Tuesday, May 31, 2005

AlterNet: Having Fun With Intelligent Design

The reader comments at the bottom of this article are pricless.

AlterNet: Having Fun With Intelligent Design: "I have just three words for biology teachers who are wringing their hands as school boards from Kansas to Pennsylvania force them to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution: Get over it.

Here's what I think. Science teachers can comply with the requirement and still offer their students a first-rate education. If done with imagination, the new curriculum could end up stimulating more learning and excitement than their traditional explication of Darwinian theory."

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

York Dispatch Online - LETTERS

Yes.

York Dispatch Online - LETTERS: "Article Last Updated: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 11:04:27 AM EST

Creationism a topic of philosophy

The teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public high schools does not violate the First Amendment's requirement of separation of church and state.

Students should have a full education about the theories and philosophies that exist concerning the earth's existence. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. It is a religious theory and should be treated as such; that is, taught in a philosophy or world religion class."

School Boards Want to 'Teach the Controversy.' What Controversy? - New York Times

This is a good argument by a cosmologist that discusses the history of the Big Bang theory, and why many theologians believe that the idea of creation falls outside the boundaries of science.

School Boards Want to 'Teach the Controversy.' What Controversy? - New York Times: "While this argument may seem strange, Lemaître was grasping something that is missed in the current public debates about evolution. The Big Bang is not a metaphysical theory, but a scientific one: namely one that derives from equations that have been measured to describe the universe, and that makes predictions that one can test.

It is certainly true that one can reflect on the existence of the Big Bang to validate the notion of creation, and with that the notion of God. But such a metaphysical speculation lies outside of the theory itself."

Evolution Dominates Campaign in Pa. Town

A discussion of intelligent design debate:

Evolution Dominates Campaign in Pa. Town: "By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
May 16, 2005 0516AP-EVOLUTION-DEB


DOVER, Pa. (AP) - On opposite sides of town, two billboards for competing slates of school board candidates illustrate the deep divide here over the teaching of evolution and the origin of life.

One sign shouts, 'It's time for a new school board in Dover!'' The other describes the seven sitting board members as 'the INTELLIGENT choice'' - a reference to the board's decision last fall to require the mention of 'intelligent design'' in class."

LJWorld.com : Christian agenda worries other faiths

LJWorld.com : Christian agenda worries other faiths: "Push for intelligent design seen by some as imposing Christianity on others

By Jim Baker, Journal-World

Thursday, May 12, 2005

It is conservative Christians on the State Board of Education who are sitting today in judgment of evolution instruction in Kansas schools."

In this article some other religions get a voice in the debate.

Monday, May 09, 2005

AAAS - History and Archives

AAAS - History and Archives: "AAAS Statement on the Kansas State Board of Education Decision on the Education of Students in the Science of Evolution and Cosmology

The American Association for the Advancement of Science deplores the recent decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to remove references to evolution and cosmology from its state education standards and assessments, thereby making central principles for the scientific understanding of the universe and its history optional subjects for science education. "

AAAS - AAAS News Release

A few more articles on the topic.

AAAS - AAAS News Release: "AAAS on Monday declined an invitation from the Kansas Board of Education to appear at a May hearing on teaching evolution in public schools after concluding that the event is likely to sow confusion rather than understanding among the public."

AP Wire | 05/08/2005 | A look at hearings on evolution

A little background to the case in Kansas

AP Wire | 05/08/2005 | A look at hearings on evolution: "A look at hearings on evolution

Associated Press

THE HEARINGS: A three-member subcommittee of the State Board of Education is taking testimony on how evolution should be taught."

News-Leader.com | Columnists | Robert Leger | Kansas hearings aren't about science

Just saw this in the news and thought I would throw it up. The hearings in Kansas are a big deal as far as the public debate is concerned.

News-Leader.com | Columnists | Robert Leger | Kansas hearings aren't about science: "The hearings that began in Topeka last week to decide how evolution should be taught have nothing to do with science."

