I didn't think it could occur to the extent that six people in positions of power with regard to the education of thousands of students, could attempt to turn back over one hundred and fifty years of biological, chemical and physical research !  But you did!

     Now perhaps the next thing the Kansas Board of Education will see fit to do, is to re-declare the world flat.  After all, when one is in Kansas, it is patently obvious that the world is flat; you can see that with your own eyes. It must be the corn, in certainly can't be the water. 

     That just about every scientist in the world accepts the Theory of Evolution as a matrix for understanding of  biological processes, which the discovery of the configuration of the DNA molecule by Watson and Crick (for which they  received a Nobel prize) has done much to continue to validate.

     Unfortunately the Luddites of the world, who think that only their interpretation of certain religious texts which  have absolutely nothing to do with a description of history, want to have it their way, and thus wish to impose their own  irrational beliefs on everyone else.

     I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe that the earth and the rest of the universe was created as  described in the Book of Genesis.  You have the absolute right in this country to remain ignorant; and of course there are  some who just can't help it - it's genetic, and a result of evolution, or perhaps devolution.  The problem occurs when those  beliefs cross over into the public realm and those who hold them attempt to impose them on the larger society. 

     I wonder how these same people must feel, especially those on the Kansas State Board of Education, if they know  that the majority of biblical archeologists and researchers in comparative linguistics, are of the considered opinion, arrived  at through years of research in their respective fields;  that no one in the book of Genesis ever existed.  

     At one point, the cutoff between mythology and some historical validity occurred at the description of the United  Kingdoms of David and Solomon. However further research has many convinced that not only did Saul, David, Solomon  and the rest not exist, but the Temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon never existed either, at least not as described in the  texts. 

     This is because the Bible was never meant to be a summation of history as it occurred, but a text of repetitive  moral tales with the same theme told over and over to get the message across to a society which at the time was mostly  illiterate and/or ignorant - apparently kind of like some of  those currently residing in Kansas. 

     Why should evolution be taught in science classes? 
For the same reason that other factual information should be taught.  It is the best, most accurate explanation we  have for the variety we see in the living world, resulting from the research and experimentation of thousands of scientists for over a century and a half.  This is very important.

     Children may not need to know what time of day George Washington was born, but they need to know he was our  first president. In the same way, they need to know about evolution because it is a key to understanding every aspect of the  biological sciences, from genetics to animal behavior, as well as plant science. (corn is a plant)

     But then, the Kansas board of education apparently said at one of their meetings, "what about equal time for other  scientific viewpoints, like 'scientific' creationism?" 

     Well, quite often scientists really do disagree about the explanation for some natural phenomenon. Some question  whether evolution was gradual and linear, or whether it occurred in periods of stasis followed by great changes which  occurred very rapidly, and then further static periods.  Sometimes it is appropriate to present children with different  viewpoints, and the evidence for them.   This can help children understand how science works, and what kind of evidence is needed to establish a scientific theory.   But it can't always be done because there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to teach children about every explanation that  was ever given.

     In any case the fact is that "scientific creationism" is not a genuine scientific theory. It is an attempt to use scientific sounding arguments to uphold a particular religious belief, the belief that the creation story told in the Bible is literally true.  The scientific method is to start with a question, such as, "Why are some fossil animals so different from the animals around 
us today?" and find the answer throu-gh observation and experiment.  The creationist method is to start with an answer, then look for evidence that seems to fit. 

     Another important difference is that science uses natural explanations of natural events.  Scientists study natural  processes occurring in the world around them, find out how they work, and apply the principles they learn to new questions.   They never use miracles as explanations.

     "Scientific creationism" depends on miracles; its explanations assume that there have been exceptions to the laws  of nature.  This means that "scientific creationism" is unscientific by definition!

     The "flaws" that creationists claim to find in evolutionary theory simply don't exist. They are based on  misunderstanding of the theory, or misrepresentation of evidence.  This is really a very complicated area, but one example  might help. "Scientific" creationists often claim that evolutionary theory is disproved by a lack of transitional fossils ---  remains of plants or animals that are intermediate between modern species and the fossils we have found. Some plants and  animals don't fossilize well; sometimes conditions for preserving fossils are poor; sometimes fossils are destroyed; some  fossils will never be found because they are inaccessible --- located under water or in deserts.
 
