'Weeding Out' Does Not Mean Actual Weeds -- Unless You Work For the Discovery Institute

As usual, the Discovery Institute can't seem to keep their stories straight.  Check out: "On Controversial Science, Skepticism Is Now “Social Deviance,” Skeptics Are “Weeds”"  That isn't what the 'offending' article said, but it did say we need to 'weed out' people who would fill roles in the wrong way.  Here's the quote the DI used:

"Requiring [mandatory evolution training] it though would, for one, provide teachers “with more confidence to teach evolution forthrightly,” they write, “even in communities where public opinion is sympathetic to creationism”; and two, it would help weed out creationists who want to teach high school biology by either converting them or encouraging them to “pursue other careers.”"

The DI's talking head, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, responds with:

"Look, I wouldn’t want my kids taught creationism either, but the idea of casting human beings as “weeds” has an unhappy history."

Where does the first quote cast anyone as a weed?  The phrase 'weed out' does not do that!  It's an expression, and if klingy was being honest he would recognize it as such.  Weeding out, as defined by Merriam-Webster is:

": to remove (people or things that are not wanted) from a group.  'They will review the applications to weed out the less qualified candidates.' "

I 'weed out' things all the time.

• Not too long ago it was a set of resumes, weeding out the ones who didn't have the required qualifications.  Sounds unfair, but when you have 100 resumes for 1 position, and most do not have any of the mandatory qualifications, you have to have some way of filtering through them because 100 interviews would be unwieldy.  Plus, why would you interview someone without a single qualification for a job?
• I also 'weeded out' companies several years ago when I was looking for a new job.  Does that mean the other companies who made me an offer were weeds?  No, just not the best fit for me at that time.  Now the ones who didn't make me an offer . . . oh never mind :-), just teasing.
•  In addition I 'weeded out' software application frameworks when we were looking for one for a new application.  There are plenty of frameworks, but only a few were serious contenders.  How much time were we supposed to waste on frameworks that can't possibly meet our needs?

Somehow I managed to do all that 'weeding out' without characterizing a single person, company, or product as a 'weed' -- something apparently beyond klingy's abilities.  So if I was looking for someone who could differentiate between an expression and a literal label, I guess I could weed out klingy!

Back to the example actually mentioned in the first quote and not klingy trying to drag us into the weeds of obfuscation, is the very idea of a Creationist teaching biology.  It's probably a bad idea if, and only if, the teacher would insist on teaching religion instead of actual biology.  Being a Creationist doesn't make you unable to do a job, but refusing to actually do the job certainly makes you unwilling to do the job and you should be held accountable -- as Abraham, Coppedge, and Freshwater, among others, found out.

Just because the article used the term 'weeding out' doesn't mean people who are skeptical of evolution are weeds.  The DI even had to stretch the story by a quote from 1924 to try and make their case.  As usual, they are quote-mining a dead horse.  There have been a number of 'weed' quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger, and according to Snopes.com, nearly all of them are crap.  They found that she may have used the term, but metaphorically, not literally.  I noticed he didn't complain that Sanger may have called American Youth 'flowers'?  Yes, Sanger was a controversial figure in her day, even today.  But this little maybe 'quote' is just another tactic, trying to tie actual science to someone controversial.  You might have noticed that klingy also brought in the Nazi's  . . . again.  Don't they get tired of this sort of nonsense?  Anyone else want to hazard a guess why no one takes klingy, or the Discovery Institute, seriously?  One reason might be writings like this.

But, as usual, the DI misses the point and tried to spin it into something it's not.  Skepticism and Denial-ism are two separate things.  People who are skeptical question, consider, and usually think about the subject at hand.  Deniers deny, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

A couple of year back, we discussed 'skepticism' before in "Skeptics vs Deniers, is there a difference?" in response to the NY Times article where they stopped using the term 'climate skeptic' and started using 'climate deniers' and we determined there is a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  A skeptic will be convinced when faced with the actual evidence of whatever they are skeptical about.  A denier will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is placed before them and if they have to go look for themselves, you know they will rarely make the effort.  It's easier to deny than face the possibility you are wrong.  You see it in anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and most certainly in evolution deniers.

