tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3751849333604281614..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Elephant in the RoomMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80759607576382172422009-09-08T13:28:26.827-07:002009-09-08T13:28:26.827-07:00http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law...http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2009/09/world-council-of-churches-statement.html<br /><br />"September 4, 2009<br />World Council of Churches Statement<br /><br />... in addition to ecological and economic perspectives.... eco-justice and ecological debt. ... the WCC as part of its current programme work on poverty, wealth and ecology is attempting to articulate a consumption and greed line ... provide practical spiritual guidance on when, in Christian terms, too much is too much.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60424553025355333722009-09-06T20:20:13.799-07:002009-09-06T20:20:13.799-07:00Hank Roberts:
"Most of them know of or hav...Hank Roberts:<br /><i><br /> "Most of them know of or have read Wilson's book. Far too few of my scientist friends have read it."<br /></i><br />An amusing <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/eo_wilsons_wonderful_book_for.php" rel="nofollow">review</a>, which concludes:<br /><i><br /> "Still, though, I agree that Wilson deserves to be awarded a Green Book Award for The Creation—we can't afford to wait for all the Baptists to commit apostasy before we draft them to support biodiversity. Let's hope he wins many more, and especially let's hope more religious organizations start acknowledging his ideas!"<br /></i>llewellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001213921499191213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-4599870876201403812009-09-06T13:50:33.219-07:002009-09-06T13:50:33.219-07:00I finally got around to writing:
http://sciencebl...I finally got around to writing:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/09/the_stoat_in_the_room.php<br /><br />Sorry.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-687770123039570562009-09-05T21:20:08.202-07:002009-09-05T21:20:08.202-07:00An aside, for those interested in whatever the hec...An aside, for those interested in whatever the heck it is that people experience that they call religious experience -- besides that Huxley book (The Perennial Philosophy, a snippets from a great many religious that bring out the similarities) -- there's one book of practical advice for those who want the experience that I think is well worth some time, particularly if you don't need the religious side but want to know what the feeling is that many religious describe and try to teach.<br /><br />Try Gendlin ("Focusing"), from the 1960s. He tried to pull out of all the different kinds of 'meditation' and 'prayer' and 'spiritual exercise' a few basic practices and express them in simple how-to form.<br />It's of the "you don't have to believe anything for this to work" variety of advice. And about that he wrote:<br /><br />"Adopt a "split-level" approach to all instructions: On the one hand follow the instructions exactly, so that you can discover the experiences ... On the other hand be sensitive .... The moment doing it feels wrong ... back up slightly. Stay there with your attention until you can sense exactly what is going wrong.<br />... you will find your own body's steps, either through the instructions, or through what is wrong with them...."<br /><br /><br />Quote is from this:<br />http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol_2234.html<br /><br />When I talk to religious people who ask me my own beliefs, I say I look at the world, practice knowing what needs to be done and getting on with doing it, and when I'm not sure what needs to be done, the focusing steps work for me. That's close enough to E.O. Wilson's approach to make sense to most religious people.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78189957309494424542009-09-02T21:35:24.556-07:002009-09-02T21:35:24.556-07:00How would you demonstrate that? It seems to me you...<em>How would you demonstrate that? It seems to me you need two large sets of people of varying degrees of religious orthodoxy, some exposed to the idea that science is atheistic and some not.</em><br />MT, that's basically the exact same argument that denialist use against climate change science - You can't do a proper experiment, because you don't have a control, so how do you know that it's real.<br /><br />In such a situation, it's not really a valid criticism...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9578186412457697292009-09-02T21:30:03.195-07:002009-09-02T21:30:03.195-07:00Thanks Keith. That's far from anything I follo...Thanks Keith. That's far from anything I follow myself-- it helps to have links to point to.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-72628824198588552382009-09-02T19:07:53.295-07:002009-09-02T19:07:53.295-07:00Hank,
Richard Cizik was ousted from his long-time...Hank,<br /><br />Richard Cizik was ousted from his long-time position last year. I discussed this in a post that I wrote in April, which also includes an interview I did with him.<br /><br />http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2009/04/22/the-resurrection-of-richard-cizik/ <br /><br />That'll bring you up to date on him. As for the site he mentions in the Audubon thread, I'm guessing it went dark when he was tossed aboard.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-79046964116099283372009-09-02T16:10:16.433-07:002009-09-02T16:10:16.433-07:00This is not an elephant.
