When is a 'War' not a 'War'? Only When the DI Doesn't Want the Negative Imagery

Sarah Chaffee wrote a post "Now It’s a “War on Children” — Critics of Academic Freedom Opt for Scare Tactics" and once again was trying to whine about what others were saying about ID and the DI's 'academic freedom' bills.

Let's see, the DI's idea of academic freedom is targeting High School and earlier . . . what's so bad about calling it a 'War on Children'?  Isn't it?  Often this disagreement between science and religious apologetics is referred to as a 'culture war'.  Here are a few terms taken directly from the DI's own guiding strategy document (The Wedge Strategy): "wholesale attack", "cultural confrontation", and "direct confrontation".  The DI takes aim at school children and suddenly referring to this as a 'war' is a bad thing because the very idea of wars . . . well, here is Sarah's own words:

"Anyone with any common sense would object to the gruesome and indecent image — a war that targets children? Fine, let them disagree about the advisability of these laws. But this wording is a prime example of scare tactics, also known as the fallacy of appeal to fear."

So it's OK to target school children, but it's not OK to call it exactly what it is, a war, because of the gruesome and imagery often associated with the concept.  And yet . . . and you just had to know there would be a yet . . .

So exactly what is the DI doing when it tries to associate Charles Darwin with Adolf Hitler and claims that Darwin's theories are responsible for the Holocaust and pretty much all of today's societal ills?  You and I both understand the reasons, Hitler is Bad so if they can make people think there is a connection, it paints Darwin in a very negative light.  Same thing with the Holocaust, which little bennie stein tried to connect the two in that abortion 'Expelled' we've discussed before.  Following the premiere of that particular disgrace, even Jewish groups (Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, New Jersey Jewish News) disagreed with bennie.  The DI's own pseudo-historian, Michael Flannery and one of the regular mouthpieces, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, are trying to make careers out of bashing Darwin by re-writing history -- when they aren't re-writing biographies to make safely dead historical figures sound like they supported Intelligent Design.

It's OK for the DI to use such analogies and associations, but if someone uses anything potentially graphic against the DI, they are guilty of misrepresenting the DI, really?

Let's call it what it is, the Discovery Institute has declared war on science.  They did so by disregarding anything resembling scientific methodology, by marketing with campaigns designed to deceive, and pushing these so-called academic freedom bills -- which have nothing to do with actual academic freedom.  Plus their primary targets are not the scientists who study biology, but school children who learn it in elementary and high schools.  They enlist parents and teachers by marketing their ideas as if they were not pseudo-science and they hide their religious motivations behind a wink-and-a-nod.  They further support politicians who know a quick way to get votes isn't to agree with conservative religious groups, but to give lip service to those groups . . . that's called pandering, something else we have discussed before.  I'm not sure which is worse, politicians who pander conservative religious positions for votes or politicians who actually agree with conservative religious positions and use their power to inflict their beliefs on their constituents . . . but that's a story for another day.  Back to the DI.

The DI doesn't like calling it a war just like they don't like officially identifying their intelligent designer.  Once you do so, you add on a heap of baggage they prefer people not trouble themselves thinking about.  What happens to medical care when the only biological training doctors get is 'God did it, so shut up and suffer!'  You think I am kidding, but you really need to look back and look at what medical care was like throughout history.  Do you really want a Doctor of Theology (DOT) playing MD?

One of the common themes from the Discovery Institute is that everyone, except for them, have a large list of misconceptions about Intelligent Design (ID).  Sarah raises that idea as well by claiming that the academic freedom bills are all about 'critical thinking', and yet when two publications don't believe them, she accuses them of misrepresenting those bills.

The DI claims that anyone who disagrees with them are mid-defining it, mis-applying it, or being misleading on the DI's goals and objectives.  Of course the DI never seems to accept any responsibility for how fluid they are with their definitions, their attempt to claim it's applicability, or their own motivations has nothing to do with that.  Well it's not just ID, it's also a tactic they use for their so-called 'academic freedom' bills.

Let's discuss academic freedom for a bit:

"Academic freedom is the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment.

Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of University Professors, teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution." (Wikipedia: Academic Freedom)

Please note the line I underlined, 'avoid controversial matter unrelated to the subject'.  So if you read this and even check out the way academic freedom is handled at most US schools you learn a couple of things.  First off, Academic Freedom exists primarily at the University level.  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at other levels, but at high school, and lower levels, there is much more control over the lessons being taught.  Most states have a school board and set curricula.  Teachers at those levels do not have the same freedom as university professors, nor need the same institutional autonomy.   

The DI's 'academic freedom' bills are aimed at High Schools, where academic freedom is not, nor should be, much of an issue.  No, I take that back.  High School students are more than likely better able to handle controversial subjects . . . at least those that are related to the curriculum.  But High Schools are almost always constrained in resources, including time and money, so all States remain a large amount of control of curriculum subjects to insure a standard of education across the State. Colleges and Universities are less constrained and also are heavily involved in research and development in addition to teaching current course information, so academic freedom -- within the curriculum area, makes more sense at that level. 

The other consideration you should realize, is that academic freedom only covers within a subject area.  As soon as you voice issues outside of the subject area, it is no longer an issue of academic freedom.  How do you make that determination?  You look at the wider community, in this case Science, and see what parts of the subject area are considered controversial.  If you look for about 30 seconds, you will see that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not controversies within a scientific subject area, but contrived cultural controversies designed to push one specific religious view.  This is why Astrology is not taught in Astronomy nor Alchemy in Chemistry.  Like any other citizen, teachers have the right to 'free speech', but like every other citizen as well, free speech comes with an acceptance of the responsibilities that go along with it.  When teachers voice ideas outside of the subject area, they are not, nor should they be, protected by academic freedom.

That being said, is the representation of the DI-sponsored 'academic freedom' actually supporting academic freedom?  I have repeated over and over again 'No!'  Creationism, which includes Intelligent Design, is not science; therefore is 'unrelated to the subject' and doesn't belong in science class.  Regardless of whether or not we are talking High School or College, science is not some arbitrary designation that gets re-defined on a whim.  Science teachers do not get to decide what is science, just like English teachers do not get to decide what is English.  These 'academic freedom' bills are just a cover to allow teachers to be protected when they bring in material that is unrelated to the subject area, and religion -- regardless of how you personally might like to label it -- is not science.  Look at what else Sarah has to say:

"Additionally, both the Digital Journal article and an Ars Technica article that it references say academic freedom legislation opens the door to non-scientific information. . . " 

So this legislation would allow teachers to bring in material  . . . immune to punishment for using outside material in instruction, as long as the teacher believes the material is scientific."

