Map-making in a Modern World

I came across an analogy that I simply love, let me quote part it first:

"Earlier maps might still be useful, if you realize their limitations and use them appropriately — but newer maps, even though the differences are slight, are better at describing 'what is there'." (Quoted from a comment from When Science Stands Up To Creationism)

Yes, this is part of an analogy, but more on that later.  I just want to explore this quote for a moment because I love Maps!  When I was a child I had a globe in my bedroom, which I kept even after my little brother drew on it.  Of course the lines on that globe, excluding my brother's colorful additions, wouldn't match up too well with a current globe.  Countries have changed from my childhood, some renamed, others have new borders, and some have ceased to exist entirely.  I always wanted one of those large globes that you could open up and have stuff hidden inside!

Maps hold a similar fascination for me.  I used to do a great deal of traveling and I always kept a Rand-McNally Road Atlas in the car.  It got me from place to place across America and parts of Canada.  I enjoyed the route planning and even used it to track my progress.  My wife enjoyed them as well because she would find the most obscure attractions, like the World's Smallest Cathedral (in Missouri).  What I did find was that as good as the maps were, they would quickly become outdated because  . . .  as with my beloved globe . . . things change.

Even in this modern day of Google Maps, things change.  It's something we have to be aware of and plan to adjust to those changes.  I have been driving along and coming to a dead-end that used to be a through road, but the road ended in a 'T' intersection and there was a building where the road used to go through.  Imagine the reaction if I stood there complaining about my map's inaccuracy because some town had built a building where there used to be a road!  Here in the Dayton Ohio area the roads are subject to name changes as you drive along.  It was confusing at first, but it makes sense as you consider how communities grew and eventually connected and merged.  We have certainly kept map-makers busy over the years.

The person who made the above comment was using it as an analogy to science.  Barbara King, the author of the article I lifted the quote from, continued the quote with this:

"Science is the process of learning what is where in the world of knowledge; and we are constantly developing better tools to make better measurements. We are constantly re-drawing the stuff that we suspect might be out there, slowly getting closer and closer to getting the stuff beyond the boundaries of knowledge successfully mapped out, and firmly within the boundaries of what we know. This means there will be a new frontier, and new questions, and maybe some corrections along the way."

Hopefully you can see the connection now.  Barbara King's original article about not failing our children on teaching Evolution brought out some typical vitriol, pretty much as expected.  But at least some of the comments were positive, like the analogy between science and map-making.  The parallels are there for anyone who wishes to see.  Science isn't an end, but a journey.

I've often used the analogy of a snapshot, as in a scientific theory is like a snapshot in time.  It represents what we know right now.  It is subject to change as we learn more and more, which is why the snapshot analogy worked well for me.  Maps might actually be better, because when you take a new snapshot, you are replacing the original.  Maps are updated with new information than replaced. 

Of course Creationists, and I do lump the Discovery Institute in with that group, treat the update-ability of science as a negative.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard something along the lines of 'but science changes!' as an attempted hit.  Of course they will never admit to it actually being a whiff.  Science improving the maps are a positive not a negative.  To a Creationists any map was written a long time ago and updating them is some form of sacrilege.

Imagine trying to navigate using a map from 2000 years ago!  That's pretty much what kennie ham and the DI are demanding.  Forget anything we have learned in the past couple of thousand years, if anyone stands up and says it conflicts with their perception of how things ought to be,m the rest of us are supposed to ignore it.  Hasn't worked too well for them, has it?  While they keep dragging their feet and kicking and screaming, the 21st century is here and as much as they don't wish to be part of it, they are.

I prefer a modern and up-to-date map when I do my traveling and apparently most people feel that way -- more and more, since kennie, and others, are whining about declining attendance at their various houses of worship.

How many Anti-evolution Legistations will be attemped in 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Missouri gets foolish as well

Remember the whole debacle when neighbor Kansas tried to change to basic definition of science so supernatural causation could be included, opening the way for Creationism and Intelligent Design into the science classroom? You might also remember that Kansas concerned citizens restored a level of sanity and voted off the school board members who were busy pushing their personal religions agenda.

Well things aren't perfect in the "The Show-me" State next door. Apparently a cleverly designed Tee-Shirt given to Sedalia's Smith-Cotton High School band members features the old traditional Evolution of Man depiction, only this time each member of the line was holding a brass instrument. the idea was to show the "Evolution of Brass". Very clever, possibly thought provoking, but I guess too much for some parents. The Sedalia-Democrat reported "Band shirts hit wrong note with parents".

