Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students

A blog I had read a few times had an interesting post.  It's from the Friendly Atheist:  "Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students".  A middle school in Florida sent home a reading assignment that included this paragraph:

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it’s just something someone guessed at, remember that they’re using the non-scientific meaning of the word.  If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better.  In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you."

Apparently some folks got uptight about the last line, angry at the implication that ministers and parents were purposely deceiving kids:

When parents such as Jennifer Flinchum first read those lines, “the hair on the back of my neck stood up,” she said.
“It’s not so much the evolution aspect of it, it’s just the way they phrased those few sentences how they were kind of taking the rights away from the parents,” said parent, Lisa McNeil.

 Three thingsome to my mind:

• Isn't that exactly what they are doing?  Deceiving children!  While some may be doing it out of ignorance, the reality is they are in fact deceiving children. 
• Do parents and ministers have the right to deceive children? I don't think so!  I guess pointing that out isn't very politically correct, regardless of how accurate it is.
• So instead of putting it in a reading assignment, parents will be up in arms when a student asks the teacher about it in class and the teacher gets to inform the child that parents and ministers who say 'evolution is only a theory' are lying.  No, the teacher won't use those words, but that is the lesson kids will pick up.  Can't you see it?  "Teacher says this, Mom says this, Teacher says that's not factual.  Mom isn't telling me the truth!"  Oh yea, that won't get anyone uptight, now would it?

The principal did send home a letter of apology and I guess they plan on re-wording the statement.  I would be curious to see the newly worded reading assignment.

Stephen C. Meyer has a new book coming out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things quiet down in Florida (again)

Well I think we can remove Florida from the list of States trying to damage science education, at least for now. You might remember that last year Florida approved new standards that require public schools to teach that the scientific theory of evolution is the foundation of all biology. This was not without a lot of politicking and acrimonious exchanges. Well State Representative Stephen Wise announced plans to introduce a bill require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design. Apparently Representative Wise wasn't very and the bill he introduced was much watered down and said "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution" -- in other words an even watered down version of the discredited 'strengths and weaknesses' argument.

Good news Florida, the other members of the legislature allowed this one to die off in committee. Which is political speech for "We know we can't get it passed, so let's not look like complete idiots". While I wish it had been defeated in detail, at least the State is safe until Representative Wise, or someone else like him, decides to try again. I am confident the message next time will have evolved into the Discovery Institute's 'Creationism Flavor-of-the-Month' -- whatever they believe can get passed, but at least you can rest a bit before girding up the loins and doing battle with the 18th century again. Maybe someone, like the voters, should be talking to Representative Wise about what he is supposed to be doing, other than wasting time and money on these Crusades.

Changes to the list of States

No not to the extent of re-naming Pluto a 'dwarf planet', we aren't re-designating any states as being less that others. However a few seem to be doing it on their own. What I am interested in is the list of states dealing with the political-side of the evolution/Creationism debate. Yes, I did say 'political' because there is no scientific debate! If there were, that Creationism/Intelligent Design would be welcome in the science classroom! So I thought I would update you on some changes in the status of Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico, Florida, and Texas for your reading pleasure.

First the sort-of good news. Mississippi allowed their bill to die off in committee. Which means at least for this session, the debate ends in the Great State of Mississippi. The reason I call it 'sort-of' good news is because the sponsor of the bill has already made plans to re-introduce it next year, either it or a modified version. I bet we see a straight up fake 'academic freedom' bill, like the one in Louisiana. Remember my take, those bill have little to do with any sort of freedom, let alone academic freedom!

This is exactly what happened in Florida. Their bill failed last year, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to try it again. Although it looks like they have abandoned the fake 'academic freedom' approach and going right for the jugular, Wise to introduce bill on intelligent design:

"State Sen. Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, said he plans to introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design."

While it is tempting to make a joke about his name and his actions not exactly being in line . . . I do think this one will be changed significantly before it reaches the other legislators. I mean after the sound defeat in Dover and no changes in the lack-of-science- standing of Intelligent Design, this one should undergo considerable evolution of it's own soon.

Another state that I enjoy visiting, New Mexico. Well they have joined the ranks of the other 'academic freedom' bills, only they didn't use that term. Not sure that's a good or bad thing. But read the report for yourself, "Antievolution legislation in New Mexico". What t does have if a frightening little 'disclaimer'. What do you think of this:

"'scientific information' may have religious or philosophical implications and still be scientific in nature."

