Does a Discovery Institute Talking Head Understand the Concept of 'Self-Respect'?

I certainly wouldn't have believed it of Cornelius Hunter!  See if you agree, check out this post by Hunter at the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV):  "How Big Is Evolution's Closet?".  It's pretty bad, in my opinion contains more than a little pent-up hostility.

First off, what is the guy trying to say?  He claims that Evolution:

"repeatedly fails its fundamental predictions, and is unable to explain even the basic facts, well, there is bound to be doubt."

Now, how does he justify this comment?  Well, an anonymous 'friend' told him:

"that all across the country, life science professors "have told me in private they have questions about evolution . . ."

Now before getting into what I feel is a bunch of pent-up hostility, I would like to remind you of the DI's penchant for playing word games.  Look at the phrasing:

"questions about evolution"

So what?  Many actual scientists have questions about a lot of things, especially their own specialty. If they didn't, then where would new discoveries come from?  How do you think Evolution went from Darwin's very original theories to this massive set of well-supported theories that has caused one biologist to write "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky.) Questioning is a scientists' job!  The difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist is that a real scientist looks for actual answers while a pseudo-scientist starts with their desired answer and then spends the rest of the time rationalizing.  The other difference is real scientist's questions lead to breakthroughs, while pseudo-scientists never question, they already have their answer so they never see the need to question.

Hunter tries to make the idea of 'having questions' a bad thing.  He further tries to make it sound even worse with this little bit of ridiculousness:  

" . . . keeps their identities secret"

Hunter doesn't even identify his 'friend'.  So now I have to ask, does Hunter actual know how science works?  Has he bothered to learn anything about evolution?  Apparently not, but then in addition to being a 'fellow' at the DI, he teaches at Biola University, an private Evangelical Christian Bible College, so it is understandable that he may not understand anything about Evolution, after all Evolution is actual science.  Apparently scientific methodology hasn't made much of an impression on him either.

The reason I question his understanding of scientific methodology is because you know what happens to scientists who make unsupported statements?  It's called unemployment.  So, tell me, where did Hunter support his original allegation about Evolution?  As you can see, he didn't.  Oh he gave the impression of support with his anonymous friend commenting of equally anonymous sources.  Think about the reception of a scientist who tries that?  "I discovered 'X' and my proof is  . . . well I can't tell you because someone might get in trouble!"  Oh yea, imagine that reception!

Come to think of it, isn't that similar to what Richard Sternberg for the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy? He claimed that Stephen C. Meyer's pseudo-scientific paper was peer-reviewed, but the peer reviewers remained anonymous fearing retaliation.  If these reviewers actual existed, the journal in question has serious doubts the reviewers had the credentials to be qualified to review the paper, the paper that was later rescinded because of Sternberg's actions.  Oh, and never forget that Sternberg was an unpaid volunteer editor who had already put in his resignation papers at that journal and later ended up working for Meyer at the DI.

This isn't the first time the DI has played these type of word games.  I would like to remind you of the infamous 'dissent' petition, what I usually call 'The 700'.  The wording of that petition was also carefully done, fairly innocuous phrasing designed to mislead.  You can read much more about it from the NCSE right here.  But the parallels are there, taking great care in creating words that can mean many things and then spinning it after the fact to mean what you want.  Of course since Hunter did all this citing of anonymous sources, no one can check . . . not like the NCSE did when the original petition was made public.

I also don't particularly like Hunter using the 'closet'.  Everyone knows the most common use of the closet metaphor involves gay people who haven't yet gone public with their sexual preferences.  It's even led to the terms 'out' and 'outed' from that metaphor.  Is he seriously claiming that there is a collection of closeted life science professors who have doubts about evolution.  He said 'questions', but he implied 'doubts'.  First off, I don't believe Hunter -- he is a 'fellow' at the DI and you know how 'honest and trustworthy' those less-than-stalwart fellows have been in the past.

I mean if I said that I know an NFL coach. . . who in High School loved romantic comedies, Streisand records, and . . . whatever else . . . but I can't name him because the players and fans might react negatively.  See what I mean?  Completely unsupported allegations, just supposition.  Or maybe I can further say that there are many players who know this coach likes those things too . . . but I can't name them either!  See what I mean, Hunter loves to say stuff and the fail to support it.  We've discussed him before, most recently in "So Who Has their Head in the Sand?".   How can you believe anyone who does such things?  We don't trust them, we can't trust them, but they can be entertaining.  Just in case anyone was wondering, I have no personal friends from HS who are NFL coaches . . . I was just making a silly example, so if you ask me to point fingers, I am going to laugh myself silly!

As for the 'closet', I do agree there are many folks who have not 'come out of the closet' concerning one thing or another, the usual reason is fear although it could also simply be a wish for privacy.  So what Hunter is saying is one of the standard, and unsupported, lines from the DI.  That anyone who disagrees with actual science is somehow ostracized and therefore afraid to speak out.  They, the DI, has been selling that line for years, yet have they been able to support this assertion?  No, they haven't.  Oh, they like to parade various people around and call them martyrs for the cause, but the reality is they aren't. These are people who allowed their religious beliefs to interfere with the professional responsibilities and then discovered that those beliefs weren't going to protect them when they were held accountable. We most recently discussed a bunch of those folks here.

So you can see, Cornelius Hunter is a lightweight when it comes to 'questioning' evolution.  He likes to play word games, make unsupported statement and imply things.  Yes, Hunter and the DI would love for us to believe there is a host of scientists prepared to jump out of the closet and support Creationism . . . but real scientists 'question' evolution in order to expand and add to the science; pseudo-scientists, like Hunter here, have to imagine closeted supporters.  Hunter also said:

"No evolutionist who has ever peered into a microscope can look in the mirror and maintain self-respect. "

Looks like another case of projection.  Biologists probably have no self-respect issues.  It's only liars who would have trouble seeing themselves in a mirror.  I'm sure Hunter sees himself as some sort of Creationist super-hero with a cape and a Bible picture on his chest.  But most pre-teen boys eventually grow up and stop relying on fairy tales and imaginary friends.   Hunter has a lot of growing up to do, not only does he imagine this host of closeted-Creationists ready to burst out, but now he had his 'friends' telling him about what their imaginary friends are saying.  Like most creationists, once you hear something that agrees with your personal philosophy, you refuse to listen to anything that contradicts it. Luckily, real scientists continue to listen, question, and think.

Do You Blame the Scientific Community From Giving You Ammunition?

Ridiculous post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) usual haunt, 'Whatever You Do, Don't Say "Irreducible Complexity"'.  Apparently there is an article in a real scientific journal that warned against using the word 'complex' because of it's association with 'biocomplexity' and 'irreducible complexity'.  Can you blame them?

Just yesterday I posted how the DI is willing to grasp any use of intelligence and claiming it as a victory for their pet religious concept of Intelligent Design. (More Misdirection from the Discovery Institute).  In that post I said:

"What we have also learned, yet again, is that whenever anyone uses their brain (intelligence) and discovers anything that can be interpreted, or even mis-interpreted, as 'design' then the DI is going to try and claim yet another victory for their pet concept ID.  They, the DI, still cannot tell the difference between their Intelligent Design 'theory' and use of intelligence in scientific discoveries."

