It was discovered on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut in the Canadian Arctic by Neil Shubin and team in April 2006. For a brief article and an audio clip, see Fish Fossil Discovery. The wikipedia article provides good pictures and information.

For some background. I was introduced to the tiktaalik via the DVD Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, by NOVA, as seen on Public Television. The trial began in Dec. 2004. Science teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania refused to comply with the request of the school board to teach ninth grade science students that evolution was just theory and not fact. Their compliance required for them to read a one-minute statement. Because the teachers refused to do it, another person (vice principal or somebody; I'm not sure) did it. Some parents were very upset at what their children were being taught and sued the school board. This is the topic of the DVD or video via which I was introduced to the tiktaalik.

The video shows the main concept of evolution theory. It uses Darwin's "Tree of Life" concept to show how all of life on earth is related across millions or billions of years of evolution. In Darwin's Tree of Life, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. This requires many transitional fossil links between the original "ancestor" and today's myriad species including humans. As the battle at Dover was raging, the tiktaalik fossil was discovered, which would provide an important transitional link between fish and land animals.

According to the DVD, tiktaalik means "large fresh water fish" in the language of the Inuit near where it was discovered. Possibly this video on the website of Creation Museum is also relevant; it tries to show both sides of the science/religion controversy in the United States. The DVD tries to do this, too, though it uses other means.

I decided to make this thread a sticky because it's turning out to be much more than just one "missing fossil link" that was found a few years ago.

Still watching the video. The tiktaalik was not available for evidence in the Dover trial but Kevin Padian, a paleontologist, showed the judge other transitional fossils. The media were stunned and asked why they didn't know about this stuff. Padian replied that the creationists fight so hard to keep it out of the textbooks so people don't know it and the information is not out there. But scientists know it and they can fill in the links.

Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result has ever emerged in a hundred and fifty years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up for a hundred and fifty years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory. And that is what evolution is.

The question is then raised: So if evolution has stood up to all this scrutiny, what about Intelligent Design? Does it play by the same rules?

The conclusion of the people in the video, all of them against ID, is that it is a negative argument that is untestable by science. One person used the example of the Red Sox winning an unlikely victory against the New York Yankees. He said some people might say, "God was tired of George Steinbrenner and wanted the Red Sox to win. In my part of the country you'd be surprised how many people would believe that's a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened last year. And you know what--it could be true but it certainly wouldn't be science! It's not scientific. And it's certainly not something we can test."

There were three weeks of this. Then ID had its chance. Could it stand up to the same scrutiny? The video shows the mother of the girl who was in ninth grade. She was getting hate mail of the type that she made sure her lawyer got a copy of and had forwarded to the FBI. In the words of the narrator, things in Dover had turned from "divisive to dangerous." I personally do not understand "love" that turns to violence, or "faith" that defends itself. Can't the almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe fend for himself?

Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center

The eight expert witnesses the defense lined up for ID from the Discovery Institute in Seattle and Thomas More Law Center were:

• Micheal Behe
• William Dembski
• Warren Nord
• Stephen Meyer
• Scott Minnish
• Dick Carpenter
• John Angus Campbell
• Steve Fuller

However, five of these witnesses dropped out of the picture and only Behe, Minnich, and Fuller testified.

Richard Thompson of Thomas More Law Center: Our aim was not to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. Our aim was to merely show that there are credible scientists who believe that the empirical data was supportive of Intelligent Design. That's all we had to show.

Stephen Harvey, Pepper Hamilton, LLP: It was our thinking if they could prove that there was a scientific basis for Intelligent Design that it would be possible that the court could conclude that there was a valid secular purpose for teaching Intelligent Design.

Witold "Vic" Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania: I think everybody was waiting to see whether or not the Intelligent Design folks had a case. But by the time we finished presenting our case, I think it was pretty clear that everything rested on Michael Behe's testimony.

According to the narrator, Behe is a scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge of Evolution. It seems he refused to be interviewed by NOVA for this video and no cameras had been allowed in the courtroom for the trial. However, he had gone on record in the trial, so NOVA reenacted the trial. What follows is taken from the reenactment.

