When One Idea Doesn't Work, Change the Name and Do It Again

Ever bother to read the label on your shampoo bottle?  If it's like mine it's pretty simple:

• Lather
• Rinse
• Repeat

It seems the Discovery Institute is trying something similar, only in their case it more:

• Fail
• Change the Name
• Repeat

A few examples:

• First off, I can't blame this on just the DI, but look at Intelligent Design.  It was originally known as Creationism.  When efforts to keep it in the science classroom failed, Creationists changed the name to "Creation Science" and kept on pushing.  When that one failed, they changed the name to "Intelligent Design".  So far that one isn't making much headway either, so expect a name change in the near future.
• How about Intelligent Design Journals?  
• The first was the  Origins & Design (ISSN 0748- 9919), produced by the Access Research Network which ceased publishing in 1999.  
• The next was from a DI homeboy, WIld Bill Dembski (who is no longer one of their members).  He founded the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design which published Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (ISSN 1555-5089) which hasn't been heard form since 2005.
• The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (no ISSN) was sponsored by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, a project of Dembski and Robert Marks, which became defunct before managing to publish a single issue.  
• The current one is called Bio-Complexity (ISSN 2151- 7444), and it's put out by the DI's pet lab 'The Biologics Institute', a lab that is funded by and has a public contact point at the DI itself.
• So my latest example: Clubs
• Do you remember the Discovery Institute's IDEA clubs?  This was the brainchild of the former DI publicist little casey luskin and a few others dating back to 1999.  You might remember casey as the guy with both a law degree and a biology degree who was relegated to handing out pamphlets during the Dover trail.  Well, casey was heading up this idea [pun intended] for building student-based clubs as high schools and colleges all over the country.  Here is the link from the DI's site, and here's a screenshot in case they finally notice it's still up and decide to take it down:

Even though the pages are still up, it's been pretty dead since 2008.  In fact:

In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund.(The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead)

So, another dead idea.  So in true DI tradition, let's change the name and try again.  This time they are called: "Science and Culture Network (SCN)".  Currently they have two chapters Houston and Colorado:

They not only share the moniker of 'SCN' but they also have something else in common.  I circled it in red, it reads: 

"This program has no upcoming events"

SO they have opened two chapters of this new club, but nothing is going on.  It does make you wonder.  I mean court cases caused the name change, failure to produce science killed the journals, and nothing happening might have been the reason the IDEA clubs died off. Are they repeating themselves again?

I do have to point out one more 'little' thing.  While they also hold meetings, look at where Houston holds their's: 

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis. "

Yes, we meet monthly in various churches . . . and yet what is the mantra of the DI?  How they are a scientific organization and not a religious one?  Is there anyone who actually believes that who isn't on the DI payroll or a member of one of their 'chapters'? Colorado doesn't have anything more specific other than they plan to hold meetings, but no location.

But do you see the tactics, or in the case 'strategy' might be a better word.  When one method fails, change the name and try to same routine over again.  As they say "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", only in these cases 'sweet' might not be the smell these things give off.  Think about it, if Intelligent Design was such a worthwhile endeavor, then aren't there be IDEA clubs all over the place?  Wouldn't there be multiple ID journals instead of one after another going defunct?  I mean how many scientific journals are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And Creationists certainly wouldn't have had to keep changing the name if there was any actual merit to their claims, would they?  And by 'merit' I am talking scientific merit -- you know things supported by actual evidence.

You guys and gals might try real science instead of pseudo-science next time.  If that fails you might really give that some thought, instead of simply repackaging it and having a go again.  What's that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You really should think about that while you are at it.

How does a Creationist Explain Extinction?

I've asked this question before and rarely got an answer that makes any sense, especially when you run into a creationist who wants to explain how baby dinosaurs were on the Ark all along.  Today's Non-Sequitur had this:

The source doesn't allow me to copy it for myself, so I hope the link stays live.  If you can't see it, you might try searching for Non Sequitur for Nov 17, 2017.  It's worth a little effort.

Of course come creationists, like little kennie ham, won't like it, but then do they like anything that doesn't support their particular brand of religious story-telling?  After all, kennie is the one selling the idea that dinosaurs and men lived together in perfect harmony.  Remember this picture:

I took it on my only foray to little kennie's Creation pseudo-museum.  When I see velociraptors with children I don't think harmony, I think 'lunch!'  But since kennie fails to recognize the enormous time difference between dinosaurs and human beings, I'm not surprised that he thinks everyone lived happily for a while.  I mean on a geological scale, kennie's 6000 year old Earth means the time difference between dinosaurs existing and humans was pretty short, so some overlap is almost expected. 

Every time I think about kennie's idea of dinosaurs on the ark, all I can think of is the scene from Jurassic Park II, you know the one, T-Rex on a ship:

Yup, "LUNCH!"

Technology at an Decidedly Non-Technological Ministry

Maybe it's just my sense of humor, but where in the Bible does it mention Lasers?  Little kennie ham is hawking his latest attraction to bring in contributors. "Ark Encounter Introduces Christmas Light Show":

"Christians and non-Christians alike will enjoy this technologically cutting-edge program,” said Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the ministry which created Ark Encounter."

Yes, technology and cutting-edge are words you don't associate with kennie's ministries.  He, and his Hamians, spend most of his time trying to destroy science and science education.  Of course they have no issue with using the technology that was developed by the very science they cannot accept because there isn't a hint of deference to their version of a deity.  Anyone else see how hypocritical that is?

I am sure little kennie will find some rationalization as to how lasers aren't anti-religion, but evolution is.  But that's all that is, a rationalization.  Science does not address issues involving the supernatural, that doesn't make any scientific discipline anti-religious.  The problem here isn't science, but kennie.

You see kennie, like most theists, have a list of things they insist one deity or another did.  It doesn't matter if the action is written in one of their religious tracts or not.  If they claim it, then they defend it, regardless of reality.  They will fight tooth and nail to protect their religious beliefs, even though they have nothing concrete to stand on.

Since lasers don't brush up against on of those beliefs, it's OK to use them, but evolution, geology, cosmology all brush up against their creation stories and that scares them.  I mean if they have to accept that maybe their deity didn't create everything in 144 hours, then what other parts of their 'holy' books are not real?  Just because there is no evidence of it, doesn't stop them from protecting their beliefs, no matter how far they have to stretch their minds to come up with am explanation that allows them to not actually think.

I hate to break the news them . . . actually that's not true, I enjoy saying things like this:  "The theories behind lasers were developed using the same scientific methodology that was used in the Theory of Evolution!"  I actually enjoy pointing out such hypocrisies.  I know hard-core believers won't accept anything I say, but when I see some of the less-hardcore react to some of the things I -- and many others -- have said, I still have hope.  Of course my laughter when I get told I am going to burn in Hell really pisses them off!

