The Discovery Institute is 'monkeying' around with a new survey

We've discussed this penchant for surveys by the Discovery Institute (DI) before (here and here).  If you remember, my issue was how they like to poll with very innocuous sounding phrases and then spin the results and claim it shows some sort of support for one position or another.  Most often it's to denigrate science and science education and this poll is a perfect example!  "Scientists Versus the Public on Airing Scientific Dissent", by little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

This time around, the DI presented a series of statements and asked some group of people through Survey Monkey to rate them on a 4-level scale,  'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' with the statement.  Here are the statements from their latest poll (source):

1. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. Scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.
3. Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.
4. It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.
5. People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘antiscience.’
6. Disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.

Now while the wording seems pretty basic, what do these phrases imply?  Here is how I see it:

1. That teachers and students do not currently have the freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. That scientists do not have the freedom to raise scientific criticisms of evolution.
3. That holding a dissenting view results in censorship and punishment.
4. The policymakers and the public do not hear dissenting views.
5. Anyone who holds a disagreement are labeled as 'anti-science'.
6. The since dissenting views are not allowed, there haven't been any new insights of new discoveries in science.

Now, you might think I am reading these implications into the survey; however, if that weren't true then this latest post from the DI, also by klingy, would never been written.  "Evolution's Enforcers Are Waaaaay Out of Step with Public Opinion".  Klingy is confirming that according to the DI, there is no freedom to discuss, dissent, or hold opposing views.

So the real question is not whether or not you agree with the DI's statements, but whether or not the implications of their statements reflect reality.  What do you think?

First of all students and teachers discuss scientific criticism of any scientific theory, including evolution, all the time.  The key here is scientific criticism.  Granted high school science classes might not have the time, nor resources, to spend a great deal of time on scientific criticisms, they still have the academic freedom to do so.

In fact, have you heard of a single person being censored or punished for discussing scientific criticisms?  Not at any public or secular schools!  The DI likes to trot out a list of people, like Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Crocker, and Richard Sternberg.  But anyone who examines those cases soon realizes that these folks weren't dealing with scientific criticisms, just run-of-the-mill religious criticisms dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.  Their religion either prevented them from doing their job, or interfered with them doing their job, in any event they were held accountable . . . not for their beliefs, but not doing their job!  Unlike the DI's rogues gallery, there have been quite a few cases of teachers being punished and censored from teaching real science! Chris Comer and Tom Oord's situations come to immediate mind.

Now I have another name I wanted to mention, one I have discussed on numerous occasions, William Dembski.  If you recall Dembski figured in a number of  . . . incidents  . . . centered around his support of ID and Creationism.  One of the ones I mentioned a while ago was how quickly Wild Bill changed his tune about the reality of Noah's Flood.  Here is the write-up in Wikipedia (I added the underlines):

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth.  He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East.  This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal.  In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood."  Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just a couple of days ago the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind".  In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

"this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

Interesting turn of phrase, Theological Correctness.  So while we have a certain amount of imagined censorship and punishment for dissent of current science on the part of the DI, and yet when we find actual censorship and punishment we find even people who are ID supporters who have to toe a fundamentalist line or find themselves unemployed because they were not fundie enough!  So which side is actually guilty of censorship and punishment for dissenting views?  Certainly doesn't look like it's science, does it?


Back to the survey statements themselves.  It's obvious that they are designed (pun intended) to make you think such freedom to discuss, criticize, or dissent doesn't exist, but once you remember the whole purpose in life of the DI you can see why they want you to think so.  In the past, when has the DI ever been an advocate of academic freedom?  Look at the text and purpose of their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bills.  The purpose of such bills, which have been defeated is all but two states that have tried to pass one, is to weaken science education and allow their religion (Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)) to wedge its way into the curriculum.  That's not made up . . that is their stated goal!

Barbra Forrest, you might remember her from the Dover Trial, just yesterday (July 7, 2016) had this to say about one of those bills:

" . . . the deceptively titled “Louisiana Science Education Act” was promoted exclusively by the Louisiana Family Forum, a right-wing religious lobbying group that has promoted creationism since its founding, and the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank in Seattle. The law is an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which nullified a 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism in public schools."("Letters: Here are the facts on La.’s Science Education Act")

Simple question, if a car mechanic refused to actually repair cars, should the garage who hired them keep them on the payroll?  Again, that's what the DI wants.  They hate the fact that people like Gonzales and Crocker were held accountable for their actions because they were failing in the job they were hired to do!  The list of all the supposed 'victims' of censorship and discrimination that the DI likes to wave around can all be traced back to their unwillingness or inability to do their job! That's not censorship or discrimination!  How much would car repairs cost of you had to help pay the salaries of people who 'worked' at the garage but who didn't perform any duties that fall under the heading of work?

I do like how they changed things after the second survey statement.  Did you notice how they dropped the word 'scientific'?  Just as an exercise, tuck it back in and see how it changes the meaning of the sentence.  Scientists who hold dissenting 'scientific' views should not be censored or punished . . . now have you noticed that at no time does the DI identify anyone who has been censored or punished for holding a dissenting scientific view?  So in their words, a dissenting view, regardless of its scientific viability, is just as important as a non-dissenting view.  So Astrology is an viable as Astronomy, Chemistry to Alchemy,  . . . you see where such a list can end.  Next thing you know we will be requiring our Math teachers to teach Numerology and Architects to cover Feng Shui.

People disagree with science all the time.  It's not the disagreement that makes someone like Jenny McCarthy 'anti-science', it's the snake oil she's peddling in its place that is anti-science.  There is no evidence that supports vaccines cause autism, none!  Jenny is anti-science!  The DI is anti-science, not because they disagree with science, but because they want to put their religion in its place.  Look at the tactics of people like McCarthy and the DI.  They don't promote their own ideas as much as they attack actual science with nothing but marketing, unsupported ideas, and lots of politicking.  Yes, they are anti-science not because they disagree, but because how what they do and say in what they are offering in its place.

For example my daughter is questioning the need for my granddaughter to receive the HPV vaccine.  She is questioning based on several specific things, like how the vaccine only protects from a small set of viruses, and not the more common ones and how HPV and the related cancers do not run in either side of my granddaughter's family tree.  What she isn't doing is raising irresponsible and outright lies about vaccines in general, but she has some specific concerns.  It doesn't make her anti-science, what it does do is make her cautious and wants to discuss it further with a actual medical professional before making a decision.  The applicable label isn't 'anti-science', but 'parent'.

The final statement of theirs is equally ridiculous, scientists criticize current scientific theories all the time.  That's where new scientific advances come from.  So again, I agree with the bare-bones statement.  But it's not the dissenting opinion that brings about new advances in science.  It's the scientists who put in the actual scientific work to support their views that end up becoming new advances in science.  Name me one scientific advance that is solely based on having a dissenting view?  There isn't one!  But this sort of statement is typical of the DI.  They are either unwilling or unable to do the real science to support their ideas . . . so they imply that no one is allowed to have a dissenting view, simply because no one takes them seriously because their dissenting view is not based on science, but on theology.

In closing this much longer than intended post, I recall something from a few years back, a quote from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe ID to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here:

"The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

Time for a New Slogan for the Discovery Institute

I'm not being flippant, but I want to ask a serious question.  Does Astrology equal Astronomy?  Are they two sides of one argument?  Should each be given equal weight when looking at the cosmos?  When Astronomers have a conference, should Astrologers be invited, after all it's only fair, right?