For example, I was skeptical that 'sushi' will be something good to eat, until I actually tried a pretty wide variety of sushi -- Thanks Cathy -- and came to the conclusion I didn't like it.  The vinegar-tasting rice needed something to cut that taste, plus the texture of most raw seafood wasn't to my liking.  While the California Roll wasn't bad, if we go to any restaurants that offer sushi, I make sure it has a wider menu than just sushi or sashimi.  I was a skeptic, now I am simply not a fan.  Denial-ism doesn't work that way.

A denier, most likely, wouldn't have given sushi a try -- even if they had, they would come out of the place not being skeptical, but actively not wanting other people to have a chance to even try it.  A denier wants to make the decision for everyone!  Look at anti-vaxxers whose refusal to allow their kids to be vaccinated while ignoring the risk to hurting other children!  Evidence of the success of vaccinations means nothing to a vaccination denier.

Referring to a denier as a 'social deviant', especially within the context the term was used is entirely appropriate.  It takes an Intelligent Design proponent to cast such aspersions as comparing them to prostitute and other criminals.  But let's look at the whole Wikipedia quote:

"Social deviants"—prostitutes, vagrants, alcoholics, drug addicts, open dissidents, pacifists, draft resisters and common criminals—were also imprisoned in concentration camps. The common criminals frequently became Kapos, inmate guards of fellow prisoners."

Did klingy forget to mention this quote was at the very end of the Wikipedia page on Holocaust Victims?  Of course not, that wouldn't play well.  This example of 'social deviants' is not a denier of scientific consensus, but anyone the Nazi's didn't like as an afterthought more than anyone else.  Only an intelligent design proponent would try and equate this to science denial.

Look at the Discovery Institute, they have gone well past the idea of skepticism, they are active science deniers of the highest order.  Not only do they deny the evidence supporting real science, but they keep trying to pretend they are scientists and want to insert their religious beliefs into the science classroom.  Failing that, their most current tactic is to offer political protection to teachers who do manage to teach their religious beliefs instead of the actual science they are supposed to be teaching.  The DI is not just skeptical of evolution, they deny it over and over again while trying to hide their religious agenda.

Why is this important?  Simple, skepticism can be addressed by actually examining the evidence.  Once you face the evidence, further refusals put you in denial, and denial-ism is dangerous.  Not only are deniers of science seeking political protection for their own views, their views can cause actual harm.  The most common example are the anti-vaxxers.  Evidence, again, shows over and over again that failing to have your children vaccinated results in increasing cases of preventable diseases -- occurring not just in the un-vaccinated children, but the vaccinated who interact with them.  Vaccinated children are less likely to develop the disease, but vaccination is not immunity.

One of my favorite bloggers, and biology teachers, Allison Campbell, wrote up this just recently: "1896, and the consequences of refusing the smallpox vaccine".  It's a prime example of dealing with skeptics, deniers won't change their mind, even if they bother to read it.  They already have all the answers they need, regardless of the human consequences.  Like all deniers, the DI doesn't care about the human consequences, as long as their religion wins the day.

Denials of evolution impact the environment, medicines, and medical treatments -- all well supported by the science of evolution!  Climate denial has resulted in a significant delay of examining possible methods for dealing with a potentially catastrophic problem -- one supported by all the evidence, unless your research is funding by an oil company.  Tobacco deniers caused million of dollars in medical costs, not to mention deaths, due to denying the dangers of tobacco for decades.  Gasoline lead-additive deniers also cost countless dollars in medical costs and deaths, even if we didn't call them deniers over the 40 year fight to get the lead out!  Science denial kills real people, not nearly as much as religion has over the centuries, but that's another discussion the DI keeps trying to avoid.