Sunday, May 08, 2005

INLS 224, Our Reflections on the Project

Michael C. Habib
Haley Hall
May 9, 2005


Overall we are very pleased with the way our project turned out. Critical to our success was our decision on a method for collaboration. Early on, we were randomly looking at resources, but we weren’t taking notes of what we found. Basically, we were at a loss as to how to begin. Haley sent an email suggesting that we each maintain a log or diary that documented our research. This would include both what we hope to share with one another and what our current plans were. We also thought that such a journal would offer us the opportunity to look back on how our research process developed over time. It was when trying to figure out the best way that this could be accomplished that Michael suggested the use of a blog. This choice of medium was ideal for a number of reasons. First, as a journal, it would be easily accessible to both parties. Second, the comment feature would allow for easy collaboration. With our busy schedules, it would have been tough to coordinate our research in another way. Essentially, there would have been a whole lot of emailing. Furthermore, there would have been no integrated product, which would make it hard to abstract any clear patterns. An additional reason that the use of a blog was appealing is that not only is it a medium for collaboration, but also a means of resource creation. It was our idea that the project could eventually grow to be a valuable reference tool for someone researching creation. Once these decisions were made, we then had to implement our idea by creating a blog.

The use of Blogger software was chosen for a number of reasons. First, due to our lack of familiarity with blogs, it was by far one of the easiest to get up and running. A basic template was chosen, and Michael worked to customize it for the purposes of the project. This has been an ongoing project as it has taken a considerable amount of time to understand what all of the possible settings mean. Some technical difficulties arose throughout the course of the project. At one point, the sidebar was displaying at the very bottom of the blog, below the entries, in Internet Explorer. This appeared to be due to a flaw in Internet Explorer, as this problem did not occur in standards based browsers. The other reason Blogger was chosen is because of our goal of resource creation. We thought that because Google owns Blogger, our resource would be indexed better by Google and thus accessible to a wider audience. Blogger also allows the option of building a Google search bar into the blog, thus allowing for local search. We thought this feature would greatly expand the functionality of our blog as a reference resource. The RSS feed for the blog has been turned on. This will allow a regular reader to get updates as new posts are created. We thought this would be an important feature for a researcher.

Now that the project is finished, Blogger will also make it very easy to incorporate new members while maintaining administrative control. Hopefully, researchers and hobbyists will begin to become involved in adding new entries. While we have not yet done extensive Internet research on our topic, it appears that most, though not all, existing resources are heavily biased towards one side of the creationist vs. evolutionist debate. This blog should offer a well-rounded alternative to researchers who are either not concerned with that debate, or hope to look at the debate from a variety of perspectives.

One of our initial hopes was that we would be able to abstract from our work patterns of research that developed over time. One particular area we look back on is how we used this medium to collaborate. At first, we didn’t use the comment feature very much. Instead, we added comments to new posts. Because of the reverse chronological order of the entries, this method worked well when we only had a few entries. However, as the blog began to grow, we began to use the comment feature much more extensively because it would have been very confusing to follow our strands of thought and research otherwise. Furthermore, the commenting feature made it very easy to build upon what was already created. Many of our later comments were also used as a way of cross-referencing earlier posts to later posts. As the blog grows, this cross-referencing will make it much easier for a researcher to locate quickly all posts related to one strand of research.

Another thing that we noticed is that we each began by stating our backgrounds with the topic. This proved very useful for understanding each others approach to the project. This medium made it particularly easy to share our backgrounds because it was very easy to point to outside articles and websites that demonstrated what we are already familiar with.

One last point we think is particularly interesting is our writing styles. Haley maintained a relatively casual style throughout the project. On the other hand, Michael gradually became more formal as the project progressed. He did this for two reasons. First, during the course of the project, Michael became increasingly concerned with the way that blogs are preventing people from getting and maintaining jobs. This definitely effected how much opinion went into his later posts. The other reason that he became more formal is the recent debate within the library and information science community over the legitimacy of blogs as a tool of the trade. This debate came to the forefront of the community’s attention with the publication of an editorial by the President-elect of the American Library Association Michael Gorman. This opinion piece was highly critical of blogs and the people that make them. By becoming more formal in citations and writing style, it was Michael Habib’s hope that this project could help demonstrate the value of this medium as a tool of the library profession.

