Missouri Brights BLC sent in a lengthy account of activities. Here, we highlight two exciting and ambitious endeavors:
---At the University of Missouri-Columbia, they have formed "Students for a Secular State" (creating the largest coalition of student organizations on campus). The coalition plans to combine individual group funds to bring in speakers for…
---…the first-ever Brights Conference they are planning for April of 2007 (they already have a number of confirmed speakers and a daring wish list of invitees). Showing what just one young, eager and steadfast Bright can do in a short time, Will reports: "My individual efforts alone have alerted almost 1000 interested people to the Brights movement." He has started a "MySpace" Brights group that currently has over 750 members." If you are interested in that, visit:
http://groups.myspace.com/Brights
See the entire bulletin: http://www.the-brights.net/movement/bulletin/bulletin.html?b=latest
 By Tim Townsend ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 05/14/2006 POTOSIIt wasn't particularly unusual that a group of bored-looking high school students were rolling their eyes Monday morning at a geeky science dude making lame jokes like "It's 'amino acids,' not 'mean-old acids.'" It was, however, unusual that the teenagers were sitting in their public school's library and that the geeky dude giving them a different perspective on science was not a scientist at all, but an evangelical Christian representing an organization promoting a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. "I'm here to talk to you today about what we know and what we don't know in the world of science," Mike Riddle, a biblical creationist from Answers in Genesis, told the first of six groups of students he addressed. "And to talk about the possibilities there." Riddle had been invited to Potosi High and John A. Evans Middle School by Randy Davis, superintendent of the Potosi-RIII school district, and his board to discuss science with science students. During an hour-long presentation, Riddle never said the words "Jesus" or "God" or even "religion." Over and over he prodded the students to question established scientific principles and theories and encouraged them to think about a career in science. Science educators, public school administrators, church-state watchdog groups and the creationist movement's practitioners agree it's rare that an evangelical group gains front-door access to science students in a public school setting. Answers in Genesis said since its founding 12 years ago, it had been invited into a public school only five times. Because of the constitutional issues involved, creationists have begun seeking entry through schools' back doors, via the students themselves. In conferences and workshop across the country, typically held in church halls, Answers in Genesis holds training sessions for 7th to 12th graders. Many of the students who participate come from Christian schools or are home-schooled. But some parents pull their children out of public schools to attend the afternoon-long sessions, according to Mark Looy, a vice president and co-founder of Answers in Genesis. "One of our major teaching themes is to encourage kids to foster critical thinking skills," said Looy. "Sadly public schools offer a one-sided view when it comes to science, and it's right for students to ask why they're only hearing one side." Glenn Branch, deputy director for the National Center of Science Education, sees it differently. "They prepare students to ask questions to embarrass teachers when talking about evolution," he said. Training kids to question their public school science teachers is part of a broader goal of Answers in Genesis. The organization says its mission is to equip Christians with the tools to explain and defend an interpretation of the origin of the universe based on the inerrancy of the Bible. The nonprofit, which had revenues of $10.5 million in 2004 according to tax records, is currently building a $25 million Creation Museum in Kentucky near the Cincinnati airport, which is scheduled to open next spring. Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, said in talks he gives to middle and high school students, he "sets out to teach them how to think critically about the origins issue and the limitations of science." He tells them that by explaining the universe as a process of nature, public schools have made "an arbitrary decision" to consciously eliminate the possibility of supernatural intervention.  "All scientists start with presuppositions," he said. "If you're starting point is 'we can explain the origin of the universe without the supernatural,' that's a bias." In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court said creationism was a form of religion and could not be taught in public schools. "The issue is that the Supreme Court said creation science was not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom," said Edward J. Larson, a professor at the University of Georgia Law School and author of "Trial and Error: the American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution." "But they're not in the science classroom, they're in the library." In his presentations in Potosi High's library on Monday, titled "Fascinating Facts About Origins," Riddle gave a sometimes complicated, often dry recitation of chemical processes that may or may not have contributed to the origin of life on earth. Riddle talked about amino acids, proteins, DNA, telemers and thermodynamics. He used examples to challenge the idea that life began on land, and flashed more than a dozen quotations from