Please be patient, I am evolving as fast as I can!

Texas Governor truly is a politician!

2011-08-21T00:47:00.004-04:00

Rick Perry (poor Texas' current Governor and Presidential hopeful) just lied to a child. In a recent campaign stumping in New Hampshire he told a child that in Texas they teach both Evolution and Creationism in public schools. (Gov. Perry: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution") He lied!

First of all there is no mention of Creationism in the Texas School Standards and there hasn't been for decades. I can see some of his confusion, I mean he's appointed three very conservative Christians as the head of the State Board of Education (two were refused confirmation and the third hasn't stood for confirmation . . . yet) and they have done pretty much all they can do and still Texas refuses to go back to the 19th century. I guess he assumed that as the Governor his commands instantly become fact.

Second, if Texas was teaching Creationism in public schools, the Governor of Texas, a Presidential aspirant, would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Hmmm, this is the man who wants to . . . let me copy this straight from the oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

Really? This guy just lied to a kid and claimed that Texas was violating the Constitution. Is this who we want as the President?

On a related note, the present Democratic Governor of Kentucky has been promoting kennie ham's latest brainstorm, the Ark Encounter ministry, to the tune of millions in tax and property incentives. Guess what? The Republican candidate for Governor is against the park and all the breaks it's getting.(The world is upside down in Kentucky) What is this world coming to? And guess what? little kennie isn't happy. Awww!

Letter to the Editor

2011-08-18T21:31:00.003-04:00

When the mild brouhaha over Creationism in the classroom reared its head in Springboro, Ohio I dashed off a letter to the Editor of the Dayton Daily News. It took a couple of weeks, but it finally made it. Oh it's edited to be sure, but they simply removed text rather than changed the points I was trying to make. So if you are interested here it is the published version:

Ohio may very well be heading down a path it has already been before and one we certainly do not need to travel again. In the early part of this decade you might remember former State School Board member Debra Owens Fink and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, adopted as science curricula. Since that time an expensive lawsuit was brought against the School Board of Dover PA when they attempted to weaken science education and open the door for religious alternatives.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious alternatives not scientific theories. Teaching them as if they are science does a disservice to our teachers and, more importantly, our students.

This is not a debate about science; this is a cultural and political debate. It should not be a topic for any school board until proponents offer actual viable and repeatable science supporting their philosophy. During the Dover Trial it was stated that in order for Creationism/Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to the point of making Astrology science as well. Is this what we want and need in our educational system here in Ohio?

I think the school board members should not be supporting their own religious views, but focus on the education of all our children. They should be the first line of defense when others try and introduce pseudo-scientific ideas into the curricula.

What I liked the most was not just getting a letter published, but that the three accompanying letters all spoke out against teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design as if it were science -- including two from Springboro. That was the best part. Hopefully the folks in Springboro will continue to make their voices heard and the members of the School Board that voiced this little potential disaster will realize that there is no room in a modern science classroom for such nonsense.

Surprise, Surprise

2011-08-13T23:18:00.003-04:00

My responses to the ID 'Quiz' made it posted. This is a first. Every other submittal to Uncommon Descent got lost in the ether somewhere. But the 'quiz' promoter doesn't like my responses, oh well.

He did respond to my first comment, about this is not being a quiz. Here is his response:

"[vjtorley responds: This is a rather pedantic quibble. OK, maybe I should have said "questionnaire" rather than "quiz". And no, I am not planning on using this survey for marketing. I simply wanted to get people's opinions.]"

Aw, he thinks it's a pedantic quibble. So what? I take it any form of Master's level research skills are not in your background. If you ever tried to defend your thesis and called your 'survey' a 'quiz', you probably wouldn't not have made it past the first page. It's called rigor in your methodology. Maybe it is a quibble-- but try and do a better job next time.

Here is the rest of his response. It's pretty funny."

[vjtorley responds:

Well, I have posted your response, T.H., although I have to say that its sneering, arrogant, know-it-all tone only confirms my belief that you're blustering.

T.H., you state on your Website that Information Technology and computer programming are your areas of expertise, and that you teach at a college. Fine. I'd like you to have a look at the Website of Dr. Don Johnson, who has Ph.D.s in both informational and natural sciences, who taught 20 years in universities in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Europe, and who once believed anyone not accepting the "proven" evolutionary scenario was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat Earth. Now he's an ID supporter. Please tell me why I should believe you instead of Dr. Johnson. It seems that he has a lot more academic experience than you do. By the way, have you read his book, "Programming of Life"?

You talked about "real Science, Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry." Funny. There are real scientists in all those fields who support Intelligent Design. How do you explain that?

You say ID proponents should get out in the lab more often. Have you ever heard of a guy named Douglas Axe, and the work he's doing with proteins? And there are dozens more people doing good scientific work like Dr. Axe. Have a look here, to see just a few names: http://biologicinstitute.org/people/ . You're saying all these people are deluded, and you're not?

By the way, your own post contains one spelling mistake and one major grammatical error. I won't even bother mentioning the other minor ones.

"Evidenciary" is a mis-spelling. The correct spelling is "evidentiary". And "dissociate" is preferable to "disassociate".

Finally, we say "bereft of", not "bereft from".

I dislike pedantry myself, but I won't tolerate being lectured by you in that tone, thank you very much. Goodbye.]

Hmm, you dislike my tone? Oh well, interesting how you ask my opinion and then criticize what you assume to be my tone. Sounds like you are revealing your own prejudices.

No, I am not familiar with Dr. Don Johnson or his website, I have no idea what his thinking is when it comes to Intelligent Design. I am also not asking you to believe me. You were asking for my opinion, I didn't realize I was supposed to temper it for your sensibilities.

I am familiar with the Discovery Institute owned-and-operated Biologic Institute. I am also quite familiar with the lack of scientific work that has come out of that Institute. Oh they have published a few things, but how much their actual peer-reviewed scientific publications have supported ID? However they are as guilty as the rest of the DI who publish ID marketing materials in the popular press rather than scientific or academic press, present their 'work' in front of supporters at religious gatherings, and have an annoying tendency of failing to support their popular press writings with any sort of scientific methodology or even visibility.

The Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at SMU, Dr. Mark A. Chancey has this to say about ID:

Intelligent Design originated within certain religious circle.
[ID] has credibility only within those same circles-mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening.
Few ID advocates hold full-time professorial positions in pertinent fields at mainstream colleges and universities.
Many ID proponents with academic positions work at religious institutions devoted to promoting particular theological views.
ID proponents have published very few articles in peer-reviewed journals.
They have created their own in-house journals that they describe as "peer-reviewed." . . . universities do not consider a self-serving house organ as truly peer-reviewed; such venues are regarded as fake journals.
IDers sometimes publish books-but most of these are with religious, not academic, presses.
ID research is not rigorous, substantial or convincing enough to be published in genuine academic venues.
Unable to publish their work in legitimate academic venues, they nonetheless present it as cutting-edge science.
Unable to gain acceptance in the scientific community, they nonetheless claim to be gaining momentum
They deny or obscure the fact that ID is grounded in a particular religious worldview and yet regard it as a tool to promote socially and theologically conservative Christian positions.

His closing comment is something many have been asking, for years now:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

You obviously are a drinker of the particular kool-aid and you can call my comments blustering or not -- but I did notice you did not address the meat of any of my comments. Why is that? You point me to Biologics and yet you fail to recognize their own lack of ID research. You toss Don Johnson under the bus, yet you never explain why ID cannot be explained without eventually resorting to religion and belief. You certainly never addressed the lack of visibility and methodology in the popular press publications that claim to be cutting edge science?

Obviously you are less interested in opinions that do not already support your position, because you also failed to note why Uncommon Descent is your choice of venue.

No, instead of addressing it, you correct a spelling and grammar error.

BTW, 'evidenciary' is a term frequently used in legal circles and is an accepted alternate spelling for evidentiary -- neither of which is frequently found in spell-checkers. Also 'Bereft' is frequently used with 'of', but that is not its only use, simply a very common one. Thanks for nothing. Bye!

An Intelligent Design Quiz . . . not really

2011-08-13T00:18:00.005-04:00

Over on Uncommon Descent, a poster added this: "A short quiz on Intelligent Design for both advocates and opponents of ID" I have a number of issues which I will address while answering, but one jumps to mind immediately -- this is not a quiz. A quiz is designed to test your knowledge of a subject. This is a survey. It's asking your opinion. I am sure the poster will take the results and turn it into some sort of marketing message in support of ID. After all posting it on Uncommon Descent already shows their prejudice. Well here goes:

1. On a scale of 0 (diehard disbeliever) to 10 (firm believer), how would you rate your level of belief in Intelligent Design? (Minimal Definition of Intelligent Design: The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process.)

I dislike that definition, diehard supporters have stated time and time again that the designer is the Christian God, so wording it this way perpetuates the constant marketing efforts to disassociate ID from its religious underpinnings. But I will be happy to answer: 0
Second answer: 'What, no negative numbers allowed?'

2. What do you regard as the best argument for Intelligent Design?

There aren't any. All arguments for ID are unsupported philosophy, wishful thinking, and/or conjecture. There is no evidence, no one seems to be working on providing any evidence. Your own little 'quiz' is another example of marketing instead of substance.

3. What do you regard as the best argument against Intelligent Design?

Anything that has some actual evidence, like real Science, Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry, to name a few.
The next best argument against ID are the ID publications and public presentations themselves. Self-published (Discovery Institute Press), religious imprint of publishers, like HarperOne, and publications in the popular press offer the argument that you already know you have no substance. The constant appearance of ID proponents giving presentations at religious locations, religious schools, and sponsored by ministries also add to the picture that not only is ID religious, but you are trying to hide it and doing a poor job.
Another argument against ID is the unwillingness of ID to follow even the most basic scientific methodology. You declare it a scientific theory and demand space at the science lectern. This unwillingness also shows the paucity of your own position more clearly than anything I say.

4. I’d like you to think about the arguments for Intelligent Design. Obviously they’re not perfect. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

Stop marketing and go to the Lab. If you want ID to be taken seriously as anything more than conjecture and wishful thinking, YOU need to provide the evidenciary support for it. Don't whine that other folks aren't agreeing with your philosophies, get off your ass and do the actual scientific work, follow scientific methodologies. It is the ONLY way you will belong anywhere other than the Fiction section of the library, right next to the Tarot Cards, Astrology, and Feng Shui books.

5. Now I’d like you to think about the arguments against Intelligent Design. Obviously they could be improved. Exactly where do you think these arguments need the most work, to make them more effective?

These arguments against ID do not do any work specific toward ID to make them more effective. These argument continue exploring the world around us and we learn more and more on a daily basis. Learning more about the world shows us how bereft ID is from anything resembling support. It must be galling to be a sideshow instead of a mainstream effort of scientific research.

6. (a) If you’re an ID advocate or supporter, what do you think is the least bad of the various alternatives that have been proposed to Intelligent Design, as explanations for the specified complexity found in living things and in the laws of the cosmos? (e.g. The multiverse [restricted or unrestricted?]; Platonism; the laws of the cosmos hold necessarily, and they necessarily favor life; pure chance; time is an illusion, so CSI doesn’t increase over time.)

None, it's all garbage. ( I know, I shouldn't have answered this one, but it's irresistible!)

(b) If you’re an ID opponent or skeptic, can you name some explanations for life and the cosmos that you would regard as even more irrational than Intelligent Design? (e.g. Everything popped into existence out of absolutely nothing; the future created the past; every logically possible world exists out there somewhere; I am the only being in the cosmos and the external world is an illusion requiring no explanation; only minds are real, so the physical universe is an illusion requiring no explanation.)

No, ID is irrational, along with other pseudo-scientific explanations. It's not possible to compare these different explanation on any scale of irrationality.

See what I mean, a survey, not a quiz. I do plan on posting my responses, it will be interesting to see if it even makes it on the site.

So much for Inerrancy

2011-08-12T23:06:00.003-04:00

One of the constant themes I hear from anti-science folks is the inerrancy of the Bible. Not only is it the 'Word of God' but the word has been unchanged since . . . well some say 6,000 years, others are more honest and claim the beginning of the Universe, you know Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists.

When you dare to question this inerrancy one of the things mentioned in its defense is the Hebrew tradition of copying the Torah. Here, Wikipedia said it better:

"They are written using a painstakingly careful methodology by highly qualified scribes. This has resulted in modern copies of the text that are unchanged from millennia-old copies. It is believed that every word, or marking, has divine meaning, and that not one part may be inadvertently changed lest it lead to error. The fidelity of the Hebrew text of the Tanakh, and the Torah in particular, is considered paramount, down to the last letter: translations or transcriptions are frowned upon for formal service use, and transcribing is done with painstaking care. An error of a single letter, ornamentation, or symbol of the 304,805 stylized letters which make up the Hebrew Torah text renders a Torah scroll unfit for use, hence a special skill is required and a scroll takes considerable time to write and check."

I have heard of this tradition many times. However . . . the Associated Press (AP) today "In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution" explains that the Hebrew tradition isn't nearly as precise as folks would like to believe. Over the past 53 years a group has been studying the Hebrew Bible, also know as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and they've discovered that is has changed and we aren't talking about just a word or two. A couple of the more interesting changes show that the Book of Jeremiah is longer today and a 'prophecy' was added after the events actually happened.

Interesting article! I have said it many times since joining this political and cultural debate. The Bible may be a good book, it may even be a great book, but it certainly is not the only book! It's been written, re-written, translated, re-translated by men over the centuries. What is considered canon was decided in the First Council of Nicea (325), and has been changed in the many Ecumenical Councils since then, like the Council of Trent (1546) (Development of the Christian biblical canon). The most popular English version of the Bible was re-written in part by the direction of King James (Authorized King James Version).

Biblical inerrancy is a fun myth, but it's only a myth! Sorry to burst anyone's bubble -- but then having discussed this with a number of folks, I doubt I am going to make any believers change their mind, but with any luck a couple my just engage the brain a little bit.

And just where is the Discovery Institute?

2011-08-10T21:44:00.004-04:00

My less than favorite place, the Discovery Institute is well known for rushing to the rescue when Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents when their livelihood is threatened by their association with the DI and its ideas. I mean David Coppedge, Gulliermo Gonzalaez, Richard Von Sternberg, Catherine Coker are all examples. Even when the evidence doesn't support them, the DI re-invents the past in order to paint their friends and fellows in the most positive light and as the victims of various forms of discrimination, particularly religious (even though we all know there is nothing religious (wink, wink) about ID).

Now according to a new Christian Post article "Jobs in Jeopardy for Christian Scholars Who Believe in Evolution" the DI should be rushing to the aid of:

Professor John Schneider who taught theology at Christian Reformed School Calvin College for 25 years until he was forced to resign after writing a paper that questioned the historical Adam.

Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, was investigated by the school after writing a paper with the same premise as Schneider's, proposing that there is no historical Adam.

Karl Giberson was a professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College until he was dismissed due to his support of evolution. Giberson co-authored the book Language of Science and Faith

So where is the Discovery Institute? Why aren't they defending and writing opinion pieces about right to free speech and discrimination? Why aren't they spinning up stories and painting these professors are victims of intolerance? I know the answer is pretty self-evident, but I just felt the question needed to be asked.

Ken Ham believes in Evolution!

2011-08-10T19:52:00.008-04:00

Ken Ham believes in Evolution! Yes, I just had to repeat that. It seems kennie may not agree, but it makes perfect sense, as you shall see.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon pointed this out in his post: "AIG and the Pillars of the Earth" He linked over to little kennie here. You really don't need to read kennie's site, SC will help you get the point without having to run up kennie's numbers and make him think people are reading his posts share his narrow belief set.

So if you haven't jumped ahead or read one of the links you are probably wondering how I could possibly make such a crazy statement like 'Kennie Ham believes in Evolution.' Aside from liking to say that over and over again, I really do have a point.

Kennie is annoyingly on record as being a Biblical Literalist. Now I have frequently stated that he is no such thing. Finally he admits it. I mean how else can you take comments like:

"The supposed contradiction quickly disappears when we examine the context of each passage and recognize it as figurative language.

"Please note the use of the term 'figurative'. Now I know my English might not be perfect, being from Brooklyn NY and all. But how can one be a Biblical Literalist and then 'explain' the Bible as being composed of figurative language? Kennie said it himself:

" . . .we interpret Scripture . . ."

and

"God uses this figurative language to create a mental picture . . ."

and

"All of these are obviously not literal statements but rather figures of speech that give a more interesting look at the concept being expressed."

Kennie ended his little 'explanation' with this example:

"So, God hangs the earth on nothing, but it’s not just dangling in space. He has firmly fixed an orbit for our planet and upholds it securely in its proper place in our solar system."

So, if I understand what little kennie is saying is that without any understanding of the Solar System, gravity, orbital mechanics, the many writers and translators of the Bible hit upon a way to explain how God did something and today kennie and his folks 'interpret' it so that God's word really means something completely different from how it was understood hundreds of years ago. Do I have that right?

Oh I know kennie is rationalizing by claiming that he and his pet creation 'scientists' are just interpreting things within the context of what the author meant. If that was so I would like you to look at this Bible quote:

"Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis Chapter 2)

or even this one:

"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2 (New International Version)

Two slightly different wordings, but the idea seems the same. Now remember the folks who wrote the Bible had no idea of biology, or genes or DNA. Could this be 'interpreted' within context to be an example of Abiogenesis, even Evolution? I mean there is no time limit mentioned here, no methodology, nothing that offered any hints. So any assumptions about it happening instantaneously are up to the interpretation of the reader? Right?

So based on this, I feel that claiming 'kennie believes in evolution' is a perfectly reasonable comment to make. I mean kennie is simply trying to apply a modern day context to ancient words. So where is the limit? Ay, there is the rub, as Shakespeare would say. Here is the problem, kennie has set an artificial limit on his 'interpreting'. Seriously? What is the actual limit when you try and interpret the Bible into modern concepts and ideas? Kennie slips in a term that most folks would not be familiar with 'hermeneutics', which is the philosophical study, theory and practice of interpretation.

I think he was being a bit sneaky here. Hermeneutics focuses on trying to apply context to language when making a translation. Kennie not only wants to translate the language, but change it to mean what kennie wants it to mean. I mean really . . . orbit? The author of these two quotes:

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He has set the world upon them. (1 Samuel 2:8)
He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7)

Do you really think the original authors' context actually included Gravity and Orbital Mechanics? That's kennie deciding what the context means and trying to convince us that they are the same thing. I, obviously disagree. By little kennie's own words then everything in the Bible that even remotely hints anywhere in a very large ballpark of a modern science, including evolution, can be a perfectly acceptable 'interpretation' of the words from the Bible!

Now I am sure kennie will disagree with me. After all, his livelihood is based on gathering supporters and accepting their not-inconsiderable donations, and let us not forget trying to convince taxpayers to help him out with his little homage to HIS interpretation on Noah, the Great Flood and the inclusion of dinosaurs, including such help as:

A property tax agreement meaning the new Ark Park will pay only 25 percent of the local taxes due.
And the nearly $200,000 from Grant County's economic development arm gave as an enticement.
Along with 100 acres of reduced-price land.
Plus the $40 million worth of sales tax rebates from the state of Kentucky.
And a possible $11 million in improvements to the nearby interstate highway, financed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

All that is from a little article from Fox 19: Noah's Ark project gets property tax break. Just wanted to remind anyone from Kentucky who reads this how expensive kennie's new ministry is going to be. And yes, it is a ministry. Remember this:

"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith."

Yes, there is no way kennie is going to stop placing his imprint on what he claims is God's inerrant word. He will continue to twist the meaning as long as there are believers to 'contribute'. Hmmm in that context, would the word 'fleeced' be as appropriate. Maybe someone should ask kennie how it might be 'interpreted'?

Bleak in Ohio, maybe not!

2011-08-07T21:48:00.005-04:00

Looks like Springboro's wade into the Creationist waters was a very tentative toe-dip. I can picture Mrs. Kohls dipping her toe in and retreating quickly. In another report in the Dayton Daily News "Official: Vouchers could be creationism option" which explained she has changed her approach. Now instead of trying to teach Creationism, she is interested in using vouchers -- paid for by State funds -- so families can send kids to parochial schools. See what I mean by a retreat?

What I think happened is the number of comments to the paper, the Springboro School District, and probably Mrs. Kohls herself and other Board members must not have supported her intentions. Like a good politician, she changed her mind.

Now, about her new position, I disagree. I don't think the State of Ohio should be spending tax money to send kids to private schools of any type, except if each and every existing school was packed to the gills and there was no other alternative. My thinking is simple. If we want a public school system, we have to pay for it. If some families wish to opt out, then they currently get to pay for it themselves. If that's wrong, then let's change the way public schools are funded. But using my tax money, tax money I expect to be used to support my family, to send someone else's kids to a non-public school is wrong and in my mind -- a betrayal! It's as if my city tax money gets sent to another city for their use, or my State taxes goes sent to another State. It's not right!

If we need to different way to fund schools, let's explore it. If public schools aren't good enough, let's fix them. But using the money that supports public school to send kids elsewhere is just plain wrong! Currently vouchers are being used only in school distracts that are rated very poor -- certainly not the rating for Springboro. So in order to use vouchers in this way would also be against the current rules.

So while the news is good, it's not perfect. We shall see what the future brings! Mrs. Kohls is still on the Board, so this could erupt at any moment. I bet she was a bit taken back by the swift reaction. To anyone else who responded, to those who wrote the paper, the board, or even individual board members, all I can say is 'Nice work!' We shouldn't need another lawsuit, especially not one that has been fought before!

Right on schedule -- Ohio

2011-08-02T23:48:00.008-04:00

Nine years ago a small cabal in the Ohio State Board of Education tried to insert Creationism/ID into the school curriculum standards. Without going into all the details -- it failed and at least two cabal members were replaced by more reasonable people. Things quieted down -- but, and you knew there had to be a 'but', they say those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

We've seen it in Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and New Mexico -- to name a few states. Creationists are nothing if not predictable. A failure means a re-grouping, a few new faces, and another attempt.

Enter Kelly Kohls and Scott Anderson newly elected members of the School Board in financial-strapped Springboro OH. Apparently they would like bringing Creationism back into the classroom. Kohls recently said:

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” . . . “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” . . . “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

And her partner in trying to repeat history:

Said he is not necessarily trumpeting the teaching of creationism, but “if it came up, I would support it. I’m a Christian. I believe God created us. I’d like to see God back in school.”

Is this what Springboro and Ohio have to look forward to? I certainly hope not. I wish Kohls and Anderson would work on the real problems facing the district and not try and drag the district into a Dover-style lawsuit. Can they really afford such activity?

But then this seems to be a pattern here. Kohls is also the local leader of the Tea-Party crowd. Hmmm, so get elected claiming to want to fix the money issues facing various enterprises and then once elected use your position to push your personal religious point of view onto social issues? Sounds pretty familiar (Texas Gov Perry?)

In another article (Springboro Students Could Learn Creationism In School) Kohls does say she will be presenting her idea at school board meetings and looking for community input. OK Springboro, here is your chance to tell Mrs. Kohls that this fight has been waged in Ohio not long ago. It's not worth the time, energy, or money to try and wage it again.

It's also been waged in many other states since and with one exception, Louisiana, it keeps hitting dead ends. Even in Louisiana no one has tested the now 3-year old law and tried to actually teach Creationism/ID. So far the only effort seems to have been trying to control what materials get used in the classroom (Louisiana Politics over Science) and that hasn't gone well for anti-science advocates.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Kohls and Anderson, but I'm hoping Springboro gets a little proactive and heads this off before they follow Dover PA's example. My guess is one or the other will start discussing Intelligent Design soon and maybe even call the DI for their guidance and support -- Just like Dover PA, Tejon CA, Livingston LA, and the Texas State Board of Ed did and you see just how supportive and helpful the DI really is -- especially when it looks like defeat in detail and they steal away in the night.

Added note: The news story from the Dayton Daily News was picked up by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog "Why we shouldn't take the Tea Party seriously". He also noticed that Mrs. Kohls and her husband recently filed for bankruptcy. Interesting little tidbit. Here is a Tea Party member who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, whose own finances are having issues, and yet her first splash in the news are to bring Creationism back into the classroom.

Lookee what I found: Help wanted at the DI

2011-08-02T15:25:00.005-04:00

The Discovery Institute is advertising a job opening at Conservative Jobs.com (where else?). Here is the link in case you really want to see it: ConservativeJobs.com. A few things had me laughing. First of all I wondered if this is a replacement for Casey, Anika, or one of the other various mouthpieces. It sure would be funny if Casey was leaving. I mean has he ever had a real job before he became a pseudo-science front man? The Wikipedia entry for the CSC only lists him as 'staff'. Hmmm, never noticed that it only lists 2 staff members, Casey and Robert Crowther. Shouldn't the staff be larger? No matter, I guess that's why the job ad.

Well anyway, very prominently on the screen are the categories of:

Required Skills
Desirable Skills
Required Certifications

And guess what the DI had listed here:

Required Skills: None
Desirable Skills: None
Required Certifications: None

So to become a Discovery Institute editor, writer, and media relations specialist for the Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) requires no skills and no certifications. It does require a Bachelor's and 2 years of experience -- but experience at doing what?

I have to say that the ad does have a list of qualifications involving what you would expect, but seeing those areas listed as 'None' cracked me up. I mean you would not expect the real quals listed in the small print.

The other part I had to laugh about is that the job is to 'promote the work of Discovery Institute scientists and scholars' -- so where is the job ad for scientists and scholars? They certainly cannot be talking about their current crop of fellows and senior fellows. The whole world has been waiting for science and scholarly works from them and so far they have disappointed because their idea of science and scholarship seems to only mean philosophical marketing materials and the casting of unsupported aspersions on Darwin and biologists as a whole. Oh let us not forget the re-writing of history like Stephen C. Meyers take on the Sternberg Peer Review controversy. Well it looks re-written to me if you compare the description from Wikipedia and the one in Meyer's latest anti-epic, "Signature in the Cell"

Well back to the ad. The final part that I had to laugh about was 'a commitment to the program and principles of Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture'. So the required section should have included drinking the kool-aid first before you can be hired. No real surprise there. Another interesting part is looking for someone who is knowledgeable of intelligent design and evolution. Do they really want someone who actually knows anything about evolution?

