We Will Continue To Speak the Truth about Intelligent Design!

The Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site has a new post, it's from davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and it sounds as if he's pissed!  "Say What You Want About Intelligent Design"  Davey is repeating a common theme, he doesn't like what people say about Intelligent Design (ID).  Poor davey!

"Literally, say whatever the hell you want. You can say things that are true. Or you can say things that are false. Either is fine, but with most mainstream media outlets, false is likely preferable.Writing at the slick science magazine Nautilus, Brian Gallagher demonstrates yet again that there is no accountability when criticizing ID is on the agenda. He tries to draw a line connecting last month’s story about Turkey eliminating evolution from 9th grade science class, with “fundamentalist” Christianity, with creationism, with intelligent design, and with academic freedom legislation."

I haven't yet read the article that offended davey so deeply, I will, but for now I wanted to focus in on his complaints.  One of the things we have discussed often is how the DI doesn't like you much unless you agree completely with their agenda and parrot their own words often.  For example, they don't like Wikipedia much because Wikipedia insists on not allowing them to define Intelligent Design as science.  They don't like the United Methodist Church because they refused to give into the DI's demand for a propaganda table at the UMC's general meeting.  They didn't like the "March for Science" because they didn't invite the DI, and when they tried to invite themselves, the March for Science folks reminded the DI that they were not a scientific organization.  I don't think they like the Vatican very much because they didn't get invited to a Vatican-sponsored conference on Darwin back in 2009.  The basic bottom line seems to be either you are on their side, or you are the enemy.  Well I guess they found another enemy.

So is Nature reporting things that are not true?  I don't believe so.  The moniker of 'false news' has become very popular lately, but just declaring, or insinuating, something is false news doesn't mean it actually is false.  Just read most of a certain hamster-haired serial misogynist and liar's tweets about all news organizations except for the extreme right and you will understand that calling something 'false news' really means they wrote something you didn't like -- not that their news is actually false!

One of davey's whine is how ID is defined, but the definition keeps changing, as noted in "Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'"  It seems that one of the tactics that the DI uses is to complain about how ID is characterized -- even though they have yet to establish a formal definition and explanation of ID.  It's like they refuse to allow themselves to be pinned down, and therefore can complain about someone anytime they say something that isn't immediately supportive and positive.

Do you think a line can be drawn between Turkey dropping Evolution from their school curriculum and the activities of fundamentalist Christians, what I usually call Evangelical Christians, who are trying to do the exact same thing?  Of course you can!  Religious groups in Turkey are doing what people like kennie ham, Texas' Don McLeroy, Ohio's Deborah Owens Fink, and South Carolina's Kristin Maguire would love to do -- remake the entire school curriculum, from pre-school through college, in the conservative Christian image -- regardless of your actual religious beliefs, or lack of them.  Destroy science, history, and any subject that fails to put their version of God as the correct answer to any and all questions.  You can agree or disagree, but when you look at the facts of the actions these folks -- and others -- have taken, that is exactly what they want.

OK, so we have two points, can we extend that line to Creationism?  I believe so.

Who have been ardent supporters of their religion being the basis for education in this country?  Who have been arguing against any subject, particularly evolution, that they claim undermines their religious beliefs?  If you look at folks like McLeroy, Owens Fink, and Maguire you will find they are Creationists.  They were pushing for the addition of Creationism for years and only switched to ID as a tactic.  It's not just them, it was the school board in Dover PA which lead to the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial which was so devastating to the ID movement.  It was groups that led up to many, if not all, of the lawsuits that results in religion being removed from the science classroom, at least in public schools.  'Creationist' is the modern term, but there have been other names for them.  What it boils down to is the actions, and their actions are to impose their religious beliefs on any and all students regardless of whether those beliefs are shared or even if those beliefs mean anything.  Think I am stretching here, well then tell me how science works when all you have to rely on is your religious beliefs?  How many diseases have been cured, how many scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished through religious beliefs?  Doesn't look like any of them, does it?

So we've stretched a line from Turkey through Fundamentalist Christianity to Creationism, next stop Intelligent Design. Anyone remember this post: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?".  How about a few highlights:

• A 'Teacher Training Program' as part of the DI's 'Publicity and Opinion-making' phase. ( (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase II, page 6)" 
• "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)" 
• "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center . . . to promoting intelligent design theory . . . among students, educators, . . . and anyone else interested.
• Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (IDEA Club Website) 
• In Texas where they were 'advising' the Creationist head of the state school board on public school curricula and textbooks. 
• To their own website with: 
• Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design! 
• Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members
• The failed Santorum Amendment

Yes, we can connect all of this into one long line and ending at their current activities, what they like to call their Academic Freedom bills, bills which have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.  Here is how those bills are described in Wikipedia:

"A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom, supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred."