Since the DI is so quick to make such claims, is it any wonder an article's author might want to avoid some specific terms that would supply the DI with more opportunities?  How many other words do we avoid using because of a specific connotation?  I'm sure you can think of a few, I know I certainly came up with a dozen without much effort.

Of course the DI tries to spin that this as some sort of prejudice . . . and they are right, although not in the way they intended.  Should actual science be prejudiced against pseudo-science?  Most certainly!  The DI doesn't see themselves as pseudo-scientists, but admitting it might have a negative funding impact on the DI.  I mean it's hard to push religion if the donations dry-up.

I do wish to point out one other . ..  lie . . . I know, sugar-coating things isn't my style.  Here's a quote from the DI post:

"Oh, and isn't BIO-Complexity the title of a peer-reviewed science journal open to examining ideas supportive of intelligent design?"

Two problems here.  The first is simple, the paper they found so offensive suggested avoiding the term 'biocomplexity'.  According to Wikipedia:

" . . . some researchers have begun to use the term biocomplexity in a narrower sense to denote the complex behavioral, biological, social, chemical, and physical interactions of living organisms with their environment. This relatively new subfield of biocomplexity encompasses other domains such as biodiversity and ecology." 

Which means the original paper might not have been addressing the DI's journal at all.  The second problem is that even if they were addressing Bio-Complexity, is it really a peer-reviewed science journal?  Not in the least.  It's been identified as the latest Intelligent Design journal. Origins & Design from Access Research Network (ARN) and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design  from Wild Bill Dembski were two previous attempts.  I said this about Bio-Complexity a while back:

"The National. Center for Science Education had a lot to say about Bio-Complexity shortly after it was announced.  Here is my favorite comment:

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."

So you see, even if the original offending paper was addressing the DI's in-house journal, calling it a peer-reviewed science journal is at best humorous, at worse just another lie.   Real science peer review is not the same thing as having a few people who already agree with you read your papers and pat you on the head.

Personally, I think avoiding certain terms are a waste of time, not because they might cause an association with something the DI might say.  It's because since when does the DI need actual words to try and form an association.  Look at my own post link at the start of this post.  The DI took something unrelated and drew an imaginary line to Intelligent Design.  After all, wasn't it the DI who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design?  A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).

Yea, the DI 'don't need no stinkin' words!

More Bad News for Folks like Kennie Ham and the Discovery Institute, Theists who reject Creationism/ID as Science

One of the many tactics used by hardcore Creationists, which includes Intelligent Design proponents, is the claim that to support science, you are an Atheist.  As I have said before it's a gutter-level tactic and based on something Creationists claim to stand against, a lie.  So when something like this happens, it must make them burn!

Announced by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE): "Presbyterians add their voice for evolution", the actual proclamation is right here.  

Presbyterians have joined many other Christian, Unitarian, Jewish, and Buddhist groups in their support of actual science!  Their proclamation says some pretty powerful things, like:

"However, over the centuries some Christians have sought to deny observations of Nature by reference to Scripture. In the 5th century CE Augustine warned that claims about Nature, contrary to human reason and experience but supposedly derived from Scripture, should be avoided, lest they make Christians seem ignorant and the objects of scornful laughter."

Certainly rings true, don't Creationists come across as ignorant?  When one spouts off about science, especially evolution, that is certainly the case.  Please note I am not saying stupid, but ignorant, there is a difference.  What I find annoying is that it is a willful form of ignorance, which  . . . to me . . . is much more a sin than a theist who supports actual science.  Later in the proclamation lists nine very specific affirmations.  One I wanted to point out is this:

"That God has connected all life on Earth in a network of kinship by virtue of biological evolution from common ancestors;"

Yes, biological evolution!  I have to think kennie is probably going to comment about it eventually, more than likely 'explaining' to the world that Presbyterians aren't 'real' Christians.  But I do not believe kennie is the final authority on that subject.  Here on Earth, it's the group themselves that define their belief system.  But someone like kennie doesn't agree with that.  He seems to think he IS the authority, yet when anyone outside his little group of fundamentalists Evangelicals I like to refer to as Hamians, tries to correct any of kennie's narrow beliefs, it immediately get rejected.  Hmmm, another example of having your cake and eating it too?  Little kennie assumes the authority to correct the rest of the Christian world, but rejects any criticism that his belief set is so limited.

One last quote, the proclamation's final paragraph:

"Over the past 500 years humankind has gained more depth and breadth of understanding of creation than in all the preceding millennia of human history. Even within those five centuries there have been several revolutions in our understanding of creation. Though the findings of the sciences do not determine the Gospel message, as Augustine noted they do influence how that message can be credibly declared and persuasively received. The first task of an effective contemporary evangelism must begin with an assent to the Creation that God has indeed been calling and is calling into existence. It is for this purpose that the affirmation above has been developed."

Based on these comments, I might have to find a different way of referring to Creationists.  I mean obviously this proclamation makes it clear that they are Creationists, but ones of a very different stripe than the Evangelical sort, particularly any of the more fundamentalist variety.

Ethical Response to Creationist Activities

I am sure you are aware of a growing issue about providing goods and services for people who, for some reason, you don't like.  Whether it's based on religion, sexual orientation, race . . . or any other rationalization, it's basically a form of discrimination and most often, it's illegal.  People like that idiot down in Kentucky - Kim Davis - who refused to do her job and issue marriage licenses for gay couples, the bakery owner - Jack Phillips - who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay couple, and little kennie ham who is discriminating based on religion when hiring folks for his ark park.  The issue at hand is when and where a business can draw a line . . . plus the very basic question as to whether or not they even have a right to draw such a line.

When it comes to government agencies, the line is drawn for them.  Which is why Davis went to jail when she refused to do her job.  It's why people like public school 'teacher' John Freshwater in Mt Vernon OH and got fired for failing to do his job of teaching science.  When it comes to government agencies, complying with the law makes it fairly simply especially when compared private businesses.  Oh, and yes, I do not put kennie and his ark abortion into the category of private business because he's been asking for state funds to help build and promote his latest ministry.  Once you take tax dollars, the line between private and public shifts quite a bit.  Of course, kennie wants tax money and still be able to discriminate against many of the people who might need a job in Kentucky.  He only seems to care about the people of Kentucky as long as they toe a line he sets.  I do so feel for my neighbors to the South, but they keep letting kennie get away with it, so I don't feel that badly.  I would mention reaping what you sow, but they might get annoyed at me using a Biblical reference to highlight their foolishness.

But private businesses have always had a variety of rules for refusing service.  Many times it's a legal concern, like serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated or selling cigarettes to minors.  In those cases the legal and potential liability concerns need to be considered for a business to refuse service. Dress codes are another one.  I am sure you have seen signs like 'No shoes, No Shirt, No Service'.  This might be casually expressed, but what they are applying is a consistent enforcement of a dress code for their establishment.  As long as they consistently apply it, and not use it as a way of discriminating against certain groups, it's perfectly legal.  There are many, many examples of how to  . . . and the only way to put this . . . legally discriminate against an individual.  I know if I show up at my favorite restaurant without shoes or a shirt, I am not getting in, simple.

