New planet -- 'Dawinian' Astronomy?

Anyone who reads this blog knows my opinion of casey luskin, the lawyer who seems never to get his facts straight. Well I refrain from commenting on him most weeks, but in my opinion, he reached a new low -- something I really didn't think possible.

So what did casey do now? Oh nothing much, he just opened his mouth. He noticed that there had been a few articles reporting on the discovery of at least one extra-solar planet that may be able to support life. I assume someone pointed them out to him because I doubt he actually reads scientific articles all by himself.

His problem starts with the very title of his article, which is what caught my eye. "Darwinian Assumptions Leave "No Doubt" About Extraterrestrial Life". OK, since you already know my feeling of the use of the words 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinist', you can also add the word 'Darwinian'. Let's be clear, while someone else might actually be commenting on something Darwin said or did, when casey, and his ilk, use these words, they are using them as invective. You can almost see him spitting it out as he says it.

OK, so after reading his post, I went looking for the comments by a biologist that raised his toothless ire -- and guess what -- I couldn't find them. He was whining about a comment made by Astronomer Steven Vogt, and referring to him as an 'evolutionary scientist'. For the record, Dr. Vogt is a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California. So the question is just where did little casey make the evolutionary connection?

In all honesty, I think casey's buddy Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Priviledged Planet", might have written an article about having another planet perfectly placed for life and tried to align Professor Vogt with his camp of pseudo-scientists. But no, luskin makes a connection here that is completely unsupported by the two articles luskin linked to himself.

So just what did the Professor say? During a press conference he offered a personal opinion:

"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent,"

So why does casey make it sound like the professor was making a scientific pronouncement? One of the many things I find amusing is that casey is the freaking lawyer and prone to play word games. Here the professor is offering a personal opinion and casey take exception! So I guess a scientist isn't allowed to offer personal opinions . . .Ummmm so all those popular press books and articles written by Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and Meyer -- which offer NOTHING but personal opinion -- I guess by casey's current standards, they should have never been published at all! But then we know the history of casey, the Discovery Institute, and double standards!

Just in case maybe casey knows something I don't, I went and found the professor's website and looked up his academic background:

A.B., Physics, U.C. Berkeley, 1972
A.B., Astronomy, U.C. Berkeley, 1972
M.S., Astronomy, U. of Texas at Austin, 1976
Ph.D., Astronomy, U. of Texas at Austin, 1978

Not a biology degree in the bunch. So what am I left to think? Before casey's article, I would have assumed that when anyone from the Discovery Institute uses the term 'evolutionary scientist' they meant a biologist who acknowledged evolutionary theory. Now that seems to be too narrow an interpretation. Since Professor Vogt is an Astronomer, who as far as I know hasn't addressed the issue of evolution, I can only assume that now an 'evolutionary scientist' is a scientist of any discipline who has not drank the Intelligent Design kool-aid and became a fellow over at the DI.

I also think the one making an assumption isn't Vogt, but casey, and its an assumption that I doubt he realized he was making. He assumed that Professor Vogt is not an Intelligent Design proponent. But then I realized that casey and I have found our first item of agreement. The odds of a scientist of any discipline being an Intelligent Design proponent are so low, that making this assumption is pretty much a given. I mean the Discovery Institute has a tiny handful of folks, most of which are not biologists but lawyers and philosophers. When you compare their numbers to the vast list of actual scientists, they do get lost in the crowd. So casey does say something that ends up making some level of sense, but I am pretty sure he does this by accident.

ACSI v. Stearns finale

I just realized, as I read this release, that I haven't commented on this issue before. I feel remiss in my self-assigned duties and responsibilities as a blogger in not having done so. So today I briefly pick up a baton, even though the race appears over. But you know me, I can't resist making glue.

The NCSE has announced

"Creationist lawsuit flops: UC's admission standards upheld. The Supreme Court declined to review Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns, affirming the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling that the University of California did not violate the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian high schools whose coursework was deemed inadequate preparation for college." (italics added)

For those of you unfamiliar the case, it boiled down to a public universities in California upholding their academic standards and refusing to accept pseudo-science as an acceptable alternative to science in applying for admission and granting credit. More specifically the Association of Christian Schools International was suing because the California University Admission system wouldn't allow high school biology courses that use creationist textbooks as credit for college preparatory biology courses. A federal court and the 9th Circuit Court agreed on appeal that the texts were "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." The plaintiffs star witness, a familiar name -- Michael Behe, didn't seem to be able to sway anyone. There's a shock. So Michael is now 0 for 2?