Skepticism is a rational response to validate the information before adopting it, but once you have been presented with the information, you are no longer a skeptic if you continue to argue against it, you are a denier, and your actions end up affecting much more than yourself.  Education is the key to dealing with skeptics, I'm not sure what the best way to deal with deniers may be, but, if history is any example, eventually deniers as a group discover how wrong they have been.  Oh, there will always be a few whining that cigarettes aren't harmful and lead in gasoline doesn't hurt anyone, but, for the most part, they get relegated to the crackpot status, like flat-earthers.  One day we will be able to look back and laugh even harder at folks like klingy.  In the meantime, I'll just laugh my normal laugh when I see he's made another post trying to muddy the waters.

BTW, klingy, 'muddy the waters' is another expression, you might look it up.  I haven't actually been casting dirt in water and stirring it up.  

The Discovery Institute 'Trumping' Fake News -- with Fake News

The Discovery Institute (DI) is starting to use the phrase 'Fake News' to label news articles they disagree with -- no matter how true the article may be . . . sound like someone else we all know.  In "Houston Chronicle, We’ve Got a Problem: Meet Fake News Reporter Andrea Zelinski" the DI refers to an experienced and award-winning reporter, Andrea Zelinski, as a 'fake news reporter.  What was her crime, nothing more than writing a story that the DI didn't like.

They say:

"Zelinski’s articles portrayed the science standards battle as a struggle to introduce creationism or intelligent design into Texas’s science curriculum."

As odd as it sounds, there are two definitions of 'fake news'.  Before very recent events 'fake news' was a term defined as the deliberate falsification of the news, the use of misinformation or the spreading of hoaxes.  Sites like Breitbart News and shows like the O'Reilly Factor were good examples of shows less interested in facts and more interested in bombast and sensationalism.  While some 'fake news' of this type was created for satire (The Onion, for example), much of it serves other purposes, such as marketing discredited ideas as if they were credible.

In recent months 'fake news' has also come to be used as a label making claims that a valid new article is untrue.  It has become a favorite term of a certain hamster-haired misogynist serial liar and his supporters. While it includes the word 'fake', people who apply that label tend to using it to claim a truthful, but damaging to them, story is false.  The reality seems have become that when something is labeled as 'fake news' is really means the opposite.

So which is it in this instance, is Zelinski a 'fake news reporter'?  To make that determination, we have to decide if calling the whole tactic of using re-worded science standards primarily a way of introducing Creationism into the science curriculum?

The wording was introduced in Texas under the auspices of none other than Don McLeroy, an avowed Creationist when he was the President of the Texas State Board of Education.  Before this time, he was very public in his religious views, particular in disavowing evolution, regardless of the scientific support. Just last week he even responded to one of my posts (And The Whining and Spinning About Texas Is On!), showing that he still hasn't learned anything about real science.

So, Don pushes for Creationism and doesn't get very far until he teams up with the Discovery Institute whose reason for living is pretty close to Don's.  Read the Wedge Strategy document if you think they are after something different than Don.  Don even invited two of them to 'help' draft the new science standards.

The Discovery Institute has been conducting a number of campaigns, all with the same goal (my underlines):

"The overarching goal of the Institute in conducting the intelligent design campaigns is religious; to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy)

"None of the campaigns are aimed at directly influencing the scientific community . . . but rather are focused on swaying the opinions of the public and public policy makers, which, if effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing the academic institutions supporting the scientific community to accept the Discovery Institute's redefinition of science. Public high school science curricula has been the most common and visible target of the campaigns, with the Institute publishing its own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis of Evolution." (Wikipedia:  Intelligent Design Campaigns)

So, a reporter, actually one of many reporters, in reporting the facts -- ties the changes to the science curriculum with ongoing efforts to replace science with religion . . . and the DI calls that 'fake news'.  Changing the wording that had been in place since 2009 has the opposite effect, as Zelinski put it:

