So there is nothing religious about ID? Part V

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

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

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

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

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

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

In all honesty, the last thing anyone with a working brain really wants to watch is 4 guys pat themselves on the back while complaining about how the rest of the world is a big-mean bully because no one outside of their little, tiny clique of friends takes them seriously. Actually three of them would be patting themselves on the back. The fourth will be doing nothing but patting the others, does anyone ever pat little casey on the back? In my opinion he's more of a 'good-boy' pat-on-the-head type. Think about it, in all their postings has anyone every referenced one of casey's ramblings the same way he does all of the others? Not that I have seen.

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

How many Anti-evolution Legistations will be attemped in 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Council on Education's position on Academic Freedom

This topic is getting so much attention, so here is more fodder for the discussion.

In 2005 the American Council on Education (ACE) issued a statement endorsed by a pretty impressive list of collegiate organizations. It's called "Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities". In it they made some pretty focused comments that also show that the current 'academic freedom' bills have little to do with academic freedom.

Owing to the incredible diverse nature of educational institutions in the United States they agree that it would impossible to create a single definition or set of standards that will work equally well for all fields of academic study, but they offer a central set of tenets that would create a common core of academic freedom principles no matter what the endeavor. Here are a few highlights:

• Colleges and universities should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas.
• Academic decisions, including grades, should be based solely on considerations that are intellectually relevant to the subject matter under consideration.
• The validity of academic ideas, theories, arguments and views should be measured against the intellectual standards of relevant academic and professional disciplines.
• Application of these intellectual standards does not mean that all ideas have equal merit.
• Government’s recognition and respect for the independence of colleges and universities is essential for academic and intellectual excellence.

Hmmm so looking at the bill passed in Louisiana, and the ones introduced in Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri, among other states; does anyone else see the things that are missing? Oh there are enough words similar to make people think the bills support actual academic freedom, but where is the tie to intellectually relevant to the subject matter under consideration? They tend to gloss over that part for the specific reason of being able to introduce irrelevant topics.

How about being able to measure standards against academic and professional disciplines? So in other words who should be decided whether or not Intelligent Design is a scientific discipline? Not the Discovery institute for sure! But that is what they are trying to do and in doing so gain a level of scientific validity without having to do the actual science! They want to have it mandated by law, not any professional discipline!

Note the lovely phrase that not all 'ideas' have equal merit! Just because an idea exists, doesn't mean that it deserves a seat at the table with actual valid, and well supported, scientific theories!

This does certainly violate the last principle, the one on academic institution independence. Yes, the government, both National, State, and Local are necessary for our public education system, but when a bill is used to determine what is course content, without the support of relevant professional and academic disciplines, where is the independence?

One more time, with feeling! The so-called academic freedom bills were not designed to support actual academic freedom. They were not designed to improve and foster a better science education. They are purposefully, and with intent and -- in my opinion with malice, designed to permit teachers to introduce unsupported ideas, ideas that have not passed any sort of professional discipline review, ideas with no basis other than the religious feelings of a small minority, into the classroom of our young and be protected from any actions that should result!

Look at the document from the ACE itself. Read it and you will see that right now, today, a teacher can introduce the concept of Creationism in school. They can discuss it in Philosophy class, in Sociology, even in Marketing. They can bring up this whole political debate in science class if they want. But what they cannot do is bring it to the table in science class as if it were a valid scientific discipline, well except in the State of Louisiana which has passed one of these ridiculous laws! It will be interesting when a teacher tried to implement it!

"Dover II" in Louisiana next school year? Anyone want to start a pool?

Oklahoma Update

I just read "Oklahoma bill to promote intelligent design talk fails" and in my opinion the headline should have been "Oklahoma Wins!"

By a vote of 7-6, Oklahoma's Senate Education Committee defeated Sen. Randy Brogdon's Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act. I wonder how the Discovery Institute, who 'helped' author this bill, like they did in other states, will knee-jerk react. I can see it now "But Oklahoma wasn't encouraging Intelligent Design' after they only read the headline. Poor DI, it looks like some people can read your motives rather than just the words on the paper.

Another state that recognized these so-called academic freedom bills have nothing to do with academic freedom! Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-McAlester called it a "subterfuge that would lead to teaching of theories based on religious viewpoints and not science."

Sen. Jim Halligan, R-Stillwater, objected to a provision he said "would allow students to refuse to answer test questions on a subject because they did not believe what was being taught in textbooks."

Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it! These bills not only do not improve the science education of our children, but push a religious agenda that has been deemed illegal! Plus how do you hold students accountable if they have to right to disagree with the information in the textbook! I, and many others, have been asking these questions and Oklahoma apparently listened.

Of course you can bet this won't be the end of it. It will get re-introduced, probably after evolving into the next Discovery Institute tactic. I mean after Creationism failed the legal challenge the name was changed to 'Creation Science', its failure was followed by followed by 'Intelligent Design', well documented during the Dover PA trial. Its failure has led to other tactics, such as 'Free Speech', "Teach the Controversy', and now 'Academic Freedom'. You can bet the proponents of pushing a religious agenda no matter what damage it does to education will be back in the future!

Keep science in the science classroom! Send a message to the Discovery Institute that their not-well-hidden agenda is exposed to the light of day! Let other states know the right path to take in protecting education! Particularly that rather large neighbor to your south. Remember folks, Texas votes next month!

And let us not forget Oklahoma

Oklahoma isn't trying stickers, they are trying the same tactic that so far has working in Louisiana, a mis-use of academic freedom. This proposed bill, Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, is a thinly veiled attack on various scientific subjects put under the guise of academic freedom.

Someone needs to tell Republican Senator Randy Brogdon that it is NOT academic freedom to encourage dialog on subjects clearly outside the realm of the subject area. Sure, the text of the bill claims not to open the doors for any religious alternatives . . . but look at Louisiana? Their bill claimed the same thing, and yet a provision that "materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science class" was deleted from the enforcement guidelines.

The door is wide open and the rules for making a complaint are confusing and complicated. Read the NCSE response to Louisiana. Lawmakers had the chance to back up the wording in the bill saying that is does "not promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,", but they shied away from actually making it clear.

I think there is simply a race for who will be the next Dover: Will it be Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, or Louisiana. Oh the suspense is killing me!