I want to point this Washington Post article out for two reasons. First, the radio telescope array is on our own Lassen National Forest! I’ve been up there several times and it’s fascinating that this kind of work is being conducted in our own backyard. The Allen Telescope Array is one of the jewels of the forest. The article refers to the array being in view of some of California’s tallest mountains – those would be Mount Lassen and Mount Shasta.

Secondly, this kind of work (the search for extraterrestrial life) will pose a major crisis for the more fundamental elements of religion. No doubt, religions will, as they always do, find a way to morph their traditions and texts to claim that such discoveries fit within the predictions of their ancient texts. But the very existence of extraterrestrial life will force a lot of uncomfortable questions about the nature of god, earth as uniquely suited for humans and the silly notion that humans are the ultimate in creation. I look forward to such discussions.

Like all good intelligent design proponents, David Klinghoffer is very skilled at massaging events and conversations to successfully market ID to the masses that possess neither the time nor the inclination to look a bit deeper. To hear Klinghoffer tell it, a recent visit from Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg and other Discovery Institute dignitaries to southern California was sufficient to change Rabbi Yitzchok Alderstein’s mind on subject of ID. Rabbi Aldertein’s discussion of ID was both thoughtful and definitely nuanced. It deserves multiple reads and significant thought. Of course, I don’t believe Klinghoffer did justice to Rabbi Alderstein’s arguments, but I wouldn’t have expected him to do so. Klinghoffer is in the business of marketing a product; Rabbi Alderstein is attempting something far more complicated and nuanced. Rabbi Alderstein is exploring the muddy interface between science and theism…and finding that one does not inherently threaten the other. He bemoans inability of most to see the connection:

What I take as obvious about the relationship between Hashem and the natural world, others see as “theology” – and so many people, even frum Jews, have little patience for theology. They can either look at the world naturalistically, or spiritually – but not both at the same time, inextricably intertwined with the former dependant upon the latter. If a naturalist explanation is fully satisfying, they lose interest in a spiritual one. Those who are deeply invested in a spiritual understanding of the cosmos are often quite comfortable with using only its vocabulary, and have little cause to understand naturalistically. There are, of course, many exceptions who have synthesized the two systems of understanding, but they are not in the majority.

This is not good news for the Discovery Institute fellows, who loathe the concept of any recognition for the possibility that religion and science are simply two systems of understanding. It also clearly not a comfortable response for Klinghoffer, whose theological eggs are seemingly all pinned within the basket of intelligent design (it has to be one or the other, not both). Interestingly I don’t believe Rabbi Alderstein so much has changed his mind about ID as he has found a context for addressing deeper issues of Jewish theology. He suggests that ID may have utility for frum Jews, but that utility is not to be found in a justification of a designer with ID arguments. The real utility appears to be that ID is largely the mirror-image of the New Atheism and that what is of most interest to Jewish theology is the interface beyond the extremes:

Most of the effort should be placed in showing the difference between the systems of science and religion, and what they can and cannot tell us about ourselves and the universe we inhabit. For many people, however, it will be most effective to demonstrate that there are holes in NDS’ understanding. We can and should admit that such holes are not fatal – that it is part of scientific method to hold on to theories that work, and wait for the remaining answers to come in. Still, it will be important to show that there is smugness – indeed a religious faith – in the ability of the prevailing theory to ultimately address major issues. It will help show our children that those who mock faith are themselves people of great faith – in a different system.