While I agree with the premise, it is something that can all to easily be taken the opposite way and inferring scientific validity based on religious or philosophical implications. Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it. Another section really scares me, it's on penalties:

" . . . they shall not penalize a student in any way because that student subscribes to a particular position on biological evolution or chemical evolution."

That's a quote form the bill itself. Now follow me on this. You are a biology teacher and you ask a test question on evolution. A student answers it "I don't believe in evolution, therefor this question has no correct answer." So what do you do? According to the bill " Public school teachers may hold students accountable for knowing and understanding material taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula . . ."; however in the very next line you cannot penalize them? Does the student get it marked right or wrong?

In my opinion this will muddy the waters more than just leaving the current academic standards in place. Interesting that the State Senator who helped put this bill together, Steve Komadina was not re-elected and the supporters had to find another one, Kent Cravens. To bad they succeeded. All of New Mexico should be arguing against this one. It makes it impossible to teach viable science and to hold students accountable! This is not a good thing for a State that two of the Air Force Research Laboratories and one from the Department of Energy located within it.

One last one, Alabama also joined in. I think theirs looks like a carbon coy of the one Louisiana passed, but I have to do a little more research. So the home of Huntsville, Auburn University, and the University of Alabama is heading in the wrong direction! What a shame!

I'm not sure Texas needs an update. Last month they removed the 'strengths and weaknesses' argument; however they don't formally vote until next month. Google news on 'Creationism in Texas' and you will see lots of articles trying to sway this vote in a particular direction. I hope the SBOE stands firm and keeps science for science!

Now I like all of these states. I have spent time in each one over the years. I can count the time spent in Mississippi and Alabama in years! New Mexico, particularly the Santa Fe and the mountains around Albuquerque are magnificent places to visit. Texas really is like a 'whole 'nother country'. I was also most recently in Florida for my nephew's wedding. I like these places, the people are great, the food is too good for my waistline, and there is always something interesting to do. However each one is also involved in trying to survive these tough economic times. I hope that they people realize that branding your state anti-science is not a good way to invite science and technology companies to expand their presence! How can they expect to find the quality of workers they need if the state school standards refuse to address science!

I know, you have been partially fooled by the Discovery Institute -- who has helped draft most of the anti-evolution legislation and has two members on the board that made its recommendations to the Texas SBOE. But don't be fooled! Listen to the teachers in your own colleges and universities who openly and proudly support Evolution and Biological Sciences. Listen to the rhetoric of the DI for what it is, mis-representation, lies, and marketing. There is no science to be found! Read up on the Dover trial and learn why a Conservative Christian Judge, appointed by the Bush Administration, ruled that Intelligent Design was not science, just Creationism in a new coat. Read how the Discovery Institute lied and misrepresented themselves to the Ohio State School Board just a few years ago. Do the research for yourself and you will find what I found, that there is no scientific validity to Intelligent Design, that it is Creationism, and that neither one will aid in any way your children learning the skills to lead this country, and your state, in these trying economic times!

I'm back

Yes, I know I've been gone a while. Something things just work that way. But it's time to get back to blogging because things have been happening and I would like your thoughts and feedback to some of it.

Like what's now going on in Florida. Florida, where they almost did the completely right thing, has introduced a bill in the State Legislature supposedly to protect the academic freedom of anyone who teaches alternatives to evolution. How bogus is that!

OK, you might disagree, but look at it this way. Every education system already has procedures in place to deal with academic freedom. Teachers, especially ones with tenure, are free to bring in just about anything related to their subject area into the classroom. They already have that level of protection. So why do we need this bill?

My take on it is that some teachers want to bring things into the classroom that is outside their subject area. Now this begs the question, do teachers who introduce topics outside their subject area deserve a special level of protection? I say No! If the English teacher starts teaching biology, they deserve swift and rapid action . . . and if they continue, they should be fired -- tenure or no tenure.

Of course this wouldn't apply here because this bill is specific to teachers who want to teach alternatives to evolution. And what alternatives are there? You know it's funny because while the bill supporters claim this is not going to be used to introduce religion into the classroom, the only alternatives that exist to evolution are religious based ones. There are no scientific based challenges to the theory of evolution.

So on the one hand this bill will do nothing . . . because it specifically addresses Evolution and if religious alternatives aren't discussed, then the bill is totally a waste of time. On the other hand the bill really doesn't prevent someone from teaching Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. So if they did, the new law could be used to prevent the school from taking any action. That would suck!