So, in the meantime enjoy the fact that little kennie uses the very science he denigrates to push his messages of homophobia, divisiveness, fear, and hatred.

We Will Continue To Speak the Truth about Intelligent Design!

The Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site has a new post, it's from davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and it sounds as if he's pissed!  "Say What You Want About Intelligent Design"  Davey is repeating a common theme, he doesn't like what people say about Intelligent Design (ID).  Poor davey!

"Literally, say whatever the hell you want. You can say things that are true. Or you can say things that are false. Either is fine, but with most mainstream media outlets, false is likely preferable.Writing at the slick science magazine Nautilus, Brian Gallagher demonstrates yet again that there is no accountability when criticizing ID is on the agenda. He tries to draw a line connecting last month’s story about Turkey eliminating evolution from 9th grade science class, with “fundamentalist” Christianity, with creationism, with intelligent design, and with academic freedom legislation."

I haven't yet read the article that offended davey so deeply, I will, but for now I wanted to focus in on his complaints.  One of the things we have discussed often is how the DI doesn't like you much unless you agree completely with their agenda and parrot their own words often.  For example, they don't like Wikipedia much because Wikipedia insists on not allowing them to define Intelligent Design as science.  They don't like the United Methodist Church because they refused to give into the DI's demand for a propaganda table at the UMC's general meeting.  They didn't like the "March for Science" because they didn't invite the DI, and when they tried to invite themselves, the March for Science folks reminded the DI that they were not a scientific organization.  I don't think they like the Vatican very much because they didn't get invited to a Vatican-sponsored conference on Darwin back in 2009.  The basic bottom line seems to be either you are on their side, or you are the enemy.  Well I guess they found another enemy.

So is Nature reporting things that are not true?  I don't believe so.  The moniker of 'false news' has become very popular lately, but just declaring, or insinuating, something is false news doesn't mean it actually is false.  Just read most of a certain hamster-haired serial misogynist and liar's tweets about all news organizations except for the extreme right and you will understand that calling something 'false news' really means they wrote something you didn't like -- not that their news is actually false!

One of davey's whine is how ID is defined, but the definition keeps changing, as noted in "Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'"  It seems that one of the tactics that the DI uses is to complain about how ID is characterized -- even though they have yet to establish a formal definition and explanation of ID.  It's like they refuse to allow themselves to be pinned down, and therefore can complain about someone anytime they say something that isn't immediately supportive and positive.

Do you think a line can be drawn between Turkey dropping Evolution from their school curriculum and the activities of fundamentalist Christians, what I usually call Evangelical Christians, who are trying to do the exact same thing?  Of course you can!  Religious groups in Turkey are doing what people like kennie ham, Texas' Don McLeroy, Ohio's Deborah Owens Fink, and South Carolina's Kristin Maguire would love to do -- remake the entire school curriculum, from pre-school through college, in the conservative Christian image -- regardless of your actual religious beliefs, or lack of them.  Destroy science, history, and any subject that fails to put their version of God as the correct answer to any and all questions.  You can agree or disagree, but when you look at the facts of the actions these folks -- and others -- have taken, that is exactly what they want.

OK, so we have two points, can we extend that line to Creationism?  I believe so.

Who have been ardent supporters of their religion being the basis for education in this country?  Who have been arguing against any subject, particularly evolution, that they claim undermines their religious beliefs?  If you look at folks like McLeroy, Owens Fink, and Maguire you will find they are Creationists.  They were pushing for the addition of Creationism for years and only switched to ID as a tactic.  It's not just them, it was the school board in Dover PA which lead to the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial which was so devastating to the ID movement.  It was groups that led up to many, if not all, of the lawsuits that results in religion being removed from the science classroom, at least in public schools.  'Creationist' is the modern term, but there have been other names for them.  What it boils down to is the actions, and their actions are to impose their religious beliefs on any and all students regardless of whether those beliefs are shared or even if those beliefs mean anything.  Think I am stretching here, well then tell me how science works when all you have to rely on is your religious beliefs?  How many diseases have been cured, how many scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished through religious beliefs?  Doesn't look like any of them, does it?

So we've stretched a line from Turkey through Fundamentalist Christianity to Creationism, next stop Intelligent Design. Anyone remember this post: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?".  How about a few highlights:

• A 'Teacher Training Program' as part of the DI's 'Publicity and Opinion-making' phase. ( (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase II, page 6)" 
• "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)" 
• "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center . . . to promoting intelligent design theory . . . among students, educators, . . . and anyone else interested.
• Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (IDEA Club Website) 
• In Texas where they were 'advising' the Creationist head of the state school board on public school curricula and textbooks. 
• To their own website with: 
• Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design! 
• Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members
• The failed Santorum Amendment

Yes, we can connect all of this into one long line and ending at their current activities, what they like to call their Academic Freedom bills, bills which have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.  Here is how those bills are described in Wikipedia:

"A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom, supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred."

Anti-evolution, purported to support academic freedom, asking for protection against actions that have never happened.  Just another tactic of deceit from the DI.  Look at each and evey action they claim is a form of intimidation and you will find a teacher failing to do their job.  Look for yourself, but avoid the DI's propaganda machine.  The ones they mention most often are:

• Crocker's contract was up and she was not re-hired partly because she was failing to teach the subject she was hired to teach -- science. 
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students after 7 years in the job. Seven years and only one completed graduate student and hardly any research funding. Very poor showing for a tenure seeking professor! But he was not fired. 
• Sternberg was the already outgoing editor of a minor biological journal who, on his way out the door, violated the journals review procedure to publish one of his friend's ID paper, and now he works for that same friend at the DI. 
• Freshwater was fired for a number of things including failing to do his job, lying to investigators, trying to get his students to lie for him, and burning crosses into kids arms. He tried to take his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, after failing at all the other levels. It didn't work. 
• Coppedge was simply downsized and tried to turn it into a religious discrimination suit and failed. Of course he looked pretty bad when all the evidence showed that he was a poor employee (there were complaints), liked to preach his religion to his co-workers (there were more complaints), and refused to keep his skills current.

It is not intimidation to hold people accountable for the job they were hired to do!  Those so-called 'academic freedom' bills are designed to not allow schools to hold them accountable.  Imagine a school who cannot fire a teacher who was hired to teach biology and is found to be teaching religion instead?  Such bills will prevent schools from taking action . . . we have real problems in our education system, protecting those failing to perform is not going to help!

One last quote from davey:

"He repeats the myth about ID as “rebranded” creationism. Hardly. One is an inference from science, the other from the Bible. That’s a big difference. One regards the great age of the Earth, reckoned in billions of years, with equanimity and is open to the idea of common descent. The other doesn’t and isn’t."