My only concern is that Rabbi Alderstein may be accepting ID arguments for the “holes” in evolutionary theory (as presented by ID advocates like Meyer, Klinghoffer, Sternberg and Wells) at face value, without the same deep attention he has paid to other aspects of Jewish instruction. (I say “may” because he does seem to qualify his statements in several instances  – such holes may or may not exist). This is important because Rabbi Alderstein does understand the implications of “god-of-the-gaps” arguments:

Worse yet, to me, was the notion of pointing to phenomena that some believe are not yet satisfactorily explained by evolution (abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, etc.), and yelling, “Eureka! We’ve found it! That’s where G-d has been hiding, and that’s where we really need Him!” It sounds far too similar to “G-d of the gaps” for comfort….The problem with it is that if the gap narrows or disappears through discovery and enlightenment, so does the reason for belief. Unfortunately, much belief around the globe is built on such arguments, reinforcing the stereotype advanced by the New Atheists that religion is only for the undereducated and ill-informed…Why would frum Jews want to get involved with a “G-d of the gaps” approach, which will make us look silly when the gap is filled in, as has happened several times before?

Rabbi Alderstein senses danger here and he is right to be cautious. Those of us with greater training in evolutionary theory recognize that ID arguments are indeed “god-of-the-gaps” arguments, especially when those issues are explored in greater depth, without the filter of the Discovery Institute’s marketing campaign. Klinghoffer is crowing that…“Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg were invited to teach seminars on intelligent design at three prominent Orthodox Jewish high schools (YULA boys high school, YULA girls high school, and Shalhevet), to great acclaim”. Given the academic excellence of such schools, I would expect the students to challenge their ID instructors and not simply take the ID arguments at face value (I would also be very interested in an unbiased reporting of the exchange). Rabbi Alderstein is measuring the utility of ID cautiously, and I would hope all Jewish students follow his lead and do the same.

Yes, I’m coming back to blogging. My absent over the last almost two years was driven largely from accepting a new position with the US Forest Service. I won’t bore you with the details (and I’m still very serious about not mixing my federal employment with personal views on various matters – perhaps even more so now) but the position requires significant effort to partner with local, state and national partners to effect change on the forest ground. This means working with many groups and individuals, all of whom hold different political and religious views. So it also means not purposefully trying to piss people off who might be future partners with the government.

Over the last few months I’ve considered coming back to blogging, but there was always the specter of the implications for my position. Not for fear of being fired or transferred – fortunately there are numerous laws and regulations that protect my own speech just like that of everyone else – federal employment does not negate my own First Amendment rights. Instead, the issue was how affective I might be if potential groups knew of my personal positions on issues – religion in particular. I tried the anonymous blogging thing for a while, but in short, I can’t “do anonymous”.  So, after consulting some fellow bloggers and a few others (all of whom encouraged me to come back to blogging – thanks for the support!) I decided to pick it up again. Some other things weighed in on the decision:

1)      First, I really miss it. I miss the blogging community and being part of a system that subverts main stream media every day that it exists. I miss the repartee with other bloggers. I’ve kept up with everyone’s blogs, but I missed being part of the conversation.

2)      Almost as important, there’s just too much out there now to pass up making a comment or two! Teabaggers, Palinistas, swifthack, the resurrection of Evolution News and Views, the surge of an anti-intellectual and anti-science populace, kindergarten mentalities with crayon signs and poor spelling, a local paper editor who has done too much information “grazing” of late…lots of good stuff – and I want back in!

3)      Over the last couple of years I’ve also found that groups and individuals I partner with aren’t really interested in my personal viewpoints. It’s hard to see how creationism fits with designing a new hiking trail (oh wait…I feel another bad Egnor analogy coming on…). In any event, people I work with are generally only interested in the project on the ground and even in polite company around campfires, politics and religion rarely comes up. Working with the local paper could be a problem, but fortunately, I have proxies for that.

4)      Most people I work with don’t read blogs (unfortunately)…if they have a favorite news source it’s probably FOX. During almost three years of blogging, there were only a few people at work who knew I blogged. I have yet to work with ANY external partners who were aware of my blogging past.

5)      My previous blogging is already out there and hard to deny.

6)      Quite frankly, I need some kind of intellectual release! The vast majority of the public I deal with are great and they make my current position very rewarding. However, I have also become one of those political animals who is capable of hiding what I’m really thinking. There are just some people with whom outwardly I remain all smiles, nods and an appearance of serious understanding…all while quietly thinking “god, you’re an idiot!”.