Anti-evolution, purported to support academic freedom, asking for protection against actions that have never happened.  Just another tactic of deceit from the DI.  Look at each and evey action they claim is a form of intimidation and you will find a teacher failing to do their job.  Look for yourself, but avoid the DI's propaganda machine.  The ones they mention most often are:

• Crocker's contract was up and she was not re-hired partly because she was failing to teach the subject she was hired to teach -- science. 
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students after 7 years in the job. Seven years and only one completed graduate student and hardly any research funding. Very poor showing for a tenure seeking professor! But he was not fired. 
• Sternberg was the already outgoing editor of a minor biological journal who, on his way out the door, violated the journals review procedure to publish one of his friend's ID paper, and now he works for that same friend at the DI. 
• Freshwater was fired for a number of things including failing to do his job, lying to investigators, trying to get his students to lie for him, and burning crosses into kids arms. He tried to take his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, after failing at all the other levels. It didn't work. 
• Coppedge was simply downsized and tried to turn it into a religious discrimination suit and failed. Of course he looked pretty bad when all the evidence showed that he was a poor employee (there were complaints), liked to preach his religion to his co-workers (there were more complaints), and refused to keep his skills current.

It is not intimidation to hold people accountable for the job they were hired to do!  Those so-called 'academic freedom' bills are designed to not allow schools to hold them accountable.  Imagine a school who cannot fire a teacher who was hired to teach biology and is found to be teaching religion instead?  Such bills will prevent schools from taking action . . . we have real problems in our education system, protecting those failing to perform is not going to help!

One last quote from davey:

"He repeats the myth about ID as “rebranded” creationism. Hardly. One is an inference from science, the other from the Bible. That’s a big difference. One regards the great age of the Earth, reckoned in billions of years, with equanimity and is open to the idea of common descent. The other doesn’t and isn’t."

Here is where davey plays a little redefinition with Creationism.  He tends to forget that not all Creationists are what are called Young Earth Creationists (YEC), but that's one of his criteria trying to convince people that ID isn't Creationism.  But the age of the Earth and common descent are not the common theme that connects Creationism, regardless of what specific strain you might follow.  Here's a common definition:

"Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes." (Wikipedia: Creationism)

Anything in there on common descent or the age of the Earth?  Nope!  There are many varieties of Creationism, but they all share this belief that everything originated through the actions of a deity and not natural processes.  For comparison, ID proponents claim that:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design)

Notice anything similar?  Without offering any evidence, they make a claim that natural processes couldn't be responsible.  The only difference is that they hide their references to a deity.  This is a tactic, and their own guiding document, the Wedge Document, also called the Wedge Strategy.  It's the game plan used by ID proponents and it specifically calls for:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

That's in the opening paragraph.  So while ID proponents like to hide their allegiance to a deity, they don't hide it very well.  So in reality, it's not Brian Gallagher who is repeating a myth about ID being 'rebranded Creationism', but davey himself that is telling the myth, the myth that ID is not the same thing as Creationism!

So just looking at davey's whine doesn't seem to much  any sense.  It's just the usual vitriol aimed at something who calls them, not only like they see them, but like they are.  Nature and Brian Gallagher are simply telling the truth, but it's a truth that the DI has been trying to hide for years.

Texas, Don't Take This Wrong, But You Are Sounding like South Carolina

I don't know if you remember, but back a few years ago (2007 and 2008) South Carolina elected a home-schooling conservative to head their state school board and one of the first things she [Kristin Maguire] did was violate procedure to try and reject the science textbooks already selected by the school board appointed working group.    It led to more hearing and delays as she brought in a couple of Creationists to object to well pretty much the usual stuff, mainly evolution.

So why would Texas remind me of that?  The state school board set up a panel to streamline science standards.  Even before they started work, members of the school board did their best to stack the deck with evolution-deniers -- much like Maguire did in her textbook complaint.  Even with two confirmed evolution-deniers on the panel, the panel voted to remove some of the anti-evolution rhetoric put in back in 2009 by the school board when it was headed by the creationist dentist, Don McLeroy, who made Texas a laughing stock.  Even with this preliminary vote, creationists are up in arms because of it. (Discussed in the Austin American Statesman and Pandas Thumb)

How I see the parallels:

1. Creationists do their best to stack review panels with unqualified people (Creationism ideology more important than scientific credentials)
2. They allow process to run until they don't like the outcome
3. Then they get all upset and start trying to trash the whole thing.