Behe, professor of biological sciences, a biochemist, had been teaching at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania for 23 years at the time of the trial on Oct. 17 2005.

Behe: Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that proposes that aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent.... It is based entirely on observable, empirical physical evidence from nature, plus logical inferences.

He denies that it is based on any religious convictions.

Behe talks about the "motor" in flagellum. When asked whether any other scientist has noted this motor, he names David DeRosier who "has worked on this most of his career." He quotes something from DeRosier's writing:



David DeRosier, Brandeis University: What I wrote was: This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human. But that doesn't mean it was designed--that is, a product of Intelligent Design. Indeed, this motor has all the marks of something that arose by evolution.

My Comment: This shows to me once more how fundamentalists twist the words of others out of context to make them mean something other than originally intended. They do this to suit their own purposes.

Behe argues that this motor could not have evolved because it could not work without all the parts it has at the moment; he calls this "irreducible complexity." His argument is refuted by DeRosier. DeRosier observed that a simpler syringe exists in bacterium that causes the bubonic plague. While this simpler syringe cannot rotate it functions to transmit disease. DeRosier reminds us that Behe's term "irreducibly complex" means an object that cannot function with even one part removed. Yet this syringe has several parts removed and still functions to transmit disease. According to this definition, he argues, the flagellum motor is by no means "irreducibly complex." Behe's argument simply does not hold.

[Inserted later: Another person disproved Behe's "irreducibly complex" argument by showing that a mousetrap can function as a tie-clip with some parts removed, even though it cannot function as a mousetrap.]

Narrator: If they could show Of Pandas and People started out as a Creationist book, that would suggest Intelligent Design is simply Creationism repackaged, and therefore, inherently religious.

Barbara Forrest, Southeastern Louisiana University, a "philosophy professor...who has been tracking Intelligent Design for years," investigated the subpoenaed drafts of the book Of Pandas and People. In June 1987, the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science class. See article "Creation Science Banned In Schools: High Court Deals Blow To Move To Give Bible Equal Standing With Evolution," by David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer, in Los Angeles Times, June 30, 1987. Forrest found evidence that the ID proponents changed the wording of the draft of Pandas after that ruling. A transcript of the last part of the video can be found online. I found it just now. If you have the technology, you can download and listen to it. There are links on that page to more.

As I continue to watch the video--some parts several times over in order to better understand, the vehemence with which American fundamentalist Christians deny that ID has the word "God," in it or that their posts are religious, is beginning to make sense. As also is Behe's denial that ID is religious in any way. As shown in the post above, in the USA, mixing church and state is a violation of federal law, a solid legal case for the scientists. (See the Times article in the part on Forrest.)

Babara Forrest found a typo in the rewording of the drafts of Pands that was especially helpful in making their case. Just finding the rewording went a long way. I copy the incriminating sentence below in its before and after forms, underlining the parts that were changed:

Pre-Edwards draft: Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, bird with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

Post-Edwards draft: Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, bird with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

The "missing link," or typo, that Forrest found was: cdesign proponentsists

Forrests suggests that in their haste to reword the document, they missed deleting the "c" and "ists" of "creationists." When they typed "design proponents" between those letters, they ended up with "cdesign proponentsists." I am not sure what technology they were working with in 1987. The font looks like the old-fashioned type-writer keys, but the fact that they were able to push those letters apart indicates a technology similar to Word Processor. The fact that this typo occurred proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that rewording took place and that it was probably done hastily. Nick Matzke, the man who was working on the case with Forrest, says jokingly: Everyone now calls this the missing link between creationism and Intelligent Design You've got direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

Forrest also uncovered a quote from ID proponent Paul Nelson confessing openly that they don't have more than a "bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions." Compare that with the much earlier statement (not recorded in this thread) that a curiosity of the unknown drove scientific research for 150 years from Darwin till the present day. Real scientists are consumed with a curiosity about the world around them and how it works. Religionists are consumed with controlling what people believe about the world around them, and it seems they have some "powerful intuitions" and a "handful of notions" on how to do that in the "science" classroom. They are propagating lies and they know it.