7)      Ultimately, however, I came to the realization that I don’t care what someone else thinks about my personal viewpoints. If they wish to use that as an excuse not to work together to accomplish important projects on the ground, then they’re probably someone we don’t want to partner with anyway.

So, I’ve decided to continue with Northstate Science. Obviously, more to come….

While Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been busy spending millions of dollars to manufacture stories of individuals suffering personal trauma simply for accepting intelligent design, they (and their audiences) remain blissfully ignorant to the large numbers of people who have truly been harmed for accepting the scientific realities of evolution. Many of these people profess their own profound Christian faith, but have been penalized in their personal, professional and spiritual lives, sometimes for just suggesting that evolutionary theory might be compatible with a strong faith. The list here is long: Steve Bitterman (lost his teaching job for not teaching the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth); Alex Bolynatz (fired from a teaching position for claiming evolution and faith are compatible); Howard Van Till (subjected to four years of investigative inquiry for suggesting that biblical accounts were influenced by the cultures in which they had been written); Nancy Murphy (threatened with dismissal for writing a negative review of Philip Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial); Gwen Pearson (forced to resign from teaching biology after being assaulted and receiving threats like “May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life”); Chris Comer (forced to resign for simply forwarding an email announcing a Barbara Forrest public talk); Paul Mirecki (beaten and then forced to step down as department chair for proposing a class “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies”); Erik Pianka (received death threats for suggesting human overpopulation was a threat to the planet); Judge John E. Jones (received death threats for referring to intelligent design as “breathtaking inanity” in his judgment of the Dover case); University of Colorado biology professors (received threats); Terry Gray (forced to recant after a negative review of Johnson’s book – apparently Philip Johnson can dish out the criticism but it too much of a coward to take it).

And what about Professor Richard Colling, a man of strong faith who claimed that one could still have a strong faith and believe in evolution? Colling has been barred from teaching biology and his book, Random Designer, has been banned from use on campus.  I have been in communication with Richard Colling on and off over the last year. He has devoted his life and professional career to teaching sound science to the students of Olivete Nazarene University while fostering a strong faith that does not have to contradict our observations of the real world in order to be meaningful. His students adore him (several have contacted me with personal stories). He has fought a constant struggle with the administrators and “benefactors” of Olivete Nazarene over his name, his teaching career and his integrity both as a scientist and as a Christian.

He recently sent me several manuscripts recounting this episode, portions of which I may publish here in posts to come. However, I was struck more by his recent email to me. It reflects the exasperation and despair of a man who has been beaten down emotionally by a system of “Christian” morality more concerned with its own self-righteous welfare than with any philosophy Christ may have advocated. If there is a god, and if he is good and just and honest, then he must be taking Richard Colling’s side:

I am deeply saddened that the entire situation has come to this point of misrepresentation and organized attempts to discredit and malign my reputation. My heart has always been to offer a means to students and to the general public by which science and faith can be viewed as compatible. My faculty colleagues and students will attest that I have done this accurately, as well as faithfully and sensitively in the classroom and in my book, Random Designer. Yet sadly the university leadership, without willingness to accept responsibility for questionable actions and misleading communications, has apparently chosen to ignore these facts. I have discovered that some of the most fundamental voices in the Christian church and culture only want war, and seemingly will stop at nothing to discredit/destroy anyone who understands the biology/evolution and makes an intellectually honest attempt to communicate peace between Biology and the Bible. This grieves me deeply.

Expelled has fabricated suffering in order to fulfill an all out war on intellectual and spiritual freedom while the same cheerleaders of this movie ignore the true pain and suffering this theological elitism causes. My thoughts go to Richard.

