Abridging Faith, Is That Such a Thing? Plus Arguing with Non-existent Abuse?

Sorry I have been a bit busy with other activities and haven't been posting.  Sometimes real life gets in the way of entertainment, and I do so find the whole anti-science arguments from creationists of various stripes truly entertaining.

While I haven't been posting, I have been trying to keep up on events, like little kennie ham 'abridging' his Statement of Faith and Kentucky's Governor inventing cases of child abuser to lash out at teachers who were striking:

Little kennie is changing his Statement of Faith because they can't seem to find enough workers to fill the vacancies at his various ministries.  He mentioned it here:

"We hope you’ll consider joining our team! We are a Christian organization, so we do require you to sign a statement of faith regarding your adherence to the fundamentals of the Christian faith—one for seasonal workers and a more detailed statement of faith for higher job positions." (little kennie's blog post)

He further explains it in the Facebook video:

“We are a Christian organization, and as a Christian organization, we employ people who are Christians. We actually, for the seasonals, we actually have a more abridged Statement of Faith, the fundamentals of Christianity, not our detailed one for all of our full-time managers and others. So for seasonals, I know there’s a lot of young people who still aren’t necessarily mature in all their thinking in lots of areas, but if they can sign the tenets of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, they can… work here.” (little kennie Facebook post, about the 5:45 mark)

I have to ask . . . an 'Abridged Statement of Faith'?  What exactly is that?  You know for someone claiming the Bible is the source of all knowledge and a self-described Biblical Literalist, how does one 'abridge' ones faith?

What little kennie should do is stop discriminating against people who don't share his narrow view of the world and then we might be surprised how many people apply to work there.  The number one criteria should be the ability to perform a job, not whether or not you go to the same church.  I have yet to understand how believing in kennie's strain of pseudo-Christianity would improve my ability to write computer code, or a plumber's ability to maintain plumbing.

As for the other Kentucky debacle, Governor Matt Bevin (R) said on Friday that he knew kids were hurt by the teachers’ supposed selfishness:

“I guarantee you somewhere in Kentucky today, a child was sexually assaulted that was left at home because there was nobody there to watch them,” Bevin told reporters outside the Capitol. “I guarantee you somewhere today, a child was physically harmed or ingested poison because they were left alone because a single parent didn’t have any money to take care of them.”

I don't know about you, but when I use the word 'guarantee' I am not waxing poetic.  Today he recanted . . . well . . . he sorta recanted:

I don't think he regrets what he said for one second, he was just looking to bash teachers for doing things like wanting to improve education in Kentucky with improved funding and repair the damage done to the teacher's retirement system which is underfunded by something like 66%.  

No, he really didn't recant, the only regret he has is the criticism he's been getting over his comments.  If you wonder why I pay any attention to Bevin, remember that he was the one who decided to let little kennie continue his religious discrimination -- after kennie originally said his for-profit corporation would comply with State and Federal Hiring laws.  Yea, that guy!  He's also the guy who let kim davis get away with breaking the law.

While I might have taken a break, you can see I haven't been completely out of the loop.  I'll try and post a bit more because some of these things are just so incredibly entertaining . . . to me.  I feel for the people of Kentucky.  Between Bevin and little kennie, those folks are going to paying for their decisions for years to come.

So Who is Censoring the Intelligent Design Community's Free Speech?

As expected, the Discovery Institute (DI) has renewed their free speech whine.  "Evolutionist: Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee, Certainly Not for ID".  So the question is are the rights of free expression being taken away from the DI and the few others who are part of the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement?

We discussed something close to this last year, "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?".  We determined that the DI's cries of censorship were unfounded and nothing more than another marketing scheme.  They weren't being censored, nor was anyone talking about censoring them.  Disagreeing with them, absolutely!  Keeping them from being taught as science in the science classroom, certainly!  Making fun of the mental rationalizations they use to justify their existence (and funding), oh most definitely!  But those are neither censorship or a violation of free speech.

Now for today's post, it's a teaser for one of their pod casts. In the post they claim:

"Dr. Coyne favors it for people who agree with him, not so much for those who disagree."

I disagree completely. Jerry Coyne's blog "Why Evolution is True" is not about free speech only for those who agree with him, but about telling truth about those with a bone to pick with real science, among other topics. When groups like the DI push pseudo-science as if it was actual science, he's often there to correct them. When they try and hold Darwin up as a poster boy for Hitler, he's quick to point out how wrong they are.  He blogs on many topics, not just Evolution, but often current topics, like the Charlottesville shooting, Feminism, Wildlife pictures (animals and bird, not people).  His blog is interesting and informative.  I don't always agree with him, the differences are usually one of degree, not position.  He is opinionated, for sure, and pulls no punches, so when he called the DI "creationist mushbrains", he means it.  I think he's giving them too much credit, but it is his blog, after all.

I find it hard to think the DI will miss Jerry if he stops blogging.  Their comment:

"The University of Chicago biologist has said on various occasions that we’re “obsessed” with him, but the truth is he is just very useful, very helpful to us. If there ever comes a time when he tires of blogging at 'Why Evolution Is True', that will be a very sad day."

As often as I, and many others, point out the DI's many lies and obfuscations, anyone who has been a thorn in their side for as long as Jerry has will not be missed if he stops blogging.  Jerry has one huge advantage over the DI, he's an actual biologist, not a philosopher or lawyer pretending to be one.  That gives added weight to the topic of evolution and intelligent design.  Can anyone tell me one time Jerry took the DI to task and he turned out to be in error?  Just one?  Neither can I.

One last quote from the DI, which caused me to choke a little on my Diet Dr. Pepper:

" . . . Dr. Egnor [Michael, on of the DI's talking heads] . . . first getting interested in intelligent design, something that impressed him was the way ID proponents are absolutists about letting opponents talk, write, and teach freely, never, ever stooping to the tactic of threatening someone’s job at a university, or the like.  Meanwhile, Darwinists are keen on shutting down conversation — not a hallmark of a strongly supported scientific theory"

So, ID proponents let opponents talk, write and teach freely?  A couple of points here, sort of in reverse order.  Are any ID proponents in a position to not allow science teachers to teach science?  Well the DI would like you to think that even if they had the power, they wouldn't exercise such power.  I do not believe them, for a very simple reason, how many teachers have been disciplined or fired from non-secular schools for teaching actual science?

I'm sure the DI will claim that those had nothing to do with ID -- because they like to claim ID is not Creationism. But we know that is nothing but another lie and marketing campaign. Teaching real biology in a private school can, and has, gotten teachers fired. J.B. Stump is one example, as are Thomas Jay Oord, Pamela Hensley, and Stacy Mendrick.  They aren't the only ones.  All are examples of the close-minded condition of the theological brain.  