     But, there is enough fossil evidence - not to mention transitional species living right now! -- to establish a clear pattern.  Suppose you saw the ruin of a house after a bombing -- some standing door frames, a partially tumbled  down chimney, and so on.  You would not need to see every bit of roof and wall to convince you that it was a house. 

     You might not know what color the house was, just as we are not sure whether or not some dinosaurs had voices.  But we do know that some species of mammoths were the ancestors of modern elephants as surely as you would know that  you were looking at a house and not a football stadium!

MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI
Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Vice-President, Rationalists of East Tennessee

Will speak on SCIENCE AND RELIGION

At U.W Madison, Memorial Union
See Today in the Union posting for exact room location

Sponsored by SECULAR HUMANISTS OF MADISON

In his article in the current Skeptical Inquirer entitled:  "Where Do We Come From?  A Humbling Look at the Biology of Life's Origin," Dr. Pigliucci
includes his recommended "top ten contemporary" readings and his "top ten
classical" readings on the origin of life.  Click here for more information.

Related Websites: 
Dr. Pigulicci's Homepage at University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Rationalists of East Tennessee website
Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective (1998)
Dr. Pigulicci's comments on article "Evolution and Atheism"
Greg J. Schmidt's comments on Gish-Pigulicci debate in Knoxville, TN
Dr. Pigulicci's comments on "The Ark, polystrate fossils, and 'Lucy'"

Books:

"Phenotypic plasticity: environmental, molecular, and organismal
perspective". In preparation for Landes Bioscience.

The evolution of phenotypes (1998) with C.D. Schlichting. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Contact Dennis Coyer for details or call Bernice Popelka at 414-228-4689 

Please advise your readers of Reasonings that Freethought Society will have a meeting at People's Bookstore on September 19, 1999, 10:30 a.m. 

People's is at 2122 East Locust Avenue, Milwaukee, WI.  Questions?  Call Mike Neumann at 453 7425 or Carol Smith at 242 0788. 

Humanist Quest meets on September 19 at 12:30 p.m. at 1342 North Astor, Milwaukee, WI. 

Carol Smith 
AAW Member

     Isn't that Kansas Board of Education decision to trump science with religion two hoots and a holler?  The church-state entanglement aside, to try to bury the testable and re-testable significance of evolution is to reject all of 20th century science and technology. And to deliberately not educate children about the fundamental importance of evolution to the study of biology is not just immoral. It's criminal. 

     Fortunately for the children and the future of that state, and also of the entire country, the state's universities and teachers are leading an effort to protest this nonsensical policy. It would be nice if, and it might be critically important that, academic and corporate biotechnologists from Wisconsin help nip this in the bud. 

Dennis Coyier 
AAW President 

     The monkeyshines going on in Kansas over the issue of evolution is bad enough. But when a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America from the state of Kansas refused to stand up for the integrity of science education in the Kansas public schools I was thoroughly disgusted. 

     Elizabeth Dole came in third in the Iowa straw poll which means that she could very well become the Republican candidate for President. When asked about the act of the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to remove all references to evolution is a state and parental problem and not a problem for the federal government. 

     Now it so happens that the federal government is involved in dispensing the hard-earned dollars of all taxpayers upon public education in the United States. Is it really asking too much of a presidential candidate coming from a state where education in the sciences has been denigrated to take a stand supporting sound science education as defined by the consensus that has been obtained in all of the scientific disciplines? 

     It is my humble opinion that the citizens of Kansas will see to it that the six members of the Kansas State Board of Education who voted to downgrade science education will be replaced at the appropriate elections. 

     One would have expected that a potential Republican candidate for the presidency would have given that advice to the people of Kansas along with an eloquent statement supporting science education in the public schools of her home state. 

     Unfortunately, Elizabeth Dole has chosen to pander to the politics of expediency and ignorance. 

Mervin E. Farmer 

     The August 11 six to four vote of the Kansas Board of Education to delete any reference to evolution as an underlying principle of biology and other sciences shows what happens when a zealous dogmatic sectarian religious group gains political power.  No longer will knowledge of evolution be required in  state-sanctioned tests in Kansas although the subject may still be 
taught in the public schools. 

