Biblical Math

Gryphen had an interesting post over on The Immoral Minority Blog : "Flood of "biblical proportions" destroys home of president of anti-gay Christian group. Really the jokes just write themselves."  While it would be tempting to turn this post into some sort of swipe at this particular religious nut, after all saying for years that disasters occur to gay people as God's retribution for being gay, you just have to see some level of humor in this.  However, having your home destroyed is a devastating event, but what I find most interesting is the Christian Hate-Monger calling it a flood of 'biblical proportions'.

Maybe what we have here is an excellent example of 'Biblical Math'.  I have to wonder if Liberty University or kennie ham teach classes in it.  Let's break down this example,  Tony Perkins is caught in a flood and loses his home, he and his family make their escape in a canoe.  So, let's break this down:

• Flood
• Canoe

Now the Noah story is something more like this:

• World-wide catastrophic flood
• Ark

What makes this interesting is that Tony describes the flood of being 'biblical proportions'.  Now I am in Ohio, only about 900 miles from Louisiana and we haven't been impacted by any flooding from this storm.  So obviously 'biblical proportions' either no longer means what it did back in Noah's day, or maybe the flood kennie and Tony like to talk about was one of less than 'biblical' proportions.  

Since I cannot imagine Tony or kennie admitting to any error, the current flood must be of 'biblical proportions', which means that if the proportion of the world flooded currently is the same as the proportion of the world that flooded back then . . . something must have happened to expand the flood from a localized event to a world-wide catastrophe!  That's where Bible Math comes in.

You use this type of extrapolation in Junior High Math classes for determining percentage:  

Solving for 'x' lets you determine what percentage 4 is of 12.  Since it holds true for numeric percentages, why not use it to prove whole Noah story?

So that being said, if the local flooding is of biblical proportions, then the canoe also needs to be of biblical proportions, right?  Yeas, that's the ticket.  We now have proof of the validity of the Bible, all we needed was a judicious application of 'Bible Math'!

And there you have it!  Solve for 'X' and you have determined that an Ark is the only possible answer.  Biblical Math in action, Noah's Flood has 'mathematical' proof!  I'm just not sure if little kennie will see the humor, or simply become even more apoplectic than he typically is.

The Discovery Institute is 'monkeying' around with a new survey

We've discussed this penchant for surveys by the Discovery Institute (DI) before (here and here).  If you remember, my issue was how they like to poll with very innocuous sounding phrases and then spin the results and claim it shows some sort of support for one position or another.  Most often it's to denigrate science and science education and this poll is a perfect example!  "Scientists Versus the Public on Airing Scientific Dissent", by little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

This time around, the DI presented a series of statements and asked some group of people through Survey Monkey to rate them on a 4-level scale,  'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' with the statement.  Here are the statements from their latest poll (source):

1. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. Scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.
3. Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.
4. It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.
5. People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘antiscience.’
6. Disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.

Now while the wording seems pretty basic, what do these phrases imply?  Here is how I see it:

1. That teachers and students do not currently have the freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. That scientists do not have the freedom to raise scientific criticisms of evolution.
3. That holding a dissenting view results in censorship and punishment.
4. The policymakers and the public do not hear dissenting views.
5. Anyone who holds a disagreement are labeled as 'anti-science'.
6. The since dissenting views are not allowed, there haven't been any new insights of new discoveries in science.

Now, you might think I am reading these implications into the survey; however, if that weren't true then this latest post from the DI, also by klingy, would never been written.  "Evolution's Enforcers Are Waaaaay Out of Step with Public Opinion".  Klingy is confirming that according to the DI, there is no freedom to discuss, dissent, or hold opposing views.

So the real question is not whether or not you agree with the DI's statements, but whether or not the implications of their statements reflect reality.  What do you think?

First of all students and teachers discuss scientific criticism of any scientific theory, including evolution, all the time.  The key here is scientific criticism.  Granted high school science classes might not have the time, nor resources, to spend a great deal of time on scientific criticisms, they still have the academic freedom to do so.

In fact, have you heard of a single person being censored or punished for discussing scientific criticisms?  Not at any public or secular schools!  The DI likes to trot out a list of people, like Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Crocker, and Richard Sternberg.  But anyone who examines those cases soon realizes that these folks weren't dealing with scientific criticisms, just run-of-the-mill religious criticisms dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.  Their religion either prevented them from doing their job, or interfered with them doing their job, in any event they were held accountable . . . not for their beliefs, but not doing their job!  Unlike the DI's rogues gallery, there have been quite a few cases of teachers being punished and censored from teaching real science! Chris Comer and Tom Oord's situations come to immediate mind.

Now I have another name I wanted to mention, one I have discussed on numerous occasions, William Dembski.  If you recall Dembski figured in a number of  . . . incidents  . . . centered around his support of ID and Creationism.  One of the ones I mentioned a while ago was how quickly Wild Bill changed his tune about the reality of Noah's Flood.  Here is the write-up in Wikipedia (I added the underlines):

"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 a couple of days ago 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."