Texas, you deserve better, but until you let your voice be heard in the ballot box, you are going to continually allow your children's education to be held hostage by Creationists who are trying to make sure your children are taught their philosophy and not actual science.  I really feel for you, each and every one.  Here is something I wrote back in 2007.  It was directed toward South Carolina, but it's just as applicable to you, Texas, today:

"My question is to the people of South Carolina? Is this the direction you want to go? Ms. Maguire and friends are re-treading the direction other states have tried and failed, sometimes in embarrassing and expensive ways. Do you want your Biology teachers teaching religion to your kids? Do you want a narrow fundamentalist Christian viewpoint from determining the contents of your textbooks? Do you want to start the process of removing science from your curriculum?" (Ms. Kristin Maguire strikes)

Well, do you?  South Carolina wound up dropping Ms Maguire for reasons unrelated to conservative and anti-science positions.  You really need to re-examine the people on your school board.  Shouldn't the number one priority be the education of your children?  I would have thought so.

Shades of Kristin Macguire

What is it about South Carolina?  Remember Kristin Macguire, the homeschooler Mom who ended up heading the State School Board briefly a few years back.  During her tenure, she caused extra expense by bringing in a couple of Young Earth Creationists to question the already selected science textbook.  Yes, the selection process had been followed, decisions were already made and, at the last minute, the incoming school board president, Macguire, brings in a couple of ringers to push her personal religious belief on the students of South Carolina.  That time sanity prevailed and the already selected textbooks were voting in after a number reviews and public testimony and additional time and expense.  I guess every school board has time and money to burn, right?

Well history is sorta repeating itself.  In this article "S.C. Education Department out of the loop in writing of new evolution standard" in the Post and Courier, things are still not kosher in SC.  While the headline tells the story, it's not the whole story.  Apparently in an effort to deal with some of the contentious issues around getting a new science standard approved, a new 'compromise' standard was drafted.  Guess who wasn't involved . . .but more interesting guess who was?  Obviously the Education Department, whose job it is to draft standards, was not involved.  However, a certain organization from the Northwest had inside knowledge of the process and was invited by . . . guess who to play?  You got it, Mike Fair -- yes, that Mike Fair -- he invited the Discovery Institute.  They presented to the group drafting the new standard.

Why am I saying history is repeating itself?  Well just like Kristin, certain players ignore the rules and push a personal religious agenda.  One of the Board members himself didn't know this re-drafting was going on.  That's right the group whose job it is to write the standards and at least one of the people who approve such standards were out of the loop!  Once again South Carolina violated their own rules and procedures for the express purpose of trying to weaken science education.  This time they invited the DI, an organization dedicated to doing just that. Anyone else see a problem here?

Let's hope sanity once again breaks out and this 'compromise' standard goes the way of the dodo.  Is it too much to hope that Mike Fair's political career goes the same way?

South Carolina and Mike Fair

If ever a politician is misnamed, I think it's Mike Fair.  I'm sure he'll disagree, but in pushing for forcing his religious beliefs on other people, is he really acting in a fair manner?

Forbes online has this article "South Carolina Legislator Wants To Force Students To Learn Creationism" and while I've been out of the fray for a while, it's nice to know some things never change.  Fair is a pretty typical Conservative Christian, in 2008 he he introduced a bill that would have specifically allowed public school teachers to critique evolution in their classrooms. The bill died in committee!  The National Center for Science Education identified this bill, and others like it, as designed to undermine science education rather than actually encourage critical thinking.  I'm sure he's other brushes with changing science education.  I do wonder if he was a support of Kristin Maguire when she was trying to stop the purpose of a science text because it failed to give equal standing to Creationism/ID.  Remember her?  She was the home-schooling Mom who was the President of the SC state school board.

Well in addition to the same old things, I have been commenting about the article on Forbes site and once again, the same old thing.  Knee-jerk reactions from Creationists who claim that evolution has been refuted, yet fail to provide any evidence of that.  Comments claiming scientific support for Creationism and forgetting to tell us what that support is.  Attacks on evolutionary theory form apparently unarmed Creationists.  It's been a while for me, but in some ways it's nice to see some things never change, but I was hoping they would.  Luckily there are some very intelligent and well-thought out rebuttals of the various forms of Creationism attacks. 

In my humble opinion Mike Fair seems to be the type of person who believes in Freedom of Religion providing your religion is the same one he believes in.  If not, well he is perfectly happy spending other people's money . . . State and Federal tax money . . . to make you fall appropriately in line.  Why does he keep getting re-elected?

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.

Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!

While Christianity Today is not a magazine I read regularly I caught this little article on John Lynch's 'A Simple Prop' blog, something I do read on a regular basis. He linked to an article there by Karl Giberson, director of Gordon College's Forum on Faith and Science. The article "Intelligent Design: Find a Fertile Idea" is one of three that try and offer suggestions on ways intelligent design can gain academic currency.

The first article in the trilogy was by Stephen C. Meyer, author of that disaster "Signature in the Cell" and one of those disreputable Discovery Institute ideologists. Meyer said his usual mishmash of defensiveness. I was not surprised at his opening:

Asking what advocates of intelligent design must do to gain credibility in the academy is a bit like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. Such a question makes a prejudicial assumption.