You might want to read her whole post, as much as I hate to drive up the hit counters at the DI, but I don't want to repeat her whole post.  The key is this phrase "believes the material is scientific", which Sarah never addresses.  As you can probably guess, she harps on religion and how the bills are specifically written to not allow religion.  But she never addresses the simply fact that ID is a religion, she manages to imply that it is not, but in no way defends that position.

Let me be clear.  The bills would protect teachers if they bring in 'supplemental material' regardless of the source of that material as long as the teacher believes the material to be scientific.  Anyone smell something funny here?  How many years has the DI been marketing their ideas as if they were not pseudo-science?  Plus, instead of defending ID, Sarah references little casey luskin claiming that there is a real scientific controversy over evolution . . . and yet they never seem to get around showing any evidence why ID is a better explanation than an actual scientific theory, do they?. 

Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?

For quite a while the Discovery Institute (DI) has been claiming that they do not support teaching Intelligent Design in the public science classroom.  That's a lie of sorts.  Oh I know that a lie is a lie, but like so many things, there are shades of gray.  Officially, it's the truth, unofficially  . . . shall we see?  If you only pay attention to that little tiny piece of data,it seems fairly reasonable, but once you look at the context in which the DI operates, it takes on a new meaning.  Let's take a look at a few things and see if you agree with me.

Wedge Strategy Document

First of all, if you go back to the Wedge Strategy Document, you can see it pretty easily.  The document outlines a series of projects laid out in three phases:

• Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
• Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
• Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

The second phase has seven projects, project number four was 'Teacher Training Program'.  The stated purpose of Phase II was [the underlines are mine]:

"The primary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies."

So, as you can see, the academic arena is one of particular importance to the DI in furthering their goals.  If you need a reminder, here are their governing goals, again from the Wedge Strategy Document:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Couldn't have made it clearer myself!  So that is where you can start placing the DI's objectives within an appropriate context.  Their 'official' position of not advocating teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools is nothing but another tactic.

Kitsmiller vs Dover School Board 

To continue, remember what happened in Dover Pa?  It's been a decade, but that legal decision has been a thorn in the DI's side and one they truly wish had never happened.  If their true policy, not their 'official one' but if their true policy is not advocating ID in the classroom, why did they come to the assistance of the members of the Dover School Board who wanted exactly that?  Sure, they claim that the Dover Trial wasn't about them, but then . . .

1. Why did the DI feel it was necessary to submit an Amicus Curiae brief about Intelligent Design if they weren't part of it?
2. Why did the DI's own Wedge Strategy Document describe tactics similar to those used by the School Board and even by Michael Behe's [a DI Senior Fellow] in his testimony?  The strategy also says:

   "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)"

3. 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)
4. Why did the DI forward to Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books. (Trial Transcripts)
5. Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the Board in executive session. (Trial Transcripts)
6. Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted.  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other).  Plus the consult wasn't for scientific material, but legal advice. (Trial Transcripts)

Bottom line, if this is an example of not advocating teaching ID in the classroom, how do you explain all of their 'help' to a local school board?  The reality is you can't!  Their official position doesn't jib with their actions at all.

IDEA Student Clubs

So, moving on, in addition to the Wedge Strategy Document and Dover, how can we forget about the 'IDEA Student Clubs'?  Not sure if any of them still exist, but little casey luskin used to brag about them and his involvement before he left the DI.  Their website is still up and linked from the DI site itself.  It explains that [again, the underlining is mine]:

"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"

Here are the menu options for anyone interested in a ' student club':

They not only have a 'startup packet', but training conferences and other resources.  So once again we see words are not matched with actions.  Officially they claim one thing, but they are encouraging the establishment of 'clubs' on colleges and high schools.  The official line is wearing quite thin!

Texas

Let's move on to Texas where two members of the Discovery Institute was asked by the then-head of the Texas State School Board to 'help' them determine science curricula.  Yes, John G. West and Stephen C. Meyer were asked by Don McLeroy, who without a doubt is a hard-core Evangelical Creationist, and tried to impose their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bill on Texas.  Luckily Texas wised up to a certain degree and voted a lot of that 'strengths and weaknesses' crap out and they also dumped Don.  

So . . . if the DI is not advocating Intelligent Design, why were they 'advising' a Creationist on public school curricula and textbooks.  

 Ohio

Ohio had it's own version of Texas' Don McLeroy, her name is Deborah Owens Fink.  Like McLeroy she is a Creationist who jumped on the ID bandwagon in an effort to get her religion into the classroom.  This was in the early 2000's and 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!   So . . . let's not teach ID, but here is a lesson for . . . teaching ID!

For a while the DI was touting this as a significant victory;  however, also like Texas, Ohio wised up to the tricks and tactics and in 2006 deleted that lesson plan and also rejected a proposed legal challenge.  Luckily, the voters also wised up and Fink was sent packing. (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design in Politics)

The DI's own Website Resources

Least of which, if they are so not interested in teaching ID in schools, why do they have pages and pages of information for people who wish to do just that?

Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design!  Sure, and they have no interest in having ID taught in schools.  Look at just one of them.

Discovering Intelligent Design: This science curriculum (textbook, workbook, and DVD) presents the best evidence from physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and related fields that provide evidence that nature is the product of intelligent design rather than blind unguided processes.

They do specifically suggest that this material would be most appropriate for private schools and homeschooling.  But still an entire 'science' curriculum for ID!

Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members  -- They have a ton of material here . . . and all geared to parents and school board members.  Yes, School Board Members!  I know, if they were serious about not advocating ID, why are they again targeting school board members?  Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Here is also where they brag about the failed Santorum Amendment?  Do you remember that?  The DI's own Philip E. Johnson wrote an amendment for a Pennsylvania politician for an education bill that became  known as the 'No Child Left Behind Act'.  The purpose of the bill was the promote the teaching of Intelligent Design.  The amendment failed, but some of the language was left in as part of the language, but it was in the non-binding part of the bill

"The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill (which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act), proposed by Republican Rick Santorum (then the United States Senator for Pennsylvania), which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in US public schools. " (Wikipedia: Santorum Amendment)

OK, I think this post is long enough.  There are many other examples.  The bottom line should be pretty simple for anyone to see.  Regardless of what they say 'officially', the Discovery Institute is interested in, and pursuing tactics to, replace actual science with their version of Creationism.  Their 'official' party-line is nothing but a tactic because after all of their defeats in court and in places like Texas and Ohio, they know an official push for ID would fail.  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!

