So, CNN decided they need to refute this story about the Taliban training attack monkeys. Because this is the kind of thing that needs clarification.

I mean, seriously CNN? Is it really that slow of a news day? Or do you really think that little of your audience’s intelligence?

I guess it is in keeping with the high journalistic standards we’ve seen from Jeanne Moos when reporting on pieces like the recent North Carolina Bigfoot reports (below) and from Larry King’s various UFO stories. One thing is for sure, I always know when I see a story of Fortean significance on CNN, they are going to make light and ignore any thoughtful witnesses or experts. Call it the trailer park tornado syndrome. If 20 people see something, no matter what it is, CNN is going to pick the one witness with three teeth, one eye, no previous knowledge of events, and a speech impediment.

By contrast, the local news story (video below) contained a much better report, and places the most recent sightings in a historical context of previous sightings. Does the most recent witness still seem somewhat dubious? Sure. But at least we now have a historical context within which to either substantiate his claims, or to look for a source to his delusions.

When we then look at a related opinion pieces asking “Why do we need to look for Bigfoot?” we find the commentator taking a grain of something worthwhile, potential psychological explanations for strange phenomenon, and twisting it all out of context and reason.

Monkey soldiers? Bigfoot? Anomalous animal carcasses? All the same to CNN.

Even at the most basic level, they seem to have a problem getting their facts straight when it comes to Fortean phenomenon. Take the chupacabras for instance (cabras, with an “s”… these aren’t monogamous goat suckers). First they spell it wrong, then they place its roots in Mexico instead of Puerto Rico. Then, after failing to do that basic bit of research about where the term and initial sightings originated, the author proceeds to confuse the quasi-mythic chupacabras (a creature who has now lent his name, as Jon Downes notes, to various boogie men across Latin America) with the hairless canines reported across the southwest. This does a disservice to the rich chupacabras lore of Puerto Rico and the rest of Latin America, as well as diverting serious scientific inquiry from the mystery canines that have been photographed, filmed, and even shot and killed.

If mange ridden coyotes or domestic dogs, they seem to be otherwise healthy and active (see video below). But if they are healthy and hair-free for some other reason, what is that reason? And just what kind of canine are they? These are questions that could be answered relatively easily with a little attention. Even if it turns out they are just mangy coyote. We would know, we could push the data out there, and we could move on to other topics.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But as long as organizations like CNN and others cast a jaundiced eye at the realm of Cryptozoology and other odd Fortean phenomenon — painting us in the same broad swathes as monkey soldiers and ignoring solid data and serious researchers while trotting out drunken witnesses for silly-season filler — legitimate investigators, and science itself, will continue to suffer by association. News organizations don’t trot out alchemists in lieu of chemists, astrologers instead of astronomers. Yet anytime Tom Biscardi or the local trailer park prophet trot out a magic monkey hand, the cameras are rolling.

It’s enough to make a former newsman sigh.

That’s what some homeless folks are saying they saw, and the cops they talked to said they were scared, but sober.

Hmmmmm. That’s how far from SFBR (the think tank that Tom Slick founded and home of the Southwest Primate Research Center)?

.

UPDATE: Loren Coleman has posted more details about the events in San Antonio, including photos of possible hand/foot prints,  over at Cryptomundo.com

For an excellent Slick biography, check out Loren Coleman’s Tom Slick and the Search for the Yeti.

"And in this frame, if we blow it up enough, we can clearly see all the way to the coast and this blip here, this is Patty's brother, out on the ocean, jumping the shark."

This Thursday, I’m just wondering… is MK Davis the Andy Kaufman of the Bigfoot world? Is the Bluff Creek Massacre story his slow-burn version of wrestling Freddie Blassie?

I really hope so. I’d love to be able to actually sit back and comfortably chuckle at the strangeness of it all.

I mean, personally, I see the same twisted logic in the “Why doesn’t John Green just tell us what is on his back if not a camera?” argument from Davis supporter David Paulides that I see in the Gilbert Gottfried inspired  “Did Glen Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?” meme.

For those not familiar, the joke originated with a celebrity roast of Bob Saget where Gottfried asked why Saget never denied rumors that he had raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. A rumor that never existed until Godfrey created it, and that the comedian quickly followed with a proclamation that, while he himself didn’t believe it was true, it was curious that Saget never denied it.