"SBOE gives final OK to curb creationism language in science standards"

If the reporter really was reporting something false, the reporter, the publisher, and the owners of the newspaper would be open for a libel suit, but instead the DI simply tries to tell people that the reporter isn't reporting the truth . . . but the reality is not only is the reporter reporting the truth, but the reporter is reporting  the truth the Discovery Institute would rather like not to be reported (say that ten times real fast!).  They always hate when anyone reminds the world of their religion.  So the DI created a bit of 'fake news' of their own, by calling this report a 'fake news reporter'.

People now have to develop a new set of skills -- how to determine if a news source, particularly an online news source, is telling them anything resembling facts.  I try and use the old-fashioned method of checking the sources.  I rarely take anything a news source says at face value, I want to check multiple sources and validate the information the news source used.

For example, if I read news someone posted on Facebook, I am not only going to follow the link provided, but I am going to Google the pertinent parts of the story.  All too often links from Facebook are to fake news sites, nearly always ones that agree with the Facebook poster's personal philosophies.  What I am looking for are more objective links to sources that are more news than views.  The original poster usually posts the link without ever checking the validity of the information.

You might want to check out "News Bias . . . Yes, this is a real thing!"  We discussed the objectivity of various news sites a few months back.   Real reporters, like Andrea Zelinski, can help by doing exactly what they are doing -- their best to accurately report the news!  Just because you read something that agrees or disagrees with your opinions doesn't automatically make it true or false!  If you don't think this is am important skill to have, look at the 2016 election!  As Nancy Pelosi said recently about George W. Bush:

“I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again.”

Back on topic, we should applaud Andrea and the Houston Chronicle for not only reporting accurately, but annoying the DI at the same time!  She might be in the running for that august honor of the DI's 'Censor of the Year!'

And let the Whining Begin!

As predicted, a whine over Texas "Our Day in Austin, Defending Critical Analysis of Evolution". Here's a quote that tells me the Discovery Institute misses the point completely:

"When you identify a theory, you merely regurgitate information about it. There’s a place for that, of course. But when you evaluate you critically analyze. That’s a skill essential to doing good science."

High School science classes do not merely regurgitate information, that's a level of educational objective called 'Remembering'.  Yes, there is some of that because for a student to begin any level of understanding, they have to start with knowing something about the topic.  And example would be teaching students what the Theory of Evolution actually is.  But high schools do not end there, regardless of the DI's unsupported opinion.

The next level is called 'Comprehending', which goes much deeper and reaches a point where the student is understanding the information they have learned.  Examples are tracing how the Theory of Evolution was developed, what went into it on its path from concept to scientific theory, and the supporting evidence as to why it is the predominant biological theory today.  They gain an appreciation for not just a theory, but the process by which actual science is done.  But, once again, HS science classes do not stop there.

The third level is called 'Applying' where the students take the theories they have learned and gain a deeper understanding and apply them to classroom and real world experiences.  Everything from dissecting a frog and growing bacteria to building structures.  One class even held an environmental cleanup of a local stream and then the next several years the same teacher, with new groups of students, monitored how their clean-up affected the local fish population.  A group measured the effects of various mouthwashes on germs and bacteria common in the human mouth.  Their conclusions were that a specific commercially available mouthwash that marketed itself a a germ killer -- wasn't very good at it.  Another class used both scientific theories and the engineering principles created based on those theories to build a bridge capable of many more times it's own weight with just paper and Elmer's glue.

To be honest, that's pretty much where HS science leaves off, but isn't that enough?  Each level requires time and resources and the end result are students who not only know the basics of many scientific theories, but understanding them and have actually seen them in action or put them into action.  Isn't that the type of education you want at that level?