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.

IS it really fair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

When introducing his bill, Thompson said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right on schedule -- Ohio

Nine years ago a small cabal in the Ohio State Board of Education tried to insert Creationism/ID into the school curriculum standards. Without going into all the details -- it failed and at least two cabal members were replaced by more reasonable people. Things quieted down -- but, and you knew there had to be a 'but', they say those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

We've seen it in Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and New Mexico -- to name a few states. Creationists are nothing if not predictable. A failure means a re-grouping, a few new faces, and another attempt.

Enter Kelly Kohls and Scott Anderson newly elected members of the School Board in financial-strapped Springboro OH. Apparently they would like bringing Creationism back into the classroom. Kohls recently said:

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” . . . “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” . . . “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

And her partner in trying to repeat history:

Said he is not necessarily trumpeting the teaching of creationism, but “if it came up, I would support it. I’m a Christian. I believe God created us. I’d like to see God back in school.”

Is this what Springboro and Ohio have to look forward to? I certainly hope not. I wish Kohls and Anderson would work on the real problems facing the district and not try and drag the district into a Dover-style lawsuit. Can they really afford such activity?

But then this seems to be a pattern here. Kohls is also the local leader of the Tea-Party crowd. Hmmm, so get elected claiming to want to fix the money issues facing various enterprises and then once elected use your position to push your personal religious point of view onto social issues? Sounds pretty familiar (Texas Gov Perry?)

In another article (Springboro Students Could Learn Creationism In School) Kohls does say she will be presenting her idea at school board meetings and looking for community input. OK Springboro, here is your chance to tell Mrs. Kohls that this fight has been waged in Ohio not long ago. It's not worth the time, energy, or money to try and wage it again.

It's also been waged in many other states since and with one exception, Louisiana, it keeps hitting dead ends. Even in Louisiana no one has tested the now 3-year old law and tried to actually teach Creationism/ID. So far the only effort seems to have been trying to control what materials get used in the classroom (Louisiana Politics over Science) and that hasn't gone well for anti-science advocates.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Kohls and Anderson, but I'm hoping Springboro gets a little proactive and heads this off before they follow Dover PA's example. My guess is one or the other will start discussing Intelligent Design soon and maybe even call the DI for their guidance and support -- Just like Dover PA, Tejon CA, Livingston LA, and the Texas State Board of Ed did and you see just how supportive and helpful the DI really is -- especially when it looks like defeat in detail and they steal away in the night.

Added note: The news story from the Dayton Daily News was picked up by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog "Why we shouldn't take the Tea Party seriously". He also noticed that Mrs. Kohls and her husband recently filed for bankruptcy. Interesting little tidbit. Here is a Tea Party member who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, whose own finances are having issues, and yet her first splash in the news are to bring Creationism back into the classroom.

Follow-up on Texas

Over on Thoughts from Kansas, Josh Rosenau got to testify and witness the proceedings of what happened over in Texas. His post, A grey lining in Texas is well worth the read. Here are a few things I found particularly interesting.

• That the arguments against one of the publishers who submitted material came from only one reviewer, young earth creationist David Shormann. Shormann might have had a few complaints, but then he didn't vote them, he joined the unanimous decision.
• That publisher, Holt McDougal, stood their ground!
  
• The issue of using Haeckel's drawings came up (again). Talk about a knee-jerk reaction. Creationists refuse to listen on the subject. As soon as they suspect Haeckel, they start screaming. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2008/08/terrific-article-in-new-york-times-i.html)
  
• Creationists were outnumbered in testimony at least 10:1 Didn't something similar happen during South Carolina's textbook debacle? Going to have to check that out.
• Another complete failure to list supposed flaws in evolution. How many times have Creationists had this opportunity? Tens of chances, hundreds, thousands? So far they keep forgetting to bring this list they keep telling everyone about.

I'm sure Josh and others will be posting more about the hearings. Hope you are enjoying this as much as I am. Just remember the fight isn't over. Texas still has a chairman and members that still seem to think it is their responsibility to bring God back into the classroom by fighting science education, by re-writing the history curriculum, by trying to water down anything that doesn't support their point of view -- regardless of how few people share their narrow view.

So Cheers for Texas for now and a hearty 'keep your guard up' for the future. Creationists are nothing but flexible in their tactics. To put it another way, they tend to evolve when defeated.

Texas regains some Sanity!

OK, my very first blog post was about Texas (is Texas stepping backwards?) and since then I have posted quite often about Texas. I posted about Don McLeroy and his efforts to bring Creationism into the school curriculum. I posted about the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and their efforts to award Masters of Science degrees without actually teaching science. I even blogged about some Texas lawmakers who wanted to introduce a variety of legislation that would not only have watered down science education and gave groups like ICR the ability to churn out diplomas without any oversight whatsoever. Things have been tough for Texas!

But there have been some glimmers of hope. I mean Don McLeroy not only does not get confirmed as the Board Chairman, but then gets voted off the Board. Even though the Discovery Institute stakced the deck of the 6 science 'experts' invited in to review Texas science standards were two of their own fellows they failed to get their 'strengths and weaknesses' included in the standards. Then, my personal favorite was not only turning down the ICR, but denying their appeal! I mean things haven't been all doom and gloom.

Right this second I am both proud of Texas and a little confused at the more conservative members of the State School Board. The reason I am proud of Texas is this:

The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC. (Victory for evolution in Texas)

If you hadn't been following it, and I know I have been remiss in my blogging, but the latest battle was over Supplemental Materials. The State didn't have the $$ for new textbooks so they were looking to approve supplemental materials to augment the existing textbooks. The battle over this material has been looming over Texas for a while now.

Did we have reason to be concerned? Well, Barbara Cargill, the new chairman of the school board, told the Eagle Forum that it would be difficult to control the board because"Right now there are six true conservative Christians on the board, so we have to fight for two votes." She is cut from the same cloth as McLeroy and her immediate predecessor, Gail Lowe. I guess Gov Perry hasn't learned his lesson yet. We'll see if she gets confirmed -- at least I don't think she has been confirmed yet. (State education board chair already in hot seat). The other reason to be concerned is that because of the sheer size of Texas, any changes in curriculum, including textbooks and supplemental material would have an impact felt far beyond Texas' borders.