It's a mastodon.
htt...This is not an elephant.<br />It's a mastodon.<br /><br />http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/a_partial_solution_to_the_urba.html#comment-200721Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30969305210825180262009-09-02T13:52:09.339-07:002009-09-02T13:52:09.339-07:00Keith, the Audubon pages are great; but in the end...Keith, the Audubon pages are great; but in the ending paragraph on the last day, Cizik says:<br /><br />----<br />Ed and Stuart, we need to explain these political and economic realities to our movement as much as we do the scientific facts. No social or religious group is better positioned than evangelicals to alter the current political landscape in which industry literally writes a hefty portion of our energy and environmental policies. Thus, we're launching a new website in late September called "Revision" (to be found at <br /><br />www.revision.org<br /><br />) that will address the theological, scientific, and political imperatives for our evangelical leaders. As you yourself have written: "Creation — living Nature — is in deep trouble" and "Pastor, we need your help." Amen, and amen.<br /> <br />Warmly,<br /> <br />Richard Cizik<br />National Association of Evangelicals <br />-----<br /><br />But the link doesn't work. Can you follow up or suggest how to find out what happened?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-46331232602851031612009-09-02T07:02:48.625-07:002009-09-02T07:02:48.625-07:00Please define accommodationism and identify some a...<i>Please define accommodationism and identify some accommodationists. If it's not too troublesome, provide an accommodationist reference for some of them.</i><br /><br />I think that roughly defined, accommodationism is the expectation that if it is repeated loudly and often enough that Science And Religion Aren't In Conflict that this will create an environment in which acceptance of (as an example) evolution can and will spread through educational standards. This strategy is ineffective, or perhaps only effective in counterbalancing some offensive moves by those seeking to undermine evolution- in either case, the net outcome is zero progress. Rejection of evolution remains at the same level as it did over 25 years ago. The NAS, AAAS, NCSE, et al. take the accomodationist position and release various press releases and pamphlets to that effect*. <br /><br />There are other tacks to take. Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, et al. believe that this accommodationism is ineffective <i>and</i> dishonest, as there are many evolutionary biologists who do not believe that religion as it is generally practiced and science are not in conflict. They believe that accomodationism is not honestly representing the views of the entire scientific community, and as accomodationism doesn’t seem to be making any headway anyway, it might be time to acknowledge the substantial dissenters from this practice.<br /><br />Wilson, Hansen, and others appear to be pursuing yet a different path, by leaving the realm of ‘science/scientists only’ and engaging the religious on their own turf, speaking their language, and perhaps most importantly of all framing their arguments for religious leaders (who will presumably propagate them downstream) rather than attempting a bottom up conversion of individuals.<br /><br />My end of the conversation got muddled because I was attempting to discuss the Dawkins et al. approach on its own merits independently of climate outreach while also trying to emphasize that I think only a top down effort made outside of the purely scientific (e.g. Wilsonian, Hansenian) is likely to be successful (vs. the accommodationist approach) when trying to win over rejectors-of-science-on-religious-grounds because there are too many other confounding factors in play for the accommodationist stance to work. The majority of those who reject evolution do so not because of a perceived lack of evidence, but on religious grounds- when confronted with science that contradicts (or is perceived to contradict) their faith, they choose their faith. Evolution, or in our case climate reality, has to essentially <i>become incorporated into religious worldviews</i> in order to get it accepted by large swaths of religious believers. This happened to some extent with evolution and Catholicism if I'm not mistaken, which might explain their <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/08/northeastern_protestants_catho.php" rel="nofollow">relative embrace</a> of evolution. <br /><br />*[This being said, the NCSE et al. do occasionally go beyond the passive There Is No Conflict stance, but none of these instances seem to be as genuine or potentially successful as the top down approach properly implemented could be.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-79579350870217395292009-09-02T06:29:24.326-07:002009-09-02T06:29:24.326-07:00If you consider yourself pragmatic, then you shoul...If you consider yourself pragmatic, then you should welcome Wilson's and Cizic's engagement.