Of course you know my answer, and I hope your answer is the same.  Astrology has offered absolutely nothing in the study of the cosmos and to invite them to an Astronomy conference would be ridiculous!  It might be a bit entertaining, but still bordering on ludicrous!  Any Astronomer who invited them as anything but comic relief would probably get a chilly reception from their professional colleagues, and deservedly so!

So why is the Discovery Institute still so fired up about not being allowed to sponsor a table at the United Methodist Church General Conference?  The UMC has made it quite clear their position on Creationism-lite (aka Intelligent Design) and decided in accordance with that position.  And yet with a multitude of posts and even selecting the UMC as their 'Censor of the Year', the DI keeps whining.  The UMC has answered any question -- Creationism, in any form, hasn't offered anything in the way of science, so it doesn't belong in the science classroom!

What I find most telling is the DI isn't telling us why they should be invited, what would they be able to contribute, or what they have contributed that would add value to their addition to the conference.  The ONLY thing they are claiming is that the UMC should allow them to sponsor a table because, according to the DI,  the UMC's slogan is "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.".  Slogans are apparently very important to them.

Anyone ever see a magician do sleight-of-hand?  That's what we are seeing here.  Rather than telling us things that might actually make a difference, the DI is trying to use an appeal to some artificial level of fairness to force the UMC to change their position.  They are distracting us from their lack of actual contributions to anything that does concern the UMC and focusing us on their other hand with a appeal to something that has nothing to do with why they should be invited, a slogan.

I've said it before, if the KKK or NMBLA wanted to sponsor a table, should the UMC allow it?  I mean should everyone be sleeping better knowing the KKK slogan of

"You can sleep tonight knowing the Klan is awake!"(Wikipedia: Ku Klux Klan)

According to the DI they should be permitted, after all "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors", right?

OK, unless something strange happens I am not going to write about this subject, I think it's exhausted.  But I will ask the DI for one simple thing.  Other than the slogan, why should the UMC allow you to sponsor a table?  What can you contribute to their General Conference?  I would like a very specific answer, not some generic piece of fluff about fairness or openness.  What would you contribute?

I guess I do have one final thing to ask, what is the 'slogan' of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture?  The one on your website makes little sense:

"Discovering Intelligent Design" 

I mean depending on which DI mouthpiece you listen too, ID was 'discovered' in 1991 by Phillip E. Johnson or it was 'discovered' by Anaxagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, well over 2000 years ago. In fact they reiterated that one again just yesterday (Excavating the Intellectual Roots of Intelligent Design).  You don't really have to click on their link, it's just one DI talking head repeating what another DI talking head posted last month.  Depending on whom you read, ID is either very new or very old, it all depends on whether or not they want you to think ID is relatively new and that's why they haven't made any serious headway in the sciences -- or -- that ID is ancient and they don't need to make any actual scientific contributions.  Either way what stands out about ID is that has yet to accomplish anything other than marketing.

As a result I think it's time for a new DI slogan. How about:

"The Discovery Institute: How NOT to do science in the 21st Century"

A possible alternative is a play on the KKK's slogan:

"You can sleep tonight knowing the Discovery Institute is doing absolutely nothing!"

Any other suggestions for the Discovery Institute?  Almost anything has to be better than "Discovering Intelligent Design!", I mean the answer to that one is pretty simple, just look up Creationism in the dictionary and there you are.

Follow-up to "So There is Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design (Part IX)"

As I mentioned earlier in the week, the Discovery Institute, while still claiming to not be a religious organization, is very concerned with young people losing their faith-based beliefs ("Are Young People Losing Their Faith Because of Science?").  They are offering a 'free' report to:

"Download this free report from Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture for information and resources to equip yourself, your family, and your congregation on issues of faith and science." 

Aside from this reminding me of those theists who used to roam the airport giving out a flower or a book and then asking for a monetary contribution . . . anyway . . .

One of the commenters on the Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, where I first caught the DI's report, apparently did download it.  If you remember I wasn't sure what five big truths the DI was going to 'explain' in order to help you counter the myth that belief in God is anti-science.  I did postulate some possibilities, and got a couple of them right.  Here is the list and my responses.  According to 'michaelfugate' they are [my comments follow and are italicized]:

• Christianity is not anti-science. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian worldview helped nurture the scientific revolution.
  This is one of the ones I did predict.  The DI loves to lay claim to such things, but they tend to do quite a bit of cherry picking and only remark with vague generalities.  Partially true, but across history the Judeo-Christian worldview also greatly inhibited science, especially science that disagreed with that worldview.  Can anyone remember how long it took before any part of the Judeo-Christian worldview apologized to Nicholas Copernicus? 500 years?  I guess they might consider it only took 350 years to apologize for what it did to Galileo an improvement.  But you cannot consider that a nurturing environment!  Making this claim doesn't support that belief in God is scientific, only that religious groups can use their belief set in many ways, including ways that do more damage than good.
  
• Even many secular scientists affirm the incredible fine-tuning of the laws of physics that make life possible. We live on a “privileged planet” designed in a multitude of ways for life and for scientific discovery.
  I would love to see their definition of a 'secular scientist' because this is patently untrue.  While real scientists have uncovered the laws of physics, they do not consider the 'fine-tuning' argument persuasive.  This top-down view of the evolution of life and the formation of the universe is much more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.  If you disagree, go out to PubMed and do a search for 'fine-tuned universe', there were six articles, and only two addressed this from a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific one.  The other four used the term 'fine-tuning' in a different context.
  
• Inside our cells are molecular machines of exquisite beauty and complexity that point powerfully to purposeful design.
  This was the other I predicted.  I figured they would try and work in their pet version of Creationism somehow.  While they often make this claim, they have yet to support it.  One of their own 'scientists', Ann Gauger said recently that not only do they not know the process of ID, but that since the Intelligent Agent (what the rest of religions call a Deity) is so far outside of us, we will never know that process.  Other than wishful thinking and conjecture, they not found anything that actually contradicts evolutionary theory.  They offer statements like this as if they are conclusions rather than just more speculation.  To make this claim, they have a great deal of work in front of them -- but so far it seems to be work they are unable or unwilling to do.
  
• Human beings are special and unique in a multitude of ways.
  As compared to what?  Tigers are special and unique in a multitude of ways as well, and in many ways we would fail to measure up.  Humans also share a great many ways with many other species on this planet.  DNA studies, physiology, and studies in comparative anatomy clearly demonstrate that while we might like to think we are unique and special, there isn't all that much evidence to support it. 
  
• Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but it is fallible and can be abused. It is therefore rational (and not “anti-science”) to explore competing scientific explanations, and to scrutinize cultural claims made in the name of science.
  As so goes the lesson in distrusting science that the DI has been pushing for years.  Is science perfect?  No!  But it's the exploration of other scientific theories, it's the validation with experimentation, it's following a methodological approach that makes science work and when science gets things wrong, it is often a self-correcting activity.  But it's not exploring just any ideas and trying to contrasting them with scientific theories that improves science, but actual scientific theories.  While they keep trying to claim it, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and until it's proponents get out of the marketing world and get into the weeds of scientific work, no one within science needs to take them particularly seriously.  By this wording here, every scientific discipline that gets questioned in any way by anybody is supposed to be addressed.  Talk about a complete and total waste of time.  For example do we really need to have Mathematicians spend time addressing Numerology?  How about Astronomers dealing with Astrology?  Archaeologists are going to have to address 'pyramid power' and chase down rumors and stories of ancient astronauts?  Until ID proponents do the actual scientific work to support their idea, real biologists should be focused real science, not trying to justify someone else's religious beliefs. 