This is one of the reasons why, despite my general foray around the margins of atheism, I still keep reading those with a more spiritual bent then myself, such as James McGrath: I need to get this book. It is not that my atheism/spirituality is absolute, it that it is complex – I cannot abide by simple black-and-white answers to larger problems. And my beef with theism is not its spirituality, it is that it is far too simplistic (in all its varieties) to be credible. If there is anything out there, it is far more complex and magnificent than any Iron-Age text:

I concur absolutely with Comte-Sponville’s challenge to take the world seriously, and even give the evidence from it priority over sacred texts in important respects. “The world is far more interesting to me than the Bible or the Koran,” Comte-Sponville writes. “It is far more mysterious than they are. It is vaster, since it contains them; more unfathomable; more astonishing; more stimulating, since we can transform it, whereas the holy books are reputed to be untouchable; and, last but not least, it is truer, because it is entirely true, something the Bible and the Koran, with all their inanities and inconsistencies, could never be, except insofar as they are part of the world (there is nothing inconsistent about a human text being inconsistent” (Comte-Sponville, pp.103-104).

Now THAT’s spirituality…

Intelligent Design proponents misappropriating archaeological method and theory as support for their own positions is not the only problem professional archaeology faces today with regard to the creationist crowd. Unfortunately, the issue that Eric Cline has raised regarding the impact of “faux archaeologists” claiming archaeological expertise where none exists should be equally of concern to those of us managing public lands archaeology. Federal archaeologists have done a wonderful job of providing opportunities for the public to volunteer alongside professional archaeologists, but I’m afraid that archaeology’s greatest public benefit may also be one of its greatest weaknesses. I see two problems here: the first is a tendency among “Christian” volunteers on archaeological excavations in the Middle East to return to the United States and then use this limited experience as justification for speaking to public audiences about the nature of archaeological research.  This is not just about the “high profile” faux archaeologists like Cornuke. It’s about a lot of “creation research” faux archaeologists who go to the Holy Land, work on a couple of excavations, and then list these experiences in their online resumes as proof of their professional credentials. The second problem, I believe is more egregious: national antiquity agencies, specifically the Israeli Antiquities Authority, are either turning a blind eye to this problem or is actively providing opportunities for non-professionals (specifically pro-Zionist Christian professionals…there, I said it) to gain a measure of professional respectability that is undeserved.

I had to clarify to my audience on Friday that I did not mean to cast dispersions on archaeology volunteer programs in general , only that the potential problems with volunteers starting to portray themselves as professionals in the field is starting to be a problem here, on public land, and we should begin to think about it. I DID NOT say, although in retrospect I probably should have, that I believe this problem stems solely from the way the Israeli Antiquities Authority appears to conduct business, and does not appear to be a problem with volunteer archaeology projects in general.

Some excerpts from my paper:

The war on science is occurring on multiple fronts, but I am particularly concerned with the battles over creationism and intelligent design. Although traditionally a battle fought by biologists, geologists and paleontologists, proponents of these anti-science positions increasingly enlist archaeology as an unwilling ally. I believe the public impression of archaeology generated by these misleading efforts  is beginning to impact our mission as cultural stewards and science professionals.  When several residents from my home town accompanied Dr. Carl Baugh and members from the Creation Evidence Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam in Israel recently, the local paper practically wet itself over the opportunity to extol the virtues of Baugh as an archaeologist who was “proving the Bible correct” by his important archaeological work in Jerusalem. But Baugh is not an archaeologist; he has no legitimate degree; he has never written a peer-reviewed article on any of his so-called “field research”; he has faked evidence and been accused of sloppy, if not incompetent, field methodology. However, the media led the public to believe that “Dr.” Baugh was actually directing the excavations at the site (no mention was made the actual directors of the Pool of Siloam excavations) and portrayed Baugh as a typical member of the professional archaeology community. The media also went out of its way to indicate that the Israeli Antiquities Authority “commissioned” Baugh’s group to work at the site, thus giving him a measure of professional respectability. This would not have been an issue of relevance here today had I not been asked in my professional capacity as a Forest Archaeologist to address whether or not the media actually had it right about archaeology.  I did not answer in an official capacity for fear of putting the Forest Service in the middle of a professional dispute. It was a mistake I will not make again. Nor was the Israeli Antiquities Authority much help – I could get no one from our international counterparts to officially comment on whether or not the IAA regards Baugh as a professional archaeologist.

