Will it be a hearty cry of “Yabba Dabba Doo!” at this week’s BESE meeting? By Walter Pierce
Science once again goes on trial tomorrow in Baton Rouge when the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education votes on whether to approve proposed biology textbooks for public high schools.
The books — mainstream, peer-reviewed, up-to-date and from major publishers — are under fire by the religious right because they don’t cover intelligent design, a pseudo-scientific version of creationism whose adherents argue that because organisms are so complex, there must have been a supernatural entity that created them, or at least set in motion their evolution.
This fight is important to Joe Neigel, a biology professor at UL whom I interviewed for this week’s cover story. Neigel’s interest is partly academic, but it’s also professional: If we allow standard biology education in high schools to be sullied by this wackadoo pseudo-science called intelligent design, we create college freshmen who don’t understand how completely, utterly, thoroughly and rigorously the theory of evolution has been studied, tested and verified in the century and a half since Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published.
In mainstream biology circles evolution is impregnable, unassailable.
But to creationists it is a threat, and they employ many tactics in assailing it, including attacking Darwin’s original theory while ignoring the decades of research and findings that have not only verified it but added to it.
Because the federal courts have repeatedly thwarted them, creationists created intelligent design as their Trojan Horse.
“A lot of these ID people attack Darwin as if we’re all still reading Darwin, as if that’s our source material. But the truth is, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things; he wasn’t aware of a lot of things,” Neigel told me last week when I was researching the story. “The science of genetics and molecular biology has both validated evolution as a unifying principle in biology, but it also shows us that evolution pretty much has to happen.”
Except in Louisiana when it comes to intellectual matters.
A small consolation for our sorry-ass discomfort with science can be found in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear last week announced that a group planning a $150 million theme park called Ark Encounter can apply for and will likely receive more than $35 million in state tax incentives. The centerpiece of the for-profit attraction will be a life-sized replica of Noah’s Arc complete with dinosaurs. (Now that creationists can no longer deny the existence of dinosaurs — the fossil record is just too extensive and detailed — they’ve taken to insisting that T-Rex must have coexisted with humans, since the world and everything in it was created over the course of six days about 6,000 years ago.)
Kentucky is also home to the Creation Museum, another Flintstones attraction that draws thousands annually.
In Louisiana’s fight between reason and superstition, Gov. Bobby Jindal has shown himself to be a coward of the first order. He has an undergraduate degree in biology from Brown University, where intelligent design and creationism get absolutely no quarter, yet he eagerly signed the Louisiana Science Education Act — a back door for getting intelligent design into the biology curriculum under the guise of “academic freedom” — and has expressed public support for ID being taught alongside evolution.
Jindal is brilliant and cynical.
I don’t doubt Jindal believes intelligent design is little more than creationism festooned with the trappings of science. I suspect he scoffs at ID and those who peddle it when he’s not in earshot of reporters or cameras. But he’s playing to the base, as they say — to the many thousands of Louisiana residents who believe the earth is about 6,000 years old and/or believe the science of evolution is somehow elitist, liberal.
Many Christians accept Darwinian theory as a compelling explanation for human origin, and the Vatican has even declared that faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Those who attack the science of evolution don’t seem to have much faith in their faith.
“I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from [students] because of political correctness,” Jindal told the news program Face the Nation in 2008 after signing the Science Education Act.
Standing up for evolution isn’t political correctness. It’s just correct.
... written by Soop. , December 08, 2010 - 01:00 pm
Your article is completely close minded; as per usual, the very thing most liberals argue is their problem with conservatives. The fact is most religious persons I know believe in a mixture of evolution and a belief that a Creator set this whole crazy ball of wax into motion. And they come by that honestly -- not because of some court decision or a desire to argue with liberals.
Science by its very definition should never completely close any doors as you suggest. The proposition of catastrophic, man-made global warming taught us that -- the emerging research on the relationship between sunspots and earth temperature is something the Al Gore's of the world have been trying to suppress for decades.