     It is obvious that Biblical literalists have taken over the Kansas Board of Education. Perhaps they would be so kind as to tell us which of the two contradictory creation myths in Genesis they would prefer to have taught in lieu of the solid science that supports evolutionary theory. 

     Mainline Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism have been able to reconcile Darwinism with their particular religious views on the origin of the universe and life on our planet. How is it that this group of ignorant Biblical literalists have been able to impose their views of science on the public schools of Kansas? 

     Final or ultimate knowledge about the origin of the universe and life will probably forever elude us. Carl Sagan expressed it well in COSMOS: "Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened -- the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it 
happened is the greatest mystery we know. THAT it happened is reasonably clear." (p. 246) 
That mystery has become the province of religion and mythology. Explanation of what happened after the Big Bang belongs exclusively to the realm of science. 

Robert E. Nordlander 
AAW Member 

     As a retired Presbyterian minister and as a person who has worked as a chemist in industry, I find the news from Kansas very disturbing.  The media have informed us that the Kansas State Board of Education has voted to delete all references to the phenomenon of evolution from state science tests. Charles Darwin's explanation of this phenomenon, which has been fine-tuned in the century since his death, is to be discouraged in the public schools of Kansas. 

     As a person who has spent a part of his professional life as a scientist, I find the action of the Kansas Board of Education to be absolutely deplorable and is comparable to the silencing of Galileo by the ignorant religious bigots of his era. It is obvious that the Kansas State Board of Education hopes to silence the science teachers of the public schools by removing the subject of evolution origins is to be discouraged. 

     One can only speculate as to what the next subject will be that the Kansas Board of Education will attempt to discourage in its assault on science and human enlightenment.  As a retired clergyman of the Christian faith and a practicing Christian, I am even more disgusted by the act of the Kansas State Board of Education. The Christianity I know tells me that it centers on Christ's love and his promise of human redemption rather than on the technical details of how the universe may have come to be or how life began. 

Rev. Tom Hutt, (Ret.) 
Presbyterian Church 

     The remarks made by all of the presidential candidates concerning the recent monkey business in Kansas denigrating the teaching of evolution in the public schools reveal to the American people that they are scientific illiterates and therefore unfit to lead the most powerful nation on planet earth. If one were to follow the logic of the present crop of presidential "wannabes", people who hold to the idea that the earth is flat ought to be able to present their arguments against the "theory" that the earth is a spheroid. After all, the flat-earthers have the Bible on their side. 

     This is how The Interpreter's Bible,Volume I, published by the Abingdon Press (New York, 1952, p.472), describes what is reported in Genesis1: 6-10: 
 

Robert E. Nordlander 
AAW Member

     Public funding of faith-based social services robs taxpayers and religion.  It robs taxpayers by forcing us to pay unconstitutional tribute to world views we're under siege from, meaning our legal guidepost won't be worth the parchment it's written on, and it robs religion of its status beyond the reach of political whim. 

     Under this initiative, vouched for by both presidential front-runners George Bush and Al Gore, churches may have to dilute their missions to suit the strings on public money. Voluntary tithing and the spiritual benefits derived from giving will dwindle, coercive sectarianism and discriminatory hiring will appear to be blessed by civil authorities, and minority cultures will find themselves cut from the American team. 

     But there is a difference between the candidates. While Bush openly favors allowing government to throw its authority behind the active promotion of religious belief, imposing organized prayers in public schools and diverting public education tax dollars into private parochial schools. Gore has stated that secular alternatives would be made available for 
those who did not want to receive social services from religious institutions and he would make sure that no government funds would be used for proselytizing or promoting any article of religious faith. 

     Although I have yet to be convinced of a single advantage to diverting moneys through houses of worship, one of these candidates clearly has more respect for the Constitution. Nonetheless, as a church-state separationist and a Democrat, I hate to be reduced to thinking the best we can do is the lesser of two evils. 

Dennis Coyier 
AAW President 

     Here's what I learned at the clothing-optional beach near Mazomanie last Sunday: 

Dennis Coyier 
AAW President

     Kudos to William Wineke for his commentary ``Sex doesn't belong in the Scouts.'' I too am appalled at the attempted practice of excluding kids and leaders in the Boy Scouts based on sexual preference. The BSA has also expelled children and adult leaders who were not religious. 