OK, so why am I confused. Well there was some objection to some of the materials, specifically from a publisher who refused to cow-tow to their attempts to water down science. There was also a publisher who was specifically pushing Intelligent Design. Yet the votes were unanimous . . . Unanimous. That confuses me. I would have expected the more conservative board members to stick by their principles, but they appear to have left them behind.

I'm not sure that's good or bad -- really! It might be good because in spite of public statements to the contrary, the Board did vote for real science. But the fact they seemed to say one thing and then vote another makes me uncomfortable. Well . . . only time will tell if their behavior is positive or negative. In the meantime they have had a positive affect on the students of the Great State of Texas!

Has Intelligent Design finally Evolved?

So do we have a candidate for the next little bit of fluff to replace the Intelligent Design in the vernacular? I've mentioned how 'Creationism' magically morphed into 'Creation Science' in response to getting whacked in court. After Creation Science took its tumble, 'Intelligent Design' took a turn in the woodshed and proceeded to perform just as well -- or just as poorly -- depending on your point of view. So one of the questions I am curious about is what's next? Hasn't Intelligent Design pretty well run its course?

Well -- we have a new term being bandied about by a Florida State Senator who is pushing Florida's first anti-science bill of 2011. In "More conservative Legislature considers evolution bill" Sen. Wise doesn't call out Creationism or Intelligent Design, the quote reads that we have to teach both 'evolution and nonevolution'. Nonevolution? Talk about an interesting term. So just what is the 'Theory of Nonevolution'? Who is working on this 'theory'? How does one falsify 'Nonevolution'? How does one test for it? Does the Discovery Institute know about this one? Most important is how in the world do you teach it? Seriously, how will it be presented in class, as some sort of 'nonevent' or is it just another bit of 'nonsense'.

Personally I vote for 'nonsense'. I think the Senator was just trying to look for a word that might not raise the hair on the back of the necks of the many people in Florida who accept and understand science. I think he blew it. But that's just me talking.

So the less-than-serious question is exactly what is 'Nonevolution'? All kidding aside, we know it's not a scientific theory. We also know there is no scientific theory about life that doesn't currently fall under the heading of 'Evolution'. So by extrapolation we are left with non-scientific ideas, like Creationism and Intelligent Design. Funny how it works that way. No matter what you care to call it, it always comes back to non-science, religiously-based, alternative ideas. Please remember that Sen. Wise failed in 2009 when he wrote a bill calling for a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."

I do not believe Florida needs to deal with this law and they should let it die on the vine. I mean the current standards allow any scientific theory countering evolution to be presented. the key here being the word SCIENTIFIC. Since the current laws already allow it, this bill is a waste of time and resources. Sen. Wise can point to his sponsorship of this bill and garner his pandering points with conservative Christians in his constituency as he asks them to send money to his next campaign. My question to his constituency is simple, is Sen. Wise really representing you?

In the meantime we'll keep looking for the 'next big thing' to follow the evolution of Creationism to Creation Science and its evolution into Intelligent Design. . .. I don't think 'Nonevolution' is the right handle. But just in case should we start warning textbook publishers to be on the lookout for 'cdesnonevolutionentists'?

Is Common Sense Breaking out?

After all the hoopla over 'academic freedom' laws, conspiracy theories, and the Discovery Institute being the Discovery Institute (which is not a good thing) , this little item might get missed in the background. I, for one find it promising. "Libertyville High School science teacher cited creationism, officials confirm"

So here is the set-up, the older sibling of a student apparently reported that a teacher was teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design and weakening the teaching of Evolution. This was reported to school administrators. They investigated, found it to be true and took actions to stop it. Nice, simple, straight forward and exactly how things should happen. No hysterics, no talk of lawsuits, no weak-in-knees administrators trying to avoid controversy, and no public outcries from external parties.

Like I said, I find this promising. Everything that should have happened appears to have happened. Now, in my opinion, the ball is in the teacher-in-question's court. How will he handle it? If he straightens up and does the job the school system hired him for, then everything should calm down. If he tries to pull a Freshwater, then he deserves to be disciplined, possibly even fired. he has to have the ability to set his personal religious beliefs aside to be an effective science teacher -- primarily because those beliefs are not science.

Now that's the optimistic Ted. The pessimistic Ted fully expects the Discovery Institute to stick it's nose in. I can already hear some of their whines:

• Oh the complainer is an activist
• Oh the school administrators shouldn't fault him for teaching ID
• Why not teach the controversy
• What about free speech
• What about academic freedom

But the bottom line is NONE of that matters at this point.

• It doesn't matter who made the complaint, the school administrators investigated and took action.
• ID is not science, so it shouldn't be taught as if it were
• There is no scientific controversy, only a contrived political one
• This isn't a free speech issue, saying ID is science is a lie, free speech doesn't protect lies, does it? Even if it did, does a teacher really have free speech in the classroom? Nope!
• And you already know my feelings on academic freedom, a topic that is not part of the discipline being taught is not protected by academic freedom.

I wouldn't be surprised if the teacher has already been contacted by some lawyers looking for attention. Do you still call lawyers like that 'ambulance chasers'? I hope he doesn't succumb to their blandishments. I mean look what the Thomas More Center did for the defendants in Dover PA, or R. Kelly Hamilton for John Freshwater. Who knows, he might be out shopping for a lawyer himself. If so, I think Libertyville is looking at a long and disheartening legal wrangling.

I truly hope the teacher does was Freshwater and the former school board members of Dover PA couldn't find the intestinal fortitude to do, and that was accept the responsibility for their actions, recognize how damaging their actions were, and repair the damage. That's how an adult is suppose to act and think about what a lesson his students can learn from it. I guess that optimist peeked out again. Let's all keep an eye on it as well.

Political Pandering in Illinois

I have mentioned a few times the concept of 'pandering politicians', more specifically I think I have referred to a number of politicians, by name, as pandering to the conservative right in order to get votes. Of course none of the politicians we know would do such a thing? Sure!

Here are four folks running for a school board just north of Chicago. Each was asked about supporting Creationism and all 4 made statements supporting it. Was this pandering? You tell me -- after reading "All four Dist. 95 candidates back teaching creationism in science classes"

"All four candidates for the Lake Zurich Unit District 95 school board believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. One, Chris Wallace, went so far as to say creationism is fact and evolution is just a theory."

