Who is South Carolina's Kristin Maguire?

I came across a great Blog "Not Very Bright" and enjoyed perusing it. What drew me to it was a comment about South Carolina's Kristin Maguire. She is the chairwoman-elect of the South Carolina State Board of Education. It was a shame to see an avowed Intelligent Design supporter in such a position. She is also the co-founder of a website "Parents Involved in Education" and from it's website her stand on Intelligent Design shows she has swallowed the whole "Teach the Controversy" marketing scheme of the Discovery Institute hook, line, and sinker. Here are my comments posted about the Not Very Bright's blog "Who is Kristin Maguire":

Kristin Maguire proves a couple of things. First the qualifications to be on a school board have nothing to do with education. The second that people will push their personal agendas, even to the detriment or our school children, in every arena.

More specifically I didn’t take Not so Bright’s comments on Ms. Maguire’s lack of engineering background as a slight to engineering. I saw the point made that she calls herself an engineer, but doesn’t seem to have done another other than get a degree. I am an educator and also work in a highly technical field and have learned the hard way that a piece of paper with a degree is nice, but in order to really be considered an engineer in any field, you need the practical experience of working in that field! I’m not talking a summer internship, I am talking working! I believe Ms. Maguire does a disservice to the engineering profession by calling herself an engineer.

I feel sorry for the people of South Carolina if she, and her PIE group, gets their hands on the science curriculum. She typifies the favorite target of the marketing department of the Discovery Institute, aka the Center for Science and Culture, loves to find. A true believer who doesn’t let fact or a lack of scientific study get in their way, in a position of power to influence science curriculum, and who can be convinced to use any tactic to achieve her personal agenda. Look how Dover PA turned out for the members of that school board who pushed Creationism and then pushed Intelligent Design!

Like Texas recently, I hope the people of South Carolina don’t fall for the “Teach the Controversy”, “Free Speech” and the recent “Academic Freedom” marketing ploys being worked insidiously by the Discovery Institute. They should recognize there is no scientific controversy, that Free Speech doesn’t mean you get to say anything you want when you want, and that academic freedom doesn’t apply to pseudo-science.

Look at not only Dover, but the reverses the Discovery Institute has suffered in Ohio, Kansas, and New Mexico to realize that when they gain some level of acceptance, eventually smarter head prevail and they get tossed back out. If not I hope South Carolina has lots of extra money they really don’t need for education to pay for the coming lawsuits!

Let's all 'help' the Discovery Institute

Oh this is a good one! "Help Support Academic Freedom by Suppporting Discovery Institute". You have to love the sheer unmitigated gall of some people. According to this press release, the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute needs your financial support to continue: [by the way -- the typo in the title is not my error, but theirs when I cut and paste the title from their website on 19 Dec about 2:30PM]

• scientific research and publications that meet the Darwinists on their own turf, forcing them to respond to the growing scientific evidence for design; [aside form the fact there HASN'T been any such research of publications]
  
• training for top graduate students in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities through our summer mentoring program; [Let's training these graduate students how to ignore science and preach and market pseudo-science]
  
• this online news service (Evolution News & Views), which has received over 2.25 million page views in 2008; [I would have thought this would be labels more appropriately as Propaganda than News]
  
• our internet radio show ID the Future, publicizing information censored by the establishment media, and which has over 25,000 subscribers.; and, [Censored, in other words laughed at, not taken seriously, and pretty much ignored by anyone other than the faithful]
  
• practical help for teachers, scientists, and students who are facing indoctrination or persecution at their schools or colleges. [Sure practical help for Professor Gonzales and the former Dover PA school board. That kind of 'help' cost him tenure and them over $1,000,000]

Am I against Academic Freedom, no I am not! I am a teacher and I understand what Academic Freedom really is. It is not license for a teacher to say anything they want about any subject. Just like Free Speech there are practical limits and responsibilities associated with Academic Freedom that the Discovery Institute ignores.

This is another tactic to gain popular support. Is Intelligent Design an example of Academic Freedom? Not in the science classroom of a public school it isn't! In other classes it may very well be, like Philosophy or Sociology. I would expect Intelligent Design to be well remembered in Marketing classes of the future. But as a scientific theory, it is not Academic Freedom to express pseudo-science in a public school science class. What it is . . . is against the law!