Back to the video. Maybe I'm wrong in saying "they know it." I'm not sure what they know. Behe is asked again for his definition of science. He is asked whether astrology is science. He shakes his head to left and right as he answers as though to rid himself of all responsibility, but answers in the positive: Yes, astrology is a science under his definition.

By this admission, he is informed, he discards four or five centuries of work; this includes the work of thinkers such as Galileo and Newton.

Barbara Forrest discovered another document of the Discovery Institute, something called the Wedge: The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, drawn up in about 1998.

The Wedge Strategy:

• Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing and Publicity
• Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-Making
• Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Forrest testifies that "They want every area of life to be governed by their particular religious preferences. And they're very clear about that in this document."

[align=center]Decision[/align]

Judge John E. Jones III took six weeks to write his decision. He ruled that "ID is not science." Finding that it was instituted for religious reasons he decided that "it was unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design in Dover science classes." He stated that many people made an utterly false assumption, i.e. the assumption that "evolution and belief in a Supreme Being were antithetical." (In other words, one can believe in God and also hold to evolution theory.) He said further that Darwin's evolution theory was not perfect but the fact that a "scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom, or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

He concludes from the weight of the evidence that ID was the vehicle the school board used to get creationism into the classroom, that the school board had merely relabeled the product. The video shows that outstanding typo (cdesign proponentsists) at this point as evidence of the relabeling. Jones also recommends investigation for perjury charges on several people for lying under oath to promote the school board's goals. He ruled that "Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." He looks into the camera and adds:



Judge Jones set things up so that ID could never be taught in Dover high school and there could be no appeal of his decision. The video shows students and teacher emptying out of the classroom with smiles of joy on their faces. Jones is named by Time magazine one of the most influential people of the year.

Buckingham , one of the people whom Jones recommends be investigated for lying, disagrees very strongly that Jones knows law. Buckingham is a retired police officer and also served on the school board during this scandal if I'm not mistaken.

Richard Thompson of Thomas Moore Law Center admits that it was a fairs trial but says he is "disturbed" and thinks Jones took things way beyond what he had a calling to do.

I am not surprised; Jones expressed his personal values far beyond what professionals normally do. He did not have to bring in his personal feelings about "bad science" in light of the fight against terminal illness. He had a strong legal case without those comments.

[EDIT Dec. 30/08: I've been thinking about this some more. I did not post all the details of "Wedge Strategies" that Forrest uncovered. ID proponents aim to restructure the entire American culture. In about 1998, they have twenty-year programs and goals that will extend into the farthest and highest reaches of advanced education in all branches of academic learning. I am still researching the issues and may add posts as I find more information. My point here is that I think Judge Jones did not go overboard in expressing his personal values. What he said needed to be said. He was in the position to say it so he said it, cost what it may.]

Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs Dover Decision, a 123-page book by Discovery Institute, trying to distance themselves from the controversy.

People were so enraged by Judge Jone's decision that he needed round-the-clock protection. Again, I do not understand a god who cannot fend for himself. The very act of people fighting in lieu of their god speaks to me of either a very weak faith, or a nonexistent god, or both.

Edited to correct format and spelling, etc.

I should mention that the quotes in the posts above (except for what I copied visually) are my own transliterations of the audio video. The video is nearly two hours long so there is no way that you get the entire video from reading these posts; you will have to buy it from the website or rent it somewhere if you want to watch it. [EDIT JAN. 27, 2009: I discovered just now that you can watch it online from here.]

I found some transliterations on the NOVA website but did not use them. I discovered that only clips are on the internet for free. By the time I found the website I had already passed most of the parts that were posted, and I chose not to use the last one because it is there for readers.

The NOVA website does not post the judge's decision. At least, I did not find it if they do.

Readers may well see similarities between my transliterations and those on the NOVA website because they are supposed to be of the same audio. However, there may be slight differences such as in punctuation and formatting, or me using the word "of" where someone else uses the word "the," etc. It can be difficult at times to hear accurately how a word is supposed to be pronounced, esp. when it is either a new word or a new voice.

I did not anticipate posting so much when I started. I guess I really liked this video.