scientists, some with ties to creationist or intelligent design organizations, up on the library's projection screen. The idea to invite Riddle had come to Potosi superintendent Randy Davis when the minister of Potosi Community Church told him over a year ago that Answers in Genesis was sending a speaker to his church to host a conference on creationism. Davis, the son of a minister and brother of "several" more, said he talked to his administrators about the possibility of bringing Answers in Genesis into Potosi's schools for what he called "a factual discussion of science." Davis said his own faith played no part in his decision to invite Riddle to speak to his science students. He said he thought it could be a "change of routine" for his students to bring in "a presenter with different perspective." After the first presentation, Potosi High principal Rhonda Phares said she was happy to see Riddle encourage her students to seek out jobs in science. "There's lots of research, lots of unknowns," she said. "We encourage our kids to investigate those unknowns." Students were given the option of attending Riddle's presentation, and about a dozen opted out of the first hour. Bill Mayberry, Potosi High's science department chair, said he "expressed concerns about this program from day one." But after seeing Riddle's presentation he was less concerned. "The questions (Riddle) raised were exactly the kinds of questions I raise in class," he said. "I want these kids to think outside of the box. We can accept scientific fact, but we also accept that things can change ... facts can change." That concept is alarming to Branch. "There are a disturbing number of science teachers who are themselves creationists or teach creationism," he said. As a result, "kids are actively being misinformed about evolution." Mayberry admitted that he "doesn't teach the e-word," referring to evolution. "We talk about natural selection instead," he said. "Public school science classes don't have to cover evolution, just as English classes don't have to cover Shakespeare," said Larson. "Constitutional problems come if they teach something else instead." One of Answers in Genesis's goals, according to Richard Katskee, an attorney for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is "to claim there is controversy in the scientific community about the status of evolution," he said. "That's false." According to an August 2005 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 54 percent of Americans think there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place, but 33 percent say no such scientific consensus exists. Among creationists, 46 percent think the scientific community is divided over the evolution question. "Students need to know there's a significant minority of scientists who reject Darwininan evolution and accept creationist origins," said Looy.  Potosi is a Christian town, made up largely of Pentecostals and Baptist. Billboards heralding the Ten Commandments and others with messages like, "God is pro-life, so are we ..." greet visitors on their way into town. "Ever since they removed God from the schools they've gone downhill," said Debra Boyer, 46, as she had breakfast at Mama T's Country Cafe. Her son is in 6th grade and she said she wished he could learn more about his Pentecostal faith in the classroom. "God's needed in the schools ... it gives kids something to think about." At Strauser's Legendary Cuts, Don Strauser, owner and minister at Freewill Baptist Church, was working the barber chair."(Riddle) is just giving his theory on it, I don't know what the problem is," said Strauser. "Evolutionists give their theory all the time." Ham insists that those who believe in the supernatural-less version of science begin the conversation with as many assumptions as he does. "We admit the biases we have as Christians, but those who don't believe in the Bible have a bias, and that's their starting point." It is for these reasons, that Answers in Genesis believes it can utilize students themselves to gain access to public schools. Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of Americans support teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools, while 26 percent oppose it, according to Pew. About half of the population disagrees that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, yet 38 percent agree. The day before he spoke to Potosi High students, Mike Riddle gave several presentations, unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution, at three Baptist churches in the Potosi area. Branch said that could further confuse Potosi High's science students. "Some kids and their parents probably attended Riddle's presentations the day before at church," he said. "Then they see him at their school the next morning and the thought process is, 'my school approves of him and so must approve of what he said in church on Sunday.'" Such subtleties are of no concern to Answers in Genesis. "Evolution is a cruel and wasteful process," said Looy. "The Bible is the true and accurate history book of the universe."  St. Louis Post Dispatch: Superintendent Davis Contact Info: http://www.potosi.k12.mo.us/super/welcome.htm Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org March 24, 2006; by Annie Laurie Gaylor; Co-President FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation)