So how do you deal with providing the service you are in business to provide when the customer is someone who you  . . . disagree with?  Not providing the service based on your opinion is usually the wrong answer.  It might open you up to varying degrees of legal action, as Jack Phillips discovered. While taking a stand for something you believe in is great in principle, having your stand cost you your business might not be a particularly intelligent thing to do, particular if the point of disagreement isn't a legal basis for refusing service.

The logical part of me says that if you are in business, refusing customers is a pretty foolish way to do business.  But, as I said, to some people want to place their personal religious beliefs ahead of business, like the Kentucky idiot or the bakery owner.  That's all well and good, but don't cry later because you were unwilling to deal with the consequences.  What you need to do is come up with a way that lets you do your business AND maintain your principles.  One business did just that.

As reported on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) "A Slap on the Wrist for Creationism", RapidWristbands, a premier manufacturer of silicone wristbands, received an order from a Creationist organization for over 100,000 wristbands that said "Debunk Evolution".  Instead refusing the order, which apparently would have aligned with his principles, he took the order and donated the profits from the order to the NSCE, an organization dedicated to defending the integrity of science education against creationist assaults.

What a creative way of maintaining your business while sticking a thumb in the eye of Creationists. I'm certain the Creationist group that ordered the wristbands might object and never place another order with that company, but I don't think CEO Fiyyaz Pirani is going to lose any sleep over it.  In many ways, I would love to hear the reaction of the Creationists.

Now this is nothing but my opinion, but think about it.  If the company had refused the order, I am sure the Creationists would have been appealing to either the court of public opinion, or a more legal venue, about being discriminated against.  But RapidWristbands didn't discriminate, it's the Creationist reaction to what the company's subsequent action is that interests me.  If they announce that they won't be making any future purchases, wouldn't that make them the party doing the exact form of discrimination that they would have been accusing RapidWristbands -- if RapidWristbands hadn't fulfilled that order?  I know, I am reaching a little bit here, but this is not outside of the realm of possibility, even probability?

I mean, isn't that exactly what Kim Davis did?  She refuse to do her job and when held accountable, she claimed religious discrimination.  After all, she had to sign a document for gay people.  Why she might have actually had to converse with them!  Imagine the horror!  So in reality she was guilty of discrimination and deserved to go to jail!  I know they changed the rules to 'accommodate' her newly found religious sensibilities, but was that the right answer?  Accommodation?  Does she have the right to refuse doing her public sector job because of her religious beliefs?  I disagree!

But then I tend to disagree with discrimination in any form.  If she own a rental property and refused to rent to a gay person, she would have more significant legal issues than she had for refusing to do her job.  But again, reaping what you sow.  If Kentuckians are actually displeased with Kim, they will find ways to let her know.  But the more vocal ones seem thrilled with her belated discovery of her religious convictions.  So Kentucky will continue to pay her and allow her escape the consequences of her action, but that's on them.

I don't know what she could have done to deal with this situation more creatively, as did RapidWristbands, but I would like to think an honorable person would have made more of an effort to find an alternative.  In her case, I think I would respected her if she had simply resigned.  Just like I would have respected Jack Phillips (The baker mentioned above) if he had simply fulfilled the order and not let his own religious beliefs justify discrimination.  Any religion that not only permits, but encourages, the discrimination against another human being is not much of a religion, in my opinion. Religious Freedom is not the freedom to discriminate!  And people wonder why I have issues with organized religion.

For me, it's actually quite simple.  If I am against something, I do not do it.  I am against drinking and driving, so I don't do it.  If you do it, then be prepared to face the consequences of your actions!  I am not against abortion, but what that really means to me is that I have never and would never put a woman into the position of having to make such a decision based on an action in which I had a contributing role.  My role is not to force everyone to believe in what I believe in, just like I do not feel that anyone else should be allowed to force me to believe in what they believe in.  You want to be against homosexuality, then do not be a homosexual!  You want to be anti-abortion, then take no actions that results in the need to make that decision for yourself!  You don't want to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples, then do not take a job where you have to issue such licenses.  You want to refuse to make cakes for gay couples, then quite making wedding cakes.  Don't preach, don't whine, don't try and use the law to avoid the consequences of your beliefs, simply don't be in a position where you use your beliefs to discriminate.

I hope RapidWristbands business jumps based on this publicity.  I think their response is ethical and one of the most honest responses to this whole question of where do you draw a line.  You draw it in your personal behavior, not in forcing others to toe a particular line you set for yourself.

Honesty From the NCSE brings out the Foolishness in the DI, but then most things do, don't they?

Do these guys even read articles before responding to them?  I'm talking about the Discovery Institute (DI), of course.  It's somewhat funny.  I read a lot of articles and blogs and am always looking for something that peaks my interest to blog about.  As I look back over my own posts I do see two very common targets, The DI and Answers in Genesis (AiG).  For a few minutes I thought maybe I was targeting them too often and that I was missing other, more interesting, things.  Then they come along and say something so incredibly foolish that I just can't help posting about it.

Case in point "Sleepless in Oakland" is a response to an National Center for Science Education post "The Big Bang is Giving Me Big Headaches".  I really suggest you read the NCSE post before diving into the idiocy of Donald McLaughlin's response.

Reading through the NCSE post was interesting.  It wasn't a precise about the Big Bang, but more a description of Minda Berbeco's emotional reaction to learning more about the Big Bang.  She recognizes that answering many scientific questions isn't about the data, but about dealing with misconceptions that have become rooted in people's emotions.  As she says:

"Although data is powerful, most often the conflicts teachers experience have nothing to do with evidence."

Anyone who has wandered the web and read and responded to some of the wild things being said about such topics as Evolution, The Big Bang, and Climate Change has experienced this first hand.  Here is a very recent example.  I have a Facebook page.  I don't use it for too much but just the other day I saw a Facebook post from the DI from the First of Feb:

It was a link to their self-conducted poll that we talked about in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!"  Well to be honest when I saw the post I nearly just ignored it, but out of curiosity I wanted to see if anyone responded to it.  I was pretty shocked at the responses.  The very first reply I saw was this one:

"Alyson Miller Hi, I'm a biology teacher who teaches a LOT of evolution to a LOT of bright kids - so far, I haven't seen a single piece of quantifiable evidence against the facts supporting Darwin's Theory. Please show me one. Remember - I teach science, so it's got to be a measurable piece of evidence from the natural world, not the supernatural world. :-)"

I wasn't surprised reading her post, it made perfect sense to me. How often we hear the cry to teach both sides, but then no one seems to be able to find things contrary to evolution that are measurable.  It's usually conjecture and wishful thinking that they invest in emotionally.  Often people complain about teaching both sides of a topic as some level of 'fairness', but when the two sides are obviously not dealing with the same context, covering both in order to be 'fair' is actually completely artificial. It was something we previously discussed several times, including "Is it really fair? and Arguments IX - Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution?"

What did surprise me were many of the responses to her comment.  Here are a few:

Benjamin Parker Lori, then you are doing your students a disservice because you are teaching them PSEUDOscience. Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. Any idiot can look at two fossils and FANTASIZE ancestry but that is NOT evidence but pure speculation, lies or wishful thinking.