     A few years ago I attended a Freedom from Religion Foundation convention in Madison where lawyers and plaintiffs discussed court cases surrounding the Scouts expelling nonreligious kids.  After the talk someone asked the audience of about 200 atheists of all ages, how many had been  Scouts. About a third of the men, including myself, raised their hands. Then the audience was  asked how many had been Eagle Scouts. Ten people, in a room of about 200, raised their hands. 

     I believe Wineke, who has also met many atheists, would agree that knowing that a person is atheist, like knowing that they are gay, is as meaningful as knowing that they are Lutheran or  heterosexual. None of these labels tells us anything about the attributes by which scouts and scout leaders should be judged: moral character, interests, or everyday social behaviors. And, most  importantly, they must be brave, clean, and respectful of others. 

Jim Dew 
(AAW Member)

     In reference to Wednesday's "Clash over the Pledge" article, praise to Dane County Board Supervisors Jamie Kuhn and Echnaton Vedder for standing their ground against bully and religious hate peddler Don Heiliger. 

     I wonder if Heiliger remembers saying the Pledge of Allegiance before the 1954 addition of "under God," a move which effectively and unconstitutionally disqualified the world views and values of millions of Americans, including veterans and prisoners of war. This is a fact the Heiligers of the world would like us to forget. 

     Just imagine hell breaking loose should these fringe conservatives manage to impose their flag prayer on all of Wisconsin's public schools. Imagine school officials naming names and launching Heiliger-style anger volleys at teachers and students for no more than their patriotic good sense not to submit to what in fact is state religion. 

Dennis Coyier 
AAW President 

     The good news is that the radical right's high stakes graduation test scheme is now off the state Legislature's front burner.  It's hard to imagine how anyone thought giving a student four chances and then, in the case they still don't pass, allowing parents and teachers to waive them through anyway made a speck of sense. 

     The bad news is that the House of Representatives, using the Littleton massacre as a blasting cap, not only decided it would encourage schools and other public buildings to display the Ten Commandments, but it's on the verge' of making it a punishable offense to "desecrate" (a religious term) a United States flag. 

     For those who think these assaults on constitutional separation of church and state and free speech won't affect daily life, think again. To the radical right zealots pushing these laws it means this country is that much closer to mandatory school prayer for teachers and children, forced pregnancy for women and death by stoning for homosexuals. 

Dennis Coyier 
AAW President 

The mis-named congressional legislation called the "Religious Liberty Protection Act" or HR Bill 1691 is available for inspection at: 

There the site visitor will also find important "Talking Points" refuting the various premises of the bill, and in support of the principles of church/state separation. 

They are as follows: 

     1. Any individual or group can claim protection for its actions by claiming they reflect religious belief or are part of the practice of religion. [What about groups who believe sex with children is a part of their religious convictions? Or drugs, pornography, imprisonment, beatings, mutilation, bestiality, etc.?] 

     2. Any group or individual can claim that they have created a religion; pseudo or ersatz religions will spring up like mushrooms. [Who will be able to judge whether a particular belief is religious or merely expedient?] 

     3. No exemption for government action intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of children is to be found in this bill. 

     4. Child protective agencies (CPS) will be hindered in acting to protect children from religiously motivated abuse. 

     5. It is more important for parents to have the right to practice their religion that it is for children to have the right to live in a safe and nurturing environment. 

     6. A new standard is created in child abuse and neglect cases (the least restrictive means to carry out compelling state interests). This new standard will place limits on government that will undermine the ability of states and local communities to ensure that children are protected. 

     7. Actions by CPS agencies to prevent harm to children will be brought to a halt by litigation authorized by RLPA, especially where state and local governments attempt to protect children from abuse and neglect motivated by a parent's religious beliefs. Children will be kept in dangerous, even life-threatening situations, while their parents pursue litigation against state workers who are trying to protect them. 

     8. Agents of the government who work on child protection will be chilled by the threat of costly litigation as they contemplate the risks in protecting children. 

     9. Under-funded agencies already burdened with heavy caseloads will be further drained by costly litigation.  Precious time and energy will be wasted. 

     10. RLPA will limit the state to only one "least restrictive means" to achieve the compelling state interest of protecting children from abuse and neglect. States need a wide variety of means, such as criminal penalties, civil tort 
liability, mandatory reporting, and social services intervention to deter child abuse and neglect. If states were to be limited to just one means, children would be left in the custody of persons whose religious practices are contrary to commonly accepted notions of child welfare. 