Meyer tries once again to convince people that ID has any credibility at all in the scientific community. Tell me how credible is a concept who's own supporters fail to do any actual work to support their idea. The majority of the time they are trying denigrate Evolution rather than promote ID. I'll close this blog entry with another example of Meyer's poor personal credibility, but first on to the other two articles in the trilogy.

The second article was done by a geologist, Marcus Ross, the down side is that he teaches at Liberty University. Liberty is not exactly a place brimming with open-mindedness for new scientific ideas. So I do feel some resistance to Ross immediately, but what he says makes some amount of sense, but I can't see the ID community paying any attention. It's time to give up on the Big tent approach:

It is one thing to argue that an object or organism is designed. But then comes the question of how and when the design was implemented (and also by whom). Because ID is minimalistic, a number of options are available. Was the design implemented over a multibillion-year history of Earth, or in six rotational days several thousand years ago? Was it worked out through a genetic unfolding of a single information-rich cell, or through designed interventions within evolutionary lineages, or by separate, ex nihilo creations? Various ID proponents offer different answers, but none speaks for ID itself, because if one perspective were widely accepted, the other members would be forced to leave the tent.

In my opinion Ross' first mistake was not starting with the basics. Prove design and then you can deal with the different members standing under the tent. Obviously that has not happened at all. Ross does state something that I disagree with. Since when have

" . . . proponents have made progress in advancing design-detection methods, and have been modestly successful in applying them to real biological systems . . ."

I certainly haven't seen any actual progress, certainly not by anyone from the Discovery Institute or Liberty University. If he is thinking Meyer's book is progress, he needs to relearn that progress is considered forward, Meyer's book took his buddies in the opposite direction, so much so that they [the DI] are already publishing a book to address all the criticism. (PZ Myers Pharyngula blog reports "The Discovery Institute is desperately patching Meyer's mind-numbing magnum opus") To bad they don't address the cause for the criticism, instead they seem to want to attack the critics. Typical Dishonesty Institute tactic.

Giberson's article was the third. He is a proponent of theistic evolution, another concept I disagree with, but have fewer issues with it. Basically it surrounds evolution is a religious wrapper, but it does leave the theory pretty much alone. I really liked his summary:

I would love to see ID redirect its energies to developing a genuinely fertile idea. Stop trying to prove that Darwin caused the Holocaust or that evolution is ruining Western civilization. Agree among yourselves that the earth is old, since science has proven that. Do not call world-class scientists "cranks," as Meyer implies in Signature in the Cell. Do not claim that evolution is collapsing, when everyone in the field knows it isn't. Stop claiming that you cannot get your work published in conventional journals when you aren't submitting papers to these journals.

Instead, roll up your sleeves and get to work on the big idea. Develop it to the point where it starts spinning off new insights into nature so that we know more because of your work. Then the academy will welcome you with open arms. Science loves rebels.

This is a familiar theme I read about constantly. Most critics of the ID political and marketing movement have been asking for this for 20 years. I like to put it a little more succinctly:

Quit whining and do some science -- real science not make believe!

However, I can't see anyone from the Discovery Institute paying any attention. They already know they haven't done any science, they even stood up their own lab (Biologic Institute) and still haven't managed to do any science. Yet they stand by their marketing and keep trying to convince everyone how 'scientific' they are. They won't listen, especially not with the apologetic like Meyer leading the charge.

Speaking of Meyer again, here is another quote from his article:

First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists.

In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!

Now maybe Meyer should work on his own credibility before claiming how credible Intelligent Design within the scientific community. How can anyone believe a word he says?

But back to the gist of this trilogy and my blog entry -- I think it's time for the DI to get off the pot. How can ID gain acceptance, or as the articles put it 'academic currency'. I believe it's too late for that. ID is an idea that has failed and started failing when Philip E. Johnson wrote the Wedge Strategy Document. It's time the ID proponents faced facts and ID, as a way to get Creationism re-introduced to the science classroom in public schools, is an abject failure. I know they won't, but I can hope.

If they need any more incentive, John Lynch, and the NCSE also reported that the last two anti-evolution bills have died. Two bills introduced in South Carolina have died in committee.

What the hell is wrong with this country?

Kristin Maguire, that bastion of Conservative values in South Carolina has resigned as head of the State School Board. That should be good news, but its not. Here is why.

Did she get into trouble when she circumvented policy and tried to derail the approval of pro-evolution biology textbooks? Oh no! Did she get into trouble pushing her conservative views on her "Parents Involved in Education" website? Oh no! Did she get into trouble for trying to push the lame "Teach the Controversy" nonsense? Oh No!

