Scientific Methodology Parable

This incident stemmed from a tree falling in my yard several years ago. One of my neighbors, a devout fundamentalist Christian, and he is indoctrinating his children all too well. I was looking at the tree, trying to figure why it fell when one of his brood informed me that God knocked it down. I did a bit more investigating and turned it into an example of the differences between science and this extreme fundamentalist religious cult pretending to explain the world around them. So it goes something like this:

A scientist and a fundamentalist are standing outside next to a tree that had fallen down overnight. The scientist looks at the fact, he has a tree down across part of his yard and he also looks at all the other trees on his property and wonders why the tree fell down. The fundamentalist says “God knocked your tree down.”

The scientist goes back inside and looks at last night weather report and realizes that late in the night there was a bit of a storm. He hypothesizes that the storm may have been the agent that took his tree down. The fundamentalist says “God knocked your tree down.”

The scientist is again outside looking at his tree when one of his neighbors brings over a CD. Apparently the neighbors security system caught an image of the tree going down and thought the scientist would be interested in it. Together they watch the video and the scientist sees two large pieces of compressed Styrofoam, the kind used to insulate basements, fly in the wind and get caught in his tree. The later storm hit the large area of stiff foam. His hypothesis becomes a theory with the evidence. Not only did the storm topple his tree, but the foam panels acted like sails, providing even more area for the wind to push against his tree. His theory matched the available evidence. When he told the fundamentalist about the panels, the fundamentalist replies, “God knocked your tree down!”

The scientist, not 100% satisfied, contacts a tree expert to examine the downed tree and also to see if any of the other trees on his property are in danger. The tree expert examined the tree, the weather report, and the panels acting as sails and added several more pieces of evidence. He says the trees were originally planted a little on the shallow-side, not giving the tree as much support as it would if it had been planted deeper. That lack of support aided in the effects of the storm and the panels. So the theory, while now different, is a stronger explanation of the fact the tree is down. The tree expert also takes a sample off the tree’s exposed roots for analysis. When the fundamentalist hears about the roots he screams “God knocked your tree down!”

The tree expert gets back with the scientist. “Your tree also has a fungal growth that can weaken root systems. I have a special fertilizer for you to strengthen the roots of your other trees.” The fundamentalist yells even louder “GOD KNOCKED YOUR TREE DOWN!”

Now the theory is even stronger. It was a combination of storm, panels, shallow planting, and weakened roots that brought down his tree. The fertilizer will help insure his other trees don’t fall.

The moral of the story is that maybe God wanted the tree down, but if you end your thinking there, you will lose more trees and can only wonder why God hates you!

Bloggers of the world unite!

Sorry, had to say it. But right now that is how I feel. I received a link to an interesting blog called
"Kickin' the Darkness" which had a fascinating post, "How to talk to an Evolutionist (without being dismissed as ignorant and stupid)". It is a well laid out post which attempts to explain that many anti-evolutionist arguments are self-defeating. In my opinion any Creationist, Intelligent Design proponent, or other form of anti-evolutionist really should read this to avoid the more common arguments that make them look . . . well . . . stupid and ignorant.

The bottom line is really simple. There are many arguments that simply are not only ineffective, but really do make some people look . . . well you know . . .. I have no idea how many times someone has posted, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" A question like this only serves to underline that the person posting it has no understanding of Evolution at all! Add to the fact it has not only been answered a hundred different times in a hundred different ways -- and it is one of the questions many Creationist websites say should no longer be used. But people still use it, and then wonder why no one takes them seriously. The whole urban legend of Darwin recanting his work is another one. It just proves that an anti-evolutionist will grasp any straw, even one proven by other Creationist websites as being untrue. A decent grounding in actual scientific methodology will also go a long way. How many times has evolution been called a religion, or the very definition of a scientific theory been bounced around erroneously? More than I can count by now.