Thomas More Law Center

Fighting on the side of Discovery Institute for Intelligent Design in Dover science classrooms was Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), whose headquarters are in Ann Arbor, Michigan. On their About Us page they say:



As I read the rest of that page I realize I have located one of the bulwarks of fundamentalist Christianity. In their minds, they are using--or "seek to meet"--the "highest moral and ethical standards" of the "Christian faith" and the "legal profession."

TMLC describe themselves as a "not-for-profit public interest law firm," and call their services a "ministry" that was "inspired" by the "[i]culture war[/]" (emphasis original), or issues thereof, "being waged across America." The "issues" they list are:

• abortion,
• pornography,
• school prayer, and
• the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings

They indicate that this is but a sample list.

TMLC claim that these issues "are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts." They accuse the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and similar "legal advocacy groups," with using the courts to "systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation." They say this is not a "democratic process."

Just to keep things balanced, let's take a look at the website of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

American Civil Liberties Union

There is an ACLU Briefing Paper (pdf format) on the website. At the bottom of the first page there is a box "Three Things To Know About The ACLU." The print is fine but those who wish to know can enlarge it and read it. The second item says:



Let's take that list apart and examine the implications in light of the claims and accusations of TMLC

• right to practice any religion you want [or none at all]

This allows Christians the full right to practice their religion in the private sphere. One might ask what more Christians could want. A look at the TMLC's list of complaints suggests they want control of the public sphere as well as the private sphere. Municipal and school buildings tend to be public while issues such as abortion and pornography tend to be highly personal and/or private. Christian control of the public square allows no room for "no religion" or for "any religion," i.e. religions other than Christian. It also allows no room for other civil liberties on the personal level as discussed below.

Naturally, the ACLU would consider it their full legal right to protect citizens from such interference and control.

• to decide in private whether to have a child

This allows for abortion if the individual so chooses. It also allows for consensual sex outside of marriage, and other means by which to become a parent. This includes the adoption of children by couples or individuals in the GLBT community. I presume that the decision can be in private means that one need not get the permission of a priest or other religious authority. I suppose the TMLC would consider this to be the systematic subversion of the "religious and moral foundations of [the] nation."

Obviously, so long as people conduct their public interactions according to commonly held norms and laws, there is no practical connection between the process of daily community life and their private living arrangements. Anyone who thinks there is, is operating according to superstitions and religious fantasies. If that is you, you need to learn how to curb your imagination and control your fears, and let others live their own lives just as you want to live yours.

• to speak out--for or against--anything at all

This sounds to me like freedom of speech issues. ACLU organized in 1920. On their About ACLU page they outline the main rights they protect. They add:



My guess is the TMLC would disagree very strongly that this list of people should be given equal rights, and that their disagreement would be grounded on the same basis as stated above: They would find it subversive and immoral, based on their religious beliefs.

As I said above, if you have fears about such private and personal aspects of the lives of your neighbours and fellow humans, you need to deal with your personal issues.

• to be treated with equality and fairness, no matter who you are

This includes all of the above--the Christian as well as everyone else. For equality and fairness to be practiced for all, religion either stays out of the public square altogether (schools, municipal buildings, parks, road-sides, etc.), or all religions and life philosophies are allowed equal space to advertise and preach their philosophies, views, and principles. It means that the fundamentalist Christian is neither given more nor less favour than anyone else. His opinion is no more important than that of the disabled Asian atheist gay man.

What Would TMCL Make of This Case?

What would the TMLC make of a case if a disabled Asian atheist gay man brought a complaint against a white Protestant able-bodied married man in which the white man had physically threatened or molested him? What would their "highest moral and ethical standards" dictate them to do [link]? Chances are that they would not even take the case. On their History page they state:



First, helping homosexuals is probably not "consistent with their mission" because in their masthead they call themselves the "Sword and shield for people of faith," and our man is an atheist. I cannot find any explicitly-labeled "mission statement" on their website.

Second, "transform the national culture" resonates with what Barbara Forrest found in the "Wedge Strategy." This raises the question: Who or what do they see as this culture that must be transformed and how do they plan to go about doing this? On their page about Religious Freedom they list the following as enemy targets:

• Militant atheists in alliance with those at the ACLU
• radical Islamic groups
• Hollywood,
• the television industry,
• the mainstream news media,
• academia,
• public schools,
• the legal community, and
• a significant portion of the judiciary.