One famous, or infamous, example is from the DI's own past, William Dembski.  Anyone else remember :

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth. He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East. This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal. In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood." Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just recently the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind". In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

" . . . this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

How quickly the DI tends to forget the idea of 'Theological Correctness'.  So while the DI continues to deny their religious roots, we can see that the theological minded are much more close-minded than the science community, even more close-minded than the claims the DI likes to make against the scientific community, unsubstantiated claims, in my opinion.

If you disagree, just point to a single teacher, professor, administrator who was fired for teaching Intelligent Design?  Not one!  The nearest was John Freshwater, but he was fired for a number of things, including failing to teach the science curriculum he was supposed to be teaching.  So he wasn't just trying to teach ID in addition to real science, he was replacing the curriculum with one of his own choosing.  If that was all, he still might be employed, but remember Freshwater is also the one who lied to investigators, encouraged his students to lie for him, burned crosses into students arms, and lied about leading prayers for one of the student athletic groups.  The others the DI likes to claim were fired, or disciplined, for their support of ID is another set of lies.  Click the links yourself to read about them:

• Crocker's contract was up and she was not re-hired partly because she was failing to teach the subject she was hired to teach..
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students.
• Sternberg was the already outgoing editor of a minor biological journal who, on his way out the door, violated the journals review procedure to publish one of his friend's ID papers.  A friend he now works for -- imagine that!
• Coppedge was simply downsized and tried to turn it into a religious discrimination suit and failed.  Of course he looked pretty bad when all the evidence showed that he was a poor employee (there were complaints), liked to preach his religion to his co-workers (there were more complaints), and refused to keep his skills current.

There are a few others, but when you did a little you find that the DI's characterizations of the stories are more than a little suspect.  We discussed some of those here: "Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)"  It's amazing the spin the DI places on their martyr stories!

Now a new question, Are Darwinists (DI pejorative for Biologists) really shutting down the conversation?  Just how are they doing that?

• One way is to fight letting ID into the science classroom.  Is ID science?  No one has provided any support that ID belongs in the science classroom, especially not the DI.  So this isn't a matter of free speech, but a matter of teaching an actual science curriculum.  Should be also add Astrology to the science classes of Astronomy?  Numerology to Math classes?  Of course not, ID is just like those other area, pseudo-science at best.
• Another way is by reviewing ID literature.  Pointing out the many procedural and factual errors is not a violation of free speech.  Funny when the DI complains about a negative review, they never address the contents of the review, but attack the reviewer.  Did you notice in this very post there isn't a single factual error of Jerry Coyne pointed out, is there?  ID literature is also never published in any forum where the requirement includes actual empirical support.  
• Most scientists refuse to engage in the debate.  For years, real scientists have ignored groups like the DI, Answer in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Access Research Network (ARN).  Only recently when they try and threaten science education have some scientists spoken up.  The majority refuse to engage because of the tactics of such groups. One of the best responses to such a debate request was "How to respond to requests to debate Creationists", it's a great read, especially the actual response.  This, again, isn't a free speech violation, but an example of using comment sense and professional ethics.  Here, I just have to quote this from Prof Gotelli:
  "So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation."

So in what other ways do you think the DI complain about?  Not all complaints, just the ones they keep trying to characterize as issues of free speech?  If we got into their whines about 'academic freedom' -- which I do not believe they understand what that phrase means -- we might be here all night.

In closing no one is inhibiting the DI in the area of free speech.  What they are doing is not giving the DI every platform they seem to think they are entitled to have.  Until they perform real science, they do not belong in the science classroom;  until they support their fanciful ideas, no one is obliged to take them seriously; and until they engage openly and honestly and stop using their many Tactics of Mistake, they deserve every scathing review, every turned down debate request, and not being taken seriously by the scientific and educational communities.

So, to answer the title question, just who is censoring the Intelligent Design Community's Free Speech?  No one, no one at all!

Surprise . . . Surprise . . . Surprise . . . Politicos who pander for Votes . . . Wow!

One of my Google Alerts pointed me to "Lawmakers might introduce ‘anti-evolution’ legislation to appease religious constituents, researchers theorize".  I've spoken about politicians who support pseudo-science pandering for years.  Nice that someone is actually studying it . . . although was it really necessary?  

I recall a study from a long time ago about the military applications of the Frisbee.  It was given up when it was determined that a Frisbee doesn't go where you wanted it to go.  I recall another one that determined mothers prefer children's clothing that don't require ironing. . . so I think there are some things that maybe don't need to be studied to death.

As for the pandering politicians, I agree that politicians are supposed to support their constituents, but does that mean helping them over a cliff?  When a politicians sponsors a bill -- one they know will not pass -- for the express purpose of appeasing part of their constituency . . . aren't they wasting time and resources that could be put to productive use?  How many man-hours went into the 110 anti-evolution bills from 2001 - 2012?  What an absolute waste!  I mean some folks get up in arms when a state spends hours debating the State Bird, or the State Reptile.  Shouldn't folks realize how wasteful this is as well?

Some might point to Tennessee and Louisiana, the only two states to pass anti-evolution bills, as successes . . . but you do realize neither state has put those bills into much practice.  They fear, and rightly so, the legal cost once they do.  Louisianan tried to add some built-in measures to make it hard to challenge in court , , , but those haven't been tested yet either.  It cost one school system in Dover PA over a million dollars . . . what might it cost those two states?  All for a few politicos gain a few more votes . . . and become laughingstocks at the same time!  

I know it's not going to stop.  Most politicians aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack.  Why focus on actually educating their constituents when pandering is so easy.  If the majority of their voting constituents wanted to act like lemmings, I am sure a pandering politician will be more than glad to help . . . as long as they vote before jumping!  All too many politicians are so incredible short-sighted. Is there some partial-lobotomy before they get sworn into office?

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

A couple of stories caught my eye, one from the Discovery Institute and the other from the Facebook posts of one of the all too many Christian Evangelistas.

The one from the DI is almost funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.  Many times in the past I, and many others, have watched the DI use tactics that on the one hand they claim to abhor, yet are perfectly willing to use the tactics themselves.  For example claiming that scientists are discriminating against Creationists when the reality shows that it's not discrimination for getting fired (or not receiving tenure) when you refuse to do your job.  Or claiming that they cannot get published in mainstream scientific journals because of some hidden conspiracy -- when they aren't even submitting to mainstream scientific journals.  My personal favorite is scream discrimination when someone like David Coppedge or John Freshwater get fired yet when a Christian school fires a science teacher for teaching actual science, why aren't they screaming discrimination then?