Here is what I think Florida should do. I think this would remove all issues and make a law that might actually do something useful. Since there are varying degrees of Academic Freedom in the policies of the multitude of school boards. Change the wording of the law to address academic freedom across all subject areas. State that a teacher cannot be disciplined for bring into the classroom controversial subjects that pertain to the subject area being covered! This would keep teachers focused on their subject area, the area they were hired and are paid to teach. It would prevent someone from bring religion into any class other than one addressing sociology or theology. Religious alternatives to Evolution would not be protected because they would not be within the biology subject area. That's my take! Any teacher that introduces material from outside their subject area or is pushing a specific religious point of view, whether it's Creationism for Evolution, Young Earth Creationism for Geology, or Astrology for Astronomy, I say they do not deserve any protection and schools should take quick and decisive action against such teachers.

Luckily, I am not the only one who objects to this bill (http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=8167028&nav=menu577_2_1)

Florida came close, but missed the bullseye

After many raucous debates Florida finally approved their new Science Standards, but they did cave in at the last minute to the Creationist/Intelligent Design crowd who seem to think popular opinion should decide what is or is not science. Check out the Orlando Sentinel.

To recap: Florida for years has taught "change over time" as a fundamental concept of biology. This they did as a sop to a whining minority who are against teaching Evolution thinking that it somehow belittles their place in the universe.

Florida had a team of educators re-write the standards and they included the word Evolution and described it as one of the fundamental principles of modern biology.

At the last minute the standards were changed to put the words "scientific theory of" in front of the word "evolution"! One Board member voted against the standard because of the word change, but two others voted against the standard supposedly for reasons of "Academic Freedom" . . . a code phrasefor keeping the door open for Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Florida, you had the chance to hit a home run, but you settled for a triple! Evolution, the concept that life has changed over time, is as factual as you can come in science. The evidence is overwhelming. Now referring to the explanation of Evolution as a scientific theory is fine, because your new standards already did that, but by inserting the words the way you did showed that you are caving into pressure much in the same way you left out the word 'Evolution' from your last review of standards.

Sorry Florida, you did OK, but you still missed the boat and are allowing a small, but vocal, minority set science standards. Citizens of Florida, you need to look at your school board, local and state, and take a hard look at whether or not those people are actually doing a good job! Science standards should be about science and nothing else!

Before I say anything else, I need to read the new standards and I do have one question: How many other scientific theories have the word "scientific theory of" in front of them in the standards. If Evolution is the only one, then I might have to downgrade you to a double! Judge Jones, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case, ruled that using terminology like that doesn't increase the validity of what you are teaching, but it does the opposite.

Evolution is a matter of Fact, not Belief!

In a letter to the editor of the Orlando Sentinel, Eric Reinhold said "Evolution is a matter of belief, not fact" I made a few comments on the article and decided to send my own letter to the editor. Not sure it will make it, but here it is for your enjoyment, criticism, or just print it and throw darts at it:

In a letter to the editor from Jan 22 "Evolution a matter of belief, not fact" , Eric J. Reinhold stated "Evolution is not observable, repeatable or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. " I couldn't disagree more. If you want to see an example of evolution in action take at look at your children, or someone else's. If you have ever once said "Little Eric looks just like his Daddy", you are seeing evolution! It is observable in the world around us, the entire science behind crop improvements and breeding animals for specific characteristics are also evolutionary. If you need repeatable, you need look no further than a good biology text that describes one of the multitude of evolutionary experiments with bacterial, colonies of fruit flies, and other organisms what have much faster generations that we slow-poke humans. Evolution has been other observed and observed repeatedly over the years. It is also quite refutable! Like any scientific theory, it is a snapshot of our knowledge at a given time. As we learn more, the theory changes. The Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution is considerably different than Darwin's theories. This new knowledge didn't invalidate Darwin's work, but it proved many of the mechanisms that his theories predicted. Darwin had no idea of genetics, but genetics has proven to be one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