This five things aren't 'truths', they are just more examples of the marketing of the Discovery Institute. 

Kirk Pt III: Fantasy and Science

Kirk Durston has yet another post and this one is much less interesting.  Before getting into it, I wanted to comment on the title "Confusing Fantasy with Science".  I don't think real scientists have a problem with confusing the two, after all at one point all science started out as fantasy, didn't it?  Someone had an incredible idea and did the work to not only prove their idea was reality, but take it to a point so that architects and engineers could take the idea and turn it into useful and practical stuff, stuff that actually works.  Sometimes the idea didn't even originate with the scientists, they just happened to be the ones who turned an idea into reality.  Jules Vernes' works are excellent examples.  We've been to the moon, although not using a giant cannon.  We have submarines that travel considerably longer distances than 20,000 leagues, don't we?  Many of the things we see as ubiquitous today were once solely within the realm of science fiction and fantasy.  Cell phones, computers and doesn't the Apple Watch remind anyone else of the Dick Tracy two-way wrist unit?  If real scientists got confused between the science and fantasy, I doubt their success rate would be very high.  They might imagine, but they would never be able to put their imaginations to such practical applications, would they? 

OK, on the Kirk's article.  He starts off with a lie, at least in my opinion it's a lie:

"In order for atheism to survive the advance of science, it must come up with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the incredible fine-tuning required for the universe to support life, and the origin of life itself."

The first part of his comment seems pretty ridiculous, "In order for atheism to survive the advance of science . . ."  By definition atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.  Why is that predicated on anything science comes up with?  The rest of it is just as bad, why does atheism have to develop a natural explanation of the origin of the universe?  Why does it have to explain something that exists only in the imagination of people like Kirk, the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument?  The only way I think any of this could happen is if Creationists are suddenly about to have a breakthrough in which science confirms, undeniably confirms, the existence of  deity and the host of things Creationists insist could have only happened through the actions of said deity.  I don't see that happening, although I bet Kirk is hoping it confirms the existence of an evangelical Christian God, or else the newly identified deity might not take too kindly to Kirk.  Atheism requires nothing like this, so why would Kirk word it this way? 

I think he's doing a couple of things.  First off by stating it this way, he's trying to equate science and atheism, which is a common, and yet disreputable, tactic and one frequently used by the Discovery Institute and their friends.  Science is not 'atheistic', nor is it 'theistic', at best, neutral.  By trying to equate the two, he's attempting to sell people who do believe in one deity or another that they cannot accept science without dropping their belief.  If that were the case then why do so many scientists profess theistic beliefs?  While it's true that the percentage of scientists who profess such beliefs is lower than the general population, it's also true that the better educated you are, the less likely you are to share some theistic belief set.  No wonder the DI is so intent on damaging science education!

Second, I think he's doing a little projection (the defense mechanism).  How I see things is that while claiming atheists have to explain the universe, the reality is if a religion doesn't come up with supernatural explanations, it will not only fail to survive the advances of science, but it will fail to gain adherents..  I mean when you think of it how many supernatural explanations and entire religions have fallen by the wayside of the decades and centuries?

While they blame science, it's not science that is disproving God, it's that people try and use God as an explanation for something they do not understand -- a very self-limiting process.  Once we do understand it better, the God explanation falls flat.  While they like to blame science, the reality is they are doing it to themselves by clinging to superseded ideas in the perception that they are somehow protecting their cherished beliefs.  The reality is they simply look foolish!  This is also know as the "God of the Gaps' argument, and we'll be discussing that more later.

But back to Kirk.  I think he's also using another tactic.  By claiming that atheism HAS to accomplish certain things, he knows that any answer science comes up with will never satisfy someone like Kirk or any of his friends.  Which means as long as he doesn't accept the answer, he can keep claiming science as some sort of failure.  Sort of like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and making nonsensical noises to avoid hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe this line is true either:

" . . . scientists have pointed out that the universe appears to be unbelievably fine-tuned to be able to support life".  

Scientists have not done this in any way, in fact they have shown the opposite.  The majority of the universe we have discovered, granted is a tiny part of the whole, but it is incapable of supporting life as we know it.  You would survive for how long on the Moon, or Mars, or Jupiter if you were suddenly transported their in your shirt sleeves?  Minutes, seconds, even less?  I know Creationists like to point out that the Earth and the Universe is somehow fine-tuned, but that doesn't fit the evidence, not that they will ever admit it.

He also states that Eugene Koonin basically says life is highly improbable, therefore "Koonin's solution is to propose an infinite multiverse".  Eugene Koonin did not propose an infinite multiverse, at best he philosophically thinks that it might increase the odds of life forming somewhere.  But it has nothing to do with the fine-tuned idea.  The multiverse is more a philosophical question than a scientific question and has been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, and even science fiction.  But scientists engaging is a debate doesn't automatically make it a viable scientific theory, which Kirk seems to want it to be so he can try and poke holes in it.

What he is doing is another common tactic.  Building a straw-man so he can tear it down.  In this post he's redefined atheism, misrepresented science claiming that it has 'proven' the fine-tuning nonsense, and it looks like he's quote-mining Eugene Koonin to build a straw-man.  Halfway into Kirk's article and he's already used a number of disreputable Creationist tactics.  The Discovery Institute must be so proud.

He finally got to his main argument, that  . . . well let him tell you:

"So the multiverse has become atheism's "god of the gaps" but some scientists point out that multiverse "science" is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, "they are not observationally or experimentally testable -- and never will be."

His link is to his own blog where he postulates that the whole idea of the multiverse is mainly to avoid the idea of one unseen creator.  So according to Kirk science invented a whole concept just to avoid the possibility of one particular version of a deity?  Sounds more like something Creationists did, as in Creation Science, when they invented a whole new conceptual view of religion in order to avoid facing the reality of science.  So much projection in one short posting!

In order for the multiverse to be a 'God of the Gaps' argument, some scientists would have to stand up and claim the multiverse is the answer for a specific set of questions for which there is no other current answer, or one for which current answers are rejected at least by the scientist making the multiverse claim.  That's how the God of the Gaps argument works.  We see it every time someone like Michael Behe tries to pass of irreducible complexity as science, or Wild Bill Dembski tries to convince us of his specified complexity filter, or any time kennie ham posts  . . . well . . . anything.  What we see are 'explanations' devoid of any scientific support other than wishful thinking.  Is that what we see when scientists debate the many ideas about a multiverse?  The four types, the nine types,and all the potential permutations?  It's still way too soon to call the multiverse the answer to anything, while no one knows what future discoveries might change that, Kirk is trying to discredit it already. 

At this point the multiverse is an idea, barely a hypothesis and one they readily admit may never go much further.  There are any number of ideas about it,  I think Kirk is more afraid of what the multiverse would do for his religious beliefs. Imagine if we found a multitude of other universes and what if none of them provide any evidence of a deity? 