By focusing primarily on reference sources, we have developed a good understanding of what disciplines creation is studied in and in what way it enters the discourse of these various disciplines.
This should lay a solid foundation for a more in depth analysis of the topic. Eventually, it was determined that in many ways, the topic of creation is only marginally covered by many disciplines in the social sciences. The aforementioned debate between Creationists and Evolutionists has caused the majority of the discourse to focus on a Christian Fundamentalist view of creation. By determining this, we have been able to set a clear direction for future work, and lay a solid foundation for the continued development of this reference tool.

To conclude, we would like to mention one feature that we would eventually like to incorporate into the resource.
Many blogs have a feature where posters can add descriptive tags to each post. We are not sure if this feature is available in Blogger, but, if possible, this would add a much more robust human indexing system to the tool. Such a method would also be much less time intensive than the current method of cross-referencing through the comments. Other future directions of collection development are written into the blog.

The Blog is Now Public

It has been added to Blogger's entries and the Google search bar has been returned. The blog isn't indexed yet, however it is only a matter of time because Google owns Blogger. Hopefully, this resource can continue to grow. Once the course is over, I am going to open it to additional posters. So that anyone who wants to work on the project can be included.

What next?

I am thinking one of the main areas we have largely missed up to this point in the project is artwork depicting creation. The LoC exhibit is a good start, but their are possibly some good texts out there on that. I think Haley's earlier comment that looking at individual cultures and their creation accounts would be one of the main ways that we could get more depth and really start to get a historical perspective on things. As the blog continues to grow, hopefully more contributors will become involved. Expanding the search outside of Davis reference is also a good next move. The databases are a good place to accumulate citations. Many have an export feature where, like in the entry about Education Full Text, whole bibliographies from across the disciplines can be formed. I think that might be my next addition before tackling the artwork.

Disappointing Findings in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Reference Texts

I am really disappointed. You would think Tolkien's theories would at least be mentioned in most of the books on fantasy, but alas they are not. Entries on Tolkien mention his theories, but only a few have entries devoted to any of his concepts. Otherwise, cosmology, creation, etc. don't appear to be mentioned at all. One notable exception from the Science Fiction books is the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Call Number: PN3433.4 .E53 1993). This text has an extensive entry on cosmology. This entry discusses the use of alternative cosmologies in science fiction writing. It gives numerous examples and tracks the history of cosmology in science fiction (p. 267-268). It would probably be one of the more useful places to start looking at creation in literature.

I Couldn't Quite Pull Myself Away From the Q's

Chronology of Science: From Stonehenge to the Human Genome Project Call Number: Q125 .C482 2002

One mention of creationism: In 1898 the french nauralist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini published Creation and its Mysteries Unveiled in which he explained the formation of the continents using the biblical account of creation (p. 165).

Magic Universe: the Oxford Guide to Modern Science Call Number: Q125 .C275 2003

This one talks about the debate and explicately states that "neo-Darwinists" have largely hijacked evolution as an atheist concept by oversimplifying the theory to natural selection, thus framing the debate as either or. This is by far the most concise and to the point article that I have yet found stating this one of the major problems evolution as a theory faces. It is good to see it mentioned so clearly (p. 274-275).

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abduction to Zone Therapy Call Number: Q157 .E57 2000

Includes entries for Cosmologies, variant; Creation Research Society (mentioned in almost all I have looked at); Creation Science; Creative Evolution; and so on...