It does raise one last interesting question. Suppose I got this job and then after starting the job refused to commit to the program and principles of the DI and its CSC. Would that be grounds for firing me? And if so, could I then sue for discrimination? The thought that comes to mind are the cases of Nathanial Abraham, David Coppedge, Guillermo Gonzalez, and even the DI's own defense of Richard Sternberg during his self-inflicted peer-review controversy. Wouldn't they support my lawsuit? Something tells me no, but it would sure be fun to find out. Guess I'll keep my day job!

Are Perry's opinions really so newsworthy?

2011-07-31T20:37:00.003-04:00

As I've mentioned a time or two, I have Google News alerts set up on a number of things. I find it very convenient, especially on some items that tends to have news posted only on rare occasions. For example the David Coppedge lawsuit. Months can go by without a single item of news. It would be so easy to miss it, so I have an alert set up. What an alert means is that you can get a link to stories about the topic in your mailbox. The downside of the alerts is many of the articles might have the keywords you are interested in, but be on entirely different subjects. The other problem is sometimes the same story is reported from a number of links, so you might get many hits on the same subject.

The Associated Press ran a short article on Texas Gov Rick Perry in which he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment -- in other words a Constitutional amendment mandating marriage is between a man and a woman only. "Perry backs a constitutional limit on gay marriage" Funny how this was also the article where he said social issues should be decided state by state. Isn't this a social issue?

OK, he also made a few evolutionary comments:

"There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place," Perry said.
"Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that," Perry said.
"I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."

Hmmm, OK, my first point is does any of this come as a surprise? Perry has clearly been well ensconced with the conservative right. It's the constituency who has elected him 3 times to the governorship of Texas. He's the one who has appointed three extremely conservative School Board heads, two of whom failed to get confirmed by the legislature. He's also the one who allowed Chris Comer to be fired for doing her job! So anyone who read this little article should have just shrugged their shoulders and gone on to another section of the paper. In fact you really didn't need to read past the headline.

My second point is interesting, maybe only to me, but early in the article says:

"But Perry told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that a presidential campaign would concentrate on jobs, not evolution or gay marriage."

However when you look at his jobs comments and his anti-evolution comments, where did he spend more time? It wasn't on the jobs! Maybe because he was playing to the audience in South Carolina or maybe because he knows who his core audience is, he can't lay off the social issues. One of my concerns is that he focuses so much on the social issues might be because he has nothing on any other issues! Now that's scary.

Evolution Predicts, Nature publishes and Uncommon Descent Spins

2011-07-30T00:55:00.004-04:00

In 1861 the first Archeopteryx was discovered. The feathers and other avian features combined with very specific dinosaur features put Archeopteryx right smack in the middle between modern birds and dinosaurs. In the years since it's position has remained between the two and a great deal of additional evidence linking dinos and birds has been discovered.

Recently Nature magazine published an article about some new discoveries including a fossil called Xiaotingia zhengi which shows that it is very closely related to Archeopteryx. In all honesty didn't evolution predict that there would be numerous steps connecting birds and dinosaurs? It also predicted that Archeopteryx exact position is still unknown, that it might be a directly in the hierarchy or possibly a side branch that eventually went extinct. Well Xiaotingia zhengi appears to have pushed Archeopteryx closer to the dinosaurs, including velociraptor, the 'star' of Jurassic Park. In fact the abstract from Nature says

"Despite only tentative statistical support, this result challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by further investigation, current assumptions regarding the avialan ancestral condition will need to be re-evaluated."

As I read this I saw a perfect example of science in action. We explain based on current knowledge. New discoveries mean new knowledge and an adjustment to current explanations. This is one of the strengths of science!

But, as we know, the folks at Uncommon Descent aren't very scientific, because they are claiming that the whole Bird to Dinosaur idea is a bad idea and needs to wait until there is further research. "David Tyler on rewriting the textbooks on Archaeopteryx – that dinobird, no longer First Bird, downgraded to dinosaur" is the post, you can link to Tyler's article from there if you wish. It includes this as part of his summary:

"Creataceous fossil record shows many features that we do not properly understand, and the most appropriate response is to withhold judgment and await further discoveries and analysis. This applies to the whole of the Birds Are Dinosaurs (BAD) thesis . . ."

So in other words until we have absolutely perfect understanding and 100% perfect data we should just sit on all discoveries. That's crap!

What drives new discoveries? The work of the past. The work we are doing right now will be the impetus to some future archaeologist and paleontologist to take the next step. Tyler is trying to make the scientific process a disadvantage. In reality wherever Archeopteryx ends up in the hierarchy, or if we can someday confirm it as an evolutionary dead-end is immaterial. Yes, as we learn new things we will be adding to textbooks and changing what is in the current texts. I'm pretty sure the medical text of today are quite a bit different than the ones from 1861, why is this suddenly a bad thing?

What we know today will be different than what we know in the future . . . but that in no way invalidates what we know right now! Archeopteryx was positioned based on what we knew. We also know that the evidence that supported that was not static, but subject to new discoveries -- and we readily published that -- so what! We went to the moon with a less than perfect understanding of Gravity, we build cars with a less than perfect knowledge of thermodynamics, we create new medicines and new medical techniques with a less than perfect knowledge of biology. We can only use what we know right now. If we do what Tyler wants we should have never left the cave!

Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist

2011-07-29T23:19:00.006-04:00

Dr. James McGrath ("Exploring our Matrix") also linked to "Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist" and a particular post I just have to share: "A few cartoons to brighten your day" My personal favorite was:

It illustrates a question I have asked a number of times. If an ID proponent is so worked up about teaching ID in the classroom, why are they also not pushing just as hard for Alchemy, Phrenology, Magic, Astrology, Feng Shui, Numerology, or Tarot Cards? I mean each of these have just as much scientific evidence as Intelligent Design! Didn't Michael Behe make that point during the Dover Trial? That in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to a point where astrology and the like would also be considered science. I am paraphrasing here because I really don't feel like wading through the transcript. I'm sure if I got it wrong someone will tell me. And unlike Creationists and ID proponents, when they correct me, I will thanks them and learn from it. Defensiveness works well when you are driving, but not very good for an education!

ID Body Art

2011-07-29T22:41:00.006-04:00

Body art is an interesting subject in today's society. Many of the people I know and work with have some type of body art. Usually it's rather artistic and reflects the tastes of the person. One of my daughters has a couple, one of my best friends also is subtly adorned. I do enjoy many of the pieces of body art that I have seen -- not all, but many. After all, it's art and art is a matter of taste.

One thought I sometimes have is 'what will that tattoo look like in 10, 20, or 30 years'. The tattoo on the small of the back looks incredible at 21, but what will it look like after a couple of kids or maybe that barbed wire around the arm looks good on a muscular 20=something arm -- but at 40 after a shoulder surgery or two and more focus on 12 oz curls to free weights? Well like I said it's one of the occasional thoughts I have when I see some body art.

Dr. James McGrath brings to mind a new thought. He has a very interesting blog called "Exploring our Matrix", I've posted about it before, it is a great blog to follow. Well this article "Intelligent Design Can Leave You Scarred For Life" eventually links to William Dembski's web site (I refuse to call it a blog because they 'mediate' comments and dissenting ones, like mine, tend to disappear without ever seeing the light of day). Here is the picture:Supposedly this is a representation of Irreducible Complexity. Dr. McGrath had this to say:

"Many of us know that movements like intelligent design, and even more so young-earth creationism, can leave their adherents scarred for life if they eventually discover the extent to which they have been lied to and misled by proponents of these ideologies."

Certainly should make one think!. This is a bit more excessive than getting your girlfriends name on your chest just before she breaks up with you. Of even the saga of Kat Von D, a popular tattoo artist and canvas herself who just recently aired an episode of her TV show "LA Ink" where she had a childhood picture of Jesse James tattooed on what looks like the last clear area on her body-- at least the skin visible on TV. The episode aired shortly after the news announcing their break up. How does something like that make you feel?

But the receiver of this piece of artwork is going to be doubly surprised. The first will be when the Discovery Institute and their ID proponents abandon Intelligent Design. The reason this will happen depends on ID's success or failure. If it does succeed, it was only seen as a temporary answer to open the door for Creationism anyway(Check out the Wedge Strategy). So it never was going to be a real answer, just a foot-in-the-door alternative.

Now if it fails, which it has certainly done to-date, history says they will abandon it and latch onto the next possible philosophy that they can use to pander to politicians, lie to school boards, and collect money from folks like this tattooed adherent. Sooner or later ID will be left in the dust by the side of the road, like Creationism and Creation Science has faded from their marketing efforts.

The second surprise is less certain, but certainly possible. The receiver of this little bit of fantasy art might actually learn why intelligent design has been failing so miserably. I mean there is only so much marketing can do without any viable science behind it. One day he will look at his own arm and realize that it is just a little fantasy art that never did make any sense. He may never get there, but there is always hope.

I have to also give props to the blog "I Think, I Believe". Dr. McGrath linked through that site. I think I have a new one to add to my list! Thanks Arni, and thanks to Dr. McGrath for pointing out your site.

So there is nothing religious about ID? Part VI

2011-07-27T20:38:00.003-04:00

We've had the conversation several times, 5 to be exact (here, here, here, here and here). We've talking about their penchant for talking to only religious audiences like their seminars at SMU, how the DI forgot to mention the previous job (Probe Ministries) of a recent hire, how they lack presence in both peer reviewed journals and secular university positions . . . to mention a few things. So where does that leave us?

Casey Luskin . . . I mean Anika Smith -- I do keep getting those two confused. Do they have the same person writing for them and just signing their names?

Well anyway, Anika wrote a little missive trying to take Reuters to task for them for insinuating that Intelligent Design is Creationism. Well if you really want to see it, here is her post "Reuters Gets It Wrong: Intelligent Design Isn't Creationism". Anika was working on selling the old line that ID is not Creationism. Now why in the world would we think something like that?

Here is the much more interesting Reuters article: "Texas education board sticks to teaching of evolution". Now this article is a brief report on the DI's utter failure in Texas and how the State School Board is sticking with Evolution, but does the DI choose to mention that? No, of course not. Does the DI seek to remind everyone how the Board went in exactly 180 degrees from the poorly named 'study' the DI did on the supplemental materials? Oh no, that's just another thing the DI would love people to forget about. no, they take exception to Reuters characterization of ID. Did they mention how supporters of science testified during the hearing? Oh heavens no!

What a surprise, I think Anika got it wrong. My reading of the Reuters article says they did not do what the DI claims they did. Here is the quote mentioned by Anika:

"Intelligent design and creationism are theories that life on earth was created essentially the way it is described in the Bible's Book of Genesis - not by evolution, but by a 'creative intelligence' generally considered to be the Christian God."

In addition, earlier in the article Reuters opened with the line:

"Conservatives had complained the materials up for approval did not adequately address "alternatives to evolution" such as creationism or intelligent design as a theory of how life began."

Now in each case Intelligent Design and Creationism were identified as 'alternatives to evolution' and 'theories', respectively -- please note the plurals 'alternatives and theories. Now my read on using the English that I spent years learning and using -- at no time did Reuters actually say they were one in the same. What do you think?

Now the article did say

"The Texas board, which includes evangelical Christians, had been seen as the best opportunity for supporters of Biblical-based theories of creation to get their point of view represented in public school curriculum."

But those Evangelical Christians weren't pushing for Intelligent Design or they might have objected when the ONLY supplemental materials publisher (International Databases, LLC) approved by the DI was rejected. Not only did they not raise an issue, they joined the vote! They did save their energy for objecting to evolution and common descent issues in another publisher. So in other words as written even this line doesn't make it sound ID and Creationism are the same thing.

No Anika was trying to make believe ID is science and thereby cannot possibly be Creationism. So why would the ID make the connection?

Could it be their own Wedge Strategy document that makes a very firm connection between ID and their ultimate goal of defeating scientific materialism, represented by evolution, and reversing the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf)
Maybe the connection is from 2007 when William Dembski told Focus on the Family, "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." ("Friday Five: William A. Dembski". Focus on the Family. December 14, 2007)
Could it be Stephen C. Meyer who said " I think the designer is God" on "Nightline with Ted Koppel 8/10/2005 on Intelligent Design"

So it's not Reuters problem even if Anika has to make a stretch to even come up with this ridiculous accusation. The connection seems to be more a problem for the DI itself. It's own strategy document, DI Senior Fellow William Dembski, and Vice-President Stephen C. Meyer, Center for Science and Culture at the DI all seem to make the connection much more apparent than Reuters. Maybe Anika should take her complaint inside the DI before going after Reuters.

I think Reuters did the right thing by refusing to print a correction. I do not believe that Reuters has much to fear about credibility issues. I mean how much credibility does the DI have? Well outside specific religious organizations that is.

Freshwater not so finale!

2011-07-26T22:55:00.005-04:00

Looks like the Freshwater Saga isn't yet over. He has new representation and it looks like the State of Ohio is going to wimp out. "State pulls negative letter from Freshwater's file" from the Columbus Dispatch.

Let me gets this straight, he burns crosses into kids arms, lies about teaching Intelligent Design and has the kids lie for him, and refuses to follow district guidelines and it looks like he's still going to be able to teach in Ohio. In my opinion this man has yet to show any remorse, any regret, and even the slightest hint that he might have screwed up . . . he's convinced he did nothing wrong.

He's appealing his firing and he's already had the letter of admonishment removed. Folks, there has to be something we can do if for no other reason the safety of our kids. Is this the type of person we want teaching our kids. Let's see the lessons they can learn from him again:

How to not accept any personal responsibility for your actions.
How to tell the school district to stick-it with any rules and regulations.
How to teach non-science as if it were science.
And how to teach real science so poorly that later teachers had to re-teach it.
How to lie.
How to convince others to lie for you.

This man acts more like a lawyer himself than an educator! Yet he has his 5-year license to teach. Some cash-strapped school district is probably going to give this man another chance and when the lawsuits start flying, they are going to regret it.

Does that sound harsh? I certainly hope so. This quote from the article says a great deal:

"I want to go back to teaching and to put my Bible back in the corner of my desk."

Does this sound like someone who realizes he messed up his own life? Does this sound like someone willing to accept responsibility? Does this sound like someone who has any second thoughts what-so-ever about the harm he has done? Not to me. Until he does, he can find himself some minimum wage job very far from children. The State of Ohio should not have renewed his teaching license, and I pity any school system that hires him. So far he hasn't had any luck, even though he claims there were openings.

Does he even have a clue why a school system would hesitate to hire him? In my opinion I think he's going to start suing school system that refuse to hire him. The article has already set the stage:

"Religious freedom is considered the first freedom," said Rita Dunaway, staff attorney for the [Rutherford] institute. "A big factor in the reason we got involved in this case ... is that it looks like a lot of what happened to Mr. Freshwater dealt with him expressing his beliefs."

The Rutherford Institute is trying to turn this into a Religious Freedom case. Let me be one of the many who will remind the Rutherford Institute that here is a man who burned crosses into kids arms, lied about what he taught, refused to teach what he was supposed to teach, and encouraged his own students to cover for him. This isn't about religion, it's about a teacher who let his own beliefs interfere with his ability to do his job. He deserved to be fired, he should remain a former-teacher for the rest of his life. He should look back on all the harm he has done to his former profession, to the kids who were willing to lie for him, and admit to the lousy job he did as a teacher and realize that he brought it all on himself and do something different like accept responsibility for what he did. But he won't because there will always be someone, usually a lawyer, who will tell him it was always somebody else to blame.

Apparently the humility we so often hear about going side-by-side with religious beliefs clearly passed him by.

Texas and the Discovery Institute

2011-07-24T00:21:00.003-04:00

I know, I know, I am still catching up on my blogging. But here is a fun one. Did you know that on June 7 the Discovery Institute released their own report on the supplemental materials submitted to the Texas School Board for review. Here it is, if you need a good laugh. "An Evaluation of Supplemental Biology and Evolution Curricular Materials Submitted for Adoption by the Texas State Board of Education"

According to the DI:

"Most proposed supplementary curricula fail to follow 2009 TEKS and/or contain glaring scientific errors."

Now, did you know that according to the rules the reason supplemental materials could be rejected is if they contain glaring errors or fail to follow the TEKS. The TEKS are the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standards adopted in 2009. You might remember those, they were the ones in which the Discovery Institute failed, yet again, to include their 'strengths and weaknesses' arguments. They did, however, manage to get some wording about 'critical analysis' included.

So now that the voting has passed, obviously the statement that most of the material failed is not true. Plus, I have to remind you that the material passed unanimously -- which means even the hard-core conservative creationists voting in support of it.

The voting has passed and most of the material was not rejected. That does lead me to believe that the material certainly did follow the TEKS and did not contain any glaring scientific errors. Gee, it looks like the Discovery Institute lied. What a shock.

Now, also according to the DI:

"Unfortunately, as regards to the TEKS, that pertain to biology and evolution, only one of the proposed curricula (International Databases, LLC) makes any serious attempt to fulfill the call for meaningful critical analysis of biological and chemical evolution."

So the International Databases, LLC, is the only one that meets the standards, right? Apparently that too is a lie because guess which one got rejected in another unanimous vote? You got it, the submission from the International Databases, LLC.

The DI also tried to use some very common Creationist canards of Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment, dark and light moths, finches, and vestigial organs. All tactics attempted to be used in the past and each one continues to fail miserably.

They, the DI, also tried to sell us on the idea that they are opposed to the teaching of Intelligent Design . . . Right, this is the same organization who has failed to achieve their own goals about Intelligent Design. The same organization who when it found it was going to lose the fight in Dover suddenly claimed to have advised them down a different path. This is the same organization who regularly publishes unscientific books, articles, and holds seminars on Intelligent Design year after year. This is the same organization whose 'Wedge Strategy' clearly lays out the purpose of Intelligent Design. Yea, sure, the DI is opposed. In my opinion they should add the term 'currently' when they tell this little bit of PR. Oh they are opposed to it . . . right up until they think they can actually get it inserted into the curriculum -- then suddenly they will remind everyone that they have been championing ID for years.

I do have a question though. Who commissioned this study? Did someone in Texas ask for it? Who was it sent to and was it used during the hearings? My feeling is that the DI did this one on their own. It's more marketing, which does seem to be par for the course. They dressed it up in scientific sounding terms and even gave it a science-y title. but all it is -- is more marketing.

One last thing, their recommendation at the end of the 'study':

"Both because they fail to fulfill the 2009 TEKS and/or because they contain glaring scientific errors, 9 of the 10 proposed curricula which have posted material for online analysis clearly require significant revisions. One curriculum (International Databases, LLC) adequately fulfills the evolution-related TEKS, but it contains typographical and other errors that need to be corrected. It also goes beyond the TEKS because it addresses intelligent design, and so the material on intelligent design needs to be removed."

If school science standards were biological organisms, I think we could use this as a wonderful example of Natural Selection! So outside of the imagination and wishful thinking of unnamed members of the DI, the 9 proposed curricula was accepted unanimously and the only one seen fit by the DI was rejected, also unanimously. Oh if they had any shame their heads would be down for weeks over this one.

Well I am sure you can see how much fun it was looking this document over. The DI makes itself look foolish so very often I wanted to make sure this one wasn't lost in the crowd of errors, lies, and mistakes. I can't wait to see how they try and spin this.

An intro to the neutral theory of evolution

2011-07-23T23:58:00.003-04:00

Jen McCreight, the Blag Hag, is doing her annual Blogathon to raise money for the Secular Students of America (SSA). In her posts was a terrific one on the Neutral Theory of Evolution.

In places like Topix and other places where we comment on science -- we frequently have to remind anti-science proponents that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection isn't the only method by which evolution occurs. The amazing Jen did up a nice post, An intro to the neutral theory of evolution, is a short synopsis in layman's terms. It's well worth reading. I am posting it here for two reasons, one to show some support, but more importantly for me to be able to find the link to her post whenever I need it. I have a feeling I will be posting the link to it often.

If you like it, you might think about a donation to the SSA. If nothing else you might wander her site. Unlike my blog, which tends to be about one topic, Jen's covers a great many things. Plus anyone who describes herself as "is a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist" is certainly worth a small investment in time!

Thanks Jen!

Follow-up on Texas

2011-07-23T23:09:00.003-04:00

Over on Thoughts from Kansas, Josh Rosenau got to testify and witness the proceedings of what happened over in Texas. His post, A grey lining in Texas is well worth the read. Here are a few things I found particularly interesting.

That the arguments against one of the publishers who submitted material came from only one reviewer, young earth creationist David Shormann. Shormann might have had a few complaints, but then he didn't vote them, he joined the unanimous decision.
That publisher, Holt McDougal, stood their ground!
The issue of using Haeckel's drawings came up (again). Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. Creationists refuse to listen on the subject. As soon as they suspect Haeckel, they start screaming. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2008/08/terrific-article-in-new-york-times-i.html)
Creationists were outnumbered in testimony at least 10:1 Didn't something similar happen during South Carolina's textbook debacle? Going to have to check that out.
Another complete failure to list supposed flaws in evolution. How many times have Creationists had this opportunity? Tens of chances, hundreds, thousands? So far they keep forgetting to bring this list they keep telling everyone about.

I'm sure Josh and others will be posting more about the hearings. Hope you are enjoying this as much as I am. Just remember the fight isn't over. Texas still has a chairman and members that still seem to think it is their responsibility to bring God back into the classroom by fighting science education, by re-writing the history curriculum, by trying to water down anything that doesn't support their point of view -- regardless of how few people share their narrow view.

So Cheers for Texas for now and a hearty 'keep your guard up' for the future. Creationists are nothing but flexible in their tactics. To put it another way, they tend to evolve when defeated.

Texas regains some Sanity!

2011-07-23T00:48:00.004-04:00

OK, my very first blog post was about Texas (is Texas stepping backwards?) and since then I have posted quite often about Texas. I posted about Don McLeroy and his efforts to bring Creationism into the school curriculum. I posted about the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and their efforts to award Masters of Science degrees without actually teaching science. I even blogged about some Texas lawmakers who wanted to introduce a variety of legislation that would not only have watered down science education and gave groups like ICR the ability to churn out diplomas without any oversight whatsoever. Things have been tough for Texas!

But there have been some glimmers of hope. I mean Don McLeroy not only does not get confirmed as the Board Chairman, but then gets voted off the Board. Even though the Discovery Institute stakced the deck of the 6 science 'experts' invited in to review Texas science standards were two of their own fellows they failed to get their 'strengths and weaknesses' included in the standards. Then, my personal favorite was not only turning down the ICR, but denying their appeal! I mean things haven't been all doom and gloom.

Right this second I am both proud of Texas and a little confused at the more conservative members of the State School Board. The reason I am proud of Texas is this:

The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC. (Victory for evolution in Texas)

If you hadn't been following it, and I know I have been remiss in my blogging, but the latest battle was over Supplemental Materials. The State didn't have the $$ for new textbooks so they were looking to approve supplemental materials to augment the existing textbooks. The battle over this material has been looming over Texas for a while now.

Did we have reason to be concerned? Well, Barbara Cargill, the new chairman of the school board, told the Eagle Forum that it would be difficult to control the board because"Right now there are six true conservative Christians on the board, so we have to fight for two votes." She is cut from the same cloth as McLeroy and her immediate predecessor, Gail Lowe. I guess Gov Perry hasn't learned his lesson yet. We'll see if she gets confirmed -- at least I don't think she has been confirmed yet. (State education board chair already in hot seat). The other reason to be concerned is that because of the sheer size of Texas, any changes in curriculum, including textbooks and supplemental material would have an impact felt far beyond Texas' borders.

OK, so why am I confused. Well there was some objection to some of the materials, specifically from a publisher who refused to cow-tow to their attempts to water down science. There was also a publisher who was specifically pushing Intelligent Design. Yet the votes were unanimous . . . Unanimous. That confuses me. I would have expected the more conservative board members to stick by their principles, but they appear to have left them behind.

I'm not sure that's good or bad -- really! It might be good because in spite of public statements to the contrary, the Board did vote for real science. But the fact they seemed to say one thing and then vote another makes me uncomfortable. Well . . . only time will tell if their behavior is positive or negative. In the meantime they have had a positive affect on the students of the Great State of Texas!

And AiG responds to Doonesbury

2011-07-18T22:47:00.003-04:00

And as usual misses the point. There response is typically knee-jerk-ish stuff. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011...

It's pretty funny. First he alludes to 'misinformation'. I'm trying to see what did Doonsebury say that is mis-informative. I mean the comic correctly identified that Louisiana enabled the teaching of Creationism along with Evolution -- even though the law passed specifically prohibits it, the enforcement rules were written by the Louisiana Family Forum which made sure there were no teeth in that part of enforcement.

No, he's complaining that the comic strip claimed that Creationism is supported by no scientific evidence what-so-ever. There is nothing erroneous about that statement. No one, not even little kennie himself has managed to cobble up actual scientific evidence of Creationism. Oh he tells nice stories, but stories do not make it evidence.

He also whines that Noah wouldn't have taken any microbes, since he only too air-breathing animals. Kennie also says the comic teacher lied about Noah missing the Dinosaurs, which we all know kennie claims existed at the same time as early humans and were present on the ark. Neither of which is supported by any evidence.

Here are the two paragraphs that just kill me:

Evidence is interpreted through an observer’s worldview. The ability to weave a nice story from visible evidence does not make that story true. The fairy tale of evolution lacks testable scientific evidence to support its contentions that organisms acquired genetic information to become new kinds of organisms by accumulating information-losing mutations over millions of years. Such an idea makes as much sense as expecting a business which loses money on every sale to profit by making up the loss in volume!

The assertion that the “alternative theory” offered by creationists is “supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever” is false. The biblical account of Creation and the global Flood explains genetics, the fossil record, and the results of sin’s curse on this world. What we see in today’s world is consistent with what we read in God’s Word.

