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

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

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

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

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

Annie's opening line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas, Don't Take This Wrong, But You Are Sounding like South Carolina

I don't know if you remember, but back a few years ago (2007 and 2008) South Carolina elected a home-schooling conservative to head their state school board and one of the first things she [Kristin Maguire] did was violate procedure to try and reject the science textbooks already selected by the school board appointed working group.    It led to more hearing and delays as she brought in a couple of Creationists to object to well pretty much the usual stuff, mainly evolution.

So why would Texas remind me of that?  The state school board set up a panel to streamline science standards.  Even before they started work, members of the school board did their best to stack the deck with evolution-deniers -- much like Maguire did in her textbook complaint.  Even with two confirmed evolution-deniers on the panel, the panel voted to remove some of the anti-evolution rhetoric put in back in 2009 by the school board when it was headed by the creationist dentist, Don McLeroy, who made Texas a laughing stock.  Even with this preliminary vote, creationists are up in arms because of it. (Discussed in the Austin American Statesman and Pandas Thumb)

How I see the parallels:

1. Creationists do their best to stack review panels with unqualified people (Creationism ideology more important than scientific credentials)
2. They allow process to run until they don't like the outcome
3. Then they get all upset and start trying to trash the whole thing.

Texas, you deserve better, but until you let your voice be heard in the ballot box, you are going to continually allow your children's education to be held hostage by Creationists who are trying to make sure your children are taught their philosophy and not actual science.  I really feel for you, each and every one.  Here is something I wrote back in 2007.  It was directed toward South Carolina, but it's just as applicable to you, Texas, today:

"My question is to the people of South Carolina? Is this the direction you want to go? Ms. Maguire and friends are re-treading the direction other states have tried and failed, sometimes in embarrassing and expensive ways. Do you want your Biology teachers teaching religion to your kids? Do you want a narrow fundamentalist Christian viewpoint from determining the contents of your textbooks? Do you want to start the process of removing science from your curriculum?" (Ms. Kristin Maguire strikes)

Well, do you?  South Carolina wound up dropping Ms Maguire for reasons unrelated to conservative and anti-science positions.  You really need to re-examine the people on your school board.  Shouldn't the number one priority be the education of your children?  I would have thought so.

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!

Case Western steps up, rejects House Bill 597 (From Panda's Thumb)

Panda's Thumb just posted this:  "Case Western steps up, rejects House Bill 597"  Great reading and something I hope the Ohio politicians will pay some attention.  I really liked this part:

"Rejects the notion that non-scientific perspectives, such as faith-based theories, have a place in the teaching of science;"

I'm sure the Discovery Institute will respond with another 'What, that's not what the bill says' post, just like they did here, and again calling any fears 'groundless'.  Luckily there are many people not fooled by such antics.  Many folks remember:

• It was the Discovery Institute who lobbied the Ohio State School Board to teach Intelligent Design?  
• It was the Discovery Institute who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design?  A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).
• Anyone else remember Deborah Owens Fink (former Ohio Board of Education member) and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, into the school curriculum.  She was the one who referred to the National Academy of Sciences as "a group of so-called scientists."  When real scientists voiced support for Fink's opponent, the Discovery Institute complained about it (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/inside_the_mind_of_the_new_yor002817.html)
• Back in 1996 the Ohio House voted down a bill that would have done exactly what this bill can do -- and that bill didn't mention the words Creationism or Intelligent Design either! (http://ncse.com/ncser/16/1/close-ohio-house-vote-scuttles-evidence-against-evolution-bi)

The potential impact of HB 597 on science education is not a groundless fear.  It is a concern based on the actions of Creationists in the past, and I do include the Discovery Institute when I say 'Creationists'.

Taken to Task over the 'Supposed Controversy'

Someone recently pointed out to me that the subtitle of my blog  ("A blog about Evolution and the supposed controversy with Intelligent Design") makes it impossible for an Intelligent Design Proponent to get a fair hearing from me.  Are they right?

I certainly hope so, which sounds kinda mean.  But seriously, I would say the same thing is Astrologers were demanding time in the Astronomy class or Numerologists wanted to be included in a Mathematics textbook.  I don't see anyone complaining about that, do you?