My suggestion, if you really want to help is donate to a cause that supports something useful. Give to a food bank, shelter, or other charity where you can not only help people, but get a tax write-off. Giving to the Discovery Institute is a waste of perfectly good money.

The "Eyes" have it

The human eye has been used many times as proof of the impossibility of evolution. Recently an this article discusses the evolution of the human eye "One in the Eye for Intelligent Design"

Now the normal attack on the Eye and Evolution usually quotes Charles Darwin himself who easily admitted the human eye would be challenging to explain through evolution, but usually his comments are taken out of context, quote mining, something Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents are very good at! The Panda's Thumb reminded me of his entire discussion on the eye:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents tend to leave off this part:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

There is more and you can read it here if you like.

Of course this won't settle the whole discussion because William Dembski, in response to some other material about the evolution on the eye just cracked me up with his response. Now before you read this please remember that the Discovery Institute doesn't accept the fossil record as being a valid source of scientific information. They love to point at gaps, whine about radiological dating, and generally ignore anything about fossil they dislike. So what does one of their poster child say here on his own website? "Urbilateria — more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?" Does anyone else see the humor of asking for fossil evidence after spending so much time denigrating it. Plus, as anyone who has actually LEARNED anything about fossils knows that soft tissue fossils, such as an eye, are nearly impossible to find because the eye isn't part of the body that tends to become fossilized. So not only is he asking for something he will ignore if someone dropped it in his lap, but he should know that it's a rhetorical question anyway.

What I did enjoy as well, on Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog was the link to the article by Arthur V. Chadwick used to refute even the remote possibility of the eye evolving according to current theories. Dembski doesn't mention Chadwick by name, but here are a couple of things you might like to read:

This is form the very first paragraph of his paper:

"In the absence of physical evidence for the evolution of complex systems and in the absence of evidence for any increase in the information content of existing complex systems, a belief in the theory of organic evolution remains a matter of pure faith. Lacking physical evidence for increase in information content of any complex system, another theory of explanation of origins - Special Creation - has scientific precedence because it does offer an explanation for origins that comports with the data."

Hmmm I think we have a prime example of someone who has already made up his mind and will fit the evidence to his singular point of view regardless of minor details like facts. Here is part of his closing:

"To argue that they came from Precambrian forms that were not preserved because they had no hard parts is to argue again from the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. The absence of evidence, in science has to be construed as the evidence of absence. There is no Precambrian evolutionary sequence because there was no Precambrian evolution. Evolution as an explanation for the existence of complex living systems is a religious view held by those who wish the world to have no Originator (meaning – Huxley 1937, p. 312). Trilobites and all other forms appear on the scene as fully formed, fully competent organisms, period. It is past time to replace the theory of organic evolution with a theory that can explain the data. The only theory with explanatory value for the origin of information is the theory of Special Creation. I make no apology for choosing to place my faith in the existence of a Master Designer, a position that is consistent with the clearest interpretation of the evidence available in the Geologic Record, consistent with the clearest reading of the Book of Genesis, and a faith that is positive, uplifting and full of hope for the future."

Gotta love the consistency. Not only does Chadwick use a 1937, and highly suspect, definition of evolution, but he declares his theory as the only theory with explanatory value. Bold statements from someone whose paper doesn't seem to prove his position in any way.

By the way Urbilateria, if you were wondering, is the hypothetical last common ancestor of protostomes and deuterostomes. yes, hypothetical, which of course means it hasn't been proven. But rather than say it's a construct of the imagination, I believe it's better to say this is a hypothesis that is undergoing further research. At one time the Earth going around the Sun was hypothetical. Personally I just think Dembski is jealous because his pet imaginary construct, Specific Complexity, and its overarching construct, Intelligent Design, hasn't yet reached the plateau of being hypothetical. Right now it's just an idea, a concept, a thought. At least the Urbilateria is being investigated by real scientists, you know the ones that do real science work and publish in real scientific journals.