There are many arguments like that. I assembled by own personal top 10 of ineffective Creationist arguments:

10. Why are there still monkeys?
9. But what about Darwin's recanting and Lady Hope?
8. But it violates the 2nd (1st or 3rd) law of Thermodynamics.
7. But you have to have how life began to know how it changes.
6. Now if this tornado touches down in a junkyard ...
5. 'Real' Christians don't support evolution.
4. The 'Great' flood did it all.
3. There are no transitional fossils!
2. The 'Big Science' conspiracy.

and my number favorite Creationist Whine is ...

1. "It's only a Theory!"


After first posting this, a couple of folks asked for a thumbnail sketch as to why these are ineffective, to say the least, so here goes:

10. Why are there still monkeys? Evolutionary theory states that we and modern monkeys evolved from a common ancestor -- not that we evolved from monkeys. The common ancestor was more monkey-like and the cleft point may have been a geological upheaval in which part of the common ancestor population was stranded on one side of a new mountain range where the weather caused to jungle to recede. Hence the changes toward more bi-pedal and so forth.

9. But what about Darwin's recanting and Lady Hope? Pure hoax! 35 years after Darwin died this English Lady addressed a Evangelists group in Connecticut and claimed that Darwin recanted his work and accepted Jesus Christ. There has never been no corroborating evidence and Darwin's own family denounced it. Plus she had many details of his final months wrong!

8. But it violates the 2nd (1st or 3rd) law of Thermodynamics. Simply put, the 2nd law is applicable to closed systems, which this planet certainly is not. Anyone who understands thermodynamics recognizes this argument as based on a poor understanding of physics to go with their poor understanding of biology.

7. But you have to have how life began to know how it changes. Do you have to know how a car is built to drive one? If so most people would be off the road! Evolutionary theory starts with the presence of life. There are other ideas about how life formed, but they are not part of evolutionary theory.

6. Now if this tornado touches down in a junkyard ... The rest of this is an apparent attempt to compare evolution with a tornado passing through a junkyard and building a 747 or the Space Shuttle. In other words anyone who says this has an incredible poor understanding of Evolution because it is not nearly as random as this example would make you think. Now if there was a process to grab each part blown up by a tornado and save it to be used during later storms . . . ie: Natural Selection . . . you might get a slightly better example, but as it is it has nothing to do with Evolutionary theory.

5. 'Real' Christians don't support evolution. Then why do most Christians accept Evolution? Are you trying to say that Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists are not Christians? Only by some imaginary standard that the rest of the Christian world seems to know nothing about.

4. The 'Great' flood did it all. There has never been one shred of evidence of a single world-wide flood event, not one! The evidence that support floods also point to many different flood events, none of the on a world-wide scale, over millions of years. Plus a single event could not be responsible for all the geological features, fossils, strata . . . and all the things Creationists like to justify. In my opinion when they can't explain away a certain piece of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, they just use the Flood as the default argument.

3. There are no transitional fossils! This on is the hardest one to justify in my mind -- because there are hundreds of transitional fossils. In fact every fossil can be called transitional because the past leads to the present which will lead to the future of all organisms. But how the ones I have talked to justify this is they claim either no one has found "The Missing Link" or that there are no "Dog/Bird/Cat fossils". Once again all they are doing is revealing their ignorance of evolutionary theory.

2. The 'Big Science' conspiracy. This one has been bandied around for a while. So let me get this straight, there is some super-secret world-wide, multinational, and multi-generational organization conspiring to keep Evolution in science and keep Creationism out? Does anyone else see the problem here? This argument is nothing more than a smokescreen as to why Creationist (including Intelligent Design proponents) cannot seem to find any scientifically valid support for their wishful thinking. Rather than re-look at their ideas, they blame some conspiracy. So what happens, at some point in your science education 'they' pull you intoa secret room, teach you the secret handshake and send you forth to continue oppressing those who wish to bring religion into the classroom as if it was scientific? Please! Someone go get the credibility stretcher, I think we hit the wall on that one.