She allegedly used to write perfectly legal erotic fiction and post on one or more websites under a nom-de-plume. Officially she cited 'family duties', but the news of her hobby quickly followed.

I'm sorry! Yes, she should have been fired for her actions as chair. She should not have been pushed out for exercising her rights of free expression. She's living in a state governed by Mark 'let's lie and visit my Mistress in Argentina' Sanford. He didn't have to resign, yet she had to? This is wrong!

I disagree with her conservative politics. I disagree with her actions as the Chairperson of the SC School Board. In my opinion I don't agree someone who home schools her own kids can possibly lead the State School Board effectively. If I were a resident I would have been writing the Governor, State Senators and Representatives, and also watching her like a hawk! But come on folks, she didn't do anything that deserves this!

What did I tell ya? South Carolina tries a new tactic.

The NCSE is reporting that new anti-evolution legislation was introduced in the State Senate.

"Senate Bill 873, introduced in the South Carolina Senate on May 21, 2009 and referred to the Senate Committee on Education, would, if enacted, require the state board of education to "examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion." The bill further provides, "Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs."

This is a new tactic, one the bill's sponsor hadn't tried before. Senator Michael Fair (R-District 6),

• 2003, he sought to establish a committee to "determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools." The Greenville News (May 1, 2003), reported that Fair "said his intention is to show that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be taught in the public schools."
• 2005, he introduced a bill modeled on the so-called Santorum language often misrepresented as contained in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The bill failed, but Fair won himself a description as "the dominant voice advocating for S.C. schools to teach more than Charles Darwin's theories of evolution," according to The State (June 17, 2005).
• 2008, he introduced a version of the "academic freedom" anti-evolution bill, which died in committee.

This new tactic is worrisome because nowhere in the bill does it define what is meant by neutrality or hostility. How many times has someone claimed that Science, in general, and Evolution, in particular, is hostile to religion, or promote atheism, or is anti-God. Remember the plaintiffs in the Dover case and how many of them were turned upon by members of their own churches as being atheists and anti-religion.

The NCSE is certainly correct in categorizing this bill as anti-evolution. It's target is the teaching of evolution. I can certainly see the head of the SC State School Board backing this bill, Ms. Maguire is an avowed Creationist. I can also see Senator Fair renewing a push to introduce Intelligent Design, since it doesn't mention God, it must meet the requirements of neutrality, right? Especially when what constitute neutrality is conspicuously missing from the bill.

This could get pretty ugly pretty quickly. Let's hope it does like the last attempt and dies in committee. I like South Carolina! I remember childhood trips to Sesquicentennial State Park in Columbia and learning about some of the indigenous plants, animals, and insects by a Park intern named Debbie. Mrtyle Beach and Charleston are great places to visit, as is Greenville. The State doesn't deserve the treatment it's getting from it's elected officials. How much time has to be wasted on the campaign designed to bring religion into Science class.

And to anyone who thinks Intelligent Design is not religious, read this interview from William Dembski, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute where he states:

"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program."

I do like how he squeezed in "try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program". I know I would take that to mean that currently it is NOT a scientific program. So it should not be allowed in South Carolina classrooms for two reasons, first it is not scientific, and second, it is certainly not neutral toward God. Quick someone tell the Senator.

One last little thought. Snuck into the small print is " This section does not prevent classes being taught pursuant to Section 59-29-230." Guess what that section addresses:

SECTION 59-29-230. Old and New Testament era courses.

(A)(1) A school district board of trustees may authorize, to be taught in the district's high schools, an elective course concerning the history and literature of the Old Testament era and an elective course concerning the history and literature of the New Testament era.

(2) Each course offered must be taught in an objective manner with no attempt to influence the students as to either the truth or falsity of the materials presented.

(3) Students must be awarded the same number of Carnegie units that are awarded to other classes of similar duration.

(4) A particular version of the Old or New Testament to be used in either course may be recommended by the board of trustees; provided, that the teacher of the course and students enrolled in the course may use any version of the Old and New Testaments.

(B) The board of trustees of a district that offers a course pursuant to this section must:

(1) maintain supervision and control of the course;

(2) hire any new teachers that it determines are required to teach the course in the same manner all other teachers are hired;

(3) assure that all teachers teaching the course are certified by the State; and

(4) make no inquiry into the religious beliefs, or the lack of religious beliefs, held by a teacher when determining which teacher shall teach the class.

(C) The State Board of Education shall develop and adopt academic standards and appropriate instructional materials that must be used by high schools offering a course pursuant to this section. These academic standards and instructional materials must ensure that the courses do not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

(D) The academic standards and appropriate instructional materials developed and adopted by the board must:

(1) be designed to help students gain a greater appreciation of the Old Testament and the New Testament as great works of literature, art, and music; assist students in gaining greater insight into the many historical events recorded in the Old Testament and the New Testament; and provide students with a greater awareness of the many social customs that the Old Testament and the New Testament have significantly influenced; and

(2) provide that the Old Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the Old Testament era and that the New Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the New Testament era.