Snip….

Unfortunately, Baugh’s group is not the only one.  There seems to be a growing trend of non-professionals participating in archaeological excavations for the purposes of gaining a measure of professional authenticity that they then parade in front of home audiences. This is bad enough for archaeology, but it also broadly translates into the perception that these people can speak authoritatively on science in general. Nor are these simply sour grapes on the part of a Darwinian archaeologist concerned with the broader issues of whether evolution or the Bible is true. As a Forest Service Heritage Program Manager, I am tasked with the same mission as the Israeli Antiquities Authority: to oversee the preservation of archaeological sites on public lands and to ensure professional research is undertaken, by legitimate archaeologists with valid credentials. I would no sooner grant a research permit to Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum than to a group of kindergarten children. But how am I to respond to “But we were allowed to excavate in Israel, why can’t we do it here?” And I kid you not: I have been asked that question more than once, recently, in my professional career as a federal archaeologist.

And of course, I had to promote Eric Cline’s book, From Eden to Exile (which was onscreen during this next segment, along with a choice quote from Eric’s Boston Globe piece on “faux archaeologists”):

My whining to contrary, the important issue of archaeology’s role in educating the public on science has not flown by entirely under the archaeological radar. Eric Cline has raised the problem of the seemingly endless stream of “faux archaeologists” returning from volunteer excavations in the Middle East to explain to the rest of us how archaeology is done. No less an auspicious a journal than Antiquity (that’s the European version, not the American) recently editorialized on the exact question I raise today: is it time that archaeology does something about creationism and intelligent design? Prompted by online comments written by a professional archaeologist, the editorial notes the propensity for archaeologists to maintain a “withering silence” on this issue but suggests that “…there are reasons why silence might not be sensible for ever”.  The principle objections are cited: the abuse of archaeological method and theory by intelligent design advocates, and not allowing “…the numerous cohort of amateur archaeologists to try and prove the Bible was right after five minutes working as a volunteer on an excavation”. More importantly, the editorial concludes that the author, “…shows that far from countering the benighted influence of creationism, [archaeologists] are providing it with ammunition. For the sake of our children, archaeologists must confront it…”

[I started writing this in the airport yesterday, but then got to experience all the joys of flight cancellation everyone else in the country has had to put up with over the last few months - it was a long trip back to northern California].

Discussions around the bar last night in the aftermath of my paper were all positive. What surprised me the most were the number of archaeologists who expressed the idea that “it was about time” we got involved in this debate. Several said it was long overdue. The current SCA president also attended the symposium, heard my paper, and liked the message.  Unfortunately several agreed that there are probably more intelligent design proponents within the crowd than we realize – I knew of at least one in the audience yesterday, just based on casual conversations I have had with this person over the years.

But the intelligent design community is now on notice that archaeologists are at least becoming aware of the issue and many will be engaging the public on this discussion with greater frequency. I am waiting for the fallout from intelligent design proponents on my call, in my capacity as a federal archaeologist, for the archaeology community to get involved. I am expecting some whining on the potential conflict of interest on my part: a federal employee making an official statement on prominent debate in this country. After all, we know intelligent design activists will take advantage of any opportunity to “expel” any criticism of their position from public debate. Most federal employees are quite sensitive (sometimes I think overly so) to maintaining neutrality on controversial issues – our job is simply to ensure that appropriate laws and regulations are followed, not to advocate a particular position (at least not in an official capacity). Most of us take that charge seriously.

 However, I believe I finally understand why federal archaeologists have largely avoided this issue. Those of us who follow it closely know what intelligent design really is: a religious viewpoint. No one I know who opposes intelligent design gives it even the slightest consideration as a scientific viewpoint – we all treat it as a religious position. The federal government cannot discriminate against religious worldviews.

However, we can (and do, regularly) argue over and advocate methodological approaches all the time. We frequently get very vocal, in public and on the job, when we discuss the best way to implement projects, or which scientific approach to implementation is most valid.