Here is where davey plays a little redefinition with Creationism.  He tends to forget that not all Creationists are what are called Young Earth Creationists (YEC), but that's one of his criteria trying to convince people that ID isn't Creationism.  But the age of the Earth and common descent are not the common theme that connects Creationism, regardless of what specific strain you might follow.  Here's a common definition:

"Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes." (Wikipedia: Creationism)

Anything in there on common descent or the age of the Earth?  Nope!  There are many varieties of Creationism, but they all share this belief that everything originated through the actions of a deity and not natural processes.  For comparison, ID proponents claim that:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design)

Notice anything similar?  Without offering any evidence, they make a claim that natural processes couldn't be responsible.  The only difference is that they hide their references to a deity.  This is a tactic, and their own guiding document, the Wedge Document, also called the Wedge Strategy.  It's the game plan used by ID proponents and it specifically calls for:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

That's in the opening paragraph.  So while ID proponents like to hide their allegiance to a deity, they don't hide it very well.  So in reality, it's not Brian Gallagher who is repeating a myth about ID being 'rebranded Creationism', but davey himself that is telling the myth, the myth that ID is not the same thing as Creationism!

So just looking at davey's whine doesn't seem to much  any sense.  It's just the usual vitriol aimed at something who calls them, not only like they see them, but like they are.  Nature and Brian Gallagher are simply telling the truth, but it's a truth that the DI has been trying to hide for years.

Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

The Discovery Institute must be feeling more than the normal amount of heat recently on the connection between Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism.  I recently read two posts that firmly try and separate the two -- and while each post pretty much addresses the same things, neither of them can answer something incredibly simple, why do the majority of Americans equate the two?

Yes, their posts (Latest Gallup Polling on Evolution Fails to Enlighten and  Correcting Disinformation on Academic Freedom Legislation) try and make a similar argument, things like this:

"ID is not “rebranded” creationism – the ideas are worlds apart. Teaching creationism in public schools has indeed been rejected, but ID is not creationism."

And yet:

• Why does the DI receive nearly all of its funding from religious sources?
• Why is the DI's only audience religious groups?
• Why does its own people play up their religious connections?
• Why does their own guiding document connect the two to tightly?

The answers to this first set are simple, it's because they are nothing more than a religious ministry despite their protestations.  If they aren't a religious ministry, but a scientific organization like they claim, there are some different questions they might try answering:

• Where is their scientific work?
• Where are their scientific discoveries?
• Where are their scientific peer review papers showing their research, methodologies, and results?

The answers to the second set are equally simple, it's because while they like to portray themselves as a scientific organization, they are not.  Therefore, there is little scientific work, there are no discoveries, there are no peer reviewed papers -- and I am talking actual peer review, not the sham 'peer review' set up by the DI to fake it.  Yes, that all might sound harsh, but when you only submit your papers to fellow Creationists and they pat you on the head and say 'nice job', that's not actual peer review.  What scientific work there is never seems to get around to mentioning Intelligent Design.

If you disagree, check out how often the papers from the DI are referenced in actual scientific papers.  I haven't been able to find any.  The only sites that seem to come close are . . . . wait for it . . . other Creationists organizations.

I know we are talking about only my opinion, after all it's my blog.  But when anyone objectively looks at the DI, they see a religious ministry.  I admit to not being objective, but that's after well over a decade of reading their publications and blog posts.  Prejudice is when you 'pre-judge' something without any actual experience . . . I can honestly say after the past decade, I have lots of experience with their marketing machine.  I keep hoping for actual science and are regularly disappointed.

As Judge Jones wrote in the 139 page Dover Decision:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

So, I see ID proponents as Creationists wearing ill-fitting lab coats  . . . while giving a presentations to various religious groups . . . in front of green-screens that have lab pictures on them . . . and hiding behind the screens are the rest of the Creationists.  They might as well have a sign "Pay No Attention To People Behind the Screen!"

The Discovery Institute 'Trumping' Fake News -- with Fake News

The Discovery Institute (DI) is starting to use the phrase 'Fake News' to label news articles they disagree with -- no matter how true the article may be . . . sound like someone else we all know.  In "Houston Chronicle, We’ve Got a Problem: Meet Fake News Reporter Andrea Zelinski" the DI refers to an experienced and award-winning reporter, Andrea Zelinski, as a 'fake news reporter.  What was her crime, nothing more than writing a story that the DI didn't like.

They say:

"Zelinski’s articles portrayed the science standards battle as a struggle to introduce creationism or intelligent design into Texas’s science curriculum."

As odd as it sounds, there are two definitions of 'fake news'.  Before very recent events 'fake news' was a term defined as the deliberate falsification of the news, the use of misinformation or the spreading of hoaxes.  Sites like Breitbart News and shows like the O'Reilly Factor were good examples of shows less interested in facts and more interested in bombast and sensationalism.  While some 'fake news' of this type was created for satire (The Onion, for example), much of it serves other purposes, such as marketing discredited ideas as if they were credible.

In recent months 'fake news' has also come to be used as a label making claims that a valid new article is untrue.  It has become a favorite term of a certain hamster-haired misogynist serial liar and his supporters. While it includes the word 'fake', people who apply that label tend to using it to claim a truthful, but damaging to them, story is false.  The reality seems have become that when something is labeled as 'fake news' is really means the opposite.

So which is it in this instance, is Zelinski a 'fake news reporter'?  To make that determination, we have to decide if calling the whole tactic of using re-worded science standards primarily a way of introducing Creationism into the science curriculum?

The wording was introduced in Texas under the auspices of none other than Don McLeroy, an avowed Creationist when he was the President of the Texas State Board of Education.  Before this time, he was very public in his religious views, particular in disavowing evolution, regardless of the scientific support. Just last week he even responded to one of my posts (And The Whining and Spinning About Texas Is On!), showing that he still hasn't learned anything about real science.

So, Don pushes for Creationism and doesn't get very far until he teams up with the Discovery Institute whose reason for living is pretty close to Don's.  Read the Wedge Strategy document if you think they are after something different than Don.  Don even invited two of them to 'help' draft the new science standards.

The Discovery Institute has been conducting a number of campaigns, all with the same goal (my underlines):

"The overarching goal of the Institute in conducting the intelligent design campaigns is religious; to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy)

"None of the campaigns are aimed at directly influencing the scientific community . . . but rather are focused on swaying the opinions of the public and public policy makers, which, if effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing the academic institutions supporting the scientific community to accept the Discovery Institute's redefinition of science. Public high school science curricula has been the most common and visible target of the campaigns, with the Institute publishing its own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis of Evolution." (Wikipedia:  Intelligent Design Campaigns)

So, a reporter, actually one of many reporters, in reporting the facts -- ties the changes to the science curriculum with ongoing efforts to replace science with religion . . . and the DI calls that 'fake news'.  Changing the wording that had been in place since 2009 has the opposite effect, as Zelinski put it:

"SBOE gives final OK to curb creationism language in science standards"

If the reporter really was reporting something false, the reporter, the publisher, and the owners of the newspaper would be open for a libel suit, but instead the DI simply tries to tell people that the reporter isn't reporting the truth . . . but the reality is not only is the reporter reporting the truth, but the reporter is reporting  the truth the Discovery Institute would rather like not to be reported (say that ten times real fast!).  They always hate when anyone reminds the world of their religion.  So the DI created a bit of 'fake news' of their own, by calling this report a 'fake news reporter'.