(E) The academic standards developed and adopted may provide that students may be assigned period-appropriate secular historical and literary works to supplement the primary text.

Gee no Double Standard here!

Congratulations South Carolina!

In an apparent surprising reversal today South Carolina approved two biology textbooks that had previously voted on to veto (9 to 7 against the books in Dec) to a 10-6 vote to approve! Read all about it here! January 9th 2008 is apparently a good day in South Carolina! My congrats and best wishes for the future of science education in your state! Ken Miller was there, along with about 20 members of "South Carolinians for Science Education"! I know I am not a resident of South Carolina, but I registered at your website so I can read all about it! I am also looking forward to the Videos? Tell me, Does Ms. Maguire make any statements?

Arguments IX - Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution?

Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution? Interesting question, and as much as I hate equivocating on any issue, I think the answer is maybe! Let me explain myself and 'maybe' by the end you'll see what I mean.

Right now there is a push to teach the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. The people behind the push are painting it in all kinds of "fairness", "free speech", and "academic freedom" words but their rationale has little to nothing to do with improving the science education of our young. There is where I feel it would be wrong to put in a curriculum standard requiring the teaching of weaknesses to evolution! The object here isn't better science, but an effort to undermine the theory and open the door for non-scientific alternatives. Hiding behind words such as fairness and free speech is the exact opposite. The groups calling for teaching the weaknesses are the same ones, or newer versions of them, who failed to outlaw the teaching of Evolution! They have no interest in free speech or academic freedom, but an effort to push their own very personal and very religious agenda. If you don't believe me, look a the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture, the Thomas More Law Center, South Carolina's Parents Involved in Education and see what they stand for. Read their sites and examine the underlying purpose. They have no interest in science except as a way into the educational system of this country! The fact is there are many more like them, not only formal organizations, but people who think they can use their personal belief systems to push their agenda. The former school board members of Dover PA who were not only voted out of office for their actions, but lied under oath as to their reasoning and purpose. How about Sharon Lemburg, a high school soccer coach and wife of a Christian fundamentalist minister who lied to her school board about presenting a philosophy class on design, when she was really teaching an Intelligent Design class. Ms. Kristin Maguire, the president elect of the South Carolina School Board who is using her position to question science textbooks, and creationist Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas State School Board, who is apparently mum of the firing of the State Science Curriculum Director for FYI'ing an email on a presentation by an anti-Intelligent Design scientist. These people are neighbors and possibly friends but they have had no issue with lying, misrepresenting their position, and using their authority to push their personal agenda.

From that point of view I question the motives of anyone who says we must teach the weaknesses in Evolution -- I say don't do it! Do not fall into the trap of presenting the weaknesses in Evolution not matter what words they use to disguise what they are really after!

Rather the entire science curriculum should offer critical thinking in all aspects of science. Since all science is theory-based, offer strengths and weaknesses in every course of science study. Study some of the history that brought about the development of the theories and be honest about things like gaps in the fossil record or the failure of Newton to account for some planetary body motions. These are not actual weaknesses, as some would say, but gaps in science that science is looking to fill! No science teacher should be covering a subject as if it was the absolutely only way for it to be examined, but by the same token a science teacher should be required to focus only on science! Keep the intent of science one of education and a good education should include critical thinking. Let students see how theories have evolved over time. Use evolution as an example, but don't limit it to be your only example. Geology's tectonic plate theory, gravity and planetary bodies, even atomic and light theories have evolved over time and it would be a good educational experience for students to study them. Use powered flight as another example! The road of the Wright Brothers was not paved with smooth stones and easy turns. It was rough and rocky and many times because of people who refused to believe it was possible to fly.

From this point of view I think most state science standards already meet the requirement of critical thinking and scientific method. Don't allow a misguided idea of fairness or free speech allow you to think it would be fine to allow special critical analysis of just one subject area. It does more to undermine the subject rather than present a "fair and balanced" view.

Can you see why I answered first as a 'Maybe'! I truly think it should be taught, but not aimed at one theory but as part of the entire curriculum! You should also question the motives when someone pushed for teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution. Many are people who have been fooled into believing it's a fairness or free speech issue. Educate them rather than attack them. But when groups like the Discovery Institute call for it, hide the silverware! If they had their way they would outlaw evolution and only their failures in the past have forced them to adopt the appearance of fairness. They have even come out and say they recommended against the Dover School Board from taking their stand. While the cover it now is sweet sounded words, the reality is they knew there wasn't a chance in hell of winning once the suit was filed. Remember one of their fellows, Michael Behe did testify and another fellow, William Dembski chickened out. After the lawyer took apart Michael Behe, Dembski's pseudo-mathematics didn't stand a chance, and the Discovery Institute knew it!