So are they pandering or is this how they really feel? Another question you might consider is are they representing their constituency with these comments? Well to help you answer these, and maybe other questions, you need to see what happens when the local paper runs the interviews and includes quotes from these 4 office seekers? My guess is they received a certain volume of feedback and started back-peddling furiously, well three of the four start back-peddling. The fourth seems to think he may not have understood the question. Take a look at "D95 candidates back off creationism comments"

What I personally would like to see in a politician is one who is in touch with their constituents needs and desires and when asked about a subject would be able to place their personal religious beliefs off to the side to more accurately represent their constituency. I don't think this happened here. I think what happened is either they made an assumption about their constituency OR they let their own personal views color their answers. Back-peddling, while is fun to see, is fairly disheartening in a political candidate.

I mean, honestly, this is a topic that has been making headlines across the country for the past decade. Why weren't these candidates better prepared? I would have assumed they might have noticed the impact of such decisions on school boards in Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas for example. If you were running for a political office, wouldn't you have been familiar about the types of decisions that tended to cost one the office? Especially in like of how such an action, the one they originally supported, is against the US Constitution?

Along the same lines, I have to question their minimum knowledge of an important curriculum area. One of them calls Creationism a fact and Evolution only a theory. Another referred to Creationism as 'theory of creationism'. Now you don't expect school board members to be up on the latest and greatest areas of all scientific disciplines, but this stuff is elementary school science stuff. I was very disappointed in all of them.

Now, three of these pandering politicos are seeking re-election, the 4th is a newbie. But this does require another question to be considered, and one I think their constituency might have started asking them. How will this impact their ability to perform as a member of the school board if this becomes as issue, such as in Mt. Vernon Ohio' s John Freshwater, or Pamela Hensley of the North Johnston Middle School in North Carolina? Are any of these four someone that can be relied on to not only stay within the letter and intent of the law, but properly represent the interests of their constituents and their constituency's children education? That is a question for the voters Lake Zurich, and I wish them the best of luck!

About me

One of the commenters over on Professor Campbell's blog made note of the fact that I am not a biologist and would probably not get any negative feedback on a biology blog because I am anti-ID. I responded with a comment of my own and I decided to post it here as well. So if any of you are interested in why I blog here, at other sites, like the Professor's BioBlog, and the Evolution debate on Topix, here is my reasoning:

Lee,
I have never pretended to be working in any biology related field -- my bio on my own blog makes that clear. My education, as you rightly said, is in Information Technology. My education in biology is that of a pretty typical high school, college, and graduate school student. That being said I comment for several reasons.

First of all I am a target of the groups that push pseudo-science like Creationism/Intelligent Design. Not me personally, but I am the exact type of person at which the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis (to name a few) take aim. They aren't trying to convince scientists, if they were, they might actually do scientific work. No, they are after those of us who are not biologists and who are not scientists. We are the people who elect school boards, attend parent-teacher meetings, and rant and rave at our politicians. When my children's teacher is wrong, I have no issue letting them know that! If those groups can sell me on their ideas, I would be doing their job for them at my local and state school board and voting for various politicos! That's why they spend orders of magnitudes more money marketing and politicking than supporting actual science.

Secondly, I am not against Intelligent Design. When I first heard the idea I was intrigued, if you read back in my blog you might realize that. What I am not in favor of is teaching Intelligent Design as if it were science, because right now it is not. No one is doing the scientific leg-work. No one seems to be able to move past the appearance of design. Yet they make unsupported claims as they publish in popular and religious press -- including the Stephen Meyer diatribe (published in Harper One, the religious imprint of Harper-Collins) and never seem to offer anything actually peer-reviewed. They opened their own lab, which hasn't done it. They have started their own journal, and still haven't done anything with it. They even opened their own publishing house so they can get more of their material into bookstores without any requirement of actually supporting their ideas. Professor Campbell already mentioned the Sternberg controversy. I know ID proponents claim all sorts of conspiracies against them, but the one arena where their ideas would gain traction with biologists, and other scientists, is the one arena they seen to avoid like the plague -- the scientific lab. Until they do the work, I am against them being included in the science classroom. As I am against Astrology for Astronomy and Alchemy for Chemistry. The world isn't flat either.

Finally I am also against just about every tactic used by groups such as the Discovery Institute. You can read back in my blogs and see some of them. They lie, mis-direct, make unsupported claims, build straw-men arguments and then tear them down -- never advancing their own pet ideas past the wishful thinking stage. I mean look at what Casey Luskin tried to do with a teacher who simply said 'if a student answers a biology question with intelligent design will get down graded' (paraphrase). Why would anyone have an issue with that? But Casey is trying to use this down grade of an ID answer to support a law that Casey previously said would not bring Intelligent Design into the classroom. And that is not even close to one of the worst tactics in their quiver.

So while I am not, nor have I ever pretended to be, a biologist. That has no bearing on what I have commented on. I fully expect Professor Campbell and others to correct any errors I do make. She's a teacher, I think it comes with the job. The reason is not because I am pro-science, but because I am entitled to my opinion and I haven't tried to pass off bad information as if it were correct. I will leave you with the words of Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU to place my participation in a better perspective:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

Ted

I hope it makes as much sense to you as it did when I wrote it. I'll probably re-read it tomorrow and want to make massive changes. But I think the gist is there. I know it's wordy, but if you have been reading my blog, you already know about that character flaw.

Follow-up. I did re-read this and made a couple of grammar and spelling changes. I was tempted to re-do it and tighten it up, but since the original was posted on the Prof's blog, I left it intact. Unlike most ID/Creationism sites, the Prof allows for commenting. She does moderate, but she doesn't use that moderation to eliminate anyone who disagrees with her. I've tried to post before on the Discovery Institute, and other anti-science sites, those rare times they allow comments, but they never seem to let mine though their filters (Censorship is such an ugly word and Are computers evolving or is the Discovery Institute getting bored?).

Thank you Professor Campbell!

Little casey luskin is at it again, turning and twisting facts until they no longer resemble reality. in "Want a Good Grade in Allison Campbell's College Biology Course? Don't Endorse Intelligent Design" is whining against a Biology Professor who doesn't teach Intelligent Design. Luskin is claiming that she is:

" . . . boasting that if a student were to use standard ID arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, that student would be "marked down".