And just this past week brought news that the previously "impregnable, unassailable" fact that life had to contain carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorous has been thrown out the scientific window. One article I read quoted a scientist as saying "more than a few textbooks are going to have to be rewritten." I think that quote is apropos for today.
And regardless of whether you believe solely in evolution, that still cannot answer the basic question of why. I think religion should seek to answer the why and science should seek to answer the how. The folks who use either to argue against the other are just using the issue to further push a political agenda.
All the best,
Soop
... written by ragin_cajun , December 08, 2010 - 02:15 pm
Walter --
I saw this article coming weeks ago. I just KNEW you'd be frothing at the mouth to write this one. Pulling Jindal into the debate was crafty, though.
"creationists created intelligent design" -- not really. This is a modern expression of metaphysical controversies that are centuries old--as old as philosophy itself. I bring it up because this is more than just some minor mistake. It is you missing a HUGE opportunity to provide perspective and understanding to the entire debate.
You COULD have contrasted Plato and Aristotle's different ideas on the subject of "God", or "intelligent design" of the Universe, mentioned something about Aquinas and David Hume, maybe. You could have at least said that this current debate is over 2,000 years old, and is one of the major themes of Western Philosophy. That might have been informative....
I think writing something about this current debate without some mention of the 2 millenia of philosophical thought that preceded it is every bit as ignorant and one-sided as the Creationists demand to be treated as scientists. I'd call it " sorry-ass discomfort " with philosophy, and I'd say it's anti-intellectual and simplistic, too.
Demagoguing demagogues does nothing to " provide a weekly forum for thinking, educated, involved readers". It's just more ideological sniping from the Independent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
... written by Morrow , December 08, 2010 - 02:30 pm
I realize Louisiana's education is continuing down the toilet, but I do believe students are capable of reconciling evolution and creationism. I'd prefer "intelligent design" stay in the Bible school classrooms and taught in the home.
... written by Walter Pierce , December 08, 2010 - 04:42 pm
My goodness, ragin, you must spend an inordinate amount of time at your computer Googling and Wikipedia-ing! How do you get any work done to earn the money the government picks from your pocket? Maybe I should have capitalized Intelligent Design, because that strain of pseudo-science WAS created by creationists to do an end run around the Constitution. Google "Discovery Institute." Sure, I could have waved my breadth of knowledge around with a mini-primer on teleology. But we're a NEWspaper, man, and I only have about 650 words to cram in the space my column occupies. The fight at BESE is a current event. And Soop, my take from the NASA announcement last week about microbes that thrive on arsenic is that it multiplies the possible ecosystems where life can exist away from earth.
... written by wwjd , December 08, 2010 - 05:04 pm
Ragin said it right! It has been debated and talked about for centuries because science still has no hard and factial evidence proving you came from a monkey. I think there could have been much more research done before an opinion was stated.I know this for a fact, their will be a day when all those questions will be answered, and the answers will not come from a textbook! There is a book that has had more factial evidence found in it than any other textbook printed by man. Have an open mind and heart and I guarantee your answers will come to you if you throw out the political views of your employer. I also think we need to teach our youth everything we can as early as we can so they can come to thier own views.
Thanks
... written by MollyBloom , December 08, 2010 - 05:29 pm
I sat through the entire BESE meeting yesterday and just about had to throw up! I have no problem with folks believing what they want to believe, nor do I disagree with folks wanting to talk about issues of belief in philosophy or religion classes. In fact, I think both of those are very important venues. (As opposed to Gov. Jindal, who thinks that universities must ONLY include subjects that lead directly to career-readiness.) However, science class is for science, which includes those things that are studied using the scientific methodology. Neither IT nor Creationism employs any sort of scientific methodology. And, for the record, the only career-readiness either provides is for a job in the clergy!