I bolded the two lines that cracked me up. It's called Projection. Little kennie is accusing the rest of the world of fabricating a nice story -- yet when the evidence is examined, who is the one really inventing a story? Little kennie and his pet 'Creation' scientists.

In my opinion kennie is the one who lies. In his statement "evolutionary ideas as indisputable facts is indoctrination". What statement in the comic strip alludes to evolution being an indisputable fact? There isn't one!

All kennie has to do is present some scientific evidence that actually disputes evolution and he might have a point -- but to-date all he does is tell stories, he lies about what science is, and the mis-represent what others -- in this case a very funny and telling comic strip -- actually wrote in order to market his unsupported ideas to the world. It would be funnier if it weren't so pathetic.

Doonesbury does it again

2011-07-11T08:58:00.003-04:00

Sunday's Doonesbury was amazing! I have no idea how long this link will be good, so check it out quick: http://www.uclick.com/client/sea/db/2011/07/10/index.html.
This isn't their first foray in support of science, I recall one before my blog that dealt with a doctor and patient and whether or not the patient was a Creationist. The issue at hand was whether or not the patient wanted the old, now ineffective antibiotics or the new ones that were designed intelligently. It was good, but this one was even better.

Poor Louisiana. It's a telling point for the students in Louisiana who expect a good education, to get into a good college, and possibly even a career in something other than Theology! I've blogged about them many times. Hopefully sanity will break out eventually.

It's not like the politicians really care, they will pander to anyone who brings vote. The people of Louisiana are the ones who get to live with the result. They will have another opportunity to repair the damage in the next round of elections. Wish them luck folks!

Follow-up: Today everywhere I went I ran into this comic strip. It's been a blast. I need to check out the DI and see it they have addressed it yet. If so, I'll post another follow-up.

The Discovery Institute and Basic Math

2011-07-07T09:56:00.005-04:00

I know, I haven't been around much. Work has been more than a little too busy. But I have been reading and trying to keep up. Well this little one popped up and I can't resist. So here goes:

What caught my eye was a post over on the so-called DI news site: "Fewer Mutations Means More Time". Since I always thought that the DI argued about any possible beneficial mutation, but maybe I was wrong on that count. I know they have frequently tried to play the odds argument, that is how the odds are much to long for any mutation to form a useful characteristic. Well anyway, this post links over to a new study Nature Genetics that says there might be fewer mutations between human generations than previously thought. So how does the DI spin it?

Here is the paragraph that just cracked me up:

There's another issue that has not been fully addressed. These 60 mutations per generation are very few mutations for natural selection to work with. But humans have a very long generational time. And finally the authors reported that most of these mutations, particularly in the family with the higher mutation rate, occur in the non-coding part of the DNA. Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function. The question is, is this really enough mutations and enough time for natural selection to produce novel body plans?

The way this reads is that there are ONLY 60 mutations per generation -- human generations. Doesn't the study say 30-60 per individual? So we have millions of children born each day -- each one of them with between 30 and 60 mutations from their parents. Why are these too few for Natural Selection to work with? We are talking about millions of mutations every single day! It's not like all the kids born on the same day have identical mutations, or that all the kids in a generation all have the same set of mutations. This looks like . . . well to me . . . that the DI is doing a little numeric sleight-of-hand and making it sound much different than it really is.

The other part that I find funny is how closely the DI tries to tie the study to what they claim about mutations. Here, read these lines again:

"And finally the authors reported that most of these mutations, particularly in the family with the higher mutation rate, occur in the non-coding part of the DNA. Finally, from what we know about mutations that do occur and have a noticeable effect on the person, they are often deleterious or serve to remove some type of function. Rarely are they beneficial and rarely do they add function." (I added the emphasis)

Who knows this? Isn't this claim that the DI has often repeated, but never substantiated. I recall posted by Olivia Judson discussing mutations and I believe the majority of mutations were benign when it comes to Natural Selection, that is they do not offer an advantage or disadvantage in survival or reproductive opportunity. So it appears the DI is pushing their own unsubstantiated ideas as if they were factual -- in other words typical DI behavior.

Scientific Evidence that Evolution is a Hoax

2011-04-09T23:54:00.003-04:00

I caught this off of Facebook, believe it or not. Randall J. Scalise via Thomas Holtz:

Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax - RationalWiki

No, it's not an April Fool prank, this is the cumulative and well researched list! I just liked it, or maybe since it's nearing midnight the brain isn't working right. You might need to tell me.

Paul Nelson Day

2011-04-08T22:21:00.003-04:00

I have been a bit busy and haven't been making any long posts, but I can't let this go without comment. PZ Myers mentioned on both Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula that it's "Paul Nelson Day". Seven years ago Paul Nelson, ID proponent and fellow over at the Disreputable Institute promised an explanation of his idea of "ontogenetic depth" which is supposed to measure the complexity of developmental processes and somehow would make evolution is impossible. He came up with this gem in March of 2004 and promised to have an explanation of what it is and how to calculate it 'tomorrow'. He said this on April 7, so today is the anniversary of another year passing with conspicuous silence from Paul Nelson.

Now this time last year, Nelson himself tried to make fun of PZ Myers and failed miserably. he also failed to explain his pet concept (again). What I also found funny is he said he developed this concept in 2003. Myers says it was in 2004. Personally I believe Myers, but either way, Happy Paul Nelson Day.

As I was writing this, I also wandered over to James Lynch's 'A Simple Prop' and saw that he was also celebrating the day, only he had something new -- not enlightening, just new. Apparently Paul nelson has finally gotten around STARTING to provide an explanation. In "Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part I" he pretty well says nothing. Oh he used a lot of words, but all it did was point out that OD is still undefined and make us wonder how long it will be before he finally gets off his butt and fulfills his own ideas.

But please don't hold your breath. The only thing he has done different than Behe, Johnson, Dembski and all the rest is make a promise. Other than that, he's given us pretty much what they all have given us, unsupported philosophy and promises of more to come. Nelson simply didn't imply a promise, he stated it. Then he joined ranks and broke it, like the rest of them.

Nick Matzke (NCSE), in a comment on the Pharyngula, linked over to

Nelson's latest post:

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress
Paul Nelson April 7, 2011 5:00 PM

Ontongenetic depth explained -- and a challenge for PZ Myers.

He called it "hilarious". Nick also said

"Paul, really, don't you realize just how silly this makes ID/creationism look? Ever heard of due diligence? I wish that just once you would exercise a little due diligence before posting your screeds about how there is some huge problem in evolutionary theory that everyone else missed before you came along and thought about it over breakfast."

Due Diligence, sure one of the hallmarks of ID 'Research is due diligence (sarcasm inserted here). If Paul, or any of them actual understood and followed a process involving due diligence . . . no one would hear a peep from any of them. How sweet would that be?

Earthquake proves Genesis!

2011-04-01T16:52:00.004-04:00

I'm glad Topix Evolution Forum came back up because I got to read this:

"The scale of difference is appropriate when comparing the Japan earthquake's measurable effects on the circumference of the earth and the catastrophic earth-changing forces involved in a global flood that covered the Himalayas. Genesis does indicate that God provided the uniformity of nature we enjoy including a 360 day year. Probably the Sun was a perfect 400 times larger and farther away than the Moon from us resulting in perfect Solar eclipses as well, among other things. We can also observe the current recession of the Moon's orbit which accomplishes this about 6,000 years ago but is impossible in an evolutionary timescale." (post 55731 from a posted called Urban Cowboy)

Isn't that just plain incredible? He was trying to justify how God originally made the Earth in a perfect 360 day orbit with 12 perfect months of 30 days each. I am surprised he didn't try and work in the perfection of a 360 degree circle, and 24 perfect hours of 60 perfect minutes each, and 60 perfect seconds in each minute. It was HILARIOUS. He started with an ICR article: Japan’s Earthquake Proves Noah’s Flood and took it to new lengths. It just cracked me up. For the record, my direct reply was:

"Anyone who reads this little diatribe will understand why I find you so entertaining. Look at the rationalization you had to build to justify this 'perfect' 360 day year. Without a single piece of supporting evidence except for a very liberal interpretation of Genesis (something you keep claiming is literally true), you re-defined the entire Solar System and completely ignored every bit of Astronomy theory, evidence, and observations. In order for this little POS to be true, you also have to re-define physics (including gravity, mass, centripetal force), geologic evidence (including continental drift) and even the climatological evidence of hundreds of ice core samples. It's mind boggling how much juggling of the facts you are willing to go through just so you can justify the existence of something that you are willing to say in a different breath cannot and should not require justification. You really need to take this on the road! Even Jesus is snickering at you right now! " (Post 55743)

Can't wait to see if he responds. I kinda doubt it. Urban Cowboy starts ignoring people who don't buy into his version of the Bible. Just because 99% of the Christians in the world wouldn't recognize it either isn't a deterrent. You really ought to wander by and join in, it's fun!

Topix Evolution Forum MIA?

2011-03-31T12:19:00.004-04:00

I am hoping it some sort of technical issues, because while the rest of Topix seems to be working just fine, the Evolution forum seems to have disappeared. All I get is:

"The Topix page you requested was not found"

when I go to it or any of the over 5,500 posts I have made there. Like I said I am hoping for technical difficulties rather than political issues. I hadn't heard of any complaints over it -- well other than Creationist whinings when someone doesn't swallow their BS whole. but then you hear that in many more places than Topix. That's when it hit me, I have made over 5,500 posts on Topix and I would hazard a guess that over 99% of them are in the Evolution Forum. It's an interesting place, you might want to wander over when it comes back online! UPDATE: It came back up about 6 hours later. No reason mentioned, the posts all seem there. It was just interesting for a few.

The Unspecificness of Specified Complexity

2011-03-23T22:18:00.006-04:00

Just a couple of days ago a poster on Topix tried to use William Dembski's Explanatory Filter as something real and useful. Now if you know anything about it, you probably know my feeling. Anyway, here is my reply. But that's not the point of this post. I find the timing funny because of what I found today. Please understand that the central core of his 'explanatory filter' is the idea of 'complex specified information', or CSI. The problem I, and others, have with CSI is no one seems to be able to calculate it.

So where would one go to get the low-down on how to calculate CSI? Why I would think Dembski's own blog might have a clue. So while wandering around I came across "On The Calculation Of CSI". So what does it tell me? That absolutely no one has a clue how to calculate the value of CSI. Someone called 'MathGrrl' wrote the post, but you also have to look at the comments, about 60 of them when I caught the article. It's the biggest collection of just plain junk I have ever seen. Have you ever seen people trying to nail jello to a wall? Well this blog post is the literary equivalent.

My advice it that before you can nail jello, you have to freeze it. That's what CSI needs -- it needs to be frozen, that is to be specified [pun intended]. Dembski needs to sh** or get off the pot and provide a clear, understandable, and repeatable explanatory filter that lays out CSI is a useful and usable fashion. His work needs to be complete, well supported, and understandable. There will be critics, and those need to be dealt with, not dismissed in his usual off-handed way. Mathgrrl's post is more an embarrassment than anything. If Dembski's filter and CSI concept is more than a philosophical argument, then this post should have never happened. But it did, which tells a very different story than anything Dembski has published in his marketing pieces . . a very different and telling story.

Wow, Ann Coulter is two-faced -- no surprise here

2011-03-19T00:31:00.006-04:00

I forgot to mention in my last post. Ann Coulter, in an appearance on Sean Hannity's show last year claiming that there is a potential radiological hazard by the full body scanners. I did catch that video Ann Coulter Battles With Peter Johnson On The Use Of Body Scanners [Video]. I guess since it was posted 5 months ago it's OK that she changed her mind on radiation. So Body scanners are bad, but a potential core meltdown is OK.

I did enjoy that Ann Coulter was whining because Peter Johnson wasn't letting her get away with her usual style and kept after her to actually offer a potential solution. One of his last comments were spot on 'Ann, you have a complaint, but no solution.' [Yes, it's a paraphrase because listening to her again to get the exact wording is just not worth it.] She was so lost she expected Sean Hannity to come to her rescue.

Does Ann Coulter live on the same planet as the rest of us?

2011-03-18T23:50:00.003-04:00

I haven't thought so for a long time and her column "A Glowing Report on Radiation" should clinch it for everyone. In it she claims:

" . . .anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer."

Ann Coulter is off her rocker. PZ Myers over on his blog Pharyngula had a few words about her and her less-than-educated opinion. Check out "Will radiation hormesis protect us from exploding nuclear reactors?" that goes into great detail. Does Ann own stock in Japanese nuclear power plants?

Anyone else remember "Erin Brockovitch"? The legal clerk who spearheaded the investigation of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) that resulted in a the largest settlement ever paid in a direct action lawsuit in US history. I recall one line from the film where PG&E where they had told residents of Hinkley Ca that the chromium that they were using was actually good for them. "PG&E had alerted the townsfolk earlier about the chromium but said that it was nothing to worry about, saying that chromium was in many multivitamins." Sounds like Ann Coulter must have had a previous job writing press releases for PG&E.

Ann, if radiation is so good for you, when are you flying over to assist in the clean-up efforts? Yea, like Ann Coulter would dirty her nails doing actual work when she can write columns and appear on O'Reilly and argue pseudo-science. Yea, Coulter and O'Reilly arguing science! I haven't had the stomach to watch the clip on Pharyngula yet. I might tomorrow. It's late here and I refuse to go to bed with their voices echoing in my ears. I'll also make sure I have an empty stomach as well.

PZ Myers said:

"Ann Coulter is blithely ignoring competent scientists' informed recommendations to promote a dangerous complacency in the face of a radiation hazard."

I think she must also own stock in a few Australian homeopathy companies as well.

Water cures Radiation Sickness, who knew?

2011-03-16T22:32:00.006-04:00

OK, I rarely discuss anything other than Evolution, but I usually try and couch my terms as pro or anti science. For example supporting evolution in education is pro science and anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute is anti-science -- pretty simple. So while this isn't my normal fare, it really pissed me off.

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself, pointed this out and it just makes me sick. Apparently the group 'Homeopathy Plus' in Australia has sent out a note telling people they can use homeopathic 'remedies' to alleviate radiation sickness, including such things as strontium-carbonicum, phosphorus, and X-rays. Here is the link to Phil's original article "Diluting nuclear homeopathy". I refuse to post the link to this group directly. I just can't do it. They are trying to cash in on potential disaster! This isn't a 'cure' for a cold, or an acne relief -- this is a potential disaster on a scale never before seen -- and this group is using it to sell phony 'cures'. have they no shame! Homeopathy alleviating radiation sickness -- really?

Normally I really believe in 'Let the buyer beware'. I mean there have been junk like this for years. But this should be criminal! I would love to believe no one will fall for it, but I know some people will. What I have been hoping that the disaster that may loom does not occur for many reasons, this post from Phil gave me a new -- I hope it doesn't happen because of the number of people this Homeopathy crap can hurt.

Phil did make a claim that many of these folks believe in what they do. Fine, they can believe what they wish to believe. But this is not something that you can't tell from a placebo affect. This isn't something that can be dismissed if it doesn't work. This is potentially life-threatening!

In my opinion homeopathy is nothing more than modern snake-oil salesmanship and organizations pushing in the light of this potential disaster should be outlawed BEFORE they can hurt anyone. Yes, here in the US it might sound like I am considering a violation of the law to hold that opinion -- but since when are our laws a suicide pact?

Has Intelligent Design finally Evolved?

2011-03-16T09:17:00.006-04:00

So do we have a candidate for the next little bit of fluff to replace the Intelligent Design in the vernacular? I've mentioned how 'Creationism' magically morphed into 'Creation Science' in response to getting whacked in court. After Creation Science took its tumble, 'Intelligent Design' took a turn in the woodshed and proceeded to perform just as well -- or just as poorly -- depending on your point of view. So one of the questions I am curious about is what's next? Hasn't Intelligent Design pretty well run its course?

Well -- we have a new term being bandied about by a Florida State Senator who is pushing Florida's first anti-science bill of 2011. In "More conservative Legislature considers evolution bill" Sen. Wise doesn't call out Creationism or Intelligent Design, the quote reads that we have to teach both 'evolution and nonevolution'. Nonevolution? Talk about an interesting term. So just what is the 'Theory of Nonevolution'? Who is working on this 'theory'? How does one falsify 'Nonevolution'? How does one test for it? Does the Discovery Institute know about this one? Most important is how in the world do you teach it? Seriously, how will it be presented in class, as some sort of 'nonevent' or is it just another bit of 'nonsense'.

Personally I vote for 'nonsense'. I think the Senator was just trying to look for a word that might not raise the hair on the back of the necks of the many people in Florida who accept and understand science. I think he blew it. But that's just me talking.

So the less-than-serious question is exactly what is 'Nonevolution'? All kidding aside, we know it's not a scientific theory. We also know there is no scientific theory about life that doesn't currently fall under the heading of 'Evolution'. So by extrapolation we are left with non-scientific ideas, like Creationism and Intelligent Design. Funny how it works that way. No matter what you care to call it, it always comes back to non-science, religiously-based, alternative ideas. Please remember that Sen. Wise failed in 2009 when he wrote a bill calling for a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."

I do not believe Florida needs to deal with this law and they should let it die on the vine. I mean the current standards allow any scientific theory countering evolution to be presented. the key here being the word SCIENTIFIC. Since the current laws already allow it, this bill is a waste of time and resources. Sen. Wise can point to his sponsorship of this bill and garner his pandering points with conservative Christians in his constituency as he asks them to send money to his next campaign. My question to his constituency is simple, is Sen. Wise really representing you?

In the meantime we'll keep looking for the 'next big thing' to follow the evolution of Creationism to Creation Science and its evolution into Intelligent Design. . .. I don't think 'Nonevolution' is the right handle. But just in case should we start warning textbook publishers to be on the lookout for 'cdesnonevolutionentists'?

Professor Campbell responds to a request from a Christian Blogger and ID Proponent called 'Wintery Knight'

2011-03-14T21:48:00.004-04:00

A Christian Blogger who goes by the pseudonym Wintery Knight had a few things to say about my favorite NZ Professor. I really don't recommend it, but here is a link to the comment "Should ID researchers be “marked down” for defending intelligent design?" if you must.

His approach was to ask her . . . well here, she tells it much better than I on her BioBlog. "creationist 'report' writing: marked down again". He asked her for copies of her work:

"I am thinking about writing a blog post comparing you to Michael Behe, and I want to be as fair as possible when I compare your research publications on experimental biology in peer-reviewed journals."

So, a couple of questions occurred to me. For example just who is Wintery Knight and what qualifications does he/she have to perform such a comparison. A second question that came to mind was just what has Michael Behe peer-reviewed published that would warrant such a comparison? What it suggested to me was Conservapedia Andy Schlafly's request from Richard Lenski (Lenski Affair documented nicely on Rational Wiki). Apparently it reminded her of the same thing.

To be honest -- I have heard of WK's blog before. I tried to post a couple of comments a while back and when they didn't appear after a couple of weeks, I dismissed it. In fact most Creationist/Christian Blogs are very careful what comments they allow through. I assumed this was just another one of those. I've commented on it before, only using a different site than WK's blog. Anyway, I decided to try again and posted this:

WK:
Did you even read her post? Where did she call you a creationist? Why bring the Big Bang into the conversation at this point.

You questioned her training, she addressed it. You asked for links to her writings in order to perform a specific analysis and she pointed out where you failed to perform this analysis, even though you said you had enough from her University site. So you were asking for information under false purposes. One lie.

She also pointed out that many of your own supposed scientific papers supporting ID not only failed to mention the subject, but were not about biology at all, but cosmology.

You failed to address ANYTHING she commented on. Then you wrap up your post with another an out-and-out lie. Her site requires the same three pieces of information to post on your site. Her site also holds comments for moderation, just like yours. Don’t try and claim that the syndicated site has a different policy than her University blog, because YOU posted the link to her own blog, not the syndication site. So don’t bother trying that lie. See, I just saved you from having to make another lie.

So you not only do not read for comprehension — which she also accurately identified — but after being criticized you make up stuff. I thought lying was against the rules? So you’re an interesting sort of Christian, aren’t you?

To my surprise, it did make it and WK did post my comment. However, for some strange reason I received this comment by email before the comment appeared on his site:

"Why should I approve your comment and try to engage you?"

So I get this one-line email and then at some subsequent time later he changes his mind and posts my comment. Not sure why, other than I think I irritated him by calling him a liar. Well for whatever reason, he then responded to my comment -- which is why I think I might have annoyed him a touch. Here it is, so you don't have to go through his site and wade through all the comments -- although a few are terrific.

You write:
WK:
Did you even read her post? Where did she call you a creationist?”

Can you tell me what the title is?
http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2011/03/12/creationist-report-writing-marked-down-again/

1. I asked her for better papers to make her look better. I explained exactly what I was going to do, it wasn’t false pretenses. I e-mailed her for better science papers to make her look better. Then when she refused to produce any scientific papers, I used what was on her page, quoted in full with a link back for context.

2. Why bring the Big Bang into it? Because it falsifies materialism, which is the worldview that animates the Darwinians. Don’t you see that everything you believe is at odds with good science? You have a 19th century view of science. You haven’t updated it with the latest evidence and discoveries. You really need to work on your science. Stop with all of this religious stuff. Stick with the hard science, and you will be fine.

3. Cosmology is not part of intelligent design? Arguments about habitability and fine-tuning are EVERYWHERE in intelligent design literature – and any ONE of them refutes the assumption of naturalism which is the life blood of macro-evolutionary speculating.

4. She didn’t comment on any SCIENCE. I only want to discuss the science. In her article, she doesn’t define ID by referencing ID scholars themselves, nor does she explain ID arguments by citing the ID proponents in their published academic/research work. If she wanted to refute ID, she needs to actually READ ID SOURCES. Nowhere in the article does she interact with ID. She calls them creationists! As if non-theists ID-supporters like Steve Fuller, Bradley Monton, David Berlinski, etc. are young-earth creationists.

5. Stop calling me a liar. I haven’t lied about a single thing. Not one. The problem here is that you have a religion (materialism) and it’s at odds with science. You are not capable of discussing scientific evidence objectively, but only attack people. But I want to discuss the science.

Please don’t comment any more until you show me that you actually know what ID is, and what are the arguments for it. If you comments get rejected, that will be the reason why – because you refuse to engage with what ID theorists actually argue, and what they measure in the lab.

Aw, he doesn't want me to comment until I do my homework. Well it would be nice if ID 'Theorists' were actually arguing and measuring in a lab. But since they are not I decided to reply again since he raised a bar that no one in the ID proponent camp seems interested in trying to reach. Now I really doubt this one will make it on his site, so I figure posting it here is the nearest it might see the light of day. As of this evening this is 'awaiting moderation'.

1. Yes, in my opinion you displayed false pretenses. You claimed one thing and did another and at the end you questioned her competence in her own field of expertise. So you not only falsely represented yourself, you were insulting — without cause. And you claim to be a Christian? Can’t tell by your posts.

So she didn’t share her work with you, just who are you anyway? You hide behind a pseudonym, have no identified expertise to evaluate her work and you wanted to compare her work to a pseudo-scientific idea postulated by Michael Behe. Not a good start to someone claiming to be truthful, or particularly Christian.

2. Why bring the Big Bang into it? Because, WK, you were talking to a Biologist and asking for her BIOLOGY papers to compare them to a Biochemist’s non-scientific philosophy. Have you forgotten the part of the Dover trial when Michael Behe said that he hadn’t done the experimental work to support his own ideas? Did you also miss the part where he said he wasn’t aware of ANYONE doing the work? So just what are you trying to compare her work to? The stuff he hasn’t done? Oh, so I guess he’s done a great deal of work on the Big Bang? In other words you were just padding your list of supposed science in order to make it sound good. I’m glad she didn’t offer you any more grist for your less-than-truthful mill of Christian propaganda.

3. So just what part of Intelligent Design of the Universe is an accepted part of Cosmology? Can we just say it’s just as much accepted science in Cosmology as it is accepted in Biology. That the polite way of stating ‘Nothing’. Guillermo Gonzalez, the guy who lost his position at ISU because he failed to do the job he was hired to do, is your main source for this? Pretty poor showing. Neither you, not anyone else, has made the case for your blatant lie that the Big Bang falsifying materialism. You make that statement as if it is factual — yet it is, at best, another unsupported philosophical statement.

4. She doesn’t need to refute ID, it’s already been refuted. You just didn’t bother to read her words, you already had your responses lined up as soon as you saw the title of her post. ID has been found to be Creationist at it’s core. Read the Dover decision, look at the actions of the Discovery Institute. Look at their own strategy document. Intelligent Design is not science. Even Judge Jones gave it a possible out at some time in the future, but right now today it’s not science. I agree wholeheartedly with her that if a student answered a question about science with ID, they should be marked down. Of course you still haven’t addressed that she said it might be OK for a discussion on the nature and philosophy of science, but you don’t want to acknowledge that ID is a philosophy. That would be an honest statement.

5. As for telling the truth, you mentioned three more ID proponents: Steve Fuller, Bradley Monton, David Berlinski. Steve Fuller: philosopher-sociologist; Bradely Monton: philosophy professor; and David Berlinski: Mathematician and philosopher and also a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. What, don’t you have biologists to discuss biology with a biology professor? Apparently not! Yet you don’t like admitting ID is only a philosophy with no empirical science behind it — yet you trot out Philosophers to do battle. For shame WK, you are tarnishing the color White.

I believe you are a liar and one who continually misrepresents the truth. I don’t know if a court would agree with my opinion, but I really don’t care. You are doing nothing but playing word games — all because she wouldn’t hand over her own research and references to you to misquote, and also because she wouldn’t engage in a debate over non-science. If you wish me not to identify you as such, then stop doing it. It’s that simple.

Oh, and as for her calling you a Creationist, other than using the word in the title of her post, she never said you were one. She did say that she thought you might be an ” apologist for the Discovery Institute”, which you apparently think means the same thin as being a Creationist. Interesting that even in your own words, under the ill-fitting lab coat of ID there beats the heart of a Creationist. Thanks WK for clearing that up.

