The Iowa Decision

♠
I should get something down on the results of the Iowa caucus, since it is our first set of hard results on the presidential elections. I'll go with David Brooks, though he writes a bit exstatically on it, but that in itself does capture some of the national mood, or at least the mood of the commentariat, and it is nice to see some American optimism.

( Brooks )

xXx

The Iowa Decision

♠
I should get something down on the results of the Iowa caucus, since it is our first set of hard results on the presidential elections. I'll go with David Brooks, though he writes a bit exstatically on it, but that in itself does capture some of the national mood, or at least the mood of the commentariat, and it is nice to see some American optimism.

( Brooks )

xXx

Another Shot at the Compatibility of Evolution with Religion

♠
The National Academy of Sciences makes a more diplomatic effort to deal with the evolution debate, putting out a book that self-consciously addresses the concerns of the sectarian:

But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

... The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

Sounds elementary, doesn't it? You would like to think that America has long gone beyond this basic synthesis. This little book does denounce creationism and its latest incarnation as Intelligent Design, "calling them devoid of evidence, 'disproven' or 'simply false'." So, I suppose the controversy will not be going away quite yet.


(Source: Cornelia Dean for The New York Times)

xXx

Another Shot at the Compatibility of Evolution with Religion

♠
The National Academy of Sciences makes a more diplomatic effort to deal with the evolution debate, putting out a book that self-consciously addresses the concerns of the sectarian:

But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

... The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

Sounds elementary, doesn't it? You would like to think that America has long gone beyond this basic synthesis. This little book does denounce creationism and its latest incarnation as Intelligent Design, "calling them devoid of evidence, 'disproven' or 'simply false'." So, I suppose the controversy will not be going away quite yet.


(Source: Cornelia Dean for The New York Times)

xXx