It seems that Kirk doesn't want scientists to be able to imagine and debate fantastic ideas at all.  After all what is Creationism/Intelligent Design but a flight of fancy centered around a narrow view of one particular deity.  How dare scientists make flights of fancy of their own, especially ones that fail to pay homage to Kirk's version of a God!

What Kirk appears to fail to realize is that where innovation comes from?  It doesn't stem from staring at the tried and true, but from an individual, or group of individuals, looking at something from a unique angles, developing the ideas, and proving the ideas in ways no one previously had imagined.  Not all ideas will pan out, as Kirk and his buddies prove on a daily basis.  But it's that fantastical thinking that offers a way to the future that Kirk wants to deny to anyone but I guess himself.

Let's see so far, Kirk has questioned belief in science, the peer-review process, and now the multiverse.  And yet is all three posts he hasn't really offered anything but the usual creationist canards about science and how scientists work.  At best he's reiterated some of the negative aspects of science -- things already recognized and often being addressed by real scientists, while at the same time he's misrepresented a great deal, like peer review, the multiverse, Eugene Koonin, and even the God of the Gaps argument.  You're not doing to well, Kirk.  And I thought your posts might be a bit more fun.  Hey Kirk, don't you have anything original?

Earthquake proves Genesis!

I'm glad Topix Evolution Forum came back up because I got to read this:

"The scale of difference is appropriate when comparing the Japan earthquake's measurable effects on the circumference of the earth and the catastrophic earth-changing forces involved in a global flood that covered the Himalayas. Genesis does indicate that God provided the uniformity of nature we enjoy including a 360 day year. Probably the Sun was a perfect 400 times larger and farther away than the Moon from us resulting in perfect Solar eclipses as well, among other things. We can also observe the current recession of the Moon's orbit which accomplishes this about 6,000 years ago but is impossible in an evolutionary timescale." (post 55731 from a posted called Urban Cowboy)

Isn't that just plain incredible? He was trying to justify how God originally made the Earth in a perfect 360 day orbit with 12 perfect months of 30 days each. I am surprised he didn't try and work in the perfection of a 360 degree circle, and 24 perfect hours of 60 perfect minutes each, and 60 perfect seconds in each minute. It was HILARIOUS. He started with an ICR article: Japan’s Earthquake Proves Noah’s Flood and took it to new lengths. It just cracked me up. For the record, my direct reply was:

"Anyone who reads this little diatribe will understand why I find you so entertaining. Look at the rationalization you had to build to justify this 'perfect' 360 day year. Without a single piece of supporting evidence except for a very liberal interpretation of Genesis (something you keep claiming is literally true), you re-defined the entire Solar System and completely ignored every bit of Astronomy theory, evidence, and observations. In order for this little POS to be true, you also have to re-define physics (including gravity, mass, centripetal force), geologic evidence (including continental drift) and even the climatological evidence of hundreds of ice core samples. It's mind boggling how much juggling of the facts you are willing to go through just so you can justify the existence of something that you are willing to say in a different breath cannot and should not require justification. You really need to take this on the road! Even Jesus is snickering at you right now! " (Post 55743)

Can't wait to see if he responds. I kinda doubt it. Urban Cowboy starts ignoring people who don't buy into his version of the Bible. Just because 99% of the Christians in the world wouldn't recognize it either isn't a deterrent. You really ought to wander by and join in, it's fun!

Let the Students make Up Thier Own Mind? Are They nuts?

Over on Topix Evolution Forum, and a few other places, I have been seeing what appears to be an upswing in folks wanting to let students make up their own mind about a given topic. Now I see this as simply an variant of the 'Teach the Controversy' tactic, and one that really doesn't work in reality. Think about it, do you really want to teach all possible alternatives and then leave it to students to make up their minds? Isn't that pretty much impractical?

Let me explain it a bit more. For a change, let's avoid discussing evolution, at least for the moment. Let's talk computer programming, the subject I know a little about. I've been teaching it part-time for over a decade and been working as a programmer for most of the last 35 years. Am I the greatest programmer that ever lived? Of course not, I frequently run into folks that are much better than I am, usually because they have more experience in a particular type of programming. But I do have a pretty diverse background and a great deal of experience.

One thing I have learned that in every computer programming language, there are usually many ways to write a particular piece of code. There is rarely an absolutly perfect way to code something, but experience teaches you what works well and what things do not. An example is something we refer to as an uncontrolled jump. In many languages you can take yourself to another section of code with absolutely no automated way to get back. In other words you have to code going there and if you want to come back, you have to code the return. Seems simple enough, however programming neophytes might not see the real danger. It's something we call spaghetti code. That is code that seems to jump around in nearly random pattern. The results might be code that runs, but it is incredibly hard code to troubleshoot when you have a problem and very hard during long-term maintenance. And since something like 80% of the total cost of a software system is in maintenance, this is a significant problem. Code should be written that works, but it should also be written to be maintained.

If all we, as programmer instructors did, is present all of the different commands to move around a running program, we are doing a disservice to our students. We have been refining this concept for decades now. For example the BASIC computer programming language has a command called GOTO which easily permits you to jump around. In the Java programming language they also have a command GOTO; however, it does nothing. Sounds pretty strange, doesn't it?

Not if you understand the history. The GOTO command in BASIC, and similar commands in other languages, caused significant problems over the lifecycle of an software program. As a result the newer language, Java in this instance, took the command GOTO and reserved it so no one can make a command that replicates the old BASIC GOTO. This might seem like an extreme case, but if you look at the modern version of BASIC, called Visual BASIC, you will see that the GOTO command is no longer a useful command. The language itself has changed to remove even the temptation to use such a mechanism. You can still build uncontrolled jump structures, but you should not. It's much better if teachers taught more than just the commands, but the structure and the reasoning why.

The reason we know this is because of decades of experience and not just mine, but the collective experience of an entire industry. Now what folks like Catherine Crocker are advocating (Podcast from July 2010) are that the job of an instructor, professor, or teacher is not to present any conclusions, but only present all possible sides as equally as possible and let the students make up their minds. So how would that work in Computer Programming? It would mean that with every generation of new programmers, we would find ourselves forgetting the lessons of the past and having to re-learn them over and over again. in my humble opinion, that's bull!

Think about that in Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, and yes, you knew we would get back to it, even Biology. We have decades, even centuries of knowledge of a subject area. In a typical classroom, be it college or high school, you can only go so deep into a subject area. So how can you expect students to make up their own minds? It's not possible, not in any practical sense to hand them 40 years of experience in a single semester, so you present the conclusions and you also present how they formed them!. When you learn a subject, you should be learning many of the facets of it -- and those facets should include the prevailing conclusions a particular discipline is using today. History is good, but you HAVE to show the conclusions or you relegate the students to repeating the work that has already been done over and over again. Crocker is wrong!

Now why would someone like Catherine Crocker think such a thing is workable? That's pretty simple. If you listened to her pod cast you might have noticed her association with the Discovery Institute (DI). Since they [the DI] have failed to gain acceptance for Intelligent Design in the public school science classroom, they simply changed tactics to try and sneak in by another method. One of those methods is the one advocated by Crocker here, to teach all sides -- even the non-scientific sides -- and leave it to the student to make up their own mind.