Let's look at her actual comment (about 1/3 of the way down in the comments from the original article):

"And on how my students are marked - I expect them to understand how science works. If they can't demonstrate that then of course they are likely to do less well. If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance an ID view then they should expect to be marked down; that particular creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited. ID is not science (no matter its protestations to the contrary) & I don't expect to see explanations from that quarter in science class - unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science. Whiich is something that happens in a class on evolutionary biology - students look at different models that attempt to explain life's diversity & are asked to consider the explanatory & predictive power of those models. Because at heart the 'explanations' offered by ID come down to 'goddidit' then in intellectual terms they're fairly bankrupt - they offer no intellectually satisfying explanations, nor do they open up new avenues for further explanation."

Gee, a professor who expects her students to understand the subject being taught in class. What a novel concept. Little casey also says that

"Campbell of course doesn't give any hint as to why this supposed "creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited"

and yet he ignores the next line in her comment:

"ID is not science (no matter its protestations to the contrary) & I don't expect to see explanations from that quarter in science class - unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science."

I think this makes it pretty solid hint (of the 2 x 4 variety) as to why "creationist trophe has been well & truly discredited", it's not science. That's pretty discredited to me. Oh I know little casey would love for Professor Campbell to start listing all the specific issues with bacterial flagellum, the current poster child for Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design, but all of that is immaterial. It's not science! No one has presented evidence supporting bacterial flagellum as being an example of Interlligent Design. Behe's conjecture doesn't count as evidence.

So let's break this down a little bit. Casey objects to a teacher from grading a question down if answered using information that is not applicable to the subject matter. What's the problem? If you answered

1+1=verb

I am sure you won't be very surprised to get marked down. Why would casey be surprised, and more importantly, why would casey object? Didn't little casey earn a biology degree before he went to law school? I wonder how many times he answered a question with Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, or Specified Complexity.

However, here is the fun part.

Little casey said that one of the lies being told about the 'Academic Freedom laws (Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?) was:

"Lie #4: These Laws Bring Intelligent Design Into the Classroom. As claimed by a Santa Fe New Mexican article, the teaching of Intelligent Design — which opponents continue to insist is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” — will be sneaked in under these “freedom” bills.
Response: Nuh-uh. Re-read that quote from the Louisiana act in my response to Lie #1. Then consider this: “The department, school district governing authorities and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from forming students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.”

No I.D. in the curriculum = No sneaky I.D. indoctrination. But, if pro-I.D./anti-Darwin evidence comes up in class, teachers are allowed to facilitate discussion without fear of professional retaliation."

Yet in this post he says:

"Why do we need academic freedom legislation like Tennessee's HB 368? In case biology lecturer Allison Campbell decides to relocate to the United States. "

So, according to casey, the reason we need these 'academic freedom laws' is so teachers like Professor Campbell cannot grade down a student who answers a biology question with an Intelligent Design answer. Yet the laws do not bring Intelligent Design into the classroom? Huh?

Now briefly lets address "But, if pro-I.D./anti-Darwin evidence comes up in class, teachers are allowed to facilitate discussion" that little casey mentioned as part of his "Nuh Uh" response to supposed Lie #4. (By the way, casey the lawyer said 'Nuh Uh", anyone else find that funny?) OK, but back to his response. Under current academic freedom laws, wouldn't actual pro-ID or anti-evolution evidence be perfectly admissible in class? Yes, it certainly does. However, since no one at the Discovery Institute, or any of the other Creationist 'think tanks', seems willing or able to present any pro-ID or anti-evolution evidence, why do we need new laws to protect them? Just a thought.

I think casey is smoking something. In one post he claims one thing and then in a later post he make an argument that disagrees with his other post. Is there such a disease as 'Poster Alzheimer's'?

He also forgets another part of Professor Campbell actual post:

"unless we're discussing the nature & philosophy of science"

So in perfect accordance with the real academic freedom laws currently on the books, if the test was asking questions about the nature and philosophy of science, the inclusion of Intelligent Design might be a perfectly acceptable answer.

Let's always remember that if these pseudo-academic freedom laws being pushed by casey and his buddies at the Discovery Institute are enacted, Intelligent Design becomes acceptable as science -- at least in the legal sense. And teachers who present it as such are immune from being held accountable for their actions. There's an interesting lesson for our students! So all casey's whining to the contrary, he reveals himself quite clearly -- at least I think his final comment really opened the kimono:

"So if you're a student at the University of Waikato taking biology from Allison Campbell, beware: don't talk about intelligent design, and you probably also shouldn't admit if you believe in God. Unless, of course, you don't mind being "marked down." "(italics added)

Where did Professor Campbell say anything about belief in God? She didn't! But here is casey equating Intelligent Design with Belief in God. But . . .but . . .but hasn't casey frequently stated that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with God . . . it's science . . . isn't it? Apparently not according to casey luskin.

Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?

Over on 'A View from the Right' is a little article about the crop of 'Academic Freedom laws that have been cropping up. "Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?" Now I fully expect a website named 'A View from the Right' to support these laws. That's not my issue. My issue is I
do not think readers of this site really understand what these laws are all about.

The question asked "Are academic freedom laws anti-science?" can only be answered if you understand the intent of these laws. Before you can answer this question, the first thing you need to understand that what the article is referring to are not laws protecting academic freedom. The laws being referred to in this article are laws sponsored by the Discovery Institute for the purpose of . . . well we'll get back to that purpose in a minute.

What you might not know is that every state, and many countries, already have academic freedom laws on the books and these laws are implemented in the rules governing education. These laws are designed to protect education. They allow teachers to bring in controversial subject matter and are be protected from reprisals from anyone trying to subvert the teaching of a particular discipline. However what this article fails to mention is that academic freedom is not carte blanc to bring anything a teacher might desire. There are very specific limits.

One of the limits is that the subject being introduced must be part of the curriculum area. For example teaching Politics in an English classroom would not be protected by an existing Academic Freedom law. It sounds like a silly example, but here is another one. How about teaching Astrology in Astronomy class? Phrenology in Psychology? Numerology in Math? Not so far fetched now, is it. Current academic freedom laws do not support this because, while there are adherents who think they should be taught, the disciplines in question have rejected such topics as pseudo-science. So while a teacher might mention Astrology in it's historical sense, but to teach it as if it was the equal of Astronomy should result in disciplinary action and would not be protected under any current academic freedom laws. Think about that, it would not be protected under the current academic freedom laws!

So let's talk about this article for a few. The author isn't identified, but it references two other articles by someone mentioned frequently on this blog, little casey luskin. He's a lawyer for the Discovery Institute who thinks he's a biologist.

So let's be clear. What you have is an article supporting these 'academic freedom' laws, laws that are sponsored by the Discovery Institute -- and the meat of this article are a couple of other articles written by another employee of the Discovery Institute. Interesting picture starts emerging. Of course there is no conflict of interest here, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to get off my hands.