Interesting turn of phrase, Theological Correctness.  So while we have a certain amount of imagined censorship and punishment for dissent of current science on the part of the DI, and yet when we find actual censorship and punishment we find even people who are ID supporters who have to toe a fundamentalist line or find themselves unemployed because they were not fundie enough!  So which side is actually guilty of censorship and punishment for dissenting views?  Certainly doesn't look like it's science, does it?


Back to the survey statements themselves.  It's obvious that they are designed (pun intended) to make you think such freedom to discuss, criticize, or dissent doesn't exist, but once you remember the whole purpose in life of the DI you can see why they want you to think so.  In the past, when has the DI ever been an advocate of academic freedom?  Look at the text and purpose of their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bills.  The purpose of such bills, which have been defeated is all but two states that have tried to pass one, is to weaken science education and allow their religion (Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)) to wedge its way into the curriculum.  That's not made up . . that is their stated goal!

Barbra Forrest, you might remember her from the Dover Trial, just yesterday (July 7, 2016) had this to say about one of those bills:

" . . . the deceptively titled “Louisiana Science Education Act” was promoted exclusively by the Louisiana Family Forum, a right-wing religious lobbying group that has promoted creationism since its founding, and the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank in Seattle. The law is an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which nullified a 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism in public schools."("Letters: Here are the facts on La.’s Science Education Act")

Simple question, if a car mechanic refused to actually repair cars, should the garage who hired them keep them on the payroll?  Again, that's what the DI wants.  They hate the fact that people like Gonzales and Crocker were held accountable for their actions because they were failing in the job they were hired to do!  The list of all the supposed 'victims' of censorship and discrimination that the DI likes to wave around can all be traced back to their unwillingness or inability to do their job! That's not censorship or discrimination!  How much would car repairs cost of you had to help pay the salaries of people who 'worked' at the garage but who didn't perform any duties that fall under the heading of work?

I do like how they changed things after the second survey statement.  Did you notice how they dropped the word 'scientific'?  Just as an exercise, tuck it back in and see how it changes the meaning of the sentence.  Scientists who hold dissenting 'scientific' views should not be censored or punished . . . now have you noticed that at no time does the DI identify anyone who has been censored or punished for holding a dissenting scientific view?  So in their words, a dissenting view, regardless of its scientific viability, is just as important as a non-dissenting view.  So Astrology is an viable as Astronomy, Chemistry to Alchemy,  . . . you see where such a list can end.  Next thing you know we will be requiring our Math teachers to teach Numerology and Architects to cover Feng Shui.

People disagree with science all the time.  It's not the disagreement that makes someone like Jenny McCarthy 'anti-science', it's the snake oil she's peddling in its place that is anti-science.  There is no evidence that supports vaccines cause autism, none!  Jenny is anti-science!  The DI is anti-science, not because they disagree with science, but because they want to put their religion in its place.  Look at the tactics of people like McCarthy and the DI.  They don't promote their own ideas as much as they attack actual science with nothing but marketing, unsupported ideas, and lots of politicking.  Yes, they are anti-science not because they disagree, but because how what they do and say in what they are offering in its place.

For example my daughter is questioning the need for my granddaughter to receive the HPV vaccine.  She is questioning based on several specific things, like how the vaccine only protects from a small set of viruses, and not the more common ones and how HPV and the related cancers do not run in either side of my granddaughter's family tree.  What she isn't doing is raising irresponsible and outright lies about vaccines in general, but she has some specific concerns.  It doesn't make her anti-science, what it does do is make her cautious and wants to discuss it further with a actual medical professional before making a decision.  The applicable label isn't 'anti-science', but 'parent'.

The final statement of theirs is equally ridiculous, scientists criticize current scientific theories all the time.  That's where new scientific advances come from.  So again, I agree with the bare-bones statement.  But it's not the dissenting opinion that brings about new advances in science.  It's the scientists who put in the actual scientific work to support their views that end up becoming new advances in science.  Name me one scientific advance that is solely based on having a dissenting view?  There isn't one!  But this sort of statement is typical of the DI.  They are either unwilling or unable to do the real science to support their ideas . . . so they imply that no one is allowed to have a dissenting view, simply because no one takes them seriously because their dissenting view is not based on science, but on theology.

In closing this much longer than intended post, I recall something from a few years back, a quote from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe ID to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here:

"The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

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?

Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!

The Discovery Institute (DI) conducted another poll and, just like the last one, the poll came to a conclusion supporting the DI.  Wow, how incredible is that, two for two!

This time the poll was announced here: "For Darwin's Birthday, Poll Shows Broad Support for Teaching Evidence For and Against Darwin's Theory"  You might recall my issues with their last poll, ("A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!"), where the main issue was how the questions being asked drove the answers in a certain direction.  Well, can't make that complaint this time since they failed to tell us exactly what they asked, they did put a couple of phrases within quotes, so I am going to assume those were the questions, or at least part of the questions.  They are:

• "when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory."
• "biology teachers should cover only scientific evidence that supports the theory."