Color me less than impressed. Wintery Knight might have a reason to hide behind a pseudonym, even Andrew Schlafley (founder of Conservapedia) doesn't do that -- which, in my opinion, is one of the few positive things Andy has done. But WK seems to think that a note out of the blue from a self-avowed Christian Blogger who displays no scientific education or background is supposed to require a professor to fall all over herself and pass on her research to him. I disagree and think the Professor played it smart of didn't give him anything to feed his rumor mill. Good for you, Prof Campbell!

Call for Blood Donors -- Worldwide

2011-03-09T10:59:00.004-05:00

A new friend of mine, Alison Campbell posted a blog entry about donating blood. While I am way to far away to help in Christchurch, it reminded me that local blood supplies are finite and need constant replenishment. Here is my comment to Alison's post. I hope you take this opportunity to consider donating blood yourself. So here is a post in support of an important public service.

I echo Alison's comments on Blood Donations! While some who read this blog might be too far away to donate for Christchurch (like me), everyone that can donate should do so on a regular basis. I have been donating for years, from whole blood, which you can donate about every 8 weeks, to platelets, which you can donate every 7 days. It's an important activity that takes just a tiny bit of your time.

I don't know about NZ, but at my local Community Blood Center I get an email or a phone call when they have used my donation and while they don't give out patient names, they usually do tell me why the patient needed blood. Everything from cancer, leukemia, car accidents, and even fire victims. One day I walked in, they practically dragged me to the Aphresis machine (for plasma and/or platelet donation) because they had an immediate for a child that had been in an auto accident just that morning and I was the right match. You have no idea how that will make you feel! So, if you read this, please donate soon, and make donating a regular part of your year.

Thanks,
Ted

One final thought, one day you might need blood yourself. If places like the local Community Blood Center were to close because of a lack of participation, your chances of getting the blood you need when you need it diminish. I have given gallons of whole blood and plasma and many donations of platelets. My Ohio driver's license also identifies me as an organ donor as well. Look into your local area and see what needs they have. It's not a matter of if they need blood, the need is constant throughout the year. It's a tiny part of your day that could become very meaningful to someone else! Don't wait for an emergency, donate often, not because you have to, but because it's the right thing to do.

Is Common Sense Breaking out?

2011-03-08T22:35:00.005-05:00

After all the hoopla over 'academic freedom' laws, conspiracy theories, and the Discovery Institute being the Discovery Institute (which is not a good thing) , this little item might get missed in the background. I, for one find it promising. "Libertyville High School science teacher cited creationism, officials confirm"

So here is the set-up, the older sibling of a student apparently reported that a teacher was teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design and weakening the teaching of Evolution. This was reported to school administrators. They investigated, found it to be true and took actions to stop it. Nice, simple, straight forward and exactly how things should happen. No hysterics, no talk of lawsuits, no weak-in-knees administrators trying to avoid controversy, and no public outcries from external parties.

Like I said, I find this promising. Everything that should have happened appears to have happened. Now, in my opinion, the ball is in the teacher-in-question's court. How will he handle it? If he straightens up and does the job the school system hired him for, then everything should calm down. If he tries to pull a Freshwater, then he deserves to be disciplined, possibly even fired. he has to have the ability to set his personal religious beliefs aside to be an effective science teacher -- primarily because those beliefs are not science.

Now that's the optimistic Ted. The pessimistic Ted fully expects the Discovery Institute to stick it's nose in. I can already hear some of their whines:

Oh the complainer is an activist
Oh the school administrators shouldn't fault him for teaching ID
Why not teach the controversy
What about free speech
What about academic freedom

But the bottom line is NONE of that matters at this point.

It doesn't matter who made the complaint, the school administrators investigated and took action.
ID is not science, so it shouldn't be taught as if it were
There is no scientific controversy, only a contrived political one
This isn't a free speech issue, saying ID is science is a lie, free speech doesn't protect lies, does it? Even if it did, does a teacher really have free speech in the classroom? Nope!
And you already know my feelings on academic freedom, a topic that is not part of the discipline being taught is not protected by academic freedom.

I wouldn't be surprised if the teacher has already been contacted by some lawyers looking for attention. Do you still call lawyers like that 'ambulance chasers'? I hope he doesn't succumb to their blandishments. I mean look what the Thomas More Center did for the defendants in Dover PA, or R. Kelly Hamilton for John Freshwater. Who knows, he might be out shopping for a lawyer himself. If so, I think Libertyville is looking at a long and disheartening legal wrangling.

I truly hope the teacher does was Freshwater and the former school board members of Dover PA couldn't find the intestinal fortitude to do, and that was accept the responsibility for their actions, recognize how damaging their actions were, and repair the damage. That's how an adult is suppose to act and think about what a lesson his students can learn from it. I guess that optimist peeked out again. Let's all keep an eye on it as well.

Political Pandering in Illinois

2011-03-07T14:03:00.004-05:00

I have mentioned a few times the concept of 'pandering politicians', more specifically I think I have referred to a number of politicians, by name, as pandering to the conservative right in order to get votes. Of course none of the politicians we know would do such a thing? Sure!

Here are four folks running for a school board just north of Chicago. Each was asked about supporting Creationism and all 4 made statements supporting it. Was this pandering? You tell me -- after reading "All four Dist. 95 candidates back teaching creationism in science classes"

"All four candidates for the Lake Zurich Unit District 95 school board believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. One, Chris Wallace, went so far as to say creationism is fact and evolution is just a theory."

So are they pandering or is this how they really feel? Another question you might consider is are they representing their constituency with these comments? Well to help you answer these, and maybe other questions, you need to see what happens when the local paper runs the interviews and includes quotes from these 4 office seekers? My guess is they received a certain volume of feedback and started back-peddling furiously, well three of the four start back-peddling. The fourth seems to think he may not have understood the question. Take a look at "D95 candidates back off creationism comments"

What I personally would like to see in a politician is one who is in touch with their constituents needs and desires and when asked about a subject would be able to place their personal religious beliefs off to the side to more accurately represent their constituency. I don't think this happened here. I think what happened is either they made an assumption about their constituency OR they let their own personal views color their answers. Back-peddling, while is fun to see, is fairly disheartening in a political candidate.

I mean, honestly, this is a topic that has been making headlines across the country for the past decade. Why weren't these candidates better prepared? I would have assumed they might have noticed the impact of such decisions on school boards in Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas for example. If you were running for a political office, wouldn't you have been familiar about the types of decisions that tended to cost one the office? Especially in like of how such an action, the one they originally supported, is against the US Constitution?

Along the same lines, I have to question their minimum knowledge of an important curriculum area. One of them calls Creationism a fact and Evolution only a theory. Another referred to Creationism as 'theory of creationism'. Now you don't expect school board members to be up on the latest and greatest areas of all scientific disciplines, but this stuff is elementary school science stuff. I was very disappointed in all of them.

Now, three of these pandering politicos are seeking re-election, the 4th is a newbie. But this does require another question to be considered, and one I think their constituency might have started asking them. How will this impact their ability to perform as a member of the school board if this becomes as issue, such as in Mt. Vernon Ohio' s John Freshwater, or Pamela Hensley of the North Johnston Middle School in North Carolina? Are any of these four someone that can be relied on to not only stay within the letter and intent of the law, but properly represent the interests of their constituents and their constituency's children education? That is a question for the voters Lake Zurich, and I wish them the best of luck!

About me

2011-03-05T02:02:00.003-05:00

One of the commenters over on Professor Campbell's blog made note of the fact that I am not a biologist and would probably not get any negative feedback on a biology blog because I am anti-ID. I responded with a comment of my own and I decided to post it here as well. So if any of you are interested in why I blog here, at other sites, like the Professor's BioBlog, and the Evolution debate on Topix, here is my reasoning:

Lee,
I have never pretended to be working in any biology related field -- my bio on my own blog makes that clear. My education, as you rightly said, is in Information Technology. My education in biology is that of a pretty typical high school, college, and graduate school student. That being said I comment for several reasons.

First of all I am a target of the groups that push pseudo-science like Creationism/Intelligent Design. Not me personally, but I am the exact type of person at which the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis (to name a few) take aim. They aren't trying to convince scientists, if they were, they might actually do scientific work. No, they are after those of us who are not biologists and who are not scientists. We are the people who elect school boards, attend parent-teacher meetings, and rant and rave at our politicians. When my children's teacher is wrong, I have no issue letting them know that! If those groups can sell me on their ideas, I would be doing their job for them at my local and state school board and voting for various politicos! That's why they spend orders of magnitudes more money marketing and politicking than supporting actual science.

Secondly, I am not against Intelligent Design. When I first heard the idea I was intrigued, if you read back in my blog you might realize that. What I am not in favor of is teaching Intelligent Design as if it were science, because right now it is not. No one is doing the scientific leg-work. No one seems to be able to move past the appearance of design. Yet they make unsupported claims as they publish in popular and religious press -- including the Stephen Meyer diatribe (published in Harper One, the religious imprint of Harper-Collins) and never seem to offer anything actually peer-reviewed. They opened their own lab, which hasn't done it. They have started their own journal, and still haven't done anything with it. They even opened their own publishing house so they can get more of their material into bookstores without any requirement of actually supporting their ideas. Professor Campbell already mentioned the Sternberg controversy. I know ID proponents claim all sorts of conspiracies against them, but the one arena where their ideas would gain traction with biologists, and other scientists, is the one arena they seen to avoid like the plague -- the scientific lab. Until they do the work, I am against them being included in the science classroom. As I am against Astrology for Astronomy and Alchemy for Chemistry. The world isn't flat either.

Finally I am also against just about every tactic used by groups such as the Discovery Institute. You can read back in my blogs and see some of them. They lie, mis-direct, make unsupported claims, build straw-men arguments and then tear them down -- never advancing their own pet ideas past the wishful thinking stage. I mean look at what Casey Luskin tried to do with a teacher who simply said 'if a student answers a biology question with intelligent design will get down graded' (paraphrase). Why would anyone have an issue with that? But Casey is trying to use this down grade of an ID answer to support a law that Casey previously said would not bring Intelligent Design into the classroom. And that is not even close to one of the worst tactics in their quiver.

So while I am not, nor have I ever pretended to be, a biologist. That has no bearing on what I have commented on. I fully expect Professor Campbell and others to correct any errors I do make. She's a teacher, I think it comes with the job. The reason is not because I am pro-science, but because I am entitled to my opinion and I haven't tried to pass off bad information as if it were correct. I will leave you with the words of Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU to place my participation in a better perspective:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

Ted

I hope it makes as much sense to you as it did when I wrote it. I'll probably re-read it tomorrow and want to make massive changes. But I think the gist is there. I know it's wordy, but if you have been reading my blog, you already know about that character flaw.

Follow-up. I did re-read this and made a couple of grammar and spelling changes. I was tempted to re-do it and tighten it up, but since the original was posted on the Prof's blog, I left it intact. Unlike most ID/Creationism sites, the Prof allows for commenting. She does moderate, but she doesn't use that moderation to eliminate anyone who disagrees with her. I've tried to post before on the Discovery Institute, and other anti-science sites, those rare times they allow comments, but they never seem to let mine though their filters (Censorship is such an ugly word and Are computers evolving or is the Discovery Institute getting bored?).

Thank you Professor Campbell!

2011-03-03T10:18:00.008-05:00

Little casey luskin is at it again, turning and twisting facts until they no longer resemble reality. in "Want a Good Grade in Allison Campbell's College Biology Course? Don't Endorse Intelligent Design" is whining against a Biology Professor who doesn't teach Intelligent Design. Luskin is claiming that she is:

" . . . boasting that if a student were to use standard ID arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, that student would be "marked down".

Let's look at her actual comment (about 1/3 of the way down in the comments from the original article):

"And on how my students are marked - I expect them to understand how science works. If they can't demonstrate that then of course they are likely to do less well. If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance an ID view then they should expect to be marked down; that particular creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited. ID is not science (no matter its protestations to the contrary) & I don't expect to see explanations from that quarter in science class - unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science. Whiich is something that happens in a class on evolutionary biology - students look at different models that attempt to explain life's diversity & are asked to consider the explanatory & predictive power of those models. Because at heart the 'explanations' offered by ID come down to 'goddidit' then in intellectual terms they're fairly bankrupt - they offer no intellectually satisfying explanations, nor do they open up new avenues for further explanation."

Gee, a professor who expects her students to understand the subject being taught in class. What a novel concept. Little casey also says that

"Campbell of course doesn't give any hint as to why this supposed "creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited"

and yet he ignores the next line in her comment:

"ID is not science (no matter its protestations to the contrary) & I don't expect to see explanations from that quarter in science class - unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science."

I think this makes it pretty solid hint (of the 2 x 4 variety) as to why "creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited", it's not science. That's pretty discredited to me. Oh I know little casey would love for Professor Campbell to start listing all the specific issues with bacterial flagellum, the current poster child for Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design, but all of that is immaterial. It's not science! No one has presented evidence supporting bacterial flagellum as being an example of Interlligent Design. Behe's conjecture doesn't count as evidence.

So let's break this down a little bit. Casey objects to a teacher from grading a question down if answered using information that is not applicable to the subject matter. What's the problem? If you answered

1+1=verb

I am sure you won't be very surprised to get marked down. Why would casey be surprised, and more importantly, why would casey object? Didn't little casey earn a biology degree before he went to law school? I wonder how many times he answered a question with Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, or Specified Complexity.

However, here is the fun part.

Little casey said that one of the lies being told about the 'Academic Freedom laws (Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?) was:

"Lie #4: These Laws Bring Intelligent Design Into the Classroom. As claimed by a Santa Fe New Mexican article, the teaching of Intelligent Design — which opponents continue to insist is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” — will be sneaked in under these “freedom” bills.
Response: Nuh-uh. Re-read that quote from the Louisiana act in my response to Lie #1. Then consider this: “The department, school district governing authorities and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from forming students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.”
No I.D. in the curriculum = No sneaky I.D. indoctrination. But, if pro-I.D./anti-Darwin evidence comes up in class, teachers are allowed to facilitate discussion without fear of professional retaliation."

Yet in this post he says:

"Why do we need academic freedom legislation like Tennessee's HB 368? In case biology lecturer Allison Campbell decides to relocate to the United States. "

So, according to casey, the reason we need these 'academic freedom laws' is so teachers like Professor Campbell cannot grade down a student who answers a biology question with an Intelligent Design answer. Yet the laws do not bring Intelligent Design into the classroom? Huh?

Now briefly lets address "But, if pro-I.D./anti-Darwin evidence comes up in class, teachers are allowed to facilitate discussion" that little casey mentioned as part of his "Nuh Uh" response to supposed Lie #4. (By the way, casey the lawyer said 'Nuh Uh", anyone else find that funny?) OK, but back to his response. Under current academic freedom laws, wouldn't actual pro-ID or anti-evolution evidence be perfectly admissible in class? Yes, it certainly does. However, since no one at the Discovery Institute, or any of the other Creationist 'think tanks', seems willing or able to present any pro-ID or anti-evolution evidence, why do we need new laws to protect them? Just a thought.

I think casey is smoking something. In one post he claims one thing and then in a later post he make an argument that disagrees with his other post. Is there such a disease as 'Poster Alzheimer's'?

He also forgets another part of Professor Campbell actual post:

"unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science"

So in perfect accordance with the real academic freedom laws currently on the books, if the test was asking questions about the nature and philosophy of science, the inclusion of Intelligent Design might be a perfectly acceptable answer.

Let's always remember that if these pseudo-academic freedom laws being pushed by casey and his buddies at the Discovery Institute are enacted, Intelligent Design becomes acceptable as science -- at least in the legal sense. And teachers who present it as such are immune from being held accountable for their actions. There's an interesting lesson for our students! So all casey's whining to the contrary, he reveals himself quite clearly -- at least I think his final comment really opened the kimono:

"So if you're a student at the University of Waikato taking biology from Allison Campbell, beware: don't talk about intelligent design, and you probably also shouldn't admit if you believe in God. Unless, of course, you don't mind being "marked down." "(italics added)

Where did Professor Campbell say anything about belief in God? She didn't! But here is casey equating Intelligent Design with Belief in God. But . . .but . . .but hasn't casey frequently stated that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with God . . . it's science . . . isn't it? Apparently not according to casey luskin.

Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?

2011-03-01T22:46:00.005-05:00

Over on 'A View from the Right' is a little article about the crop of 'Academic Freedom laws that have been cropping up. "Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?" Now I fully expect a website named 'A View from the Right' to support these laws. That's not my issue. My issue is I
do not think readers of this site really understand what these laws are all about.

The question asked "Are academic freedom laws anti-science?" can only be answered if you understand the intent of these laws. Before you can answer this question, the first thing you need to understand that what the article is referring to are not laws protecting academic freedom. The laws being referred to in this article are laws sponsored by the Discovery Institute for the purpose of . . . well we'll get back to that purpose in a minute.

What you might not know is that every state, and many countries, already have academic freedom laws on the books and these laws are implemented in the rules governing education. These laws are designed to protect education. They allow teachers to bring in controversial subject matter and are be protected from reprisals from anyone trying to subvert the teaching of a particular discipline. However what this article fails to mention is that academic freedom is not carte blanc to bring anything a teacher might desire. There are very specific limits.

One of the limits is that the subject being introduced must be part of the curriculum area. For example teaching Politics in an English classroom would not be protected by an existing Academic Freedom law. It sounds like a silly example, but here is another one. How about teaching Astrology in Astronomy class? Phrenology in Psychology? Numerology in Math? Not so far fetched now, is it. Current academic freedom laws do not support this because, while there are adherents who think they should be taught, the disciplines in question have rejected such topics as pseudo-science. So while a teacher might mention Astrology in it's historical sense, but to teach it as if it was the equal of Astronomy should result in disciplinary action and would not be protected under any current academic freedom laws. Think about that, it would not be protected under the current academic freedom laws!

So let's talk about this article for a few. The author isn't identified, but it references two other articles by someone mentioned frequently on this blog, little casey luskin. He's a lawyer for the Discovery Institute who thinks he's a biologist.

So let's be clear. What you have is an article supporting these 'academic freedom' laws, laws that are sponsored by the Discovery Institute -- and the meat of this article are a couple of other articles written by another employee of the Discovery Institute. Interesting picture starts emerging. Of course there is no conflict of interest here, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to get off my hands.

So according to casey, not exactly an unbiased source, there are several lies being told about these laws. (my comments are in italics after each):

Lie #1: These Laws Have Led to Litigation. This in and of itself is a lie. I have not heard of a single litigation case based on these so-called academic freedom laws. I also haven't heard of anyone else claiming that these laws have led to litigation

What I have heard is concerns that this type of legislation may lead to a Dover-style lawsuit. You'll notice that casey doesn't address this possibility. I believe the ONLY reason they have not yet led to litigation is because there is only one of these laws currently on the books -- the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). And no one in the State of Louisiana has actually tried to implement anything in accordance with this law. So while the one single law that managed to get passed hasn't been tested -- which means of course there hasn't been any litigation (yet!). Little casey makes it sound like these laws are enacted all over the place. I think he's trying to mislead people who are afraid of potential litigation -- very correctly afraid of potential litigation.

Lie #2: These Laws Force Teachers to Change the Curriculum. Once again, since no one has tried to put these laws into practice, of course it hasn't caused a change to curriculum.

However, and you knew there had to be a however, the Louisiana Family Forum for the Family recently tried to stop the approval of a number of Biology text books because the texts in question were evolution-friendly. If those texts were disapproved and ones more 'theistic-ally appealing' were put in place, wouldn't that cause a change in the curriculum? Guess who is another sponsor of the Louisiana Law? You guessed if, the Louisiana Family Forum! How about Evangelical parents pushing for curriculum changes who use this law to justify their actions? Oh no, teachers would never change curriculum to appease parents? How about the recent study that 60% of biology teachers cop-out of teaching evolution properly. The consensus is not that they do not support it, but that pressure from outside groups, including parents, makes it a job risk. They are risk-averse, not anti-evolution.

To address Lie #3 (These Laws Open the Door for Creationism in the Science Class), let's look at one of the sections of the LSEA which even specifically states that you can't use the law to introduce religious materials:

"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

However, and this is a huge however, when the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education got around to publishing the rules about implementing this law, they sorta forgot the part about the 'shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine' part. Is this of anything important?

Lie #3 "These Laws Open the Door for Creationism in the Science Class" is in fact a lie. Without the rules about implementing this part of the law, it most certainly does open the door. Oh, you disagree? Well guess which law was referenced by the Livingston Parish School Board while they were debating whether or not to teach Creationism in science class? Yes, the LSEA!

I know Livingston hasn't taken any action yet, but it's not because this law
prevents them from doing so. They decided to wait until next year because it was
too late in the current school year to do anything. They also decided to test
the waters a bit and see if it will open their school up to litigation just like
the Dover PA school board did to that school district. The law may not have
generated litigation, but at least one school district is looking at the risk.

Lie #4: These Laws Bring Intelligent Design Into the Classroom. Let us not forget that a Federal Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Intelligent Design is Creationism. With that in mind, casey's lie number 3 and lie #4 are identical. But let's also add into the mix that REAL academic freedom allows you to bring in any subject material that is part of the discipline under discussion. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore it doesn't belong in the science classroom. But enacting this law would allow it to gain a degree of legitimacy that it has not been able to achieve through science.

Lie #5: These Laws Single Out Evolution. OK, he's sorta right on this one. The original attempts at laws like these, that we saw in Ohio and Kansas, did single out one scientific theory, that was Evolution, the evolved versions list several topics as examples.
One of the criticisms of the Discovery Institute supported action in Ohio, and during the Dover Trial was that by singling out the Theory of Evolution, you had trouble making the case that your efforts are for improving science education as a whole. So what's a Creationist to do? Evolve your plan to try and negate previously used arguments for shooting holes in your desires.
If casey was being honest he would admit that evolution is only the start. Already we have seen efforts to re-write social studies in Texas. The Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute states quite clearly that Evolution is only the start. So while the laws might not currently target evolution, the behavior of the laws promoters certainly do. I guess casey seems to forget that actions speak louder than words.

Lie #6: These Laws Lead to Stupidity, Dishonesty, and the Adulteration of Science Education. Are these laws dishonest? Simply put, yes. Like I said at the beginning, many states already have laws protecting academic freedom. We have seen that even the idea of these laws causes casey luskin himself to be dishonest. The school district of Livingston Parish is deliberately exploring the possibility of an end run around the words of the law to push their own religious agenda because the enforcement rules allow it. Testimony from the Louisiana Family Forum has proven the stupidity and dishonesty of the law.
The end result will be the destruction of science education. If you don't believe me, simply list all of the scientific advances accomplished through the application of Creationism or Intelligent Design? If you are being honest with yourself you would come to the same number I did: 0. Teaching these subjects would result in a negative impact on science education. For example note the comments made by teachers in Mt Vernon Ohio who were discussing the impact of John Freshwater's dilution of the science curriculum by teacher his religion as valid and evolution as invalid science. The teachers found themselves having to re-teach basic materials that Freshwater was supposed to have covered. And little casey doesn't seem to think it matters.

Lie #7: These Laws Just Aren’t Needed. It's not that they are not needed, it's that they should not be implemented at all. As I've shown these laws have nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with creating an environment where teachers can either teach pseudo-science by choice or by coercion. The title of the laws are dishonest, the intent is a barely hidden agenda of folks like Luskin and the LFF, and the result is poorly educated students.

One more 'if Luskin was honest' he would admit that everything he wrote here is either a deliberate lie or just legal word wrangling. But the odds of that happening are pretty unlikely. I think a tornado in a junkyard would build a 747 first. So to answer the original question, are these so-called 'academic freedom' laws anti-science? It is my opinion that the current crop of 'academic freedom' bills are anti-science, anti-education, and designed to open a wedge to bring in religious topics as if they were scientific theories. The fun part is I wish someone in Louisiana would also try and use the law to bring Astrology into the classroom. I believe the law on the books could be used to support it and protect the job of the teacher who tried it. I would just LOVE to hear the reaction of the Louisiana Family Forum to that!

A severe lack of imagination and research skills

2011-02-27T20:04:00.002-05:00

Wild Bill Dembski, who seems to think anything he utters are instantly gospel and no one in the known universe would think about disagreeing with him. So over on his website -- which I can't call a blog because he refuses to allow comments -- he's getting pretty lame. I mean he doesn't seem to have any imagination and he certainly doesn't exhibit the research skills expected of high school student, let alone a supposed educator.

So what is he up to this time? His target is ants: "Ants Solve Steiner Problem". Here is a large quote:

" . . .Colonies of ants, when they make tracks from one colony to another minimize path-length . . . In ID terms, there’s no problem — ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities. On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths . . . In other words, evolution, by some weird self-similarity, embedded an evolutionary program into the neurophysiology of the ants that enables them to solve the Steiner problem (which, presumably, gives these ants a selective advantage)." (italics added)

Now as I read this, all I could say is "BS". First off all his comment trying to explain this activity through ID is a joke. ID offers no explanatory power because no one has managed to produce anything remotely supporting ID. He makes stab at an explanation, but then, typically, offers nothing in the way of support. He compounds his error by building a straw-man of a supposed evolutionary explanation. First question to Wild Bill is why does he use the phrase "one would have to say something like". I don't know what you think when you read something like that, but my thought was "Why would evolution have to say something like that?" The only answer that strikes me is that one would have to say that because Dembski says so.

So Wild Bill, a philosopher and supposed mathematician, is claiming that evolutionary biologists would agree with his straw-man. See what I mean about a lack of imagination? It took less than 30 seconds to realize how utterly ridiculous is his little straw-man.

As for the complete lack of research skills. Doesn't Dembski know about Google? Enter something like 'Ant Navigation' and there are hundreds of returned links. The evolutionary explanations involve a number of areas -- ALL WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Many ants use pheromones and the evolutionary explanations say quite a bit more than Dembski's little unsupported straw-man. In fact if you follow just one of the links you can even get an incredible example of natural selection concerning pheromones, pheromones fading over time, dessication and even death is dry climates.