More support for Evolution from other Disciplines

Interesting article on how Tectonics, the movements of the Earth's crust, may have played a role in human evolution! For the past 25 years or so it's been believed that changes in the environment in Africa may have been what caused our distant ancestors to evolve walking upright on two feet. This article discusses a possible hypothesis on how that could have happened.

I've said it many times, and I'll repeat it here. The evolution of life, as described in the Modern Synthesis is Evolution Theory, has found support across a wide variety of scientific disciplines and here is another example. Walking upright may have become a necessity to forage for food as climate change caused by tectonic earth shifts, turned lush jungle into dryer steppes and plains. There would have been an obvious survival advantage to be able to travel and forage in open areas. Fun stuff to read!

Arguments VI -- Gaps in the fossil record

I hadn't thought about this one recently, until someone reminded me of it. There are gaps in the fossil record. Now when I first learned this, way back in my first dinosaur class in elementary school, I wasn't a happy camper. I mean back then dinosaurs were Cool and anything that didn't directly tie back to dinosaurs was not! I guess I was all of 8 or 9 years old and anything that was missing, like fossils, were crimes against nature -- to my thinking back then.

Nowadays I understand a lot more and I think even later in elementary school when I learned how fossils formed I understood why there weer gaps and some of the gaps might never be filled. But back then I still didn't like it!

The only thing I don't like today about the gaps is how Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have tried to use them as rationale for the failures of science to answer questions. What i hope you understand is that the gaps were expected and predicted by paleontology theories. The reason is quite simple, the formation of fossils is a rare event. The conditions that allow a fossil to form are pretty exact and specific. The right materials, moisture content, even pressure and other conditions must be there in order to form a fossil. Most organisms never have the opportunity.

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents point to the thousands of fossils and claim how can this be, there are tons of fossils. Well when you look a the age of the Earth and the billions of years involved, translate that to how many organisms have lived upon this planet? Only a very tiny percentage of them will die and eventually form a fossil.

Then of course some of the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents claim the Earth is only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, depending on which group of them you happen to be talking to, and attempt to steer the whole conversation away from the gaps.

So, as I said science not only knows about the gaps, but expected there to be gaps. It would be totally amazing if there was an unbroken string from the original organism through modern day man of fossilized remains. In fact that would cause paleontologists to be more concerned over the validity of their finds than having gaps. You can read more about fossils here.

But Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents will continue to point to the gaps as evidence of the weakness of science. What they tend to forget is that a gap can one day be filled. We are still finding fossils and learning. They prefer to put their God/Designer in the gap and say, see God/Designer did it. The problem I see with the God of the Gaps story is that what happens when we find a fossil to fit one of the gaps? What will their story become then?

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents have more issues with the fossil record than the gaps. I've mentioned a few in other posts, like their disbelief in transitional fossils and their claim that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate, and their general disbelief in thermodynamics. Like the fossil gaps they like to point at science and make wide claims about its inaccuracy and inapplicability. I wish they would focus more on the science of their own ideas. Tearing down science doesn't mean as much when they use science to try and validate their own pet ideas. Oh there are gaps in the fossil record -- but here is Intelligent Design -- yea that makes sense.

I will close by saying once again that there are gaps in the fossil records expected gaps, explained gaps, and predicted gaps. I would really like to know how that advances Intelligent Design because from what I have read, including books by Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and Coulter, there are gaping fissures in Intelligent Design that no one seems interested in filling.

Kansas and Ohio Look back

Someone asked me about Ralph Seelke, someone I mentioned in a recent post. He was one of the people involved in that wonderful, and completely ridiculous, adoption of new science standards in Kansas. You know the one, it was in all the news. If you missed it, here are the highlights courtesy of Wikipedia.

• The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 August 9, 2005 to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote. The standards received final approval on November 8, 2005. The new standards were approved by 6 to 4, reflecting the makeup of religious conservatives on the board [I disagree with this for a simple reason, this one scientific theory is singled out for special criticism. Proponents claim this makes better science, but the Dover trial also found the reality is this weakens any discussion of the topic in students minds]

• On August 1, 2006, 4 of the 6 conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. [I think the Kansas school board evolved, much like the Dover school board did just before the results of the trial were announced]
  

• On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again returned to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe." [Damn, Astrology returns to the realm of pseudo-science, again]
  

This was yet another defeat for the organizations, like my favorite target the Discovery Institute, in their quest to control what gets taught in science class. Kansas corrected a mistake and learned a lesson I hope other states will remember when letting their personal beliefs get in the way of doing their job!

