Sanity moment::Charles Darwin is not a saint

Oh, it finally happened! Someone - an Australian poli sci prof named Hiram Caton - has commented on the bathetic and ridiculous hagiography of Charles Darwin that the Darwinian evolutionist community has resorted to - I suppose because it is under assault: from ID. I would hate to think this is their normal behavior, but I don't know enough to give odds:

... adroit evasion was not the beginning of the Darwin legend, but it was a landmark in his sanctification as the presiding spirit of scientific enlightenment. Signs abound that the celebration of his bicentennial will reverberate with new hymns and hosannas. Indeed, it has already begun with the opening of the lavish Darwin Exhibition at New York’s American Museum of Natural History in November last year. In June the exhibition will move successively to Boston, Chicago, and Toronto before finally opening in the London Natural History Museum in time for the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth on February 12, 2009..

Indeed, Caton enlarges on the fulsome nonsense:

Darwin revolutionised the biology of his day; he fashioned a new concept of humankind; he challenged basic philosophical and religious ideas about the nature and meaning of life; so profound was his insight that his thought remains relevant to contemporary biology. These surpassing achievements brought a “revolution” equal in importance to the Copernican revolution. Smitten with reverence, my eye falls on the dust jacket to contemplate the photo of the dignified aged Darwin: yes, he looks like a prophet!

As is wont with preaching, no evidence for this litany is offered: evidence implies evaluation and critical scrutiny. But outside the cathedral, old habits disturb my rapture. What grading system ranks Origin as the greatest book in science? What titles were runners-up? What were those signal discoveries that transformed the biological sciences of his day? What was his new concept of humankind? Did it support the actively canvassed universal suffrage and gender equality? What was the secularising element of Darwin’s thought, and how did it relate to the well-established influence of irreligion, industrialisation, engineering marvels, the free press, socialism, positivism, and the notorious laissez-faire doctrine of survival of the fittest?

But I am not going to spoil it for you any more. Enjoy it yourself.

Look, Charlie D. was a nice, wealthy old gent, a Victorian Brit toff who figured that the history of life could be explained by survival of the fittest, the war of all against all, the continual free fight, Darwinian capitalism, or whatever. And it had better be okay to say "On reasonable evidence, I don't think it's true or even very likely."

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Study suggests: Tyrannosaurs had life easy until they hit their teens

This popped in from CBC News's science team, which is pretty good:

Young dinosaurs lived in packs with nurturing parents like modern mammals, paleontologists who studied a group of fossils in Alberta's Badlands say.

[ ... ]

The study said the average mortality rate from ages two to 13 was about 3.7 per cent, jumping to 22.9 per cent between ages 14 and 23.

The survivorship pattern paints a picture of parents who shield their offspring until their young are old enough to breed. The behaviour is seen in large modern mammals, such as male elephants that usually stay with their birth herd until puberty.

(Note: I've come to suspect, through reading about the life and times of alligators , that the "reptilian brain" hypothesis - that reptiles can't have feelings - may be way too easy to be true. Hey, if 'gators care, why not dinos?)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

From the why-they-just-can't-get-it desk: Aw, slay 'em all

Clued-in religion journalist Terry Mattingly has written a valuable piece on the disastrous state of religion reporting in North America today - a problem which spills over into the intelligent design controversy.

Mattingly recounts, for example:

Picture this scene. A flock of Pentecostal Christians has gathered at the U.S. Capitol for yet another prayer rally about sex, abortion, family values and the public square.

"At times, the mood turned hostile toward the lawmakers in the stately white building behind the stage," wrote The Washington Post in its coverage of the event. Then, without explanation, the story offered this on-stage quotation from a religious broadcaster: "Let's pray that God will slay everyone in the Capitol."

Slay what? Clearly, the reporters didn't know about the experience that Pentecostal Christians call being "slain in the Holy Spirit," in which they believe they are transformed by a surge of God's power. The result was a journalistic train wreck that ended up in the book The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect.

"The problem," wrote authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, "was that the reporters didn't know, didn't have any Pentecostals in the newsroom to ask, and was perhaps too anxious for a 'holy sh-t' story to double-check with someone afterward whether the broadcaster was really advocating the murder of the entire Congress."

Some have assured me that, once word gets around, this whole decades-long problem will stop. Reporters will feel humiliated after discovering that they have made a wrong call.

Oops, not so fast. Ignorance about religion is not a SHAMING ignorance in newsrooms today! Yes, it should be, but it isn't. Indeed, ignorance about religion conveys, shall we say, a certain cachet of sophistication.

After all, would the journalist prefer to admit that (1) he doesn't know anything about Pentecostal experiences or (2) that he had one himself years ago, before drink, drugs, and sex snuffed out its effects? Gimme a break.

Thus, to know so little about the Pentecostal as to muff their story is an entirely forgivable dilemma in many media quarters. I am sure there is much more real career risk there in not knowing which brand of beer is cool.

Some blame the churches, claiming they should do more PR. Well, perhaps they should. But who would heed their PR? For that matter, who can be seen reading a book sympathetic to their tradition ("just for research") without making a snide, self-protective comment?

There is a wide gulf between the media culture that we North Americans reward and the culture we actually live.

For example,many polls that show that most North Americans do not believe in Darwinian evolution (the creation story, after all, of radical materialism). How do most media treat this story? Well, the story is written exactly as if most of us DO believe in the creation story of materialism and thus we are wondering about the small minority who don't. No one asks why the materialists believe what they do, as if that could be any kind of a problem. No indeed, their view is supposed to be the "overwhelming consensus of science" because science is conflated, without question, with materialism, just as religion is conflated, without question, with vulgar superstition.

It is seldom assumed that skeptics of Darwinian evolution have rational, evidence-based reasons for their views. Similarly, when Darwinism is forced on Darwin skeptics, a victory is proclaimed for science; actually, it is usually a victory for the suppression of evidence against Darwinism.

However, there are signs of a shift, not in the attitudes of newsrooms (which I wouldn't bother to wait for) but in the difference those attitudes make. The growing power of the blogosphere has made it impossible for a small media cabal to simply control the way stories are told today. As we all know, Dan Rather could NOT stop the pajamaheddin from revealing quickly that his memos were fakes. Circulation, ad lineage, and audience attention to legacy mainstream media are down, and falling. So the Pentecostals should probably just blog, and forget the legacy mainstream media.

Ah yes, ... and what more heavenly smell at 4:00 a.m. than fresh pajamas and a wee mug of hot coffee!!

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.