Before addressing the idea directly, I want to talk for a minute about the subtitle.  The contention, as I am sure you realize, is about the word 'supposed'.  When I started this blog in 2007 the main issue was that there was no scientific controversy.  That was my point then, the question is does the point still hold true?  I believe that it does.  If there was a scientific controversy, where is all the science that should be supportive of Creationism/Intelligent Design?  Where are the hosts of scientists leaving evolution and joining Creationism/Intelligent Design?  Where are the articles using Creationism/Intelligent Design to explain actual scientific work?  To date what has been presented over and over again by folks like Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and especially the Discovery Institute seems to fall into two categories.

The first category, and the one that originally surprised me the most, had nothing to do with supporting their own ideas but trying to tear down current science. Frequent attacks on evolution appear to outnumber any effort to support their own position to the order of 10 to 1.  That's a rough estimate because I never sat down to count them up, maybe someone else has.  But by far the majority of the documents, articles, and posts concerning these topics try and attack evolution in many ways.

Now I was always taught that if you want to get an idea across -- first support your idea!  That applies in just about anything, not just science.  If I come up with something new at work, in the IT field, before trying to implement it, I have to support why it's a worthwhile consideration, how it's going to work and why it's better than how we are currently doing it.  This takes a great deal of time an energy, but the payoff is where it all counts.  If all I do is attack the current methodology without a viable alternative, then all I do is sound like I am whining.  Sound familiar?  How often has the request for Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents to stop marketing and go back to the lab and do the actual scientific work been asked?  More often than I bet most of us realize.

Obviously the second category is work that actually supports their own ideas.  The problem has been that they don't seem to be able to have any actual science in it.  They do no lab work, they make no effort to substantiate their ideas other than philosophically, they even have a hard time explain their ideas in any usable form (Design Inference anyone?).  Scientific theories are not born overnight, there is a long and often bloody (figuratively) path from conception to becoming a theory.  The path is littered with concepts that failed quickly to others that stood briefly in the light until they too shriveled up and fell to the wayside.  All the way the hypothesis gets tested, refined, tested, and further refined as it becomes more focused and stronger.  My question is where is this path for Creationism/Intelligent Design?  They formed an idea and immediately demanded the right to be the equal of an actual scientific theory.  When that didn't work, they formed other ideas to try and end run every decision that went against them.  Creationism led to Creation Science which gave way to Intelligent Design . . . but where is the scientific work that should be accompanying it?  I haven't seen it, have you?  They've also formed other tactical ideas, like "Teach the Controversy" and "Strengths and Weaknesses" to name just two.  But do you see what's missing?  Lawyer-ing word games and appeals to conservatives do not a theory make!.

There is the rub!  I will continue to call this a 'supposed' controversy partly because of the lack of science.  The other reason is that I believe the whole idea of a controversy is made up to make people think there is a scientific controversy.  There is a cultural debate, there are arguments at school boards, there are even legislative efforts.  But when it comes to a real controversy, the Creationism/Intelligent Design side simple doesn't have it -- but the marketing side of Creationism/Intelligent Design is hard at work wanting you to think there is one.

Why would they do such a thing?  I would think it's pretty obvious at this point.  If you think there is one, you have offered them a legitimacy in your mind's eye that they have failed to earn in the real world.  It's human nature to automatically think two sides of an actual controversy have some sort of equality.  So convincing you that there is a controversy implies that they are actually in contention for the biology crown, so to speak.  The reality is they are poor pretenders and without the support of people who share their religious beliefs, they haven't got a prayer (pun intended).  So they are trying to convince people of an artificial controversy, that being fair means that their idea have merit, or that it's a violation of academic freedom and free speech if they are not offered a place at the science class lectern.  What this fake controversy does is give them a leg up in the cultural debate, one they have yet actually earned.

I try and be pretty clear and I think the subtitle of my blog shows it.  Am I prejudiced against Creationism/Intelligent Design?  You bet I am.  Until they do the work to deserve consideration as science, we should all be prejudiced against Creationism/Intelligent Design!  If you are not, then you might look at your own motivations.  Do you share the same religious convictions and that automatically grants them some sort of consideration?  Have you found what no one else has managed to find actual science hidden in the depths of the religious and marketing materials?  Or are you bending over backwards to give the illusion of fairness to ideas that have yet to earn it?  You might peek under the covers, because they isn't much there for you to see.