Ohio went through something similar, voted to critically analyze Evolution and backed out of it later. Didn't Intelligent Design proponents submit 40 references for Intelligent Design to the Ohio State school board when Ohio was debating a change to the school standards. After the vote it was discovered that more than 90% of the references mention Intelligent Design only to call it in question and the other 10% don't discuss the subject at all. And we all know the Ohio standards were returned to their pre-ID form and the fight continues as new and different changes are being proposed that do the same thing -- call into question evolution and encourage the teaching of their pet idea.

Science eduation in the US Lacking

Seriously interesting article to make you think! Why are we lagging in 25th place for science education out of 57 countries? Why does a country like Poland beat us? Even our neighbors to the North kicked our collective butts! This is an interesting read and asks the question that if we are so rich, so powerful, and so smart -- why aren't we better educated?

I know there are many reasons, but one of them recently reared its ugly head in Texas and Florida, as you hopefully realize from my other posts. We are so busy regulating education and working to either inject our personal beliefs or preventing others personal beliefs from being injected that we sometimes forget the object of the whole exercise is the education of our young. We are missing the boat in science and we will continue to miss the boat as long as we allow organizations like the Discovery Institute and people like Lizette Reynolds and Donna Callaway to push their personal agendas!

The country in the lead, Finland, doesn't seem to have an issue with Evolution, interestingly enough. They also seem to have fewer issues with education in general since they also ranked first in Math and second in Reading.

I know as soon as I mentioned Finland some of you probably thought of some disparaging joke. But remember, I recall jokes against Poland and recently have seen jokes about Canadians on American TV. All three of them beat out our scores. I think the joke is on us!

Evidence of Evolution and Selection

The dull-toothed piranha of the Discovery Institute are at it again. A press release about Dog breeding and how evolution works and makes a disparaging comment about Creationism and Intelligent Design bring out a knee jerk reaction that misrepresents what the article said. They [The Discovery Institute] are so defensive!

The press release discusses how changes in the shape of St. Bernard's skull over the last 120 years were the result of selective breeding for certain specific desired characteristics. Here is the Discovery Institutes's take:

"And what is their evidence for “evolution and natural selection”? You have to see this to believe it: “over time … breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes. … we can be confident that they have evolved purely through the selective considerations of breeders.” “Breeders selected” and “the selective considerations of breeders” sure sound a lot like intelligently-guided artificial selection, not natural selection. But these scientists don’t let little distinctions like that get in the way of finding support Darwinism. In fact, they claim their research demonstrates the grand Darwinian narrative: “this research once again demonstrates how selection - whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man - is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet.” "

Our 'friends' at the DI obviously didn't get the point of the press release. Yes, there was no natural selection involved, that was readily admitted in the article. But there certainly was Evolution involved. The science of evolution predicted what would happen when you selectively breed for specific characteristics. Dog breeders have been doing it for year, as have any domesticated animal. You breed out unwanted characteristics and breed for specific ones. Sure Frank Purdue's large breasted chickens might look funny, but they taste delicious!

They trot out a quote from Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007). What they forget to mention is it is co-authored by three Discovery Institute members, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich and Paul A. Nelson, as well as illustrator and creationist author Jonathan Moneymaker and Kansas evolution hearings participant Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (London and Melbourne), headed by creationist and butterfly photographer Bernard d'Abrera, is the publisher of Explore Evolution.

So what we have is the replacement for "Of Pandas and People", the text that inadvertently helped make the case against Intelligent Design during the Dover Trial, being used by the same people who co-authored it to support their position. Talk about stacking the deck!