The creative mind behind the Glenn Beck riff on this joke is skewering a tactic Beck often employs himself. That is, blind siding a guest with a ridiculous charge that he claims not to believe; but that he wants the guest to refute.

It would be great if Davis and friends were doing the same. Simply skewering the Bigfoot world’s sacred cows and inserting some levity in a field that sometimes takes itself too seriously, instead of jumping the shark after doing some undeniably worthwhile work stabilizing the PG footage.

Laughter is, after all, the best medicine.

But methinks the truth may be that MK needs something just a little bit stronger.

Photo from Yahoo images, Henry Ray Abrams, AFP

I have been remiss in my Thursday duties of late. I realize this and I’m sorry. I’ll say only that “real life” (i.e. the stuff you have to do to pay those pesky bills) has been very busy of late and beg your pardon for my slacking.

But I’m here, a day late and a dollar short as my dad would say, and I’ve got some interesting links. And by interesting I mean disturbing, sad, disgusting, and amusing.

Let’s start with the disturbing (sad and disgusting would also work here), and my requisite call for the tightening of rules relating to stun gun use, as two California police officers taser a legless double amputee.

Next we have the sad tale of Sticky the kitten, found wrapped in duct tape in North Philadelphia. Apparently brotherly love doesn’t extend to our four legged brethren.

On the disgusting front we have the story of a New Jersey police officer acquitted of animal cruelty charges related to his molestation of a number of cows (evidence of which was uncovered during a probe of sexual misconduct with minors). Between this and the tasering, makes you wonder if maybe our kitten wasn’t the work of some bored off-duty cops looking for a laugh.

Finally, Snohomish County, Washington cops aren’t making any new friends among the sorts of guys who like to eat at strip club buffets because “it’s a good value.” Police there have arrested five “bikini baristas” accused of exposing their breasts and buttocks to patrons of the Grab-n-Go Espresso looking for a little more than the standard morning pick-me-up.

They are also being charged with prostitution for allowing patrons to grope them for tips (hey, GRAB-n-GO… it’s right there in the name!) While they might have been violating some health codes with their whipped cream shows (this is why I bring a thermos of coffee to work with me), the prostitution charge seems more than a bit harsh for capitalizing on the kind of objectification that has occurred since the first barmaid tied on an apron.

So, that’s it for this day late and dollar short Thursday feature. Miles and I will be in Tyler, TX this weekend for the TBRC’s Texas Bigfoot Conference. This year’s line-up includes such luminaries as Loren Coleman, Peter Matthiesen, Esteban Sarmiento, John Bindernagel, John Mioncynzski, and Bill Dranginis, among others.

Howdy all, and happy Thursday!

I know that I’ve been out of the loop for the last couple of weeks. After my trip back home to visit family, I needed some time to recuperate. Then I threw myself into some writing about some family experiences and ghost stories that I hoped would be my next Thursday column. Unfortunately another Thursday came and went without my being able to complete a very personal segment of the story about my own experiences, at a very young age, coming to terms with the unexpected, and still unexplained, death of a beloved uncle.

Then I remembered, the Thursday blog post isn’t supposed to be about that! Thursday posts are supposed to be low pressure posts. Something fun to pass the time with while taking a break at the end of a long work week.

So, with that in mind, no in-depth post this week. No recollections of soul searching five-year-olds and their troubled lucid dreams.

Instead, we’ll take the opportunity to welcome one of my favorite time-wasters back to Hulu. That’s right kids. Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters International are back on Hulu with new episodes. If you like to relive your favorite moments from the SyFy series at your desk during your lunch break; or if, like me, you don’t have cable and only watch the show online, you’ve probably been watching, waiting, and already got yourself caught up on the last couple of episodes. If you aren’t familiar, now is a good time to browse on over to Hulu and check them out. The last couple of episodes have featured some remarkable stories, including an inexplicable FLIR image of what appears to be a “hunched” figure in a cape or cover (no invisibility cloak jokes from the Harry Potter fans, please) shuffling quickly by, just feet from the investigators.

You can find the newest episodes here (Ghost Hunters) and here (GHI).

With most full episodes of Monster Quest now removed from History.com (the most recent two episodes seem to remain available, with older episodes being removed as the latest episode is added), UFO Hunters still a ridiculous ETH circle jerk, and the latest season of the delightfully campy Destination Truth yet to show up on Hulu, the latest episodes of Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters International are just what the doctor ordered for wiling away these final days of summer. It may be too hot to fish, and too hot to golf, but its never too hot to plop down in front of the monitor, crank the A/C, and waste an afternoon with two of the best paranormal investigative series currently in production.