People now have to develop a new set of skills -- how to determine if a news source, particularly an online news source, is telling them anything resembling facts.  I try and use the old-fashioned method of checking the sources.  I rarely take anything a news source says at face value, I want to check multiple sources and validate the information the news source used.

For example, if I read news someone posted on Facebook, I am not only going to follow the link provided, but I am going to Google the pertinent parts of the story.  All too often links from Facebook are to fake news sites, nearly always ones that agree with the Facebook poster's personal philosophies.  What I am looking for are more objective links to sources that are more news than views.  The original poster usually posts the link without ever checking the validity of the information.

You might want to check out "News Bias . . . Yes, this is a real thing!"  We discussed the objectivity of various news sites a few months back.   Real reporters, like Andrea Zelinski, can help by doing exactly what they are doing -- their best to accurately report the news!  Just because you read something that agrees or disagrees with your opinions doesn't automatically make it true or false!  If you don't think this is am important skill to have, look at the 2016 election!  As Nancy Pelosi said recently about George W. Bush:

“I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again.”

Back on topic, we should applaud Andrea and the Houston Chronicle for not only reporting accurately, but annoying the DI at the same time!  She might be in the running for that august honor of the DI's 'Censor of the Year!'

And let the Whining Begin!

As predicted, a whine over Texas "Our Day in Austin, Defending Critical Analysis of Evolution". Here's a quote that tells me the Discovery Institute misses the point completely:

"When you identify a theory, you merely regurgitate information about it. There’s a place for that, of course. But when you evaluate you critically analyze. That’s a skill essential to doing good science."

High School science classes do not merely regurgitate information, that's a level of educational objective called 'Remembering'.  Yes, there is some of that because for a student to begin any level of understanding, they have to start with knowing something about the topic.  And example would be teaching students what the Theory of Evolution actually is.  But high schools do not end there, regardless of the DI's unsupported opinion.

The next level is called 'Comprehending', which goes much deeper and reaches a point where the student is understanding the information they have learned.  Examples are tracing how the Theory of Evolution was developed, what went into it on its path from concept to scientific theory, and the supporting evidence as to why it is the predominant biological theory today.  They gain an appreciation for not just a theory, but the process by which actual science is done.  But, once again, HS science classes do not stop there.

The third level is called 'Applying' where the students take the theories they have learned and gain a deeper understanding and apply them to classroom and real world experiences.  Everything from dissecting a frog and growing bacteria to building structures.  One class even held an environmental cleanup of a local stream and then the next several years the same teacher, with new groups of students, monitored how their clean-up affected the local fish population.  A group measured the effects of various mouthwashes on germs and bacteria common in the human mouth.  Their conclusions were that a specific commercially available mouthwash that marketed itself a a germ killer -- wasn't very good at it.  Another class used both scientific theories and the engineering principles created based on those theories to build a bridge capable of many more times it's own weight with just paper and Elmer's glue.

To be honest, that's pretty much where HS science leaves off, but isn't that enough?  Each level requires time and resources and the end result are students who not only know the basics of many scientific theories, but understanding them and have actually seen them in action or put them into action.  Isn't that the type of education you want at that level?

There are three more levels, the highest type of learning objective is the one this particular DI talking head is wanting students to reach, 'Evaluating'.  But rather than the cavalier attitude the DI places on 'evaluating', I would like you to think about what it takes to properly evaluate something.  We are not talking about taking a test, but to be able to compare and contrast the merits of multiple ideas.  We aren't just using an opinion here, but the level of detailed knowledge to pass judgment on various scientific theories.  HS science classes are not equipped to take things to that level.

But the DI thinks they are, one reason is because the DI never defines what an 'evaluation' is or how you do it.  Don't believe me, check out the DI's own "Educator's Briefing Packet" and show me where Evaluation is explained?  Oh it's mentioned, but how to do it, or even what it means, is never explained.  The DI just expected teachers to do it, I guess intuitively.  They don't explain it with their curricula page either.  While they do use the word in the College Student Guide to ID, they also never explain what it is or how to accomplish it.  Please note this last one is intended for college students, not high school!

As I said, and the DI's own pseudo-educational material seems to bear out, to properly evaluate a subject requires a great deal more time and resources than remembering, understanding, and applying require.  The educational objective for 'Evaluating' isn't appropriate for high school -- so the Texas education board is acting both properly and responsibly.  I hope more states realize that as they contemplate similar changes.

A Tentative Success in Texas!

Tentatively, it looks like the Texas school board voted to remove language sponsored by the Discovery Institute (DI), language designed to weaken science education!  Here's the article I just read: "State ed board reins in science standards hinting at creationism".  Here's a quote:

"The 15-member board voted unanimously to change language in its standards to take the pressure off teachers to delve deep in evaluating cell biology and DNA evolution."

As I mentioned in "Give Teachers in Texas a Fighting Change to Actually Teach Science!", requiring HS students to 'evaluate' scientific theories is not within the purview of high school.  To 'Evaluate' requires a depth of knowledge you aren't going to get in HS.  The DI loves throwing that word around, knowing full well to give students the tools needed to perform such an evaluation would consume resources unavailable to any high school in the country.

Think about it, why would they want HS students to perform such evaluations without them having the depth of knowledge required?  It's the only way they can push their pet version of Creationism  past the lack of  scientific validity that has kept it out of the science curriculum.  It creates an environment where an opinion is seen as viable as a scientific theory simply because the resources required to understand the difference are not present at the HS level.

Of course, the DI will claim these changes do not promote Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID).  If that was so, then why is the DI pushing so hard?  Have they published anything that really supports science education?  They like using those words, but when you look at it you see efforts to undermine existing science and the promotion of theistic concepts.  Look at the ID campaigns, teach a non-existent controversy, examine the strengths and weaknesses without identifying any actual weaknesses, an academic freedom campaign that has nothing to do with academic freedom . . ..

You can expect them to react with multiple whines.  In fact let me pop over to their Evolution 'news' and Views site and see if they have reacted just yet. . . . No, nothing yet.  There is a post from one of their 'senior disciples, Robert Marx, about the standards.  You remember Bobbie, he was one of the ones responsible for the fiasco of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Website at Baylor.

OK, enough.  It's good to know that Texas has started down a better path with a side benefit of irritating the DI.  Maybe the Texas board of ed can compete for the DI's 'Censor of the Year'.