You see, they have a habit of using disreputable tactics while frequently accusing the opposing side of using those same tactics, regardless of lack of evidence of their opposition actually using those same tactics.  So I want to talk to you about religious indoctrination for a moment and then get back onto the DI's back.  When does religious indoctrination start?  Well in most cases it starts pretty much at birth.  Children are exposed to the religious traditions of their parents.  Examples include baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs  . . . the list is pretty endless.  Children get quite seeped in it, various schools like Catechism classes, Jewish life classes, and many other religious themed community events geared toward children.  And yet . . . if anyone dare suggest science classes at an earlier age, the cries of 'brainwashing' get thrown around immediately.

Back to the DI, and their Evolution 'news' and Views site, "Evolution in Kindergarten: Now Brought to You by the National Science Foundation".  Now, the accurate part of the post is that the National Science Foundation  has awarded a grant (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1561401) designed to address a fundamental problem in education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, that natural selection is one of the most misunderstood biological processes.  Now, wouldn't you think an organization like the DI, who make public claims about wanting to improve the education of our young, would support such efforts?  But no, the DI calls it brainwashing and are dead set against it!

Anyone else see the problem here?  It's OK to start kids down a religious path from birth, but the very idea of correcting an identified problem with an important part of biological study is considered brainwashing?  Like so many other times, it's a case of 'Do as I say and Not as I do!"  They, and other religious organization, want, and in my opinion, need to start on kids when they are young.  The very idea of teaching real science at a younger age is the equivalent to brainwashing?  Seriously?  Remember this is the group who supports some Ohio teachers who wanted to inject Intelligent Design into the science curriculum back in 2004 and who have developed whole lesson plans for teaching ID to pretty much any age group.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qcQR0psc44s/maxresdefault.jpg)

I've said it before.  If we don't let children drive, drink, or vote before a certain age, they shouldn't be exposed to religion until that age either.  Haven't the dangers of religion been clearly identified over the years?  How much bigotry and intolerance have their root in the religious beliefs of the offenders, and how young were they when they started down this path?

---

The second one, and the one most egregious was identified to me by The Friendly Atheist (TFA), "Franklin Graham: Boycotting Companies Is Only Okay When I Say It Is".  In the article TFA posts copies of two of Franklin Graham's Facebook posts.  Here are the links to the actual posts if you want to read them yourself (Hobby Lobby post and Target post).  The comments are somewhat interesting too, but be prepared, especially if you do not know who Graham is.

In the first post he equates the boycotting of Hobby Lobby over their discrimination of employees because of the company owner's religious beliefs as:

" . . . calling for a boycott. Doesn't this sound like bullying, intolerance, and discrimination . . ."

In the second post he is promoting the boycott of Target stores because of their LGBT bathroom policy:

" I'm glad people are standing up and letting them know this is wrong."

If you're not familiar with Graham, don't worry.  Just think about any one of the Christians Evangelista that you are familiar with, and you'll get the picture.  I have trouble telling any of them apart.  They want to tell me how to live and to make me pay them for the privilege of telling me how to live.  I prefer the John Oliver discussion on televangalistas:

But as to the subject at hand . . . to me this is another example of 'Do as I say and not as I do'.  Boycotting Hobby Lobby is bullying, intolerance and discrimination . . . but boycott Target because it's the right thing to do, according to Graham.  Of course you see the difference, Graham agrees with Hobby Lobby and disagrees with Target. 

Reminds me of when little kennie ham whined and cried about on of his pet creation 'scientists' getting sandbagged into a debate with an actual scientists just about a year after he did the exact same thing and sandbagged a scientist into debating him.  It was OK when he did it because a little "Lie for Jesus" is OK because it's for God, but it should have been criminal when the same tactic is used against him (Turnabout is fair play!).

Is Creationism Harmful to Children

I have said on a couple of occasions that I don't consider Creationism Child Abuse, an example is my post "Is Creationism a form of Child Abuse?"  I still stand by that, but an article about the Ark Park certainly made me think. Recently the Boston Globe paid a visit to little kennie ham's ark ministry, the article is "Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs, and a theme park".  It's loaded with the usual contrasts between what kennie and his 'Hamians' say and what the real world says.  I did enjoy a couple of small points, for example:

". . . the Ark Encounter will host between 1.4 million and 2.2 million visitors in its first year . . ." 

Why I find this enjoyable is simple.  Since the announcement of the ark park the visitor estimate has been bounced all over the place.  Now, logically, and this was true for kennie's Creation 'Museum', the first few years usually the highest attendance.  After that it tends to slowly, or in some cases not so slowly, reduce down.  In fact in recent years the Creation 'Museum' is said to be in financial difficulties due to low attendance. (Kentucky’s ‘Creation Museum’ in Financial Trouble Due to Declining Attendance (VIDEO)).  So since the most recent estimates from kennie say about 1.2 million annually, other estimates, from people without a vested interest in the ark park (Hunden Strategic Partners in Chicago), said:

"estimated in the first year the park would receive roughly 325,000, with a peak attendance in the third year around 425,000, declining to 275,000 after that." (Source)

Which is roughly in the neighborhood of the Creation 'Museum' which took one month shy of three years to reach 1 million visitors.  I wish I knew what kennie's original estimates for his 'museum' were, I wonder if those estimates were as inflated as his ones for the ark ministry seem to be.  Another interesting point is:

"Science educators likely see that low and steadily decreasing number [of Creationists who follow little kennie's line] as good news. Ham isn’t so happy with this trend, which he blames on “evolutionary indoctrination through the public education system, secular museums, and much of the media.”
Ham sees AiG’s role as stopping the downward spiral. He wants to show people that all of the seeming impossibilities of Scripture can be scientifically reconciled with a little creativity." 

"With a little creativity" is such a fascinating phrase.  On the one hand you have what kennie and his followers calls the ultimate authority, and yet he needs to use creativity to get people to accept his version.  Do those two seem diametrically opposed to you?  They do so to me.  Which is why I do not consider kennie to be a Biblical Literalist, but a Biblical Revisionist.  He cherry pics from the Bible stories he likes and then he embellishes them to the point of unrecognizability.  For example, here is a photo from my visit to the Creation 'Museum':

Little kennie, in a effort to justify his position that humans and dinosaurs co-existed had to explain what dinosaurs ate.  So this little gem, they were all vegetarians.  Of course there is no evidence to support any of this, but kennie can't leave a question unanswered.  A couple other favorites is his rationalization of where Cain's wife came from and how animals were geographically dispersed after the ark landed.  Here is the explanation why Cain was able to marry his sister:

 All the Bible says about Cain's wife is a mention of the Land of Nod, east of Eden.  Little kennie took it from there and concocted this explanation.  As for biological geodiversity, that is how similar organisms exist in many part of the world, he dreamed up log rafts:

Doesn't he have a great imagination?  See why I refer to him as a Biblical Revisionist more than a Literalist?  He's not interested in what the Bible says, he's much more interested in what he claims it says.