Before looking at their conclusion, let's look at the questions.  Pretty innocuous, aren't they?  But look at what the questions imply.  By asking this way they are implying that biology teachers are only considering pros of evolution, not the negatives and that the teachers are also engaging in some sort of cover-up by only teaching the scientific evidence.   What they fail to do is provide any actual context for the questions, yet imply things to lead the respondents in the direction they wish.  Here are a few contextual things that someone should know before answering the poll:

• Did the DI mention how that in past 150 years, not a single Creationist, including the Discovery Institute, has managed to provide any evidence contradicting the theory of evolution?  Of course not, that wouldn't drive the poll in the direction they want.
• Did they simply forget to mention that science classes are already encouraged to teach  pros and cons, providing those pros and cons are based on actual science.  No they didn't forget, they deliberately left that part out.
  
• Are biology teachers even qualified to teach any non-scientific evidence?  Regardless of the fact non-scientific evidence would be nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking. 
• Should they have mentioned who the DI is their agenda?  I think so!  It might have affected the result and not in a way the DI would have liked.

One other thing  . . . just what are the possible answers allowed by the poll?  I don't know and they don't tell you.  Often a simple 'yes' or 'no' actually makes the poll harder for people to understand because they don't fully allow people to express their opinion.  For example if a poll asked "Is it OK to yell 'Fire!' in a crowed movie theater?"  Yes or No!  It's impossible to use any data from this poll effectively.  Most people would answer something like "Yes, if there is an actual fire!", but the poll doesn't allow for that.  Go back to the questions themselves and imagine a simple "yes or no" option.  Can you think of things that would make such a simple answer to a complex question worthless?  I know I can!  I do wonder how many people surveyed did not respond on the basis of a lack of context?  Now that would be an interesting statistic.  The only thing claimed is a little over 2,000 respondents out of a pool of something like 6,000,000.  Hmmm, statistically not very significant.

Would the DI ever be guilty of these type of lawyer-word-games?  Let me take you back a few years.  Do you remember this:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This is the text to a petition the DI put out back in 2001.  Look at the wording, it is fairly innocuous.  The wording can also take on multiple meanings.  By itself this statement doesn't imply issues with current evolutionary theory, but that was exactly how this little petition was used in 2001 and is still used today.  Here is a couple of different points of view on the DI's little petition:

"Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advertisement:

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself."
(Wikipedia: Dissent from Darwinism)

The 'ad' mentioned was a reference to how this list of signatories was advertised in a number of prominent periodicals as a list of over 100 (That was back in 2001, since then they have managed to get over 800 signatories in recent years) scientific dissenters from what the DI called 'Darwinism.  We've talked about this list before, how the New York Times and the National Center for Science Education pretty well ripped it to shreds.  How the majority of the signatories had philosophical (religious) issues with evolution, not scientific ones.  How there were very few biologists, and many had their organizational affiliations inflated, or in the case of folks from the DI itself, hidden.  And how some of the scientists who signed the list didn't know what the DI was or how the list was going to be used.  Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, noted:

"that when interviewed, several of the scientists who had signed the statement said they accepted common descent. He thus suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered."(Wikipedia: Dissent from Darwinism)

'Carefully engineered'!  Sound familiar?  A fancy expression for marketing word games.  So, yes, the DI is very guilty of playing those games, and playing them often.  Remember the BS about calling ID a theory and then in the saem breath trying to compare it to an actual scientific theory?  Lots of word games!

Back to their poll, and here is their conclusion:

"Americans agree by an overwhelming margin that students should learn about all of the scientific evidence relating to Darwinian evolution, pro and con," said Dr. John West, Vice President of Discovery Institute.

Do they really?  Since when is 2,117 out of 6,000,000 an overwhelming margin?  Based on these numbers the only thing you can really say is an overwhelming majority did not respond.  If you look at the American population of 318,000,000 the 2,117 respondents start looking even less and less representative.  In addition we have no idea what audience group the DI targeted.  Don't forget, when you run a survey through Survey Monkey, you get to select the type of audience to aim the survey toward.  More information we don't have.  I will even go so far as to agree with the face-value statement I quoted from John West, with a slight wording change.  Students should learn all about the scientific evidence related to the Theory of Evolution.  But since that evidence would not include Creationism or Intelligent Design, I don't think that John really means just scientific evidence.

Here is my main takeaway.  Two things, since science classes already allow, and encourage, an examination of the scientific evidence, asking this as a poll question serves no purpose.  This does not indicate support for teaching Intelligent Design or even support for the pseudo-academic freedom bills like the LSEA.  If this conclusion were not associated with the DI, you might take it as face value, but since it was uttered by John West, you know there is a not-well-hidden agenda! My final takeaway, if the DI says it, you shouldn't place your trust in it!  After years of reading the foolishness that comes out of the DI, if they came out and said the sun rose this morning, I would still look outside to verify they aren't lying to me.