So a good science curriculum wouldn't need to have a special "critical analysis of Evolution" built into it. So my advice is to make sure your school system has a good science curriculum which focuses on actual science, not pseudo-science, includes theory history and development, is honest about the strengths and gaps in all theories, and includes critical thinking and analysis of all theories. If anyone is pushing you to highlight any one theory for special critical analysis, tell them it's not needed and send them off to the next state to peddle their 'wares'.

Happy New Year!

Since this blog is less than a month old I am surprised by how many posts I have made! It's been a busy month for me and my apparent new hobby -- Defeat the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in Science Class. I hope the new year is as interesting as the old. On the horizon are a few things which bear watching:

This month South Carolina will be voting to approve two biology text books. These books teach Evolution and apparently that has raised the ire of the Chairwoman-elect and a congressman -- both Creationists apparently. All the other texts have been approved but these two. They are voting on Jan 9th and I hope Kenneth Miller and other supporters of science will be there to stop South Carolina from becoming the next Dover. The school children of South Carolina will not be well served by a school board that is pushing such an agenda!

Texas is also on the watch list. Just last month they effectively fired the state director of the science curriculum just before starting a review of the science curriculum. Interesting that the new president of their school board is a card-carrying Creationist. It will be interesting seeing who they put in place to be the new science curriculum director? Please keep watching or things could start going very wrong in Texas. Texas is also been asked to approve a graduate level program by the Institute of Creation Research, which moved over from California. Sure, let's start granting graduate degrees of pseudo-science!

Florida is another state to keep an eye on, specifically Polk County. There were reports that Intelligent Design was going to be added to the curriculum, but I don't think it ever got that far. The majority of the school board has expressed 'concerns' over the teaching of evolution as fact. Code words for another Creationist/Fundamentalist agenda. More watching.

School boards aren't the only battlegrounds. We need to watch Massachusetts and the suit by a fired evolutionary biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic. He got canned by Woods Hole when he refused to do the majority of his job because it dealt with evolution! The state already turned down his claim of discrimination so he is resorting to a lawsuit. I hope Woods Hole stands firm and doesn't give into this type of blackmail. They shouldn't even settle or they will be opening the doors for all kinds of religious fruitcakes to use that for non-performance of their duties and companies will be afraid to take action. I can see it now, pharmacists who refuse certain medications because of their own religious beliefs, doctors who won't treat the opposite sex because of theirs. Pretty soon cashiers in supermarkets won't handle meat because of their beliefs . .oh wait, we have that now! Well I still hope Woods Hole does the right thing and denies this ID'iot a cent!

Plus let us not forget the Astronomer who was denied tenure because he didn't fulfill the requirements for gaining tenure . .and of course he blames his support of Intelligent Design as the reason. Well buddy, if your support of Intelligent Design caused you not to fulfill your requirements for achieving tenure, than I guess you have a point -- but since it was in your hands to begin with, you can cry about discrimination all you want! ISU should stay the course!

These are just a few of the things to look forward to in 2008. I can assume some of the things to not see will be any forward progress by ID'iots in the realm of science, like real scientific papers by Behe, Dembski, Wells and so on.

We'll probably see another series of popular press articles, lots of opinion pieces masquerading as science, and loads of knee jerk reactions from the Discovery Institute whenever anyone says something truthful about Intelligent Design. Thanks goodness for free speech! Oh, and yes, Discovery Institute, this is an example of free speech. Forcing Intelligent Design into science class is not free speech, nor is it academic freedom.

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee

These Four politicians have guaranteed my personal position that the Republican Party has lost it! Each have questioned evolution, some more strongly than others. I was annoyed when Little Bush made his comment that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. I was happy that he didn't bother and 'clarify' his lack of thinking. But these four are being truly ridiculous! The Republicans are becoming the Fundamentalist Party of America! The religious right has been making inroads in politics and these four, supposedly educated, individuals pander so nicely to that crowd that it makes me ill.

Now I wish Little Bush had been put on the spot and made to explain what he meant by 'teaching intelligent design in schools." I gave him the benefit of the doubt by allowing the possibility he was talking about a philosophy class and not as science, but I think that was my wishful thinking.

I have never thought of myself as a one-issue voter, but I guess this time I am a one-issue non-voter. Any supposed educated politician who refuses to support science is the enemy and will not get my vote. Period, end of statement. I no longer care what else these four yahoos stand for, their arguments against science would be a serious disservice to our country and education. Some are a bit more scary than others, but I will not be voting for any of them. Either they have let their personal religious interfere in leading this country, or they have bought into the Discovery Institute marketing schemes and either one is unforgivable. I fear the damage what people like Kirstin Maguire of South Carolina and Robert Scott of Texas can do with such political top cover!