Some have told me that I am close-minded on the subject.  I disagree.  Close-mindedness is when you are face-to-face with the evidence, you refuse to consider it.  I have been waiting for the evidence, I have been asking for the evidence, I have read and researched for years for some actual evidence.  Their failure to provide any doesn't mean I am close-minded, it means they have to do the work first.  Which to me seems like a fair and reasonable approach.  Their efforts to date mean they do not deserve a place at the science table, their controversy is non-existent, and the future doesn't look very promising for them. 

And now we see . . . motivations, shenanigans, and hijinks with Ohio HB 597

A little while ago I posted about Ohio HB 597 (All not quiet on the Midwestern Front, Common Core Standards, and Is it really fair?).  Recent events made some of the motivations maybe a bit clearer.  The bill was being debated and a few hearings were being held and there have been two notable changes.

As reported by the National Science Education Center (NCSE) a few days ago "Ohio's antiscience bill unimproved", some of the objectionable wording was removed and replaced with a comment with a different emphasis.  The provision requiring the state's science standards to

"prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another" 

was removed by the House Rules and Reference Committee.  The wording was worrisome because it certainly gave the appearance that all sides, even the pseudo-science ideas, would get presented and a teacher would be powerless to inform the students which things had scientific merit and others, such as Creationism/Intelligent Design were nothing but religious concepts and had no merit in science.

At first glance you would think that it was an improvement, but it was replaced by a provision requiring students to

"review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories."

 Does that wording sound familiar?  Yes, the old 'strengths and weaknesses' that has been pushed for so very long by none-other than the Discovery Institute.  They tried to get it into standards in Ohio, Texas, and even Kansas.  They even had some success in Louisiana and Tennessee, but so far no one seems to be actually teaching using that argument.  At least it hasn't made the news anywhere yet.

I did like slipping in the phrase "in an objective manner", which sounds like to me if a teacher expressed the idea that something other than real science wasn't real science, he might be taken to task for not being objective.  Sound far-fetched?  I would like to remind you of Chris Comer, the former Texas Science Curriculum head who was fired for forwarding an email about a presentation by one of the witnesses of the Dover trial.  Remember the excuse?  Apparently the State Board of Education wants to remain neutral in the controversial issue of Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution.  Do you see any parallels?  I do!

What I really find interesting is that originally the DI did have a comment about the original wording, I posted about it here.  But since the change, not a peep out of them.  My guess is they don't want to draw any more attention to it.  There was one change, instead of singling out Evolution or Climate Change like they normally do, they took aim at the entire science curriculum.  Which, as you know, one of the common critique of the original strengths and weaknesses argument.

One last point.  we should never forget that HB 597 was supposed to be about repealing the Common Core Standards, and yet those standards did not address the science curriculum . . . funny thing, right?

That's deception, not concern

I have a Google News alert for stuff coming out of the Discovery Institute.  They have quite a bit of stuff coming out, but most of it is geared strictly for the drinkers of their particular Kool-aid and if I wrote something up for each of them, blogging would be a full time job and not a particularly well-paying one at that.  However sometime that news feed drops something worth thinking about.

However, before you get your hopes up, it is not an article by the Discovery Institute, but one about them.  In particular "Controlling Language Controls the Euthanasia Debate" caught my eye.  It's not a usual topic for this blog, but I wanted to highlight the tactic of 'Controlling Language'.  The author of the article goes into the DI's Wesley J. Smith complaining about using the 'v-word'.  The word is vegetative, as in a vegetative state, a medical term describing someone with few cognitive abilities usually due to accident or illness. Apparently they don't like the term ostensibly because of negative connotations about the word 'vegetable'.  They even go as far as associating it with the 'n-word' and all the negatives there.  Does that sound familiar, associating something you don't like with something no one likes and you gain support with little effort.  I know vegetative does have negative connotations, but then don't many medical terms have them?  Telling someone they have a 'dysfunction' makes people feel OK, doesn't it?  How about 'Walleyed'?  I have to ask, is 'Yellow Fever' the next target on the political politeness express?