... written by doug_pdq , December 08, 2010 - 05:52 pm
This debate makes me sad. It is partly the fault of our science community calling evolution a Theory. It's not a theory in the casual sense. Evolution and natural selection, mutation and change are among the b
... written by ragin_cajun , December 08, 2010 - 07:44 pm
Walter -- "Sure, I could have waved my breadth of knowledge around with a mini-primer on teleology." Well, you could have at least mentioned it, and given your readers a starting point for further investigation. You could have explained to those on BOTH sides of this debate where their viewpoints come from, and maybe encouraged them to learn more about Philosophy. You might even "elevate the debate" and make it easier to moderate the comments You must have spoken to Barbara Forrest, she certainly could have helped you provide the proper philosophical underpinning to all this—she didn’t say ANYTHING about philosophy at all? I figure she MUST have. I don't spend an inordinate amount of time on wikipedia and google. I normally use it for very quick fact checks when I'm writing, kinda like what professional journalists are supposed to do. I HAVE recently started spending an inordinate amount of time reading history and philosophy books, though—this year, anyway. Last year, I read homebrewing books all the time So don’t even THINK about writing some new-age hit piece against German Beer—I’ll school ya “The fight at BESE is a current event.” Man…..I’m starting to think you’re missing the whole point here. The fight at BESE is NOT a current event, and everybody at BESE is too stupid to know it! It’s about the nature of the universe and the existence of God, and that’s been going on for thousands of years now. That’s philosophy! " I only have about 650 words to cram in the space my column occupies. " I understand that. And that's why I've BEEN suggesting that you fill that precious small space with thought-provoking and reasoned discourse instead of trite ideology. That's the stated objective of the Independent, and I'm challenging you to achieve it. If I want quick,shallow position pieces on the current events of the day, I'll read DailyCos, Huffington Post, the Advertiser, or listen to Sean Hannity. If I want to read snide remarks from the left about the right, I'll go rattle resident's cage :) But, I expect MORE than that from the Independent. You see Walter, I am one of those “thinking, educated, involved readers who care deeply about Acadiana's future and help shape the community's vision for it.” “When it comes to news,” I “want to know the whole story”.
... written by Walter Pierce , December 08, 2010 - 07:48 pm
Wait for it, ragin. Here it comes .... sigh
... written by Resident , December 08, 2010 - 07:58 pm
Soop, the only mention of anything political was one reference to the religious right pushing this whole ID nonsense, which is a simple fact. The article was not a diatribe against conservatives. Your other characterizations of science's positions on global warming and life's building blocks are not entirely accurate, either. I can expound if you want.
Ragin, there was nothing crafty about bringing Jindal into this. He signed an atrocious piece of legislation that is directly related to this issue. I find your assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings laughable and a grave insult to philosophy. The Discovery Institute ain't no Lyceum.
Biology has been a branch all its own since since the philosophy of science was firmly established in the 20th century. Biology and evolution do not seek to address the God question nor do they wade into metaphysics.
The history of thought on gods and the natural world is interesting. You can see glimmers of thought about natural selection and phenotypic change over time in the writings of Emerson and Thoreau, just before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." These folks had religion ingrained in them, but they did not let that stifle free thought as the flat-earthers of today do.
But that history has no bearing on the issue of religious zealots attempting to thwart the teachings of science.
... written by Rinkelstein , December 08, 2010 - 10:14 pm
Resident,
It suits your agenda to refer to the "religious right." It is possible to be "right" while not being "religious."
... written by holeinthedonut8 , December 08, 2010 - 11:04 pm
This whole evolution thing is complex but there's obvious proof that some of us have evolved further than others. Just saying. . . .
... written by ragin_cajun , December 09, 2010 - 01:28 am
Resident --
First, I will quote Wikipedia's definition of ID. Then, I will describe metaphysical arguments by famous philosophers that are similar, or the same, as the ID position. Finally, I will state what "metaphysics" is, as defined by Aristotle, an undisputed authority on the matter.
I will leave the rest of your errant remarks for someone else.
Read it all very carefully :) Then tell me how any reasonable person could POSSIBLY conclude that ID is not a modern retelling of at LEAST one of these philosophers' positions.