So according to casey, not exactly an unbiased source, there are several lies being told about these laws. (my comments are in italics after each):

Lie #1: These Laws Have Led to Litigation. This in and of itself is a lie. I have not heard of a single litigation case based on these so-called academic freedom laws. I also haven't heard of anyone else claiming that these laws have led to litigation

What I have heard is concerns that this type of legislation may lead to a Dover-style lawsuit. You'll notice that casey doesn't address this possibility. I believe the ONLY reason they have not yet led to litigation is because there is only one of these laws currently on the books -- the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). And no one in the State of Louisiana has actually tried to implement anything in accordance with this law. So while the one single law that managed to get passed hasn't been tested -- which means of course there hasn't been any litigation (yet!). Little casey makes it sound like these laws are enacted all over the place. I think he's trying to mislead people who are afraid of potential litigation -- very correctly afraid of potential litigation.


Lie #2: These Laws Force Teachers to Change the Curriculum. Once again, since no one has tried to put these laws into practice, of course it hasn't caused a change to curriculum.

However, and you knew there had to be a however, the Louisiana Family Forum for the Family recently tried to stop the approval of a number of Biology text books because the texts in question were evolution-friendly. If those texts were disapproved and ones more 'theistic-ally appealing' were put in place, wouldn't that cause a change in the curriculum? Guess who is another sponsor of the Louisiana Law? You guessed if, the Louisiana Family Forum! How about Evangelical parents pushing for curriculum changes who use this law to justify their actions? Oh no, teachers would never change curriculum to appease parents? How about the recent study that 60% of biology teachers cop-out of teaching evolution properly. The consensus is not that they do not support it, but that pressure from outside groups, including parents, makes it a job risk. They are risk-averse, not anti-evolution.

To address Lie #3 (These Laws Open the Door for Creationism in the Science Class), let's look at one of the sections of the LSEA which even specifically states that you can't use the law to introduce religious materials:

"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

However, and this is a huge however, when the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education got around to publishing the rules about implementing this law, they sorta forgot the part about the 'shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine' part. Is this of anything important?

Lie #3 "These Laws Open the Door for Creationism in the Science Class" is in fact a lie. Without the rules about implementing this part of the law, it most certainly does open the door. Oh, you disagree? Well guess which law was referenced by the Livingston Parish School Board while they were debating whether or not to teach Creationism in science class? Yes, the LSEA!

I know Livingston hasn't taken any action yet, but it's not because this law
prevents them from doing so. They decided to wait until next year because it was
too late in the current school year to do anything. They also decided to test
the waters a bit and see if it will open their school up to litigation just like
the Dover PA school board did to that school district. The law may not have
generated litigation, but at least one school district is looking at the risk.

Lie #4: These Laws Bring Intelligent Design Into the Classroom. Let us not forget that a Federal Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Intelligent Design is Creationism. With that in mind, casey's lie number 3 and lie #4 are identical. But let's also add into the mix that REAL academic freedom allows you to bring in any subject material that is part of the discipline under discussion. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore it doesn't belong in the science classroom. But enacting this law would allow it to gain a degree of legitimacy that it has not been able to achieve through science.

Lie #5: These Laws Single Out Evolution. OK, he's sorta right on this one. The original attempts at laws like these, that we saw in Ohio and Kansas, did single out one scientific theory, that was Evolution, the evolved versions list several topics as examples.

One of the criticisms of the Discovery Institute supported action in Ohio, and during the Dover Trial was that by singling out the Theory of Evolution, you had trouble making the case that your efforts are for improving science education as a whole. So what's a Creationist to do? Evolve your plan to try and negate previously used arguments for shooting holes in your desires.

If casey was being honest he would admit that evolution is only the start. Already we have seen efforts to re-write social studies in Texas. The Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute states quite clearly that Evolution is only the start. So while the laws might not currently target evolution, the behavior of the laws promoters certainly do. I guess casey seems to forget that actions speak louder than words.

Lie #6: These Laws Lead to Stupidity, Dishonesty, and the Adulteration of Science Education. Are these laws dishonest? Simply put, yes. Like I said at the beginning, many states already have laws protecting academic freedom. We have seen that even the idea of these laws causes casey luskin himself to be dishonest. The school district of Livingston Parish is deliberately exploring the possibility of an end run around the words of the law to push their own religious agenda because the enforcement rules allow it. Testimony from the Louisiana Family Forum has proven the stupidity and dishonesty of the law.

The end result will be the destruction of science education. If you don't believe me, simply list all of the scientific advances accomplished through the application of Creationism or Intelligent Design? If you are being honest with yourself you would come to the same number I did: 0. Teaching these subjects would result in a negative impact on science education. For example note the comments made by teachers in Mt Vernon Ohio who were discussing the impact of John Freshwater's dilution of the science curriculum by teacher his religion as valid and evolution as invalid science. The teachers found themselves having to re-teach basic materials that Freshwater was supposed to have covered. And little casey doesn't seem to think it matters.

Lie #7: These Laws Just Aren’t Needed. It's not that they are not needed, it's that they should not be implemented at all. As I've shown these laws have nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with creating an environment where teachers can either teach pseudo-science by choice or by coercion. The title of the laws are dishonest, the intent is a barely hidden agenda of folks like Luskin and the LFF, and the result is poorly educated students.

One more 'if Luskin was honest' he would admit that everything he wrote here is either a deliberate lie or just legal word wrangling. But the odds of that happening are pretty unlikely. I think a tornado in a junkyard would build a 747 first. So to answer the original question, are these so-called 'academic freedom' laws anti-science? It is my opinion that the current crop of 'academic freedom' bills are anti-science, anti-education, and designed to open a wedge to bring in religious topics as if they were scientific theories. The fun part is I wish someone in Louisiana would also try and use the law to bring Astrology into the classroom. I believe the law on the books could be used to support it and protect the job of the teacher who tried it. I would just LOVE to hear the reaction of the Louisiana Family Forum to that!

How to help Science Education!

This is a follow-up to "Klinghoffer lies by Omission, part II". There I stated what I really thought the problem wasn't so much that teachers were hesitant, but that teachers need the support of the groups of people they should expect support, the school boards and school administrators.