<br /><br />Several years ago, when I was still an editor at Audubon magazine, I brought Richard Cizik, E.O. Wilson and Stuart Pimm together for a week-long web dialogue about just the issues raised in this post and thread:<br /><br />http://www.audubonmagazine.org/eCorrespondence/eCorrespondence.htmlUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51893044693193921472009-09-02T05:10:57.994-07:002009-09-02T05:10:57.994-07:00Michael, I disagree with your entire post, I think...Michael, I disagree with your entire post, I think it contains outdated, fallacious and even strawman arguments.<br /><br />For example, <br />1) Incapability of science to explain experience / the soul. (This mostly is an argument for the supernatural/magic, which in itself is, as a whole, a useless circular logic concept.)<br /><br />2) Shallow materialism as somehow the atheist alternative to christian values. (This is a strawman straight from the creationist playbook by the way.)<br /><br />I don't know if it's fruitful to continue discussion about this topic though - it doesn't really yield anything positive and it only annoys people that might have something much more useful to do.<br /><br />I respect your religion and you have the freedom to believe. I can not promise to refrain from commenting if some of the stuff you say is not logical, even if it is connected to religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7775526812267658532009-09-01T22:49:44.952-07:002009-09-01T22:49:44.952-07:00Well, last note, as a youngster I got a good bit o...Well, last note, as a youngster I got a good bit out of a book by one of those other Huxleys:<br />"Perennial Philosophy" -- a term Google tells me was originally from Leibniz,used as a book title by Aldous Huxley. There are more recent treatments. There is a human experience that can be acquired in many different ways -- described as anything from what meditators do, to temporal lobe stimulation -- that people like enough to work hard to repeat it, and also to prescribe the only proper way anyone can experience it. There's a dynamic tension there, as Vonnegut had Bokonon say it in Cat's Cradle. <br /><br />But since I don't have anything to say about it, and the real interest I have these days in religion is how E.O. Wilson is doing, I'll stop.<br /><br />I think MT is making more sense here than the rest of us put together and I'm going to shut up and listen.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28144331276730241262009-09-01T21:54:08.349-07:002009-09-01T21:54:08.349-07:00@HR
Rereading this thread, I think a lot of what ...@HR<br /><br />Rereading this thread, I think a lot of what I wrote was vague and/or poorly worded.<br /><br />There are a number of points I was trying to speak to, and not all of them dealt with the same goal. In any event, I am cognizant of the risks that MT and you are warning about in potentially alienating large swaths of the public- it's something I myself was vocal about avoiding during the '08 elections.<br /><br />I thinks these groups can and should be engaged, I just don't think the bottom up method is the way to do so effectively. I'd argue that Wilson (and possibly Hansen) are going about it very, very differently than the typical acommodationist strategy re: evolution. <br /><br />I've been sitting on a long post about this entire thing for quite some time, and I should probably just go ahead and finish it so that my opinions are clearer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50010617241256025122009-09-01T21:31:17.199-07:002009-09-01T21:31:17.199-07:00TB:
Of course the Wilsonian approach is not the sa...TB:<br /><em>Of course the Wilsonian approach is not the same as the status quo, it's an active engagement on religious rather than scientific grounds, which is probably why it is effective while accommodationism is not.</em><br /><br />TB, I am honestly having trouble understanding.<br /><br />Please define accommodationism and identify some accommodationists. If it's not too troublesome, provide an accommodationist reference for some of them.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31622347859640850642009-09-01T17:09:10.234-07:002009-09-01T17:09:10.234-07:00An earlier reply to TB is in the queue somewhere, ...An earlier reply to TB is in the queue somewhere, pointing back to what he wrote about evangelicals, which I hope I did misunderstand.<br /><br />News in my mailbox from<br />EcoEquity (new website)<br />http://www.ecoequity.org/<br /><br />Relevant to this thread, issues of fairly sharing the remaining capacity, such as it is, of the planet to cope with our fossil fuel use do interest religious people once the get the idea.<br /><br />EcoEquit among much else do serious work on this issue with the churches; here:<br /><br />http://gdrights.org/2009/06/02/gdrs-and-the-churches/<br /><br />See also this:<br /><br />http://gdrights.org/2009/07/06/one-billion-high-emitters/<br /><br />Eco-Equity's response to the "One billion high emitters" proposal Chakravarty et al. recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.<br /><br />More at the links.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13805425528333896682009-09-01T11:31:24.588-07:002009-09-01T11:31:24.588-07:00TB, if I misunderstood your position I apologize.