"Cosmologies, variant" discusses creation myths. It gives a brief overview of some of the characteristics similar to most creation accounts and mentions some of the key variations and then concludes with a discussion of sciences slow entry into the study of cosmology. It doesn't state an opinion, but just the facts. (p. 60-61)

"Creative evolution" is discussed in the entry on Henri Bergson as that is the title of a book where he challenged the ability of "natural selection" to be the only driving force in evolution. It then says that scientists have debunked his theories and that "natural selection" is in fact king. The authors of this entry should have looked at the Magic Universe, because that certainly tells a different story. (p. 30)

Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery v.7 (1950-Present) Call Number: Q175.46 S35 2000 v.7

The entry us titled "Evolution and Creationism in American Public Schools." I wonder if the volumes covering early time periods mention in more detail some of the historical debates uncovered in the chronologies above. In the future, that might be worth looking into. (p. 80-83)

Social Issues in Science and Technology Call Number: Q 175.5 N49 1999

Only has an entry on "Creationism" and discusses the same old political stuff (p. 48-51).

Creation/Teaching Descriptor in Education Full Text - first 100 citations

HW Wilson Results: "


Cook, G. Evolution or intelligent design? Science and faith meet school policy. The American School Board Journal v. 192 no. 4 (April 2005) p. 8, 10-11



Phillips, S. Darwin in danger of extinction. The Times Educational Supplement no. 4626 (March 18 2005) p. 20



Klein, J.G., et. al., Rigid and Dogmatic [Discussion of 'One nation, under the designer,' by Mark Terry]. Phi Delta Kappan v. 86 no. 7 (March 2005) p. 559-61"

CQ Researcher article on "Evolution vs. Creationism"

CiteNow!: "Masci, D. (1997, August 22). Evolution vs. creationism. The CQ Researcher Online, 7. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1997082200. Document ID: cqresrre1997082200."

This article has an a good bibliography and strives to cover both sides of the issues. I figured that I might as well find a few articles that are from an outright political perspective.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

A More Promising Approach in a Scientific Work

The McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Call Number Q121 .M3 1997 has neither an entry for creation or evolution, but does have an entry on "Cosmology". In this way, they focus strictly on what science has to say about the begginings of the world.

"Intelligent Design" Suspiciously Absent from Scientific Critique

It just occurred to me that all of these scientific texts have been talking about "Creationism" and "Creation Science" and completely ignoring the use of the term "Intelligent Design" which the fundamentalists have been using themselves. This is the opposite of the proponents of "Intelligent Design" who adamantly try to frame evolution as just another "theory" that is no more justified by science than their own. This is very similar to the usage of language in the debate over abortion. Pro-choice advocates refer to themselves as "Pro-choice" and their opponents as "Anti-choice", while Pro-life advocates refer to themselves as "Pro-life" or "Anti-abortion" and their opponents as "Pro-abortion" or "Murderers". While not quite so blatant, a similar subtle use of language in the debate over evolution and creation is clearly apparent. Language is a very powerful tool in political discourse.

The Beginnings of Our Research

Habib,

here's a little info i got yesterday about our topic. It's mostly preliminary ish, like finding words/phrases that work and publications that have some leading info in them.

Some related words -
creationism, mythology, cosmology, cosmogony, cosmogenesis, mythosgenesis

People mentioned -
Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell

Publications -
Encyclopedia of Religion
} These have had the most so far in my search Mythology of All Races Key Ideas in Human Thought Dictionary of Ethics, Theology, and Society Dictionary of Ideas

It's not the most detailed info I could sent you but it's a start.