 "There is a chilling echo in Missouri of the fanaticism of the mullahs calling to execute a man for converting from Islam to Christianity. When it appeared the heresy trial this week might be suspended, "moderate" cleric Abdul Raoulf demanded: "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die." An ignorant, ill-willed and intimidating resolution endorsing Christianity as a state religion, recently approved by the Missouri House Rules Committee, shows the willingness of some American religious extremists to embrace theocracy. Introduced by State Rep. David Sater, R-Cassville, House Concurrent Resolution 13 falsely claims that U.S. founders "recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation." The resolution ominously states that elected officials should "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs." In a self-contradictory afterthought, it adds that officials should show "respect for those who object." The House, it resolves, stands "with the majority of our constituents and exercise(s) the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours." (Never mind that private "voluntary prayer" has never been found unconstitutional--only vocal prayer sanctioned, scheduled, and hosted by public schools, and imposed on a captive audience of schoolchildren as part of school events.) Although not carrying the weight of law, this proposed resolution does carry a message of intimidation. Hasn't Rep. Sater read the Constitution he took an oath to uphold? The U.S. Constitution is godless. Far from "recognizing a Christian God," it refers to no god at all, because our founders wisely claimed no pipeline from a divinity, instead placing sovereignty in "We, the People." Constitutional references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there can be no religious test for public office. Our Bill of Rights protects individual liberty from majority tyranny. Unlike Islamic theocracies, we don't have state religions in the United States. If the "right" religion is determined by the majority, the Missouri legislature, in order to "stand with the majority of our Constituents," ought not stop at recognizing the "Christian God." It should endorse the one worshipped by the most Missourians, the Southern Baptist deity! (Tough luck for Missouri Roman Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, American Baptists, atheists, agnostics, Jews and Muslims--you're outnumbered.) Founding father Thomas Paine, a Deist who ardently rejected Christianity, very truly observed in The Rights of Man: "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law." " Rep. David Sater: Contact Info
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America. 
Brights light naturalistic view
Movement places its faith in empirical evidence.
By SETH ASHLEY of the Tribune’s staff The power of religious movements can leave people who don’t subscribe to mainstream beliefs feeling helpless, isolated and even disparaged. Now there’s an organization that aims to gather together the minority group whose worldview prefers the natural to the supernatural and relies heavily on empirical evidence as a way of knowing the world. No, they’re not pagans. They’re called the Brights, an umbrella group for all sorts of people - not just atheists - who put their faith in the natural world, or one free of supernatural or mystical elements. Their ethics and actions are based on that naturalistic view. The growing international movement describes itself as an Internet-based constituency, but it boasts self-identified members in 138 countries, including 150 in Columbia. For now, the Missouri Brights is primarily a student organization at the University of Missouri-Columbia, although the group also consists of a few faculty members and local citizens. The Brights cater to a wide range of people with a variety of philosophical viewpoints. "The biggest misconception I’ve had to deal with is that we’re all atheists," said Will Morris, the president and founder of the local group. "There’s a whole gamut of people, and it’s by no means limited to atheists. We’re an umbrella group encompassing a variety of philosophical identities: secularist, humanist, materialist, objectivist, existentialist, Taoist, Buddhist, naturalist - the list goes on." There are even Christian and Jewish Brights who value the philosophical and cultural aspects of their mainstream religions but reject supernatural ideas, said Morris, a 24-year-old Mizzou student who is pursuing his second undergraduate degree. Morris founded the Missouri Brights after being inspired by two of his favorite living thinkers, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, both Brights supporters. "I’ve always defined my worldview as a naturalistic one," said Morris, who is quick to point out that the group is far more than a reactionary attack on organized religion. "We are not an anti-religious group in principle or action, but in my personal belief, there are supernatural qualities associated with most religions that I don’t embrace." On some levels, the Brights look like nothing more than a warm and fuzzy home for all those marginalized folks who don’t mesh with mainstream religion. In that way, the Brights are more a civil rights movement than a religious one. But it’s not surprising - or problematic - that the Brights also have political motives. "Once we get enough people to sign up, our hope is that we can exert some civic and political influence," Morris said.  Founded around 2003 by a pair of academics, the national Brights organization estimates there might be as many as 30 million potential Brights, which as a united front could have a considerable effect on public opinion and public policy. Morris’ local group has ventured into the policy ring, expressing support for stem cell research and the separation of church and state, especially concerning teaching intelligent design in public schools.