OK, back to the Globe article.  This is the part that had me thinking about whether or not Creationism is harmful to kids:

"But is creationism is harmful to children? Compared to the risk of anti-vaccination pseudoscience in causing physical harm, the answer is no. More worrisome is the harm to children’s intellectual growth. Everyone at AiG was incredibly kind and seemed well-meaning, and the same goes for many creationists — but even people with the best intentions can end up, well, harming children who are paying attention.
Pete Enns, biblical scholar and author of “The Evolution of Adam,” sees creationism as harmful because it sets children up either to experience a crisis of faith or to become unflinchingly rigid about their own faith and closed off to their own human development. Both are tragic, he says."

There are more ways to harm children than what is considered abuse.  I had discussed how Creationism is a poor basis for many careers.  I mean aside from places like little kennie's Answers in Genesis (AiG) or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), how many places are willing to hire an astrophysicist who insists the speed of light is a variable so we really have no way of knowing how far something is from Earth.  The article mentioned that little kennie likes to bring up the fact he has hired some people who hold PhD's, but in reality, how much actual scientific knowledge have those PhD's managed to pass on?  Has anyone seen a single actual scientific paper referenced from places like AiG and ICR!  As the writer said:

"People at my evangelical church used to talk the same way [as kennie and his pet PhD's] about celebrities who became born again — as if people of such caliber somehow legitimized everything we believed."

I know there will always be some who get their education and then turn on the subject to support their religious beliefs, but they will never be in the majority or even mainstream within those fields. The fact they have a degree in no way legitimizes their belief set.

What I hadn't considered was the inevitable reaction once they start learning the reality of the world around them.  They might have some sort of crisis in faith, or they might become so rigid they become a caricature of a theist, like little kennie.  I'm not sure I agree with the article that the crisis in faith is a tragedy for most folks.  I think whether or not it is a tragedy depends on the person more than anything else.  As we mature we discover many things that were told to us by authority figures that were later found to be untrue.  From childish things like the truth about Santa or even how your life will go.  Think about what you were told as a child about how your life was going to go?  Even as a teenager in HS or an adult in college.  How has that all worked out?

If you are like most people, things haven't followed any pre-explained path.  I never expected to serve 20 years in the AF, get into IT, or end up living in Ohio.  What I am trying to say is that you LIVE your life, you deal with things as they change, no matter what they are.  What was it John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans."  If a 'crisis' in your faith cripples you, then my only suggestion is don't subject any other child to the beliefs that hurt you!  But in all honesty, you have to get over it eventually.  I'm not sure you can consider discovering the faith you were raised in wasn't what you were taught it was as a reason for PTSD, but even that degree of a problem can be overcome.

As for the other reaction, the significant rigidity that can result.  I can't consider them tragic figures.  But I do feel a level of pity for the people they come into contact with or, God forbid :-), any children they might become responsible for.  But they do have to freedom to shut down the functioning parts of their brain.  My only objection is that they do not have the right to force me to belief as they do.  Which is why I object to pretty much everything little kennie does.  As I have said before, his idea of religious freedom is to let him believe as he wishes and let him force everyone else to believe as he does as well.  That's not religious freedom, that's more a form of religious tyranny. 

You really should consider how long various religions have had control over people's lives and how all that turned out.  Look at history . . . not the history kennie and any of his pet 'creation historians' try and sell you in the Creation 'Museum' Gift Shop, but actual history.  Religious tyranny is not some panacea that will solve all the world's problems! 

So there we have it, yes, creationism can be harmful to both adults and children, but how harmful is really up to the individual.  Without a doubt it damages potential career paths, at least until the individual overcomes their belief system, like the many theists who made incredible scientific advances.  Theists are capable of great things, but they simply have further to go because of that extra hurdle they have to overcome.  Little kennie sees that hurdle as an absolute limit, luckily most folks don't accept that.

Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?

For quite a while the Discovery Institute (DI) has been claiming that they do not support teaching Intelligent Design in the public science classroom.  That's a lie of sorts.  Oh I know that a lie is a lie, but like so many things, there are shades of gray.  Officially, it's the truth, unofficially  . . . shall we see?  If you only pay attention to that little tiny piece of data,it seems fairly reasonable, but once you look at the context in which the DI operates, it takes on a new meaning.  Let's take a look at a few things and see if you agree with me.

Wedge Strategy Document

First of all, if you go back to the Wedge Strategy Document, you can see it pretty easily.  The document outlines a series of projects laid out in three phases:

• Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
• Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
• Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

The second phase has seven projects, project number four was 'Teacher Training Program'.  The stated purpose of Phase II was [the underlines are mine]:

"The primary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies."

So, as you can see, the academic arena is one of particular importance to the DI in furthering their goals.  If you need a reminder, here are their governing goals, again from the 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.

Couldn't have made it clearer myself!  So that is where you can start placing the DI's objectives within an appropriate context.  Their 'official' position of not advocating teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools is nothing but another tactic.

Kitsmiller vs Dover School Board 

To continue, remember what happened in Dover Pa?  It's been a decade, but that legal decision has been a thorn in the DI's side and one they truly wish had never happened.  If their true policy, not their 'official one' but if their true policy is not advocating ID in the classroom, why did they come to the assistance of the members of the Dover School Board who wanted exactly that?  Sure, they claim that the Dover Trial wasn't about them, but then . . .

1. Why did the DI feel it was necessary to submit an Amicus Curiae brief about Intelligent Design if they weren't part of it?
2. Why did the DI's own Wedge Strategy Document describe tactics similar to those used by the School Board and even by Michael Behe's [a DI Senior Fellow] in his testimony?  The strategy also says:

   "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)"

3. Why did Seth Cooper, a DI attorney, have several calls with William Buckingham (Chairman of the Dover School Board Curriculum Committee discussing the legality of teaching ID.  (Trial Transcripts)
4. Why did the DI forward to Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books. (Trial Transcripts)
5. Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the Board in executive session. (Trial Transcripts)
6. Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted.  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other).  Plus the consult wasn't for scientific material, but legal advice. (Trial Transcripts)

Bottom line, if this is an example of not advocating teaching ID in the classroom, how do you explain all of their 'help' to a local school board?  The reality is you can't!  Their official position doesn't jib with their actions at all.

IDEA Student Clubs

So, moving on, in addition to the Wedge Strategy Document and Dover, how can we forget about the 'IDEA Student Clubs'?  Not sure if any of them still exist, but little casey luskin used to brag about them and his involvement before he left the DI.  Their website is still up and linked from the DI site itself.  It explains that [again, the underlining is mine]:

"The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested.
Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design"

Here are the menu options for anyone interested in a ' student club':

They not only have a 'startup packet', but training conferences and other resources.  So once again we see words are not matched with actions.  Officially they claim one thing, but they are encouraging the establishment of 'clubs' on colleges and high schools.  The official line is wearing quite thin!