...TB, if I misunderstood your position I apologize.<br /><br />My response was specifically to what you wrote above:<br /><br />"Evangelicals are hostile to the science on the issue. They're also hostile to science and its implications on other issues."<br /><br />That's the media picture-- the media is selling the controversy. <br /><br />But the media has to lie aobut this. As the man quoted above said:<br /><br />"The very idea of a rapprochement between evangelicals and secular scientists ... will send lobbyists for the status quo into overtime, if not apoplexy, to stop it from happening."<br /><br />"Still, he believes that an alliance is 'achievable' -- and that Wilson's book could not have come at a better time."<br /><br />---------<br /><br />Personally -- I know some of the folks like Wilson is talking about, I know they need good information, and I want to be able to send them to read your weblog and even be able to speak up and ask questions there. So if someone does come to your good blog, and asks a question about climate in words that lead you to decide he or she is an evangelical, please, hold your fire. <br /><br />It might be someone I sent you who wants good information for good reasons.<br /><br />Don't insist they agree with you beyond that we have a big shared job to do that we can do while disagreeing.<br /><br />Yes, this is "one person" not "from the top down" conviction. <br /><br />That's how people change.<br /><br />The media portrayal won't change til after the world does, if then.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-43440711115572744192009-09-01T05:32:00.072-07:002009-09-01T05:32:00.072-07:00@HR:
TB, you've flatly declared that a large...@HR: <br /><br /><i>TB, you've flatly declared that a large number of people don't exist.<br />You're saying E.O. Wilson is wrong, and the people he's found share his concern about taking care of the world don't exist.<br /><br />Please, consider the possibility that you are wrong in what you believe, and that you can look up facts that will show you the world is not what you believe it is.<br /><br />These are real people. You don't agree with some of what they believe.<br /><br />But they agree that we have work to do, that we can do together, now, desperately needed work.<br /><br />Please suspend your disbelief long enough to read Wilson and those who echo what he is saying about the job at hand.</i><br /><br />I have to admit to being completely baffled as to how you've come to the conclusion that I think the Wilsonian approach is wrong/doesn't exist/etc. when I explicitly state that it might be the best approach, "The Stewards of Creation tack might be the most effective. Hansen has been alluding to it for a long time, and Wilson has already been mentioned by HR. Invoking the Highest Authority neatly sidesteps the issue of parochial attitudes."<br /><br />Of course the Wilsonian approach is not the same as the status quo, it's an active engagement on religious rather than scientific grounds, which is probably why it is effective while accomodationism is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69544943874721748672009-09-01T03:28:38.478-07:002009-09-01T03:28:38.478-07:00Another point for TB and others: remember what els...Another point for TB and others: remember what else has changed, before assuming it's the religious people who are opposed to having good information publicly available.<br /><br />Consider:<br /><br />"We tend to think of the way things are now, with a huge army of lobbyists permanently camped in the corridors of power, with corporations prepared to unleash misleading ads and organize fake grass-roots protests against any legislation that threatens their bottom line, as the way it always was. But our corporate-cash-dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970s.<br /><br />And now that this system exists, reform of any kind has become extremely difficult...."<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?emHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3508409446285328002009-09-01T02:03:56.325-07:002009-09-01T02:03:56.325-07:00Hank, Frans de Waal is the guy to read some pop sc...Hank, Frans de Waal is the guy to read some pop science books from if you want to talk about co-operation, justice, ethics, morals, and evolution.<br /><br />Haven't read all the comments, sorry, right now in write only mode because of time lack!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44208227903967260702009-09-01T01:58:52.507-07:002009-09-01T01:58:52.507-07:00I haven't had time to read the comments, I'...I haven't had time to read the comments, I've just moved, but I don't like how basically the argument is that the public is stupid (can't separate science and atheism), and Dawkins is trashed because of that.<br /><br />And this pandering will change matters how? It's just exactly the acceptance of idiocracy. The very future this blog and the commenters are fighting against.<br /><br />I've seen a couple of videos by Dawkins, and he behaved very well, logically and kindly there, and the opponent seemed a complete fraud. Sorta like Michael Tobis and Mark Morano in these blog postings. One uses evidence and logic, the other some misconstrued talking points from a list.