But the Brights aim to serve a larger purpose than simply acting as a counterweight to religious fundamentalism. As a movement, the group hopes to a level social and civic playing field for all people, no matter their worldviews. Surely the idea that mainstream religions are based in the supernatural world will offend some, just as the name "Brights" seems to suggest that naturalists are the smarter half of the dichotomy. Although the Brights are sticklers for facts - by definition, gods exists outside of the natural world - the group was named in an effort to put a positive cultural spin on the minority view that supernatural gods don’t exist. Indeed, upwards of 90 percent of humanity believes in some kind of supreme being. But that solution is not for everyone. "People faced with the universe have an innate need to explain it, and that explanation crops up in the form of an anthropomorphized deity," Morris said. "But I don’t see a need for that entity. Science does enough that I don’t have a need personally to extend my explanation to an anthropomorphized deity." For Morris and other self-identified Brights, answers to life’s big questions do exist in the natural world, even if they don’t always come from science. Morris believes ethics can be found through human reason and rationality. "People need something beyond science, and I understand that, and so do I," Morris said. "But you can come to an agreement on an ethical point without pointing to a man in the sky."
Letter To The Editor:Remarks of evolution speaker were misrepresentedI was quite pleased to see The Maneater covered Kenneth Miller’s lectures here at MU, as his major topic of discussion, intelligent design, was a controversial issue in our recent local school board elections. Regardless, Jacob Stokes’ April 28 article, “Trial witness discusses evolution", is in need of some definite clarification, as I think he missed the point on more than one issue. To begin with, Stokes mentioned that “(Miller)…explained how the inner ear of those mammals’ ear bones evolved to hear better underwater." Stokes needs to keep in mind that evolution does not possess “intentions." Mammals didn’t evolve specifically to 'hear better underwater', so much as genetic mutations occurred that provided an ability to explore different ecological niches. This new trait(s) turned out to provide a higher degree of reproductive fitness, enough so that it contributed to a speciation event where mammals made the transition from an aquatic to a terrestrial species. More importantly, though, Miller was incorrectly paraphrased in the same paragraph, “he views these developments as evidence of evolution." What the story left out was that Miller takes these developments and thousands of others like it as evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Lastly, it appears one of the evening's main points was not fully taken in. The reporter gave an unrepresentative interpretation of what the speaker was conveying when he wrote, “(Miller) addressed what he said he sees as the poor theological background for intelligent design." Miller was not addressing theological issues in regard to intelligent design, but the lack of scientific foundations for this pseudo-science.  "A bill critics say would erode the instruction of evolution in Missouri public schools narrowly cleared a House committee on March 16, signaling a possible shift in how the legislature handles bills on contentious topics.
For the past few years, legislation challenging Darwinism has struggled to get a hearing at all, much less the backing of a committee. Last year, for example, a bill that would have required textbooks to include alternatives to evolution was heard in the final days of the session.
This year's bill, by Rep. Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton, was fast tracked through the Education Committee, gaining approval in the first half of the session. On it's face, the bill may appear to have nothing to do with evolution - a word not even in the text.