Texas

Let's move on to Texas where two members of the Discovery Institute was asked by the then-head of the Texas State School Board to 'help' them determine science curricula.  Yes, John G. West and Stephen C. Meyer were asked by Don McLeroy, who without a doubt is a hard-core Evangelical Creationist, and tried to impose their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bill on Texas.  Luckily Texas wised up to a certain degree and voted a lot of that 'strengths and weaknesses' crap out and they also dumped Don.  

So . . . if the DI is not advocating Intelligent Design, why were they 'advising' a Creationist on public school curricula and textbooks.  

 Ohio

Ohio had it's own version of Texas' Don McLeroy, her name is Deborah Owens Fink.  Like McLeroy she is a Creationist who jumped on the ID bandwagon in an effort to get her religion into the classroom.  This was in the early 2000's and the DI's own Stephen C. Meyer proposed to the Ohio Board of Education the Institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution that prominently featured intelligent design.  It also included a model lesson plan!   So . . . let's not teach ID, but here is a lesson for . . . teaching ID!

For a while the DI was touting this as a significant victory;  however, also like Texas, Ohio wised up to the tricks and tactics and in 2006 deleted that lesson plan and also rejected a proposed legal challenge.  Luckily, the voters also wised up and Fink was sent packing. (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design in Politics)

The DI's own Website Resources

Least of which, if they are so not interested in teaching ID in schools, why do they have pages and pages of information for people who wish to do just that?

Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design!  Sure, and they have no interest in having ID taught in schools.  Look at just one of them.

Discovering Intelligent Design: This science curriculum (textbook, workbook, and DVD) presents the best evidence from physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and related fields that provide evidence that nature is the product of intelligent design rather than blind unguided processes.

They do specifically suggest that this material would be most appropriate for private schools and homeschooling.  But still an entire 'science' curriculum for ID!

Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members  -- They have a ton of material here . . . and all geared to parents and school board members.  Yes, School Board Members!  I know, if they were serious about not advocating ID, why are they again targeting school board members?  Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Here is also where they brag about the failed Santorum Amendment?  Do you remember that?  The DI's own Philip E. Johnson wrote an amendment for a Pennsylvania politician for an education bill that became  known as the 'No Child Left Behind Act'.  The purpose of the bill was the promote the teaching of Intelligent Design.  The amendment failed, but some of the language was left in as part of the language, but it was in the non-binding part of the bill

"The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill (which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act), proposed by Republican Rick Santorum (then the United States Senator for Pennsylvania), which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in US public schools. " (Wikipedia: Santorum Amendment)

OK, I think this post is long enough.  There are many other examples.  The bottom line should be pretty simple for anyone to see.  Regardless of what they say 'officially', the Discovery Institute is interested in, and pursuing tactics to, replace actual science with their version of Creationism.  Their 'official' party-line is nothing but a tactic because after all of their defeats in court and in places like Texas and Ohio, they know an official push for ID would fail.  Dover hurt them much more than they will ever admit and another major court failure might do what must be unthinkable for them . . . a loss of donations!

More desertions from the DI

Aww, the Discovery Institute is losing one of their most . . . hmmm, well I can't say 'effective' . . . so what word best describes little casey luskin?  How about 'prolific', yea, that's the ticket.  The DI is losing one of their most prolific members.  Here is little casey's announcement on Evolution 'news' and Views:

"It is with a mixture of sadness and excitement that I write this to announce that, as the year 2015 closes, I am leaving Discovery Institute. I am doing so in order to fulfill a lifelong goal of furthering my studies. My colleagues, who entirely support this decision, are people of the utmost integrity and they have been incredibly generous and welcoming to me and my family. I know we will miss each other. Working here over the past ten years has been a wonderful experience for which I am extremely grateful. It has taught me an immense amount"(Big Announcement, and Reflections on a Great Decade")

One of the lines that left me practically speechless was the line after that opening paragraph:

"One of the biggest things I've learned is that the truth doesn't always win out in the short term, but it does in the longer term."

I am a little surprised that casey could get this out with a straight face.  But then the DI has said many things  that should never be taken at face value, and this is one of them.  In my opinion, casey hasn't learned much, or he would have disassociated himself from the DI long ago.  It does, however, explain the abject failure of the DI to achieve any of it's goals.  Check out the goals from their Wedge Document and see how many they have achieved? 

Governing Goals:

• Have they replaced "Materialism"?  
• Have they replaces materialistic explanations with theistically friendly ones?

Five-Year Goals:

• Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and are there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective on 'design' theory?
• If design theory influences any spheres other than natural sciences?
• Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?

Twenty-Year Goals:

• Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
• Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
• Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?

While little casey hasn't been there since the beginning, his contributions over the last decade certainly didn't help achieve any of their goals.  It's easy to say because they have yet to achieve any of them, and that have been at this for 20 years.

While they might have considered getting invited to Texas to 'help' Creationist Don McLeroy fight off the influence of scientists on science, or helping draft the poorly names 'Louisiana Science Education Act' as wins.  Can anyone really look back at the last decade since the Dover decision as anything but a win for the truth?  Only the most delusional, or the ones with the biggest axe to grind for their religious beliefs.

Well, I for one will miss little casey luskin.  I mean he could always be counted on for a little levity, especially when he tried so often to deny the religious basis of the Discovery Institute and their pet version of Creationism, Intelligent Design.  He's come a long way since handing out press releases no one wanted at the Dover trials to helping set-up Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) centers are several colleges -- which seems to have fallen by the wayside since their last press release was June of 2014 -- to his constant ENV posts.  But alas, he's moving on.  Hopefully he will leave his Biblically-colored glasses back with the DI and actually learn something. 

Good luck little casey!  For some reason I am sure we haven't heard the last of you.  Besides, once you get a PhD, maybe Answers in Genesis will be hiring!  You can call yourself a 'Creation Scientist' and be one of kennie ham's Hamians, and provide us years of humor.

Dembski jumping ship?

Caught this from the Sensuous Curmudgeon, "William Dembski Is “Moving On”"!  I'm undecided if this is a good thing or not.  On the one hand, who will be declaring the imaginary success of the unexplained, and apparently inexplainable, 'Design Inference Filter' if Dembski is off doing something else.  On the other hand, maybe even Wild Bill can see the writing on the wall and realizes how futile the whole Intelligent Design facade has been.  Yes, I called is a facade, and so would you if you read what Intelligent Design is, according to the Discovery Institute's own Wedge Strategy.  I clicked over the Wild Bill's post on his new blog, "A New Day" to see what he has to say, and he's pretty brief.

