This reminds me of the famous 1963 song by Nino Temple and April Stevens—a monster hit:
Porsche finds its way home
No, it’s not a car but a sleek black cat. This video, from NBC News, tells the story of a moggie who found its way home over a distance of eight miles after the family was relocated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
Now I read this kind of story frequently—frequently enough that I think there must be something true about animal homing. While I know a bit about the homing of pigeons, I’m ignorant of dogs and cats. Have there been any scientific studies about how pets find their way home?
But did Porsche really find his way home? If I were a reporter, I would have asked the owners one question: “Did Porsche have a collar and tag when he was lost?” (And don’t forget that he didn’t seem to have missed many meals!)
Oh, and if you have any stories about your pet doing this, feel free to add them.
h/t: Steve
Newspaper readers asked to defend religion against science’s “no-Adam-and-Eve” finding
The Topeka (Kansas) Capitol-Journal’s online site, cjonline.com, has a religion column called Genesis Station, written by Floyd Lee. Today’s column, “So how would you respond to this atheist?” takes up a question raised in an essay by preacher-turned atheist Mike Aus, and which I discussed on this site.
Lee says this (emphasis is his):
Aus used to be a Christian pastor, but now he is an atheist. In fact, as evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne mentioned at his WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog, “Aus was, as far as I know, one of the first public ‘successes’ of Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola’s “Clergy Project,” a sort of electronic halfway house to help non-believing clerics leave their faith behind.”
At any rate, Coyne quotes Aus thusly. Consider this carefully:
“Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example.
“If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homosapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible.
“So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race.
“The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.
“…If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless.”
Ouch. No wiggle room, and no escape hatches. Period.
Especially notice that Aus’s point derives DIRECTLY from the theory of evolution. No escape, baby.
Indeed, and if you want the scientific data showing that the human lineage could never have been smaller than 1200 people in the last few million years, see the Li and Durban paper referenced at the bottom. It simply uses well established population-genetic theory to show that the amount of genetic variation in modern humans could not have existed (even with mutation) had the ancestral population been very small, like TWO. Ergo no literal Adam and Eve, ergo no original sin, ergo no need for Jesus.
This is so vexing to Christians that BioLogos refuses to take a stand on whether or not Adam and Eve were the literal ancestors of humanity: a shameful and cowardly position for an organization supposedly dedicated to converting evangelical Christians to good science.
Lee then puts a poser to his audience:
So when evolutionist Coyne saw Mike Aus’s argument, Coyne’s reaction was a direct “I don’t see any way around this.”
And that’s where you and I come in. If you are a believer in the theory of evolution, and especially if you are a Christian or other religionist/nonreligionist who believes that “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith,” (as the late Pope John Paul II wrote), here’s the question:
How would you refute Mike Aus’s argument? Are you able to?
Well, first of all, if you believe that “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith,” why are Christians in a tizzy about Adam and Eve? Why does the Roman Catholic church still embrace a literal Adam and Eve; why do many American Christians see their literal existence as irrefutable; and why is BioLogos tying itself in knots trying to reconcile evolutionary genetics with scripture? Of course there’s a conflict! All the readers can do is make up reasons why one doesn’t exist for them.
It will be fun to see the answers roll in, but already some are humorous. Lee calls himself “Contra Mundum” in the comments, and he poses the question more directly. To hiscredit, he doesn’t whitewash the implications of evolution:
And two of the several responses (I haven’t seen a good one yet). The first appears to convey some cognitive dissonance, resolve at the end by a simple declarative sentence that comes out of nowhere.
And I love this one:
Now really, can you tell me that we’re going to win Americans over to evolution by simply teaching them the facts that support it? I don’t believe that for a minute. First you need to remove the God-colored blinkers over their eyes.
I have half a mind to go over there and stir up trouble . . .
_____________
Li, H., and R. Durban. 2011. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475:493-497.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation to Ball State University: cease and desist your religious indoctrination
If you need some background, have a look at my earlier post about Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana.
At that University resides one Eric Hedin, an assistant professor at BSU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. Hedin teaches two courses (actually, probably one course with three different names, “Inquiries in the Physical Sciences,” “The Boundaries of Science,” and “The Universe and You”), one of which meets the science requirement for Honors Students at BSU. My post reproduced the syllabus of the “science” course, “Astronomy 151, The Boundaries of Science,” which showed that the course was nothing more than a vehicle for purveying intelligent design and Christianity to the students.
