Apes and Angels - BBC Radio 4 Afternoon Play

On Tuesday I was alerted (thanks Dad!) to the broadcast of an Afternoon Play on Radio 4, written by Jim Eldridge:

"A clash over the teaching of creationism at a flagship academy looks set to bring damaging publicity and embarrass the schools minister, who has close links to the industrialist behind the academy."

Available on BBC iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/afternoonplay_tue

If and when the iPlayer link above expires, download the mp3 from RapidShare here: http://rapidshare.com/files/341838131/ApesAndAngels_BBCR4i-20090106.mp3

The play appears to take the side of the school, against a teacher who objects to teaching creationism, but in the words of a well-known UK science blogger, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Burnee links for Thursday

Fundie Country Music Grandpa Hates You - Skepchick: Critical Thinking at its Finest

Bad Science » The barefaced cheek of these characters will never cease to amaze and delight me.

New Humanist Blog: Atheist Buses finally on the road

C of E leaps onto the recession bandwagon with a ‘prayer for the redundant’

Ariane Sherine: We did it! The atheist bus campaign is bigger and better then ever | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

New Humanist Blog: Church removes "horrifying" crucifix

An older article, discovered serendipitously:
Daylight Atheism > The Age of Wonder

Is Dan Barker a fundamentalist? - Skepchick: Critical Thinking at its Finest

No, not in the strict sense. But he is a convert (or rather, a de-convert), and converts tend to be the most "devout". When Dan Barker ceased to be an evangelical preacher and became an atheist, it stands to reason that he would evangelize his atheism. The FRFF sign - that Skepchick writerdd's post is about - is intentionally confrontational, because it's trying to make a point. (It amuses me how often even the mildest expression of atheism is greeted with horror and protest by the religious, when their own public statements can be so inflammatory.)

I've not read Dan Barker's book, but it's on my list.

Your Insurance Rates Just Went Up - JREF

Atheists no longer freaks of nature?

Last Sunday morning Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, suggested on BBC Radio Four's "Sunday" that in 2009 atheists would no longer be considered "freaks of nature".

The programme is available as a podcast:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/sunday/sunday_20090104-0937a.mp3
(44 min, 20 MB)

or via the BBC iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00g920d
(the relevant section is about 24 minutes in)

If the podcast/iPlayer version expires, download the mp3 from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/341841039/sunday_20090104-0937a.mp3
A one-minute clip can be downloaded here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/341841998/Sunday_AtheistFreakOfNature_BBCR4i-20090104.mp3

Rick Warren? Secularists should be thankful

There's a lot of fuss in the US at present, concerning the inauguration of President Barack Obama and his invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation. Secularists are understandably annoyed, saying it's a breach of the separation of church and state.

Secularists may also have wondered about Obama's motives in this selection, feeling perhaps that it's an immediate betrayal of the hopes that he embodied - pre-election - for a more rational administration.

But look at it this way: if a presidential candidate had a serious agenda to drastically reduce the influence of religion in government, the one thing that would scupper his or her campaign would be to come out as an atheist. By paying lip service to cosy and comfortable moderate religious values, a candidate is more likely to catch the votes of the religious majority, whatever beliefs (or non-beliefs) may lie in his or her heart. Once elected, that lip service would need to be maintained, to avoid charges of betrayal.

If Obama had not included a religious element to the inauguration, there might have been comments from fundamentalists, but I think the religious moderates would have let it pass. It's because of Pastor Warren's inclusion that the secularists have a legitimate grievance with which to raise their profile and promote their side of the argument. Secularism in America has become a hotly disputed issue, giving all sides the chance to air their views, and those of us on the side of rationality should be thankful.

Burnee links catch-up

Due to the usual mad scramble up to the festive season, this blog has been ... quiet. So it's time for a bit of a round-up before launching towards the new year.

Why skeptics should pay close attention to Wikipedia « Skeptical Software Tools

How Scientologists pressurise publishers | Books | guardian.co.uk

Fred Edwords: The atheist bus campaign comes to America's capital | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

New Statesman - Democracy not fundamentalism

Daylight Atheism > Rapture Bonds

Daylight Atheism > Rick Warren? Shame On You, Obama!

Terry Sanderson: If Rowan Williams hasn't come out in favour of disestablishment, it's because he knows it would kill his church | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Presto! Your belief is… | Edger

The Freethinker › Islington Council did not discriminate against Christian registar
This is a good result - at least until the appeal ...

Medicines that contain no medicine and other follies

No More Atheophobia

Not, you'll have noticed, an exhaustive or balanced list of links - but I've been busy, you know?

Neil Gaiman on Freedom of Speech

From the blog of Neil Gaiman, British writer of fantasy and comics, comes this impassioned response concerning the need to defend freedom of any and all speech, even speech you vehemently disagree with:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

As a Brit living in the US he's acutely aware of the differences in legislation between the two countries:

I loved coming to the US in 1992, mostly because I loved the idea that freedom of speech was paramount. I still do. With all its faults, the US has Freedom of Speech. You can't be arrested for saying things the government doesn't like. You can say what you like, write what you like, and know that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offends you is not to read it, or to speak out against it. I loved that I could read and make my own mind up about something. (It's worth noting that the UK, for example, has no such law, and that even the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that interference with free speech was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to guarantee the rights of others "to protection from gratuitous insults to their religious feelings.")

The Resurrection is true because ... well, it just is!

I'm beginning to perceive a pattern in Christian theology, as manifested in some debates I've heard recently,* and that is the total reliance on the Resurrection of Christ. Both Wilson and Lennox placed ultimate importance and authority on the 'fact' of the Resurrection. Wilson, particularly, begged the question by saying, basically, that if you believe in the Resurrection you have to believe in all the other miracles in the Bible. But at no time in his debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Westminster Theological Seminary did he explain why he accepted the 'truth' of the Resurrection in the first place. (I strongly suspect that, if pressed, he'd claim it was true because it was in the Bible.)

Hitchens was genial but incisive, and on great form, though a lot of what he says in these debates is no longer new to me. Of the so-called New Atheists he's probably the most willing to debate anybody anywhere, and it's understandable that his thesis is familiar to anyone who's heard him debate on several previous occasions. Nevertheless, when his form is this good he's a special pleasure to listen to - literate, erudite and pointedly wry.

*Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson
(via RichardDawkins.net)

John Lennox and Michael Shermer
(via eSkeptic)