     11. Our 1st Constitutional Amendment does not allow religious practice to endanger the life of another. However, this bill will blur the distinction between religious beliefs that should be protected and those that infringe on the rights of others. [Shall parents be allowed to place their children in danger for the sake of religious beliefs?] The Supreme Court held (Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)): "The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation... The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death..." [Is this ruling to be made invalid?] 

     12. Groups claiming to be religious institutions can resist discovery in criminal cases, arguing that they must keep files confidential, even in the event of a wrongful death, otherwise their religious beliefs will be violated. 

     13. Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preferences, marital status, etc. can be justified as an expression of religious belief. 

     14. The subjugation of women and children will be argued as an expression of religious belief as will be practices such as female genital mutilation. 

     15. Religious institutions may evade accountability, civilly or criminally, for crimes that their employees/members may commit. Child victims or adult survivors will not be able to sue religious institutions to redress the sexual violations they suffered. 

     16. Different religious beliefs/practices may conflict. Who will decide which religious belief or practice prevails? Judges and juries? 

     Presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush believe that the solutions faith-based organizations are pioneering should be at the very heart of our national strategy for building a better, more just nation.  By "scaling up" the efforts of faith-based organizations and making them integral to strategic local, state, and national planning, we can invigorate civil society; empower faith-based and secular non-profits alike; create a myriad of new multi-sector partnerships; and bring a whole new leadership into the political process -- that of the community.   Both men feel that the federal government needs to facilitate the efforts of faith-based and value-based organizations are recognized and supported across America. 

     It is the position of Atheists & Agnostics of Wisconsin that such governmental efforts, however well intended, would erode the separation of church and state, inevitably leading to the promotion of religious superstitions, beliefs, taboos, theologies, and practices to the detriment of those whose own beliefs and philosophies run counter to any belief in, or reliance upon, the supernatural. 

     In addition, it would enable government to have an unwarranted and undesirable influence in picking and choosing which faiths would have their particular social agendas, organizations, and services subsidized and to what extent.  Inevitably this would lead to conflict and disorder on the part of some segments of the faith-based community who felt some other segment were unfairly privileged over their own. 

     It is the duty of the government to address social ills through secular means under a secular law created and administered by a secular legislature, judiciary, and executive authority. The proper source of financial support for faith-based community social services is the private sector to the extent that it can be successfully entreated to do so by the faith-based community.

     The DNR's contention that Wisconsin's Mazomanie Beach users are disruptive, harmful to the environment and in need of policing runs counter to what is plainly observable at the site.   Mazomanie Beach users represent a cross section of religious persuasions including Christian, none of whom find any theological or scriptural conflict with consenting nudity. 

     Mazomanie Beach users take meticulous care to remove litter, discourage overt sexual acts and encourage harmony at the site.  Mazomanie Beach is so secluded that the occasion of people who might be offended stumbling upon it is highly improbable .

     These facts being so, why then the seeming political and public outcry demanding the closing of Mazomanie 
Beach clothing optional recreation for nudists and sunbathers?   The answer lies in the religious bigotries, superstitions and taboos of certain segments of the faith-based community in general, and of one land-owning, Christian retreat investing minister with property just north of the Mazomanie Beach area who has perceived "clothing optional" recreation as an issue of enormous fund raising potential to finance his land purchase and its development to his personal profit and the "spiritual" recreation of his congregation. 

     Therefore in the interests of church/state separation and the concept of the individual's constitutional right to pursue happiness in non-destructive or harmful ways, it is the position of the Atheists & Agnostics of Wisconsin that the 
Mazomanie Beach continue to be a clothing optional recreational alternative for those who choose to avail themselves of it. 

Jim Dew, the new AAW webmaster, has been very actively engaged in remodeling, refurbishing and just plain revamping the AAW website to make it more diverse and "user friendly" than ever!  New elements to the site are sections dedicated to AAW position policies and papers, legislative and political action contacts, an upgraded archive of AAW's monthly newsletters, new and improved AAW contact information, as well as a whole new look! 

Jim is to be heartily congratulated for his complete overhaul of the AAW website making it more attractive and effective in presenting AAW policies, programs, and activities than ever before! 

[from Jim Cox]