Michael Norten Do you teach junk science out of ignorance or rebellion?
Lori Bourque Where is the missing link? Why are there still apes? Why do 2 planets revolve counter. clockwise? Who was the master designer? Evolution has a lot of missing data..I opt opt for the heavenly designer....God the father of all creation

Benjamin Parker Evolution IS a religion which is why you evos steadfastly defend it despite the utter lack of evidence to support it. That's why even after being shown all the evidence shown AGAINST it ever occurring, you evos STILL cling to your evolutionary FAITH. That's called brainwashing.

Kenneth Davis Sorry Alyson but the facts you're referring to have only been connected to evolutionary theory with speculation. For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another. In other words, all the bacteria and fruit flies that have ever mutated still remained bacteria and fruit flies and never any new organism. Nat. selection was built into each organism for adaptation but not with any possibility of becoming a new creature. The transitions are totally nonexistent.

Lori Bourque Doug I beg to differ there is mounds of evidence..literal physical and spiritual..what do you think is happening now it is the final battle and it was written thousands of years ago and it is unfolding before our eyes God knew the end from the beginning! This is the final battle

Mory Von Werner I always go back to first life. As of yet no one can explain how a putative first life could start. As you know, the first life would have to been incredibly complex --- thousands, if not millions of amino acid structural, functional tertiary and chiral machines. This Protobiont would necessarily have DNA information storage, and the information able to be read by RNA and move on to the Ribosome for building. All this had to fall together by chance in roiling seas, the chirality thing is off the charts impossible! But there's more! It needs a phospholipid cell wall to protect the functioning cell machinery. So, you need DNA to make a Cell wall, but DNA would not form in a perfect environment, much less the open roiling seas it was purported to have formed---no cell wall. And, not just here, but on billions of plantets--- thus, starting life all over this universe. The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)

That's just a small sample of the well over 100 responses her single comment received.  Just look at some of the misconceptions people have stated, clearly they have little knowledge of the subject, or I should say subjects.  A total misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory is about the only way to explain comments like 

• "Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. "
•  "Evolution IS a religion "
• "Missing Link . . ."
• "For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another."
• "The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)"

What has happened to basic science education?  If you keep reading, it gets even worse.  The most common mistakes made by many of the posters reveals not only a lack of knowledge about evolution, but a totally dogmatic view of any potential alternative, regardless of its lack of scientific support!  

Today's Non-Sequitur is a particularly good one to illustrate these points.  I am posting the image here because many of the comic strip sites remove the images after a while.  I got it here. 

Now McLaughlin is a new name to me, so I decided to check him out just a little before even reading his response.  Here is part of his short bio from the DI:

"Donald McLaughlin joined Discovery Institute in August 2013, as a Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast regions. His areas of responsibility include cultivating and stewarding major gifts, and planned giving. Donald has had a successful career in development, including 8 years as a Regional Director of Advancement for Prison Fellowship Ministries, 2 years as National Director of Major Gifts for Teen Mania Ministries and 5 years as Regional Director of Advancement for Taylor University."(DI bio)

Now before getting into anything else, please note the following:  Prison Fellowship Ministries, Teen Mania Ministries, and Taylor University (a Christian liberal arts college in Indiana).  I just have to say this, for an organization that keeps trying to distance themselves from any religious connections, this is the type of person you hire?  Seriously?  Who was the past new employee I commented about?  Oh yes, Heather Zeigler.  Do you remember her?  I don't know if she still works there, but when they announced her hiring they tried to hide her religious education and affiliations. (So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II)

So just what is McLaughlin's job?  Is he their resident expert on the Big Bang?  On Biology?  On Cosmology?  No, he's their 'Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast' who seems to be responsible for asking for and collecting donations.  Which obviously qualifies him to defend anything said about the Big Bang and the emotional impact such topics might cause in people!  I guess with little casey luskin's departure, they needed a new second-stringer to pinch hit for the big boys who are still crying over the UMC debacle (The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties, The United Methodists Explain their Denial of the DI, and the DI disagrees . . . Surprise, Surprise!, and The Discovery Institute has named their 'Censor of the Year' for 2016).

So what did little casey's replacement have to say? Not much! He tried to defend the indefensible concerning the DI's poorly-named academic freedom bills, something else we've discussed often (Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?).  Then he pretty much misrepresents what Minda said in an effort to twist things around . . . in other words typical DI spin.

Here is the one that really cracked me up.  He quotes Sir Arthur Eddington:

"The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold." 

So here is an Astronomer who passed away in 1944, who exemplified support for the Steady State Universe concept that was replaced years later by the Big Bang Theory with the advent of such supporting evidence as the cosmic microwave background radiation.  Couldn't find anyone more recent?  Donnie not only used him to justify the DI's religious beliefs, but he then postulates about Sir Arthur's sleeping issues.  

OK, that's enough of that.  Time to close this thing out, and Donnie's closing is pretty funny:

"For someone who has staked her professional career on that insistence that intelligent design is illusory, I see why that would lead to some sleepless nights."

No!  Minda has staked her professional career on science and scientific methodology.  Intelligent Design provides hours of humor, not sleepless nights.  But I guess there is no scientific subject that would give you any sleep trouble.  After all, Donnie, all you need to do is keep passing a collection plate.  Don't worry, as long as there are churches, you'll be employed!

Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!

The Discovery Institute (DI) conducted another poll and, just like the last one, the poll came to a conclusion supporting the DI.  Wow, how incredible is that, two for two!

This time the poll was announced here: "For Darwin's Birthday, Poll Shows Broad Support for Teaching Evidence For and Against Darwin's Theory"  You might recall my issues with their last poll, ("A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!"), where the main issue was how the questions being asked drove the answers in a certain direction.  Well, can't make that complaint this time since they failed to tell us exactly what they asked, they did put a couple of phrases within quotes, so I am going to assume those were the questions, or at least part of the questions.  They are:

• "when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory."
• "biology teachers should cover only scientific evidence that supports the theory."

Before looking at their conclusion, let's look at the questions.  Pretty innocuous, aren't they?  But look at what the questions imply.  By asking this way they are implying that biology teachers are only considering pros of evolution, not the negatives and that the teachers are also engaging in some sort of cover-up by only teaching the scientific evidence.   What they fail to do is provide any actual context for the questions, yet imply things to lead the respondents in the direction they wish.  Here are a few contextual things that someone should know before answering the poll:

• Did the DI mention how that in past 150 years, not a single Creationist, including the Discovery Institute, has managed to provide any evidence contradicting the theory of evolution?  Of course not, that wouldn't drive the poll in the direction they want.
• Did they simply forget to mention that science classes are already encouraged to teach  pros and cons, providing those pros and cons are based on actual science.  No they didn't forget, they deliberately left that part out.
  
• Are biology teachers even qualified to teach any non-scientific evidence?  Regardless of the fact non-scientific evidence would be nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking. 
• Should they have mentioned who the DI is their agenda?  I think so!  It might have affected the result and not in a way the DI would have liked.