Further, three Ball State students at the Rate My Professors site criticized Hedin for proselytizing a Christian viewpoint in his classes; these complaints go back to 2006. It’s pretty clear that Hedin is simply a stealth Christian, who takes the opportunity in his classes to push his religious views on the students—to the neglect of real science.
When I wrote about this situation, which clearly violates the First Amendment separating religious endorsement from U.S. governmental operations (these include public schools, of which BSU is one), several readers, as well as both P. Z. Myers and Larry Moran, argued that this was not a First Amendment violation for three reasons. First, the class was elective, so students didn’t have to take it. Second, this occurred at a university, not a public elementary or high school, and, presumably, you can violate the First Amendment in university classes. Third, at universities, “academic freedom” trumps the First Amendment; that is, professors can push whatever religious views they want on their students, even in science classes, for that’s simply the exercise of their “academic freedom.” (I note that all of us agree that Hedin’s classes were insupportable and that he should be told to cease teaching them, though people like P. Z. and Larry seem to feel that the professors cannot be forced to stop teaching what they want.)
I disagree with these arguments. “Academic freedom” is not a license to teach whatever you please in a classroom, particularly religion. Imagine how a Jewish student, for instance, must feel when reading Christian apologetics. (One of Hedin’s classes requires reading C. S. Lewis, for crying out loud), and Hedin presents no balance with thinkers who are nonbelievers or of other faiths.) And wouldn’t students feel intimidated to give answers on tests if those answers contravene Hedin’s religious views? If you think professors have the “academic freedom” to teach what they want in classes, imagine a geology teacher teaching Biblical Flood Geology as science, or a professor in medical school teaching homeopathic medicine.
All schools, not just public ones, have the duty to make sure that their students are being taught a balanced curriculum, particularly in science classes where the “truth” is not simply a matter of opinion. And public schools have the additional duty to ensure that their professors—who, after all, are government employees—do not prosyletize their religious beliefs.
My view is that Hedin should not be fired, but that he should be stopped from teaching any classes that advance his religious viewpoints. If he doesn’t stop, then he should be dismissed.
That opinion is shared by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), whose lawyers, when they became aware of Hedin’s activities, wrote the letter below to the President of BSU, the chair of Hedin’s department, and other BSU officials. It’s a “cease and desist” letter asking for relief from Hedin’s unconscionable proselytzing. And it may well be the first step in a lawsuit against BSU.
If you don’t have time to read it (though you should, for it shows how organizations like the FFRF make their case), here is the case law that nullifies the argument that academic freedom trumps freedom from religious indoctrination (this is taken from the letter; note the mention of “optional classes”). Emphasis is mine:
Another legal issue with this class is Hedin’s active promotion of his personal religious views. In Bishop v. Aronov, the University of Alabama ordered a teacher, Dr. Bishop, to stop injecting religion into his classroom. Bishop lost a free speech lawsuit challenging the university’s order. Bishop said things like:
The order telling Bishop to stop such remarks is constitutional. It said:
The court specifically held that the university classroom “is not an open forum,” and upheld the university’s order that the professor “separate his personal beliefs and that he not impart the former to hius students during ‘instructional time’ or under the guise of courses he teaches in so-called optional classes. Id. at 1071. The court was “not persuaded that, even in the remotest sense, Dr. Bishop’s rights of free exercise or worship as those concepts are conprehended in constitutional parlance are implicated.” Id. at 1077.
Here’s the FFRF’s full letter, which I reproduce with permission (click to enlarge):
If anybody from Ball State is reading this: Hedin’s classes are not only unconstitutional, but an embarrassment to your university. Even if you disagree with the freedom-from-religion argument, Hedin’s courses are a discredit to BSU and he should be removed from them or forced to eliminate the religious indoctrination.
Note to others: it appears to be settled law that “academic freedom” cannot, in a public university, be an excuse to teach any damn thing you want.
As I mentioned earlier, I wrote to the chairman of Hedin’s department expressing some of the sentiments above, but he blew me off, arguing that his courses had been deemed satisfactory by University officials. We’ll see if they start singing a different tune now!