Give Teachers in Texas a Fighting Change to Actually Teach Science!

My very first blog post, just over a decade ago, concerned the Great State of Texas (is Texas stepping backwards?), it was about the questionable action of firing your science curriculum head just before a science curriculum review because she did her job.  Over the years I have posted quite a bit about Texas, things like:

• The openly Creationist head of the State School Board
• Texas Governor wanting to teach Evolution and Creationism
• The Institute for Creation Research moving to Texas and trying to get permission to award Master degrees in Science (they failed).
• Two members of the Discovery Institute asked to 'help' develop science curricula by the head of the school board.
• Finally getting rid on that one avowed creationist and appointing another in his place.

Just to name a few posts.  Creationism advocates have been constantly working on turning Texas into a theocracy by any means possible.  A few years back they won a semi-victory -- they didn't win outright and get their dream of tossing Evolution completely out of the state, they did get to introduce wishy-washy terms that follow the DI's whole 'strengths and weaknesses' marketing campaign.

Well, the latest news is more positive.  The Texas School Board has a chance to remove that whole strengths and weaknesses wording from their standards.  Guess who doesn't like that idea?  The Discovery Institute (DI), of course.  Sarah Chaffee's turn to complain.  I'm sure little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer will follow-up like he usually does.  Sarah's post: "Texas Ed Board Pressured to Make It Harder for Teachers and Students to Evaluate Evolution Evidence".  I will say one thing for Sarah, when she toes the company line, she really toes that line.  Here is part of her opening:

"Amid much media and Darwin lobby pressure, the biology committee presented draft streamlined science standards in the fall. These streamlined standards removed good language from the 2009 standards that protected examination of evidence both for and against major origins issues — the fossil record and abrupt appearance, the origins of life, and the complexity of the cell."

So, according to Sarah, it's the media and Darwin lobby that apply pressure to change the science standards.  I guess the actions of the people who actually teach and work in biology doesn't matter, it's all the media's and lobbyists.  So . . . Creationists aren't being represented in the press and Creationist groups, like the Discovery Institute, aren't lobbying?  I think Sarah is doing a bit of cherry-picking here, don't you?

Here is where I think she gets a bit off track:

"The proposed change is a bad idea. Learning how to evaluate scientific explanations is a key skill needed by future scientists and citizens alike; and students are certainly capable of evaluating scientific claims under the guidance of a teacher. "

Teachers receive an education in 'Education', which includes something called Bloom's Taxonomy, which is a set of hierarchical models used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity.  These models are used in everything from lesson planning to building tests and setting evaluation criteria.  In the Cognitive Domain (knowledge-based) there are 6 levels, briefly stated these are:

• Remembering:  involves recognizing or remembering facts, terms, basic concepts, or answers without necessarily understanding what they mean. An example might be to name three common varieties of apple.
• Comprehending: involves demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating the main ideas.  An example - compare the identifying characteristics of a Golden Delicious apple with a Granny Smith apple.
• Applying: involves using acquired knowledge—solving problems in new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules. Learners should be able to use prior knowledge to solve problems, identify connections and relationships and how they apply in new situations.  As in would apples prevent scurvy, a disease caused by a deficiency in vitamin C?
• Analyzing: involves examining and breaking information into component parts, determining how the parts relate to one another, identifying motives or causes, and making inferences and find evidence to support generalizations. An example - list four ways of serving foods made with apples and explain which ones have the highest health benefits. Provide references to support your statements.
• Synthesizing: involves building a structure or pattern from diverse elements; it also refers to the act of putting parts together to form a whole. An example - convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing your choice of ingredients. Explain the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose vs. the original ones.
• Evaluating: involves presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas, or quality of work based on a set of criteria. An example - which kinds of apples are best for baking a pie, and why?

As you can see High School spends most of it's time working in the first three layers of the taxonomy, which can be explained as 'Remembering, Comprehending, and Using'. Analyzing, Synthesizing, and Evaluating are much more at the upper levels of education, including graduate studies. The committee is concerned that the evaluation of scientific explanations would take too much class time and require too much detailed knowledge on the part of students -- and they are right.

Seriously, look at the level of understanding it would take to Evaluate the validity of ideas based on a set of criteria.  Sarah, and her bosses, don't really want that -- which might explained why they never seem to give us any objective criteria about ID.  Actually many scientists, real working biologists, have examined the validity of ID and dismissed it.  Maybe Sarah and the DI do want high school-ers evaluating them?

While you might not think 'Evaluating' seems too complicated, let's just look at the simply example of which kinds of apples are the best for baking.  If we ask 10 different bakers, we would probably get 10 different answers.  So how do you evaluate such a question?  Let's start with how many variety of apples are there?  My local grocery store has about 12 depending on the season.  According to Wikipedia, there are over 7500 different varieties.

Think of the process we would have to go through to answer the question.  The collection of the apples and other ingredients, the formulation of a standard recipe -- remember apple pies are more than just apples -- then we would have to bake enough pies of the apples -- but if you wanted to do it right it's not just one type of apple per pie, but most often a mix.  So how many possible combinations would we have to test?  We would then have to establish a set of criteria and find a panel to judge the pies according to that criteria.  Think of the knowledge required, skill needed, and sheer amount of time you would have to have at your disposal to perform an actual evaluation, not Sarah's 'evaluation is easy, can be done with a little guidance from a teacher', no real education level Evaluation, with the upper-case 'E'.

Now if you weren't willing to go that route, what are you left with?  The Discovery Institute's favorite methodology, intuition.  Yes, the DI is the organization of Douglas Axe who wrote 'Undeniable', a religious book explaining how intuition is as valid a scientific tool as education, experience, and experimentation.  We've written about Doug, his religious tract, and intuition a number of times, I think the most recent was here.

So let's use the same example for how high school-ers students would 'evaluate' and address the same question.  A DI staffer, maybe even Sarah herself, would get up in front of a carefully selected group of students who already buy into their apple pie concept and describe an apple pie in the loosest possible terms while watching their core student group nod their heads at every word.  No ingredients, no cooking method, no recipe, just describe the most generic apple pie with terms like round, crust, and apples and 'other stuff'.  They wouldn't even identify who baked this phantom apple pie.  Then they would say, "And those are the best apples for pie" and hurriedly walk out of the room to avoid being questioned.  Later in press releases and pontificating to religious groups, they would declare their success at answering a complex question with only their intuition.  Sound familiar?  No actual cooking, no testing, no evaluating, just words with no support at all.  And then they would start to whine and complain because no one takes them seriously!  After all, no one does.

So maybe that's part of the problem.  The DI needs to learn about Bloom's Taxonomy and realize that education isn't the idea of forming an opinion and then only listening to other carefully filtered opinions that validate it.  It's a much more complicated process, at least when you want to do it right.