From Wikipedia on "Intelligent Design" -- " It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][4]—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity."
Socrates gave examples of natural phenomena that he interpreted as signs of a planned universe.
Plato wrote several dialogues in which characters describe the formation of the Universe, the World, the Animals, by "god" or "the supreme".
Airstotle also saw organizing principles, or "directedness" in the Universe, and all things in it. He CERTAINLY thought there was order to the universe, he thought there was a "Prime Mover" maintaining order in the Universe. He was the teacher at "the Lyceum" in Athens.
Cicero saw reason in all of nature, and said that was evidence of divinity.
Augustine...as in St. Augustine, the great Church philosopher...
Aquinas...five proofs for the existence of God...certainly a philosopher.
Hume presented arguments on both sides of the debate in his writings...I'd say Hume is a philosopher.
"Metaphysics" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question "what is the Universe". It is encompassed by all that Aristotle discussed in his work of the same name. One of the books in that work discusses god, gods, and lays out Aristotle's explanation of his now famous "Prime Mover". Therefore, God and questions of origins of the Universe are most definitely under the heading of metaphysics.
You say my "assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings" is "laughable"? Well, the joke's on YOU, because my assertion is unassailable.
... written by Eat Prey Kill , December 09, 2010 - 03:30 am
Not even God can change the past.
... written by Resident , December 09, 2010 - 12:57 pm
Ragin, I'm aware of all that you say and I noted this in my post. It's no surprise that very early philosophy was heavily under the influence of the gods; there was really no attempt to explain things other than "God did it" before then. Aristotle was less fervent in religion than Plato; this in itself may have been a harbinger of things to come. The student broadened his perspective beyond the gods. (note: I would argue that Kant has a more "evolved" metaphysics. Nothing against Aristotle; I admire him greatly for being the first biologist in a sense.)
As philosophy grew, more philosophers were concluding that there is NOT a central planner in the universe. Nietzsche and Sartre come to mind. So you can list all the philosophers who included a god in their arguments, but a list can also be drawn of philosophers who did not include a god.
The idea that the Discovery's Institute's Intelligent Design is a metaphysical argument against godless evolutionists is wrong. Why? I'll say again: biology and evolution make no attempt to answer the God question nor do they wade into metaphysics. That's all I'm saying.
... written by Resident , December 09, 2010 - 01:20 pm
A follow-up: Of course the issue of God vs. no God is still going on in philosophy. But Intelligent Design was offered up to counter evolution, which is the realm of science (remember science has no position on God). And ID has been shown to have no place in science; its key tenet of "irreducible complexity" has been disproven.
If you want to say that ID has a place in philosophy to argue for the presence of God, so be it, but I doubt that authorities in the field are taking it seriously.
... written by ragin_cajun , December 09, 2010 - 02:34 pm
"The idea that the Discovery's Institute's Intelligent Design is a metaphysical argument against godless evolutionists is wrong."
Sure, resident. I understand now. No matter what facts are presented, what YOU wrote is still right. The definitions of the words are yours to change, the rules of logic don't apply to you, you are perfectly free to mis-state everyone else's position, and you can of course change the scope of the debate whenever you want as well.
Thanks for educating me on the rules of debate in the subjective and relative universe that you have gleeaed from reading Kant and Nietzsche.
... written by Resident , December 09, 2010 - 03:56 pm
Once again, biology and evolution make no attempt to answer the God question or explain the nature of reality (metaphysics). This being a fact, how can you say that the ID vs. evolution debate is a metaphysical debate on the existence of God?
... written by ragin_cajun , December 09, 2010 - 05:19 pm
Once again--you said " I find your assertion that this ID nonsense is a modern expression of age-old metaphysical ponderings laughable "
So I gathered evidence to prove that my assertion is true. ID IS a metaphysical position. I hope you find that laughable, too.