<br /><br />How much more unreasonable demands can you make of anyone? What should Dawkins do? What is wrong with people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8910131952167226552009-08-31T21:53:13.009-07:002009-08-31T21:53:13.009-07:00Here, from the Society for Experimental Biology, a...Here, from the Society for Experimental Biology, a meditation on, among much else, Kropotkin's tenure as an editor of _Nature_.<br /><br />Worth reading.<br /><br />http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/23/4/973Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35799670607430671092009-08-31T21:47:33.110-07:002009-08-31T21:47:33.110-07:00TB, you've flatly declared that a large number...TB, you've flatly declared that a large number of people don't exist.<br />You're saying E.O. Wilson is wrong, and the people he's found share his concern about taking care of the world don't exist.<br /><br />Please, consider the possibility that you are wrong in what you believe, and that you can look up facts that will show you the world is not what you believe it is.<br /><br />These are real people. You don't agree with some of what they believe.<br /><br />But they agree that we have work to do, that we can do together, now, desperately needed work.<br /><br />Please suspend your disbelief long enough to read Wilson and those who echo what he is saying about the job at hand.<br /><br />http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22E.O.+Wilson%22+evangelicals<br /><br />I gave you the link earlier, I think. Again:<br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901664_pf.html<br /><br />The people you don't believe exist are quoted there:<br /><br />----excerpt follows----<br /><br />Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, is holding forth from a couch in the association's modest Southwest Washington office. Asked about Wilson's decision to be straightforward about the gap between the scientific and evangelical worldviews, the pastor has thumbed quickly through his bound galley of "The Creation" to find a passage that spells them out.<br /><br />The point he's making is the same as Wilson's: We know we have differences. But that doesn't mean we can't share concerns.<br /><br />Like Wilson, Cizik used to think political action on the environment "isn't our fight." Then, in 2002 -- at the urging of the Rev. Jim Ball, who heads a group called the Evangelical Environmental Network -- he flew to England to attend a conference on climate change. Absorbing everything he could about the threat of global warming, he "came away converted."<br /><br />Evangelicals, Cizik says, "have begun to speak out on these issues in our own voice. Which is to say not as environmentalists but as evangelical Christians who care about creation."<br /><br />Cizik is speaking in his personal voice here, not for the National Association of Evangelicals' roughly 30 million members. Evangelicals are far from united on this topic, and since he threw himself into the climate change issue, he's been attacked -- by the Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, among others -- for what amounts to consorting with the enemy.<br /><br />Part of the conflict is generational, Cizik says. To the older generation, which identifies "enviros" with the political left, "this is a bridge too far. After all, you could lose your faith or something! Hang out with those guys and you'll slippery-slide your way into evolution!"<br /><br />But momentum, he believes, is on the side of engagement. In February, for example, 86 influential evangelical leaders joined forces to back what they called the Evangelical Climate Initiative, through which they will work to curtail global warming.<br /><br />Introduced by a mutual friend, Cizik and Wilson met over lunch at the Cosmos Club last summer. Earlier this month, they exchanged views in an "e-conversation" on the Web site of Audubon magazine. The very idea of a rapprochement between evangelicals and secular scientists, Cizik wrote, "will send lobbyists for the status quo into overtime, if not apoplexy, to stop it from happening."<br /><br />Still, he believes that an alliance is "achievable" -- and that Wilson's book could not have come at a better time. ...<br /><br />---- end excerpt ----<br /><br />See the Scholar search link for more.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-48290016061555212652009-08-31T18:29:21.141-07:002009-08-31T18:29:21.141-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-53514699569484572732009-08-31T18:29:04.996-07:002009-08-31T18:29:04.996-07:00@MT:
Does "reduce in influence the ideologie...@MT:<br /><br /><i>Does "reduce in influence the ideologies opposing science" include "reduce the indivdual's attachment to those parts of their ideologies opposing science"?</i><br /><br />How would that work exactly? Given the authoritarian structure of the most anti-science sects of religion, it doesn't seem like an easy needle to thread but it might be an incredibly effective tack if it works. I would worry that the thought "if my [spiritual leader] is wrong about [scientific issue], what else is [he or she] wrong about?" would be unacceptable both to the religious authorities as well as the coherence of the rejector's worldview.<br /><br />The Stewards of Creation tack might be the most effective. Hansen has been alluding to it for a long time, and Wilson has already been mentioned by HR. Invoking the Highest Authority neatly sidesteps the issue of parochial attitudes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com