Well I certainly hope that Texas does the right thing and dumps anything left over from the DI's last visit, especially the additions to their last set of science standards.  I doubt they will get rid of it all, there are simply too many Creationists on the board who think the only education is one that agrees with their narrow religious views, but hopefully the board will water down that religious influence to give science teachers a fighting change to teach actual science, as opposed to the pseudo-science variety.

Cherry-Picking, the new Normal? I, for One, Hope Not!

Interesting post over on the Patheos Blog Unsystematic Theology: "A Big Problem with Intelligent Design: “Don’t Look at My Bad Side”"  It reminded me of people who prefer to cherry-pick rather than look at a complete picture.

The idea of cherry-picking is to only pick the things you like, or want, and ignore the rest.  It's a logical fallacy called 'fallacy of incomplete evidence' and, more specifically, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.  Sound familiar?  Between the pseudo-news services of Fox and Breitbart and the hamster-haired lying misogynist we certainly see examples of cherry-picking on a daily basis.  Although since ol' hamster-hair creates his own 'facts' out of thin air, he might not be guilty of cherry-picking as often as folks like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter.

The shame is that it's a fairly common practice and one I've found many Creationists employ, especially when discussing their faith.  Take a look at the Old Testament.  When you read the Bible you read a lot of serious stuff, including slavery, genocide, murder, prostitution . . . you know the things Christians like to say they are against.  The New Testament shows most things in a much rosier light, sort of like the Old Testament God created marijuana.  But do most Christians pay much attention to the darker side of their holy book?  No, they cherry-pick the stuff they like and try and ignore the rest.  Some Christian religions even argue that people shouldn't read the Bible, but only hear about it through views filtered through their various clergy.

Creationists of the Intelligent Design (ID) stripe do something identical.  They look at biology and marvel at the complexity, the beauty, and the functionality and claim that such things could not have occurred naturally.  But they ignore, or rationalize away, the simplicity, the ugliness, and the non-functional that also exists -- like I said -- cherry-picking.  They also like to ignore actual scientific evidence that doesn't support their ideas -- which is currently all scientific evidence -- while twisting science to try and make it sound supportive of Creationism.

Questions like 'why is there sin, cancer, evil, or even carnivores?' tend to rationalized away by most theists using stories involving human failure, sin, and Adam (of Adam & Eve fame, not Levine).  ID proponents simply ignore them.  They like to claim they are focused on biology, and yet their guiding document says that one of its goals is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology. ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts." (Wedge Strategy Document, page 4)

So while ID proponents like to avoid conversations that bring up the darker-side of their belief set -- because they are 'focused on biology' -- their objectives go far beyond biology.  They want to be firmly entrenched in biology before opening other conversations about things they would rather ignore, including minor details like the identity of their design and the age of the Earth.

We discussed the issue with identifying the designer just recently ("Why Won't ID Proponents Identify Their Designer?"), but forgot to mention this quote:

"ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." (Philip E. Johnson, Inteview Citizen's Magazine (1999))

Johnson is considered the 'Daddy Rabbit' of the modern ID movement.  He also formulated their 'big-tent' approach.  Here is a brief explanation of that example of cherry-picking:

"Intelligent design has been described by its proponents as a 'big tent' belief, one in which all theists united by having some kind of creationist belief (but of differing opinions as regards details) can support. If successfully promoted, it would reinstate creationism in the teaching of science, after which debates regarding details could resume." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design Movement)

So theist groups are supposed to ignore their matters of faith until such time science is pretty much trashed and then 'let the debates begin'.  I can see why many religious organizations dismiss ID, especially after the cavalier way ID proponents dismiss their beliefs, calling them 'differing opinions'.  So we have both avoiding identifying their designer and ignoring the many differences between religious beliefs in order to attack actual science.  Some serious cherry-picking there!

I almost want ID proponents, and their 'big-tent' to win, just to see the carnage that follows in the ecumenical debates.  I know, I know, it wouldn't be worth it, but oh to have a bowl of popcorn to see a cage match between Stephen C. Meyer and little kennie ham!

I do so enjoy ID proponents who claim science is too unwilling to examine alternative views -- and yet how often are theists willing to look at alternatives? Let's ask Wild Bill Dembski, once the darling of the ID Movement, who was threatened with being fired if he failed to toe the theological line.  His own comments show how truly close-minded theists can be. Here's a small quote:

" . . . 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." (Dembski: Disillusion with Fundamentalism)

Since then, he's left the fold and apparently resigned his senior fellowship at the DI. Theists do some serious cherry-picking, and if you pick the 'wrong' cherries, you will more than likely get kicked out of that particular theist club organized religious group.

So, you see, cherry-picking is a fairly common tactic and can be the result of a conscious decision or even an unconscious prejudice.  What's important, is not just to recognize when you are doing it, but try and avoid it.  

You might be asking yourself if scientists are ever guilty of cherry-picking, and the answer is  -- of course.  However, you have to remember that science is also a self-correcting activity.  What one scientist publishes, other scientists attempt to replicate.  Logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking, in data or methodology can't be hidden under such scrutiny (just ask the Cold Fusion guys: Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons).  

But what mechanism does theology have to correct its cherry-picking (and other logical fallacies)?  Looking at the evidence of folks like Ham and Meyer, there is none.  Meyer writes a book, get critiqued and then writes a second book claiming to address his critics and then fails to do so.  Little kennie says anything he wants and then cites the Bible and God as his source -- oh yea, lots of self-correcting there.  The cherry-picking is more the normal course of events than an exception.

If You Don't Know It All, Then You Don't Know Anything . . . Really?

A recent post from the Discovery Institute (DI) repeats a common theme.  It goes something like this, if you don't know something to the absolute 100%, then you really don't know anything at all.  This is a common whine that Creationists like to use every now and then.  They complain that scientific knowledge might change as we learn new things and they, of course, parade that as some sort of weakness.  The reality is that is one of science's strengths, the ability to reformulate ideas and theories as we learn more and more.  As I have said before, Darwin would barely recognize the details of the current Theory of Evolution, although he would recognize how much of his ideas remain and have been expanded upon.  Newton would probably not recognize the current Theory of Gravity, but he would certainly recognize the underpinnings.

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer took aim at something else, 'matter' -- as in the stuff that makes up all the other stuff.  His post "Astrophysicist Adam Frank: Materialism’s Fatal Flaw Is…Matter".  You can read it for yourself, but it's mostly a cut and paste from an essay from the astrophysicist.  klingy explains his basic whine with this:

"It seems that, when we’re confronted with theories of origins that dogmatically insist on an active role for matter and material forces alone, a reasonable question before going any further is: Define matter. What is it? If Darwinists can’t answer that one, then I’m not sure by what right they command our agreement to any of the rest of their theory."