The real question raised is more along the lines of is the DI the least bit interested in political correctness?  The author of the article doesn't think so. For some reason he thinks that they have a religious agenda when dealing with the concept of ending a life.  Are you kidding me, the Discovery Institute having a religious agenda and trying to use words to change the playing field!  How can he possibly think that?  My guess would be he's had experience with the DI before.

I think you know where I am going with this and how this ties into their position and tactics on science education.  I would like to remind you about a few words:  theory, belief, controversy, Darwinism, Materialism, weaknesses, academic freedom . . . We've talked about many of them before.  The tactic is common from the DI.  They frequently change how words are used in order to control the debate.  My favorite example, of course, is the word Theory.  Science uses the word with one definition that is very different from the colloquial definition.  The phrase 'Evolution is only a Theory!' is designed to try and cast doubt and make people think that as a theory, it's only an idea, a concept and one not with much actual support.  Of course, in science, the word 'theory' is about the highest pinnacle anything can achieve.  It has tremendous levels of support and applicability that a run-of-the-mill 'idea' cannot compete with.  If an idea cannot compete with a theory, then you either have to raise the idea up, or tear the theory down.  How much work has the DI done raising their idea of Intelligent Design up as compared to how much effort they have put into trying to tear evolution down?  Pretty lopsided if you ask me.  In fact how much actual work have thy put into Intelligent Design?  Haven't seen much, have we?

The word 'Darwinism' is another example.  The suffix 'ism' is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort (definition from from Wikipedia).  The definition goes on to say that it is frequently used derogatorily.  Now, a long time use of 'ism' is 'Creationism'.  It certainly applies as a philosophy and religious concept.  It is also frequently used in a derogatory way because of the connotation of ignoring science, denying evidence, and attempting to push a strictly religious agenda into any aspect of education.

So, when you are fighting an uphill battle with the negative connotations of 'Creationism' why not take a two-fold approach.  First distance yourself from Creationism and constantly deny any connection.  Sound familiar?  It took a Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) to remind everyone that Intelligent Design is Creationism in the same way 'Creation Science' was nothing more than Creationism dressed up a little bit. 

The other plank in this platform is trying to make the scientific theory of Evolution nothing more than another 'ism'.  I guess 'Evolutionism' would have been to weird to say, so why not attack Charles Darwin and the scientific theory at the same time?  Let's see, how many things have they blamed Charles Darwin for?  Pretty much everything bad in the 19th and 20th century.  Now in reality, what is Darwinism?  It has nothing to do with Evolution because the current state of evolutionary theory would be barely recognizable to Darwin, but facts like that have no room in the DI's version of reality.  Doubt about Darwin could very well cause some to doubt the theory.  Never lose sight that the DI's target audience are not scientists, it's politicians, school board members and the general public who vote for them and who contribute to causes they support.

Without going through every term, briefly consider how they try and equate belief in God with belief in a scientific theory, how they denigrate the naturalistic philosophy of science and try and include the supernatural, and how they treat science's ability to adjust as we learn new things as a weakness in science.  The list is pretty much endless.

I hope you would think about the DI's use of words and realize that while they are prolific when it comes to marketing and send out lots of articles, books, and frequently comment on any subject near and dear to their hearts, their use of terminology is very deliberate and designed [pun intended] to aid in their objectives.  They aren't concerned with political correctness, they are only interested in their own righteousness and any tactic, even trying to redefine the words involved, is fine with them if they think it changes the playing field in their favor. 

The Discovery Insitute responds on Ohio HB 597

Once again the Discovery Institute (DI) decided that the use of the term 'Intelligent Design' requires some sort of response from them.  They have the nerve to ask "Where is the Intelligent Design in Ohio House Bill 597".  Now I could make a flippant answer and say the bill was not 'intelligently designed', but I won't continue down that path and make a more direct response.

If the DI bothered to pay any attention to the words in an article rather than just what items they think they can cut and paste or quote-mine, they might have realized that no one has said the bill itself mentions Intelligent Design.  Much like their tactics in the past ('Critical Analysis tactic for example), they seem to think that not having used the term, the obvious conclusion is that it has nothing to do it.  However, if we borrow an old line and say "And now a word from our Sponsors!", you can easily see the issue.  One of the statements by bill sponsor, Rep Andy Thompson:

"said the goal is not to mandate what must be taught but provide options for districts.“In many districts, they may have a different perspective on that, and 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,” Thompson said."