As we start winding up (or down) for the weekend, let’s take a moment to indulge in a little monkey business, just because it’s Thursday.

Let’s start with this bit from Dallas, TX where a contractor doing lot work for a Montessori school uncovered an out of place primate skull that bears a bit of a resemblance to the skull of a small baboon.

Out of place monkeys are nothing new to Texas. A troupe of Japanese macaques, brought to the state from around Kyoto to protect them from extermination by angry merchants fed up with their thieving, had some folks concerned about the potential for wild breeding populations establishing themselves in parts of south Texas after they began wandering outside the sanctuary they were relocated to in 1972.

But how this skull came to be buried in a north Dallas suburb remains a mystery.

We’ve also recently heard news about an orangutan (well known escape artists) short circuiting a security fence to escape an Australian zoo, as well as news of female gorillas using hand claps to gain the attention of offspring and mates and of apes using sticks to procure honey (part four in the TBRC’s Great Ape Behavioral Parallel series).

Speaking of the Great Ape Behavioral Parallel, my co-author of part three, and the author of part four that we reference above, Michael C. Mayes, has his own excellent cryptid related blog, Texas Cryptid Hunter, that is worth checking out. Recent articles include an examination of the gorilla clapping, as well as a wonderful vignette describing Teddy Roosevelt’s post-presidency experiences on the Amazonian tributary known as the River of Doubt.

Cryptomundo, or course, is still most folks “go to” source for breaking cryptid news (author included) but another cryptozoologically themed website that might be worth adding to your RSS feed is Cryptoworld. This UK based cryptid site features intriguing, regularly updated links, and is becoming a favorite “quick click” site for my lunch break web surfing.

So there you have it. A little down and dirty monkey business to jump start your weekend. Enjoy the links. Have fun. And try not to throw any feces at the scofftics.

While the word Bigfoot usually conjures images of the deep forests and mountains of the Pacific Northwest, there is also a rich tradition of southern hominid sightings. Often known by various local names, the southern Bigfoot doesn’t get as much attention (or respect) as his northwestern cousins, but his impact on the local people and their lore has been just as profound. Southern Fried Bigfoot, premiering tonight on the Documentary Channel, takes a look at some of the more notable southern sighting reports, including the Fouke Monster of Fouke, Arkansas; Louisiana’s Honey Island Swamp Monster; the Lake Worth Monster of Lake Worth, Texas; and Florida’s Myakka Ape or Skunk Ape. Southern Fried Bigfoot also talks with the various authors and field researchers involved in the study of southern Bigfoot phenomenon about the historical record and continuing efforts to document the species.

The subtle emphasis throughout the film, intentional or accidental, seems to be the impact of these creatures on the local culture. Interview subjects, for instance, emphasize the legacy of local names and legends, many linking southern “wild man” stories to reports that pre-date the first use of the term “Bigfoot” by hundreds of years. Even the use of cheesy, Bigfoot themed clip art imagery and sports mascot logos throughout the documentary, while seeming amateur at first, helps emphasize the impact these stories have had on the human experience.

The documentary is a worthwhile watch for anyone with even a passing interest in the subject. While the documentary does not contain any major revelations or new info for the dedicated students of Bigfoot and cryptozoology, it is engaging and entertaining. What will probably be of most interest to those already familiar with the creatures profiled will be the ideas expressed by the various personalities involved in the search for Bigfoot in the south. DVD extras providing additional information related to various reports, info on hoaxes, the difference between reports in the North and the South, the sounds associated with Bigfoot reports, etc., will also appeal to those with a deeper interest in the history of reported sightings and the personalities involved in researching the creature.

The Monkeyhouse production, Southern Fried Bigfoot, premieres tonight at 9:00 PM EST/8:00 PM CST on the Documentary Channel (encore at Midnight EST, 11 CST).

Additional showtimes are scheduled for Saturday, April 18 (5 PM Eastern, 4 PM Central), Wednesday April 29 (8 and 11 PM Eastern, 7 and 10 PM Central), Wednesday, May 6 (5 PM Eeastern, 4 PM Central), and Saturday, May 16 (9 PM and Midnight Eastern, 8 and 11 PM Central).