One other thing  . . . just what are the possible answers allowed by the poll?  I don't know and they don't tell you.  Often a simple 'yes' or 'no' actually makes the poll harder for people to understand because they don't fully allow people to express their opinion.  For example if a poll asked "Is it OK to yell 'Fire!' in a crowed movie theater?"  Yes or No!  It's impossible to use any data from this poll effectively.  Most people would answer something like "Yes, if there is an actual fire!", but the poll doesn't allow for that.  Go back to the questions themselves and imagine a simple "yes or no" option.  Can you think of things that would make such a simple answer to a complex question worthless?  I know I can!  I do wonder how many people surveyed did not respond on the basis of a lack of context?  Now that would be an interesting statistic.  The only thing claimed is a little over 2,000 respondents out of a pool of something like 6,000,000.  Hmmm, statistically not very significant.

Would the DI ever be guilty of these type of lawyer-word-games?  Let me take you back a few years.  Do you remember this:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This is the text to a petition the DI put out back in 2001.  Look at the wording, it is fairly innocuous.  The wording can also take on multiple meanings.  By itself this statement doesn't imply issues with current evolutionary theory, but that was exactly how this little petition was used in 2001 and is still used today.  Here is a couple of different points of view on the DI's little petition:

"Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advertisement:

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself."
(Wikipedia: Dissent from Darwinism)

The 'ad' mentioned was a reference to how this list of signatories was advertised in a number of prominent periodicals as a list of over 100 (That was back in 2001, since then they have managed to get over 800 signatories in recent years) scientific dissenters from what the DI called 'Darwinism.  We've talked about this list before, how the New York Times and the National Center for Science Education pretty well ripped it to shreds.  How the majority of the signatories had philosophical (religious) issues with evolution, not scientific ones.  How there were very few biologists, and many had their organizational affiliations inflated, or in the case of folks from the DI itself, hidden.  And how some of the scientists who signed the list didn't know what the DI was or how the list was going to be used.  Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, noted:

"that when interviewed, several of the scientists who had signed the statement said they accepted common descent. He thus suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered."(Wikipedia: Dissent from Darwinism)

'Carefully engineered'!  Sound familiar?  A fancy expression for marketing word games.  So, yes, the DI is very guilty of playing those games, and playing them often.  Remember the BS about calling ID a theory and then in the saem breath trying to compare it to an actual scientific theory?  Lots of word games!

Back to their poll, and here is their conclusion:

"Americans agree by an overwhelming margin that students should learn about all of the scientific evidence relating to Darwinian evolution, pro and con," said Dr. John West, Vice President of Discovery Institute.

Do they really?  Since when is 2,117 out of 6,000,000 an overwhelming margin?  Based on these numbers the only thing you can really say is an overwhelming majority did not respond.  If you look at the American population of 318,000,000 the 2,117 respondents start looking even less and less representative.  In addition we have no idea what audience group the DI targeted.  Don't forget, when you run a survey through Survey Monkey, you get to select the type of audience to aim the survey toward.  More information we don't have.  I will even go so far as to agree with the face-value statement I quoted from John West, with a slight wording change.  Students should learn all about the scientific evidence related to the Theory of Evolution.  But since that evidence would not include Creationism or Intelligent Design, I don't think that John really means just scientific evidence.

Here is my main takeaway.  Two things, since science classes already allow, and encourage, an examination of the scientific evidence, asking this as a poll question serves no purpose.  This does not indicate support for teaching Intelligent Design or even support for the pseudo-academic freedom bills like the LSEA.  If this conclusion were not associated with the DI, you might take it as face value, but since it was uttered by John West, you know there is a not-well-hidden agenda! My final takeaway, if the DI says it, you shouldn't place your trust in it!  After years of reading the foolishness that comes out of the DI, if they came out and said the sun rose this morning, I would still look outside to verify they aren't lying to me.

Based on their track record they would like me to believe the sun rose due to the actions of a sort-of unnamed Deity designer that we need to pay homage to with our every waking breath.  Sorry, Johnnie . . . the reason the sun 'rose' is due to a number of factors, chief among them is gravity . . . which is a fact and also a scientific theory.

The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties

If you remember back in 2009 the Vatican sponsored a five day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. The subject was the compatibility of evolution and creation. The Discovery Institute was not invited and they were quite unhappy about it.  They made their normal marketing spin on it, claiming that their pet idea, Intelligent Design (ID), was misrepresented . . . which I found funny since the conference hadn't happened before the DI started spinning.  But in any case, the DI wasn't invited.

Well, this time around it's not the Vatican but the Methodists who are annoying the DI.  They are holding a General Conference, and they aren't going to let the DI sponsor an ID information table during their conference.  As I am sure you can guess, the DI is not happy about it.  I caught this from one of my favorite bloggers, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, "Discovery Institute Banned by Methodists".  

If you didn't know, The United Methodist Church (UMC) is an endorser of the Clergy Letter Project.  I haven't written about the Clergy Letter Project in a while so here is a quick reminder in the form of part of the Letter signed by over 13,000 Christian clergy:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

There is also a similar letter endorsed by Rabbis, Unitarians, and Buddhists.  Well, back to the subject at hand.  The DI wanted to have an information table at the annual UMC General Conference and the Methodists said "No!".  Well they might not have used that exact word, but that is certainly the result.  So what does the DI do when they are unhappy?  They whine!

But they don't just whine, they spin!  They posted blog entities and press releases claiming that the UMC is under fire for banning the DI from their conference.  The spin is pretty serious, Bruce Chapman, John G. West, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, pseudo-historian Michael Flannery and Donald McLaughlin all had things to say about it.  They sure spun up the PR machine in a hurry!  So far the only 'fire' seems to be coming from the DI.  If they were after some groundswell of support, they missed.  They even created a web page listing contact information for leaders within the UMC asking their supporters to "TAKE ACTION: Urge United Methodist Officials to Overturn Ban on Discovery Institute at General Conference".  It's all over Facebook as well, the DI begging for help.  Most of the comments are less than helpful :-).  Still no sign of that groundswell, but it is early days.  I would be willing to wager the majority of comments supporting the DI comes from people who already are associated with the DI and enjoy drinking their kool-aid.

I, being the person that I am, went to their take action page, copied the email addresses for a number of UMC leaders and sent them an email of support!  In fact I encourage you to do the same: 

Ms. Judi Kenaston, Chair, UMC Commission on the General Conference
Bishop Michael Coyner, President, UMC General Council on Finance and Administration
Bishop Warner H. Brown, President, UMC Council of Bishops
Bishop Bruce R. Ough, Chair, UMC Connectional Table
The Rev. Amy Valdez Barker, Executive Secretary, UMC Connectional Table

Here are their email addresses more suitable for cut&paste: 

JudiKenaston@aol.com, bishop@inumc.org, bishop@calnevumc.org, bishop@dkmnareaumc.org, avaldez_barker@umc.org

Go for it, let the Methodists know how you feel about their 'banning' the DI.

Another thing, of course the DI spins, but I really dislike how they are spinning this.  They are claiming that the Methodists are violating their own slogan: "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors."  Does their slogan really mean that every point of view, especially ones you disagree with, should be allowed in the General Conference?  You know, I might have to defend the right of a group like the KKK or NAMBLA to have free speech, but does that mean I should be required to support their efforts?  Think about it.  Letting the DI have a table would be a form of tacit approval of their position.  The UMC has already made their disapproval known, why would they bother letting the DI push their viewpoint?