If intelligent design proponents are concerned with a federal archaeologist actively arguing against their position, they are in quite a quandary. The only reason for an objection to federal employees commenting in their official capacity is if the argument is based on ID as a religious position. In discussing it as a potential scientific approach, however, it is falls well within our ability to do so. And we should be doing more of that.

I am at the Society for California Archaeology meetings in sunny Burbank, CA this week. As I posted previously, I was working on something to be unveiled today, coinciding with the opening of Expelled. I gave folks a hint in the last post, by referring to the program for the SCA meetings. Anyone looking at that might have noted the following paper being presented in the symposium entitled Public Lands Archaeology: 35 Years of Cultural Resources Management on Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service Public Lands:

Of Turkeys, Timber Sales and Intelligent Design: Is Federal Archaeology More than CRM? Christopher O’Brien, Lassen National Forest

I gave that paper this afternoon, noting during the presentation the irony of it being given on the same day Expelled is set to open. I even showed the Expelled movie poster for a moment, but then switched to a slide of the Expelled Exposed website, suggesting that the audience would not want to look at Ben Stein’s face for too long. The main thrust of the paper was to suggest to my federal archaeology colleagues that we must do more than just “flag and avoid” archaeological sites. And while I talked about turkey historical ecology in California, the lack of knowledge most of the public has with regard to historical processes, and that federal archaeologists should take a more active role in public education regarding science education, the highlight was my assessment of archaeology’s role in the debate over Intelligent Design. Some excerpts from today’s paper:

The direct issues that we confront as federal archaeologists, especially with regard to a public that does not adequately comprehend the historical context in which we plan and implement on-the-ground projects, is intertwined with a much broader issue that affects us on multiple levels. I am talking about the war on science. If we consider our discipline a scientific endeavor and not merely a casual fulfillment of academic curiosity, then archaeology must pull its collective head out of the excavation pit and recognize when science and science education are under attack. We can no longer simply leave the war to the biologists, geologists and climatologists. Archaeology is part of the science continuum and we must engage aggressively in educating the public about archaeology specifically, but about science in general….

Snip….

Not content with attempting to purloin false archaeological credentials by nefariously claiming directorship status on volunteer archaeology projects, these charlatans of the anti-science movement have now recruited archaeology as an ally in its most current manifestation: intelligent design.  [ I would point out that today the pro-intelligent design/anti-Darwin movie Expelled opens across the country and have note the irony of my presentation at this particular moment in time]. Intelligent Design, referred to by many as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”, claims there is evidence for design among living organism and that evolutionary theory is not sufficient to account for that design. Many of you are probably familiar with the concept and I won’t bore you with the details at the moment. It  will probably change in the next 20 minutes anyway as the most consistent feature of Intelligent Design is its inconsistency with respect to substance and definition. The issue here is that proponents of Intelligent Design regularly hijack archaeological method and theory to cite as a metaphor for our poor biologist cousins who can’t seem to accept the concept of design in nature. ID proponents insist that the archaeologists are all about “identifying design” in the archaeological record and seem to think there is an analogy to be drawn between an archaeologist’s recognition of intelligent design in artifacts and their own identification of intelligent design in biological systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Design in archaeology is not “self evident”; it belies centuries of thought on archaeological method and theory, ethnographic analogy, experimentation with raw materials and an appreciation for context. A lot of hard methodological and theoretical work has gone into method and theory distinguishing the signatures of human intervention from those attributed to natural processes. More importantly, archaeologists never separate the design from the designer (something ID proponents do regularly): understanding the material culture is only a proximate goal of archaeology. Archaeology’s ultimate goal is to understand human behavior, i.e. the nature of the designer.

Snip….