There are three more levels, the highest type of learning objective is the one this particular DI talking head is wanting students to reach, 'Evaluating'.  But rather than the cavalier attitude the DI places on 'evaluating', I would like you to think about what it takes to properly evaluate something.  We are not talking about taking a test, but to be able to compare and contrast the merits of multiple ideas.  We aren't just using an opinion here, but the level of detailed knowledge to pass judgment on various scientific theories.  HS science classes are not equipped to take things to that level.

But the DI thinks they are, one reason is because the DI never defines what an 'evaluation' is or how you do it.  Don't believe me, check out the DI's own "Educator's Briefing Packet" and show me where Evaluation is explained?  Oh it's mentioned, but how to do it, or even what it means, is never explained.  The DI just expected teachers to do it, I guess intuitively.  They don't explain it with their curricula page either.  While they do use the word in the College Student Guide to ID, they also never explain what it is or how to accomplish it.  Please note this last one is intended for college students, not high school!

As I said, and the DI's own pseudo-educational material seems to bear out, to properly evaluate a subject requires a great deal more time and resources than remembering, understanding, and applying require.  The educational objective for 'Evaluating' isn't appropriate for high school -- so the Texas education board is acting both properly and responsibly.  I hope more states realize that as they contemplate similar changes.

A Tentative Success in Texas!

Tentatively, it looks like the Texas school board voted to remove language sponsored by the Discovery Institute (DI), language designed to weaken science education!  Here's the article I just read: "State ed board reins in science standards hinting at creationism".  Here's a quote:

"The 15-member board voted unanimously to change language in its standards to take the pressure off teachers to delve deep in evaluating cell biology and DNA evolution."

As I mentioned in "Give Teachers in Texas a Fighting Change to Actually Teach Science!", requiring HS students to 'evaluate' scientific theories is not within the purview of high school.  To 'Evaluate' requires a depth of knowledge you aren't going to get in HS.  The DI loves throwing that word around, knowing full well to give students the tools needed to perform such an evaluation would consume resources unavailable to any high school in the country.

Think about it, why would they want HS students to perform such evaluations without them having the depth of knowledge required?  It's the only way they can push their pet version of Creationism  past the lack of  scientific validity that has kept it out of the science curriculum.  It creates an environment where an opinion is seen as viable as a scientific theory simply because the resources required to understand the difference are not present at the HS level.

Of course, the DI will claim these changes do not promote Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID).  If that was so, then why is the DI pushing so hard?  Have they published anything that really supports science education?  They like using those words, but when you look at it you see efforts to undermine existing science and the promotion of theistic concepts.  Look at the ID campaigns, teach a non-existent controversy, examine the strengths and weaknesses without identifying any actual weaknesses, an academic freedom campaign that has nothing to do with academic freedom . . ..

You can expect them to react with multiple whines.  In fact let me pop over to their Evolution 'news' and Views site and see if they have reacted just yet. . . . No, nothing yet.  There is a post from one of their 'senior disciples, Robert Marx, about the standards.  You remember Bobbie, he was one of the ones responsible for the fiasco of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Website at Baylor.

OK, enough.  It's good to know that Texas has started down a better path with a side benefit of irritating the DI.  Maybe the Texas board of ed can compete for the DI's 'Censor of the Year'.

Give Teachers in Texas a Fighting Change to Actually Teach Science!

My very first blog post, just over a decade ago, concerned the Great State of Texas (is Texas stepping backwards?), it was about the questionable action of firing your science curriculum head just before a science curriculum review because she did her job.  Over the years I have posted quite a bit about Texas, things like:

• The openly Creationist head of the State School Board
• Texas Governor wanting to teach Evolution and Creationism
• The Institute for Creation Research moving to Texas and trying to get permission to award Master degrees in Science (they failed).
• Two members of the Discovery Institute asked to 'help' develop science curricula by the head of the school board.
• Finally getting rid on that one avowed creationist and appointing another in his place.