Does this particular spin sound familiar?  Remember how the DI has this habit of re-defining things for their own advantage?  Their complaint that teaching ID should be allowed based on Academic Freedom, when actual academic freedom has nothing to do with teaching pseudo-science as if it was science.  How about the tactic 'Teach the Controversy', and by 'controversy' they obviously mean something they dreamed up that doesn't actually exist in scientific circles.  Or the abortive 'It's only a Theory', where they bait and switch the definitions of 'theory' in order to confuse folks.  Yes, this type of spin is simply one of their marketing schemes.

According to the DI's John G. West, one of the reasons put forth by the UMC is:

"Discovery Institute was rejected for violating a policy that conference exhibits "are not to provide a platform to survey or test ideas; rather, to provide products / services / resources which are credible and proven" to help church ministries"

To be honest, that makes perfect sense to me, is Creationism/ID credible and proven?  Certainly not very credible and also not having any evidence to support it.  I guess the UMC should make room for the psychics table, the tarot card reader, and the parapsychologists as well.  After all those groups have as much credibility and proof as the DI has for ID.

The UMC already stated that they opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of their schools.  While the DI continues to deny it, they are a faith-based organization pushing a form of Creationism into schools.  This is the group who wrote a lesson plans for teachers to use questioning evolution and introducing ID, who 'helped' the Dover School Board in their efforts to bring Creationism back into the classroom, and the same organization who lied about support for ID when petitioning the Ohio School Board back in 2002.  That's only a few of their tactics of mistakes, there are many, many more!

I applaud the UMC for sticking to it's guns.   The DI isn't welcome and that should be the end of it.  After all, the UMC is a private organization and should have to ability to select what groups get represented at their conferences!

Does anyone ever try and horn into a DI sponsored event?  Not that I ever heard.  DI sponsored events are usually to an audience of people who already believe in their snake oil, as we wrote about in "So there is nothing religious about ID? Part V".  They seem to stack the deck when they hold one of their mutual admiration meetings.  That particular example was supposed to be a conference on the Science and God debate . . . and yet not only was no one from the scientific community invited, neither were any theologians.  It was four members of the DI presenting their views, a biochemist, a philosopher, a lawyer, and a political scientist.  Talk about stacking the deck!

Imagine the hue and cry if the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) or Secular Students of America (SSA) wanted to attend one of the DI's Summer Seminars . . . oh wait, look at the Admission Requirements for those seminars (my underlining):

"You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director." (Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences)

Gee, they assume they have the right to filter attendees for one of their revival meetings, but refuse to allow other groups the same privilege!  They not only want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to have your cake to eat as well. 

Unique Grand Canyon Trips . . . only in one respect

You might know that the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) hosts an annual trip rafting through the Grand Canyon.  I've heard many good things about it and one day hope to make the trip myself.  On the NCSE website, they describe it as:

"Welcome to the FAQ for the NCSE Grand Canyon 2016 raft trip, which will run from June 30-July 8! All Grand Canyon trips include spectacular scenery, fascinating natural history, brilliant night skies, exciting rapids, delicious meals, and good company of people excited about science. Because this is an NCSE trip, we offer a special twist for science fans.

Our NCSE trip features a unique "two-model" raft trip, where we discuss the creationist view of Grand Canyon, contrasted with the normal scientific interpretation. For example, we examine major erosional contacts, and explain how creationists think these formed thousands of years ago during Noah’s Flood, while scientists take a different view.

NCSE's Josh Rosenau delivers a tongue-in-cheek presentation of the creationist view, as well as expounding on the natural history of the Grand Canyon. The standard scientific view of the history of the Canyon is presented by NCSE’s Steve Newton, a trained geologist."

 Well taking a note out of the NCSE playbook, little kennie ham, you know Answers in Genesis, Creation 'Museum', and Ark Park infamy.  He's offering a similar trip, but from the Creationist viewpoint.  He describes it on his website as:

"You probably know that the Grand Canyon is one of the best places on earth you can visit to view powerful evidence that confirms the biblical account of Noah’s Flood. When you grew up and went to school, you may have been taught the false view of the Canyon’s formation in your sciences classes, namely that over millions of years, the Colorado River supposedly slowly carved out a part of northern Arizona to form the Grand Canyon. Increasingly, though, even secular geologists are beginning to agree with catastrophist creationists about the Canyon: a lot of water, over a short period of time, carved the Canyon—not a little bit of water over a long time! Creation scientists like those at AiG would argue that very soon after the Flood, a massive wall of water rather quickly carved the Canyon."

Of course he couldn't resist using this little announcement for a bit of preaching.  He claims that the scientific view of the canyon forming is false and that 'even secular geologists are beginning to agree with catastrophist (is that even a word?) creationists about the Canyon' -- neither of which he can offer any support other than wishful thinking, but then do we ever think we'll get much else?

For some reason the link to the Canyon Ministries isn't working, but you get the idea.  He's even starting to send an AiG staff member along to help 'explain' things from the Creationist point of view, isn't that so special.  Little kennie's other page discussing more of the details says something really strange:

"If a rafting trip does not fit your schedule, but you don’t want to hear the evolutionary explanation of the canyon’s formation when you visit, consider a land-based tour with Canyon Ministries."

I underlined the strange part, the raft trip is going to show the 'evolutionary explanation'?  Really?  That doesn't seem to jibe with the purpose already stated.  But that's just me, I am surprised kennie could even use the word 'evolutionary', but paraphrase one of my favorite movies, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

Kenticky Lawmakers never seem to learn. Ark Park wants more help!

Article from the National Center for Science Education "Extending summer vacation for the sake of creationism?".  The title pretty much says it all.  Two lawmakers are apparently sucking up to kennie ham for some reason I will never understand.

Let's see, kennie ham starts another project, claiming it would be a for-profit tourist attraction and asked for Kentucky help to get it going, claiming pretty astronomical number of tourists will be visiting his 'Ark Park'.  Kentucky jumped in and offered several forms of help.  While I disagreed, my initial disagreement was more based on not trusting kennie ham and knowing kennie was the one who drew up the tourist figures and not an objective party fed that mistrust.

What happened next was kennie started advertising for employees at his new park, he did it through his Answers in Genesis ministry and was inflicting several requirements on applicants, like signing his statement of faith.  (Kentucky Common Sense Part II) That flew in the face of complying with the employment laws he promised he would follow, you know the ones about not discriminating based on a number of factors, including religion.  So you can see that kennie not only wanted state assistance ($$), but he wants to discriminate in hiring, of course Kentucky pulled their support -- as required by law.

Aside from the fact little kennie trying to paint himself as the victim of religious discrimination, he apparently also has a couple of pet lawmakers trying to 'help' him again.  This time by extending summer vacation so there would be more time for people to visit his ark park.  Are you kidding me?  Why be so covert, why don't they just pass a law making a visit to kennie's abortions mandatory?  Does kneeling before kennie a requirement to win elections in Kentucky?

Kentucky, isn't it time to stop?  If kennie's tourist numbers are right, he shouldn't need any help.  If his numbers are off, then he deserves to foot the bill.  In any event, the State of Kentucky needs to draw a hard line and tell kennie that he and his ministries are on their own.  If you don't think his ark park is a ministry, you might remember this from his original job application:

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

It is nothing but a ministry, and it's time the State of Kentucky ends any subsidies.