... written by Resident , December 10, 2010 - 04:03 pm
You can claim that ID is a metaphysical position, though I think real philosophers would find that laughable. What you cannot claim is that ID vs. evolution is a "debate" between the presence or non-presence of God, for reasons I've stated already.
You have not said anything about ID itself besides quoting two sentences from Wikipedia. This is a subject that I've discussed before and did a fair bit of research on. I don't even think the Discovery Institute would say that ID is an attempt at philosophy. It's an attempt at science, and a lame, discredited one at that.
As for who thinks they're always right, it's you who parades around the boards with a self-righteous swagger while ridiculing those who draw different conclusions. The claim of being able to produce a biology textbook was particularly rich. It's you who said "my assertion is unassailable." Socrates would take umbrage with that, considering that he said, "There is only one thing that I know, and that is that I know nothing."
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , December 10, 2010 - 10:08 pm
I met a blind man in the jungle of Guatemala, he was praying in the shadow of an ancient ruins, he asked me " will you describe the sky to me, I answered the sky is vast space and it is the color of blue, he said if the sky is space how can it have a color, I said the blue is a reflection of the sea waters on our planet, he then asked me what is blue
and that is how much i have gathered from the jumbolaya you folks spoof, each of you profess an ideology and like the blind man neither of you have ever witnessed, yet each of you adhere to your own addled philosphy's
... written by RickK , December 11, 2010 - 02:05 pm
Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature."
In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy.
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run. The ID proponents appeal directly to the public with scientific-sounding books like "Signature in the Cell", using math and terminology that the vast majority of the general public is not equipped to critique.
And they use lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several press releases every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business.
If there are any actual honest ID "scientists", people actually trying to study something scientifically and trying to devise actual falsifiable tests, they are lost in sea of bamboozle and mis-direction that is the heart and soul of the "Intelligent Design" lobby.
The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the materialist science of evolution.
These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology.
So let's not confuse what Intelligent Design should be with what Intelligent Design is.
Supporting evidence for the above commentary:
Young Earth Creationist foundation of "Intelligent Design" movement: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/ http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2000/07/from-genesis-to.html
Secret "Intelligent Design" marketing campaign strategy paper leaked by a copy shop operator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Funding of creationist propoganda: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/2718/funding_of_creationist_organizations_doubles
Findings of a conservative, Bush-appointed federal judge regarding "Intelligent Design" - it is religion, not science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
... written by WhataLeak , December 11, 2010 - 07:59 pm
"theme park called Ark Encounter" ----------------------------
I hope they the missing link on display.
... written by ragin_cajun , December 12, 2010 - 05:12 am
Resident --
" God and questions of origins of the Universe are most definitely under the heading of metaphysics." "real" philosophers would find that laughable? Think so? I don't. Is not ID's position a position about God, and how life came to be? It is.
"have not said anything about ID itself besides quoting two sentences from Wikipedia." Why should I, I'm not supporting or defending ID, I'm only discussing it with YOU. I've gone out and found a definition of the thing about which we're speaking. what more SHOULD I say about it? You've "discussed before and did a fair bit of research on" the matter -- well then enlighten us about ID. Tell me what is incorrect about the definition I'VE given for the thing. Don't like Wikipedia's definition of it? Then propose a better one.
... written by ragin_cajun , December 12, 2010 - 05:26 am
shotgun --
"each of you profess an ideology" -- Not today, my friend, not I. I've described the position of the 2 sides, I've quoted philosophers and wikipedia. But you cannot go back over my comments on this article and determine whether I am for or against ID, whether I am Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Shinto. You cannot tell from my comments what I think about the new textbooks, or LFF.
All that you can tell from my comments is that I think Walter should have added a few lines to his article for philosophical perspective, and that I think ID is a retelling of old metaphysical arguments.
I think it's unfair of you to say that I am professing an ideology.