First off, 'dogmatic' is a lie.  Science has shown over and over again the evidence supporting matter and material forces play in scientific theories.  It would be dogmatic is such evidence didn't exist, but since it does, a 'dogmatic instistance' does not apply.  Can klingy say the same thing about Intelligent Design?  Care to show any actual evidence?  I didn't think so.  To continue . . .

Before going into the rest of his particular whine, I would like to remind you of something very basic.  Whether you realize it or not, we do not know all there is to know about anything, including the scientific theories explaining such things as the Atom, Gravity, Aerodynamics, Thermodynamics, Germs, Disease . . . but the real question is "So what?"  

Without a complete understanding, at least to the degree folks like klingy and the other Discoveroids seem to want, we have made pretty solid use of these theories.  We fly aircraft, went to the Moon, have cured and treated an incredible number of diseases and prevented even more with our, admittedly, less than perfect understanding of germs and biology.  We create electricity with that limited knowledge of what it is and even command light appear and disappear without fully understanding if it is a particle or a wave.  How are we able to do all this?  It's called science, something klingy and his pals really wish never came into being.  He's apparently more comfortable with a Deity than any understanding, even a partial understanding.

What's most personally annoying is that understanding science doesn't prevent you from believing in one deity or another, but it does get in the way when you try and rationalize your belief.  Think about it, science isn't making any claims against a deity, but what it is doing is showing how the many claims about what a deity did or did not do  . . . claims made by man . . . are crap.  There is very little difference between an ancient Greek citing Apollo when looking at the Sun and klingy making claims for his 'designer', is there?

So in answer to his asinine question, we do not know everything there is to know about matter.  But since when would something like that stop us from using it, exploring about it, and even codifying how it works? We know a great deal about matter, if we didn't, then building anything would be impossible. Look at Materials Science and the incredible materials they have created, everything from quark-gluon plasma to Aerographite, which, if you have never heard of them, are both the most and least dense man-made materials created so far.  I think Aerographite weighs in at 0.2 grams per cubic meter.  For a reference  - steel is 8,000 kilograms per cubic meter and a cubic centimeter of quark-gluon plasma would weigh 40 billion tons -- which is denser than a neutron star, for all you science and science fiction buffs.

Cool stuff, huh?  Not bad for not being able to define something to the satisfaction of the DI.  Now let's look at what I think little klingy is really up to, it's got a bunch of names, but I prefer to call it 'moving the goal posts'.  The DI knows that real scientists are perfectly willing to admit that we do not know everything about any subject, even evolution.  They use this as a tactic frame the conversation in such a way to try and negate the entire subject by moving the goal posts every time we learn something new.  And yet where are those goal posts set for klingy's Intelligent Design and the often mentioned, but never officially identified, intelligent designer?  Think about it.

We don't know everything about any one subject, but we do know a lot -- and we use what we know to do stuff -- like fly airplanes for example.  But when it comes to the DI's Intelligent Design, what do we know?  Not a damn thing!  We don't know, and the DI has never bothered to explain, what ID is, how it works, or even why it's a better explanation than Evolution when discussing Biology.  Now be honest, ID proponents, can you answer any of these questions?  If you can, then you are miles ahead of the ID 'think-tank' called the Discovery Institute!  Little klingy is whining because we do not know 100% of everything about matter, so therefore we cannot use 'matter' or 'material forces' in any explanations about biology.  But . . . you had to see this one coming . . . we know absolutely nothing about ID, how ID works, or even who the 'designer' is, and yet this is a better explanation?  Really?  How is that even possible?

It's possible because klingy and his buds are moving the goal posts.  When a real scientist steps up to the line of scrimmage, he lines up on his opponents goal line and the only allowable play (remember DI is setting the rules in this example) for him is fully 100 yards away, nothing else is allowable -- no first downs, no short yardage gains, not even long yardage -- it's score or nothing.  That's where klingy sets the goal posts for real biologists.  Yet when an ID proponent steps up, he is lined up already in his own end zone, the goal posts are already behind him and without even running a play, he declares 'Score!'

Am I over-exaggerating?  I don't think so.  If you think that, then please list for me all of the scientific advances and achievements that have been done using the DI's Intelligent Design?  I am not talking about their claims that using your brain is the same as ID. I'm not talking about their undefined 'Design Inference Detector'.  I am talking about a valid and verified (by someone not associated with ID and the DI) implementation of Intelligent Design.  Show me or stop helping the DI rationalize themselves as anything other than a ministry!

I May Have Spoken Too Soon . . .

Just last week I said in a post:

"Rep Butler [R-AL] is using teachers as a kind of scapegoat to justify his actions.  Let's not forget that this same politician tried a similar bill (which failed) and did manage to get a Student Religious Freedom bill passed just last year.  God forbid a politician be honest in his motivations." (An Alabama State Representative Shows His Ignorance)

Rather than hide in the shadows, this State representative (Mary Bentley, R - AR) is sponsoring a bill that states very clearly:

"HB2050 - TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE TO ALLOW PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS TO TEACH CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS THEORIES ALONGSIDE THE TEACHING OF THE ORIGINS OF THE EARTH AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."

With the failure of so many so-called 'academic freedom' bills, you know the bills that have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom, I guess one politician got tired of trying to sneak their religion into the classroom through the backdoor.  While I disagree with her, I have to respect her honesty!  

Normally, I would say her bill doesn't stand a prayer [pun intended], but then I didn't think America was foolish enough to elect a hamster-haired misogynistic liar for President.  But isn't Arkansas the same state where their law to make teaching of evolution illegal was overturned in the 1960's (Epperson v. Arkansas) and also their effort to teach  a 'Balanced Treatment', that is teaching Creationism (renamed Creation Science at the time) and Evolution side-by-side and on equal terms -- got dumped as well in the 1980's (McLean v. Arkansas)?  

So, again while I do applaud her honesty, I have to question why she wants her religion to be taught in the classroom as if it were science.  Does she also want Numerology in math class or Astrology in Astronomy?  If not, why not?  I also have to ask the people in Arkansas why they keep electing politicians who seem to spend more time focusing on preaching religion than dealing with other issues facing the State.  Let's see, how does Arkansas rank in a few areas?

• Education - Arkansas ranks 43rd lowest out of the 50 states in HS graduation rate, 48th in Bachelor degrees and 49th in Advanced degrees. (Wikipedia: source)
• Violent Crime - 9th highest rank in violent crimes (World Atlas: source)
• Teen Pregnancy - 4th highest rate of teen pregnancy (LiveScience: source)
• Unemployment - Actually not bad, 13th lowest (BLS: source)

Well, it looks like to me Rep Bentley needs to ask herself a few questions.  the first is simple: "Why does she insist on inflicting her religious beliefs on the rest of the State in violation of the US Constitution?" and second is "Doesn't she have any real problems to deal with?"  I guess a third question, and maybe the only one that matters might be "Why does she think teaching religion in science class is going to help any of the real problems facing Arkansas?"Does she actually believe dumbing down science will improve education?  And of course everyone knows theists never commit violent crimes (please add a sarcastic snort after that sentence).  And theists never get pregnant at a young age, seriously?  Check this out:

"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception." (BioMed Central: source)

Similar things have been reported in many sources including Live Science, the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor.  Not only are they less likely to use contraception, but their sex education is generally lacking.