To answer your three questions Mr. Reinhold, "What are evolutionists so scared of?", "Why are they so close-minded?", and "Why can't they study creationism?" I put to you that biologists who study evolution are not afraid of Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. When such religious ideas attempt to be passed off as science, scientists became active in preventing a travesty in education! They are not very close-minded, unless you are referring to not willing to share the scientific classroom with unscientific ideas. At that point I want them to close ranks and prepare to repel boarders. If you want Creationism in science class, then why are you also not promoting Astrology in Astronomy class, Alchemy in Chemistry class, and Numerology in Mathematics class? Science dismiss all of these as pseudoscience, as well they should. Now if you think scientists are close-minded about valid scientific ideas, then you need a better science education yourself. Look at the changes in scientific theories over the past 100 years, or look even at the last 20. The rate of change has been remarkable! As we learn new things, the theories change and sometimes are replaced. But they are replaced by new scientific theories, not religious beliefs! As to your last question, the answer is that they can study Creationism, and many do. Many scientists are deeply religious people and have stated that the more they learn, the deeper their faith becomes. The only difference is they do it in a forum better suited for the study of Theology than today's public school science class. Theology doesn't belong in a science class just like biology doesn't belong in a theology class. My Biology teachers never whipped out the Bible to make a point and my parish priests never needed a biology text up there in the pulpit!

The Florida Science standards being voted on next month do not present the Theory of Evolution as a fact. They do present it as an important theory that underlays much of biological science. Evolution has been part of Florida science teachings for years, the word "Evolution" is finally being returned to it's rightful place in the new standards.

Nothing really new here, just trying to make the points and keep the conversation centered on what we teach our children in science class. That to me is the crux of the whole issue. Many people who are commenting against the new Florida science standards haven't actually read the standards. They are just reacting to the word "Evolution." Read them, see what they actually say, and then make your case. Don't try and use the inclusion of the word evolution as a reason to reject the standards. You [Florida] have taught evolution for years, you just avoided using the word.

Debate on Proposed Science Standards Continues

The Florida Baptist Witness published a pretty fair article "Debate on Proposed Science Standards Continues" about the current debate over the new science standards. I was proud of how they represented both sides of the debate, particularly about the part where one of the teachers who helped develop the new standards explained that Evolution is not taught as Dogma, and that the current and proposed standards encourage students to think critically.

I do disagree with statements implying that the fact scientific theories can change automatically means they are dogmatic in nature. The changing of a theory is not a non-trivial exercise. Since a theory is the best explanation of a given phenomena at a given time, they have to be subject to change in order to be useful. Did all study of Gravity stop when Newton put forth his theories? No, of course not. For the majority of people, Newtons theories and his mathematical laws still apply. The theory has been expanded by Einstein in order to fill in gaps in planetary motion Newton's theories couldn't explain. Has all work in Biology stopped due to Darwin? Certainly not, his theories form much of the basis of Evolution, but his work does not stand a lone. In fact many of his details have been expanded as we learn new things.

Science, by nature, is not dogmatic or we would never have advanced in the ways that we have! A science teacher who teaches any subject as if any new learning cannot happen is doing a severe disservice to their students. This is one of the arguments against teaching Intelligent Design. Once you decide a "Designer" did it, where do you go? By it's nature it is not a predictive area of study, no matter what the Discovery Institute claims it to be.

While one of the people interviewed in the article is encouraging folks to contact their school boards, that person has spoken out against the standards and is looking for more people to do so. I would like to add my voice to encourage the people of Florida to contact your school boards, and the State School Board and also show your support for teaching Science in Science class and adding the word 'Evolution' to your curriculum!

Florida heats up

In a recent article one of the Florida State School Board members was at least honest enough to make her position clear. Donna Callaway has already indicated she will vote against the standards. By the way the new standards being voted on Feb 19 include the word Evolution, something they had previously referred to as "Change over time."

What I would like to know is why she is voting this way? Are her personal religious beliefs interfering with the trust she was given when elected to the school board? Was her position on this subject clear when the people of Florida put her in this position of trust? A long time attendee of First Baptist Tallahassee, Callaway "acknowledged [Intelligent Design] as a theory which many people accept along with others. Students need to have any proof, scientific evidence that is there. But the face that there are other theories about certain parts, at least needs to be pointed out, footnoted."

This also shows her that she buys into the Discovery Institute (DI) marketing campaign for Intelligent Design. That is the only explanation that a trusted member of the school board refers to a pseudo-scientific concept as a theory. She is doing DI's work for them. Someone needs to educate her on both her responsibilities as a member of a a school board and also what is science! At least she did say that students would need to see proof, since there isn't any for Intelligent Design, it makes it easy to skip past without mention it in the classroom. I can see it now, a student filled with religious fervor asked their biology teacher about alternatives to evolution and the teacher replies honestly, "Since the school standards say I can only discuss theories with proof, I can say there are no alternative theories of evolution with any proof!"