Steven Newton, the programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a great post offering other suggestions: "How Can We Get Teachers to Be Less Cautious and More Confident Teaching Evolution?" Here are his suggestions:

• Attacks on evolution in the media need to be countered with real science.
• Pro-science parents need to make it clear to teachers and school administrators that they expect evolution to be taught.
• Finally, in-service teachers need the tools to teach evolution effectively.

I agree with everything he says; however, I think he is still keeping the teachers on the front-line with little to no top-cover. I happen to be a firm believer in top-cover. Some of you might not be aware of the term. In the Air Force, top-cover simply means 'support from above'. It can be anything from air superiority on the battlefield to support from your boss in the execution of your job. In this situation, I think we may need them both.

Of course you can be sure I am certainly talking about support from their bosses. Teachers who are doing their job deserve all the support they can possible get. When an Evangelical Parent gets in the face of a school board member or school administrator, the last thing that should happen is the teacher becomes a sacrificial lamb. The first reaction should be the defense of science, science education, and, most certainly, their teacher.

But I am also talking about air superiority. If this is a contentious issue then the school administrators and even the school boards need to be educated on the subject. If we can fight fire with fire, as Mr. Nelson suggests by countering bad press with good, we also need to equip what should be the first line of defense of our teachers with the information they need to counter the arguments of these evangelical groups and parents.

Is doing so dangerous? Yes. school board members and school administrators will come under fire from evangelical groups and parents who are pushing their agenda. They might find their positions threatened. But they also need to look at what happened to the school board administrators in places like Ohio, Kansas Texas, and Dover Pa. The people and groups threatening education were eventually defeated and many of them tossed out of office. There may have been short-term victories, like in Kansas, but a single battle doesn't decide a war.

I guess that leads to the question is are we at war? Well how would you describe it? We have groups pushing the religion in science and as we also see attempts to re-write history. We have them using tactics that their OWN religions claim is a sin. They threaten, browbeat, and lie in order to force people to accept the supremacy of their narrow world-view regardless of reality. In all honesty they have more in common with Muslim Fundamentalist than they do with most Christians.

The bottom line is that we need a layered defense and also multiple avenues of offense. Without a doubt Mr. Newton's suggestions have merit. But we also need school districts to weigh into the fight because what is at stake is not just their jobs and political positions, but something much more important, the education of our kids!

Klinghoffer lies by Omission, part II

Not too long ago I discussed a propaganda piece by david klinghoffer in which he did his usual, he lied. "Klinghoffer lies by Omission", well since he's still posting, you should know -- he's still lying.

So what is it this time. It about his constant attempts to re-write Alfred Russel Wallace's biography and turn him into some sort of Intelligent Design advocate. This time, for some strange reason, he's got a commentary published in the Washington Post and he, again, finds himself having to lie by omission to make his point. His commentary "How evolutionary theory's other discoverer could heal the Darwin divide" starts off referencing a NY Times survey. What little davey forgets to do is present the NY Times survey in it's actual context. He picks and chooses in order to give a very different impression of the survey's results. Here is little davey's quote:

"Pro-Darwinian educators were frustrated this week to find that most public high school biology instructors in their teaching do not wholeheartedly endorse evolution. . .with only about 16 percent believing in Darwin's theory of unguided evolution."

What does this imply to you? That 84% do not support Darwin's theory of unguided evolution? That is a lie. Actually it's more that just one.

So what exactly is Darin's theory of unguided evolution? There is no such theory. Darwin's theory is called Natural Selection. He didn't offer a theory about evolution being unguided. I don't even believe Darwin really discussed this all to often. It was later that the term 'unguided' entered the lexicon of biologists as effort after effort, of people just like little davey, failed to provide any evidence for the guidance of some sort of intelligence behind evolution and biology. So that is his first lie! Darwin postulated no such theory. Little davey would like you to think so.

His second lie is his attempt to make it sound like only 16% of high school biology teachers support evolution. That's not true. He couldn't even get his numbers straight even though he linked to the NY Times article himself. Here is a better idea from the NY Times survey:

• 13% of biology teachers explicitly advocate Creationism
• 28% consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology

From the article, and of course NOT mentioned by davey, is this little tidbit:

"That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. Invarious ways, they compromise."

What that means is about 60% of biology teachers are not doing right by their students. Why not? It's because of pressure of folks like little davey and organizations like the Discovery Institute, AiG, and ICR. It's also because of parents who swallow their propaganda wholesale and argue against their kids learning actual science and school board members like those in Kansas, Dover PA, Texas, and Ohio who try and use their position to further their own religious beliefs. Let's add in the pandering politicians like Jindal, Santorum, and Perry who should know better, but need the votes so they will sign up for just about anything. These are the people who are causing a surprisingly high percentage of teachers to shy away from doing their jobs.

Remember Lauri Lebo's article "Was a Teacher Disciplined for Refusing to Apologize for Teaching Science? " I still remember this one quote:

"It’s difficult to tell exactly what took place in the classroom and whether Hensley overstepped her boundaries in a discussion of religion. Nonetheless,this all leads me to wonder, if a student argues in class that the bible is life’s literal blueprint, facts be damned, is it wrong for a teacher, in the course of teaching science, to correct the student’s misinformed worldview? Or,in the interest of not offending the child and parents, must the teacher coddle such ignorance?Because it’s a simple fact that the realities of science contradict a literal belief in the Bible. And not just on the subject of evolution. Heliocentrism, for instance?"

I don't believe the problem is the 60% of the teachers who are hesitant about teaching evolution. In my opinion the problem is in the school boards and administrators of those schools who apparently aren't backing up their teachers for doing their jobs! I doubt college professors in non-secular schools whose biology departments have clearly stated their support for science and evolution have any troubles at all standing up to politicians and parents who are anti-science. But when a High School teacher has to fear not only negative comments from parents, but cannot depend on being covered by their own school administrators and school boards -- it's understandable why they are hesitant!

To summarize and close out this post: On little davey's main topic, his attempts to re-christen Wallace as an ID proponent I, once again offer this:

"But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction". 1861 Letter from Wallace to Thomas Sims

"I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong." Notes on the Growth of Opinion as to Obscure Psychical Phenomena During the Last Fifty Years

Does this sound like someone who would support the modern Creationism-in-hiding Intelligent Design? As usual little david has his head screwed on wrong. But then when his masters at the Discovery Institute whistle, he seems perfectly happy lying to the rest of the world. Sounds a bit pathological to me.

For more information om Alfred Russel Wallace, please visit the Alfred Russel Wallace page at Western Kentucky University. It is certainly more enlightening than anything written by klinghoffer.