1. "It's only a Theory!" This can be explained a couple of different ways. First of all it's a deliberate deception by misusing the word "theory". When it comes to science there is no higher label to put on anything. Theory is it! So a scientific theory is not a guess, or a hunch, or even just an idea. It is a well supported explanation of a given phenomena. It meets the evidence, generates predictable results, and can be falsified. The other way this can be explained is another example of scientific ignorance. People do not understand theory in the terms of science, so when someone claims it's just a theory, that sound right because they are not using it in the context of science. While the two ways sound similar the difference is intent. On the one hand groups making the claim are deliberately trying to deceive people. On the other people simply just don't know any better.

So there is my thumbnail sketch. Many of there have been explained in other blog entries. I know I may have missed your personal favorite Creationist argument, and you can always comment here.

Humor III

Not sure how long this will be around, but for now you have to see it:

http://comics.com/9_chickweed_lane/2008-09-07/

The telling quote for me was "However one can see around one, in the media, in advertising, in popular entertainment that homo sapiens is, in fact, a Goober."

You know while I am filing this one under Humor, it really does strike way close to home.

And right after the Ft. Worth Article, the DI rebuttal

You can almost set your clock to when the Discovery Institute will respond to any article about Intelligent Design. The fun part is reading their rebuttal and looking for the misleading statements. I think I need to start a pool, how many misleading and misdirecting statements will the DI make? Well I don't plan on counting them right now, but I do plan on bring up some of the more interesting ones.

Of course they are claiming the Ft Worth Weekly piece was short on facts and misrepresented their position -- something I believe them to be an expert in. So let's dig in a little bit and see what we can see. I've already posted my opinion of the Ft. Worth Weekly piece here. Did the DI attack the piece itself, no they did their usual and took specific sections trying to weaken the purpose of the piece. But their very defensive attitude defeats their purpose.

The article stated:

"One of the center’s primary goals is to support research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of Darwinian theory. The CSC’s leaders have advanced degrees — but they aren’t scientists: Director Stephen Meyer has a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science, while Associate Director John G. West holds a doctorate in government.

One of the hallmarks of the institute, according to many scientists, is that the CSC generates pseudo-scientific research, done by researchers with Ph.D. credentials, to bolster claims concerning intelligent design, to build support for that idea as a credible scientific theory. Of course the proponents of intelligent design also include those with legitimate hard-science backgrounds, like McLeroy and Maddox."

And the DI knee-jerk reaction is this:

"Discovery Institute has as Fellows nine PhD biologists or biochemists. Additionally, there are several who are chemists, physicists or astronomers. To imply that Discovery’s PhD credentialed Fellows are only in philosophy or some other non-hard science area is untrue, and a disservice to readers."

First of all did the article imply that the DI only employed philosophers, no! The article said the leaders were not scientists and it substantiated that statement. It did say that the 'fellows' of the DI "generates pseudo-scientific research". Did the DI object to the characterization of it's work as "pseudo-scientific research." No, they pull a little legalistic word trick and make an unsubstantiated claim and then change the direction of the conversation. You know by not objecting to the generates pseudo-scientific research, this could be taken as an implied statement that they agree the 'research' done by their fellows is 'pseudo-scientific', right?

No a brief aside. When a DI fellow, one with a PhD or other degree in a scientific discipline, writes a popular press book about ID -- does that count as scientific research? In my opinion No! Sure Michael Behe has a PhD in biochemistry and has tenure at Lehigh Universisty. But when he is publishing books like "Darwin's Black Box", is he acting under his persona as a PhD and University Professor? He uses the titles to add a level of credibility to his popular press publishing's, but that's all. In my opinion it would be the same thing as him writing a cookbook and signing it as "Michael Behe, PhD".

OK, back to the supposed 'rebuttal'.

The article also stated:

"The Discovery Institute was the prime source of information for a group of school board members in Dover, Pa., who, like the seven Young Earth philosophists on the Texas SBOE, wanted to put forth their version of natural history. In 2004, Dover school administrators, at the insistence of the district’s board, added the following sentence to the biology curriculum: “Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”

Adding later: The Discovery Institute’s policy of promoting intelligent design as secular science was thwarted in Pennsylvania, but it may well reappear in Texas."