In my 30 seconds of research I also came across the Myrmecos Blog who also took Dembski to task for his lack of research.

"As ants zing back and forth down trails, pheromone levels build up. Long trails take more time to travel, so long-trail ants makes fewer overall circuits, more pheromone dissipates between passes, and the trails end up poorly marked. Short trails enable ants to make more trips, less time elapses between passes, so these trails end up marked more strongly. The shortest trail emerges."

The comments there are also an interesting read. Apparently Jerry Coyne commented with

"I think you’re bending over too far backwards when you say, “In Dembski’s defense, his error is a common one.” If a guy makes a claim about biology on an Intelligent Design website, asserting that a trait couldn’t have evolved by natural selection, then it behooves him to do a bit of analysis and study before making his pronouncement. "

I can only agree. If Wild Bill is going to say things like this, he should do a tiny bit of research first. But as we have seen, he makes pronouncements -- research isn't one of Bill's strong suits.

How to help Science Education!

2011-02-25T23:00:00.004-05:00

This is a follow-up to "Klinghoffer lies by Omission, part II". There I stated what I really thought the problem wasn't so much that teachers were hesitant, but that teachers need the support of the groups of people they should expect support, the school boards and school administrators.

Steven Newton, the programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a great post offering other suggestions: "How Can We Get Teachers to Be Less Cautious and More Confident Teaching Evolution?" Here are his suggestions:

Attacks on evolution in the media need to be countered with real science.
Pro-science parents need to make it clear to teachers and school administrators that they expect evolution to be taught.
Finally, in-service teachers need the tools to teach evolution effectively.

I agree with everything he says; however, I think he is still keeping the teachers on the front-line with little to no top-cover. I happen to be a firm believer in top-cover. Some of you might not be aware of the term. In the Air Force, top-cover simply means 'support from above'. It can be anything from air superiority on the battlefield to support from your boss in the execution of your job. In this situation, I think we may need them both.

Of course you can be sure I am certainly talking about support from their bosses. Teachers who are doing their job deserve all the support they can possible get. When an Evangelical Parent gets in the face of a school board member or school administrator, the last thing that should happen is the teacher becomes a sacrificial lamb. The first reaction should be the defense of science, science education, and, most certainly, their teacher.

But I am also talking about air superiority. If this is a contentious issue then the school administrators and even the school boards need to be educated on the subject. If we can fight fire with fire, as Mr. Nelson suggests by countering bad press with good, we also need to equip what should be the first line of defense of our teachers with the information they need to counter the arguments of these evangelical groups and parents.

Is doing so dangerous? Yes. school board members and school administrators will come under fire from evangelical groups and parents who are pushing their agenda. They might find their positions threatened. But they also need to look at what happened to the school board administrators in places like Ohio, Kansas Texas, and Dover Pa. The people and groups threatening education were eventually defeated and many of them tossed out of office. There may have been short-term victories, like in Kansas, but a single battle doesn't decide a war.

I guess that leads to the question is are we at war? Well how would you describe it? We have groups pushing the religion in science and as we also see attempts to re-write history. We have them using tactics that their OWN religions claim is a sin. They threaten, browbeat, and lie in order to force people to accept the supremacy of their narrow world-view regardless of reality. In all honesty they have more in common with Muslim Fundamentalist than they do with most Christians.

The bottom line is that we need a layered defense and also multiple avenues of offense. Without a doubt Mr. Newton's suggestions have merit. But we also need school districts to weigh into the fight because what is at stake is not just their jobs and political positions, but something much more important, the education of our kids!

So there is nothing religious about ID? Part V

2011-02-25T09:39:00.006-05:00

I just love listening to the words posted by the Discovery Institute and then watching their actions. Several times (parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) I've posted a bit about how the Discovery Institute CLAIMS that there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design and yet when it comes to their actions, it's all centered around religion. Well, they are at it again: "Darwin v. Design Conference Coming to Oklahoma to Address Debate Over Science and God"

Sure, Intelligent Design is science, so why are they holding a 'conference' the address the Science and God debate? Just how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they feel the folks in Oklahoma aren't too bright because that's where this particular Revival Meeting is going to be held. I think it's time they just stop calling these things 'conferences', it's nothing more than a Come-To-Jesus Evangelical Revival where they can bring together as many people who already support their ideas, say a few prayers, whine how unfair the rest of the world is, and pat each other on the back -- and there will be a alot of patting each other on the back.

Now remember this is the SAME group who was whining because the Vatican didn't invite them to a conference on evolution because . . . ID is science!

Apparently NO ONE seems to believe that Intelligent Design is science. Not even the folks over at the Discovery Institute. Oh they will continue to spout the party line, but they know it's not science. Look at the announcement for this particular revival meeting. It mentions Atheists and Atheism 7 times and only mentions Science 4 times. Its very title tells a story that the DI has been trying to deny for years. Look at the location, it's buried in the image logo in the top right corner of the article "Crossings Community Church". Sure, there is nothing religious about intelligent design. Keep selling that snake oil!

As for the revival meeting itself, look at the presenters, Oh that's right, the article, written by Dr. John G. West, calls them "four national experts ": Michael Behe, Jay Richards, Casey Luskin, and West himself. These are not 4 national experts on the subject of Science and God, there are 4 fellows over at the Discovery Institute. See, the Revival Meeting idea gets more credence the more you learn about this meeting.

Wouldn't you expect a conference to have invited major representatives of Science? How about major Theologians? No, you get four Discovery Institute mouthpieces: a biochemist, a philosopher, a lawyer, and a political scientist. Not a dissenting voice in the house, certainly not a group that will represent either side of this debate fairly. They should invite Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Eugenie Scott to this discussion. Invite Lauri Lebo to cover it for the press and Jen McCreight for the blogsphere. Now that might make it worth buying a ticket.

In all honesty, the last thing anyone with a working brain really wants to watch is 4 guys pat themselves on the back while complaining about how the rest of the world is a big-mean bully because no one outside of their little, tiny clique of friends takes them seriously. Actually three of them would be patting themselves on the back. The fourth will be doing a bunch of patting, but does anyone ever pat little casey on the back? In my opinion he's more of a 'good-boy' pat-on-the-head type. Think about it, in all their postings has anyone every referenced one of casey's ramblings the same way he does all of the others? Not that I have seen.

What would be really interesting is if the people in Oklahoma realized how foolish this 'conference' is and gave it the interest it deserves -- which is none at all. It would be hilarious to hear the DI spin after having to cancel their 'conference' because of a lack of interest! I am sure 'atheist conspiracy' would be mentioned in there somewhere!

Klinghoffer lies by Omission, part II

2011-02-23T11:28:00.005-05:00

Not too long ago I discussed a propaganda piece by david klinghoffer in which he did his usual, he lied. "Klinghoffer lies by Omission", well since he's still posting, you should know -- he's still lying.

So what is it this time. It about his constant attempts to re-write Alfred Russel Wallace's biography and turn him into some sort of Intelligent Design advocate. This time, for some strange reason, he's got a commentary published in the Washington Post and he, again, finds himself having to lie by omission to make his point. His commentary "How evolutionary theory's other discoverer could heal the Darwin divide" starts off referencing a NY Times survey. What little davey forgets to do is present the NY Times survey in it's actual context. He picks and chooses in order to give a very different impression of the survey's results. Here is little davey's quote:

"Pro-Darwinian educators were frustrated this week to find that most public high school biology instructors in their teaching do not wholeheartedly endorse evolution. . .with only about 16 percent believing in Darwin's theory of unguided evolution."

What does this imply to you? That 84% do not support Darwin's theory of unguided evolution? That is a lie. Actually it's more that just one.

So what exactly is Darin's theory of unguided evolution? There is no such theory. Darwin's theory is called Natural Selection. He didn't offer a theory about evolution being unguided. I don't even believe Darwin really discussed this all to often. It was later that the term 'unguided' entered the lexicon of biologists as effort after effort, of people just like little davey, failed to provide any evidence for the guidance of some sort of intelligence behind evolution and biology. So that is his first lie! Darwin postulated no such theory. Little davey would like you to think so.

His second lie is his attempt to make it sound like only 16% of high school biology teachers support evolution. That's not true. He couldn't even get his numbers straight even though he linked to the NY Times article himself. Here is a better idea from the NY Times survey:

13% of biology teachers explicitly advocate Creationism
28% consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology

From the article, and of course NOT mentioned by davey, is this little tidbit:

"That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. Invarious ways, they compromise."

What that means is about 60% of biology teachers are not doing right by their students. Why not? It's because of pressure of folks like little davey and organizations like the Discovery Institute, AiG, and ICR. It's also because of parents who swallow their propaganda wholesale and argue against their kids learning actual science and school board members like those in Kansas, Dover PA, Texas, and Ohio who try and use their position to further their own religious beliefs. Let's add in the pandering politicians like Jindal, Santorum, and Perry who should know better, but need the votes so they will sign up for just about anything. These are the people who are causing a surprisingly high percentage of teachers to shy away from doing their jobs.

Remember Lauri Lebo's article "Was a Teacher Disciplined for Refusing to Apologize for Teaching Science? " I still remember this one quote:

"It’s difficult to tell exactly what took place in the classroom and whether Hensley overstepped her boundaries in a discussion of religion. Nonetheless,this all leads me to wonder, if a student argues in class that the bible is life’s literal blueprint, facts be damned, is it wrong for a teacher, in the course of teaching science, to correct the student’s misinformed worldview? Or,in the interest of not offending the child and parents, must the teacher coddle such ignorance?Because it’s a simple fact that the realities of science contradict a literal belief in the Bible. And not just on the subject of evolution. Heliocentrism, for instance?"

I don't believe the problem is the 60% of the teachers who are hesitant about teaching evolution. In my opinion the problem is in the school boards and administrators of those schools who apparently aren't backing up their teachers for doing their jobs! I doubt college professors in non-secular schools whose biology departments have clearly stated their support for science and evolution have any troubles at all standing up to politicians and parents who are anti-science. But when a High School teacher has to fear not only negative comments from parents, but cannot depend on being covered by their own school administrators and school boards -- it's understandable why they are hesitant!

To summarize and close out this post: On little davey's main topic, his attempts to re-christen Wallace as an ID proponent I, once again offer this:

"But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction". 1861 Letter from Wallace to Thomas Sims

"I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong." Notes on the Growth of Opinion as to Obscure Psychical Phenomena During the Last Fifty Years

Does this sound like someone who would support the modern Creationism-in-hiding Intelligent Design? As usual little david has his head screwed on wrong. But then when his masters at the Discovery Institute whistle, he seems perfectly happy lying to the rest of the world. Sounds a bit pathological to me.

For more information om Alfred Russel Wallace, please visit the Alfred Russel Wallace page at Western Kentucky University. It is certainly more enlightening than anything written by klinghoffer.

Texas scores again, and not in a good way.

2011-02-22T16:15:00.003-05:00

You might remember all the rough and tumble politics the past few years in Texas and how the vocal minority failed to achieve all their goals to gut science education. Well in addition to attacking science education, they were also doing their best to re-write history. I commented on it in May 0f 2009 with "Social Studies Next on the Firing Line".

Well yesterday one of my favorite folks, Lauri Lebo, has a terrific post about it. It seems the Texas Social Studies curriculum received a 'D' from the conservative Thomas Fordham Institute. You really have to read it for yourself. "Fundamentalist-Led Texas History Standards Get ‘D’ from Conservative Think Tank". Some choice quotes include:

"Complex historical issues are obscured with blatant politicizing throughout the document"
"Native peoples are missing until brief references to nineteenth-century events. Slavery, too, is largely missing."
"Incredibly, racial segregation is only mentioned in a passing reference to the 1948 integration of the armed forces."
"The conservative majority on the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has openly sought to use the state curriculum to promote its political priorities, molding the telling of the past to justify its current views and aims." [Italics added]

Ouch! Can it get much worse for the students in Texas? At least Texas voters had the sense to vote out some of the more overt Creationists, like Don McLeroy. But his influence will be hurting Texas for a while. I can't call it a legacy, because you normally think of a legacy as something positive. I don't believe Don McLeroy was anything positive when it came to Texas schoolchildren. His specific narrow religious viewpoint and politics were much more important to him than the education of the next generation.

Of course the report is fired upon by Conservative Texas-based Liberty Institute, an arm of Focus on the Family. But like most of their comments, it's a dud. Trying to paint the Thomas Fordham Institute as "elitist ‘think tank’, with left-wing funding and an agenda"
is just absurd, especially for anyone who knows anything about them. Lauri talks about that as well!

Thanks Lauri for another insightful column! So when is the next book coming out? :-)

In case you don't remember, Lauri is the author of the excellent book "The Devil in Dover: Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America", a book about the 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover in which intelligent design was ruled creationism by a conservative judge.

You know, maybe folks like the Liberty Institute and the Discovery Institute should try and appeal to more Liberal organizations. They sure aren't having much luck with Conservative ones. I mean the Thomas Fordham Institute and Judge Jones are both Conservatives. Just a fun thought.

Discovery Institute Dishonesty, example # . . . OMG, I have lost count!

2011-02-18T11:11:00.011-05:00

By now you know I have little good things to say about the Discovery Institute. Hopefully you also understand my reasoning's, since I certainly try and make it clear here. But just in case there is any doubt, here is a pretty typical example.

You may not know that I have GoogleNews set to send me links to articles based on a number of criteria. It, of course, includes the Discovery Institute and Evolution. I add more as other items tweak my interest. After David Coppedge flied his suit, I added him to my notification list. In my email this morning was this little gem:

So here is the Discovery Institute is announcing 'an excellent report' from World Magazine with new insights. If you bother clicking on the link you get another opinion piece by a DI staffer which offers absolutely nothing new. From there you can get to the World Magazine -- or more accurately it would be nice if the Discovery Institute might mention the fact that 'World News' is not a news organization, but an organization who takes the news and offers a Christian Viewpoint. It is actually more than just a Christian Viewpoint, if you read their own About page you will find it is more an Evangelical Christian Viewpoint, at least in my opinion -- but then what else am I supposed to think when I see things like:

"We stand for factual accuracy and biblical objectivity, trying to see the world
as best we can the way the Bible depicts it. "

So rather than get into the whole "Of course there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design" thing (addressed in 1, 2, 3, and 4 other posts), we have the DI pointing to an Evangelical Christian web site that offers NOTHING new. It's simply more comments from Coppedge and his attorney. Oh, it does have another quote from . . . guess who? Why Casey Luskin himself! Yes, the Discovery Institute is referencing an article quoting one of their own mouthpieces and claims it is 'excellent' and 'new insights'. Did they fail to mention Coppedge's Creation Safari's side business? Oh, but there is nothing religious about ID, is there?

So I guess now we know what constitutes 'excellent' in the eyes of the Discovery Institute, a quote from their own propaganda pieces reflected back at them. And you wonder why I take nothing they say without a large bag of salt!

For the record:

Something excellent would be maybe a comment from JPL or their own attorneys commenting on the merits of the case.
Something new would be some of the other JPL employees confirming or contradicting Coppedge's claims.
Hell, something new would be the Discovery Institute NOT using a religiously motivated website to spread their own brand of propaganda.

Of the three I think the first one has an excellent chance of happening, especially after the June 2011 hearing starts. The second one may happen during the hearing as well. The third . . . . hmmmm . . . what are the odds of the Discovery Institute no longer using people's religion and other religious website to spread their nonsense? I don't expect to ever see them stopping! I see it as a form of religious abuse -- while I think they use it as a fund raiser. But then, let's repeat the refrain, there's nothing religious about Intelligent Design! Say that three times fast and keep a straight face.

Bill Nye, the Science Guy

2011-02-14T09:58:00.004-05:00

I've always liked Bill Nye. While geeks will never be cool, he probably comes pretty close to making science a cool subject. Over in Popular Mechanics he had a few choice things to say about science education. "Science Guy Bill Nye Explains Why Evolution Belongs in Science Education" Here are a few quotes I particularly liked:

"It's horrible. Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in
science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an
adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in
evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in
science, that's a recipe for disaster."

" . . .having raised a generation of kids who don't understand science is
bad for everyone. "
"People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick. Farmers
raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every
generation. That's all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it's a theory that
you can test. We've tested evolution in many ways. You can't present good
evidence that says evolution is not a fact. "

And in a bizarre 1984-Big Brother is watching moment, I guess Bill Nye decided to take a trip to the Creation Museum. Oh he didn't step inside, he just took a picture and headed on out. But, as reported over on PZ Myers blog 'Pharyngula' little kennie ham was watching, "Revealing Clientele" shows a certain amount of paranoia from kennie and his security troops. Do they frequently scan the security camera images for images of scientists who just want to stop by and see if the Creation 'Museum' really exists and not just a figment of a late-night pepperoni pizza?

So, since we have been recently discussing who can go to the Creation 'Museum' and who kennie ham apparently deems an undesirable. I can just imagine the press releases if Bill Nye had go inside to see kennie's carnival ride. But he didn't bother, but it was enough for kennie to comment about in his blog? I think kennie needs to spend a little more time thinking about what's he doing and less time playing his version of 'Where's Waldo' with his security recordings, don't you?

Gotta post Bill Nye's last line one more time. I just love it:

"You can't present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact."

More to Kentuckians, you are certainly betting on the wrong horse!

2011-02-12T22:26:00.008-05:00

Just caught this from Jen McCreight over on Blag Hag,"What exactly is Christian about being gay?" Apparently two guys attempted to attend 'Date Night' at the Creation Museum. It's not what you might think, the girl friends of two of the guys had to cancel out. I guess this led to a mistake and a couple of security guards refused admittance. In the words of one of the guards "How exactly is it Christian to be gay?" An attempt was made to explain, but I guess once the idea of 'gay' sank in, the guards were taking no chances.

Does any of this surprise you? I mean Creation Museum and kennie ham . . . homophobia? (Remember the letter sent to PZ Myers before the Aug 2009 visit from him and members of the SSA? Specifically called out as a no-no was . . . you guessed it, homosexual behavior.) So this really isn't much of a stretch, more business as usual.

However, this is the Creation Museum who apparently welcome . . . well here, read it for yourself:

"Anyway, the great irony is that while two men were not allowed to attend the Creation Museum last night, guess who they are welcoming with open arms today? None other than Jeffrey Bornhoeft, a lovely fellow making his first trip out of Ohio since the time that he shot his ex-wife's husband three times in the head 11 years ago. Jeffrey is OK though, because he's totally not into dudes." (No same sex couples allowed at the Creation Museum Date Night (UPDATE))

So, Kentucky Christians, you can go to the Creation 'Museum' and soon its other new ministry, Ark Encounters, and you can rest assured that you won't see any gay couples; however, you can run into a guy -- who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting his ex's husband three times -- on his first out-of-state visit in 11 years. Does that make you feel better?

Kentuckians, kennie ham is making a mockery of you!

2011-02-09T22:52:00.008-05:00

OK, I haven't written to much on the Ark Encounters, more because there have been so many other things to bring up. But I think kennie ham and his supporters in the government of the Great State of Kentucky are smoking crack and they seem to think they can get away with it.

OK, what has me so annoyed. I really don't care if little kennie wants to spend more of other folks money and create his little monument to his own inadequacies. It really doesn't bother me that he formed a public company in order to solicit money from the State of Kentucky. I don't even care that their vote pandering Governor is going along with it. The reason none of that bothers me is because while I disagree with it, they still have the right to be as foolish as they wish. If the people of Kentucky want to support them -- that's their right.

However; and you knew there had to be a however. Little kennie is advertising job openings at the Ark Encounter. Now please remember this is a park supposedly being done by a secular company and using some amount of public funds and tax incentives to do so. So can anyone tell me why do:

"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith."

Yes, if public funds and tax incentives are given for this park, the employment opportunities should follow State guidelines! I don't have a link to those guidelines handy, but isn't that the law in Kentucky?

Suppose someone asked you to do this during a job interview? How quickly would you be looking for a lawyer to sue for some sort of discrimination? And you would be justified! Little kennie can get away with it for folks working at his ministry -- and make no bones about it AiG (AiG's about page) and the Creation 'Museum' (an outreach of AiG) are nothing but ministries. However Ark Encounters isn't supposed to be one. During a recent interview on Anderson Coopers 360 little kennie side stepped the question about trying to convert people to remind us, yet again, that the company running it is a separate for-profit company, not a non-profit ministry. So this requirement makes it plain that Ark Encounters is an extension of the Creation 'Museum' and AiG and so there should be no question of public assistance. Tell kennie that the till is closed.

Anyone else feel more than a little bit of not-particularly-ethical Pinocchio-ism going on here? I think now is the time for the folks in Kentucky to start telling the Governor and his cronies that enough is enough. Either kennie ham plays by the rules, or he can build his little playhouse without any state money or tax incentives! Come folks from Kentucky, it really is time!

Are computers evolved or is the DI getting bored?

2011-02-08T21:33:00.008-05:00

Bruce Chapman is the Director, and one of the founders, of the mis-identified 'Think Tank' called the Discovery Institute. So what has Bruce been up to now that might make me think he's getting bored with the whole Intelligent Design marketing scheme? Well I think he must be because now he's trying to rebut comments before they exist, so either he's psychic or psychotic, you be the judge. Check out: "It's Elementary: IBM's "Watson" Demonstrates Intelligent Design, Not Darwinian Evolution" over on the so-called Discovery institute 'News' site. He's whining about a new IBM computer, one that will be playing against the two of the winning-est Jeopardy champions ever. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06powers.html?_r=2).

So what does this have to do with the normal topics on this blog? The title on brucie's column offers one hint, his last line does sum it up pretty well.

"I bring this to your attention, as I say, to correct in advance the inevitable and dreary effort of some Darwinian to claim Watson for evolution. But, it's elementary: Watson did not "evolve."

So no one has claimed that a computer is the product of biological evolution, and brucie wants to head off the apparent horde of evolution supporters who will attempt to make such a claim. He's wrong, the horde exists only in his head.

See why I think he must be getting bored? Instead of addressing any of the issues people have had with Creationism and Intelligent Design (like the lack of science, lack of evidence, 'cdesign proponetists', . . .) he has to go make one up. Seriously, would any of you claim that IBM's computer is the product of Natural Selection? How about Gene Flow? Pretty tough for something that doesn't have genes. How about Random Mutation? Anyone think a computer randomly mutates? OK, I know with certain operating systems it certainly seems to randomly mutate, but like Intelligent Design, the appearance of random mutation is not the fact of a random mutation.

So. in other words the only thing brucie has done is prove, once again, that he is completely clueless about biology and the Theory of Evolution. As Jim Nabors would say "Surprise, surprise, surprise!".

Just to set the record complete, I will be happy to go on record and say that IBM's newest computer has evolved! Even brucie himself alluded to it, although it must have gone right over his head when he mentioned:

"as in an earlier IBM defeat of chess champion Gary Kasparov".

Well the article in the NY Times also mentioned that. Only it used slightly different terms:

"a follow-up to the 1997 defeat by its computer Deep Blue of Garry Kasparov"

I hate the burst brucie's bubble (OK not really), but wouldn't a computer today that is called 'a follow-up' be considered to have evolved? Think about the PC on your desk? Can you see pieces, parts, and other components that can trace their lineage back to older lines of personal computers? How about some similarities to mini and mainframe computers from the 60's and 70's? Some of our terms and techniques can be traced back to the earliest computers, like the US's ENIAC (1946) and Germany's Zuse (1941) and Britain's Colossus (1943) computers? As an industry computers have certainly evolved. But only the director of the less-than-honest Discovery 'Institute' would try and equate that to biological evolution and then try and get the first strike in on the imaginary folks who would try and claim computers were the product of biology.

I think brucie struck out on a single pitch -- and that takes talent -- or boredom!

OMG, Astrology is Science -- well in India at least

2011-02-04T23:15:00.004-05:00

I caught this gem from Jen McCreight, who calls her blog 'Blag Hag'. She posted "India: Astrology as Science" and at first I thought it was a joke, like something from The Onion. I mean it certainly sounded like something they would publish. Alas, I'm wrong, now I am reduced to simply hoping it is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not. According to the Bombay High Court in re-affirming a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that Astrology is science and the Supreme Court ruling also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus.

What's worse is that the laws in place to protect consumers by prohibiting misleading advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies does not apply because Astrology, and related things like Palmistry, are sciences, therefore not magic and the laws do not apply. Poor India!

To echo Jen's final comment:

"And I thought it was just the creationists who used this tactic . . ."

Let the Students make Up Thier Own Mind? Are They nuts?

2011-02-04T22:19:00.006-05:00

Over on Topix Evolution Forum, and a few other places, I have been seeing what appears to be an upswing in folks wanting to let students make up their own mind about a given topic. Now I see this as simply an variant of the 'Teach the Controversy' tactic, and one that really doesn't work in reality. Think about it, do you really want to teach all possible alternatives and then leave it to students to make up their minds? Isn't that pretty much impractical?

Let me explain it a bit more. For a change, let's avoid discussing evolution, at least for the moment. Let's talk computer programming, the subject I know a little about. I've been teaching it part-time for over a decade and been working as a programmer for most of the last 35 years. Am I the greatest programmer that ever lived? Of course not, I frequently run into folks that are much better than I am, usually because they have more experience in a particular type of programming. But I do have a pretty diverse background and a great deal of experience.

One thing I have learned that in every computer programming language, there are usually many ways to write a particular piece of code. There is rarely an absolutly perfect way to code something, but experience teaches you what works well and what things do not. An example is something we refer to as an uncontrolled jump. In many languages you can take yourself to another section of code with absolutely no automated way to get back. In other words you have to code going there and if you want to come back, you have to code the return. Seems simple enough, however programming neophytes might not see the real danger. It's something we call spaghetti code. That is code that seems to jump around in nearly random pattern. The results might be code that runs, but it is incredibly hard code to troubleshoot when you have a problem and very hard during long-term maintenance. And since something like 80% of the total cost of a software system is in maintenance, this is a significant problem. Code should be written that works, but it should also be written to be maintained.