They had opened the article with heart-rending descriptions of the American Revolution (Valley Forge in Winter 1777). They use that war to motivate Christians to "fight for their rights"--to keep "militant atheists" and the ACLU from "deChristianizing" the country. They imagine--and portray them as such--that the founders were all devout Christians willing to die for the liberties that people enjoy today. They portray the situation that these liberties are today at stake because of "militant atheists" and the ACLU, and the rest of mainstream society listed above. They provide no documentation for their claims. They provide no evidence or support for their arguments. They do provide one old painting of the Valley Forge in 1777 and a photograph of soldiers in the "snow-laden mountains of Afghanistan in 2008" and emphasize Americans "sacrific[ing] for their country."

Clearly, they are playing on the imaginations, fantasies, and emotions of their audience. These are lawyers, after all, and they know how to manipulate people. It all breaks down when these people are confronted with truth and fact. As proven in the trial above, they could relabel the product but they could not change religion into science.

[align=center]**********************[/align]

I have now compared the fundamentalist Christian approach to reasoning with the approach of the ACLU. I made no secret regarding which approach I favour. Basically, it's a clash of values, a case of us versus them. How can the tie be broken? My argument is that, since we cannot prove that there is a life beyond this one, we need to focus on this life on this planet that we know about, and make it as comfortable as possible for all parties. I did some research on Barbara Forrest that suggests one possible way to go; it happens to be the way I have inadvertently developed over a lifetime of independent seeking for reality--that which is really real. I will look at it in my next post.

I found Forrest's witness testimony (pdf format) from the trial. She said her philosophy is pragmatic naturalism (starting P. 6. L. 20), based on John Dewey and Sidney Hook. On Page 7 she explains (very lightly edited):



Regarding pragmatic naturalism in scholarly research, on Page 8 she says:



That is what I find myself doing in this thread. I learned about all these people, events, and institutions in the video. But I needed to learn far more data--hard facts and details to back up the polished program I was watching, so I did some further research. For example, I looked up Barbara Forrest and found this transcript. I looked up the websites of the ACLU and TMLC and, because websites are constructed over a similar model, I was able to make comparisons of the two institutions. Via the comparison I was able to distill important information for further analysis.

I may also want to read up on John Dewey and/or Sidney Hook. I definitely plan to read more on Forrest.

She is also asked to explain the term "methodological naturalism," and says on Page 9:



Regarding Creationism, she says on Page 9:



A few key terms:

• natural explanations
• natural phenomena
• supernatural deity
• special creation

When we use natural explanations for natural phenomena or events, all dialogue or conversation and activity/experimentation is kept on the same level or realm or reality. Everything is on the empirical level that is observable, measurable, testable, falsifiable. When a supernatural deity is brought into the mix, suddenly we have things poofing into existence by with the term "special creation." The problem is that the things poofing into existence are not supernatural entities such as angels and fairies but natural entities such as bodies ranging all the way from celestial to microbes. This is a serious crossing-over of realities of realms.

Water and oil don't mix. How can the supernatural and the natural mix? Somehow, there is something very wrong with that kind of thinking.

It might work so long as humans use it for nothing more potent than deciding when to plant their crops (providing the weather is favourable to growth rather than to the lunar cycle; if not, they will risk starvation). However, when it is used on the level of molecular science, it does not work. As shown in the video, Michael Behe had to lie, distort facts, and twist his colleague's words out of context in order to make his theory work.

When it came down to hard fact, he was wrong about the flagellum motor, and also, the theory of irreducible complexity does not work as a basic principle. Obviously, when this kind of "science" is used for health care, five centuries of scientific progress are at stake; we're doomed to repeat many centuries of the bubonic plague. I guess that would solve the problem of over-population pretty fast. See also wikipedia's article for Black Death.

When we work with things we know about--things we can touch, see, measure--then we can see the effect of our actions and take responsibility for our actions. This is using "pragmatic naturalism." When we thus focus our energies on responsibly organizing our physical and tangible lives we will be kept quite busy. In addition, we can trust that if there is an invisible imperceptible realm of reality (also known as the supernatural), it will approve of our responsible behaviour of the visible and tangible realm. Allowing for the kind of science that admits the bubonic plague into back human society is the height of irresponsibility. That is Judge Jone's point.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial DVD available at:

• Amazon, 2008
• PBS

For details on the program (clips and transcripts) see the NOVA website.