When Thompson was asked if intelligent design — the idea that a higher authority is responsible for life — should be taught alongside evolution, Thompson said, “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.”

So while the public goal of the bill is to repeal the Common Core Standards, which, BTW are not science standards, but English and Math, as you can see Thompson stated the goal was to allow different perspectives . . . a follow-up question targeted one of those 'perspectives' and Thompson called it 'legitimate'.  Of course the DI called that type of question "twisting the words of policymakers".  Sure, trying to get to the intent as well as the meaning behind a policymakers actions is OK, but if they do not agree with your organizations agenda, somehow the reporter is twisting the words.  The last paragraph of the DI's response was:

"So the Columbus Dispatch is right about one thing: history is repeating itself in Ohio. In 2006, Darwin activists inflamed groundless fears about intelligent design in the schools. In 2014, they're getting ready to do it all over again."

Let's think back at Ohio's 'groundless fears'.

• Wasn't it the Discovery Institute who lobbied the Ohio State School Board to teach Intelligent Design?  
• Wasn't it the Discovery Institute who handed to Ohio State School Board a list of 44 peer-reviewed publications that they said showed support for Intelligent Design?  A list that was fraudulently represented by them! (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-discovery-institutes-bibliography).
• Anyone else remember Deborah Owens Fink (former Ohio Board of Education member) and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, into the school curriculum.  She was the one who referred to the National Academy of Sciences as "a group of so-called scientists."  When real scientists voiced support for Fink's opponent, the Discovery Institute complained about it (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/inside_the_mind_of_the_new_yor002817.html)
• Back in 1996 the Ohio House voted down a bill that would have done exactly what this bill can do -- and that bill didn't mention the words Creationism or Intelligent Design either! (http://ncse.com/ncser/16/1/close-ohio-house-vote-scuttles-evidence-against-evolution-bi)

NCSE's own Steve Edinger said perfectly back in 1996: "Creationism is like a vampire, and every time you think the thing is finally dead, someone pulls the damned stake out again."  Ohio has seen that damned stake removed in 1996, 2002, 2006, and now again in 2014.  Ohio's concerns are not groundless, they are a response to a pattern of misguided and, in many cases, reprehensible behavior by groups like the Discovery Institute who wish to destroy science education.

There are still many misconceptions about the Common Core standards.  But I would like to put it even plainer than the reporter.  What is Representative Thompson's plan to replace the Common Core?  He has none.  He's going to pass the buck back to local school boards.  School boards that had control over their standards up until 2010 and they were failing our students!  How many Ohio students failed out of college for being poorly prepared?  How many had to take developmental classes (this are a re-teaching of the things they should have learned in High School)?  How many businesses complained that High School graduates did not have to basic tools to perform tasks graduates were able to perform 20 years ago?  We aren't talking highly skilled tasks, we are talking about tasks that require basic reading, writing, and math skills.  These are the problems the Common Core can help address.  Since implementing the Common Core, our neighbor to the South, Kentucky, has reported that the high school graduation rate had increased from 80 percent in 2010 to 86 percent in 2013, test scores went up 2 percentage points in the second year of using the Common Core test, and the percentage of students considered to be ready for college or a career, based on a battery of assessments, went up from 34 percent in 2010 to 54 percent in 2013.  (Ripley, Amanda (September 30, 2013). "The New Smart Set: What Happens When Millions of Kids Are Asked to Master Fewer Things More Deeply?". Time. p. 36.)


So now that we've gotten past the typical knee-jerk reaction of the Discovery Institute, I hope it is clear that there are Ohioans who oppose the Common Core standards.  The standards aren't perfect, but I hope folks oppose it for the right reasons.  I also hope that whatever follows the bill does not, by intent or by accident, open the door for a group like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum to walk in trying to pass off their religious ideas as if they belongs in a science class. But regardless of the politics, before you complain about the Common Core Standards, make sure you understand them and object based on reality.

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!