That's when things really get hincky for me. First of all is it a misstatement to say that "The Discovery Institute was the prime source of information for a group of school board members in Dover, Pa . . ." No. Didn't the DI meet with the School Board in an executive session? Didn't the School Board contact the DI for information? Read the trial transcripts for yourself, the DI gets mentioned quite a few times. The did release a statement in Oct 2004 (which we will get to in a minute) and supporters of the Dover school board were surprised because they had an expectation that the DI was supporting them. Gee where in the world would they get an expectation like that? Again, read the transcripts for yourself! Look for references to exhibit 119, that's the DI press release.

OK, in their 'rebuttal' the DI says that they released a statement that they "actively opposed the actions of the Dover School Board. Indeed, before the ACLU ever filed a lawsuit the Institute released a statement explaining that we did not endorse the Dover board’s action. " By the way here is a link to that statement. So I am re-reading their statement and where exactly does it say that? Hmm no where I can see. What is does say is:

"Recent reports have circulated about Dover Area School District and its consideration of “Of Pandas of People” for optional inclusion by science teachers alongside the District’s required, standard biology textbooks. Although “Of Pandas and People” is an excellent educational resource covering a topic appropriate for inquiry and discussion, the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture has not endorsed its inclusion in public school science curriculum. "

Now I read that as opposing the use "Of Pandas and People" in the school curriculum. Since they were not actually making a curriculum change, just reading the statement (oh so nicely shredded by Judge Jones in his decision) and making the book available in the library. So in other words the DI is claiming that they didn't support the actions of the Dover School Board, yet at no place in their supposed statement does it say they do not support their actions. You know when you read anything from the DI, you gotta really watch both hands because they are like a magician misleading the audience.

Now the other part of their statement

"The Discovery Institute’s policy of promoting intelligent design as secular science . . ."

They seem to be objecting to this part as well. Yet their own statement says " . . . Center for Science & Culture is the nation’s leading think-tank exploring and publicizing the scientific theory of intelligent design . . ."

Here is what I think happened in 2003-2005. I think the DI met with and encouraged the Dover School Board. But when they realized they were about to get hammered they started damage control. They claimed to not support it, then they had a falling out with the Thomas More Law Center and Senior DI fellow William Dembski didn't testify. And then they changed tactics to "expose weaknesses in evolution" from "promotion of ID". This rebuttal is simply more damage control.

They also attack the journalistic integrity of the reporter by saying

"Never mind that she’s produced an extremely biased polemical piece, as opposed to objective reporting of the issue."

This is another common tactic. When you can't claim they lied about what you said, claim they are not being objective. I thought her piece represented the situation quite well. Being objective in journalism doesn't mean you give the DI free reign to say anything they want. You report what happened and what is happening, and what it means.

They ended with their usual disdain about anyone who disagrees with them.

"Barker’s article is wrong about Discovery Institute, misrepresents what evolution and intelligent design are, and misleads readers about the evidence related to Darwinian evolution. Perhaps she should stick to what she knows enough about to have an informed opinion: restaurant reviews."

Barker's article hit the DI with the one thing they haven't been able to successfully do, deal with the truth. That seems to be what causes the quickest knee-jerk reactions from the DI.

Texas -- right on schedule

I'm sorry to say that my post of almost a year ago is certainly coming true, not that it took the great Karnak to determine which way the winds were being blown in Texas. Read it for yourself "Devolution in Education" The stage for the next battle between pseudo-science junkies and people supporting real science education appears to be in Texas. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the State Board of Education (SBOE) have enough members who have professed to supporting Creationism/Intelligent Design to make a fight of it. Luckily they do not have a clear majority or we might see the Kansas debacle.

I'm going to keep this simple and just restate my issue. I don't care what religious group you belong to, I don't care if you want to believe the world is being carried on the back of a giant turtle or whatever! Your belief system is not science and should not be taught as science in a science class. I don't really care how much scientific dressing you put on Creationism, it's still not a scientific concept. The more conservative members of the TEA and the SBOE in Texas should be focusing on teaching the school children of Texas, not pushing their religious ideas.