Some links on Intelligent Design:

• The Wedge Strategy, by the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture
• Center For Science and Culture
• Forrest's Testimony
• Forrest Articles, includes:
  
  • Judge's Decision
  • Forrest and Gross's book Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
  • Charts Showing "Common Arguments and Themes" in Creation Science and Intelligent Design (pdf format; takes a while to download)
• Discovery Institute
  
  • Fellows of Discovery Institute
  • Fellows of Center for Science and Culture (includes William Lane Craig [see links below] and Michael Behe who testified at the ID trial)
    
    • Articles by Craig
    • Craig's Website
    • Craig's Forums for his seminal book Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed.
• Intelligent Design.org, filed as: Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design.

Though the url of Intelligent Design.org is separate from Discovery Institute, a video with the name "Discovery Institute" is on the homepage and was one of the first thing I saw. Names, incidents, and events related to the ID trial are all over the homepage. One is reminded of Discovery Institute's response to Judge Jone's decision with the book Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision by David K. Dewolf, John G. West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt.

Some Discovery Institute Books:

• Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski
• Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help, by Benjamin Wiker
• The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation, by Michael Medved
  

Evolution vs. Creationism: History of Evolution v Creationism
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp7b9ERMxp0&mode=related&search[/youtube]

Presented by:

• Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Exec. Director,
  National Center for Science Education,
  Author of College Textbook,
  Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction
  
• Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.,
  Professor of Philosophy, Dept. of History and Political Science,
  Southeastern Louisiana University, Author of
  Creationim's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

Unless I find more information that I feel absolutely needs to be listed here, I will probably leave it at this. This provides a wide range of information on both sides for anyone interested in researching the topic.

Already I found something else of relevance. I'm reading a quote from Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) that:

those who hold the historic view that brought forth this country have a right in the political processes to bring the Christian viewpoints into the courts of law and into.., our government

That quote comes from:

Cohen, Edmund D. Mind of the Bible-Believer. Buffalo, New York, Promethues Books, 1986, p. 10.

It seems he forgets who were actually the original inhabitants of the land today known as the United States of America. It was not the descendant of Europeans, and it was not Christians. I need to read the works of the American Founding Fathers for myself someday. It seems that the only people who claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian are conservative Christians. All others know that the Founding Fathers very intentionally did not found the nation on religious principles. It was the first Western country in the world--if not THE first country in the world--that was founded on other than religious principles. That the Religious Right of the late twentieth century and descendants want to build a theocracy today is in diametric opposition to the principles of the Founding Fathers. The Signatories of the Constitution must be turning in their graves.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is online!

It is nearly two hours long.

In 2007, Iowa State University denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez because he contributed too little to science in his years leading up to application for tenure. He appealed the decision and was denied again in Feb. 2008 (see Post 1 on a Reasonable Faith.org thread, and wikipedia article). Gonzalez is part of Discovery Institute and is a proponent of Intelligent Design.

As a strong contender for the teaching of reality, I feel encouraged when such actions are taken by our educators and boards of education. I see it as an effective way to battle the encroaching darkness of ignorance. Gonzalez is now teaching at an evangelical Christian school in Grove City, Pennsylvania (wikipedia).

The Reasonable Faith.org post contains links to emails and other contentious comments with an opposing professor Hector Avalos; this regards a debate of 2004 and is very convoluted. William Lane Craig is somehow involved and making litigious remarks against Avalos and it somehow concerns Gonzalez. There is a link to John W. Loftus's blog Debunking Christianity and references to YouTubes. It seems professors were having arguments on YouTube.

According to wikipedia, several Iowa institutions of post-secondary education had their faculty sign the following statement:

1. Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State University.
2. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of Intelligent Design on the integrity of science and on our university, please consider signing the "Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty" below.
3. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of "science and technology," convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

[emphasis in original]

More than 400 signatures were obtained.