Keep your eyes peeled for an AnomalyMagazine.com review of Southern Fried Bigfoot as the premiere date approaches.

Proof # 18 is in stores now

Southern Fried Bigfoot premiers April 13, on The Documentary Channel

Bigfoot’s discovery is TBA

by Michael C. Mayes and Jeremy D. Wells

A widely publicized study, authored by Mathias Osvath, a Ph.D. candidate at Lund University, seems to indicate some startling information about the intellectual capacities of the chimpanzee. In particular, Osvath studied the territorial displays of a captive chimpanzee named Santino. The observed behaviors of this particular chimpanzee seem to prove that apes are very much aware of the future and can plan ahead for it just as humans do.

According to a report on Osvath’s work in the journal Current Biology, Santino, a chimpanzee residing at Sweden’s Furuvik Zoo, collected a stash of rocks during periods of calm, stashed them away, and then hurled them at unsuspecting zoo visitors who gawked and laughed at his daily territorial displays. Because the enclosure is relatively rock free, and many of the stones Santino launched at visitors were covered in algae, it was inferred that he initially collected many of his stones from the waters of the moat surrounding his enclosure. However, in looking to supplement his arsenal, Santino went so far as to probe the artificial concrete “boulders” in his enclosure seeking weak spots. Once located, the chimp knocked off chunks of the material to add to his weapons cache. If the collected concrete was too large to easily toss, Santino worked at breaking it into more manageably sized pieces. Even more impressive is that Santino did all of his collecting in the morning hours before the zoo opened and waited until midday before raining down his collection upon zoo patrons.

MORE

Next Thursday, February 12, marks the 200^th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Few figures (if any) have had a greater impact on the course of scientific discourse and understanding, religious dialogue, and continuing public controversy.

This includes the controversy surrounding cryptids.

For some people, Darwinian theories are “proof” that certain cryptids are “impossible”. Ignoring (or misrepresenting) available evidence, they argue that certain animals simply can not exist because the design described by eye-witnesses doesn’t seem, in their mind, adapted to the environment where it was sighted. Ironically, some on the other end of the spectrum balk at the idea of cryptids because they are unwilling to confront their insecurities about where these creatures may have come from, or how they might have evolved to fill certain ecological niches.

It’s curious to me how people with conflicting ideas about a fundamental world-view can come to the exact same conclusion, from those different perspectives, based on nothing more than sheer stubborn insistence that their pre-conceived notions have explained everything there is to be explained.

It’s curious to the TBRC’s Alton Higgins too, who has given us permission to run his essay, “Bird Beaks, Bible Belt Biology, and Bigfoot” here at AnomalyMagazine.com.

I’m sure, were he still alive, Mr. Darwin would find it curious as well.

Bird Beaks, Bible Belt Biology, and Bigfoot

On February 12, 2009, the world observes the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. By any accounting, Darwin must be included with the most influential thinkers in the history of science. The young naturalist’s five-year voyage on HMS Beagle gave him an extraordinary opportunity to examine rich fossil beds and explore the diversity of life on many distant shores. Upon his return to England, Darwin spent the next forty-plus years contemplating his observations and writing books on a variety of subjects, including a four-volume set based on his eight-year study of the natural history and classification of barnacles, sessile marine crustaceans living in shallow water. In 1859 he published his landmark work, often abbreviated as “On the Origin of Species.” Contrary to popular opinion, the seminal premise presented in his book was not the concept or theory of evolution; the idea of descent with modification had been discussed for centuries. Darwin proposed a process, natural selection, by which populations might change. It continues to represent a central tenet of biology.

As almost any schoolchild can relate, variation in the beaks of Darwin’s finches, birds living on the Galápagos Islands, is one of the most prominently portrayed examples illustrating the influence of natural selection. Interestingly, at the time of his visit to the islands, Darwin was not overly concerned with the birds, which were largely collected by his servant, and comprehended little evolutionary significance to their characteristics until they had been studied by ornithologist John Gould. Gould’s opinions regarding the number of species collected and their relatedness surprised Darwin and played an important part in the formulation of his ideas regarding species change and differentiation and, by 1839, the full development of his concept of natural selection.

Initially, the publication of Darwin’s views regarding the role of natural selection in evolutionary change received only modest support from the scientific community, although this response is seldom acknowledged in contemporary assessments. Indeed, as noted by Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in his introduction to a facsimile edition of On the Origin of Species, more papers were published in opposition to Darwin’s ideas in the first fifty years following its appearance than in support of it.