Evolution as Fact

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) recently had a couple of posts (part 1 and part 2) on this subject, so I decided to repeat myself and add a few things on the subject of Evolution as Fact, Evolution as Theory and Evolution as Path.

Previously, and often, I have discussed Evolution as Fact and Evolution as Theory.  The Path element is something I hadn't really considered.  One of my issues when it comes to Creationists is they tend to treat them either as one in the same, or they tend to slip from one to the other without warning so the listener/reader doesn't understand the context of a comment.  It's like trying to hit a moving target.  While early on I thought they did they accidentally, but soon realized it was a tactic specifically designed to confuse people.

How often has someone said "How can evolution be a fact when it's just a theory?"  Sometimes it's coming from a Creationists, but also it comes from people who simply do not understand the difference and are honestly questioning it.  Frequently the comments comes from political figures who have some philosophical axe to grind.  In any event, it's important to understand the differences.

So let's start.  Is Evolution a Fact?  Yes!  But before trying to convince you, let me reiterate an old example.  Is Gravity a fact?  Yes!  To test it, drop something -- preferably nothing of value.  What happened?  It fell down, toward the mass of the Earth.  Without getting into the why it fell down, can we all acknowledge that it fell down?  There is your fact.  Facts are generally evidence of something happening, an occurrence, a happening.  The pencil you dropped fell down.  It's hard to argue fact.

So from the point of view of Evolution, is it a fact?  Looking at the evidence of life on this planet and the incredible changes it has undergone over long periods of time, yes Evolution is a fact. The evidence of biology, paleontology, biodiversity, comparative anatomy, to name a few, are factual pieces of evidence.  It is so factual that many creationists don't even bother to argue against the evidence -- which is why they try and confuse people by claiming fact and theory are somehow the opposite of each other or they create an imaginary line between what they call micro and macro evolution.

One thing I will say is that the Fact of Evolution cannot be tested quite as easily as dropping a pencil.  But that doesn't mean it cannot be tested.  Have a DNA test of yourself and a relative and you can see examples of evolution.  Look at the preponderance of evidence that's been collected for centuries.  Why is there no evidence of human beings before about 250,000 years ago?  Why do we see such geographical biodiversity?  Why do we have evidence of nearly every lineage of plants and animals changing over time?  Evolution is a fact and the facts of evolution deserve to be taught in science class.

Now, how about a Theory, is Evolution a Theory?  Yes again.  And using the same term to describe both a Fact and a Theory can be confusing, we do stuff like that all the time.  A recent Jeopardy question asked about a three-letter verb that applied to sports, the theater, and politics.  The answer was 'run', and the meaning of each usage was considerable different.  Seriously many of the words we use have multiple definitions depending on the context, so why is it so hard to grasp that with Evolution?  In reality it's not, unless you don't want to recognize it.

Like Gravity (fact), there is a scientific Theory of Gravity that explains why and how the fact occurred.  That's all a scientific theory is an explanation, but not just any explanation.  It's one that explains the available facts in the most accurate way possible.  Theories are not carved in stone, but fluid.  As we learn more, theories change and adjust based on our knowledge.  There are countless examples from Gravity from Newton to Einstein, just as there are countless examples within Evolutionary Theory, like from Darwin to Gould.  The explanation of the fact of Evolution is generally referred to as the Theory of Evolution.  Charles Darwin would probably not recognize much of the current theory, but he would recognize many of the underpinnings.  Fact and Theory, same term, but very different meanings.  The Scientific Theory of Evolution IS the best current explanation of the Fact of Evolution that we have.  It isn't an absolutely perfect and complete explanation, because there are things we do not know yet and the work continues.  But what we do know, what we can support with actual evidence, and the explanations we know of all fit within the current Theory.

As with Gravity, theories do change, but that is the strength of a scientific theory.  Various creationists try and paint that as a weakness.  But seriously, how many of you would like to get treated in accordance to the Miasma Theory as it existed in about 1850?   Yet when it comes to Evolution, so many people want to demolish 150+ years of science.  The problem is they do not want to destroy it because it's wrong, it's because they believe that it threatens their precious religious beliefs.  And one of the tactics they use is to confuse Fact, Theory, and Path!

Speaking of Path, the third way of looking at things is sorta new to me.  I hadn't given it much thought, but recent comments by folks like the Discovery Institute made this make perfect sense.  Aside from the Fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution, there is the detailed specific instance of how one structure over time because very different.  In other words what was the pathway that whales took from the sea to the land and back to the sea?  What was the path that took a injector to an outboard motor?  What was the path from our ape-like ancestor to human beings?  Here is where a lot of the modern work on evolution is occurring.  We might never know the exact path, but every day we are learning more and getting more evidence.    We speculate on potential paths and other scientists measure up how our probable path matches the available evidence.  Pieces and parts of ancient organisms are racked and stacked in order and as we learn more, re-racked and re-stacked, like archeopteryx for example.  Of course we will never please many people, especially those with a philosophical grudge, but the more complaining they do, the closer I feel we are getting to actual answers.

Often folks attacks the Path and use it to try and attack the overall Theory and the Fact of Evolution.  The Discovery Institute is frequently guilty of this, it's one of the tactics they use to make people mistrust science.  The problem is even if a biologist doesn't have to precise path from dinosaurs to modern birds, the relationship is well supported and also supports the theory and fact of evolution.  Work will continue, which is something the DI can't seem to say about their religious ideas, can they?  Have they managed to produce anything that takes their idea beyond pseudo scientific wishful thinking?  Not yet!  Claiming to be science doesn't make your ideas automatically scientific!  If that were the case then we would also be teaching Astrology alongside Astronomy and Numerology with Mathematics.  What a frightening thought!

The Path, the Fact, and the Theory are three different contexts in which we use the term 'evolution'.  They are related, but not interchangeable.  The Theory, even changes to the Theory, doesn't change the Fact.  The fact [pun intended] that we don't know a specific Path of a change, doesn't mean Theory should be discarded, or make the Fact irrelevant.  Be clear in your context and it certainly makes things a whole lot clearer as you think about and discuss Evolution.

Hopefully this will end the Freshwater Saga for good.

Both the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and Panda's Thumb are reporting that the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear John Freshwater's appeal of his firing as a science school teaching in Mount Vernon OH.  All I can say is Yay!

"Over at last for Freshwater" and "Freshwater: It is finished" spells it out pretty clearly.  It's a case that should have ended years ago, preferably with a jail sentence for Mr. Freshwater for using an electrostatic device to burn crosses into students arms. 

What annoys me the most about this entire case is not the cross-burning into arms, not the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design, not his continual disregard for the for the policies and procedures of his superiors, nor even the need for other teachers to re-teach science education to his former students . . .but the cowardice of John Freshwater.

Yes, I know a lot of people think he is brave for standing up for his beliefs.  But I disagree.  To me only a coward lies about his actions when confronted during the school boards investigation.  Only a coward who also knows just how wrong he was in his actions would teach his students to lie for him.  Let us never forget that he not only lied, which I see as a refusal to accept responsibility, but he taught his students that it's OK to lie.  This is not a man I want in the classroom and the only word that comes to mind is cowardice. 