Based on their track record they would like me to believe the sun rose due to the actions of a sort-of unnamed Deity designer that we need to pay homage to with our every waking breath.  Sorry, Johnnie . . . the reason the sun 'rose' is due to a number of factors, chief among them is gravity . . . which is a fact and also a scientific theory.

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.

Discovery Institute Omerta?

I'm a little torn reading this "Creationism Whistleblower: ‘Academic Freedom’ Is Sneak Attack on Evolution" mainly because I don't want to be guilty of one of the things I have said about many others, usually creationists.  One of my issues is that all too often when someone reads something that agrees with them, usually in a philosophical sense, they immediately voice their agreement with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  But all too often the next step is they are willing to say incredibly ridiculous things to defend it for no other reason that the philosophical agreement.

Over on Topix, for example, there is a poster whose main defense of his religious beliefs is the 'Law of Biogenesis' which, according to him, completely disproves the Theory of Evolution and thereby making his religious belief the only possible way life could have formed on Earth.  He conveniently ignores what the 'law' actually addressed, which was the belief in 'spontaneous generation' which claimed that life arises from non-life, addressing things such as maggots 'appearing' in meat, fleas came from dust, molds in bread, and so forth.  Pasteur repeated and expanded upon earlier experiments that proves the source of these forms of life were not inanimate materials.  The poster, who calls himself 'marksman11' co-opted the term and completely changed what Pasteur did in order to rationalize his religious belief in a form of Creationism.

For another example, look at the lengths little kennie ham and his Hamians over at Answers in Genesis will go to support their narrow beliefs . . . I mean 'rafts of trees knocked down by 'The Flood' to transport animals all over the world' as a rationalization for geographical biodiversity?  Seriously?  So when I read this article, I wanted to make sure I wasn't falling into the same trap . . . because I completely agree with every word said! 

If you aren't familiar with Zach Kopplin, he first came into public view fighting the poorly named "Louisiana Science Education Act" as a high school student in Louisiana.  He's been publicly recognized and awarded for his tireless efforts in support of science education and hopefully one day his efforts to have that ridiculous bill repealed will be successful!  In this article on 'The Daily Beast' site he interviews an unidentified former-employee of the Discovery Institute and that employee reveals a number of things that are really no surprise.  I don't normally like unnamed sources, but I also understand why some people wouldn't want to become a public face.  In all honestly I have no idea why anyone would want their  . . . 15 minutes of fame . . . in the first place.  Guess I am not wired that way.  But some of the things they say are things that I, and many others, have been saying for years.  Here is a small sample:

“DI [The Discovery Institute] is religiously motivated in all they do,”

“Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,  . . . That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.”

Zach closed his article with a great line:

"Real academic freedom is important, but creationists like the Discovery Institute have corrupted its meaning to miseducate children." 

My only addition to the list of words the DI hollows out and fills them with their own purposes is 'Peer-Reviewed', which I discussed in a post just yesterday (Is it Peer-Reviewed?).  Keep up the good work Zach!  Would it be appropriate to say you are a credit to Louisiana High School education?  Or would it be more appropriate to say you are a credit in spite of a Louisiana High School education?

In any event, I do so agree with Zach, and this former DI employee, and not just philosophical grounds.  All of the evidence supports everything they have said.  The Wedge Strategy Document clearly shows the religious purpose guiding the DI.  They use of tactics like "Teach the Controversy" and "Academic Freedom" campaigns are well documented.  So it doesn't look like I am falling into that philosophical trap because unlike folks like 'marksman11' and kennie ham, evidence trumps superstition!

Now the DI has written about Zach many, many times, mostly by one of their shills, davey klinghoffer.  In fact just this past May davey once wrote a post that was an 'Open Letter to Zach's parents'.  In it he pretty much whined about their son being used by the apparently nefarious  'Darwin Lobby' and Zach's apparent refusal to allow the DI to 'educate' him.  Klingy closed with this:

"My suggestion? Have a talk with your son about his education, and about an unfortunate reality of the world, that zealots with a political agenda will try to use an enthusiastic person like himself to their own ends, which may not include a high regard for truth telling. If I were his father, I would want to see my boy buckle down, get his degree, prepare for a career, do something useful with his life, and something honorable."

I feel this was a pretty low point in klingy's career as a DI shill, but I am sure he'll stoop to lower tactics eventually, if he hasn't already.  Obviously Zach has been getting under their skin pretty regularly.  They've written about him over 20 times in the past couple of years.  I don't know if his parents ever saw this particular piece of trash, but I would be curious if they had any sort of reaction.  Back in 2011 Zach's father did have this to say:

"Asked about his son's political initiative, Kopplin called his eldest child "smart, courageous and relentless."