Haley

Our Full Initial Proposal For the Project

Creation myths in society, Thu 3/3/2005 7:46 PM
Fellow classmates and Dr. Carr,

Haley and I will be studying the topic of creation across the social sciences and humanities. At this point, we plan to begin with a two pronged approach. First we will be exploring the idea of creation from the perspective of religion, mythology, philosophy and literature; and second we will be exploring the place of creation theory in social and political discourse. It is our hope that these strands will cross one another frequently as the religious theory adapts to outside pressures. By following this method we hope to see the development, and possibly evolution, of creation theory throughout human history. For example, the recent push to teach theories of “intelligent design” as alternatives to the theory of evolution demonstrates how the language of creation has changed in accord with the political and social climate. Thus, one clue we will be observant for is changes in the language of creation. Looking at different cultures may also uncover important clues as we compare the symbols and metaphors used by different cultures. Of course, as we pursue this study, what we discover may be different from our initial assumptions. At least at first, we will be working exclusively with the print reference collections in Davis, to avoid getting too lost in a single discipline. However, as promising patterns emerge, and as time allows, we may expand our search further. Any ideas or suggestions would be most appreciated. We apologize for the tardiness of our topic, but have been working towards developing a common theme to frame our study. So far, we have been determining useful terms (creationism, mythology, cosmology, cosmogony, cosmogenesis, mythosgenesis, etc.) and individual works (Encyclopedia of Religion) to begin with.

Sincerely,
Michael and Haley

The e-mail that gave us the idea to collaborate using a blog

Wed 3/9/2005 11:59 AM

Habib,

I have an idea about how we can turn our project in for 224. It would basically be like a log or diary (for lack of a better term) about our experience while looking through resources. It would be done day by day, or an entry for each time we did some work for the project. Documented would be our experiences, what questions came up, our thoughts and so on... Also, there could be information about what either of us wanted to show or explain to the other, what we found together, and why we think something we found is important or relevant to our subject. Experiences could be documented separately and together making it so we don't always have to be in ref at the same time. And as a supplement, we could turn in the database melissa sent out over the listserv. What do you think??

Haley

A local example from before the blog was up

From: Don Wood
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:50:16 -0500
Subject: [IFACTION:9974] An article from The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)
To: Intellectual Freedom Action News

Church-state lesson learned
School admits it crossed line. By KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer

A fifth-grader's family is suing the Cumberland County school
system because her teacher used a Christian text that preached
creationism and encouraged children to proselytize for Jesus.

For the complete story ...
http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2233207p-8613419c.html
________________________________


Copyright The News & Observer Publishing Co., Raleigh, NC
www.newsobserver.com
This article should not be printed or distributed for anything except
personal use.

Feedback is welcome at http://www.newsobserver.com/member_center/help/contact/.

Yet Again Creationism is the only Mention of Creation

After realizing how most books only mention fundamentalist Christian versions of Creation I am starting to see just why they are so effective in getting people to believe in there version of creation. Even scientists write like that is the only version out there. You would think that scientists, many of whom believe creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, would take a more even handed approach when writing about creation. Certainly, you would think that they would at least mention, if not highlight, that the current debate is only between one specific view of the world creation and that other views do not necessarily discount evolution. This constant focus on creationism and creation science of fundamentalists frames the entire debate in terms of either/or. I wonder if Ruse performed an examination of how scientists frame the debate when he was writing his The Evolution-Creation Struggle. As I go through the various entries in different science encyclopedias, I am starting to see where he has a very strong argument that it is the scientific community itself that is prolonging the argument by largely framing the discussion as creation or evolution. I wonder if the only scientists who care enough about the debate are those who are adamantly against all creation accounts and not just fundamentalism. Those that see no disagreeing between creation and evolution might be the ones writing the articles. Ideally creation shouldn't be in science books at all, and most scientists who believe that they are not mutually exclusive also believe that they belong in two separate places. For example in the Catholic view evolution is a matter of the body, while biblical creation is a matter of the soul, thus outside of the sphere of science. If creation is going to be included in most scientific texts, then a well rounded perspective should be presented and not just the fundamentalist.

Creation in the LC Q's (Science)

The Encyclopedia of Bioethics Call Number: QH332 .E52 1995

Creationism is a see reference to Evolution -->

Evolution entry has a subheading "Evolution versus fundementalism and "creation science":

Again, this entry focuses exclusively on the one version of creation that has set itself in political opposition to evolution. In fact, the political and legal controversy over the teaching of evolution in American public schools is the only thing discussed. No other accounts are mentioned at all accept for in a discussion of a court case where it was mentioned that fundementalist "creation science" was only one particular religions view on the creation of the world. Apart from this aside however, this article certainly fails to recognize creation as existing outide of this particular debate.