He told you one thing to your face and when you weren't looking, did something else and said something else.  This is not a brave man, this is someone who cannot be trusted, certainly not with the education of our children. Don't we try and teach our kids that one of the true essences of being an adult isn't how you behave when someone is watching, but how you behave when no one is looking.  We try and teach responsibility and even honor, but then they go to school and their teacher says something like 'Remember those crosses I burned into your arm, you need to call them 'X's now or I might get in trouble.'

This is the man one of the Answers in Genesis folks, kennie ham's ministry site, referred to:

 " . . .Mr. Freshwater and others like him who truly are missionaries in our public school system."(http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/01/18/scientists-and-science-should-not-be-questioned/)

Missionaries?  Well since kennie himself thinks lies in support of his beliefs are OK, I guess he would see a kindred spirit in someone else who lies and then tries to use his religious beliefs to support his actions.  Lying and teaching children to lie for you is not the action of a missionary, unless the lesson you wish to teach is more the variety of Dicken's Fagin.  I don't normally picture that when the term 'missionary' is used, but I might have to change my opinion whenever AiG uses it.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagin#mediaviewer/File:Fagin_from_Oliver_Twist.JPG

Words have meanings

I read a post over on the NCSE's blog, that is the National Center for Science Education.  Normally I really enjoy reading their blog and frequently refer to their site to keep abreast of science education in this country.  Often I learn a few new things as well.  However, this particular entry, Misconception Monday: Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws, Oh My!, left me rather perplexed.  In a nutshell the author, Stephanie Keep, defined Hypothesis, Theory and Law.  I was looking forward to it, especially since I've posted on this topic before (Arguments XIX -- Hypothesis, Theory, and Law), but the article rather blurred the lines between them to the point they were barely recognizable, well at least to me.  Now granted my science education from HS and college was a while ago, but what I learned put a much sharper demarcation between them than was described here.

I understand there is no absolute universal definition of the terms, the generally accepted differences were not simply one of scope, but of applicability.  A hypothesis is an idea, a testable idea about some given phenomena.  It can be very narrow or fairly broad.  Hypotheses are tested and from there they can be rejected, confirmed, or even modified.  Over time, as the modifications grow less and less encompassing, the hypothesis becomes stronger and more well supported.  Hypotheses can get rolled up into a Scientific theory.  Now there rarely is a one for one relationship here, but the Theory is much more encompassing than a hypothesis and has undergone considerable testing and constant confirmation.  In fact pretty much all the evidence supports a hypothesis, or hypotheses, before they can be considered a theory, or part of a theory.  It's a process that's been defined time and time again.

Sure, the reality is less than absolute.  New hypotheses can come out of existing theories, theories can be made up of multiple theories and hypotheses.  But as an explanation or terminology, I think the complicated reality only confuses the issue.  Before you can appreciate the complex reality, you have to understand the basics of the terminology.

Now a law is a manifestation of a theory/hypothesis.  It's much more narrow than either a hypothesis or a theory.  It's an application under a very specific set of parameters.  It's often expressed mathematically, but that's not always true.

What is true is that while hypotheses can become theories, they never 'grow-up' to be laws.  That's a common Creationist myth about science.  I actually have heard people say things like 'If Evolution is so strong, why isn't it a law!"  There I agree with Stephanie!  What bothers me the most about how blurry she defined the terms, it opens the door for this exact sort of behavior.  If we cannot firmly define our terminology, we tend to be fighting an uphill battle when other people misuse the terminology.

Out of curiosity, I searched the NCSE website for 'theory' and found this:

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
  

I think Stephanie should have consulting the NCSE site before being to vague.

IS it really fair?

I was posting on another forum and someone raised what seemed like a nice, simple, innocuous point.  Isn't the wording of OH HB 597 simply being fair?

I'm reminded of several articles I read about journalistic 'fairness'.  All too often journalists seem to think that presenting both sides of an argument is an effort to be fair and concise.  I tend to disagree.  I know, that sounds harsh, but here is my thinking. 

Say you have a story with two sides.  Can you automatically assume both sides are equal?  No, not without actually examining both sides.  But when they are presented as equal, any examination gets harder to do, because of this artificial perception of equality.  Let's briefly look at one of my favorite examples, racism.  Should someone doing an article on the Civil Rights movement have to provide the Ku Klux Klan with an equal perspective?  Sounds ridiculous, and it is.  Might the article, or class, or film, on the Civil Right Movement mention the KKK?  Sure, probably for about a moment or two.  Without a doubt, the correct balance in any reasonable examination should lean nearly 100% on the Civil Rights side!  No one seems to complain about that.  In fact if you gave the KKK an equal billing, people would be screaming, and rightly so!  But wouldn't it be fair?  Of course not.

Yet, when it comes to science, like Evolution and Climate Change.  One side has tons of actual evidence, the other side has politics, religion, hearsay, wishful thinking and conjecture.  Is presenting them as equal really fair?  Every idea is not automatically on par with every other idea!  Whether we are talking about science vs religion, men vs women, Apple vs Microsoft, artificially inflating one side to give the appearance of fairness is a disservice to one side and offers an artificial -- and false -- support to the other.  Yes, even Apple vs Microsoft.  Some people believe Apple makes better computers.  However in any economic examination, you have to realize that Microsoft has the lion's share of the market and treating them both as equal brings down the market leader while artificially raising up the contender.  It's not fair to either of them.

Looking at HB 597 again, when asked whether "intelligent design" should be taught alongside evolution, Thompson [Andy Thompson (R-District 95)] answered,

"I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That's legitimate."

When introducing his bill, Thompson said:

"we want to provide them the flexibility to consider all perspectives,  not just on matters of faith or how the Earth came into existence, but  also global warming and other topics that are controversial."

Sounds pretty fair, huh?  Why didn't Andy mention that teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design as science is unconstitutional?  That kinda tilts the teeter-totter in a different direction.  Did Andy forget to mention that the last time a school district tried this (Dover PA, 2005) they wound up in expensive and time consuming litigation?  Now the it should be at full tilt!  While his words sound fair and reasonable, you need to look a little harder to realize they are anything but.

Several times in the past certain groups and people have tried to inject their religion into the science curriculum.  SO far it's failed here in Ohio and in most states.  Notably, Louisiana has a law that would theoretically allow it, but as far as I know, no one has tried to implement that part of the law.  This bill is another designed to allow just such a thing.  It's subtle, but it's there. 

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) writes  about the bill:

 "The problem here," explained NCSE's executive director Ann Reid, "is that there simply isn't a debate within the scientific community over evolution or over climate change. Instead, there's a consensus, with the vast majority of scientists, of whatever political or religious inclinations, agreeing on the facts. By encouraging local school districts to misrepresent the overwhelming scientific consensus, HB 597 is a recipe for miseducation." (Antiscience legislation in Ohio)

Patricia Princehouse, director of Case Western Reserve University's Program in Evolutionary Biology, told the Dispatch, "It sounds exactly like the kind of things intelligent design and creationist promoters say." (Update on Ohio's antiscience bill)

 I'm sure we will be hearing much more!  Hopefully sanity will break out again in Ohio!