Certainly, our academic and contract archaeology brethren are either blissfully unaware of the public perceptions of archaeology or have purposely chosen to remain ensconced in the ivory tower. I once heard a well-known contract archaeologist in California largely dismiss the creation-evolution debate by suggesting, “if you take antibiotics, you have to be a proponent of natural selection”. From an academic biological perspective, how absolutely true; and yet in the broader scheme of public perception…how utterly naïve. When your opponents long ago abandoned issues of microevolution and switched to using analogies with the archeological Antikythera Mechanism as valid scientific methodology for inferring design in biological systems, you are way behind the curve ball in the public debate over science. 

But the following presentation was the highlight:

If you don’t think this issue has anything to do with federal archaeology then I offer you this: the Antiquity editorial was prompted by an article written, not by an academic archaeologist, or a contract archaeologist. It was written by a United States federal archaeologist. As professional scientists we have a role to play in science education; and our role in this is probably greater given the significant public outreach we engage in relative to our academic and contracting counterparts. If you still think this is not federal archaeology’s business, or are more comfortable avoiding such issues and sticking with flag and avoid archaeology, or if you happen to accept intelligent design as a valid scientific method (and I submit there are more individuals accepting intelligent design in the audience than many of you may realize) let me offer you an image.

If you are asking where I’m going with this, in the immortal words of William Wallace…[I then flashed the following picture]:

I’m going to pick a fight.

I challenge the SCA to develop a statement of scientific standing and declare that archaeology is a professional discipline adhering to principles of sound scientific investigation and rejects intelligent design and similar anti-science pursuits because they are not scientific in methodology. I challenge the SAA to do the same. And I challenge federal archaeologists in this room to make proper science education part of every public outreach, be it a brochure, an interpretive panel, a public lecture or a public archaeological project. Emphasize the professionalism of archaeological research and the scientific foundation upon which it is based to your public audiences. Whether we are talking turkeys, timber sales or intelligent design, federal archaeology needs to be more than just CRM – we are the face of archaeology that the public sees most often; we reach the largest audiences; we are presented with the best opportunities to engage the public and educate them about the importance and professionalism of archaeology.

I plan to clean the paper up, expand some points a bit and add some references. I’ll have it available to anyone who would like a copy after that. I’ll also let everyone know what kind of feedback I get at the bar tonight….

I apologize for the blogging being a little light of late, but I’m trying to put the finishing touches on something that will be unveiled, coincidently, on the same day Expelled is supposed to premier across America (this Friday). I wish I could take credit for planning it that way, but it was just the nature of the scheduling.

The annual meetings for the Society for California Archaeology begin this Thursday (April 17) in Burbank, California. I’ll be flying down to attend. If you’re interested in the program for this year, you can download it at the SCA homepage. I’ll be blogging from the meetings.

Just about any argument against homosexuality can be considered theocratic in nature if not direct substance. The only reason for opposition to someone’s personal adult sexual preference is because of a religious stance on the issue. If you wish to live by your personal religious preferences, that’s fine, but your religion is no excuse for affecting the lives of others. Consider, for example, the latest flap over a lawmaker being allowed to take her lesbian spouse on a taxpayer-funded trip on a military flight:

A conservative group is calling on the Pentagon to apologize for its decision to permit a liberal lawmaker to take her homosexual partner on a taxpayer-funded trip overseas.

Politico.com reports Defense Secretary Bob Gates granted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) a special exception to House rules so she could allow Lauren Azar, the same-sex partner of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe. Baldwin and Azar reportedly “confirmed their commitment to each other” in 1998, and one news service says Azar is registered with the House as Baldwin’s spouse.

Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is condemning the Pentagon’s accommodation of Baldwin. He says it is “outrageous” that the Pentagon gave in to Pelosi and the “homosexual agenda.”

LaBarbera’s tantrum no doubt results from his personal religious views, which have no place in dictating policy to the rest of us. (By the way, I remember Tammy Baldwin when she was just starting her political career in Wisconsin in the late 80s/early 90s when I was a graduate student there).

I’ll tell you how to solve this: ABSOLUTELY NO SPOUSES, heterosexual or otherwise, on tax-payer funded overseas trips.