Although little appreciated now, Darwin’s work represented a radical departure from the approach and methods traditionally used by scientists. For example, his arguments were placed entirely outside the purview of the opinions of philosophers. According to Mayr, this was almost unthinkable, if not unforgivable, stating, “No other work advertised to the world the emancipation of science from philosophy as blatantly as did Darwin’s Origin.” In addition, Darwin used a model-making strategy, revolutionary for its time but commonly employed today, whereby experiments are used to test the validity of concepts or hypotheses. Even without his ideas regarding natural selection, these two achievements alone represent significant contributions to the advancement of science.

Textbooks and popular treatments often portray the church as rising up in opposition to Darwin’s Origin of Species and his (perceived) attack on faith. Mayr notes that, through much of the nineteenth century, evolutionary concepts actually appealed most strongly to laymen. Darwin’s target audience was his scientific peers, not the church. Mayr insists that Darwin went to great lengths to avoid offending people of faith. Indeed, as documented in his book The Post Darwinian Controversies (1981), author James R. Moore states that many of Darwin’s strongest supporters and most attentive correspondents, those “who most readily accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection,” were Protestant ministers and Christian laymen, men who would today characterize themselves as conservatives, evangelicals, and even fundamentalists (Aulie, 1982). In some ways Darwin’s ideas regarding the equality of all the human races, as presented in his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, mirrored the monogenesis beliefs of Christian abolitionists, standing in stark contrast to the theories of mainstream anthropologists and other influential scientists of the day, who considered some races inferior and argued for the separate creation as distinct species of the races of mankind.

Still, one cannot deny that some religionists objected strongly to Darwin’s writings. Mayr concluded that “nearly all the denunciations of Darwin’s ideas on natural selection were based on an incomplete knowledge of the Origin and on misunderstanding,” but concern or outright rejection of evolutionary concepts grew to be widespread among laymen in the twentieth century. On the other hand, with the integration of Mendelian genetics into Darwin’s take on evolutionary change, acceptance by scientists of this “synthesis” became pervasive and was seen as a way to unify the branches of biology and anthropology, in addition to other fields of science.

In the U.S. the focus of these disparate viewpoints came to rest in the public school arena. Laws and/or standards were adopted in some states that served to limit the teaching of naturalistic evolution. Other states, including Texas, adopted more generalized policies encouraging discussion of various perspectives regarding scientific theories as well as their problems and weaknesses. Many opponents viewed such policies as encouraging faith-based perspectives. In response, legal and scientific organizations fought back with increasing success to eliminate any kind of religious reference or activity in the public schools, based primarily on the establishment clause.

In January 2009 the Texas State Board of Education met to review science standards, a process undertaken every ten years. The National Center for Science Education, an institution dedicated to “defending the teaching of evolution in public schools,” spearheaded the effort to eliminate the “strengths and weaknesses” clause from the current standards. NCSE executive director Dr. Eugenie Scott argued that requiring students to critique the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories would lead to the adoption of “textbooks that contain pseudoscience and inaccuracies,” causing Texas students to suffer as a result. The recommended wording under consideration states, “The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.”

The new recommended wording certainly appears to retain the ability of students to examine possible weaknesses of theories, including naturalistic evolution, as they “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations.” The greater concern is the apparent attitude of proponents for change that seems to imply that it is not possible for theories or “scientific explanations” to have problems. For example, Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said the “strengths and weaknesses” language is “an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom.” David M. Hillis, a University of Texas biology professor added, “Every single thing they are representing as a weakness is a misrepresentation of science … These are science skeptics. These are people with religious and political agendas.”

While acknowledging for the sake of argument the possibility that misguided skeptics have attempted to undermine education in Texas, one should not presume to suggest that the scientific enterprise is perfect. There are weaknesses in some, probably most, scientific explanations. Although practitioners in all fields of knowledge may tend toward intellectual imperialism, scientific knowledge should never be confused with truth. Scientists pursue truth, but explanations for observations should always be seen as tentative. Little pleases a scientist more than disproving some aspect of the work of another scientist.