"Every 17-year-old, you know, they are quite independent thinkers," he said. "I'm extraordinarily proud of him. He's a strong-willed young man, and I'm proud of him." (For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair)

If Zach was a son of mine I would be proud of him on many levels.  First of all he is standing up for what he believes in, he's supporting actual science and science education, and he's not allowing the marketing efforts of the DI from succeeding in their pseudo-science attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. 

The fun part will be seeing what kind of response Zach gets from the Discovery Institute.  Will they ignore it or will they play the 'disgruntled employee' card?  I wonder if any other former employees will come forward, or does their employment contract prohibit them from saying anything, sort of a Creationism Omerta clause?  We shall see!

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!

Doonesbury does it again

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

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

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

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

Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lie #5: These Laws Single Out Evolution. OK, he's sorta right on this one. The original attempts at laws like these, that we saw in Ohio and Kansas, did single out one scientific theory, that was Evolution, the evolved versions list several topics as examples.

One of the criticisms of the Discovery Institute supported action in Ohio, and during the Dover Trial was that by singling out the Theory of Evolution, you had trouble making the case that your efforts are for improving science education as a whole. So what's a Creationist to do? Evolve your plan to try and negate previously used arguments for shooting holes in your desires.

If casey was being honest he would admit that evolution is only the start. Already we have seen efforts to re-write social studies in Texas. The Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute states quite clearly that Evolution is only the start. So while the laws might not currently target evolution, the behavior of the laws promoters certainly do. I guess casey seems to forget that actions speak louder than words.

Lie #6: These Laws Lead to Stupidity, Dishonesty, and the Adulteration of Science Education. Are these laws dishonest? Simply put, yes. Like I said at the beginning, many states already have laws protecting academic freedom. We have seen that even the idea of these laws causes casey luskin himself to be dishonest. The school district of Livingston Parish is deliberately exploring the possibility of an end run around the words of the law to push their own religious agenda because the enforcement rules allow it. Testimony from the Louisiana Family Forum has proven the stupidity and dishonesty of the law.

The end result will be the destruction of science education. If you don't believe me, simply list all of the scientific advances accomplished through the application of Creationism or Intelligent Design? If you are being honest with yourself you would come to the same number I did: 0. Teaching these subjects would result in a negative impact on science education. For example note the comments made by teachers in Mt Vernon Ohio who were discussing the impact of John Freshwater's dilution of the science curriculum by teacher his religion as valid and evolution as invalid science. The teachers found themselves having to re-teach basic materials that Freshwater was supposed to have covered. And little casey doesn't seem to think it matters.

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

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

Louisiana Politics over Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Klinghoffer -- Discovery Institute shill

Lauri Lebo wrote an article, "Creationism: Don't use the 'C-Word'", about the cowardly Discovery Institute's efforts to distance themselves from a situation of their own making down in Livingston Louisiana. I commented on it in my own post "The Two Faces of the DI". Well she caused a pretty typical response form the DI, from one of their more dishonest shills, David Klinghoffer. I found it interesting that when she addressed a specific post to Klinghoffer's misrepresentation of Darwin and Hitler ("The Dark Side of Darwin") he was conspicuously silent. I mean she really tore him apart, calling into question his ability to research a topic and his integrity. She pretty much made him look like an idiot. Yes, I did enjoy her post on that subject. I also enjoyed her post on the DI fleeing the scene of their crime in Louisiana.

The reason I call Klinghoffer a shill is because he obviously doesn't know how to read. He is toeing the party line of the DI by repeating the claim that the Louisiana Science Education Act forbids teaching Creationism -- yet forgets to mention how that part of the law was not addressed in the implementation standards, which the DI helped write. He forgets to mention the Wedge Strategy, the guiding document of the DI, makes it very clear one of their goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." (Scan of the original Wedge Strategy from the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture).

So we have an organization with this as one of it's stated objectives, who set the stage for exactly this in the science classrooms of Louisiana, and then tries to take to task someone who realizes exactly what they are doing and why. Yup, sounds like a shill to me!

As I read the article I got the feeling that if Lauri was standing right next to Klinghoffer he would be patronizing her with a pat on the head. I mean he said:

"Ms. Lebo, a journalist who wrote a whole book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case"

A 'whole' book . . . Wow! Does this imply that she did something amazing by write an whole, entire book? Obviously he didn't read the whole book or he would realize that like Barbara Forrest, Lauri Lebo knows exactly what she is talking about. He was certainly damning with faint praise with:

"Giving Lauri Lebo the benefit of the doubt on this score -- she seems bright enough"

'Bright enough'? Who the hell is he to make such a judgment? This is the man who cannot do 30 seconds of research to realize his Darwin and Hitler comments have no support what-so-ever! David, she's plenty bright enough to see through your BS, isn't she? Which means she is considerably brighter than you -- which isn't much of a compliment because I think a cabbage has an intellectual leg up on you. So let me be clear. I read Lauri's book "The Devil in Dover" and enjoyed it for its professional and personal insight into the Dover trial. I have enjoyed reading her occasional updates on her Facebook page and I have certainly enjoyed her comments on the this whole subject. She is knowledgeable, writes well, and always supports her work! David, you should take lessons rather than try and patronize her!