In my opinion the last thing Crocker and her friends over at the DI really want is people making up their own minds. What they want is to gain a foothold in the science classroom as the first wedge into driving real science out. I mean look at the small successes they have had with school boards in Texas and Louisiana. Imagine those same school boards looking at curriculum in the future and someone making a comment like "Why are we teaching two theories of life? Why not save some money and only teach one. It's not a challenging leap to make. The 'Let them make up their own minds' is nothing but a gutter-level tactic, and Catherine Crocker is one of the missionaries for the DI. You can read a little more about her on Wikipedia. Her own experience with Evolution is not one she probably looks back on with fond memories. Thankfully she's no longer a biology teacher!

Censorship is such an ugly word, but it applies!

But sometimes it is the only one that applies.

On January 10th of this new year I was wandering the web and came across an article that, in my opinion, stretched the truth just a wee bit. So in my normal fashion I commented on the article and tried to set the record straight. I checked just about every day and my comment was sitting there label 'awaiting moderation'. Well guess what? My post, critical of their poorly supported piece disappeared. I was disappointed, but not terribly surprised.

Now back on the 10th, I also wandered around this specific website and I found another piece and commented on it. Yes, I was critical because the piece didn't seem to actually address any issues. It was all assumption and innuendo. I guess folks are not allowed to point such things out to anyone, because after 9 days awaiting moderation, it also disappeared.

Now before anyone gets all huffy. I have removed one and only one poster from my blog. When the posts that person made became extremely prejudicial and loaded with discriminatory comments I deleted them. I am not overly proud of doing that, but I felt that keeping their comments was in fact enabling them and giving them a platform.

It certainly wasn't because they disagreed with me. If you have been following this blog at all you know I tend to engage folks who disagree. Anyone remember Rory? I responded to his comments several times (Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!) and even wound up generating two other posts because my comments to him wouldn't fit in the comments section (In response to a comment and Another response to poor Rory). So my issue wasn't disagreement, but his lack of support for his contentions. You can read back if you want.

However, what happened to me over on Creation Revolution was censorship. My first post was concerning their article "Professor denied tenure because of Intelligent Design beliefs". Yes, Guillermo Gonzalez is old news. It's been four years since he was denied tenure and lost his various appeals. What bothered me about their article was how loose they played with the facts of the case. They never addressed the core question of whether or not Professor Gonzalez did what was required to receive tenure. That should be the bottom line, but they never address those issues. The nearest they came was mentioning his 68 published papers. They didn't mention if those papers were ones published during the seven years he was a tenure seeking candidate. They also failed to examine whether or not all of those papers actually fell into the subject area he was hired to teach. They furthermore compounded their error by not addressing other tenure requirements -- the other ones he failed to meet.

I have discussed Gonzalez before (Arguments XXVI -- Universal Fine Tuning, Iowa Professor denied tenure and claims free speech and conspiracy theories, More on Professor Gonzalez, Regents deny tenure appeal of intelligent design professor) many times. My bottom line is simply this:

"When you apply and are accepted for a tenure-seeking position there is usually a laundry-list of things you must do. You are also given a time-frame, something in the neighborhood of 5 years. On that list is usually things like publish, advise graduate students, teach lots of classes, perform research, bring in external money for research, among other things. The decision to grant tenure is based on all of them, plus how well you work with your peers, support department policies, and present yourself as a member of the faculty and staff.

If Prof. Gonzales had done these things, he might have had a chance at his tenure review, but according to his track record he failed. In over 7 years he had ONE grad student complete their thesis, raised less that 1/50th the amount of research money, and had no significant scientific publications. Yes, he published at least one book outside his field of Astronomy, which supported Intelligent Design, but nothing within his field"

Please note that it was the Regents who determined that Gonzalez failed to meet the requirements for tenure. Please also note that they said he had no significant publications, which certainly disagrees with Creation Revolution's claim of 68 papers. So where did Creation Revolution get their information? From the Creation Research Society. Anyone else see a problem here?

My other post was on an article "Did ‘Nature’ Invent Oxygen-Carrying Systems…Twice?" This done by the less-than-scholarly Institute for Creation Research (ICR). ICR has been the topic of a number of posts of mine, chiefly on their failed attempt to get permission to award actual master's of Science degrees. (Texas, on a different but related subject, Hasn't Texas had enough?,Yea for Texas!, Texas scores a big win!, and ICR admits defeat, sort of . . .). So the very idea of ICR doing some scholarship would be shocking.

Luckily for me, there was no shock. This was a poorly supported opinion piece. They questioned the possibility of hemoglobin evolving twice. First of all that isn't a conclusion as of yet. However it is a possibility. My response was so what! Didn't nature evolve three very distinct flight mechanisms (bird, bat, and insect)? Didn't sight take some very different evolutionary paths (human, avian, and insect). I mean nature is replete with examples of similar function on different evolutionary paths. This is no big deal. But ICR, and by extension Creation Revolution, tries to make it some sort of evolutionary critique. Not very scholarly of them!

What I have to say about this is simple. 'Creation Revolution' kept comments that agreed with them and dumped my comments that tried to re-introduce the actual facts and issues of Gonzalez and question the basics of the ICR article. Simply put, censorship.

Did religious beliefs impact a hiring selection?

Here is an interesting case and I haven't made up my mind yet -- probably because of a lack of information. The early stories have me concerned. OK, let me know what you think about this: The Kentucky Courier-Journal is reporting "Job candidate sues UK [University of Kentucky], claiming religion cost him the post". I know the DI will have to stick their know-little-noses in soon, but I wanted to get an idea before they start polluting the Internet.

I actually caught this off the NCSE website at "Creationism at issue in employment dispute?"Please note the question mark. I am not sure of the issues in this yet, but it bears thinking.

Well if you haven't read up on it, here is a summary: In 2007 Martin Gaskell was a candidate to be the founding director of a new observatory at the University of Kentucky. The Courier-Journal is reporting that he was the leading candidate -- but that is something I am not sure can be substantiated. Again according to the suit Prof Gaskell claims that because he gave presentations in which he said that

"he believes the theory [of evolution] has major flaws. And he recommended students read ... critics [of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement."

was the reason he was not selected for the position. So he sued for

"because of his religious beliefs and his expression of these beliefs" in violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991."

Since ID has been identified by a Federal Court as Creationism in a lab-coat, so it certainly can be argued that one of the factors in his not being selected might have been his support of ID. But how critical a factor was this?

There may very well have been other factors that lead to him not being selected -- UK hasn't said much yet other than his beliefs were a factor -- heck nearly anything can cause you to be non-selected, it's not like he was fired from a position.

Now one of the questions is should they have been a factor? There is my dilemma. It's easy to see why Guillermo Gonzales, Nathanial Abraham, and John Freshwater have all experiences career setbacks -- and while they all claim religious discrimination, so far the evidence hasn't backed them up. Is this one more case in point where someone's religious beliefs may have impacted, but not have been the cause of being not-selected. It will be a case worth keeping track of, that's for sure. It's easy to claim discrimination, as we have seen.

Oh, in case you hadn't realized it, but Prof Gaskell is not a biologist, but an Astronomer. So you might think that shouldn't make a difference. But you should also remember that he is still a scientist, and in the position he claims to have been a leading candidate he would be in a leadership and supervisory position over others. The work of the observatory would also be looked at for publicity and even as a source of recruitment for the University. Do you want someone who questions a field outside his own and directs students to look at non-scientific material running such a facility? There is the question that faced the selection committee and we know how they answered it, they went elsewhere. So was their decisions the correct one?