This one went all the way up to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it. In legalese-speak that means there is no issue and the lower court was correct. Yea!

I am sure many colleges have been facing this issue. I know it was also a complaint in Mt Vernon, Ohio, from high school biology teachers who found themselves having to re-teach basic biology to students of John Freshman, a teacher currently suing for being fired for doing several things, including teaching Creationism/ID, causing bodily harm burning crosses into students arms, and also lying to investigators. The latest chapter in that saga might actually be coming to a close. You can follow it, and read the entire history, over on Panda's Thumb.

Simply put, if Creationist schools want to be on par with public schools, they have to at least teach the minimum standards in all curriculum areas. Why is this so hard to understand? If they refuse, it's not a violation of civil or constitutional rights, it's not about free speech or freedom of religion, and it's certainly not some sort of 'viewpoint discrimination'. It's about the science!

Imagine what would have happened if the case was overturned? Suddenly any piece of pseudo-science junk because the legal equivalent of the appropriate college textbook? How insane would that be. I can see it now, "What do you mean I am unqualified, I read "The Psychic Handbook" and I am as qualified as anyone who took a Psychology class!"

Nice to know that the Supreme Court didn't bother wasting its time. I only wish the Creationist schools had been trying to teach Intelligent Design. That might have been a stake through the heart of the Discovery Institute at the same time harpooning Creationism. Oh well, maybe for Christmas.

An additional note on Modesto

PZ Myers on Pharyngula picked up on this one as well ("The science media make my head hurt") and he commented on something I noticed but hadn't thought through -- so I wanted to add this to my original post.

If you went to the original link ("Modesto science teacher's plan to teach intelligent design sparks debate") you saw that off on the left-side of the main article are two sets of links, one explaining ID and one explaining Evolution. The article's writer went to the Discovery Institute (DI) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for their information. The error they made, and one I agree with PZ on, is that they seemed to treat both organizations the same. This offered way to much credibility to the Discovery Institute! As PZ said:

"And of course, they go to the Discovery Institute for their story about ID, and set them against the NCSE, as if these two groups have an equal investment in the scientific truth. They do not. Intelligent Design has no credibility, no empirical support, and no reasonable proposals for scientific investigation. When will the media wake up and realize that their constant pushing of a false equivalency is a major factor in feeding this pseudo-controversy?"

One of the factors driving the success of the Discovery Institute's marketing campaigns is that the media tends to treat them as if they have credibility, as if they are offering something on par with evolutionary theory. That's is simply not true!

Lauri Lebo discussed this in her excellent book "The Devil In Dover" with a quote from Science Magazine's Donald Kennedy:

"There's a very small set of people who question the consensus," Kennedy said. "And there are a great many thoughtful reporters in the media who believe that in order to produce a balanced story , you've got to pick on commentator from side A and one commentator from side B."

She also quoted Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book "Elements of Journalism":

"Balance, for instance, can lead to distortion. If an overwhelming percentage of scientists, for example, believe that Global Warming is a scientific fact, or that some medical treatment is clearly the safest, it is a disservice to citizens and truthfulness to create the impression that the scientific debate is equally split."

Nan Austin of the Modesto Bee made the error of consensus. Oh I am sure she means well, but by giving the impression that the NCSE and the DI have the same degree of credibility, or that Evolution and Intelligent Design are on equal footing in the scientific community is just plain wrong!

Modesto rather than Livingston?

Modesto CA rather than Livingston Parish LA might be a site of the next Dover trial lawsuit. This article doesn't say much "Modesto Science Teacher's plan to teach Intelligent Design" Apparently the teacher in question, Mark Ferrante, hasn't said anything other than he plans to teach it. His school board has said that

"He will not be teaching intelligent design. He has been instructed to teach the
state standards and intelligent design is not in the state standards," Modesto City Schools spokeswoman Emily Lawrence said last week.

I am going to make two predictions -- First that after drawing such attention to himself and his plans he will not actually attempt to teach it, but just mention it in class. That he might get away with -- without threatening his job. My second prediction is that shortly the Discovery Institute will have a press release on the big bad bullies of science and science education are trying to silence this brave teacher who is just trying to do right by his students. Oh I bet I have the words wrong, but not the content.

Any takers?