Just to name a few posts.  Creationism advocates have been constantly working on turning Texas into a theocracy by any means possible.  A few years back they won a semi-victory -- they didn't win outright and get their dream of tossing Evolution completely out of the state, they did get to introduce wishy-washy terms that follow the DI's whole 'strengths and weaknesses' marketing campaign.

Well, the latest news is more positive.  The Texas School Board has a chance to remove that whole strengths and weaknesses wording from their standards.  Guess who doesn't like that idea?  The Discovery Institute (DI), of course.  Sarah Chaffee's turn to complain.  I'm sure little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer will follow-up like he usually does.  Sarah's post: "Texas Ed Board Pressured to Make It Harder for Teachers and Students to Evaluate Evolution Evidence".  I will say one thing for Sarah, when she toes the company line, she really toes that line.  Here is part of her opening:

"Amid much media and Darwin lobby pressure, the biology committee presented draft streamlined science standards in the fall. These streamlined standards removed good language from the 2009 standards that protected examination of evidence both for and against major origins issues — the fossil record and abrupt appearance, the origins of life, and the complexity of the cell."

So, according to Sarah, it's the media and Darwin lobby that apply pressure to change the science standards.  I guess the actions of the people who actually teach and work in biology doesn't matter, it's all the media's and lobbyists.  So . . . Creationists aren't being represented in the press and Creationist groups, like the Discovery Institute, aren't lobbying?  I think Sarah is doing a bit of cherry-picking here, don't you?

Here is where I think she gets a bit off track:

"The proposed change is a bad idea. Learning how to evaluate scientific explanations is a key skill needed by future scientists and citizens alike; and students are certainly capable of evaluating scientific claims under the guidance of a teacher. "

Teachers receive an education in 'Education', which includes something called Bloom's Taxonomy, which is a set of hierarchical models used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity.  These models are used in everything from lesson planning to building tests and setting evaluation criteria.  In the Cognitive Domain (knowledge-based) there are 6 levels, briefly stated these are:

• Remembering:  involves recognizing or remembering facts, terms, basic concepts, or answers without necessarily understanding what they mean. An example might be to name three common varieties of apple.
• Comprehending: involves demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating the main ideas.  An example - compare the identifying characteristics of a Golden Delicious apple with a Granny Smith apple.
• Applying: involves using acquired knowledge—solving problems in new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules. Learners should be able to use prior knowledge to solve problems, identify connections and relationships and how they apply in new situations.  As in would apples prevent scurvy, a disease caused by a deficiency in vitamin C?
• Analyzing: involves examining and breaking information into component parts, determining how the parts relate to one another, identifying motives or causes, and making inferences and find evidence to support generalizations. An example - list four ways of serving foods made with apples and explain which ones have the highest health benefits. Provide references to support your statements.
• Synthesizing: involves building a structure or pattern from diverse elements; it also refers to the act of putting parts together to form a whole. An example - convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing your choice of ingredients. Explain the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose vs. the original ones.
• Evaluating: involves presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas, or quality of work based on a set of criteria. An example - which kinds of apples are best for baking a pie, and why?

As you can see High School spends most of it's time working in the first three layers of the taxonomy, which can be explained as 'Remembering, Comprehending, and Using'. Analyzing, Synthesizing, and Evaluating are much more at the upper levels of education, including graduate studies. The committee is concerned that the evaluation of scientific explanations would take too much class time and require too much detailed knowledge on the part of students -- and they are right.

Seriously, look at the level of understanding it would take to Evaluate the validity of ideas based on a set of criteria.  Sarah, and her bosses, don't really want that -- which might explained why they never seem to give us any objective criteria about ID.  Actually many scientists, real working biologists, have examined the validity of ID and dismissed it.  Maybe Sarah and the DI do want high school-ers evaluating them?

While you might not think 'Evaluating' seems too complicated, let's just look at the simply example of which kinds of apples are the best for baking.  If we ask 10 different bakers, we would probably get 10 different answers.  So how do you evaluate such a question?  Let's start with how many variety of apples are there?  My local grocery store has about 12 depending on the season.  According to Wikipedia, there are over 7500 different varieties.