I don't know -- yet, but I do agree that his beliefs SHOULD have been a factor of his selection. Not for him having them, but for how those beliefs could impact his ability to do his job. That's the question that really needs to be answered. I am sure Guillermo Gonzalez wasn't even on the consideration list and I am sure no one would question that decision. Well like I said, a case worth watching. I am interesting in ALL of the evaluation criteria and see how other candidate measured up.

New planet -- 'Dawinian' Astronomy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damned by their own words

I have said a number of times that the best way for people to understand the paucity of the Creationist pseudo-science, be it Creationism or Intelligent Design, is not to try and silence Creationists, but to let them talk. They do much more damage to their own position than damn near anything I could possibly say.

Apparently Michael Zimmerman agrees with me. His latest post on the Huffington Post "Creationists Destroy Creationism with Their Own Words" is just poetry. The one that got me was the copy from the Centre for intelligent Design (CID), the low-rent British version of the Discovery Institute, who actually posted:

"In one sense, research work that supports ID is not the central issue. ID is
essentially an interpretation of the data that already exists. There is not much
point in gathering more information if you already have enough on which to base
your hypothesis."

Are they kidding? Here is my problem. A scientific theory is not just an idea. It is an explanation based on a great deal of information and study including experimentation, observation, and huge mounds of evidence. Unbelieveable amounts of time, energy, and manpower goes into each one. The CID is suggesting that a little re-interpretation of the existing data could arrive at an equally compelling explanation. I disagree! If the data resulted in more than one compelling explanation then the explanation would never reach the level of a Scientific Theory. The reason a hypothesis becomes a theory is because it is the most compelling, by an incredibly wide margin, explanation of the available evidence.

Do you see what I am trying to say? If there was an alternative scientific explanation then Evolution would not be the theory that it is today. It couldn't get there because an equally compelling explanation could not be dismissed. Based on my understanding of scientific methodology, the CID is wrong. If they want ID to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, they are going to have to do a great deal more than 're-interpret'.

And so I guess they are! What I find amusing is thinking back to the Dover trial and reading the transcripts of the cross-examination of Michael Behe and the basic definition of science and how in order for ID to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be changed. that change would open science to things like Astrology! In a second quote from the CID website, this one from a video of the Director (Please see my discussion of him in "So there is nothing religious about ID Part III") who said

" . . . criticise the "strident strain of science" that says the only acceptable
explanations are those depending on "physical and materialistic processes"

So let me get this straight, ID is science because we already have all the data we need, we just need to re-interpret it a little . . . yet at the same time we need to make a wholesale change in the very definition of science? Anyone else see Marie Antoinette in the room?

Two staff members of AnswersInGenesis make is pretty clear, as Michael quoted as well,

"The biblical creationist takes the Bible as the ultimate standard . . ."

I guess all doubt on the scientific viability and even the need to re-interpret based on existing data is gone. Everything is based on the ultimate standard! So I guess we need to crank up the presses, because the only text book needed is the Christian Bible. It's not only a book about God, it's a history book -- just history ended about 2000 years ago. It's also an Astronomy text, but then again any study of Astronomy was done well before the invention of a telescope, let alone a radio telescope. Any medical advances in the past 2000 years need to be tossed aside because the Bible is the ultimate medical authority as well! Now I think even Marie would be choking on her cake.

Michael's point, and one I agree with is that we are not trying to silence Creationists. We love listening to them and pointing out the many hilarious, erroneous, and sometimes completely idiotic things they say. My only point, and one that I think Michael agrees -- he can certainly correct me if I am putting words in his mouth -- is that we don't want to silence anyone, but we do want them to speak the truth and the truth is Intelligent Design is not science and keeping it out of the public school science classroom is not an issue of free speech, or even an effort to silence them -- it's an exercise in honesty and truth!

PS -- when you go to Michael's post, check out the comments as well.

Luskin wiffs again . . . and again . . . and again.

Over on The Skeptical Teacher blog is a terrific article, but I just wish Matt hadn't had to go through listening to Casey Luskin to write it. I mean there had to have been something better to do like clipping toenails, weeding, or smashing your own fingers with a hammer. In other words Matt is braver than I. I'm not sure I could listen to Luskin with a straight face.

OK, well here is a link to "My Thoughts on Attending Casey Luskin’s Intelligent Design Talk at the University Club of Chicago". The title is kinda long, and so is the post -- but it's a great read.

Luskin seems to be the point man for testing out new tactics. I mean who better than a lawyer to play word games. He explains his role as someone who can help teachers teach evolution "more objectively". Anyone else see this as nothing more than an extension of the 'teach the controversy', teach all sides', 'free speech' and 'academic freedom' tactics. What Matt says, and I agree is that they are searching for the right phrase that will allow them to slip their pseudo-science under the radar. But no much how much mayo you use, pseudo-science is still pseudo-science.

Luskin then stays true to the Discovery Institute script and alludes to ID proponents being discriminated against or censored. I almost wish it were true, but it is nothing but another tactic. Let me put it this way, along the same way Matt put it, is it censorship or discrimination to teach Astrology in an Astronomy class? No! Teaching a non-science viewpoint is not being discriminatory or censoring anyone. You do not teach English in Math class, why would you teach theology in science class? You wouldn't and, more importantly, you shouldn't!

Little casey also tries to make the claim that ID is being distorted by the media and that simply because of their unwillingness to name the designer, they should be accepted as science. Uh . . . didn't Phillip E. Johnson name the designer? Didn't Michael Behe? Didn't Bruce Chapman? Yes, but since they did not do it 'officially' it's O.K. to claim that they haven't identified the designer. It certainly didn't stop them from saying so in the "Wedge Document". It sure didn't stop a Federal Court from calling it Creationism by any other name in the Dover Trial.

Casey also knows well how to LIE! Apparently he also referenced a paper by Stephen C. Meyer that was central to the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy. Of course, does Luskin mention that the peer-reviewed paper he just referenced was pulled because it did not go through an actual peer review? No, that would be something called honesty. Something I am not sure Luskin understands.

He then goes on to do more mis-direction and keeps trying to tie known man-made objects as a comparison to so-called designer-done. This argument has been tried over and over again and it doesn't work for one very simply reason, the appearance of design is not proof of design! I bet Casey never actually reads a book, he just looks at the covers and calls himself an expert on the contents.

I really like Matt's Test for Design Inference:

1. Take two sets of a dozen drinking glasses.

2. Drop one set from a significant height into a clear plastic box so that they smash apart into a random jumble of broken glass at the bottom of the box. This is the “naturally caused” pile of broken glass.

3. Take the second set of glasses and break them up with a hammer or whatnot in a very specific manner and then place the pieces into the bottom of a second box so that the pile of broken glass appears random. This will be the “intelligently designed” pile of broken glass.

4. Do all of this out of view of the ID-proponents (the test must be blinded), and then ask them to apply their method to identify the “naturally caused” pile from the “intelligently designed” pile. Of course, the entire procedure would have to be performed many times to get a correct read on the statistics.