He's switching from Intelligent Design to education.  OK, I'm not sure that's a good thing.  Is he going to be teaching?  If so, what exactly?  He mentions "advancing freedom through education via technology".  Talk about a nothing statement.  He's not known as a technologist, and I don't think he's known as an educator either.  Oh, he's worked for a couple of schools, but does getting in trouble with the Michael Polanyi Center controversy and Evolutionary Informatics Lab controversy at Baylor and the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy qualify him as an educator.  

Oh well, I guess we will just have to wait and see what he's up to.  He does say he still has a few ID irons on the fire, so he won't be disappearing too quickly.  But in any event, soon we won't have Wild Bill Dembski to kick around.  I can't say I'll actually miss him.  I mean recently what has he done?  It seems folks like Meyer, Luskin, and Klinghoffer have been carrying to water at the DI more than anything by Bill or even the one-time golden child, Michael Behe.  Maybe this particular ship has gone as far as it can and it's time for Creationists to come up with something else.  You know, like they did after Creationism and Creationist Science failed.  Intelligent Design has been in a decline since the Dover ruling.

Will the Discovery Institute start petitioning the Louvre?

This post is kinda convoluted.  It started as a response to a conversation and ended using a quote from the Wedge Strategy document.  I spotted something I hadn't noticed before, so I have re-arranged the post a bit, to lead with that item because . . . well you just have to see it.

 . . . The American Education System has problems, but we are not going to fix them by substituting real science with pseudo-science.  Plus, if you have been reading some of the material from the DI, you know that science is just a start.  After all, one of the 20 year goals from the famous, or infamous, Wedge Strategy Document is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts."

I do have to question . . . fine arts?  What the hell does that mean?  Let me guess, someone at the DI will start painting and they will immediately start demanding it be included at the Louvre!
Here is the original post . . . that will place the end comment in context, but I couldn't resist leading with it.  The down-side is I could picture the DI doing exactly that . . . more's the pity.

Had a conversation the other day and the gist of it was what gives me the right to be critical of folks like the Discovery Institute (DI) and Answers in Genesis (AiG), after all I am not a scientist.  My flippant answer was simply that I agreed that I am not a scientist, I'm certainly not a biologist, but then the majority of the folks at the DI, AiG, and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) aren't scientists either.  Yet they seem to feel criticizing science, scientists, and science methodology is OK for them to do it.  But there is more to it.  When you look at those organizations, are they really targeting scientists with all their press releases, publications, and posts?

No, they seem to be targeting everyone BUT scientists.  Seriously, if they were targeting scientists, wouldn't they do that with actual science?  Instead they are targeting people who vote for politicians, school board members, parents active in Parent-Teacher Associations, church-goers, really anyone but scientists.  In other words they are after anyone who can sell their ideas to influence and push other people, especially school boards and politicians.  Look at how many of the current crop of politicians love to pander to the Christian Right.  For them it's all about votes.  Two of them, Huckabee and Cruz, even have been supporting the latest Kentucky State Bigot, Kim Davis (Someone needs to tell Ken Ham that Religious Freedom is not a license to Discriminate and Ed Brayton's Facebook post).

Look what they tried to do down in Texas.  The extremely Creationist School Board Head, Don McLeroy, wasn't happy with scientists determining science curriculum so he formed a committee and invited the DI to 'help' (Texas regains some Sanity!).  Luckily the State legislature had enough to Don's antics that they finally ousted him.  The DI 'helped' the Dover school board, or I should say the former Dover school board.  The DI 'helped' the Louisiana Family Forum write what eventually became the poorly named 'Louisiana Science Education Act' (Louisiana Politics over Science and The Discovery Institute and Michael Engor are at it again).  The result, at State with the worst reputation of being pro-education to the point science groups are no longer considering Louisiana for their conferences and meetings.  The DI helped a California part-time soccer coach try and teach a 'Philosophy of Design' class that was remarkably lacking in philosophy (Coexistence III - Tejon CA).  Do you see them as 'helping' scientists?

What give me the right?  Nothing, really.  I don't see it as a right, I see it as an obligation.  After all,  if I am going to be a target, aren't I obliged to shoot back?

I am a person that folks like the DI and kennie ham (AiG) take aim at.  I am someone who has had children in school and have a grandchild and nieces and nephews currently in school.  I am a voter who elects people to represent me at the local, state, and national level and who votes on issues like school funding.  I support the local PTA and school board and have even attended meetings when certain things are on the agenda.  I have had letters to the editor published in the local papers and have also mailed/emailed my representatives to voice my opinion.  I blog and have several thousand posts around the Internet news site, like Topix.  Google my email ID and you might be surprised!  You might have noticed that I don't mind sharing my opinions.  I am not afraid to disagree, something my wife can tell you all the time.  But since I am one of the people that are being targeted by these folks, I figure I have obligation to respond to being a target, and this blog is one of the ways I respond.

It really is more a way for me to get my own head around ideas.  I like to capture elements of the arguments and write to clear my own thinking.  If that happens to be critical of the DI and AiG, and others, then so be it.  There are plenty of religious blogs out there critical of real science!

What I found funny when thinking about the conversation later is that I am doing something that gets paid a great deal of lip service by the DI.  I am engaged in critical thinking.  The DI advocates

'teaching methods that introduce intelligent design ideas (and textbooks) indirectly through a campaign to "Teach the Controversy" by portraying evolution as "a theory in crisis" and "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" and teaching "Critical Analysis of Evolution"'

For example the 'Teach the Controversy' campaign attempts to disguise itself as a way of improving education and increase critical thinking, the reality is they do not want critical thinking.  Here is an excerpt from the Dover decision:

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [Intelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID"

Teaching the controversy has been slammed so hard, they changed the name of the campaign to "Critical Analysis of Evolution".  Since they cannot teach the 'science' behind their ideas -- because they keep forgetting to do any science to support their ideas -- they are manufacturing artificial issues, like fomenting an artificial 'controversy' to portray evolution as a theory in crisis.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who critically analyzes Intelligent Design will discover how bereft of science it actually is.  ID writings claim to be science, but at best they are philosophical mental meanderings.  The DI opened their own lab, and still no science.  Their ID campaigns are all dishonest because they cloud their intent in innocuous ideas.  We talked about the 'Teach the Controversy' and 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' campaigns.  We can add a few more:

• Sternberg Peer Review Controversy -- they frequently mischaracterize what actually happened in order to continually paint Sternberg as a victim of imaginary discrimination.
• Guillermo Gonzalez failure to be granted tenure -- he failed not because he supported ID, but because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor. 
•  Academic Freedom Bills, which have absolutely nothing to do with Academic Freedom.  "They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.  Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.  Investigation of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation have found no evidence that it occurs." (from: Academic freedom campaign)

When faced with such tactics, everyone should recognize it and respond accordingly!  That's what I am doing and I certainly do feel an obligation to respond.  The American Education System has problems, but we are not going to fix them by substituting real science with pseudo-science.  Plus, if you have been reading some of the material from the DI, you know that science is just a start.  After all, one of the 20 year goals from the famous, or infamous, Wedge Strategy Document is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts."