But the best part of the quote they use is: "Darwin’s theory requires that species have an immense capacity to change, but the evidence from breeding experiments shows that there are definite limits to how much a species can change, even when intelligent agents (the breeders) are doing the selection intentionally, trying to maximize certain traits. … Darwin’ theory requires that species exhibit a tremendous elasticity—or capacity to change." Any breeder will tell you that the change happens slowly over the course of generations. The theory of evolution doesn't say there is a 'tremendous elasticity', all it says is that if the characteristics are present, you can breed to emphasis them. Evolution says it and to dog breeders proved it. The Discovery Institute just didn't like it!

The DI tries to use this as support for Intelligent Design with this comment: "In the end, this study doesn’t demonstrate anything about natural selection. Rather, it demonstrates that some Darwinian scientists are following the evidence to Darwinism, even when it leads to intelligent design."

Of course there was intelligence behind the selection for the animals to breed, we know that just like we can point to a manufacturer of mouse traps! This in no way supports their pet idea that the universe was formed by an Intelligent Designer. If that was so the St. Bernard would have always had the characteristics that have been bred into them, something we know is not true. Purdue wouldn't have gone on to chicken fame and the breeding of race horses wouldn't be so lucrative.

I think what really drove the DI crazy was this line from the press release: "“Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by ‘intelligent design’ and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution." Nothing seems to bring on a lame attack than tying Intelligent Design to Creationism. Gotta love knee-jerk reactions!

Concern in Texas

Texas Biology teachers, in fact all Texas science teachers should be banding together for the upcoming science curriculum review scheduled for next month. This follows the appointment of a fundamentalist Christian to the head of the school board who recently opposed science texts because they didn't teach creationism. This same School board head didn't oppose forcing out the director of the science curriculum a month before the review starts for sending out an email FYI people about a presentation by one of the key witnesses in the Dover PA Intelligent Design trial. You have to wonder that if the witness has been for Intelligent Design if Ms. Comer would have been forced out? The timing is quite interesting. Do you smell a rat? I certainly do!

I also learned something that makes me even more nervous. The size and population of Texas has an impact on textbook publishing I hadn't realized. If Texas succeeds in adding Creationism, or its subordinate concept Intelligent Design, to the science texts, other states may be impacted because it's possible the only texts some smaller states might be able to buy are the ones being printed because of the volume done for Texas! Apparently so goes Texas, when it comes to textbooks, so goes many other states.

Now is the time to make sure the science curriculum review stays the course and focuses on SCIENCE. Keep pseudo-science where it belongs, in circus side-shows and on those late night infomercials. While I do get a kick out of a sign on a building in a small town in Ohio which advertising the psychologist on the top floor and the Psychic on the bottom floor. I guess if one can't help you, the other might. There is a serious difference between science and pseudo-science and I hope the people of Texas know that to keep a world-class science education pseudo-science is not the right direction. Ask the people in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio, and Georgia how well pseudo-science went over there.

Once again I am not saying don't teach Creationism/Intelligent Design, I am saying it doesn't belong in science class! I believe Texans will make me proud and decide to keep science in the science classroom and religion in church and home!

The Clergy Letter

In an effort to aid in the discussion area of whether or not a Christian can support evolution, I offer 11,000+ signatures of American Christian Clergy of many denominations who support evolution. Head to this website to look for yourself. Look at the list of names and you might find your own clergy person!

The letter they signed wasn't vanilla like the letter all 700 . . . wow, 700 . . . scientists signed that the Discovery Institute claims shows the firestorm of controversy over Intelligent Design. Take a look at the clergy letter:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

and here is the Discovery Institute's letter:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Not much to compare is there. One letter is very specific, the second is pretty vague. One specifics support for evolution and the other claims that it supports Intelligent Design. Read it for yourself: "Advocates of Intelligent Design theory such as Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Steven Meyer, and Dr. Paul Nelson have quite real PhD’s, and over 700 scientists with real PhD’s have signed a statement dissenting from Darwinism." Notice how they blend their pet Intelligent Design PhD's and imply support for ID even though all they did was dissent from Darwin -- which doesn't even imply dissent from Evolution because Darwin is only part of the Modern Synthesis of Evolution Theory.

So over 11,000 clergy support evolution and only a die-hard Christian Fundamentalist would even question their religious beliefs. Each year they offer special sermons to their members on Evolution. It's called Evolution Sunday!