Klinghoffer really does stick with the marketing line from the DI in his response, but he fails in typical fashion. Lauri Lebo is well up on the tricks, tactics, and lies told by people like Chapman and Klinghoffer. She has the journalistic integrity to call them on it. Klinghoffer's response is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to having another set of lies and disreputable tactics exposed to the light of day. Read in that light, it's actually pretty funny.

This type of reaction is more something I would have expected by Luskin, but then it's really getting hard to tell these guys apart just by reading. Well as much fun as watching Klinghoffer squirm, I have a few other things to do today. I wonder who is the next DI mouthpiece to comment? One thing is for sure they are not going to actually address the DI cutting and running out on Louisiana -- they would much rather attempt to attack Lauri Lebo. But then, that seems to be their normal way of doing business.

Just in case you aren't clear, the language in BOTH the Louisiana Science Education Act and the instructions for implementing the act open the door for non-scientific alternatives to science to be brought into the classroom as if they were science. The first school district in Louisiana to actually do so will be facing an expensive lawsuit -- and you can count on the DI to hide as far away from the action as they can. It's not a guess, it's based on their history.

The two-faces of the DI

OK, the Discovery Institute has made one response to the situation in Livingston Parish. And those marketeers are using it, but not in their typical fashion. I guess they figured the school board is either going to back off or try and go forward losing another lawsuit. I think even the DI would have trouble raising funds after another crushing defeat!

How I see it is that Livingston has two choices to either back off or press on. If the school board backs off, the DI can claim that if they had only gone the 'smart' route and followed their tactics of marketing pseudo-science they might well be in the position to offer Creationism while safely hiding it under a lab coat. If they press ahead and suffer another crushing defeat, the DI can claim that it wasn't ID that got creamed, but Creationism -- and we all know that ID is not Creationism (wink, wink). So how is the DI playing it? Well here is one response.

Bruce Chapman,the director and founder of the Discovery Institute, has a lovely little post that reminds me of the Mission Impossible opening theme where "the Secretary will disavow all knowledge". In my opinion this is the cowardly way out. The Discovery Institute SET-UP this scenario when they, and the Louisiana Family Forum included all the right words to open the door for a non-scientific critiques of science. They are the ones who opened the door for nearly any material can be used in the science classroom. They were the ones who removed any possible teeth from the implementation procedures to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening. So when it finally does come to pass -- what does the Discovery Institute do? They cut their losses and run! See that yellow streak, that's Bruce running in the opposite direction!

He even mentioned Dover in his comments. Did he forget who was advising the former members of the Dover School Board? They cut and ran there as well. As soon it looked like a legal battle was coming and one they were not going to win -- they ran. They also ran from the minister's wife/part-time soccer coach in Tejon Ca who tried to teach a philosophy class about 'design' that was nothing more than a not-very-cleverly disguised ID class. They are the ones who claimed, after the fact, that they suggested she settle.

So here seems to be the modus operandi. They will do anything, say anything, promise anything to string some poor school district, teacher, or politician along. Then when the going gets rough and bad publicity or a legal defeat might be in their future, they firmly place their tails between their legs and run back to Seattle! Well I guess that is to be expected since , in my opinion, it's not like they have principles to support.

Let this be a warning to any other school district thinking of Intelligent Design, or it's older brother Creationism. Well before things look bleak, hours before the possibility of the darkest darkness before the dawn, you will see the Discovery Institute give up and head for home and start spinning things as if they were not responsible. The only difference in Livingston is that they are starting the spinning before the school board has taken any actual action! There you have it, the two faces of the Discovery Institute. The one face loaded with marketing muscle that makes all kinds of unsupported pronouncements about the immediate demise of evolutionary theory -- and the other face . . . or rather the back of their heads . . . as they cut and run leaving you in the lurch.

One last thing, Chapman called his post "A Classic Evolution Policy Blunder", but is this really about Evolution or is it about a school system making an anti-evolutionary policy decision that will make the DI look like idiots? Someone needs to help him write titles, his crayons must be getting dull.

OK, this really is the last item for this post. I start this post yesterday and this morning found that Lauri Lebo beat me to it. Please read her post "Creationism: Don't use the "C-Word". Great article! Thanks Lauri! I almost didn't post mine, but any chance to make fun of those ID'iots in Seattle is well worth it.

Proof ID is a sham

I've posted a couple of things about the happenings in Livingston Parish, La, ("Dover -- Redux", "South Carolina's Textbook Controversy Redux" and , "Livingston -- Wait 'til Nezt Year!") and one of the readers directed me to a post by Barbara Forrest, over at the Louisiana Coalition for Science website, which lays bare the whole idea of Intelligent Design not being Creationism.