Teaching 'weaknesses' is a cover for weakening eduction, teaching the controversy is a marketing concept. We don't teach any subject with the idea of letting the kids make up their minds, and we shouldn't offer special protection to teachers who want to bring in un-related material to teach their subject. These are just some of the tactics being used today to allow the teaching of religion in science class. They should be transparent to anyone who isn't blinded by their own prejudices. They should not be allowed to dilute the education of our young!

10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution

Terrific article in the New York Times, I know not one of my usual sources, but I really liked this article. Take a read 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution

It takes an article by one of the Discovery Institute's favorite mouthpieces, Jonathan Wells, and his 10 questions he says highlights the weaknesses in Evolution and teams them up with how those questions are actually addressed in evolutionary biology. The answers are written by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Yes! This is an example of responsible journalism! Rather than offer Wells a chance to air his views completely one-sided, the NY Times gave space to the NCSE to address them and put them all together in one article. I would suggest this technique to Ann Coulter, but we all know she's not a journalist and therefor doesn't have to comply with minor details like ethical behavior. -- Yes, off topic, but please remember that her book "Godless . . ." spent a lot of time on Intelligent Design and she apparently only spoke with ID proponents (From her book "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski") She certainly wouldn't think of talking to someone of an opposing view.

OK, back to the subject of this post: Read the article for yourself and you will see the Discovery Institute's usual pattern of misdirection and ambiguity in trying to weaken something they haven't been able to touch in any other ways. I hope Biology teachers across the country read this and take note so if a student raises these issues they can address them appropriately.

Now the fun part was waiting for something that I knew was coming . . . the reaction of the DI, in typical knee-jerk style! It took three whole days and they didn't disappoint!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_rehashes_darwin.html

You gotta read this. They claim the NCSE was lying when they said "hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed".

Next go to http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 and read their actual whining. They claim that the drawings in the textbooks are derived from Haeckel’s earliest embryo stages. Please notice the word 'derived'! They also use the phrase "patterned after Haeckel". In fact nearly any drawing of early embryo's will show similarities to Haeckel's work. The DI is so reaching! I was pretty surprised they limited themselves to just one of the 10 questions, but I bet in the coming days they will jerk their knees of some more.

They do claim the drawings are not as detailed as the DI thinks they should be. Gee, they are DRAWINGS! They are used to illustrate the point made by . . . guess who . . . the NCSE . . . when they said "Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — “evo-devo” — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields."

So there we have it, the DI doing what the DI does best -- obfuscation, misdirection, and whining!

If you want to know a little more about Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the DI, a Moonie, and an Aids denier in addition to his being an anti-evolutionist. You can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29

Another review of "Devil in Dover"

Here is an excellent review of Lauri Lebo's book "The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America." I'm sure you will like it. Much more detailed than mine. The comment at the beginning of the review is one that I wholeheartedly agree with " Battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will." I never saw this battle as a way to fix science education, but I have seen it as a way to prevent our science education from eroding further.

We are already well behind in so many sciences compared to other countries, something I commented on last year (here). I realize that our science education has serious problems, and teaching Creationism -- even under the guise of Academic Freedom -- is not going to help the situation. What it will do is further erode an existing problem. We need to challenge our children with subjects to fire their imagination. We need teachers who are interested in their students, who believe their jobs have meaning. We have to properly fund our school infrastructure. There are so many problems that resources better used to fix the problems are being used on this political debate.

At the beginning of each School year, in a mall in Montgomery AL, they park a school bus and ask that people purchase and fill the school bus with school supplies. This should be outrageous, but it has become an annual tradition. My sister is studying to become a school teacher and the lack of resources is something she will be facing very soon. It shouldn't be this way!

