The Concert For Darwin
I had the privilege of attending a gathering last evening billed as celebrating the double anniversaries of Darwin’s birthday (200) and the first publication of On The Origin of Species (150). For those who are not aware of recent events in the evolution vs. intelligent design pseudo-controversy, Harrisburg PA was the focal point of this brouhaha back in 2005 when the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover took place in Federal Court here.
Some of the local participants in the trial put together this little event as an anniversary celebration, and as a celebration of the outcome of the trial, roughly four years ago. It was sponsored in part by the local chapter of the ACLU and PA Nonbelievers. It was held at the Midtown Scholar Bookstore, a wonderful little venue that was an old movie theater, refurbished and recently opened in downtown Harrisburg. The ambiance for a concert like this was perfect, as you sit in the store, facing the stage, surrounded by stacks and stacks of books. It’s almost like being in a library, with the added advantage of being able to buy the books you like.
The mistress of ceremonies was Lauri Lebo, who, as a reporter for the York Daily Record, wrote 
about the trial as it was happening. She also wrote a book about the trial which I reviewed in a previous post. The show started with a scripture reading. OK, that was a little humor for all you theists out there. Actually, Eugenie Scott, from the National Center For Science Education, read a passage from the end of Origins to get everyone in the mood.
The first act was someone I was previously unfamiliar with, but no longer. Jefferson Pepper (who also happens to be married to the mistress of ceremonies) 
is a singer/songwriter of considerable talent. His songs are in the alt-country or alt-folk genre of music, and he brought with him a very tight complement of musicians to back him up. I was pleasantly surprised, because that’s my kind of music, and I was expecting only a rap artist, Baba Brinkman who came on later. Anyway, he performed a few songs solo, then brought on his band, and they kicked ass. Songs Like “Open Up The Window (and let reality in)”, “Dover Darlin’” and “Armageddon For Sale” fit the mood of the evening perfectly. Even Ken Miller was bopping along (although he struck me as someone who felt right at home, for a college professor). Pepper then broke it up with a song about Paris Hilton (“Famous for Being Famous”).
Next up was the aforementioned Kenneth R. Miller, he of expert witness and mouse trap tie clip fame at 
the Dover trial. He gave a “non-lecture” lecture, backed up with a PowerPoint presentation, about the Dover trial. For someone unfamiliar with the trial, he set out a nice little synopsis of the issues raised, the history of the “controversy”, the trial itself, and its importance in the greater scheme of education. Of particular interest to me, a lawyer and history buff, was the communications he shared with Susan Epperson, of Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court case that did away with the laws outlawing the teaching of evolution in the various states that still had them on the books at the time. At one point after the Dover trial, he asked for a signed autograph from her, and she sent him a picture of herself with John Scopes, then an old man.
Miller ended his lecture with a rumination on what the future holds. Winning the Dover case doesn’t mean much when more people in the US believe in intelligent design creationism than evolution, even though the latter is a fact, and the former is speculation (read fantasy) at it’s finest. He surmised that one of the problems is that creationism has a certain simplicity and elegance to it, as a story, that leads people to embrace it, while science seems like something arcane, complex, and difficult to understand to most people. Yet, if evolution is properly understood, it has the ability to engender far more awe and wonder than creationism, and has far more explanatory power to boot. It’s just a matter of education, according to Miller.
The night ended with a rap performance by Baba Brinkman. Now, I’m not a rap aficionado, and Brinkman knew that his audience wasn’t pre-conditioned to accept his music (a relatively older crowd, it was), but he did a wonderful job of winning us over, in my opinion. He had previously established his rap credentials by setting the Canterbury Tales to rap, and performing it in England. There, someone suggested he do the same thing for Darwin, so he did. The result is a tour de force of poetical imagery that delved into an analysis, along with the nuances, of Darwins’s theory, while interweaving it with the concept of rap music itself. It was informative, serious, enlightening and humorous all at the same time. You can download it if you’d like to hear it.
It was an appropriate celebration of Darwin. A good crowd, including some of the Dover Plaintiffs, along with Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the case. We were enthusiastic, but it wasn’t hard to be so. The setting was perfect (how can you not enjoy a show about science when you are surrounded by so many books – but maybe that’s just me.)
I even ended up with a T-shirt with the “Darwin Rocks” logo from the poster on it.
Thanks Lauri, for inviting me.
He Said I Could!
The artist, on his website, specifically said I could paste this cartoon on my blog. So I did.
Enjoy! And check out his other cartoons.
Billboard Vandalism
Jesse Galef over at the Friendly Atheist mentions a case of billboard vandalism. While I can understand someone who strongly opposed the message on the billboard actually acting out their anger by changing the message, it does seem to underscore the hypocrisy of the message that the good (presumably) Christian vandal was trying to make.
In Science News
As a kid I grew up with the American space program. It all started with Sputnik, and when JFK was in office, he really upped the ante in the space race, declaring that we would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Unfortunately, he didn’t live to see his promise fulfilled. From the early sixties through that moon landing, it seemed like we were constantly sending men into space (alas, no women at that time). First the Mercury, then the Apollo missions.
Atheism 3.0?
Here’s a little piece that talks about Atheism 3.0. Presumably, Atheism 1.0 was the original atheism, 2.0 was the New Atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet (“we hate all theists”, or so it goes), and 3.0 is “We hate all theists, but religion might not be so bad”. I’m extrapolating here, but I surmise that there are some people who don’t believe in gods, or the supernatural, or are agnostic on the question of divinity (they live in Missouri, the Show Me state), but feel that religion is a positive force in society, and hence has qualities that are worth keeping.
“I don’t know if anybody is going to be able to convince me that God exists,” Sheiman said in an interview, “but they can convince me that religion has intrinsic value.”
250000!
I hit a small milestone here. 250,000 views of my blog, in about 2 1/2 years. There are occasions when I feel like hanging it up, but to tell the truth, I still enjoy it.
To celebrate, the little rugrats came out again, looking no older than last time, (though their teeth have all come in) to denote the quintupling of my viewership. Nice job there, kids!
OK, back to the Inquisition for you, and take the signs with you. You’ve got some serious work ahead of you.
And no torturing kittens on the way.
The Cross Memorial
By now most of you are familiar with the Supreme Court case, Salazar vs. Buono, that will be argued soon concerning the cross that was erected in the 1930s by the VFW on what became Federal land in the Mojave desert to memorialize the fallen soldiers of World War I. The usual suspects are gearing up on both sides to get rid of it, or keep it, depending on one’s point of view. In the meantime, it remains wrapped in plywood pending Supreme Court review this term.
Poll On Blasphemy Argument
I just remembered that I have the ability to present polls. These are relatively meaningless, and can sometimes be silly, but I thought I’d try one here, as a test, to see what happens. I’m curious.
If you think my argument in the post below wasn’t cogent (and look up the word cogent first. It doesn’t mean “do you agree with the argument”.) please vote no. Otherwise, yes. There’s no middle ground. If you think there is, vote no, and leave a comment for your reasons.