In one of my posts I had wondered that Livingston seemed to completely bypass Intelligent Design and were heading right to Creationism -- and not any old form of Creationism, the pro-Christian version (based on comments by Livingston Board member David Tate and the write-up in the local paper). I also wondered how the Discovery Institute would react. Foolish me thought that since Livingston was not re-treading the specific path chosen by the late Dover School Board, the DI might be out of the loop. My mistake! Not only are they in the loop, they are one of the ropes that I think will hang the Livingston School Board in the future.

I should have known better. I mean who helped craft the Louisiana Science Act? Well those less-than-stalwart fellows at the Discovery Institute, along with that very conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum (LFF). Who helped gut the enforcement provisions implemented by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE)? The DI and LFF again. Who has crowed about ever success, real and imaginary in Louisiana? The DI that's who! I think that's what put me off. Livingston Parish comes out and says they are considering bring back that ol' Time Religion and the DI doesn't say a word. It should have made me suspicious.

I guess sometimes I need a 2x4 to get my attention. It's another tactic, a ploy. They want people to forget about their involvement because of the anticipated lawsuit. So when the parish loses, they can say, with a straight face, that the parish didn't get their ideas from them, after all -- they are ID and ID has nothing to do with Creationism . I think it's also an attempt to distance Livinston from Dover. I mean the Dover decisions dealt with ID, not Creationism.

I, as usual, completely disagree with their tactics and methods. I think they were in it up to their beady little eyeballs. I think they are opening champagne over the apparent success. I think they are hoping that any complaints get tied up in the bureaucracy that they helped establish. I think that any legal challenges will take so long and be so expensive that no one will want to attempt them. I mean look at it. Not only do you have the support of a State Law, but you have the law that specifically state 'not to be used for a religion', so how can teaching Creationism be construed as a religion? One final 'I think', I think they are screwed up in the head.

My crystal ball says there will be complaints and the 'system' in place will not be able to deal with them. I see a lawsuit in their future and one that everyone, up to and including the present Governor, are already prepping for it. They are going to make it as hard as possible to simply make it to a Federal Court, but in the long run, I think they are looking at another defeat . . . which the DI will whine a great deal about. Will they wind up back in front of the Supreme Court? I don't see that. I mean the Court already ruled against them in 1987. Nothing new has been added but a bit of the waters being muddied up. But this is one mudbuggy in for a short ride in the swamps of Louisiana.

This could all be headed off if one of two things would happen. The easy one would be for the committee looking into it to realize that it is a lost cause and recommends to drop the whole issue. The other is if the people in Livinston Parish tell the School Board that they are screwing up! Of course since the committee is made up of school board members, I doubt they will come back with anything less than cautious support -- unless Tate is on the committee and then it will be wildly enthusiastic support, as long as they are talking Evangelical Christian Creationism. The real wild card is whether or not the people of Livinston really want to support this measure. David Tate certainly doesn't represent everyone in the Parish, I hope they start attending Board meetings and making their feelings clear.

My final point is also the title of this post. The Discovery Institute, in supporting these activities, have finally taken the sheet off ID and you can see the Creationism underpinnings. They really don't give a damn about ID, as long as their version of Creationism can wedge its way into the science classroom. This type of bait-and-switch is worthy of the most stereotypical used car salesman! That's exactly what the DI is a used car salesman, the they are about to cast aside the used car that has outlived it's usefulness and an even older car that got put on blocks in 1987. The sportier ID is giving way . . . as always intended by the DI . . . to the clunkness of Creationism. I hope the folks in La hold them accountable for their tactics and give them the answer they so richly deserve, another resounding defeat!

Livingston -- Wait 'til Next Year?

2The Advocate.com is reporting that the Livingston Parish School Board is not going to push the issue of teaching Creationism this school year. That's nothing but a respite because as I read the rest of the Article I thought sanity might be breaking out -- but right at the end I think the Dover Trial Ghost is living in Louisiana.

While Tom Jones, the Board's attorney sounded reasonable, Keith Martin and David Tate, the Board President and a Board Member respectively, certainly do not. Martin says that he voted against teaching Creationism in 2008 because he was worried that teachers would inject their own religious views into the classroom. He also seems to think that Creationism has undergone some changes in recent years and that would make it more appropriate to teach. So what's going on in Mount Vernon Ohio right now has nothing to do with a Teacher injecting his own religious views onto his students? OK, that is Ohio not Louisiana, right?

Martin really needs to listen to the words his one of his own Board members. Tate said

"We don't want litigation, but shouldn't someone take a stand for Jesus and risk
litigation."

Isn't that Tate injecting his own beliefs into the fray even before the School Board committee reports back with a recommendation? Sure sounds like it to me.

