News to Note, April 28, 2012

1. Purple Crabs

Catastrophically buried together thousands of years ago, dino-mom and eggs come to light.

2. Fossil Stumps Experts

Dry Dredger’s local fossil stumps experts.

3. Easing Out of Hammocks

Easing out of hammocks into earthbound beds presumably helped apelike ancestors awaken to new possibilities.

4. Louisiana’s Science Education Act Weathers Challenge

Louisiana’s Science Education Act weathers challenge.

5.

Carlsbad collection carries kinds of antibiotic resistance beyond the reach of modern medicine’s wonder drugs.

And Don’t Miss . . .

• Yesterday marked the close of “40 days of prayer” promoted by Planned Parenthood and a Unitarian clerical association and supported by a variety of denominational groups. Promotional materials included “40 different prayers for those involved in the ‘sacred care’ of abortions to continue protecting, providing, and embracing the procedure—including mothers, escorts, [and] abortionists.” Among the 40 prayers, there were none for the unborn. The Humboldt County Clergy for Choice, co-sponsor with the Eureka, California’s Six Rivers Planned Parenthood, stated, “We are religious leaders who value all human life. . . . We believe that human life is holy. That’s why we believe in your right to choose to be a parent or not.”1 The lack of a prayer for the unborn and the Clergy for Choice’s statement would indicate that Planned Parenthood and those clergy who support their cause do not consider the unborn human. This of course is no surprise, as it would be difficult to promote the willful killing of a “holy life” while claiming to follow anything resembling Christianity. Apparently the Clergy for Choice, among its other creative interpretations, has re-defined “living a holy life” to mean “doing as you please without any regard to the standards set by God.” God would differ. And His assessment of the actions of those clergy who joined in the this mockery of genuine prayer and concern can be summed up by Isaiah 5:20—“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” For more information When Does Life Begin?
• As Tennessee’s new Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act went into effect April 20, a New York radio station conducted a live interview with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) representative Josh Rosenau and a public school general science teacher from Brentwood, Tennessee. NCSE’s determination to deny the existence of valid scientific controversy was abundantly clear in the Rosenau’s comments. He said, “Encouraging critical thinking is great . . .” but then said, “Scientifically speaking, evolution is just not controversial. . . . To talk about the strengths and weaknesses of it [evolution] assumes there are legitimate scientific weaknesses. . . . There just aren’t.” NCSE’s Rosenau expressed concern because he said students in the 7th or 9th grade are still learning “what science is and what science isn’t” and that the new law “blurs those lines,” as students need to understand how “science over centuries has developed a set of systems for testing things about the world.” Rosenau fails to distinguish between observational and historical science. That “system for testing things about the world” rests in the arena of observational science in which observable, testable, repeatable examinations of evidence are made. We can observe the world around us. We cannot observe the world at the time life began and how creatures supposedly evolved over time. Nothing in the past can be subjected to repeatable observable tests in the present. Therefore the science of origins is an example of historical science, and interpretation of evidence concerning the past is strongly worldview-based and worldview-biased. This fact alone generates genuine controversy regarding the interpretation of scientific information in a number of areas, as the Tennessee legislature has acknowledged. The Tennessee schoolteacher, glad of his increased freedom to actually educate his students, explained that a proper understanding of education demands divergent scientific viewpoints be open for examination. He said that teaching only one viewpoint is “not education, but indoctrination.” For more information see The Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act.