One parent really showed her . . . mettle . . . "I was disappointed with the image on the shirt.” Sherry Melby said. “I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school." Can you believe that? I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school! It's much too late for that, Sherry. Missouri currently teaches Evolution in Biology. Your over-reaction to this tee-shirt just shows how closed your own mind is.

I am disappointed that the school took any complaints seriously. Evolution is not a religious topic, haven't you learned anything! Pulling the shirts because of the school policy to remain neutral on the topic of religion DOES NOT apply here.

More free speech goes out the window! I hope some students decided to keep the shirts, and it puts in regular appearances during the school year.

Stephen C. Meyer has a new book coming out

As I have said before that I don't trust much of anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute. Here is a case in point, an announcement of a book that hasn't hit the shelves yet. I plan on pointing out my current objections, then I will read the book and report back then. I know, people may think I am already prejudiced against the DI, and they are sort of right. Prejudiced involved pre-judging. My opinion of the DI is not a pre-judgment, but an opinion based on the tactics and strategies they have exhibited so far. I expect this book to be nothing more than the same and I expect the DI to meet my expectations. If you want to think I am prejudiced, then you explain to me how lying, mis-representing science, and pretending to be the victim of an imaging persecution are positive role models in today's society? If you can do that then maybe you might have a reason to think I am prejudiced.

OK, to the new book. The DI has done their usual trumpeting:

As we are ever quick to point out here at ENV, the case for Darwinian evolution has been crumbling in recent years as scientific research points to design in nature. Now a unique, new argument for intelligent design is about to revolutionize the debate over evolution.

On June 23, Dr. Stephen Meyer's long-awaited Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) will break open the radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information.

Let's just take a quick peek. Has anyone actually witness the crumbling case of evolution? With the DI's failures in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Oklahoma, California, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania . . . to name a few, I would think the DI is much closer to crumbling. But I guess if you keep saying the same thing ver and over again, someone might believe it to be true. What did PT Barnum supposedly say, "There's a sucker born every minute" and WC Fields said "It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money." Well either way they both seem to apply to the Discovery Institute.

Next point, "scientific research points to design in nature". Another question where is this research? Who has seen it, who has published it, who has peer reviewed it? Pretty bold claim for something that no one has seen evidence of all this scientific work? The same scientific work that Michael Behe said wasn't being done by anyone as late as 2005?

I do love the phrase " a unique, new argument" because it would be entertaining, if nothing else, for an actual unique new argument. So far things have been pretty much at a standstill. Oh, I mean a standstill over on the DI side. On the evolution-side nothing as stood still as the research and scientific work rolls on. Just look at PubMed and search for the articles about evolution for an idea.

Usually the term "long-awaited" means there have been people eagerly awaiting for it's publication. Who has been waiting for this? No one know. I know lots of people who have been waiting and been severely disappointed in the publications of Behe, Dembski, Wells, and even Meyer before. But rarely does 'eagerly' apply. It will be interesting to read some of the criticisms of Meyers latest, but I guess we have to wait for it to come out first.

Another question? If this book is going to "break open the radical and comprehensive new case" why is it being published by HarperOne, an imprint of Harper-Collins? I am not saying anything negative about the publisher, I mean they publish what they hope will sell. But Meyer is repeating a significant problem when using a popular press publisher. There is no requirement for proof of his work. Now if he had real scientific evidence he would be publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But no, he aims at the popular press with a requirement of proof and support of Zero! The smells typically fishy to me!

OK, this is the last comment I wish to make right now. The Amazon.com description of the book is

"The first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community."

Let's see, so all the other Major Scientific Arguments were what . . .prattle? SO this line says we can dismiss all the books by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Klinghoffer, and even Meyer's himself because this is the FIRST! In a word bull! It's just the latest! I also have a problem with Meyer being described as "a leading spokesperson within the scientific community". He is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. He is by no means a representative of the scientific community, let alone a leading spokesperson of that community.

OK, enough said for now. I do look forward to reading this book and seeing how well it lives up to the hype. Yes, I am skeptical, but that skepticism is based on the history of the DI and Stephen C. Meyer, who has done nothing but disappoint and disillusion so far.

The American Council on Education's position on Academic Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on academic freedom in Missouri

I have stated repeatedly that the current crop of 'academic freedom' bills have little to do with academic freedom. In fact I just posted an entry about Missouri. So let's get a little more specific. In Missouri what is academic freedom?