Dubbed the "Missouri Science Education Act," the bill would require teahcers to distinguish between "verified empirical data" and theories. The bill further calls on teachers to "minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism and understanding."  Rep. Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton, "Darwinism in crisis"The bill makes no mention of intelligent design, a concept that living things are so complex that they would have required an intelligent creator. Cooper said his bill merely seeks to ensure that evolution is taught critically. "It's a bill that wants to bring a fuller picture of evolutionary theory," said Cooper in an interview. Cooper, who is a physician, said he believes "Darwinism is in crisis" with competing information illustrating that the theory of evolution has flaws.
Critics of the bill say it would intimidate teachers, forcing them to demote evolution, inserting scientific doubt that is not shared by the vast majority of the experts. They say evidence supporting evolution is abundant. Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said few testified against the bill earlier this week after it was placed on the agenda with little notice. He said officials representing science teachers were not present at the hearing, but would be eager to weigh in.
Cooper said he believes many teachers who have doubts about evolution are afraid to discuss flaws of evolution with students. His bill seeks to protect teachers from being disciplined for teaching scientific theory as theory." - Matt Franck, Post-Dispatch, Jefferon City Bureau (March 16, 2006)
See The Bill: SB 1249
Senator Cooper: Contact Information
Letter to Senators: Microsoft Word Document
Education Committee: Senators To Contact
Weird-Science Article: Bill SB 1249 - A good review
Columbia Missourian: Intelligent Design Bill aims to create momentum for '07 <figure src="/images/will--dr.-miller-01.jpg" href="http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=24205" align="left"> </figure> If you weren't there for Dr. Kenneth Miller's "God, Darwin, and Design: America's New Battle over Evolution" then you missed a truly excellent speaker performing at his best. The author of the most widely-used high-school biology textbook began his discussion by replaying the hilarious spots from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report where he made guest appearances. What followed was an in-depth discussion concerning the hot topic of intelligent design (ID) being pushed into public schools and how it is really a politicized euphemism masking creationist's concerns about evolutionary theory. As an expert witness on the matter, Miller repeated the brute strength of the modern theory the same as he did in the courtroom. This was followed by an illustration of the incredibly weak foundations of the best "scientific" arguments that ID's most prominent adherents (such as Michael Behe) could muster. It was actually his closing remarks that I considered to be of the most importance and interest. He contended (rightly so, I might add) that the source of this widespread debate is that many people seem to be under the impression that evolutionary theory is somehow anti-religious and incompatible with their beliefs. Surprisingly, this connotation was actually fabricated specially by the intellectuals behind the ID movement, mainly Phillip E. Johnson. In his book, The Wedge Of Truth: Splitting The Foundations of Naturalism, Johnson submits that the the debate of over ID could be won by implying that evolutionism is indicitive of atheism, which is obviously not the case. Even more importantly, he pointed out that the proponents of ID were "placing science and religion in opposition to each other...(which) dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith." Consequently, if we intend for the children of our nation to remain competitive in an ever-increasing globalized workforce, then our public science education must remain top-rate, free of degradative pseudosciences such as intelligent design, astrology, or alchemy. If there are any theists (which I am not one of, by the way) out there who have difficulty reconciling any foreseen contradictions between evolution and their faith, I would highly recommend Dr. Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution  Read the historical court decision: By Judge John E. Jones III, appointed by George W. Bush (2002) Mizzou Newspaper gives poor representation: Letter To The Editor
American Assoociation for the Advancement of Science: 'Deeply Concerned about Legislation and Policies That Would Undermine the Teaching of Evolution' Here is the key portion of the new statement by the AAAS, issued at its annual meeting in St. Louis Februrary 16, 2006. "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all is these proposals, if passed, would weakend science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students' understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences. Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no signifcant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. . ." The full statement is at: www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 
The speaker on the far right, Eugenie Scott, is one of the invitee's to the first Bright's Conference here in Columbia, MO. BBC Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4731360.stm |