If all we, as programmer instructors did, is present all of the different commands to move around a running program, we are doing a disservice to our students. We have been refining this concept for decades now. For example the BASIC computer programming language has a command called GOTO which easily permits you to jump around. In the Java programming language they also have a command GOTO; however, it does nothing. Sounds pretty strange, doesn't it?

Not if you understand the history. The GOTO command in BASIC, and similar commands in other languages, caused significant problems over the lifecycle of an software program. As a result the newer language, Java in this instance, took the command GOTO and reserved it so no one can make a command that replicates the old BASIC GOTO. This might seem like an extreme case, but if you look at the modern version of BASIC, called Visual BASIC, you will see that the GOTO command is no longer a useful command. The language itself has changed to remove even the temptation to use such a mechanism. You can still build uncontrolled jump structures, but you should not. It's much better if teachers taught more than just the commands, but the structure and the reasoning why.

The reason we know this is because of decades of experience and not just mine, but the collective experience of an entire industry. Now what folks like Catherine Crocker are advocating (Podcast from July 2010) are that the job of an instructor, professor, or teacher is not to present any conclusions, but only present all possible sides as equally as possible and let the students make up their minds. So how would that work in Computer Programming? It would mean that with every generation of new programmers, we would find ourselves forgetting the lessons of the past and having to re-learn them over and over again. in my humble opinion, that's bull!

Think about that in Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, and yes, you knew we would get back to it, even Biology. We have decades, even centuries of knowledge of a subject area. In a typical classroom, be it college or high school, you can only go so deep into a subject area. So how can you expect students to make up their own minds? It's not possible, not in any practical sense to hand them 40 years of experience in a single semester, so you present the conclusions and you also present how they formed them!. When you learn a subject, you should be learning many of the facets of it -- and those facets should include the prevailing conclusions a particular discipline is using today. History is good, but you HAVE to show the conclusions or you relegate the students to repeating the work that has already been done over and over again. Crocker is wrong!

Now why would someone like Catherine Crocker think such a thing is workable? That's pretty simple. If you listened to her pod cast you might have noticed her association with the Discovery Institute (DI). Since they [the DI] have failed to gain acceptance for Intelligent Design in the public school science classroom, they simply changed tactics to try and sneak in by another method. One of those methods is the one advocated by Crocker here, to teach all sides -- even the non-scientific sides -- and leave it to the student to make up their own mind.

In my opinion the last thing Crocker and her friends over at the DI really want is people making up their own minds. What they want is to gain a foothold in the science classroom as the first wedge into driving real science out. I mean look at the small successes they have had with school boards in Texas and Louisiana. Imagine those same school boards looking at curriculum in the future and someone making a comment like "Why are we teaching two theories of life? Why not save some money and only teach one. It's not a challenging leap to make. The 'Let them make up their own minds' is nothing but a gutter-level tactic, and Catherine Crocker is one of the missionaries for the DI. You can read a little more about her on Wikipedia. Her own experience with Evolution is not one she probably looks back on with fond memories. Thankfully she's no longer a biology teacher!

How many Anti-evolution Legistations will be attemped in 2011

2011-02-03T12:12:00.004-05:00

I think it's time we have a little pool and see just how many anti-evolution legislations will be put forth in 2011. Odds are it will be the usual suspects and so far we have five! Kentucky, Missouri, two bills in Oklahoma, and a new one in New Mexico.

In Kentucky we have the same State Representative, Tim Moore, making another stab. He failed in 2009. His last bill might have been a little too specific because it seems he's watered it down a bit. He formerly specified evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning as examples of scientific theories for which supplementary instructional materials would be used. This new bill just specifies that supplemental materials can allow teachers to "use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." So Creationists are nothing if not adaptable. His last effort died in committee, so I guess trying to make it sound less anti-science might make it more successful. Between the Creation 'Museum' and the upcoming Noah's Ark Theme Park, doesn't Kentucky have enough on it's plate? (Here is a link on the bill: Antievolution legislation in Kentucky)

Over in Missouri the faces have changed, but the message has not. The previous anti-evolution legislator reached the end of his term limits after failing a number of times to get anti-evolution laws in place. So it's a new crowd, but apparently the text of the bill has only changed slightly from last year's attempt. Instead of a long-winded disclaimer, they shortened it to one a lot like the disclaimer in the Louisiana anti-evolution act. And we know how successful that disclaimer has been to actual avoid the introduction of religiously motivated material into the curriculum -- seeing as how the group responsible for implementing the new policy is ignoring it. (Here is a link to that one: Antievolution legislation in Missouri).

They have certainly been busy in Oklahoma. I mean after all their whining about Richard Dawkins giving a presentation in their state, how foolish do they wish to appear to the rest of the world? Apparently very foolish. They are following Texas by pushing for some of the changes that made Don McLeroy a former member of the Texas State School Board. Funny -- usually Oklahoma and Texas cannot agree on much of anything, so I am surprised as their willingness to follow Texas down the same path. (Link for the first anti-evolution bill in Oklahoma is here: Antievolution legislation in Oklahoma). What I also find interesting is the motivation of the bill's sponsor, State Representative Josh Brecheen, who announced not only his opposition to evolution, but that 'creationism presented as scientifically credible'. (http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10717736/article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory and http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Brecheen-says-the-religion-of-evolution-is-plagued-with-falsehoods) It some ways it's slightly refreshing to have one openly admit their religious motivations, well refreshing and still disturbing.

Another perennial favorite in Oklahoma is State Representative Sally Kern . She's been in the limelight before, even sponsored two bills in 2006. (Here is the link on this one: A second antievolution bill in Oklahoma) Oklahoma has been through a lot recently, including significant economic upheavals. My question to you Oklahomans out there is why do you keep re-electing the same folks who keep trying to drag you back to the 19th century? Also after watching all the drama that Texas went through, are they a valid role model?

And now the latest, New Mexico. Not only does it pretty much parrot the very unsuccessful 'strengths and weaknesses' arguments attempted in other states, it really pushes the envelope to protect teachers. I have nothing against protecting teachers, but when the bill specifically states

"may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets",

just what are they protecting teacher from? New Mexico already has laws protecting teachers who teach controversial subjects. The protection in this law seems to be specifically for teachers who teach religious topics (like Intelligent Design and Creationism) as if they were scientific subjects. That's against the Constitution! (Link here: Antievolution Legilation in New Mexico).

So, how many antievolution bills will we see this year? We haven't heard from Florida or South Carolina this year. Ohio has been silent on the subject since voting out Deborah Owens Fink a couple of years back. Kansas also hasn't chimed in. Well, for what it's worth -- my vote in the pool is 12! I think we will see 7 more bills in 2011. The southern states are lacking, so my guess is several there. Colorado maybe? How about Michigan? I am sure some other state representatives are swilling from the Discovery Institute trough and planning to try yet again. I am also very thankful that the majority of these bills seem to die off in committee, which shows just how popular they tend to be amongst the other legislators. Let's also hope the voters remember who keeps dragging them back into this non-scientific waste of taxpayers money debates, the same way Kansas, Ohio, and Texas did when they removed some of the more vocal anti-science members from their school boards!

Freshwater Finale? Let's hope so

2011-01-26T23:32:00.004-05:00

John Freshwater has been officially fired from the Mt Vernon Ohio School system where he was a Biology teacher for 8 years. My reaction is good riddance. I know some folks might not agree with me, but that's OK. But since this is my blog, I get to spell out my thinking. You can comment if you wish.

When I first heard about John Freshwater the main issue -- or maybe I should say the main reason it made the local papers stemmed from his use of an electrostatic device to burn, what was described by many -- including some of his supporters, a cross in student arms. This was something I could not understand. I don't care if it was an 'x' or a cross. Doing such a thing crosses [pun unintended] many lines. When you deliberately use a device on kids arms, you should be on your way to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect your $200! If he was doing it, even with the kids permission, that is not someone who should be a teacher. Toss in the fact he was apparently doing it based on some religious justification is absurd. The fact he had been doing it for years is just plain appalling.

While I understand the whole burning of the arms was pretty well back-burnered by the referee and settled out of court (Not in Freshwater's favor). It was, and is still a sore spot for me. I don't care what religion you are, taking that device to your students is reason enough to be fired. Aside from that, look at his behavior once his transgressions were brought out in the light of day. . . let's just say I am not surprised at the outcome, only that it took so long and cost the school system, and their insurer, so much money. Seriously, he refused to teach the subject for which he was hired to teach. he refused to comply with direction from the very people who hired him and paid his salary, and finally he lied to investigators and taught his students to lie in order to cover-up his activities.For all of those reasons I am happy to see John Freshwater heading out the door. You can read all about it at Panda's Thumb. Richard B. Hoppe has done an amazing job following this case!

Now some of you might disagree for various reasons, but in my opinion, you are making a mistake. I do not care what religion John Freshwater is. He could be a Buddhist or Zoastronist for all I care. It was his conduct as a teacher of our children that should never have been tolerated, regardless of your or his religious beliefs. In my opinion he used his religion as an excuse to avoid taking personal responsibility or fulfilling his professional obligations.

While the final hearing de-emphasized the crosses burned into kids arms, I still have a problem with that one. This piece of equipment was labels, and the documentation clearly stated that it was not for human contact. Yet Freshwater disregarded all that. Yes, he did it for the glory of his God. If your reasoning to support Freshwater is based on your religious beliefs, you really need to re-examine them. Suppose a kid had a heart condition, maybe a pacemaker -- how would you feel if he killed a child with that device? What if the device has malfunctioned? Would you still be OK with it simply because you agree with his religion? Please answer honestly! Could you actually stand in front of a grieving parent and say

"I'm sorry little Bobby is dead after being electrocuted by that malfunctioning device. But Mr. Freshwater was doing it in Jesus' name."

Seriously? Let's take it one step further. Suppose it was your child? Do you really trust John Freshwater any longer?

As for his teaching ability, how many times do you think kids need to be taught the exact same subject? When teachers in later grades identified the need to re-teach subject material because Freshwater wasn't teaching it -- that tells me there is a problem. You hired a science teacher and you should have a perfectly reasonable expectation for him to fulfill those duties. Again, if you support him because he shares your religious beliefs, you still should look very carefully at those beliefs. Suppose he was teaching from a different religious tradition? Would you still support him? If so, then I salute you. I still disagree with you, but it's nice to know you are consistent in your support for religious freedom -- even though I do not think it should apply in this case. If your support for him would evaporate because he is no longer in agreement with you, then I suggest you look at your own prejudices. He was hired to teach science, not religion, and Creationism/Intelligent Design is a religious concept not a scientific one! You might disagree with that as well, but then you really need to talk to some biologists -- like the ones at the school where they had to re-teach Freshwater's students. If he disagreed that Creationism and ID are religious concepts, then the question becomes was his classroom the right venue for addressing it? Certainly not! Suppose he believed the world was flat, is his classroom the correct venue?

Now how about his continual disregard for the policies and guidelines from the school board and his superiors -- you know them, the ones who hired him. So the best avenue to implement his particular version of religion is to accept a position of trust and then betray that trust? This is the lesson you want to teach your children? Sure, when you disagree with someone or something, pretend to agree until you are in a position of responsibility and then stick a knife in and twist hard. That is what Freshwater did! The avenue for addressing such things is not in their disregard, but in working to change them. If you still support him after all you have learned about what he did, then you really need to re-look at the types of messages you are giving your kids. So in the future when they disagree with you and go behind your back -- it's OK? We might start calling that "being freshwatered!" Think about the consequences of his actions! If nothing else he should have quit on his own. But no, he failed in the job he was hired to do and ignored every opportunity to change his behavior.

My final point is that I really wonder what many of those students thought once they read about Freshwater's responses to the investigators and even the resolutions, transcripts and news reports. How many of them understand that he wasn't willing to accept the responsibility for his actions. Freshwater might have stood in front of them and preached, but when things got rough he wasn't man enough to accept responsibility for his actions. He lied to investigators and even developed code-words with his students to circumvent the rules. He taught your kids how to lie and offered his religious beliefs as an acceptable reason to do so. Sure, he's just the type of teacher your kids need!

I, for one, am glad John Freshwater is no longer teaching in Mt Vernon OH. He betrayed those entrusted to his care. He did it for his own personal religious reasons and he is probably quite proud of himself. As one who shares that profession, at least on a part-time basis, I don't feel pride in John Freshwater. I am proud of the students, teachers, and administrators who did not bow before the pressure of other folks and their religious beliefs and did the right and the legal thing!

There are those who will probably hold him up as some sort of martyr for religion. But as you can see by my comments, his actions may have been excused or motivated by his religion, I might have respected him if in spite of the roadblocks put in front of him, if he had come up with a better method than betrayal, lies and deceit. The very fact he encouraged kids to join him in his lies is the worst possible indictment of his character!

While editing this post over the course of a couple of days, I checked in with one of my favorite writers, Lauri Lebo, and she caught a post from one of my less-than-favorite apologetic sites, Answers-in-Genesis, who, typically, got the wrong message. According to AIG "Scientists and Science Should Not Be Questioned According to a Local School Board" The very title of their post reveals that they simply don't get it. No, that might not be true, they may get it, but they can't sell it to their supporters. The school board said no such thing and they implied no such thing. What they said was that Freshwater should have done his job, should not have lied and encouraged his students to lie, and certainly should not have assaulted his students. When you do things like that, you have to accept the responsibility for your actions. if you refuse, they will help you out . . . the door. Read it for yourself and shortly you see that the topic left the idea of questioning science and scientists quickly and turned to religion, the bible, and teaching Sunday school. So much for keeping to the theme they set in the title.

I do find it interesting that the message you might glean from their support of Freshwater is that AIG doesn't believe that people hired to do a job should actually be held accountable for doing their job. Gee, maybe the workers in AIG's newest foolishness, A Noah's Ark Theme Park, will remember that and fail to do their jobs -- then sue for their unearned salaries! Why not? Sounds reasonable to me and one in line with AIG beliefs. If they do manage to get this 'theme' park built, maybe kennie ham (Owner, operator, and spender of other people's money with AIG, the Creation 'Museum') give Freshwater a job. Maybe he can hang a effigy of John Freshwater on a cross and really make a martyr of him.

I really hate to do this (Well not really)

2011-01-25T22:58:00.004-05:00

I would like to remind you of a post from little casey luskin on his 13 July 2010 -- about the Christine Comer case (Federal Appeals Court Rejects Chris Comer’s Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination Against Evolution):

"The moral of this story is this: Whether the case ultimately wins or loses in court, don’t speak out publicly on a case until you know the facts."

Today, the little mouthpiece whimpered a post about David Coppedge getting fired by JPL. You might remember Coppedge, he is suing JPL because he was demoted -- for reasons he claims have to do with his pushing of Intelligent Design at work. Now one last reminder, JPL has been silent on the whole issue -- so we do not have the facts of the case. I have posted about this before in Casey Duecy.

Now according the DI toady in "NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab Fires Cassini Mission Senior Computer Admin Who Filed Discrimination Lawsuit" In violation of his own July post, he just has to publicly speak out about this case -- a case for which we still do not have all the facts -- let me repeat that -- a case for which we still do not have all the facts. He says: [my comments after each]

JPL just dumped a lot of fuel on the fire of David Coppedge's discrimination lawsuit by firing him [Did they really? Don't you think JPL lawyers might realize this? But then casey is a lawyer who likes to pretend to be a biologist, so maybe he's out of practice playing lawyer]
This could potentially expose JPL to a claim of wrongful termination and increase the merits of Coppedge's claim [This is a possibility, but then Coppedge settling out of court, or losing the entire case is also a possibility. But does casey mention any other possible outcome? He's already convicted JPL -- what a surprise.]
. . . but Coppedge is the most senior member of the team that oversees the computers on NASA and JPL's Cassini Mission to Saturn. Coppedge doesn't seem at all like the first person who would normally be forced to leave in such a situation, but. Obviously, JPL has other considerations. [emphasis added. Does casey have more information about this than he might be letting on? No! Actually casey, JPL going through downsizing makes me think that a demoted former team lead is the perfect candidate for the chopping block.]
Those other considerations began in 2009 when the administration found out that Coppedge had occasionally had friendly discussions about ID with fellow employees [So how does casey know they were 'friendly' conversations or even 'occasional'? The truth is that is how he wants them portrayed. I think the word 'harassment' might come up during the trial. But that is my opinion. You see casey, it is possible to offer opinion without trying to have it appear as factual. ]
if a colleague wasn't interested, Coppedge dropped the matter [I find it hard to believe that David Coppedge, founder Creation Safaris Ministry really just let the matter drop. Don't you?]
Coppedge was then demoted and threatened with losing his job if he persisted in purportedly "unwelcome" and "disruptive" discussions of ID [I also doubt that his demotion paperwork mentioned his support of ID any more than it probably mentions an unwelcome and disruptive work environment. In my opinion, if he did create a disruptive and unwelcome work environment, he deserves to be demoted.]

Does this sound like someone who actually has the facts of a case? Did little casey take his own advice and wait for the court case, which begins in June of this year? No! All we have is Coppedge and his lawyer's words. So, of course, since Coppedge is an ID proponent, it must be OK to talk about it, right casey? Did casey even try and discover if maybe there really were other considerations in the decision to fire Coppedge? I mean programs end all the time. How many companies have been downsizing in the past couple of years. Don't you think JPL realizes that they better have their i's dotted and t's crossed in firing someone who is currently engaged in litigation?

I think 30 seconds of thought might have saved little casey and the DI some embarrassment later this year. But then I guess even 30 seconds of thought must be well beyond Di mouthpieces.

But then Klinghoffer isn't the only one.

2011-01-23T00:18:00.008-05:00

So let's see, Klinghoffer busted in a lie of omission, so as I am trying to catch up on things I read a little post by Casey Luskin who makes a sort-of interesting claim. A Pro-Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed publication by someone named Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics from WIT Press. Now, of course, I trust nothing that comes out of any of those less-than-honest-fellows over at the Discovery Institute, especially mouthpiece lawyer Luskin. So in my opinion this leads to some questions.

First Question is -- is the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics from WIT Press actually a peer-reviewed scientific journal? To check I went to Pub Med. I figure WIT Press and the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics should appear referenced there and other scientists should be referencing them in their own work.

Why am I not surprised the number was '0'. Yup, in the hundreds of thousands of research documents, decades of work, and thousands of scientists, no one references a publication or a press that little casey calls peer-reviewed. WIT Press does market itself as being referenced by 'CrossRef', ProQuest' and other information sources. Yes, these services can connect you with information -- but that doesn't make them a valid reference for the scientific validity of your work. They are information brokers, that's all. So far casey is meeting my expectations.

So second question, Andy McIntosh? A quick Google and Wikipedia says that he is a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds. It also says that

"He is a scientist who disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus on biological evolution."

Oh gee, should this be a surprise to anyone? He does have one book referenced: "Genesis for Today: Showing the Relevance of the Creation/Evolution Debate to Today's Society (foreword by Ken Ham)" With a forward by Ken Ham? McIntosh is also published in 'Evangelicals Now'.

Things aren't looking good for casey, as usual. Oh wow, just spotting something else. Guess who is on the editorial Board for WIT Press Journals? Check out their webpage and look down the list, there is an 'A. McIntosh, University of Leeds, UK'.

There's more. Do you remember 'Truth in Science'? I mentioned it in another post "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!" Stephen C. Meyer, another disagreeable DI fellow, identified a Norman Nevin as one of the scientists who is not a known ID advocate who enthusiastically endoresed his long argument from ignorance "Signature in the Cell". This is just another lie because Nevin is a member of Truth in Science, a group affiliated with the Discovery Institute and a pro-ID group in Great Britain. Guess who else is a member? You got it -- one each Professor Andrew McIntosh! He's even more than just a member, he's on the Board of Directors. Why wouldn't casey mention any of this?

So what do we have so far, we have a paper written by a Young-Earth Creationist, published by an apparently non-scientific press of which he is on the editorial board. Toss in his already existing anti-evolution bias and his only book publication and my conclusions are significantly different than luskin's. I certainly don't think this measures up in any way to a valid peer-reviewed scientific paper. Do you?

Klinghoffer lies by Omission

2011-01-22T00:13:00.005-05:00

Last month I posted a bit about the Discovery Institute's (DI) efforts to re-baptize Alfred Russel Wallace as an Intelligent Design proponent. It was a post by Michael Flannery, at the DI's own Evolution News and Views sorta-blog, and . . . as usual . . . other DI mouthpieces have taken up the lie.

I guess it was David Klinghoffer's turn on the wheel. Oh, you haven't heard about 'The Wheel'? It's a technique to evenly distribute tasks. It's used by some restaurants use it to make sure the servers get an equal share of the customers coming it. It's called a 'wheel' because each name keeps coming up in rotation. W.E.B. Griffin uses one as a device for his fictional homicide detectives to show who gets the next homicide as they get called in. It's a technique that has been around for years, you might call it something else, but 'The Wheel' worked for me.

So it must be davey klinghoffer turn and he has his own post over on Evolution News and Views, a supposed news/blog site where they pretty much post anything they want and certainly don't ever allow comments. But there is something I would like you to think about. While I hate running up their stats even by a tiny bit, I will post the link to the article "New Biography Reveals Evolution's Co-Discoverer as Early Intelligent Design Advocate", but you really don't need to read it, it has nothing of any real substance and you will see why i believe that in one second.

OK, klinghoffer's post concerns a new 'Biography' of Alfred Russel Wallace written by the self-same Michael Flannery who I mentioned in my earlier post. Now regardless of what he says about it -- which really is nothing new in a DI fluff piece -- I want you to consider that klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow over at the Discovery Institute. OK, I know you knew that, but how about this little tidbit, klinghoffer described Flannery as "historian Michael Flannery" and further described him as:

"Michael A. Flannery is Professor and Associate Director for Historical Collections at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and editor of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (2008)."

For some reason little davey forgot to mention that Michael Flannery is also Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now why in the world for davey not bother mentioning that little item? Doesn't that make you wonder what is going on? Why would he fail to mention that not only is Flannery more than the editor of one book about Wallace that tries to reincarnate him as an ID proponent, that not only has Flannery written blog posts making the same sort of claim, but now he has written a book of his own re-writing Wallace's life and what Wallace actually believed in (which is Darwinian Evolution BTW) -- but not once does he mention that he and Flannery are buddies who share the same political master, the DI. Why would that be?

Let's toss one more DI item into the mix, guess who published Flannery's missive? Yup, the DI's own Discovery Institute Press! So we have a DI fellow writing a book published by the DI and lauded by another DI fellow on a DI website. Anyone else see this as more than a little bit hinky? So, as usual, the Di is still pushing their ID idea without having to bother doing anything that remotely resembles science. Now they are trying to re-write the past and using their own pet historian to do it.

One last question for davey and the other DI mouthpieces, why did you suddenly all quit writing in support of David Coppedge? It's been months and his trial comes up this year. I would have assumed you would have been trying to fan the flames of public opinion, especially in light of the deafening silence by Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)? It's just a question, or have you got something else you would rather not share with the class?

Censorship is such an ugly word, but it applies!

2011-01-19T21:54:00.005-05:00

But sometimes it is the only one that applies.

On January 10th of this new year I was wandering the web and came across an article that, in my opinion, stretched the truth just a wee bit. So in my normal fashion I commented on the article and tried to set the record straight. I checked just about every day and my comment was sitting there label 'awaiting moderation'. Well guess what? My post, critical of their poorly supported piece disappeared. I was disappointed, but not terribly surprised.

Now back on the 10th, I also wandered around this specific website and I found another piece and commented on it. Yes, I was critical because the piece didn't seem to actually address any issues. It was all assumption and innuendo. I guess folks are not allowed to point such things out to anyone, because after 9 days awaiting moderation, it also disappeared.

Now before anyone gets all huffy. I have removed one and only one poster from my blog. When the posts that person made became extremely prejudicial and loaded with discriminatory comments I deleted them. I am not overly proud of doing that, but I felt that keeping their comments was in fact enabling them and giving them a platform.

It certainly wasn't because they disagreed with me. If you have been following this blog at all you know I tend to engage folks who disagree. Anyone remember Rory? I responded to his comments several times (Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!) and even wound up generating two other posts because my comments to him wouldn't fit in the comments section (In response to a comment and Another response to poor Rory). So my issue wasn't disagreement, but his lack of support for his contentions. You can read back if you want.

However, what happened to me over on Creation Revolution was censorship. My first post was concerning their article "Professor denied tenure because of Intelligent Design beliefs". Yes, Guillermo Gonzalez is old news. It's been four years since he was denied tenure and lost his various appeals. What bothered me about their article was how loose they played with the facts of the case. They never addressed the core question of whether or not Professor Gonzalez did what was required to receive tenure. That should be the bottom line, but they never address those issues. The nearest they came was mentioning his 68 published papers. They didn't mention if those papers were ones published during the seven years he was a tenure seeking candidate. They also failed to examine whether or not all of those papers actually fell into the subject area he was hired to teach. They furthermore compounded their error by not addressing other tenure requirements -- the other ones he failed to meet.

I have discussed Gonzalez before (Arguments XXVI -- Universal Fine Tuning, Iowa Professor denied tenure and claims free speech and conspiracy theories, More on Professor Gonzalez, Regents deny tenure appeal of intelligent design professor) many times. My bottom line is simply this:

"When you apply and are accepted for a tenure-seeking position there is usually a laundry-list of things you must do. You are also given a time-frame, something in the neighborhood of 5 years. On that list is usually things like publish, advise graduate students, teach lots of classes, perform research, bring in external money for research, among other things. The decision to grant tenure is based on all of them, plus how well you work with your peers, support department policies, and present yourself as a member of the faculty and staff.

