Quietly, the Kansas Board of Education reversed itself on its science standards:

With little discussion, the Kansas Board of Education this afternoon repealed the controversial science standards that cast doubt on evolution.

The board voted 6-4 — along its moderate-conservative fault lines — to adopt new standards that eliminated most of the old standard’s criticism of evolution, which mainstream scientists said was unwarranted and unscientific.

Supporters of the change said they hope the board — and the state — can now move on to other issues.

“I think it’s a great day for Kansas,” said Mary Ralstin of Shawnee, a mother of four who came to watch the board meeting.

Critics of the way evolution is taught say the new standards leave out critical information necessary for students to make up their own minds. They say public schools too often indoctrinate students about evolution rather than making them critically analyze the theory.

“We are making this a political issue rather than a scientific issue,” said board member Kathy Martin.

Two years ago, any time the Kansas Board of Evolution brought up the word “evolution” you could expect standing-room-only crowds.

Yet today it was just another board meeting. The only reminder of the contention that’s marked the debate were television cameras from Kansas stations and a thick red rope erected to separate the board from any overzealous members of the public.

Hans Jonas, in his Imperative of Responsibility, presents the argument that advances in human technological capability have fundamentally altered our capacity to affect the earth’s ecosphere, such that the future of humanity is at stake in a way previously unknown to us. Jonas argues, as a consequence, that a new imperative of responsibility now exists that requires human beings to act to protect the very existence of humanity.
Jonas wrote this in 1979. Al Gore attempts to make a similar argument in his An Inconvenient Truth, which I went to see this afternoon. Michael Kruse is correct that this is indeed a political movie, in some sense, insofar as Gore may well be positioning himself for 2008 or beyond, and to convince the viewer to take seriously the proposed environmental crisis. And, further, the issues are sharply politicized in our country. That’s unfortunate, since I’ve not heard anyone successfully refute Gore’s claim that there is a consensus (not unanimity, consensus) that Global Warming is real, is a problem, and is causing deleterious effects to our environment. And even though Kruse isn’t convinced, the movie at least changed pundit Andrew Sullivan’s mind (his other jabs at Gore, to some folks’ chagrin, notwithstanding). Sullivan is right that most that know the science believe Gore is authentically presenting a consensus view. That is, the forest view is right, even if a tree here or there isn’t presented in its full complexity (such as that there are likely multiple causes to the decreased snowcaps on Mount Kilimanjaro.) (Kruse presents some good counterpoints, so make sure you read his post too, though I think case for the human causal connection is the human affects are strongly made and largely agreed upon).

So, I found the movie compelling, and it inspires me to try to learn more about Global Warming. Please, go see it if you haven’t yet. And while some try to make it out to be a self-obsessed, self-serving farcical tome (thus the reference in this post’s title to ManBearPig, the creature to the right from a Southpark episode.), to dismiss the science that way, and the overwhelming  position of the scientific community (noting the rare exception) that this is a real problem, is the true farce. At least right now it looks like, for the most part, Gore gets the science right.

I particularly think we need to think about the parallel Gore makes between the warnings about smoking’s link to lung cancer and the nay-sayers about global warming. I’m not saying that An Inconvenient Truth is gospel, but the science about the warming and human contribution to it is strong and is ignored at our peril.

While there is not consensus among ‘Evangelicals,’ it is noteworthy that many prominent evangelical leaders issued an Evangelical Call To Action on the environment. There is a role for the religious community to play in articulating the moral dimension of Gore’s argument. I hope we play it.

At the end, Gore argues that we know enough and have the capacity to do something serious about the crisis. Samuelson’s skeptical, and I’m not sure that all of what Gore proposes will do it. Likely more is necessary. But the base-line requirement is political will, either to change what we can or to direct energy to find out what to do. My hope is that this movie is a catalyst to change that political will. We might really need, as Samuelson argues, to solve the engineering problem, but it is the moral argument that will provide the impetus to do so. So go see it, and decide for yourself if, like me, this is a really important movie. Some even call it necessary.

Al Gore makes that case in his new film, An Inconvenient Truth. Note this interview with Katie Couric on Today… (IE only I believe; Firefox doesn’t run it…)

Ms. Kairos rarely approaches me with sermon topics, but she said I should think about preaching someday on all of this.

The day after I watched the PBS broadcast of The New Medicine a study on the effects on prayer for others (or intercessory prayer) is out, showing, at least with this sample, little medical benefit:

The largest study yet on the therapeutic power of prayer by strangers has found that it provided no benefit to the recovery of patients who had undergone cardiac bypass surgery.

In an unexpected twist, patients who knew prayers were being said for them had more complications after surgery than those who did not know, researchers reported Thursday.

The complications were minor, and doctors surmised that they could have been caused by the increased stress on patients worried that their conditions were so bad they needed prayers.

…

Dr. Herbert Benson, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the study’s lead researchers, added: “Nothing this study has produced should interfere with people praying for each other.”

Interesting, for sure. But then again, what do we think prayer is all about (which is the fundamental question, I gather). Do we think that prayer must yield what we are praying for to be effective, or worthwhile, or heard by God? No. On the other hand, should we assume that God doesn’t have the ability to answer our prayers in this way? No.

Prayer is attention to and communication with God. We bring others to God in prayer out of our love and concern for both God and for them, in our hopes and beliefs that God will tend to their needs, and ours. The
assurance is that God will do so. Not always by better medical outcomes. Maybe not often by better medical outcomes. But God will so tend to our needs. And by praying we pay attention to God who is already at work in that situation, making all things new…

Watching a wonderful PBS series “The New Medicine” on the scientific evidence behind the benefit of meditation (and prayer) on stress and therefore health and medicine.

Now, I think this series is a bit strong in calling this “new.” I remember reading and discussing studies about these things during my CPE rotation. But its good to see some of this gaining ground.