At the University of Missouri I found a little document describing academic freedom, and it is one I wholly subscribe to. And while this document does not have the force of law, it represents the state of academic freedom in the Great 'Show me!" State. Let's look at some key phrases:

"Academic freedom is the right and the responsibility of university faculty to pursue their scholarship wherever it may lead and to present their findings and works to their students, to their scholarly peers, and to the public without fear of suppression or reprisal, as long as these results are scrupulously supported by the rigorous and rational professional interpretation of the evidence and represent the well-informed and ethical exercise of their scholarship. "

Here is the opening line and I think it summarizes the idea very clearly. Please note the part that the so-called academic freedom bills tend to ignore: "as long as these results are scrupulously supported by the rigorous and rational professional interpretation of the evidence and represent the well-informed and ethical exercise of their scholarship." In other words right now today teachers and students in Missouri can discuss, study, research nearly anything they want and as long as their work adheres to 'rigorous and rational professional interpretation of the evidence . . .' can be presented and opening discussed without concerns for poor grades, censorship, or getting fired.

So if that is true, why does Missouri need a bill supporting academic freedom? Could it be because groups like the Discovery Institute want to end run the need for "rigorous and rational professional interpretation of the evidence . . ."? That's how I see it!

What do you think of this:

"The faculty does not lightly and without good scholarly or pedagogic grounds entertain the introduction of material extraneous to these specialties or to the scope of any particular class or program of study, and in this sense, and only on well-established academic grounds, academic freedom is limited."

Like 'Freedom of Speech', there are limits on real academic freedom and one of those limits is "well-established academic grounds". How often have you seen wording in these bills making such a reference? No, these bills open the door for anything and everything and not only protects the teachers while they introduce information without well-established academic grounds but refuse to hold the student accountable for not understanding the material that is well established.

Here is the reason i think the bills are being introduced so often:

"For students, academic freedom is the right to engage in reasoned discussion and critique in the classroom; with that right comes the responsibility, just as for the faculty, to apply their merging understanding of facts, methods, and controversies in their various fields of study, rather than to rest intellectually on unquestioning adherence to received disciplinary norms, tenets of political conviction or religious faith, or personal or cultural predilection."

This is the part that makes a religious pseudo-science, like Creationism and Intelligent Design, an anathema to academic freedom. You cannot have academic freedom when the concept you are pushing is based on religion! So in order for these religious ideas to be pushed, the current concept of academic freedom, as laid out clearly here, have to be superseded by a bill that truly goes against what academic freedom is designed to accomplish!

So the current standards of academic freedom would allow someone to bring in Intelligent Design, providing they did so in a rigorous and firmly rooted in scholarship manner. No wonder the Discovery Institute is trying to change things. So far even their own people have not managed to explain Intelligent Design is such a way! So of course when you can't do the science, look for a political alternative to push your agenda! As clearly laid out in their Wedge Strategy document!

Keep science in the science classroom and keep academic freedom a reality!

Antievolution legislation in Missouri

The "Show Me!" State is the latest to fall victim to Discovery Institute marketing. Pointed out to me by John M. Lynch's blog "Stranger Fruit", which is one of the best blogs out there, the NCSE reports: "Antievolution legislation in Missouri" This little marketing tactic found fertile ground in Missouri own Robert Wayne Cooper (R-District 155) who has been introducing bills for years promoting Creationism, Intelligent Design, and trying to weaken science education. I hope he does something else with his time, or his constituents may one day realize what he is trying to do to them and the education of their children!

I love this part of Missouri HB 656:

"This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence."

How confusing can you get! In an effort to dodge the bullet other so-called academic freedom bills have caught, it's doing it's best to play dodge ball. But, of course, it fails. Like it's marketing brethren, this bill has little to do with actual academic freedom and more to do with weakening science education and opening the door for pseudo-scientific alternatives.

I think Missouri will live up to its motto and ask Cooper to 'show me' how this bill will improve science education, and when he fails vote it off the grid again.

See what I mean about the evolution of the anti-evolution arguments. He's tried a number of different tactics, and so far has met with disappointment. I mean here is another excerpt form the NCSE article:

"In 2006, he [Cooper] introduced HB 1266, which if enacted would have required that "If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount." In 2004, he introduced two bills, HB 911 and HB 1722, that called for equal time for "intelligent design" in Missouri's public schools. HB 911 moreover contained idiosyncratic definitions of various scientific and philosophical terms as well as the draconian provision, "Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract."

Need I say more?