Stephen C. Meyer has a new book coming out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Council on Education's position on Academic Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

And let us not forget Oklahoma

Oklahoma isn't trying stickers, they are trying the same tactic that so far has working in Louisiana, a mis-use of academic freedom. This proposed bill, Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, is a thinly veiled attack on various scientific subjects put under the guise of academic freedom.

Someone needs to tell Republican Senator Randy Brogdon that it is NOT academic freedom to encourage dialog on subjects clearly outside the realm of the subject area. Sure, the text of the bill claims not to open the doors for any religious alternatives . . . but look at Louisiana? Their bill claimed the same thing, and yet a provision that "materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science class" was deleted from the enforcement guidelines.

The door is wide open and the rules for making a complaint are confusing and complicated. Read the NCSE response to Louisiana. Lawmakers had the chance to back up the wording in the bill saying that is does "not promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,", but they shied away from actually making it clear.

I think there is simply a race for who will be the next Dover: Will it be Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, or Louisiana. Oh the suspense is killing me!

And here come Mississippi

Remember Cobb County GA, who tried to put stickers in all their biology books about how evolution was a theory and not a fact? How about Dover PA and the statement which pretty much said the same thing. Well Mississippi is trying it now.

House Bill 25, introduced by Rep. Gary Chism (R-District 37) on Jan. 6, is now before the Education and Judiciary A committees of our state legislature. If passed, the bill would require the state board of education to affix a disclaimer to every textbook that discusses evolution. The disclaimer describes evolution as "a controversial theory".

First off all, within the scientific community, which I have to assume includes schools in MS, there is no controversy. It's a created controversy for the express purpose of gaining support for things like this. Some poor school system in MS is going to try and comply and find themselves on the losing end of another Federal lawsuit. The people of MS would be better served by improving science education rather than trying to weaken it and open the door for religious-based alternatives. And I am not the only one saying it:

"Mississippi's children deserve a quality education, including science education based on the best available scientific data. Affixing misleading disclaimers to textbooks does our children a great disservice. In these dire economic times, we must prepare students to compete in a global economy. This includes teaching evolution as an essential part of sound science education." Eric Dahlen, Evolution shouldn't be controversial

"Are you trying to make Mississippi the state with the least well-educated and most helpless population in this country?" Julie Shedd, An open letter to Mississippi lawmakers

Ms. Shedd also goes on the address the specifics of the sticker's claims and closes with "People: Please follow the lead of other states in this matter and do not support this bill. Debate it if you must (preferably in church, which is where the anti-evolution debate belongs), but please, allow your children to learn." Excellent article!