All not quiet on the Midwestern Front

One of the reasons I started blogging was in response to some of the anti-science activities here in Ohio a few years ago.  I guess things have been too quiet to suit Creationists because the war on science has reared its ugly head again.  Cleveland.com is reporting that a bill designed to remove the Common Core education standards will also have the impact of not prohibiting Creationism/Intelligent Design in the classroom.  Here's the article I caught this afternoon: "Common Core opposition bill won't limit foreign authors -- or teaching of creationism and 'intelligent design'" 

Now before I actually read the article, I noticed a little sideline on the page.  You might have spotted it as well, "Common Core is bad for students and teachers: Kelly Kohls, school board member, activist".  I'm not sure if you remember Kelly.  She was the president of the Springboro Ohio school board when they flirted with the idea of Creationism.  The Dayton Daily News had this article.  Kelly 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.”

That would immediately make me think there was something very right with the common core science standards.  Anyone else read Catch-22 by Joseph Heller?  You might know the part I am thinking about -- when an insane psychiatrist declares you as sane, are you?  To paraphrase, when an avowed Creationist declares the common core science standards bad, are they? 

In my opinion adopting a common core set of standards would annoy someone like Kelly because it would make it harder for a local school board to inject Creationism/Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.  Imagine how hard it would have been for certain members of the Dover PA School Board to push their religious agenda if the common core science standards had been in place.  It might have saved that school system some money and not been such a time waster or generated such negative publicity for Dover.  But then again, the fact the court case went the way it did might well be a silver lining.  As it was, Kelly and her supporters on the board didn't make much headway and eventually less evangelical board members were elected and sanity reigned.  Kelly herself 'retired' from the board and ran unsuccessfully for the State Senate.

OK, now back to this article.  The National Center for Science Education also reported on this new Ohio bill.  They noted this from the article the same points I saw when I read it::

" . . . prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another." Thompson said that clause prevents teachers and schools from only presenting one side of a political and scientific debate -- global warming, for example -- without also presenting the other side."

That pretty much says it all. Not only would it make it easy for Creationism/Intelligent Design to be brought into the classroom, it sounds like it would be mandatory to present it -- even though it's a political and cultural debate, not a scientific debate. Plus, as I am sure Kelly likes, the bill's sponsor makes it very clear that it

"the bill gives districts and teachers the freedom to teach religious interpretations of scientific issues as they deem best."

 I'm working on an email to my State Representatives in hopes this bill will die the nice quiet death it deserves.  But even if the death isn't so quiet, as long as it does before dragging the whole state into another round of 'Let's be Fair and teach both sides', 'Teach the controversy', or 'Evolution, it's only a Theory', like we were in 2002.

Letter to the Editor

When the mild brouhaha over Creationism in the classroom reared its head in Springboro, Ohio I dashed off a letter to the Editor of the Dayton Daily News. It took a couple of weeks, but it finally made it. Oh it's edited to be sure, but they simply removed text rather than changed the points I was trying to make. So if you are interested here it is the published version:

Ohio may very well be heading down a path it has already been before and one we certainly do not need to travel again. In the early part of this decade you might remember former State School Board member Debra Owens Fink and her efforts to get Creationism, and later Intelligent Design, adopted as science curricula. Since that time an expensive lawsuit was brought against the School Board of Dover PA when they attempted to weaken science education and open the door for religious alternatives.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious alternatives not scientific theories. Teaching them as if they are science does a disservice to our teachers and, more importantly, our students.

This is not a debate about science; this is a cultural and political debate. It should not be a topic for any school board until proponents offer actual viable and repeatable science supporting their philosophy. During the Dover Trial it was stated that in order for Creationism/Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to the point of making Astrology science as well. Is this what we want and need in our educational system here in Ohio?

I think the school board members should not be supporting their own religious views, but focus on the education of all our children. They should be the first line of defense when others try and introduce pseudo-scientific ideas into the curricula.

What I liked the most was not just getting a letter published, but that the three accompanying letters all spoke out against teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design as if it were science -- including two from Springboro. That was the best part. Hopefully the folks in Springboro will continue to make their voices heard and the members of the School Board that voiced this little potential disaster will realize that there is no room in a modern science classroom for such nonsense.

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!

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?).