5. If there really is something to the ID method of “inferring design”, then the ID-proponents should be able to determine correctly the “intelligently designed” piles of glass at a rate significantly higher than chance (well over 50%).

The fact that I’ve never seen any ID-proponent perform, or even seriously suggest, such a blinded test of their design inference methods speaks volumes, folks. And remember: they’ve been at this for 20 YEARS!

He . . . OH I have had enough. Please read the article, it is great, especially Matt's comments. Luskin does no more than the normal parroting the DI party line and adds nothing new. of course he fails to mention many things like how ID has added nothing to science, or how "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" have absolutely no support. He even manages to quote-mine Richard Dawkins for God's sake. I really don't see how Matt put up with it. Casey Luskin is a mouthpiece and not a very effective one, he apparently had a real hard time addressing any actual questions and got frustrated at some point and did a standard attack on Judge Jones, the judge in the Dover Trial.

Nothing new, but Matt's takedowns are well worth the read!

Intelligent design to take over all studies

While this, "Intelligent design to take over all studies" is tongue in cheek, there is a certain amount of validity to the concept. We have seen the many and varied attacks on the Theory of Evolution. But remember the attacks have branched out many times to other scientific disciplines. The study of Geology has supported Evolution in many ways, and when anti-evolutionists question it, they are in fact attacking Geology. How about how many times has radiological dating, a branch of Physics, been attack for its support of both Evolution and Geology. Astronomy and Cosmology are frequently under attack by people like Guillermo Gonzales and the 'Privileged Planet' crowd. Abiogenesis is frequently used to attack Evolution, even though it is a separate area of study under Chemistry, not Biology.

So read and enjoy, but keep in the back of your mind that we are supporting a quality science education and to allow folks at the Discovery Institute, AIG, ICR, ARN, and the Thomas More Law Center, to name a few, to succeed in replacing science with pseudo-science, how long will it be before other educational disciplines get replaced by pseudo-disciplines? It's a serious matter, but even the most serious deserve the occasional light treatment, and this article is one of them. I loved it!

Ken Ham goes of the deep end . . . again

Over on WorldNetDaily, which is an fairly entertaining website to me, they had an interesting article "Why are Young People Leaving the Church?" Now this has been an ongoing question in just about all denominations for decades. The Catholic diocese I went to school at recently closed down due to not enough parishioners or children attending the school. I remember a horde of kids, literally hundreds when I attended. But no more.

So who is asking the question now? Why none other than Ken Ham, the purveyor of pseudo-science himself. If you know of little kennie then you know he runs AIG and the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. I've blogged about him before. (Turnabout is fair play, Supporting Evolution - and other Sciences, Ken Ham: I am not a Moron, and Science 1: Creation Museum 0) So here is a twist, Kennie commissioning a study to determine why young folks are leaving the church. Of course he has the answer: to quit teaching that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. According to kennie, the exodus from the Church started back in the 19th century when we stopped teaching that the Earth was only 6 to 10,000 years old.

Does he really believe this is the answer to people, especially young people, leaving the various churches in droves? Let's stop teaching the Earth is older than Bishop Ussher's 'calculation' which puts the Earth at 6 thousand years of age. We stop teaching that and people will what? Come back to Church? Is he for real?

Yes, I am afraid so. He thinks that if all religions turned into his narrow-view religion, the young people wouldn't have a reason to leave the Church. Yes, narrow! How many religions support the idea of a Young Earth? Damn few! Mainly Ken's version of Evangelical Christianity. The Catholics, Methodists, Baptists . . to name a few of the much more populated Christian religions, disagree with him.

So in essence, he wants everyone to believe what he believes. Now a show of hands, how many people are surprised by his 'answer'? Does anyone think he waited until he saw the results of his 'study' before determining his 'answer'? Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller . . well maybe Ben Stein will back him up, but the rest of us have learned better.

So why are people leaving the church? All the churches, not just kennie's excuse for one.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, are people like Kennie himself. Think about it. On the one hand you have thousands of scientists with thousands of pieces of evidence supporting an Old Earth (about 4.5 billion years). The evidence is pretty overwhelming. On the other side you have strident voices like Kennie telling you that all the scientists are wrong because God speaks through him. He offers no evidence and completely ignores the evidence that disagrees with his belief. Gee, there is a reason not to go to church, particularly Kennie's.

Many people feel the Church is out of touch with reality. Gee, can't get more out of touch than kennie. This is a man who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary (joke borrowed from Lewis Black, I promise I will return it someday, but it fits all too well to stop using. I know, I am getting oit all wrinkled. I promise I will iron it before returning.) This is a man who thinks Dinosaurs and man lived together in perfect harmony. And he spent $27 million dollars of other peoples' money to convince folks of this. This is not a man you want educating or setting education policy!

So how does he bring people back into the church? Rather than change, he wants to return the educational system back to the 19th century and earlier. He wants biology abandoned, he wants Astronomy to only look for God -- if it is a subject at all. He wants geology to only offer answers that fall into his 6-10 thousand year range. He wants to re-write physics so radiometric dating agrees with him. He wants to deny the existence of genetics and the support it gives Evolution. He wants to make Charles Darwin a cousin of Adolph Hitler. . . you get my drift! This is not a man to be trusted with anyones' education!

Does anyone in the world think this will bring people back to the Church? I believe one of the key reasons people leave any Church is the church no longer fills a particular need of theirs. Whatever the need is, when a church no longer fills it, they leave. Maybe to find a different belief system. But you do not address this by asking people to toss out their education. You don't ask people to go back to the 19th century. You do not ask people to voluntarily be lobotomized. That is what Kennie is asking. Suspend intelligence, suspend disbelief, suspend reality. Your world will be better off if you think the world is 6-10,000 years old. Your world will be better off if we stop using biology to develop food sources and medicines. Your world will be better off if you think a world-wide flood happened and that explains geology, fossils, oil, and even continental drift. You can become a carbon copy of little kennie, and all will be right in the world . . . well at least his world. SOunds like a Twilight Zone episode.

I do wonder what little kennie would say if we re-set the clock on education to say about 1848 and people didn't flock back to his Church. I guess he'll just come up with another excuse rather than face the reality that he is one of the ones driving people away. He is a key reason people turn away from religion. He and people like him who are convinced they know what is best for us, all we have to do is believe as they do . . . oh yea, and send them money, lots of money!

Social Studies next on the firing line?

OK, repeatedly supporters of science and pointed to the Wedge Strategy document which pretty unequivocally states that Evolution is only the first, the 'wedge' to being a more theistic viewpoint to education. Over and over again Creationists (those pushing their religion as science) have been claiming that the Wedge strategy is some sort of non-sequitor. And so enters Texas, once again.

Fresh from a partial victory in the science area comes the review of the Social Studies curriculum. The State School Board, still under the 'leadership' of Don "Damn the science" McElroy, is trying to do it again. Check out the letter from the Texas Freedom Network "Ed Board Extremists Target Social Studies". Apparently Donnie is trying to stack the deck by appointing another 'expert' panel. Guess who is included? David Barton, fundamentalist of the group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerance of homosexuality. Gee and I thought stacking the deck with Discovery Institute cronies for the science curriculum was bad. TFN’s Kathy Miller: “It’s absurd to suggest that Texas universities don’t have accomplished scholars in the field who are more qualified than ideologues who share a narrow political agenda."