In the same article Oscar Howard Jr., Superintendent of Taylor County FL school district,stated "We're in opposition to teaching evolution as a fact. Evolution continues to be a theory." In fact just Last month Taylor County School Board unanimously approved a resolution saying the district is opposed to teaching evolution as a fact. Howard says he's heard from hundreds of parents who promise to pull their children out of the school system and put them in private schools, if the state approves the changes regarding evolution. I think more education is needed here as well, evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is sciences explanation of how that fact works. Does his statement strike you as some form of blackmail? "If the school doesn't teach what I believe to be true, I'll take my kids and go elsewhere!" People have always had that option and I am glad they do. If they are so afraid to learn actual science that they feel the need to remove their kids from school, I say let them! Mr. Howard, just how far are you willing to water down a school curriculum to make everyone happy who might attend? You are either letting a vocal minority drive the curriculum or you are allowing your personal religious beliefs to interfere with your responsibilities!

The people of Florida need to look out for some of the other tactics used by Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents. Whether the vote on Feb 19 accepts or rejects the new standards, you will soon be hearing the "Teach the Controversy", and "Why don't we have free speech", and "Aren't alternative protected by academic freedom" mantras. If the school board rejects the new standards you can also anticipate a new level of marketing to push Intelligent Design into the science classroom. Please know you aren't alone. Other school systems, at the local and state level, have faced this challenge and many have successfully faced it down! Talk to your friends in South Carolina over the push to reject biology texts because they cover Evolution and not Creationism/Intelligent Design. More power to you!

Apparently Florida was the place to be

Yesterday the Florida State School Board was debating evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Apparently supporters of both sides were there and a lively debate took place. You can read more about it in Public debates evolution, Intelligent Design, Florida Schools . . . Shhhh . . . might use the word Evolution, Evolution under a Microscope, and Darwin Survives Another Debate.

As far as I know no conclusions were announced, but the last word I heard the state was actually going to start using the word Evolution. Currently state standards refer to "change over time" rather than use the hot button phrase "evolution". Although why that would make much of a difference is beyond me. They have been teaching it for years and now they are owning up to it and using the word. The real test will be 19 Feb when they vote on the new science standards. One report (Darwin Survives . . .) stated that supporters of Evolution outnumbers Intelligent Design supporters! Way to go Florida!

The article also recognized that the latest tactic, inserting doubt into the teaching of evolution was the fourth strategy attacking the teaching of evolution. "This is strategy No. 4," said Michael Ruse, director of Florida State University's program on the history and philosophy of science. The first three - banning the teaching of evolution, then promoting creationism, then touting intelligent design - have all hit legal roadblocks." I believe they also need to be wary of strategy number 5 "Teach the Controversy". I think that point was loosely mentioned when one letter from " . . . Pinellas County attorney David Gibbs III, who represented Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings, argued otherwise in a recent letter to the BOE. He suggested the board might violate the constitution's establishment clause if it did not include alternative theories." What Mr. Gibbs fails to realize is that science is perfectly open and welcoming to alternative theories, but Creationism/Intelligent Design is not a theory! Now matter how you dress it up, it's still just an idea based on the religious viewpoint.

In "Evolution under a Microscope, one of the evolution supporters, "The Rev. Joseph Frazer, a retired Catholic priest living in Penney Farms, said the criticism of evolution was taking place in the wrong venue. "This is not a debate between religion and science. It is totally within the boundaries of religion." He was also wearing a teal pin with the motto "Sound Science," Frazer proceeded to support public school students being taught evolution only."

Years ago I heard a joke that pretty well summed up the use of the word "Evolution." A farmer was traveling and wound up sitting next to a scientist on the plane. After a while the farmer asked, "Now you are a pretty well educated fellow. How come I can use a certain insecticide on my plants and it works real well one year and a couple of year later it has no effect?" "Well," the scientist replied, "what's happening is that when you kill off most of the insects, the ones that remain are immune from the poison. They multiply and their kids are also immune. So after a few insect generations, the insecticide has less of an impact because they are immune." "That certainly makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining it. Do you have a name for what's going on?" "Why yes, it's called Evolution." "Sir, I am a honest God-fearing man and we don't cotton to such talk!"

One of the things that really strikes me funny is that farmers and ranchers have been benefiting directly from evolution. Animal husbandry and the breeding of specific traits in domesticated animals are all explained through evolution. Many of the plants grown are raised with specific disease and insect resistance all through carefully design evolutionary programs. They live with and make their living on the result, and when any one of them holds up a bible and tells me they don't 'believe' in evolution I have to laugh. Right there in a field of blight resistant wheat, beetle resistant corn, certain types of beef animals, or chickens with over sized breasts is evolution in action. Thankfully it doesn't require 'belief' to actually work.