I doubt she will ever answer any of these questions, after all she is more than likely just 'pandering' for votes.  Oh, I am sure she's a church-goer and holds a set of religious beliefs, but being elected does not give her the right to force those beliefs onto other people!  But sponsoring such bills will probably have the affect of gaining her some votes.  Sorta like a certain hamster-haired politician holding up the Bible, a book I doubt he has ever opened up . . . of course that is strictly my opinion, but has anyone ever seen him actually use it for most than a speech prop?

OK, one last time, I do respect her honesty, but I certainly do not support her efforts.  Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious concepts that do not belong in science class.  No matter how you dress them up, there are standards within science and neither of those ideas meet any of them.  The nearest they come to actual science is being  defined as:

" . . . claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method"  (Wikipedia: pseudo-science)

More 'Knee-Jerkiness' from the Discovery Institute, Emphasis on Jerkiness

Any number of times I have mentioned the 'knee-jerk' reaction of the Discovery Institute (DI) when anyone does one of two things.

• First, if you say something nice about Intelligent Design (ID), the DI falls all over itself to say nice things about you.  It doesn't seem to matter if what you say is pretty well meaningless, even if the bias of the author is well known -- case-in-point the recent posts (here and here) based on a new book by Tom Bethell.  
• The other knee-jerk reaction is it you say anything that can be construed as negative about ID, they immediately jump on their keyboards and denounce you, usually claiming you didn't explain ID correctly and that you aren't fairly representing the official position of the DI.  case-in-point today's post: "In the Public Interest? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute Policy"

Here they hit both things -- but where??  Annie Waldman, the author of the article that offended Sarah so much pretty well hit the nail right on the head.  She [Annie] said:

• ID is an outgrowth of Creationism.  Well isn't it?  It was proven in court, it was all over the DI guiding document, the only audience that the DI ever seems to talk to are religious ones.  Annie stated is clear as a bell, Sarah just wants to keep the religious aspects of the DI amd ID hidden in the dark, just like all the talking heads.
• The DI advocates teaching ID under the guise of "critical thinking."  Isn't that also true?  The whole 'critical thinking' tactic is one of the many campaigns the DI has launched all . . . let me repeat that . . . ALL for their stated purpose of:
  "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy Document)

Annie's opening line:

"Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick as secretary of education, has funded groups that champion “intelligent design,” a sophisticated outgrowth of creationism. Science educators worry that she could use her bully pulpit to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools."

To me, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable concern, but then, when is the DI interested in being reasonable?  Here we have someone who has supported groups pushing ID, including the Thomas More Law Center -- who, if you recall, defended the Dover School Board.  When DeVos' husband ran for Governor of Michigan, he publicly promoted ID for the classroom.  Plus, when you factor in her her support of privatizing public schools, I think we all have a right to be concerned.  How much you want to bet then when Betsy starts talking sending public school kids to private schools, she isn't talking anything but good old-fashioned Christian schools like the ones she and her kids went to?

Here's another article which also raises the same concern: "Dover ID case plaintiff worries about DeVos"  One of the plaintiffs in the Dover Case sees the same potential problem, DeVos using her new position to push her personal and religious agenda, even though the decision in the Dover Trial should have been the end of it.  Devos got involved with Michigan education, I don't know when, but I have read things haven't been moving in the right direction, for example:

"In 2003, Michigan ranked 28th in fourth-grade reading. In 2015, the state was ranked 41st." (Detroit Free Press)

So, this concern, so easily dismissed by Sarah, is a valid concern.  We now have a Secretary of Education with no background in education and with a very personal agenda concerning education, into which she has pumped a great deal of money and her impact in Michigan at best has been either negligible or horrible, but certainly nothing to build any confidence in her capabilities.  Sarah isn't concerned because she obviously shares that same agenda, but the rest of us should be very concerned.

As for Annie Waldman mis-representing the DI and their position on teaching ID in public schools, I have to refer back to this post from just under a year ago: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?"  In case you don't feel like reading the whole thing, and it is a fairly long post, here are a few highlights:

• The DI's Wedge Strategy Document outlining a 'teacher training strategy' aimed to gain acceptance from college and university presidents and faculty.
• The DI was involved heavily in Dover Pa:
• Why did Seth Cooper, a DI attorney, have several calls with William Buckingham (Chairman of the Dover School Board Curriculum Committee) discussing the legality of teaching ID?  (Trial Transcripts)
• Why did the DI send Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books? (Trial Transcripts)
• Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the School Board in executive session? (Trial Transcripts)
• Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted by the School Board  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other)?
• DI's IDEA clubs, whose own website described as:
  "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students,educators, churches, and anyone else interested.
  Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (http://www.ideacenter.org/)

• In Texas, if the DI is not advocating Intelligent Design, why were they 'advising' the Creationist head of the Texas State School Board on public school curricula and textbooks.
• The DI's own Stephen C. Meyer proposed to the Ohio Board of Education the Institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution that prominently featured intelligent design. It also included a model lesson plan!
• The DI's website featured: Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members  -- They have a ton of material here . . . and all geared to parents and school board members.  

Look at the recurring theme, school boards, individual school board members, teachers, students, school campuses, lesson plans . . . sure, the DI has no interest in teaching ID in the classroom!  If you believe that, I have a bridge over in Brooklyn for sale!  Any takers?

Actions always speak louder than 'official' positions, don't they?  The bottom line should be pretty simple for anyone to see.  Regardless of what they say 'officially', the Discovery Institute is interested in, has set a goal to, and is pursuing tactics to, replace actual science with their version of Creationism.

Their 'official' party-line is nothing but a tactic, and our experience has shown us that there is no tactic too low or too reprehensible for them to grasp and use because, like little kennie ham at Answers in Genesis, they are simply doing God's will, right?  Actually this specific tactic is probably because after all of their defeats in court and in places like Texas Kansas, and Ohio (even after an initial brush with success), they know an official push for ID would fail.  They, the DI, keep trying to disassociate ID from Creationism and also to officially disassociate themselves with their own ongoing efforts to insert their religion into the classroom.  Dover hurt them much more than they will ever admit and another major court failure might do what must be unthinkable for them . . . a loss of donations! 

So while the 'official' position might be not teaching ID in public schools, that is the end goal they are after, make no mistake.  So when people like Annie Waldman speak up and shines the light on their motivations and tactics, they have to quickly cover everything back up and act like they are not trying to push us back into the dark . . . the Dark Ages that is!