... written by Resident , December 13, 2010 - 08:00 pm
Ragin, the creators of ID (pun intended) are careful not to say God because they are attempting to supplant the scientific theory of evolution. They talk about "design" by an "intelligent" hand. They argue that parts of organisms are so complex that they cannot be reduced to simpler parts. They call this "irreducible complexity" (which I've mentioned about 3 or 4 times). So this irreducible complexity is the basis of ID, which is quite ludicrous in biology. Take the eye, for instance. The IDers stop their inquiry there and say that the eye is so complex that it cannot be reduced to simpler parts. But in fact, biologists have shown that that the eye has evolved from a very basic patch of light-sensitive cells to the mammalian eye of today (cephalopods also possess highly evolved, complex eyes).
Talk Origins is a good site to see how science refutes this absurd notion of irreducible complexity. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
RickK posted some good stuff about ID. It's clear that the Discovery Institute is attempting to force ID into the scientific realm, not by scientific papers and peer-reviewed literature, but by propaganda, lawyers, and media. They play to politically-driven phobias of godless scientists turning our children away from Christianity.
Now I've beaten this poor dead horse enough, but I'll leave you with a question. Would philosophers ignore these two facts? 1) the creators of ID intended it as a scientific theory. 2) ID has been disproven as a scientific theory.
... written by roughbeast , December 13, 2010 - 08:43 pm
The proponents of "intelligent design" are the best argument against it, ha, ha...besides have you ever looked closely at a possum?
... written by ragin_cajun , December 13, 2010 - 11:04 pm
Resident --
“Intelligent design is simply a rehashed version of creationism,” Barbara Forrest SELU Philosophy Professor as quoted from "Devolve" artcile in theindependent.com
Federal Courts have ruled that ID "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The Kitzmiller v. Dover
So federal courts have ruled that ID is not science, a professional philosopher that is intimately involved with this says ID is just creationism warmed over, I've quoted definitions from Wikipedia that says ID is "a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God"
But YOU say it's a scientific theory--so I guess that settles it :)
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , December 14, 2010 - 03:11 am
ragin-cajun, no offense meant to either side, its just that everyone tends to quote those philosophers whose view points relate to their own, the philosophers interpreted dreams through logic and their reasonings differed, from one to the other, somethings never change, just like some peoples mindset never changes. and I always await your comments......ciao.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.
Advertisement
Read the Flipping Paper!
Click Here for the Entire Print Version of IND Monthly
There will soon be a whole lot of shakin’ going on at Benny’s Sportshack Supplement Depot, a new concept by Opelousas native Benny Nele. Located at 2002 Johnston St., the supplement shop, smoothie bar and café, featuring hot off the press paninis and wraps, plans to open in late May.
Philip deMahy Sr., a once respected New Iberia ad exec, was sentenced May 2 to spend the next two years (he faced up to 100 years) in a state penitentiary after state and federal investigators found dozens of images depicting children engaged in lewd sexual acts on his personal computer.
This year’s Cool Town issue is all about people who are not native to South Louisiana but made a conscious decision to be here, to be among us, to participate in our culture and contribute to it.
A shelved ordinance transferring $200,000 from a northside drainage project to a south Lafayette development may not break any laws, but it stinks to high heaven.
An effort to restore a shuttered dancehall and document other vacant or razed honky-tonks could serve as a model for saving an endangered species of entertainment.
Lafayette’s gene pool has been host to a long line of eccentric characters who have blurred the lines between crazy, genius, disturbed and curiously entertaining.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Science by its very definition should never completely close any doors as you suggest. The proposition of catastrophic, man-made global warming taught us that -- the emerging research on the relationship between sunspots and earth temperature is something the Al Gore's of the world have been trying to suppress for decades.
And just this past week brought news that the previously "impregnable, unassailable" fact that life had to contain carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorous has been thrown out the scientific window. One article I read quoted a scientist as saying "more than a few textbooks are going to have to be rewritten." I think that quote is apropos for today.
And regardless of whether you believe solely in evolution, that still cannot answer the basic question of why. I think religion should seek to answer the why and science should seek to answer the how. The folks who use either to argue against the other are just using the issue to further push a political agenda.
All the best,
Soop