If Prof. Gonzales had done these things, he might have had a chance at his tenure review, but according to his track record he failed. In over 7 years he had ONE grad student complete their thesis, raised less that 1/50th the amount of research money, and had no significant scientific publications. Yes, he published at least one book outside his field of Astronomy, which supported Intelligent Design, but nothing within his field"

Please note that it was the Regents who determined that Gonzalez failed to meet the requirements for tenure. Please also note that they said he had no significant publications, which certainly disagrees with Creation Revolution's claim of 68 papers. So where did Creation Revolution get their information? From the Creation Research Society. Anyone else see a problem here?

My other post was on an article "Did ‘Nature’ Invent Oxygen-Carrying Systems…Twice?" This done by the less-than-scholarly Institute for Creation Research (ICR). ICR has been the topic of a number of posts of mine, chiefly on their failed attempt to get permission to award actual master's of Science degrees. (Texas, on a different but related subject, Hasn't Texas had enough?,Yea for Texas!, Texas scores a big win!, and ICR admits defeat, sort of . . .). So the very idea of ICR doing some scholarship would be shocking.

Luckily for me, there was no shock. This was a poorly supported opinion piece. They questioned the possibility of hemoglobin evolving twice. First of all that isn't a conclusion as of yet. However it is a possibility. My response was so what! Didn't nature evolve three very distinct flight mechanisms (bird, bat, and insect)? Didn't sight take some very different evolutionary paths (human, avian, and insect). I mean nature is replete with examples of similar function on different evolutionary paths. This is no big deal. But ICR, and by extension Creation Revolution, tries to make it some sort of evolutionary critique. Not very scholarly of them!

What I have to say about this is simple. 'Creation Revolution' kept comments that agreed with them and dumped my comments that tried to re-introduce the actual facts and issues of Gonzalez and question the basics of the ICR article. Simply put, censorship.

New Year, newly discovered blogger

2011-01-03T22:52:00.003-05:00

Came across a great post from Alison Campbell at SciBlogs in New Zealand: "‘intelligent design is not creationism in any shape or form’ – yeah, right!"
It's a great summary of just about everything ID. She pegs the DI, the wedge strategy and Dover beautifully!

". . . so-called ‘intelligent design’ is creationism, pure and simple, and not a valid scientific explanation for life’s diversity."

Can't get much more succinct than that! Thanks Alison. I'll be reading more.

The best start of 2011

2011-01-02T20:33:00.003-05:00

Non Sequitur is one of the best comics and one I try to stay fairly current on. This one from 1 Jan 2011 is priceless.

This have been pretty hectic, so while I have been wanting to comment on a few things, like the new State-assisted Creationism theme park in Kentucky, I have been barely keeping my head above water. But if this is a start, the next year should be fun. Wasn't this one of the years someone or other predicted the demise of Evolution as a scientific theory? Or was that 2012? Let's see, demise of evolution or the end of the Mayan calendar? Yea, 2011 for evolution and 2012 for the end of the world. Since the odds are the same for either one, you can see why I get them confused.

Did religious beliefs impact a hiring selection?

2010-12-13T22:07:00.004-05:00

Here is an interesting case and I haven't made up my mind yet -- probably because of a lack of information. The early stories have me concerned. OK, let me know what you think about this: The Kentucky Courier-Journal is reporting "Job candidate sues UK [University of Kentucky], claiming religion cost him the post". I know the DI will have to stick their know-little-noses in soon, but I wanted to get an idea before they start polluting the Internet.

I actually caught this off the NCSE website at "Creationism at issue in employment dispute ?"Please note the question mark. I am not sure of the issues in this yet, but it bears thinking.

Well if you haven't read up on it, here is a summary: In 2007 Martin Gaskell was a candidate to be the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky. The Courier-Journal is reporting that he was the leading candidate -- but that is something I am not sure can be substantiated. Again according to the suit Prof Gaskell claims that because he gave presentations in which he said that

"he believes the theory [of evolution] has major flaws. And he recommended students read ... critics [of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement."

was the reason he was not selected for the position. So he sued for

"because of his religious beliefs and his expression of these beliefs" in violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991."

Since ID has been identified by a Federal Court as Creationism in a lab-coat, so it certainly can be argued that one of the factors in his not being selected might have been his support of ID. But how critical a factor was this?

There may very well have been other factors that lead to him not being selected -- UK hasn't said much yet other than his beliefs were a factor -- heck nearly anything can cause you to be non-selected, it's not like he was fired from a position.

Now one of the questions is should they have been a factor? There is my dilemma. It's easy to see why Guillermo Gonzales, Nathanial Abraham, and John Freshwater have all experiences career setbacks -- and while they all claim religious discrimination, so far the evidence hasn't backed them up. Is this one more case in point where someone's religious beliefs may have impacted, but not have been the cause of being not-selected. It will be a case worth keeping track of, that's for sure. It's easy to claim discrimination, as we have seen.

Oh, in case you hadn't realized it, but Prof Gaskell is not a biologist, but an Astronomer. So you might think that shouldn't make a difference. But you should also remember that he is still a scientist, and in the position he claims to have been a leading candidate he would be in a leadership and supervisory position over others. The work of the observatory would also be looked at for publicity and even as a source of recruitment for the University. Do you want someone who questions a field outside his own and directs students to look at non-scientific material running such a facility? There is the question that faced the selection committee and we know how they answered it, they went elsewhere. So was their decisions the correct one?

I don't know -- yet, but I do agree that his beliefs SHOULD have been a factor of his selection. Not for him having them, but for how those beliefs could impact his ability to do his job. That's the question that really needs to be answered. I am sure Guillermo Gonzalez wasn't even on the consideration list and I am sure no one would question that decision. Well like I said, a case worth watching. I am interesting in ALL of the evaluation criteria and see how other candidate measured up.

Things looking bleak for the Discovery Institute -- We can all hope!

2010-12-05T22:02:00.005-05:00

In all honesty 'The Huffington Post' is not something I read regularly. While they frequently do have great articles by folks like Michael Zimmerman, they also tend to offer platforms to folks who support such pseudo-science as the anti-vaccine movement, climate change deniers, and Creationism. Today they had a pretty good article by John Farrell: "Intelligent Design: Losing the Catholics". The article does a good job of discussing the . . . well to borrow a quote from the article:

"the vapidity of intelligent design."

It also has a quote from another article that asked and answers "What has the intelligent design movement achieved?"

"What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists."

I am not sure i would call any of the fellows at the DI 'Theorists', but I don't agree with some of the authors terminology. The author does mention something I have to disagree with:

"The irony about the intelligent design debate today, is that the intelligent design proponents, like the Darwinists, presuppose an opposition between chance and design. They necessitate an opposition between chance and design."

Science does not presuppose such opposition. It does say that the evidence supports chance over design. Science also states that no one, including all of the design proponents, have offered one shred of evidence supporting design. Science is not opposed to design, but has said time and time again that proponents of design need to show the evidence. 'Why is it design?' 'How did it become designed?' 'What methodology indicates design?' These questions, among others, have been sidestepped by design proponents. As such, any opposition to their ideas is based on their LACK of evidence, not on the concept of design. I also wish the author would not use the term 'Darwinist', for reasons I have spelled out many times. There is no scientific discipline or ideology called 'Darwinism'.

The final quote from the article is a nice one:

"So, all is not well in Seattle. For Christians who support solid science education, that's something to celebrate. The more the vapid arguments of the Discovery Institute are exposed, the smaller and smaller their audience will become."

The 'Big Tent' approach envisioned by Phillip E. Johnson, ID's daddy rabbit, is showing signs of significant wear and tear. The problem comes not only from the outside, but from within from their own inability to support their own ideas. Many Christians who were initially positive about Intelligent Design are realizing now that is was an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual one that attracted them. As we all know an emotional appeal tends to fade over time, especially when it is the only appeal anyone is making. All the marketing in the world can only prop up a bad idea for a short while.

Klinghoffer, Klinghoffer, Klinghoffer are you ever right?

2010-12-03T22:50:00.002-05:00

OK, I am sure that you have heard the news. NASA scientists have discovered a lifeform that can be coaxed into substituting arsenic for phosphorus. The news had blown it all way out of proportion, claiming things like "Alien Microbes" and "Life from another planet?" But the reality is less exciting than the news reports. PZ Myers has a nice piece on it "It's not an arsenic-based life form". So what does this have to do with the DI's resident excuse? Well Klinghoffer just had to comment on it. And how does he comment on it? In the least honest way possible.

He starts, as he usually does, in the title: "About That Arsenic-Gobbling Microbe...Bad News for Darwinists?" What I am still not sure of is how is this a problem for . . . to use his favorite pejorative . . . Darwinists? I assume he means Biologists. Well he sort of explains

"The bacterium evidently uses arsenic for purposes that all other known organisms would use phosphorus, including incorporating it in DNA. A reporter for Nature News cites UC Santa Barbara geomicrobiologist David Valentine as observing that the discovery may mean "you can potentially cross phosphorus off the list of elements required for life."

First of all, it's not that it uses arsenic for purposes that all other known organisms would use phosphorus -- it is more that is can be coaxing into using it. I think that's a huge difference. Look at the caveat he sneaks in "all other known organisms". So what in biology or evolutionary theory says that there can be no other organisms based on other than the elements we are familiar with? Absolutely none! Yes, we know a great deal about the life forms around us. we've only been studying them for a very long time. We've also been studying organisms we call extremophile (an organism that thrives in and may even require physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental to most life on Earth.) So back to the original question, why is this a problem?

In reality it is not! Look at it from this direction. Creationists, like Klinghoffer, like to look from the top and and claim that man has some special relationship with God and that we are at the pinnacle of some imagined ladder of awesomeness. Now biologists look more from a bottom-up approach and we are the result of our environment. So according to Creationists this discovery makes no difference. the 'designer' could do anything it wanted to do. Yet according to biologists if the environment had been different, we might have evolved very differently.

So in other words . . . it is no surprise in biology about this discovery. So where does Klinghoffer go next? SETI. Yea, I thought the same thing.

"Yet we still have no indication from SETI or anything else that intelligent or complex life exists anywhere but here. Which makes the existence of life on earth look just a bit more special than it did before, right?"

Does it really? So instead of making an actual case -- or at least building a decent strawman -- Klinghoffer falls on the tired old argument that because we haven't found life out there . . . we are so special. So just how many planets have we visited? None. How much exploring have we done? Not very much. Yes, we are listening to small portions of the sky at a time. The annual budget for SETI is pretty minuscule.

So back to Davey. The SETI argument makes absolutely no sense, so where does he turn? To Guillermo Gonzalez. You remember Guillermo? He was the Astronomer who lost his bid for tenure at Iowa State University for FAILING to do his job. Now he is teaching at a little Christian school in Grove City, Pa, and I guess he still finds time to dabble in Intelligent Design. But he doesn't say anything. Yet Davey thinks that his words offered . . . to use yet another pejorative . . . materialists dodging a bullet.

So where is this imaginary bullet? The discovery is nothing terribly special. Klinghoffer offers no reason . . . well no ACTUAL reason . . . why this is supposed to be a bad thing for biology. Here is the part that just kills me. We open our eyes a little bit future and make a discovery of something potentially wondrous, yet Klinghoffer seems to want us to be afraid of it.

I think he's afraid of it because it really is nothing more than one more successful prediction based on evolutionary sciences. The same sciences that threaten the narrow worldview of people like Klinghoffer.

DI's next cruel trick -- re-baptizing Alfred Russel Wallace

2010-12-02T22:36:00.009-05:00

The Discovery Institute (DI) is starting to remind me of the Mormon Church, at least in one of their gutter tactics. I recall reading how the Mormons have this nasty little habit of baptizing already dead folks into the church, such as Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, all on behalf of surviving relatives. If you are interested in knowing more about this disgusting practice, you can check out "Baptism for the Dead" over on Wikipedia.

So what does this have to do with the Discovery Institute. Well they are trying to not steal a soul, but they are trying to steal a man's lifework. Michael Flannery, a compatriot of little casey luskin and the rest of those less-than-honest folks at the DI, wrote a disgusting little post called "The Centennial of Alfred Russel Wallace's The World of Life: The Co-Discoverer of Natural Selection Proposes Intelligent Evolution!". In it he claims:

"Forgotten in the glare of Darwin's preeminence is that Wallace went on to craft his own theory, a theory imbued with intelligent design. First announced in April of 1869, Wallace would go on to develop a theory of directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent best described as intelligent evolution."

In my opinion Wallace might have been overlooked at one time, but not currently. There have been numerous books and articles on his contributions to Evolution and Natural Selection. Did you know Wallace was the most cited Naturalist in Darwin's "Descent of Man". While they were often in disagreement over the details, Wallace remained a supporter of Darwin and Natural Selection for the rest of his life. He published "Darwinism" as a response to critics of Natural Selection. Here are a couple of quotes I ran across:

"But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction". 1861 Letter from Wallace to Thomas Sims

"I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong." Notes on the Growth of Opinion as to Obscure Psychical Phenomena During the Last Fifty Years

Does this sound like someone who would support the modern Creationism-in-hiding Intelligent Design? Wallace could be categorized as a Creationist, but not a Creationist in the same sense as the bunch over at the DI. He had a side that supported various forms of spirituality, some might have even embarrass a modern scientist and theologian -- but he is more like many current Christians where evolution is not an issue. In my opinion, based on the evidence of his work, Wallace is much more likely to have signed the counter-petition "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" than he would the DI's extremely misleading "Dissent from Darwinism". Wallace supported evolution and Natural Selection right up until he died at age 90.

But with Wallace safely dead, just like those poor souls that the Mormon Church is trying to appropriate, the DI is releasing posts that make it sound as if he would support their misinformation campaign. Luckily his work survives and anyone can do only a few minutes to research Alfred Russel Wallace will realize this. The Alfred Russel Wallace page at Western Kentucky University was an interesting place to spend some quality time. Just a couple of years back Olivia Judson, the Dr. J of Biology, wrote an interesting opinion piece on Wallace's place in history, You might like it as well: "Wallace Should Hang" These two sites are infinitely more interesting than the DI's poorly named 'evolution news' site.

Keep running into Dembski-isms

2010-12-01T23:08:00.005-05:00

You know as little respect as most of the ID proponents deserve, I keep running across comments about Dembski's unequivocal surrender.

Over at JREF forums, one commenter, AdMan, put it pretty succinctly:

"Here is one of the key proponents for Intelligent Design, dismissing a point that he earlier had argued was supported by scientific findings simply because he's told that the bible is absolutely trustworthy and he must not question it. And he gives in without an argument. Does ID have any legitimacy left?" [I added the italics for emphasis]

Over on Daylight Atheism it is also said quite plainly:

"But just as fascinating, I think, was Dembski's craven response. When threatened with losing his job, he immediately recanted, despite everything he had said before about how his views were founded on the evidence. He immediately surrendered those views and, in his own words, "bowed to the text" - prostrating himself before the Bible and confessing that he believes it, not because that's what the evidence says, but because that's what's written and he knows he's not permitted to doubt or think independently. Regardless of what the facts say, he knows his beliefs must be subordinated to the cold demands of dogma. Is this not a total abdication of intellectual honesty? " [Again, I added the italics for emphasis]

One of the commenters over on Daylight Atheist had a great comment, one I had to repost:

"With apologies to Monty Python.
Brave Sir Dembski ran away.
("Yes!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I did!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("Yes!")
Yes, brave Sir Dembski turned about
("I did!")
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking ("I certainly did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all truth!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dembski!
("I did!")"

How in the world can Dembski face any students in the light of such behavior? I do pity any students he has, they deserve better. On the other hand, this isn't all that surprising. Look at the coalition put together by those less-than-stellar folks at the Discovery Institute. There is no interest in actual science, only dogmatic clinging to shreds of various ideologies. Look at a few of the tactics and attacks against evolutionary theory -- completely toothless because of their refusal to step away from philosophy and marketing and engage in science.

Teach the non-existent controversy
Academic freedom that has nothing to do with actual academic freedom
Darwin caused Hitler -- in spite of Hitler's avowed Christianity in his own writings and speeches
The math -- that no one has the ability to calculate -- doesn't support evolution

All of it pretty much . . . well as the saying goes no matter how much mayo you use, you can't turn chicken sh** into chicken salad. They certainly seem to use a great deal of mayo. They dress up their ideas in ill-fitting lab coats, pay for it with other people's money, publish in the popular and christian press, whine about impossible decades-long and multi-national conspiracies of millions of scientists, and then lie and misrepresent their ideas to school boards at the state and local level. So Dembski sweating over a paying job is not much more than a ripple in a pond loaded with reprehensible tactics and strategies.

It's not that terribly surprising because of the original Wedge Strategy Document:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Intelligent Design is a shill, it's a cover, it's a thin veneer over Creationism and it really doesn't matter in the long run as long as Creationism can find its way back into the secular classroom -- not matter how! Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Sternberg, and the rest of them will say anything, stoop to any tactic, any device, any potential selling point not because their ideas are correct, but because they believe in them in spite of the evidence that does not support them and the ends they seek justifies the means.

As one of Dembski's students said of his professor's desires

" . . . theology as the "queen of the sciences" . . . "

And that is the real crime.

Settlement reached in Freshwater case!

2010-11-30T16:28:00.007-05:00

The second to last part of the Freshwater saga is at an end. John Freshwater is not allowed to brand students! Now if only the judge presiding over the last issue, his administrative hearing on being fired, would issue his ruling we can all start to forget John Freshwater!

If you want a refresher, The Panda's Thumb's Richard Hoppe provided an amazing amount of coverage! Bottom line is John Freshwater was fired for a number of things including assault on students by burning crosses in their arms, lying to investigators, and failing to follow school board policies-- to name a few. Several suits followed, a lot of apparently foolish activity by Freshwater and his attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, and we are nearing the end of the road. Maybe Mt Vernon, OH can also set this behind them -- providing Freshwater is not returning to the classroom.

Here is my issue. John Freshwater might not be burning crosses in any arms, which is a good thing, but is it enough? Does this man who would even think to do such a thing belong in the classroom? He has received a lot of positive attention from many Creationists who keep trying to cast this in a 'religious freedom' light. But the reality is not about religious or even academic freedom. John Freshwater is supposed to be teaching science. Instead of that he assaulted his charges, taught Creationist/intelligent Design against school policy, and then lied about it to investigators. What kind of lesson will this be telling our students if he is allowed to return to the classroom? Plus, since he has settled the other lawsuits most certainly not in his favor, what kind of message will this send to Freshwater if he is allowed back int he classroom? Sure, he might not be burning crosses, but teachers in Mt. Vernon High School will still have to be re-teaching the material supposedly covered by John Freshwater because he wasn't held responsible to failing to teach it.

That is my $.02. He had his chance and he allowed his religious convictions to get in the way of him doing his job. Would you fire a butcher who refused to cut meat for religious reasons? Would you fire an employee who refused to follow the direction of a female supervisor for religious reasons? Would you fire a Pharmacist who refused to give out Birth Control pills for religious reasons? I certainly hope so. And that is why John Freshwater deserves to lose his job. It's not that he couldn't do it, but that he refused to do it and nothing I have read on this hearing has given me any hope that he would suddenly start doing it.

I wonder if the Discovery Institute will have anything to say. So far he's about the only Intelligent Design proponent they haven't offered support. I might have to go back and double check that, but I cannot recall anything supporting Freshwater from luskin, Klinghoffer, or that bunch. If I am wrong, please pass me a link. It might be worth a follow-up post once the final hearing decision is done. Word is that might come down by the end of the year!

DI's version of Larry, Moe, and Curly!

2010-11-29T22:26:00.010-05:00

Been a busy couple of weeks so I am a bit behind on my blog. So here is a trio of posts concerning three of my favorite Discovery Institute/Intelligent Design stooges Behe, Dembski, and the lightweight luskin.

So what has Michael Behe been up to? He's been touring Great Britain at the invite of the new Centre for Intelligent Design (CID) in Glasgow, Scotland. I posted a little about it "So there is nothing religious about ID? Part III", "That didn't take long UK Intelligent Design meet US Intelligent Design" and "It is about time we got even!" Well He had a little opinion piece published in the Guardian called "Finding Design in Nature" and it's filled with it's usual tripe. He says:

"My contention is that 'the purposeful arrangement of parts' to achieve a specific purpose is the criterion that enables us to recognise design. I argued that the conclusion of design in the bacterial flagellum and in many other biological systems is no different from discerning it for a mousetrap or a Ford Mondeo"

Here is my issue with his definition of Intelligent Design and it's with the word 'purposeful and purpose'. Exactly what does a 'purposeful arrangement of parts to achieve a purpose' say about itself? That it serves a purpose. That's it! So what exactly does that say about the origin of a cell, or any biological component? Absolutely nothing. What he is trying to do is muddy the waters and make people think that because something has a purpose it could not have possibly come about except through being arranged for that purpose. But he offers no support for having a purpose requires a intended purposeful arrangement. If you disagree then please let me know what support he provided that shows the pieces and parts were arranged IN ORDER to achieve that specific purpose. That's what he says -- but that isn't what he supports or provides evidence. I don't see it, I see his argument as conjecture with a side-order of wishful thinking. The other comment of his I find funny is:

"So what makes Intelligent Design fundamentally different from Darwinism? The Darwinian view which dominates biology holds that the design we all see in life is merely illusory and that life is essentially a blind and purposeless phenomenon. Intelligent Design claims that the design is real and demonstrable; we are left to draw our own conclusions about the implications."

The part that cracks me up is a frequent Creationist strawman. Evolution does not say 'blind and purposeless', what evolution says is that there are parts that are undirected, like Random Mutation. But when it comes to Natural Selection, there is a great deal of 'driven by environment' in the selection of the traits that offer survival and reproductive advantages. Behe only wants you to think about Evolution being blind and purposeless because if he admitted the truth, it would undercut his less-than-well-supported arguments.

But Behe isn't the only target of this little post. Recently William "Wild Bill" Dembski had a change of heart, or he lost his mind, and switched from being an OEC to a YEC, that is his frequently voiced support for an Old Earth has changed camps to join the Young Earthers. I posted about it in "Wild Bill and his sidekick Glenn Beck-erhead". Well what I apparently missed was the reason for his latest disregard for scientific evidence. Apparently those "open-minded" YEC's he works with over at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary can't possible have someone on staff that isn't toeing the ideological line. So Dembski finding himself possibly unemployed yet again (Remember when Baylor sent him home?) he quickly quickly disregarded years of OEC support to keep his job. Panda's Thumb has a lovely post about it "But it’s all about the science …". They highlighted a Dembski quote that I just have to repeat here:

“In a brief section [of his book] on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part,” Dembski wrote. “Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do.”

This, in my opinion, is Dembski being Dembski and trying to skate around years of Old Earth support and trying to make it sound like his changing camps is no big deal. For a change he isn't trying to claim expertise he doesn't have. But his stating that there is 'Exegetical, Historical, and Theological' work that he needs to do is a bit foolish to me. Along with Panda's Thumb, I have to ask why isn't he going to do quite a bit of Geological work as well? But then the answer hit me. Dembski has absolutely no interest in heading down the path of science. It would again put him at odds with his employers. Someone who identifies himself as one of Dembski's students said this:

"As a student at SWBTS currently, and knowing Dr. Dembski through his writings and as my professor . . . his views are extremely conservative. Indeed, he repeatedly stated that he wanted to see theology as the "queen of the sciences" again, guiding all of our disciplines.

I think if we were honest, most of us would admit that we don't have the scientific background to really understand half of what he says. . . . If this is about "new earth" vs "old earth" being accepted Baptist orthodoxy, we are going to see many of our respected Christian scientists, mathematicians, etc. abandon our fellowship if we cannot allow for an old earth."

Division in the ranks, I hope the student covered himself or he might find himself on one side of a Dembski-ish inquisition.

Now last and, as usual, least little casey luskin. Luskin again attempts to put on a lab coat and posts on the DI news site (They call it a blog, but they do not allow any comments, so it's a news site). "Does Intelligent Design Help Science Generate New Knowledge"and here is a summary of the great work he thinks is inspired by intelligent Design:

ID has inspired scientists to do research which has detected high levels of complex and specified information in biology in the form of fine-tuning of protein sequences.
ID has inspired scientists to seek and find instances of fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to allow for life, leading to a variety of fine-tuning arguments including the Galactic Habitable Zone.
ID has inspired scientists to understand intelligence as a scientifically studyable cause of biological complexity, and to understand the types of information it generates.
D has inspired both experimental and theoretical research into how limitations on the ability of Darwinian evolution to evolve traits that require multiple mutations to function.
ID has inspired theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.

OK, that's enough. If you want to get bored you can go look at the rest of them. They are equal part obfuscation and pretty wordy pseudoscience. First of all I would like to comment on who are all these 'scientists' he claims are being inspired? Douglas D. Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Richard v. Sternberg . . .. Anyone else see a trend? These people don't need inspiration from Intelligent Design, these are fellow members of the Discovery Institute that are busy trying to market ID. Now if ID was actually an inspiration, casey, how about a list of real scientists who are inspired -- but who are not already fervent believers in ID? That would be an interesting list -- but of course it would be an empty one. The best you have been able to do is a list of 700 people, some of which are scientists, few are biologists, that think questioning Darwin's work is a good idea. the list doesn't support, nor was it inspired by ID -- even though your buds at the DI tried to make it sound that way during the Dover trial.

Of course little casey has to start off with a huge assumption

"It's important to realize that when dealing with historical sciences like neo-Darwinian evolution or intelligent design . . ."

Um, since when is 'Intelligent Design' science? Plus just what the hell is a 'historical science'? He never goes into that. he just makes his statement without any actual support and assumes it to be factual.

Do any of his comments address HOW Intelligent Design inspired all this? Or any of the open questions about Intelligent Design, like the identity of the Designer, that mythical designer that could clear this mystery up in a second -- if only there was support for the existence of the 'officially' unidentified designer.

Well of course anything casey writes needs to be subjected to the 'giggle test', that means if you can get through it without giggling, someone else wrote it for casey.