I do have to question . . . fine arts?  What the hell does that mean?  Let me guess, someone at the DI will start painting and they will immediately start demanding it be included at the Louvre!

Kirk Pt III: Fantasy and Science

Kirk Durston has yet another post and this one is much less interesting.  Before getting into it, I wanted to comment on the title "Confusing Fantasy with Science".  I don't think real scientists have a problem with confusing the two, after all at one point all science started out as fantasy, didn't it?  Someone had an incredible idea and did the work to not only prove their idea was reality, but take it to a point so that architects and engineers could take the idea and turn it into useful and practical stuff, stuff that actually works.  Sometimes the idea didn't even originate with the scientists, they just happened to be the ones who turned an idea into reality.  Jules Vernes' works are excellent examples.  We've been to the moon, although not using a giant cannon.  We have submarines that travel considerably longer distances than 20,000 leagues, don't we?  Many of the things we see as ubiquitous today were once solely within the realm of science fiction and fantasy.  Cell phones, computers and doesn't the Apple Watch remind anyone else of the Dick Tracy two-way wrist unit?  If real scientists got confused between the science and fantasy, I doubt their success rate would be very high.  They might imagine, but they would never be able to put their imaginations to such practical applications, would they? 

OK, on the Kirk's article.  He starts off with a lie, at least in my opinion it's a lie:

"In order for atheism to survive the advance of science, it must come up with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the incredible fine-tuning required for the universe to support life, and the origin of life itself."

The first part of his comment seems pretty ridiculous, "In order for atheism to survive the advance of science . . ."  By definition atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.  Why is that predicated on anything science comes up with?  The rest of it is just as bad, why does atheism have to develop a natural explanation of the origin of the universe?  Why does it have to explain something that exists only in the imagination of people like Kirk, the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument?  The only way I think any of this could happen is if Creationists are suddenly about to have a breakthrough in which science confirms, undeniably confirms, the existence of  deity and the host of things Creationists insist could have only happened through the actions of said deity.  I don't see that happening, although I bet Kirk is hoping it confirms the existence of an evangelical Christian God, or else the newly identified deity might not take too kindly to Kirk.  Atheism requires nothing like this, so why would Kirk word it this way? 

I think he's doing a couple of things.  First off by stating it this way, he's trying to equate science and atheism, which is a common, and yet disreputable, tactic and one frequently used by the Discovery Institute and their friends.  Science is not 'atheistic', nor is it 'theistic', at best, neutral.  By trying to equate the two, he's attempting to sell people who do believe in one deity or another that they cannot accept science without dropping their belief.  If that were the case then why do so many scientists profess theistic beliefs?  While it's true that the percentage of scientists who profess such beliefs is lower than the general population, it's also true that the better educated you are, the less likely you are to share some theistic belief set.  No wonder the DI is so intent on damaging science education!

Second, I think he's doing a little projection (the defense mechanism).  How I see things is that while claiming atheists have to explain the universe, the reality is if a religion doesn't come up with supernatural explanations, it will not only fail to survive the advances of science, but it will fail to gain adherents..  I mean when you think of it how many supernatural explanations and entire religions have fallen by the wayside of the decades and centuries?

While they blame science, it's not science that is disproving God, it's that people try and use God as an explanation for something they do not understand -- a very self-limiting process.  Once we do understand it better, the God explanation falls flat.  While they like to blame science, the reality is they are doing it to themselves by clinging to superseded ideas in the perception that they are somehow protecting their cherished beliefs.  The reality is they simply look foolish!  This is also know as the "God of the Gaps' argument, and we'll be discussing that more later.

But back to Kirk.  I think he's also using another tactic.  By claiming that atheism HAS to accomplish certain things, he knows that any answer science comes up with will never satisfy someone like Kirk or any of his friends.  Which means as long as he doesn't accept the answer, he can keep claiming science as some sort of failure.  Sort of like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and making nonsensical noises to avoid hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe this line is true either:

" . . . scientists have pointed out that the universe appears to be unbelievably fine-tuned to be able to support life".  

Scientists have not done this in any way, in fact they have shown the opposite.  The majority of the universe we have discovered, granted is a tiny part of the whole, but it is incapable of supporting life as we know it.  You would survive for how long on the Moon, or Mars, or Jupiter if you were suddenly transported their in your shirt sleeves?  Minutes, seconds, even less?  I know Creationists like to point out that the Earth and the Universe is somehow fine-tuned, but that doesn't fit the evidence, not that they will ever admit it.

He also states that Eugene Koonin basically says life is highly improbable, therefore "Koonin's solution is to propose an infinite multiverse".  Eugene Koonin did not propose an infinite multiverse, at best he philosophically thinks that it might increase the odds of life forming somewhere.  But it has nothing to do with the fine-tuned idea.  The multiverse is more a philosophical question than a scientific question and has been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, and even science fiction.  But scientists engaging is a debate doesn't automatically make it a viable scientific theory, which Kirk seems to want it to be so he can try and poke holes in it.

What he is doing is another common tactic.  Building a straw-man so he can tear it down.  In this post he's redefined atheism, misrepresented science claiming that it has 'proven' the fine-tuning nonsense, and it looks like he's quote-mining Eugene Koonin to build a straw-man.  Halfway into Kirk's article and he's already used a number of disreputable Creationist tactics.  The Discovery Institute must be so proud.

He finally got to his main argument, that  . . . well let him tell you:

"So the multiverse has become atheism's "god of the gaps" but some scientists point out that multiverse "science" is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, "they are not observationally or experimentally testable -- and never will be."

His link is to his own blog where he postulates that the whole idea of the multiverse is mainly to avoid the idea of one unseen creator.  So according to Kirk science invented a whole concept just to avoid the possibility of one particular version of a deity?  Sounds more like something Creationists did, as in Creation Science, when they invented a whole new conceptual view of religion in order to avoid facing the reality of science.  So much projection in one short posting!