Science is a process. Charles Darwin is acknowledged as a great scientist, but not all of his ideas stood the test of time, or more importantly, stood up to testing. Pangenesis, his proposal for a hereditary mechanism and part of his effort to describe population variation, was an erroneous explanation. Darwin’s theory was discarded while Gregor Mendel’s superior model for variation and inheritance was eventually accepted. Teachers do their students a service when they encourage critical analysis of theories and illustrate how paradigms shift or are discarded over time in the wake of new discoveries. Even natural selection, the dependable old saw of evolutionary processes, has shown some explanatory weaknesses.

Recently, for example, researchers at Uppsala University suggested that a nonadaptive process (i.e., unrelated to natural selection) “has made a significant contribution to human evolution.” Many human genes appear to have evolved rapidly; the “process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population.” Matthew Webster, one of the authors, concluded, “The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed.” Would proponents of the Texas proposed standards object to this portrayal of the weakness or insufficiency of natural selection as an explanatory process in human evolution?

Clearly, controversy can stimulate scholarship, so long as it is partnered with a genuine openness to the unforeseen. Eugenie Scott, of the aforementioned National Center for Science Education, recently propounded on the subject of “Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest.” One portion of her talk concerned the question, “Could Bigfoot Live in Texas?” Some of her comments may relate to a perspective regarding the primacy of scientific knowledge.

For example, at one point in her Texas-related comments, Scott said, “If you’re going to look scientifically at Bigfoot… the first question you want to ask is, ‘How do these observations fit with everything else we know from science?’” While this may sound logical, it hearkens back to the conflict Darwin encountered in emancipating the scientific process from previously stated opinions of philosophers. Certainly scientists should be familiar with the applicable research of their fields, but if they deliberately discredit observations that run counter to prevailing wisdom, progress would never take place.

Near the conclusion of her presentation, Clark made another interesting comment: “And like I say, either Bigfoot exists, or we have to throw out an awful lot of our knowledge of natural history.” It seems reasonable to infer that what she meant to imply was that, if the Sasquatch or Bigfoot exists, scientists would have to rewrite much of what is currently understood regarding natural history. However, taken as presented in the context of an either/or choice, such dichotomies have little applicability in scientific discourse, whether they come from scientists or young Earth creationists. Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, writing in Wonderful Life, argued that such choices should be avoided and indicated that, “More fruitful perspectives often require that we step off the line to a site outside the dichotomy.” Just because one is presented with two options doesn’t mean that either of the options is correct or that no other options exist.

Fortunately, scientists don’t have to choose between “Either Bigfoot exists and we have to throw out what we know about natural history, or Bigfoot doesn’t exist and we are safe in our preconceptions” (as we might rephrase Scott’s dichotomy). In spite of the efforts of the media or some skeptics to disparage or sensationalize the subject, at its root the Sasquatch phenomenon simply appears to be derived from the presence of a rare and reclusive bipedal primate. The ecological and biological and anthropological sciences will continue to flourish when and if the Sasquatch is ever documented.

In the meantime, the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy will continue to pursue its mission and documentation efforts. Part of that mission includes education. TBRC speakers have been privileged to give presentations in a variety of settings, including universities and public schools. Students benefit when they are exposed to and participate in the free exchange of knowledge and ideas. Educators should be granted academic freedom and trusted to act responsibly in pursuing goals of scholarship. The TBRC welcomes the opportunity to continue to play a small part in that process.

Without question, science plays an important role in society. Many historians maintain that modern science is a product of the Protestant Reformation. In the spirit of the reformers, modern science is shaped and driven by controversy and the questioning of standing precepts. As exemplified by Charles Darwin and his Christian correspondents, science, as a way of knowing, should not be seen as a threat to faith, properly understood. Science education should embrace this legacy and encourage students, in as many ways as possible, to pursue wonder, curiosity, discovery, and the exploration of the unknown. It is an exciting enterprise.

Alton Higgins

28 January 2009 

Sources

Aulie, Richard P. 1982. The Post-Darwinian Controversies: An Extended Book Review Essay (Pt. 1). Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. March, 24-29.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W. W. Norton and Co.

Mayr, Ernst. 1964. In: Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition with an Introduction by Ernst Mayr. Atheneum reprint (Harvard University Press).

Moore, James R. 1981. The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900. Cambridge University Press.   http://tinyurl.com/buemk3

Natural selection is not alone in driving evolution.   http://tinyurl.com/c5def9

What’s next for Texas science standards?  http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/whats-next-texas-science-standards-004222