So while my personal guess would have been Geology or Astronomy with the cross-hairs, since one of the many whines against evolution start with the age of the Earth and Universe, I would have never guess the softer sciences, like Social Studies. But then since any gains made by folks like Barton and Marshall are usually political rather than scientific, I guess this should have been a predictable target.

Texas, I know you folks are looking at lots of ways to water down McElroy, but you can't just stop there. The State Board of Education should not be allowed to use their power in an effort to promote on very narrow religious viewpoint of any curriculum area. Evolution was yesterday, Social Studies today, what is tomorrow? Geology? English? Let's see, what is the Biblical alternative to English? Are we going to go back to require Latin in school? How about Aramaic? Or we can use the Bible's original language, Greek. I bet lots of fundamentalist Creationists weren't aware of that one.

Let's hold a contest

But before we do, we have to decide on the results before anyone can enter.

How would this play over in your neighborhood? Well apparently it goes over in Northern Kentucky . . . although how well remains to be seen. The news is that Little Kennie Ham is holding a 'Science Fair'. Now that by itself is pretty scary since Kennie's relationship with science is pretty limited, but it gets a bit worse. In order to enter this 'science' fair, you have to sign and subscribe to the AIG Statement of Faith. Yes, you have to already profess to share in Little Kennie's personal delusion . . . something the clear majority of Christians in the world do not do . . . or you cannot participate.

Anyone else see something wrong here? Doesn't it sorta screw up the whole idea of science if you have to already have your answers BEFORE you create your fair exhibit? The most creative exhibits I have ever seen try and take on something new and interesting.

Little Kennie's blog lists the 'Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Go to his fair" These are nearly as funny as his Statement of Faith. First of all it mentions that if you

"love science, you should start planning now."

I have to take a bit of an exception to that. In my opinion if you actually love science the last place in the world you would want to be in on the grounds of the Creation Museum. His number 10 reason is

"10. You probably don’t have anything else planned for February 27, 2010."

I am pretty sure there will be plenty of other things to do besides go to Northern Kentucky and visit the House that Kenny Built.Although when you think about it, this is hte type of reason you come up with when you run out of anything creative to say.

"9. It’s at the Creation Museum!"

This is a top reason to go? Not, this is a reason to stay away. Now I am sure he ran out of creative words when he has to resort to this!

"8. It’s open to homeschoolers, Christian school students, and public school students—as long as you agree with AiG’s Statement of Faith and will conduct a quality experiment, you can apply."

See what I mean! You have to already be a believer in order to participate. I do wonder why he is prejudicesd against other non-secular schools. I mean if they are willing to agree to his Statement, why can't they attend?

"7. Science is fun!"

All by itself, I agree with this statement. However it doesn't apply to anything going on at the Creation Museum now does it?

"6. It will be a fun day of learning with special programs just for you."

I would have fun there, but I doubt it would be the kind of fun Little Kennie has in mind.

"5. You can show off your scientific prowess."

No you can't, not with the restrictions placed upon you by his Statement.

"4. You can meet other creationist science-minded students."

Now here is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. Someone please explain to Little Kennie what an 'oxymoron' is.

"3. You can conduct an experiment on a topic of your choice in the life or physical sciences (within certain guidelines)."

No you can't, the guidelines make it impossible.

"2. You can meet Answers in Genesis staff scientists."

Another oxymoron. Yes, you too can meet more people who share Little Kennie's view of the world. This again is not a positive reason for attending.

And finally…

"1. Many fabulous prizes will be awarded!"

So he has to bribe folks to participate. Finally this little note at the end:

"(Note: Because of limited space, each student will have to submit his or her hypothesis and methodology for acceptance [emphasis added] into the Science Fair. Submission forms will be available online by September.)"

So not only do you have to agree with his Statement of Faith, but he gets to pre-screen your entry on the pretext of limited space. Gee, didn't we recently see something very similar to this? Yes, now I remember, Summer Camp at the Discovery Institute. There you didn't have to sign a Statement of Faith, but you had to have a recommendation from an Intelligent Design friendly source. Another wonderful example of pre-screening to insure only the people who already believe can come in and participate.

So I guess after wasting a few days in the summer, you can waste further time in the winter. Either way, you lose! PZ Myers mentioned that he probably won't be asked to be a judge. I wish he would, I think he would make the perfect judge at a Creation Science Fair, although I wouldn't wish such a task on him. I can see the headlines now after PZ flunks each and every attempt to support Kennie Ham's limited world view. The spin would simply be that "Everyone Tied for First" or "There were No Losers", when the reality would be that their exhibits would fail to measure up to any form of scientific experimentation.

Actually I have the perfect team of judges, PZ Myers, Phil Plait, and John Lynch, what could be fairer than these three? The owners of three Blogs (Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, and Stranger Fruit) that probably mention Little Kennie even more than his own self-aggrandizing one does.

So to paraphrase an old sentiment that I hope Little Kennie discovers next winter, "What if we hold a contest, and nobody came."

How Science Works, or maybe a better title is "Why" Science works!

Over on Phil Plait's Blog "Bad Astronomy" is an interesting post "New burst vaporizes cosmic distance record". The new Swift satellite has detected a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB090423A) that has traveled over 13 billion years to reach us . . . 13 BILLION! Amazing!
Now I don't discuss the Big Bang too much, mainly because as an Astrophysicist I am a great computer programmer. But more so because while there is a relationship between the start of the Universe and the start of life on Earth, when Creationists use the Big Bang to try and contradict the Theory of Evolution, all I can do is laugh at their grasping of straws. But this GRB is interesting to me, and one that might demonstrate some basic scientific methodology.

Current thinking places the age of the Universe at 14 billion years. Which means the star that exploded to create this GRB exploded only a few hundred million years after the birth of the Universe. Wow! Now the methodology I want to discuss is scientific methodology and theory modification. Here is my thinking . . . and please weigh in if I am emulating the 'night soil of a well-fed oxen'.

According to current theories we should never discover light that has been traveling for over 14 billion years, or even let's give ourselves a bumper, say 15 billion years. This would be a prediction that so far has been held to be true, since we haven't discovered anything that has traveled that long. So far so good, science predicts and experimentation supports it.

However, the theory modification comes in . . . what if we do? Suppose we do discover a GBR that has been red-shifted so far that it is older than the age of the Universe? What would happen? The whole edifice of scientific thought would come crashing down, right? Of course not! But it certainly would be shaken around a bit.

You see this is how I see science working. We learn, we hypothesis, we test, we experiment, and we keep on going! As we learn more, we change the theories, making them better and better, more inclusive and better explanations. This is how the process works! we never stop learning! So if we did discover a GBR older than our current thinking predicts, we will keep on working on it until we understand it better! We will formulate new ideas, have new theories to test, and keep on going!

This is why science is fun! This is why it drives people so hard! And this is also why when some Creationistic claims that 'science is so locked into one viewpoint they will never admit to something contradicting it' is so wrong! This is the moment scientists live for! The point where the testing and experimenting reach the limit of human knowledge and understanding and they truly live for expanding those limits. That is science!

My granddaughter was watching an animated movie the other day, "Meet the Robinsons" and there was a theme used several times in the movie, "Keep Moving Foward", an excerpt of a quote from Walt Disney:

"Around here, however, we don't look backwards for very long. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious...and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

Sounds pretty scientific to me!