More soon because I certainly would like to comment on the counter suit by the California ScienCenter over the broken contract to show an ID film. Apparently they were 'helped' by the Discovery Institute and even little casey might get deposed. And I need to catch up and see if there is anything new on the David Coppedge case. It downed on me that I haven't heard a thing lately. After Coppedge filed his suit the DI's various mouthpieces had a flurry of posts supporting him . . . and then it tapered off to nothing! I wonder if they actually know something or they are simply being shy of supporting yet another loser.

Louisiana Politics over Science

2010-11-11T23:23:00.008-05:00

The lovely State of Louisiana is under yet another attack on its education system, this time about its choice for Biology Textbooks. Please note that as part of a regular process a State appointed review committee has already finished and recommended several Earth Science and Biology texts. The decision by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) was delayed because of comments made about the presence of Evolution in the texts.

You might remember that something similar has happened in Texas and also South Carolina. In fact it really does parallel South Carolina (Ms. Kristin Maguire strikes) when the newly elected president of the state school board brought in two shills to make negative comments about the biology textbooks up for approval and dragged out the process for months while she held public hearings. In that case common sense and science won. In this case a panel called the 'Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council', which even the Advocate refers to as a 'little known' panel, gets to weigh in with a recommendation. Where was this panel on all the other textbooks already approved?

The contention, voiced by members of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) -- drafters of the poorly named ‘Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA)’ -- is that there is too much Evolution in the textbooks presented for approval. Oh isn't that just too bad! A science textbook that presents a scientific theory is just too much for the LFF. But then when your own website says:

"It is our mission to persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking."

I can see why any mention of evolution makes them uncomfortable.

A couple of other responders to the issue complained about a noticeable lack of Intelligent Design! Well I certainly hope so, or Louisiana would be facing a Dover-style smack-down. Sorta like 1987 with Edwards v. Aguillard and also in 2002 when the BESE voted against the LFF's proposal to insert evolutionary disclaimers in textbooks.

Well not everyone in Louisiana is in favor of changing the textbook recommended by the original committee. The Advocate also published an opinion piece in favor of science over politics. I loved this:

"But it is the duty of the committee members not to be politicians — a couple of the members are state legislators — or representatives of public opinion. The committee members have a duty to reject intrusion of pseudo-science, such as creationism or its offshoot “intelligent design,” into science classrooms."

The comments with that article were almost all in favor of science, except for one who did the standard Creationist misrepresentation of what is a scientific theory.

Just a note, apparently the State Legislators in question are also the two who introduced the aforementioned LSEA to each of the Legislative houses. I think the cards are stacked against a quality education in Louisiana. I am not the only one concerned. One of my favorite reporters, Lauri Lebo over on Religious Dispatches, "Louisiana Citizens Horrified that there’s Evolution in Science Books" asked

"Anybody want to place a bet on what the panel will recommend?"

There may actually be some good news. Just today The Advocate reported

"A state advisory panel voted 8-4 Friday afternoon to endorse a series of high school science textbooks that have come under fire for how they describe evolution."

As expected 2 of the “no” votes were cast by Senate Education Committee Chairman Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, and House Education Committee Vice-Chairman Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe. Nevers and Hoffman were the chief sponsors of the LSEA in the Louisiana Senate and House of Representatives back in 2008.

We still need to keep an eye on this since this is only a recommendation and the actual final approval is slated for next month by the BESE. I am sure other LFF proponents will be campaigning, but hopefully with the original recommendations made by the committee who reviewed new textbooks being upheld by the Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council will have sufficient weight. I wonder how long it will take the Discovery Institute to spin up a response -- or maybe they are still gun shy of Louisiana ever since Livingston Parish elected to go the Creationism route and avoid the bad idea known as Intelligent Design.

Do Teachers Have Free Speech?

2010-11-10T12:09:00.004-05:00

I guess the underlying question is does anyone really have 'Free Speech'? Before answering, I want to tell you a story of sorts.

When I was in the USAF, we had what we called 'Free Speech with limitations'. It sounds weird, but think about it. According to the precepts of free speech I should be able to tell my commander to 'pound sand'. The reality is that sure I could do so, but I had to be willing to face the consequences -- which could have included jail time, discharge, fines . . .. So in reality I did not have free speech as a member of the US Military. And it made perfect sense to me -- and still does. While the idea of free speech is fine, you always have to be willing to accept the consequences. Even in the civilian world, you aren't allowed to walk into a theater and yell 'Fire!'. Oh you can do it, but there better be a fire or the consequences of the ensuing panic will fall heavily on your shoulders.

So let's take this argument back to teachers. Do teachers have free speech? Well outside of the classroom they have the same free speech we all share. But I am talking inside the classroom? Do they?

According to John Freshwater, the Mt Vernon Teacher who is central to a long running trial in which he was fired for a variety of things, including teaching Creationism in violation of the district standards. One of his points was that the district’s restrictions on his classroom behavior violated his free speech rights. So at a time when his trial(s) are winding down, the question remains, does a teacher in the performance of their duties have free speech?

Well as reported on one of my favorite blogs, Panda's Thumb, the answer is No! According to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The appellate panel in Cincinnati upheld a lower court’s ruling for the Tipp
City [Ohio] Exempted Village School District, writing that the right to free
speech “does not extend to the in-class speech of teachers in primary and
secondary schools made ‘pursuant to’ their official duties.”"

This ruling and the 'free speech with limitations' makes perfect sense to me. Teachers in primary and secondary schools face an audience who has not learned the detail about any subject to understand enough to actually filter out inappropriate materials. As a result, the impressionable nature of students at that level mean the teachers should not be given free reign to teach anything they want.

This is why there are standards, and why teachers should be held to them -- regardless of any other beliefs or opinions. Noted in the ruling itself

"Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which states that when
government employees speak "pursuant to their official duties," they are "not
speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes."

Again, this makes perfect sense to me. Outside of the classroom a teacher has the same freedom of speech as any other citizen of the US. But inside that classroom, in pursuant to their official duties, a teacher does not and should not! And if they try and assert that they do, they should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. In Mr. Freshman's case, getting fired.

There was a little aside at the end of the ruling:

"The 6th Circuit also ruled that the "academic freedom" concept does not protect
curricular speech at the high-school level, because the notion was conceived and
applied in universities to protect teachers who are also researchers or
scholars."

This one makes me a little concerned. I've discussed 'Academic Freedom' many times in here and I believe that High School teachers should have the same rights as college professors to introduce controversial material -- as long as such material is within the curriculum guidelines set by the school boards. The way this is worded seems to remove that arrow from high school teachers quiver and can be mis-used to avoid presenting materials simply based on the fact they are controversial. Climate change and Creationism comes to mind. Yes, they are controversial subjects, but Climate Change should be part of every Earth Science class today. Unlike Creationism, which while socially and politically controversial, is not a scientific subject and should not be protected by academic freedom policies at any level. This little additioin to the ruling might need a little more thought. Any ideas?

So what exactly is 'Junk' DNA?

2010-11-08T13:07:00.010-05:00

Here is something I mentioned in the last post, "DI's knee-jerk anti-ID whine" and it's one of those terminology word games the less-than-honest fellows at the Discovery Institute like to use. They seem to think that scientists decades ago wrote off 'Junk DNA' as junk. It sounds good, because like their mistreatment of the words 'theory', 'belief', and 'academic freedom', all they tend to do is try and confuse folks. Now why in the world would the DI not care if people understood the truth? Because having folks know the truth is not something that will help the DI's marketing and fund raising schemes.

So what is 'Junk DNA'? Back about 40 years ago a real scientist, geneticist and evolutionary biologist Susumu Ohno, coined the term to identify portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function had been identified. Please note it wasn't to claim that a function would never be identified, nor was it that there was no function, but that at the time "no discernible function had been identified."

Today 'Junk DNA' is considered an obsolete term because many advances over the last 40 years has identified functions for what used to fall under that label. Who still uses the term? Popular press certainly does, and so does the various Creationists who are looking to discredit real science -- and doing a pretty lousy job! I mean using a 40-year old out-of-date term is a pretty poor job of discrediting something, right?

So now let's look briefly at more of the facts, something the DI tends not to do. If actual biologists had considered large portions of a genome to be junk -- as in worthless -- who was it that made these advances in identifying functions for previously unidentified parts of a genome? Was it those hard-working Intelligent Design scientists? Anyone ever seen a hard-working ID 'Scientist'? The very few ID proponents who are actual scientists are too busy marketing to be doing any actual work.

So what is the ID proponent supposed to do? Well if you are a typical ID proponent, like those 'fellows' at the DI, you sit back on your well-funded ass and claim that each discovery by real scientists could 'hypothetically' be used as a prediction to support Intelligent Design. Of course putting the word 'hypothetically' in front of their prediction means they don't actually have to make a prediction and they can't be blamed if it doesn't come true.

In the mean time scientists -- using evolutionary theory, science, and scientific methodologies -- keep expanding our knowledge of the genome and finding many purposes for what was not identified 40 years ago. I think this identifies a cornerstone of trouble for the DI. I mean while they are busy marketing and failing to provide support for their pet ideas, science keeps pushing the boundaries of our knowledge forward and they get further and further behind the proverbial eight-ball.

Such a nice thought -- casey and friends running away from a giant eight-ball as they head toward the only shelter, labeled 'Science'. The sad thing is that unlike the DI, there won't be a lock on the door. All are welcome, providing you shed your religious-based preconceptions and are willing to work using an actual methodology. Personally I think the 8-ball would get them!

DI's knee-jerk anti-ID whine

2010-11-07T22:37:00.007-05:00

One of the more common posts over on the Discovery Institute 'website' are those whining about other people not 'explaining' Intelligent Design correctly. It happened yet again with "Correcting Kirk Fithzhugh's Misunderstandings About Intelligent Design".

Why is it that when anyone writes something critical of intelligent design they are pretty much guaranteed to received such a whine. What's interesting is that rarely does the DI responder address the issues raised by the writer, but spend an inordinate amount of time whining about their definition. Now if casey was fair, he would have stopped this particular line:

"It's important to note that Dr. Fitzhugh should have every right hold, publish, and discuss his views that dissent from ID in the public square and within the scientific community."

In all honesty, if he really is free to do this, casey should just slink away. But of course that never happens. The DI has to respond, because they really have nothing else. So here is my point. For years now actual scientists have been asking for the DI to . . . well let me quote Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU again:

"They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

If the Discovery Institute would only support their ideas with actual work, this whole definitional issue would disappear. But no! Since ID proponents keep moving the goal posts, and since they also have both their official definitions -- and personal definitions (as evidenced when Behe identified the designer, unofficially -- and he is not the only one to do so) it is no wonder that people rarely agree with the definition of the moment as published by the DI-mouthpiece-on-call who respond to the many articles critical of ID.

What is casey's specific whine, he is still playing the 'official' line that ID doesn't address the supernatural. Since when? Certainly not when Behe had to expand the definition of science to include supernatural causation in order to include ID. Not when Johnson wrote the Wedge strategy document. Not during presentations where multiple ID proponents identified the Christian God as the intelligent designer. So little casey's whine is just that, an incessant noise conveying no actual information.

Now the rest of his little post, where his quotes one of his personal heros, Steven C. Meyer. Well early in his post he asks a question

"Would they [criticisms of ID] cut against his own Darwinian viewpoint, if they were applied fairly?"

But then he doesn't bother to assess current science, scientific methodology, not even scientific philosophy. So once again he starts a point that should summarize one of his issues with what was said critiquing ID, and then he heads off in a completely different direction and nit-picks one other comment on the testability of ID. Fine, if that's what he wants to play, let's look at the other part of his whine.

"His criterion for testability is that "When causal conditions of type x occur, effects of type y will occur." ID easily meets this standard. When intelligent agents act, high levels of CSI are generated. "

Does it really? Has the existence of intelligent agents been supported by any evidence? Has CSI (Complex and Specified Information) been supported by any evidence? The answer to both questions is a resounding 'No they have not'. So let me get this straight, casey claims that ID meets the testability criterion by invoking a non-existent agent who uses a 'level' of a non-existent concept. Gee, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Well casey finishes this particular bit of nastiness with a change to a different tactic, co-opting evidence.

"Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (i.e., complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions."

OK, (1) without his little parenthetical addition is something discovered and well explained with evolutionary theory. Of course he had to add the '(i.e., complex and specified information)' as if this is a actual scientific concept rather than ID proponent wishful thinking.

(2) is a lie. Forms have appeared in the fossil record and most were preceded by similar precursors. In fact as we discover more fossils, many of those that didn't appear to have a precursor do now. This is just a typical 'God-of-the-gaps' argument that doesn't stand the test of time well. I know someone reading this will think about the 'Cambrian Explosion', however while a 'explosion' that lasted 50-70 million years might not be extremely explosive, many of the forms that the DI likes to claim 'appeared' have clear precursors from the Ediacaran Period.

(3) More already understood part of evolutionary theory.

(4) Scientists rarely called parts of a genome to which we didn't have an identified purpose 'junk', as in useless or unused. Scientists have been adding functionality to many parts of various genomes not previously identified. Tell me one example of an ID 'scientist' actually filling one of these perceived gaps? I don't know of one and I don't plan on holding my breath.

See what I mean, casey is trying to co-opt known science for supporting ID -- and yet offers nothing in addition. How do any of these hypothetical predictions actually support ID? What in the world makes him think that just because he thinks they will be successful predictions, they would in fact support ID?

casey also tried to change tactics as well. Remember He accused Kirk Fithzhugh of setting a standard that could not be applied to evolutionary theory -- and yet tried to grab existing evidence for evolution and claiming they would also support ID -- without explaining how or why they would do so. More fertilizer from casey and his buds. Color me unimpressed!

New planet -- 'Dawinian' Astronomy?

2010-10-31T21:20:00.008-04:00

Anyone who reads this blog knows my opinion of casey luskin, the lawyer who seems never to get his facts straight. Well I refrain from commenting on him most weeks, but in my opinion, he reached a new low -- something I really didn't think possible.

So what did casey do now? Oh nothing much, he just opened his mouth. He noticed that there had been a few articles reporting on the discovery of at least one extra-solar planet that may be able to support life. I assume someone pointed them out to him because I doubt he actually reads scientific articles all by himself.

His problem starts with the very title of his article, which is what caught my eye. "Darwinian Assumptions Leave "No Doubt" About Extraterrestrial Life". OK, since you already know my feeling of the use of the words 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinist', you can also add the word 'Darwinian'. Let's be clear, while someone else might actually be commenting on something Darwin said or did, when casey, and his ilk, use these words, they are using them as invective. You can almost see him spitting it out as he says it.

OK, so after reading his post, I went looking for the comments by a biologist that raised his toothless ire -- and guess what -- I couldn't find them. He was whining about a comment made by Astronomer Steven Vogt, and referring to him as an 'evolutionary scientist'. For the record, Dr. Vogt is a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California. So the question is just where did little casey make the evolutionary connection?

In all honesty, I think casey's buddy Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Priviledged Planet", might have written an article about having another planet perfectly placed for life and tried to align Professor Vogt with his camp of pseudo-scientists. But no, luskin makes a connection here that is completely unsupported by the two articles luskin linked to himself.

So just what did the Professor say? During a press conference he offered a personal opinion:

"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent,"

So why does casey make it sound like the professor was making a scientific pronouncement? One of the many things I find amusing is that casey is the freaking lawyer and prone to play word games. Here the professor is offering a personal opinion and casey take exception! So I guess a scientist isn't allowed to offer personal opinions . . .Ummmm so all those popular press books and articles written by Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and Meyer -- which offer NOTHING but personal opinion -- I guess by casey's current standards, they should have never been published at all! But then we know the history of casey, the Discovery Institute, and double standards!

Just in case maybe casey knows something I don't, I went and found the professor's website and looked up his academic background:

A.B., Physics, U.C. Berkeley, 1972
A.B., Astronomy, U.C. Berkeley, 1972
M.S., Astronomy, U. of Texas at Austin, 1976
Ph.D., Astronomy, U. of Texas at Austin, 1978

Not a biology degree in the bunch. So what am I left to think? Before casey's article, I would have assumed that when anyone from the Discovery Institute uses the term 'evolutionary scientist' they meant a biologist who acknowledged evolutionary theory. Now that seems to be too narrow an interpretation. Since Professor Vogt is an Astronomer, who as far as I know hasn't addressed the issue of evolution, I can only assume that now an 'evolutionary scientist' is a scientist of any discipline who has not drank the Intelligent Design kool-aid and became a fellow over at the DI.

I also think the one making an assumption isn't Vogt, but casey, and its an assumption that I doubt he realized he was making. He assumed that Professor Vogt is not an Intelligent Design proponent. But then I realized that casey and I have found our first item of agreement. The odds of a scientist of any discipline being an Intelligent Design proponent are so low, that making this assumption is pretty much a given. I mean the Discovery Institute has a tiny handful of folks, most of which are not biologists but lawyers and philosophers. When you compare their numbers to the vast list of actual scientists, they do get lost in the crowd. So casey does say something that ends up making some level of sense, but I am pretty sure he does this by accident.

Wild Bill and his sidekick Glenn Beck-erhead

2010-10-22T08:51:00.007-04:00

PZ Myers on Pharyngula, Lauri Lebo on Religion Dispatches, and Jack Krebs on Panda's Thumb are among the posts reporting something that should surprise very few. William Dembski is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). Gee! Who'd have thunk it!

It is funny that the man who several times has predicted the demise of Evolution within 10 years has undergone his own transformation within that same time limit. Yes, in 2000 he wrote an essay saying he was NOT, emphatically not, a YEC because the evidence of an old Earth was so strong, and now, just 10 years later, he announces that. . . as Jeff Foxworthy would put it "He are one!" My question is how is this going to help his credibility the next time he announces the decennial demise of Evolutionary Theory? (Head Smack!) Of course, since he has absolutely no credibility there is no impact.

I guess a second question is how will this sit with his Discovery Institute's lords and masters? I mean they tend to bend over backwards to appease the members of their 'big tent' approach and avoid internal conflicts until they can rid the world of evolution. Billy switching camps might create some internal conflict -- we can always hope. Will Billy's next fluff piece still support Michael Behe who, as far as I know, is not only not a YEC but a supporter of Common Descent? This might be fun.

On a side note, PZ's link also has connection to a Glenn Beck-erhead radio interview where he, once again, reveals to the world his colossal ignorance of anything scientific. There's another surprise. That Glenn is also a died-in-the-blood Creationist, as if his earlier rants weren't already pretty indicative. What does surprise me is how he expressed it. The script might as well have been written by kennie ham. Becker-head says that he's never seen a half-monkey/half-man and asks why haven't other species evolved into humans, and several other inanities that do nothing but show how little he knows.

Now I know all Glenn is doing is pandering to his core audience -- who will continue to make him wealthy by buying his junk and attending his shows. But even he has to realize just how stupid it makes him look. With any luck he might lose a few supporters and then he and Wild Bill can commiserate over a beer.

Thanks to Jack, Lauri, and PZ for highlighting all the fun and games. Now to get some popcorn and watch for fallout. Who will be first? Will Dembski try and weasel his way out of it? Will a mouthpiece for the DI tell us how Dembski's change is no big deal? Will kennie ham ever come out of the closet? Will Glenn Beck-erhead continue to spout about nothing at all? Stay tuned!

Labels, labels, and more labels

2010-10-19T23:05:00.006-04:00

Just recently there seems to be a spate of blog posts about labeling, particularly those who oppose religion dressed up in a lab coat. Accomodationalists, confrontationalists, diplomats, firebrands . . . the list seems to be endless. What I was wondering about is where did I fall?

Here, you go. Check out these articles:

The always delightful Blag Hag, Jen McCreight, Firebrands, Comfrontationalists, Accommodationists, oh my! Who created an interesting graphic that started my musing.
PZ Myers and his Pharyngula blog, another frequent reference, Confrontation all the way
And on Thoughts from Kansas, Joshua Rosenua, A Prak-tical guide to confrontationalism and accommodationism
And the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta ,How Pushy Should Atheists Be?

So there I was, or was I . . . hey, hey I mean in the terms of the subject I write about. Don't get sidetracked :-)

Am I trying to be diplomatic and accommodating, or do I lean more toward confrontation. In all honestly, I don't know. You might be able to tell me more than I can see it for myself. In trying to figure this minor puzzle I read back through many of my posts and the one subject I really don't discuss all that often is religion. Mostly I seem to let people believe what they wish.

So rather than apply an existing, or even a new label, here is where I think I fit in.

I am for science and against religion abuse.

Because when I see the tactics and comments of people and groups like little kennie ham, the whole crowd at the Discovery Institute, dembski's uncommon descent commentary (it's not a blog), ICR, ARN, and the like what I see is a group using religion for their own gain. I don't care what they claim, they are abusing the idea of a religion!

These people have a set of beliefs . . . so what. I really don't care what they want to believe in. That's a personal decision and it should remain so. No one in the world is ever going to be able to prove one religion's position in regard to another. It's never going to happen! However what they want is for me to believe the same thing -- and they are willing to lie to me, spend other peoples' money in order to convince me, and suborn politicians and school board members for their own belief system. That is an abuse!

When you abuse it, I am going to point that out to you and anyone who wants to read this blog. When you lie, misrepresent, or try and 're-interpret' science in the name of your religious beliefs, I, and many others, are going to point it out. When you BS some pandering politician, I plan on being there to help shed light on your behavior. You may see it as confrontational, especially ID'iots like luskin and ham, others may think I should be more accommodating. Maybe I should, but my issue is science and science education and the protection of such. If I discuss religion it will more than likely be in identifying yet another abuse in the name of someone else's religious belief!

As long as religion stays out of science class, that works for me. it might be a bit more focused than some, but to each their own. I might change my mind as I get to know more and more incredibly close-minded theists -- but right now they tend to be entertaining.

ACSI v. Stearns finale

2010-10-19T22:31:00.007-04:00

I just realized, as I read this release, that I haven't commented on this issue before. I feel remiss in my self-assigned duties and responsibilities as a blogger in not having done so. So today I briefly pick up a baton, even though the race appears over. But you know me, I can't resist making glue.

The NCSE has announced

"Creationist lawsuit flops: UC's admission standards upheld. The Supreme Court declined to review Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns, affirming the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling that the University of California did not violate the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian high schools whose coursework was deemed inadequate preparation for college." (italics added)

For those of you unfamiliar the case, it boiled down to a public universities in California upholding their academic standards and refusing to accept pseudo-science as an acceptable alternative to science in applying for admission and granting credit. More specifically the Association of Christian Schools International was suing because the California University Admission system wouldn't allow high school biology courses that use creationist textbooks as credit for college preparatory biology courses. A federal court and the 9th Circuit Court agreed on appeal that the texts were "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." The plaintiffs star witness, a familiar name -- Michael Behe, didn't seem to be able to sway anyone. There's a shock. So Michael is now 0 for 2?

This one went all the way up to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it. In legalese-speak that means there is no issue and the lower court was correct. Yea!

I am sure many colleges have been facing this issue. I know it was also a complaint in Mt Vernon, Ohio, from high school biology teachers who found themselves having to re-teach basic biology to students of John Freshman, a teacher currently suing for being fired for doing several things, including teaching Creationism/ID, causing bodily harm burning crosses into students arms, and also lying to investigators. The latest chapter in that saga might actually be coming to a close. You can follow it, and read the entire history, over on Panda's Thumb.

Simply put, if Creationist schools want to be on par with public schools, they have to at least teach the minimum standards in all curriculum areas. Why is this so hard to understand? If they refuse, it's not a violation of civil or constitutional rights, it's not about free speech or freedom of religion, and it's certainly not some sort of 'viewpoint discrimination'. It's about the science!

Imagine what would have happened if the case was overturned? Suddenly any piece of pseudo-science junk because the legal equivalent of the appropriate college textbook? How insane would that be. I can see it now, "What do you mean I am unqualified, I read "The Psychic Handbook" and I am as qualified as anyone who took a Psychology class!"

Nice to know that the Supreme Court didn't bother wasting its time. I only wish the Creationist schools had been trying to teach Intelligent Design. That might have been a stake through the heart of the Discovery Institute at the same time harpooning Creationism. Oh well, maybe for Christmas.

Intelligent Design Tolerance

2010-10-18T23:17:00.003-04:00

Over on the Discovery Institute (DI) mis-information page casey luskin has taken up a common theme - 'Viewpoint Discrimination'. You can read it, but it really doesn't say much more than his normal rant. My question is does ID deserve tolerance?

SMU recently hosted a screening of 'Darwin's Dilemma', the same film luskin is whining about. I don't really care about the film, but something that happened at the end of the meeting at SMU:

"At the end of the presentation Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute thanked the “SMU administration” for hosting the event. That is just another lie. The SMU Administration had nothing to do with the seminar."(http://faculty.smu.edu/jwise/big_problems_with_intelligent_design.htm)

This is the SAME tactic they used at the end of the original meeting at SMU in 1992.

Let me be clear, what SMU supports is Free Speech. At no point did the administration or faculty sponsor either of these events. They simply allow campus organizations, like the campus ministry, to use facilities as an exercise in free speech. I respect them for it. But what I do not respect is the DI trying to even imply that the administration had some hand in supporting the event.

The DI, and by connection their pet idea of Creationism/ID doesn't not suffer from 'viewpoint discrimination' nor does it deserve any sort of 'tolerance'. Remember the "How to respond to requests to debate Creationists" post and Professor Nicholas Gotelli's response to a request to 'sponsor' a debate on the campus of University of Vermont, his hilarious response!

This is not a discrimination issue of any kind. It's the DI trying to use their typical disreputable tactics to push their religious agenda. When the Cincinnati Zoo discontinued their business relationship with kennie ham's folly, the Creation 'Museum', it didn't stop the 'Museum' from selling tickets, it did prevent kennie from claiming a relationship with a scientific organization. That is the same tactic the DI tried with SMU at the end of each of the meetings there.

When an organization resorts to such tactics, anyone has to be careful in any sort of involvement -- it's not discrimination, but common sense. As Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU recently said:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

One of the things we have been asking for is such transparency -- but that's apparently not on the DI's agenda.