Ms. Kristin Maguire strikes

I have posted a little on Ms. Maguire before and of the upcoming South Carolina school board meeting where they will be decided about a recommendation on two textbooks under criticism by Creationists. What I didn't know is apparently Ms. Maguire set this up! Read here. She contacted two Young Earth Creationists (YEC) to do their own review, links to their review are in the article. Apparently since the textbooks deal with Evolution and not YEC they have objections. What a surprise! Apparently Ms. Maguire isn't to ashamed to do her best to stack the deck in favor of her personal beliefs.

My question is to the people of South Carolina? Is this the direction you want to go? Ms. Maguire and friends are re-treading the direction other states have tried and failed, sometimes in embarrassing and expensive ways. Do you want your Biology teachers teaching religion to your kids? Do you want a narrow fundamentalist Christian viewpoint from determining the contents of your textbooks? Do you want to star the process of removing science from your curriculum?

I am not a South Carolina resident, although I do have many memories of visits. One of my favorite places is Sesquicentennial State Park in Columbia. I remember a Park Service Intern named Debbie who introduced us to some of the local flora and fauna. I would be very surprised if Debbie didn't have an understanding of evolution based on her lecture to all of us. I certainly hope South Carolina sends the critics away disappointed and sooner or later send Ms. Maguire her walking papers. I believe anyone who resorts to such tactics cannot be trusted in determining curriculum for our children. Her point of view is to focused on her own personal religious beliefs and not on the welfare of ALL of South Carolina's children.

South Carolina is one of the next battlegrounds

Poor South Carolina! I believe they are being poorly served by some members of their school board. They are 'revisiting' their science standards and textbooks and one of their members, Charles W. McKinney, is allowing an airing of things previously settled in other venues. Kansas and Ohio went this way, as did Dover PA. I hope they remembered what happened to the members of the school board who did it . . .most of them were voted out and the school boards removed the 'changes' they had made. So far I like the odds!

I figured this was coming and I had hoped I was wrong. I am looking to hear about the 9 Jan school Board meeting. Apparently Kenneth Miller, a co-author of the text Mr. McKinney is complaining about. He's already addressed it in writing to the school board and he's going to be present in person. I wish I could be. I'll have to find out if the school meetings are televised and I might find it on YouTube!

Who is South Carolina's Kristin Maguire?

I came across a great Blog "Not Very Bright" and enjoyed perusing it. What drew me to it was a comment about South Carolina's Kristin Maguire. She is the chairwoman-elect of the South Carolina State Board of Education. It was a shame to see an avowed Intelligent Design supporter in such a position. She is also the co-founder of a website "Parents Involved in Education" and from it's website her stand on Intelligent Design shows she has swallowed the whole "Teach the Controversy" marketing scheme of the Discovery Institute hook, line, and sinker. Here are my comments posted about the Not Very Bright's blog "Who is Kristin Maguire":

Kristin Maguire proves a couple of things. First the qualifications to be on a school board have nothing to do with education. The second that people will push their personal agendas, even to the detriment or our school children, in every arena.

More specifically I didn’t take Not so Bright’s comments on Ms. Maguire’s lack of engineering background as a slight to engineering. I saw the point made that she calls herself an engineer, but doesn’t seem to have done another other than get a degree. I am an educator and also work in a highly technical field and have learned the hard way that a piece of paper with a degree is nice, but in order to really be considered an engineer in any field, you need the practical experience of working in that field! I’m not talking a summer internship, I am talking working! I believe Ms. Maguire does a disservice to the engineering profession by calling herself an engineer.

I feel sorry for the people of South Carolina if she, and her PIE group, gets their hands on the science curriculum. She typifies the favorite target of the marketing department of the Discovery Institute, aka the Center for Science and Culture, loves to find. A true believer who doesn’t let fact or a lack of scientific study get in their way, in a position of power to influence science curriculum, and who can be convinced to use any tactic to achieve her personal agenda. Look how Dover PA turned out for the members of that school board who pushed Creationism and then pushed Intelligent Design!

Like Texas recently, I hope the people of South Carolina don’t fall for the “Teach the Controversy”, “Free Speech” and the recent “Academic Freedom” marketing ploys being worked insidiously by the Discovery Institute. They should recognize there is no scientific controversy, that Free Speech doesn’t mean you get to say anything you want when you want, and that academic freedom doesn’t apply to pseudo-science.

Look at not only Dover, but the reverses the Discovery Institute has suffered in Ohio, Kansas, and New Mexico to realize that when they gain some level of acceptance, eventually smarter head prevail and they get tossed back out. If not I hope South Carolina has lots of extra money they really don’t need for education to pay for the coming lawsuits!