Think of the process we would have to go through to answer the question.  The collection of the apples and other ingredients, the formulation of a standard recipe -- remember apple pies are more than just apples -- then we would have to bake enough pies of the apples -- but if you wanted to do it right it's not just one type of apple per pie, but most often a mix.  So how many possible combinations would we have to test?  We would then have to establish a set of criteria and find a panel to judge the pies according to that criteria.  Think of the knowledge required, skill needed, and sheer amount of time you would have to have at your disposal to perform an actual evaluation, not Sarah's 'evaluation is easy, can be done with a little guidance from a teacher', no real education level Evaluation, with the upper-case 'E'.

Now if you weren't willing to go that route, what are you left with?  The Discovery Institute's favorite methodology, intuition.  Yes, the DI is the organization of Douglas Axe who wrote 'Undeniable', a religious book explaining how intuition is as valid a scientific tool as education, experience, and experimentation.  We've written about Doug, his religious tract, and intuition a number of times, I think the most recent was here.

So let's use the same example for how high school-ers students would 'evaluate' and address the same question.  A DI staffer, maybe even Sarah herself, would get up in front of a carefully selected group of students who already buy into their apple pie concept and describe an apple pie in the loosest possible terms while watching their core student group nod their heads at every word.  No ingredients, no cooking method, no recipe, just describe the most generic apple pie with terms like round, crust, and apples and 'other stuff'.  They wouldn't even identify who baked this phantom apple pie.  Then they would say, "And those are the best apples for pie" and hurriedly walk out of the room to avoid being questioned.  Later in press releases and pontificating to religious groups, they would declare their success at answering a complex question with only their intuition.  Sound familiar?  No actual cooking, no testing, no evaluating, just words with no support at all.  And then they would start to whine and complain because no one takes them seriously!  After all, no one does.

So maybe that's part of the problem.  The DI needs to learn about Bloom's Taxonomy and realize that education isn't the idea of forming an opinion and then only listening to other carefully filtered opinions that validate it.  It's a much more complicated process, at least when you want to do it right.

Well I certainly hope that Texas does the right thing and dumps anything left over from the DI's last visit, especially the additions to their last set of science standards.  I doubt they will get rid of it all, there are simply too many Creationists on the board who think the only education is one that agrees with their narrow religious views, but hopefully the board will water down that religious influence to give science teachers a fighting change to teach actual science, as opposed to the pseudo-science variety.

The Paucity of Design 'Theory'

Paucity is not a word I use often, I had to double-check the spelling to make sure I had it right.  For those of you who also don't often use, or even see 'Paucity', here is the definition:

"the presence of something only in small or insufficient quantities or amounts" (Google: Paucity)

The reason I bring this up is a post from the Discovery Institute's Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) website.  It's by a Howard Glicksman, and according to Howard, he saw Doug Axe's 'Design Intuition' in action.

For those of you not terribly familiar with Axe and his 'Design Intuition', Axe is one of the directors over at the Biologic Institute, which is the DI's in-house Lab tasked to prove the scientific validity of Intelligent Design.  I can see why you might not be too familiar with Doug or his lab, since they have been extremely quiet on the subject after firing one of their original directors for mentioning the purpose of the lab in public.  Doug's 'Design Institution' has been one of the latest tactics from the DI, trying to sell people on the idea that their intuition on any subject is as valuable as scientific investigation.

Since empirical studies have shown that intuition is basically a 50-50 crapshoot of being correct on concept and nothing on details.  Think about it, you intuitively 'know' something is correct.  You have no actual support, no validation, no understanding of why it is correct, you just 'feel' it's correct.  So now what?  Do you think engineers who build building and bridges do so with intuition?  Do you think intuition keeps airplanes in the sky or your car moving on the road?  Show me where 'intuition', which is fancy way of saying 'an opinion', does anything in the real world? 