Look at Dover PA and the little minor issue of having to pay out $1,000,000 because their elected school board took them down an indefensible path. How many school boards can afford to spend that kind of money? It was a waste because it should have never come up. I expect some school district in Louisiana will be next on the block and wind up in an expensive lawsuit. Currently the school district in Mount Vernon (Freshwater incident) is being sued because not only did they not take a teacher to task for violating school policy when he taught Creationism in science class(for at least the last 11 years), but he burned a cross into students' arms. It wasn't until one family complained and sued that the school board finally fired Mr. Freshwater. He is appealing, but I find it hard to believe anyone will condone physically harming a student. Plus he also LIED about his teaching Creationism when an investigation finally occurred.

Like I said I know this fight won't fix science education in the US, but until Creationists, and I lump Intelligent Design proponents, in the same group -- much to their howls of protest -- need to re-learn what Pope Benedict just recently said "Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith." and we can use our resources to actually improve science education, rather than hurt it further.

Mt. Vernon OH and a teacher named Freshwater

For the past couple of months I have been trying to post a blog entry about Mr. Freshwater and the teaching of Biology in Mount Vernon HS, but every time I started writing about I got so damn mad!

For those of you not familiar with the story, apparently Mount Vernon, OH, has been letting John Freshwater teach Creationism for the past 11 years, at least. They have been unresponsive to complaints, including the annoying little fact that his students had to be re-taught scientific principles in later classes. That by itself is annoying, to me at least.

There were some articles a few months back when the school board told him to take the Bible out of his classroom, something he apparently refused to do. School Boards have the right to discipline teachers, but they also need the intestinal fortitude, which this school board lacked. That was annoying as well.

But then the school district got sued by the parents of a student who had a cross BURNED into his arm in the shape of a cross by this so called science teacher. Now I started getting very hot under the collar. It required a student to be physically abused before the school board found some . . . intestinal fortitude.

They finally fired the jerk and of course he is appealing claiming that they had no right to fire him. That takes the cake!

You know in the Dover trial I felt sorry for the school district as a whole for a number of reasons, but I really wished they hadn't have had to pay out 1 million dollars after already voting out the idiots who decided to take their roller coaster to ruin.

But in Mount Vernon I am not feeling so charitable. The School Board is as culpable as the teacher because over at least 11 years, they failed to take any positive action. I hope they wind up using their entire budget for this matter, in spite of the fact the kids are the one who will wind up paying the price.

There is no possible excuse for their behavior! At least the teacher can claim insanity!

Here is a link to the results of the investigation. In my opinion Mr. Freshwater should be in jail! Yes, the burns weren't serious, but the fact he inflicted them should be grounds. His inability to teach the required curriculum should have had him fired years ago. I do feel sorry for his students, and for the other teachers who had to work harder to make up for his ineptitude. In my opinion he is the type of person who should not be a teacher if he cannot teach without bring his personal religous views into the classroom. What makes it worse for me is that he apparently LIED to investigators, which tells me he knew exactly what he was doing.

Another wonderful example of lying for Jesus!

"The Devil in Dover" by Lauri Lebo

For those of you who like a quick and dirty review -- Excellent Book!

For those who like a little more, I'll get the praise out and then head more into the meat. I enjoyed Ms. Lebo's first-hand account of the what happened in Dover. Not only is it well written, but it offered perspectives that you cannot get from reading trial transcripts or even reading the local papers before, during, and after the trial. The only way I think you could get any better picture is if you were a Dover resident and were in the middle of the action yourself. I recommend anyone interested in the Trial read this book. You will get a much more personal view of all that happened and a deeper appreciation for the personalities involved.

As you might be able to tell, I did enjoy this book. At times heart-rendering and at other times infuriating. Once the trial started I had trouble putting it down. I finished it at about 4AM, which might give you a clue how good it is!

It's not a very long book, only about 250 pages, but what she says doesn't require more. She dives briefly into the people involved, some personality and some education and background. She could have written so much more, but it wasn't really needed. She managed to give you a feeling for the personalities involved that went beyond the normal brief blurb in a newspaper. She get you insight into the workings of the Thomas More Law Center and the Discovery Institute, in addition to the obvious subject, the Dover Area School Board.