An eagle takes flight
High school student suing for First Amendment violation outs herself
Earlier today I posted about how a 16-year old student, named “M.B.” in the court documents, was suing Northwest Rankin High School in Flowood, Mississippi for forcing students to listen to pep-talks about Jesus. Those talks, mandatory for all the students, clearly violated the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Well, that student has now outed herself in an eloquent statement, “Why I sued Northwest Rankin High School,” posted on the American Humanist Association website. Here’s part of her statement, which reveals the usual abuse heaped on anyone who dares ask for freedom of religion in America:
In order to eradicate any mystery and pretense, I would like to first formally announce that I am M.B., the plaintiff in this case. Moreover, my full name is Magdalene Bedi, although I am better known as Gracie Bedi by classmates and friends.
I abandon anonymity not to call attention to myself, but rather to call attention to the case and better validate its purpose. As a student at the high school, I have been privy to the thoughts and analysis of my peers, and what I’ve heard has been incredibly disheartening. Rather than reviewing the case as one of constitutional rights, I have been written off as an angry atheist, a scorned student, and even as a greedy child looking only for profit. Allow me to defend myself against such harsh conclusions.
I am not an angry atheist. As a matter of fact, I am not an atheist at all. I hold many Christian beliefs and values, and I do not mean to attack the religion or its message. Instead, this is a case about our constitutional right to be free from the government promoting these religious beliefs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. In fact, my friend Alexis, who is bringing this lawsuit with me, is a humanist. But this case is not about our religious beliefs.
I take issue with the fact that my peers and I were forced to attend a preferential religious sermon by a public school administration. The government, and Northwest is indeed a government for all intents and purposes, has no place in dictating the religion of the governed. May I remind the public of the first right listed in our Bill of Rights, established in order to protect the people from overbearing regimes: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Not only does this forbid the forced attendance of religious meetings and state promotion of religion generally, it also allows for the governed to present their grievances to their government, which is precisely what Alexis and I have done. Public schools are not to violate these most cherished constitutional rights, granted to all citizens of America (even high school students).
What an wonderful statement; and there is more on the site.
More power to you, Ms. Bedi. You’re a brave woman, and although you’re going to face even more scorn, ostracism, and hatred, do realize that many of us are behind you. More important, the Constitution of the United States is behind you. You are right, your opponents are wrong, and you will win.
You can leave Gracie Bedie a message of support on the AHA site. Given what she’s in for, I’m sure she’ll appreciate it.
Mayoral candidate endorsed by Jesus
Anna Pierre, a registered nurse and former Creole-language singer, ran for mayor of North Miami. Her claim is unique, even among Americans: she argues that she was endorsed by Jesus Christ. As a video at ABC video notes, she prayed and received not one but three signs that Jesus endorsed her.
Anna Pierre is likely the best known of the eight candidates vying to be mayor of this city of 60,000.
She made headlines first for her claim that opponents had left dolls with needles at the front of her home, which she claims was an attempt to perform a voodoo hex against her.
Pierre, a registered nurse, emigrated from Haiti in the 1980s where she had a pop hit on the island called “Suk Su Bon Bon,” or “Put Some Sugar On the Candy.” The lyrics are too racy to repeat here.
Pierre has promised improved access to healthcare if she becomes mayor and claims on her Facebook page and campaign flyers that she received an endorsement from Jesus Christ.
“Yes, he did endorse me,” she told ABC News affiliate WPLG Monday.
Here’s her campaign flier:
Sadly, despite support from Our Savior, Pierre finished last. Since personal revelation is taken by many religious people as a “way of knowing,” I call this evidence against the omnipotence of God.
Public school forces students to hear about Jesus
It’s in Mississippi, of course, perhaps America’s most benighted state. Although the news is a bit late (this was reported three weeks ago), it’s timely in representing the never-flagging forces of religious indoctrination in my country:
From The Raw Story:
A high school in central Mississippi allegedly forced students to watch a Christian video and listen to church officials preach about Jesus Christ.
The American Humanist Association’s [AHA] legal center filed a lawsuit against Northwest Rankin High School in Flowood on Wednesday, accusing the school of violating the student’s First Amendment rights.