Comparing Creationism Entries in Two Encyclopedias of Evolution

From a scientific perspective:
Encyclopedia of Evolution Call Number QH360.2 .E54 2002

The entry on Creationism focuses on whether Creationism is neccessarily opposed to the scientific evidence in support of evolution. It discusses creationism only as it occurs in the Bible or Koran. It points out that believers in "Quick Creation" are opposed to science, but that proponents of "Progressive Creation" and "Gradual Creation" have no conflict with evololution. The article includes a bulleted list of scienctific evidence and frames the conversation around those. Clearly from a scientific perspective.

From an anthopological perspective (Haley showed this one to me)
Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanities Search for Its Origins Call Number GN281. M53 1990

The entry "Creationism: History of Belief" is entirely focused on Christian creationism. It discusses the variant forms brielfy, but focuses on the Fundementalist version of Creationism, fixity of species and "Quick Creation", and its conflict with evolutionists.

Both
Focus on Christian creation almost entirely. It appears that both entries were written as a direct result of political pressures brough on by the Fundementalist attack on evolution. It would have been nice had either one pointed out how many creation accounts from various cultures are related to theories of evolution. Surprisingly, the scientific encyclopedia gave a much more well rounded discussion than the anthopological one.

Chronologies of World History Ignore the True Beginnings

I just spent some time looking through about a dozen chronologies of world history and all of them begin discussions of world history with the emergence of man. This does two disservices to the study of history that I see:

1. By focusing on human history, it ignores the big picture and makes it hard for a history scholar to step back and see the intracicies relationship with his world. There is a small but growing trend to study "Big History" which looks at history from an all inclusive perspective. A book I read recently Five Billion Years of Global Change: A History of the Land by Denis Wood, argued for just such a reorientation of the way we study history. Notice he started with 5 billion years ago, while the chronologies of world history in Davis only looked at 250,000 at the most.

2. By starting histories of the world by mentioning the earliest human fossils and artifacts that have been found, an even greater disservice is done in ignoring how these peoples and most of the world's current population view their histories. A recent survey pointed out that in American alone, over half of students entering college still believe that man was formed in more or less his present form about 9,000 years ago. Even if history were a science, which it is not, it chronologies such as these ignore a great deal of human history as it has been understood until the breakthroughs of Darwin and modern science. Wood's book mentions that as a history, he is telling a story and he starts his explicetly from the beggining with the Big Bang. He mentions that his is the account of the world from a scientific perspective and that there are of course alternates.

The chronologies in question are located between LC Call Numbers D9-D11

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Hit and Run - Libertarians blog about Sundays BC comic strip

Hit and Run: "God Made Man, But A Monkey Supplied the Glue

You'll be relieved to learn that Sunday's B.C., which took on Charles Darwin in some of the most arrythmic rhyming verse ever carved in stone, was not dropped by any of the comic strip's 1,200 client newspapers. 'Anyone who runs 'B.C.' at this point knows Johnny Hart's philosophy, so I don't think anyone was surprised,' Creators Syndicate president Rick Newcombe tells Editor And Publisher. Complaints about the strip have been few and far between."

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Boston Globe article via Arts & Letters Daily

In this article, the theories put forth by Ruse in his new book The Evolution-Creation Struggle are discussed. The crux of it seems to be that Evolutionists have largely framed evolutionary science in a broader social context that forces challenge by creationists. The article points out that, though valid in many ways, Ruse's argument does tend to ignore some of the underlying religious beliefs that fuel the debate.

Evolutionary war

"In the ongoing struggle between evolution and creationism, says philosopher of science Michael Ruse, Darwinians may be their own worst enemy