She also added a very human element, something you don't get in newspapers, how she herself felt and how the trial impacted her personally. It helped bring the story together on a level that nothing had for me previously. I mean there have been very good, factual books on the case, but this book made it personal.

She laid bare not only the actions of the school board members, but their motivations. She showed us some of the weaknesses in journalistic coverage and also its strengths. When the two journalists were accused of lying! That part of the book had me riveted! They handled it with such professionalism, that she made me proud to know such people exist in a trade that doesn't get much positive press itself. Her own efforts against an editor trying to get her to 'balance' her coverage more was spot on! As was her recollection of the trial, it was fascinating without being as long winded as the trial itself certain was -- I did read the transcripts, all the transcripts! She also took us past the trial and saw some of the aftermath, for herself personally and also the others involved.

It's that understanding of character that has me place this book well above the other two I have read on the trial. I enjoyed the legal machinations in "40 days and 40 nights"by Matthew Chapman and the more extensive coverage of how Dover fits into the larger Evolution/Creationism debate in Edward Humes "Monkey Girl", but the personal nature of the characterizations Ms. Lebo describes really brought the trial home for me.

I recommend this book to anyone! Here is the Amazon link to it, as a hint :-)

Arte-y-pico Award

GumbyTheCat awarded this blog an "Arte Y Pico" award! Gumby's write up is here. I have to thank Gumby and tell you a little about his blog. I enjoy it on several levels. First of all Gumby isn't overly technical in the level of scientific detail of biology, which as a non-biologist I appreciate! Plus Gumby is another example of someone who can be a Christian and still understand and support science. This is important to me! All too frequently anyone who supports science, evolution in particular gets accused of being atheists, or worse. I know I've mentioned it on this blog (here). You would think being called the Anti-Christ would put me off, but I just see it as another chance to educate -- plus have a little fun tugging on chains. I think Gumby sees it much the same way. He does a great job at pulling chains as well!

Again I would like to thank Gumby and as tempting as it would be to re-award this back, I will list my other 5 favorite blogs and spread the wealth, so to speak.

Here are the rules from the originating website, http://arteypico.blogspot.com/:

• You have to pick 5 blogs that you consider deserve this award, creativity, design, interesting material, and also contributes to the blogger community, no matter of language.
• Each award has to have the name of the author and also a link to his or her blog to be visited by everyone.
• Each award-winning, has to show the award and put the name and link to the blog that has given her or him the award itself.
• Award-winning and the one who has given the prize have to show the link of “Arte y pico” blog, so everyone will know the origin of this award.
• To show these rules.

So here are Five Blogs of note for me personally are:

1. Pharnygula, from PZ Myers. If you are involved in the "Evolution vs. All Comers"debate you are probably already familiar with this blog. Dr. Myers continues to be one of the champions of science and a consistent public critic of the Intelligent Design Movement.
2. Panda's Thumb has won many awards, and it's another site anyone familiar with the Evolution debate should already know. It isn't the work of one person, but about 35, including PZ Myers. Here is where I go for much of the meat and potatoes of what's going on around the rest of the world in the debates.
   
3. Total Drek is another one I enjoy for it's irreverence as much as it's content. Drek is a post-grad student with an affinity for mental meandering. I do believe that if I ran into Drek in a dark alley, I would end up laughing hysterically.
   
4. A lesser known blog that really focuses on South Carolina happenings is Not Very Bright. Contrary to its name, I find it's evolution/Intelligent Design coverage brilliant. This is the blog that told me, and many others, about the disgrace being perpetrated by the State School Board President Elect in selected new biology textbooks. Not-Very-Bright seems to have taken part of the summer off, well I will miss it. Hopefully it'll be back in the fall and raring to go on presidential politicos and keeping an eye on Mrs. Kristin Maguire (the aforementioned head of the SC School Board)
5. Anyone that posts a photographic walking tour of the new Creation Museum is worth an award. Whatever is the brainstorm of John Scalzi and it has been "Taunting the Tauntable since 1998"
   

There you have it, my selections for the Arte-Y-Pico awards!