In order for the multiverse to be a 'God of the Gaps' argument, some scientists would have to stand up and claim the multiverse is the answer for a specific set of questions for which there is no other current answer, or one for which current answers are rejected at least by the scientist making the multiverse claim.  That's how the God of the Gaps argument works.  We see it every time someone like Michael Behe tries to pass of irreducible complexity as science, or Wild Bill Dembski tries to convince us of his specified complexity filter, or any time kennie ham posts  . . . well . . . anything.  What we see are 'explanations' devoid of any scientific support other than wishful thinking.  Is that what we see when scientists debate the many ideas about a multiverse?  The four types, the nine types,and all the potential permutations?  It's still way too soon to call the multiverse the answer to anything, while no one knows what future discoveries might change that, Kirk is trying to discredit it already. 

At this point the multiverse is an idea, barely a hypothesis and one they readily admit may never go much further.  There are any number of ideas about it,  I think Kirk is more afraid of what the multiverse would do for his religious beliefs. Imagine if we found a multitude of other universes and what if none of them provide any evidence of a deity? 

It seems that Kirk doesn't want scientists to be able to imagine and debate fantastic ideas at all.  After all what is Creationism/Intelligent Design but a flight of fancy centered around a narrow view of one particular deity.  How dare scientists make flights of fancy of their own, especially ones that fail to pay homage to Kirk's version of a God!

What Kirk appears to fail to realize is that where innovation comes from?  It doesn't stem from staring at the tried and true, but from an individual, or group of individuals, looking at something from a unique angles, developing the ideas, and proving the ideas in ways no one previously had imagined.  Not all ideas will pan out, as Kirk and his buddies prove on a daily basis.  But it's that fantastical thinking that offers a way to the future that Kirk wants to deny to anyone but I guess himself.

Let's see so far, Kirk has questioned belief in science, the peer-review process, and now the multiverse.  And yet is all three posts he hasn't really offered anything but the usual creationist canards about science and how scientists work.  At best he's reiterated some of the negative aspects of science -- things already recognized and often being addressed by real scientists, while at the same time he's misrepresented a great deal, like peer review, the multiverse, Eugene Koonin, and even the God of the Gaps argument.  You're not doing to well, Kirk.  And I thought your posts might be a bit more fun.  Hey Kirk, don't you have anything original?

The Discovery Insitute responds on Ohio HB 597

Once again the Discovery Institute (DI) decided that the use of the term 'Intelligent Design' requires some sort of response from them.  They have the nerve to ask "Where is the Intelligent Design in Ohio House Bill 597".  Now I could make a flippant answer and say the bill was not 'intelligently designed', but I won't continue down that path and make a more direct response.

If the DI bothered to pay any attention to the words in an article rather than just what items they think they can cut and paste or quote-mine, they might have realized that no one has said the bill itself mentions Intelligent Design.  Much like their tactics in the past ('Critical Analysis tactic for example), they seem to think that not having used the term, the obvious conclusion is that it has nothing to do it.  However, if we borrow an old line and say "And now a word from our Sponsors!", you can easily see the issue.  One of the statements by bill sponsor, Rep Andy Thompson:

"said the goal is not to mandate what must be taught but provide options for districts.“In many districts, they may have a different perspective on that, and we want to provide them the flexibility to consider all perspectives, not just on matters of faith or how the Earth came into existence, but also global warming and other topics that are controversial,” Thompson said."

When Thompson was asked if intelligent design — the idea that a higher authority is responsible for life — should be taught alongside evolution, Thompson said, “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.”

So while the public goal of the bill is to repeal the Common Core Standards, which, BTW are not science standards, but English and Math, as you can see Thompson stated the goal was to allow different perspectives . . . a follow-up question targeted one of those 'perspectives' and Thompson called it 'legitimate'.  Of course the DI called that type of question "twisting the words of policymakers".  Sure, trying to get to the intent as well as the meaning behind a policymakers actions is OK, but if they do not agree with your organizations agenda, somehow the reporter is twisting the words.  The last paragraph of the DI's response was:

"So the Columbus Dispatch is right about one thing: history is repeating itself in Ohio. In 2006, Darwin activists inflamed groundless fears about intelligent design in the schools. In 2014, they're getting ready to do it all over again."

Let's think back at Ohio's 'groundless fears'.

• Wasn't it the Discovery Institute who lobbied the Ohio State School Board to teach Intelligent Design?  
• Wasn't it the Discovery Institute who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design?  A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).
• Anyone else remember Deborah Owens Fink (former Ohio Board of Education member) and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, into the school curriculum.  She was the one who referred to the National Academy of Sciences as "a group of so-called scientists."  When real scientists voiced support for Fink's opponent, the Discovery Institute complained about it (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/inside_the_mind_of_the_new_yor002817.html)
• Back in 1996 the Ohio House voted down a bill that would have done exactly what this bill can do -- and that bill didn't mention the words Creationism or Intelligent Design either! (http://ncse.com/ncser/16/1/close-ohio-house-vote-scuttles-evidence-against-evolution-bi)

NCSE's own Steve Edinger said perfectly back in 1996: "Creationism is like a vampire, and every time you think the thing is finally dead, someone pulls the damned stake out again."  Ohio has seen that damned stake removed in 1996, 2002, 2006, and now again in 2014.  Ohio's concerns are not groundless, they are a response to a pattern of misguided and, in many cases, reprehensible behavior by groups like the Discovery Institute who wish to destroy science education.

There are still many misconceptions about the Common Core standards.  But I would like to put it even plainer than the reporter.  What is Representative Thompson's plan to replace the Common Core?  He has none.  He's going to pass the buck back to local school boards.  School boards that had control over their standards up until 2010 and they were failing our students!  How many Ohio students failed out of college for being poorly prepared?  How many had to take developmental classes (this are a re-teaching of the things they should have learned in High School)?  How many businesses complained that High School graduates did not have to basic tools to perform tasks graduates were able to perform 20 years ago?  We aren't talking highly skilled tasks, we are talking about tasks that require basic reading, writing, and math skills.  These are the problems the Common Core can help address.  Since implementing the Common Core, our neighbor to the South, Kentucky, has reported that the high school graduation rate had increased from 80 percent in 2010 to 86 percent in 2013, test scores went up 2 percentage points in the second year of using the Common Core test, and the percentage of students considered to be ready for college or a career, based on a battery of assessments, went up from 34 percent in 2010 to 54 percent in 2013.  (Ripley, Amanda (September 30, 2013). "The New Smart Set: What Happens When Millions of Kids Are Asked to Master Fewer Things More Deeply?". Time. p. 36.)


So now that we've gotten past the typical knee-jerk reaction of the Discovery Institute, I hope it is clear that there are Ohioans who oppose the Common Core standards.  The standards aren't perfect, but I hope folks oppose it for the right reasons.  I also hope that whatever follows the bill does not, by intent or by accident, open the door for a group like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum to walk in trying to pass off their religious ideas as if they belongs in a science class. But regardless of the politics, before you complain about the Common Core Standards, make sure you understand them and object based on reality.