Now you can see why I am concerned. The smoke has barely cleared from the Dover Trial and the same thing seems to be happening a little further South. Tate's comment reminds me of William Buckingham, former Board member of the Dover Area School District, who said [paraphrasing here]: '2000 years ago, a man died on a cross. Shouldn't we stand up for him now?' Of course he later denied his comments leading the Judge in that case to say in his ruling

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly
touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover
their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

So is Livingston going to find itself on the losing end of costly litigation because of a school board member's religious beliefs? Sure seems to be heading in that direction. I wonder when the DI will chime in on this subject? They were so quick to respond to William Buckingham when some of his comments went public. Certainly something to watch for.

South Carolina Textbook Controversy redux?

Over in the State of Louisiana the second string in the LFF bow has been fired, it's at the textbooks for teaching science classes. It sounded vaguely familiar so I dug up a couple of old posts and reviewed them. Remember South Carolina's issue with textbooks? Looks very familiar, but a slightly different tactic. Rather than recruit a couple of Creationists to do an . . . ill-advised review, the LFF is asking for parents and the public to make their pseudo-complaints known. I guess they figures numbers will count especially since they have no substantive complaints.

The story posted on The News Star called "Proposed Textbooks to be Scrutinized" is a little scary, especially since at least one of the people planning to do the 'scrutinization' has already gotten his mind made up. Here are several quotes from the article from West Monroe resident Mickey Cleveland and my comments in italics after each one:

• "We want evolution taught, but we want the fallacies in the theory taught as well," What fallacies is he talking about? I am not aware of any fallacies -- plus if there are any, who is the best people to identify them? Folks with the training and educational background in the subject, that's who!
• "There have been outright lies that have been perpetuated throughout the years." Cleveland said that as technology improves, more scientists and mathematicians are questioning Darwin's theories of evolution. This is straight out of the Discovery Institute marketing material -- and I have said numerous times there is not one shred of evidence to show there are many scientists or mathematicians questioning the theory of evolution!
• "Darwin said that if things can be proven against my theory, then my whole theory breaks down," he said. "Darwin didn't have the microelectronic microscope. We are able to see inside of atoms. The DNA is so complex that mathematicians are saying that there is no way that macro evolution occurred. Science is proving creation. The Darwin quote is correct and in fact many of the details of Darwin's work were later found to be incorrect-- but none of those details are taught. The modern theory of evolution does not rely on those details. The overall concept of Natural Selection is true and that was first put forth by Darwin and substantiated by many others. plus there are no mathematicians that have published one single solitary mathematical paper proving there is no way for evolution and speciation to have happened -- there is lots of opinion papers saying things like that, but not one mathematician has proven it!

Do any of his statements sounds familiar? Well let us not forget that this isn't the first attack on science textbooks, not even in Louisiana. As noted by Barbara Forrest in "Louisiana Creationist Textbook Addendum Rejected in Tennessee" the LFF, one of the writers of the anti-science legislation called the Louisiana Science Education Act, also publishes some 'guidelines' on how to review science textbooks. They went further and

"In September 2009, working with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), an affiliate of Focus on the Family, Charles H. Voss was instrumental in persuading the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to adopt a creationist-friendly procedure for reviewing complaints about the use of creationist supplementary materials in public schools."

Voss' Text add-ons sounds a lot like Mr. Cleveland's objections. Which should be no surprise since these add-ons have been brought up any number of times. The bottom-line question is who are the best people to review curriculum material? In my opinion it is certainly those people training in the discipline. Biologists should be reviewing and suggesting material for the biology classroom. English majors should be doing it for English, Math for Math, and so on. These are the best people for determining what is appropriate for a particular subject area, what areas of the subject should be taught at what grades, what textbooks should be used and how well do they cover the subject area, and what are the qualifications for people who are going to teach a subject. These folks are the best source of information on a particular subject area!

Please read up on Barbara Forrest's "Combating Creationism in Louisiana Public Schools" is addresses many of the common objections and it a great way to be prepared when these pseudo-objections come up. It might seem a little dated, being from 1997. But then Creationists arguments haven't changed much since William Paley in 1802 now have they?

Now some folks might be upset that I am not giving parents and the public their due in textbook selection. They are right. Yes, parents and even the public should be involved in the education process. But there reaches a level of specialized knowledge to properly evaluate textbooks that most folks are not going to have. I have reviewed many textbooks in my own specialty of Information Technology, but I would be a poor choice to evaluate biology textbooks even though I am extremely interested in the subject. My insights would probably cause more damage than harm.

I hope the Livingston Parish school district does the smart thing, but I am worried that the organization of the pseudo-complainants might overwhelm them. It will be certainly something to keep an eye on! The State, in the form of Jindal signing the bill, and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education have caved into Creationist interests groups, specifically the LFF and the Discovery Institute. These people should not be driving science education, hell they shouldn't even be driving the school bus taking kids to school! But that is the first you are facing, good luck!