The school has held at least three mandatory assemblies about finding hope in Jesus Christ this month, according to the lawsuit. The assemblies showed a video laced with Christian messages about overcoming personal hardships through Jesus Christ and were allegedly led by local church officials.
“See, before Jesus came, innocent blood had to be shed for our sins,” one of the church officials allegedly told the students. “There had to be an animal that was sacrificed toatone for our sin. There had to be innocent blood. So Jesus came and he was the innocent blood because he lived a perfect life. He was that innocent blood. See the last few years of Jesus’ life he traveled from region to region and country to country and he had 12 disciples that followed him everywhere. And he talked about the hope he was bringing.”
The assemblies concluded with a prayer and teachers blocked the exits to prevent students from leaving, the lawsuit claimed. A disillusioned student videotaped one of the assemblies.
The Christian News (whose story is called, humorously, “Humanists fuming over high school assembly offering hope in Christ to troubled teens” gives a bit more information (by the way, Jews, nonbelievers, and even Christians who support the Constitution should be fuming, too):
According to reports, on April 9th, a representative of Pinelake Baptist Church participated in a student-organized assembly that included a video dealing with teen problems, such as premarital sex, drugs, cutting, suicide and other issues. The two individuals featured in the film explained that they were able to overcome their struggles through the power of Jesus Christ. The presenter also spoke to students about the hope that is found in Christ, and led students in prayer.
That, of course, clearly violates the First Amendment, for the assemblies were held during school hours and were mandatory for the students. Given that, who organizes the assembly is irrelevant. (The school disagrees that it was mandatory.) A voluntary student-promoted presentation after school hours would, I think, have been legal.
The Appignani Humanist Legal Center in Washington, D.C., a branch of the the American Humanist Association, nonetheless sent a letter to school officials, rebuking them for permitting the event.
“This practice is unquestionably a serious violation of the separation of church and state required by the Constitution,” the letter stated. “Pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, the school’s sponsoring of and affiliation with, as well as endorsement of, Christianity through this event was unconstitutional.”
“It is sufficient that the presentation was school-sponsored and held on school grounds during class-time,” it continued. “The fact that this event was mandatory, and was promoted by the school principal only compounded the Establishment Clause violation.”
The Center then demanded that all events of similar nature be terminated, insinuating that a lawsuit could be filed against the school if it refuses to act.
“The event promoted by this school was conducted during class-time and was mandated by the principal. It has hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the Establishment Clause than the one complained of herein,” it stated.
Over at The Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta has posted part of a transcript from one assembly; the link to the lawsuit filed by the AHA is here. Read it only if you can tolerate stuff like this:
We are here today to tell you where we find our hope. We find our hope in Jesus Christ.
As I say that I know some of you go, ‘Yeah I know who Jesus is and I’m not really… I’m not about that life.’ And we know it is not cool for us to stand up here and tell you that we follow Jesus. We understand that. But that’s okay. Because we care about you so much that there is no way that we could graduate from high school and have a hope that we believe is for our eternity and not share it with you guys. How selfish of us would that be. That we know there is a life changing hope out there and we not share it with you.
The heartening thing is that one of the plaintiffs is a female student—a 16-year-old junior, and clearly a very brave one. She’s identified in the lawsuit as “M.B., a minor by and through her next friend, Alexis Smith” (Smith, 18, is a member of the AHA). You can imagine what ostracism M. B. will experience should her name go public. Do we have another Jessica Alquist here?
In other related news, I haven’t forgotten about the execrable incursion of Christian teaching into a science class at Ball State University in Indiana. (Ball State is a public university, which makes it an arm of the U.S. government). Although both P. Z. Myers and Larry Moran have weighed in, arguing that, in the name of academic freedom, a science teacher should be able to tell his students whatever he wants in a science class, I disagree. To quote Larry, “I defend the right of a tenured professor to teach whatever he/she believes to be true no matter how stupid it seems to the rest of us.” (Of course both Myers and Moran deplore shoving Christianity down students’ throats in a science class, but hey, that’s academic freedom!).
Well, I think lawyers know the law better than do professors, and Constitutional lawyers disagree with the “right” of college professors at state universities to teach religion in science class. We’ll have more about that soon.
h/t: Barry