I have found intuition to be less than reliable, as you might guess.  Personally, I have had two primary careers, one involving electronic equipment and the other writing computer programs.  I have repaired hundreds of electronic components and written easily hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code and I cannot tell you how often intuition has failed me.  When faced with a problem, frequently under a time crunch, you try and rely on your intuition to make that quick fix.  What I have experienced is that no matter time-crunch or not, intuition doesn't work very well, not even 50-50.

What actually works is not my intuition, but by stepping back and thinking about the problem, tracing through the code logic to determine what the problem is and then forming a fix.  In other words following a methodology, what we usually call a problem-solving methodology.  It takes longer than an intuitive "Oh I know what's wrong, change this", but the percentage of success is considerably higher than waiting for that intuitive lightening to strike.  I've had a number of problem where I would still be scratching my head because I received no intuitive idea at all.  I had to go through the methodology to fix my problem.

So, according to Doug, I should be right more often than I am wrong when my intuition tells me a particular fix would work.  In fact, according to Doug, my intuition should not just be right more often, but the overwhelming majority of the time my intuition should win out.  It doesn't!  Does that make me a bad electronics technician or computer programmer?  Well, my employers haven't thought so.  Even today I make my living writing code, and I don't often try and rely on my 'feelings' about a potential fix.

OK, why am I torturing you like this, well Howard's post, "A Son Realizes the Irrepressible Truth", is sort of interesting, from a decidedly lack of detail way.  Apparently Howard is a doctor and in discussing a patient's heart issues with the patient's son, the son suddenly exclaimed "What a beautiful design!", discussing certain human body related issues.  Howard, upon hearing the magic word 'design' immediately declared it a success for Doug's idea of Design Intuition.  Really?  So now that the son seems to grasp that the human . . . wait, let me quote the things Howard claims to have told him:

" . . . anatomy of the heart  . . . the cardiovascular system,  . . . heart fails . . . how water is either inside or outside the cell . . . hydrostatic and osmotic pressure  . . . lymphatics"

So, now that the son has this amazing grasp, I guess he's ready do perform heart surgery?  If you think that's extreme, how about letting the son prescribe your medication?  Why not, he has an intuitive grasp of the biology involved, doesn't he?  You mean he's not ready to develop the next great heart medication or develop the next incredible surgical breakthrough?  Why not?  It seems obvious to me.  I do not believe Howard relies on his intuition to diagnose and treat -- after all he went to medical school, didn't he?  I bet there were no classes on 'intuition', but plenty on biology including evolution.

Here's the thing, has the patient's son supported his intuition?  No, not in the least.  What he offered was 'an opinion'.  In fact it's the same opinion offered for Intelligent Design proponents over and over again.  To paraphrase: 'I see what looks like design to me, so therefore it must have been designed.'  Yet has any of the DI talking heads, or any other ID proponent offered anything other than opinion?  No, which is why they are trying to elevate such exclamations of 'design' to the level of scientific investigation, because they seem to have nothing else.  Now you can see the tie in to 'paucity'.

Sorry, Howard.  You didn't get a medical degree based on your intuition, and while ID proponent MD's like to claim evolution has nothing to do with the practice of medicine, if you were honest you might recognize where many of the medicines and treatments came from and the role evolution, common ancestry, comparative anatomy played in the development of what you learned in medical school.  Intuition, no, I prefer a doctor who relies on much more than their feelings.  I have to know, do you go to a doctor who practices what you are trying to preach here?

Here's a hint, you drive into the small town with only two barbershops.  You need a haircut and you check out the first shop, the barber has unkempt hair, looking like it was chopped rather than cut.  The second shop has a barber with a perfect haircut.  Which do you go to?  I know, logic problems aren't your forte, but take a stab . . . if you need a hint think about it from this angle, since the town only has two barbers, who do you think did the other barber's hair?