Happy New Year!

Since this blog is less than a month old I am surprised by how many posts I have made! It's been a busy month for me and my apparent new hobby -- Defeat the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in Science Class. I hope the new year is as interesting as the old. On the horizon are a few things which bear watching:

This month South Carolina will be voting to approve two biology text books. These books teach Evolution and apparently that has raised the ire of the Chairwoman-elect and a congressman -- both Creationists apparently. All the other texts have been approved but these two. They are voting on Jan 9th and I hope Kenneth Miller and other supporters of science will be there to stop South Carolina from becoming the next Dover. The school children of South Carolina will not be well served by a school board that is pushing such an agenda!

Texas is also on the watch list. Just last month they effectively fired the state director of the science curriculum just before starting a review of the science curriculum. Interesting that the new president of their school board is a card-carrying Creationist. It will be interesting seeing who they put in place to be the new science curriculum director? Please keep watching or things could start going very wrong in Texas. Texas is also been asked to approve a graduate level program by the Institute of Creation Research, which moved over from California. Sure, let's start granting graduate degrees of pseudo-science!

Florida is another state to keep an eye on, specifically Polk County. There were reports that Intelligent Design was going to be added to the curriculum, but I don't think it ever got that far. The majority of the school board has expressed 'concerns' over the teaching of evolution as fact. Code words for another Creationist/Fundamentalist agenda. More watching.

School boards aren't the only battlegrounds. We need to watch Massachusetts and the suit by a fired evolutionary biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic. He got canned by Woods Hole when he refused to do the majority of his job because it dealt with evolution! The state already turned down his claim of discrimination so he is resorting to a lawsuit. I hope Woods Hole stands firm and doesn't give into this type of blackmail. They shouldn't even settle or they will be opening the doors for all kinds of religious fruitcakes to use that for non-performance of their duties and companies will be afraid to take action. I can see it now, pharmacists who refuse certain medications because of their own religious beliefs, doctors who won't treat the opposite sex because of theirs. Pretty soon cashiers in supermarkets won't handle meat because of their beliefs . .oh wait, we have that now! Well I still hope Woods Hole does the right thing and denies this ID'iot a cent!

Plus let us not forget the Astronomer who was denied tenure because he didn't fulfill the requirements for gaining tenure . .and of course he blames his support of Intelligent Design as the reason. Well buddy, if your support of Intelligent Design caused you not to fulfill your requirements for achieving tenure, than I guess you have a point -- but since it was in your hands to begin with, you can cry about discrimination all you want! ISU should stay the course!

These are just a few of the things to look forward to in 2008. I can assume some of the things to not see will be any forward progress by ID'iots in the realm of science, like real scientific papers by Behe, Dembski, Wells and so on.

We'll probably see another series of popular press articles, lots of opinion pieces masquerading as science, and loads of knee jerk reactions from the Discovery Institute whenever anyone says something truthful about Intelligent Design. Thanks goodness for free speech! Oh, and yes, Discovery Institute, this is an example of free speech. Forcing Intelligent Design into science class is not free speech, nor is it academic freedom.

Give an inch . . .

Florida, in an effort to avoid being embroiled in the political argument of evolution and intelligent design require evolution as part of the science curriculum, but they don't call it evolution, they call it "Change over time". Check this out.

In a recent report the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., that focuses on education reform graded Florida science standards as "disappointing, due to a prevalence of errors in fact and presentation," "naive," "scanty," "nebulous" and "vague".

Florida state Board of Education appointed a 45-member task force to rewrite the standards to make them more detailed and more rigorous. One of their recommendations is to call the study of evolution . . . Evolution.

Christian fundamentalists, the Discovery Institute, and one school board member disagree with that. On the board is Donna Callaway, a former principal from Leon County. Callaway recently told the Florida Baptist Witness newspaper that she will vote down the new standards. As she explained, "I agree completely that evolution should be taught with all of the research and study that has occurred. However, I believe it should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life."

Florida has a problem with very poor science education standards and a minority is working to undermine the process unless their personal and religious points of view are given an opening into the curriculum. I hope the State School Board can summon the intestinal fortitude and deny them this legal pretext of validation. They need to stand firmer than when they decided to try and avoid the political controversy. If they had used the word Evolution in the first place, they wouldn't be having this argument now. Give in a little bit and you can see what happens!