Misguided request to merge Science and Metaphysics

A Cincinnati Enquirer article calling for a theory that includes both Evolution and Creationism is heartfelt, but misguided. The merging of science and metaphysics cannot result in any form of scientific theory. They are and will remain isolated from one another for sound reasons. The only way for science to advance is for science to explore and discover natural reasons for the phenomena in the world. Attributing any action to the world of metaphysics would invalidate science! The realm of the metaphysical is not within science's purview, nor should it. It remains within the realm of philosophers and theologians to put in the 'Why' behind the 'How' of science. Science doesn't attempt to discover why we are here, only how we came to be here.

The recognition of "design" is a metaphysical manifestation, not a scientific one. There has been no science proving the existence of design, only recognition of the similarities between biological and biochemical mechanisms and those we know to be designed by man. While there are claims of advances in this area, there hasn't been any science to prove the connection between appearance of design and actual design.

Many scientist will agree their explorations into the enormous complexity of life has strengthened their personal beliefs, but Mr. Dressman's attempt to imply that the complexity is an automatic recognition of design is not appropriate. The author is falling into a trap where he confuses the appearance with the actuality. Science can appreciate the appearance, but cannot and has not proved the actuality of design.

The closing "Bringing metaphysics and science together in the process of developing chance-free theory in the classroom is not only appropriate, it is the only legitimate basis for biological studies." The implication that the only way to proceed is to merge both scientific theory and metaphysical explanations is false and wishful thinking on his part. Scinece has made many advances without having to resort to metaphysical claims.

The main thrust of Mr. Dressman's argument argument is the inability to accept "chance" in his view of biology. In logic this is referred to as an error based on personal bias. Just because the author has trouble accepting the role chance has played in evolution doesn't mean chance had no role! While he overemphasizes the role of chance, it is not the only mechanism at work. There are many other mechanisms that do not rely on chance. Evolutionary mutation may occur by chance, but it is by many other mechanisms that propagate a mutation into the rest of the genetic pool. Individuals mutate, but populations evolve -- and the mechanisms are becoming more understood today than they were just 50 years ago, all without including metaphysics. When I want to know how I came to be, I consult the scientist. When I want to know why I came to be I consult my parish priest. The answers are complimentary and not at all conflicting, unless I choose to be conflicted and refuse to accept either, or both, answers.

Coexistence V - There is no conflict

For a while there seems to be a huge push that if you 'believe' in evolution you obviously cannot believe in God and that if you believe in God, you cannot 'believe' in Evolution. This dichotomy, as I have said in other posts, is something I believe to be not only false but an artifice designed to shore up support for the Creationist/Intelligent Design point of view.

Today a brief editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer seems to agree with my basic premise that there really isn't a conflict between the two. Many of the greatest scientists in the world, including many of today's scientists are also deeply religious people. In fact many claim the science they have learned have deepen their religious faith.

As the article says there "There are also scientists who reject religion, and believers who reject science." But the article finishes by returning the focus to where this debate requires to be and that is what should we be teaching our schoolchildren in the public school science class: "But public schools have a responsibility to teach science as it is, not as what someone may want to believe is science." Science curriculum should not be based on any populist movement, but on the practicalities of science!

Update on the Discovery Institute's 700

First a brief reminder. Starting in 2001 the Discovery Institute put together a little letter called "A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM" which claims “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.”

They managed to collect about 700 signatures of, and I am using the Discovery Institute words, "Doctoral Scientists" which of course means these people have a PhD or their county's equivalent. Makes this sound like something important. Now in previous posts I have stated that 700 is not a very large number, and when you examine the tens of thousands of scientists who support evolution, the number shrinks in importance. 700 just doesn't support a widespread scientific controversy over Evolution. I have also stated that the wording doesn't really detract from Evolution, it only examines part of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution. The Discovery Institute likes to wave their petition around, it also doesn't imply support for Intelligent Design. So what's left to say about it?

Well as I was searching for something else, I came across an interesting article from the NY Times from Feb 2006 "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" that I found truly fascinating. Apparently only about 25% of the list are actually biologists, over 350 are in non-biology related fields. I guess just having a Doctorate was all the requirement you needed to sign. The article also says that "Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life." So they have signatures from biologists who don't actually work in the field they are questioning? The Discovery Institute failed to mention this.

The 700 contain very few prominent scientists, as the NY Times says the majority are in more modest positions, like Dr. Thomas H. Marshall, director of public works in Delaware, Ohio, who has a doctorate in environmental ecology. Oh yea, environmental ecology, real cutting edge evolution there!

Of course the title of the article is the real driving point. Yes, 700 people with Doctorate degrees signed the petition, but the real question is do they object to "Darwinism" for scientific reasons or religious reasons? The NY Times found that many are Evangelical Christians who are expressing their dissent because of religious reasons! Another thing the Discovery Institute forgot the mention. The only connection this petition seems to have with science is that all the signers have Doctoral degrees.

I am amazed at the misleading way this petition is used by the Discovery Institute! Actually I am not, but sarcasm doesn't always come though well in print. You really need to see my facial expressions and voice inflection when I say it. They love to wave this petition to convince people there is a hotbed of controversy about Evolution and also use it to justify their "Teach the Controversy" tactic to get Intelligent Design into the classroom. But when you shine a little light on it, you see it's not worth the tissue paper it's written on!

Arguments IX - Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution?

Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution? Interesting question, and as much as I hate equivocating on any issue, I think the answer is maybe! Let me explain myself and 'maybe' by the end you'll see what I mean.

Right now there is a push to teach the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. The people behind the push are painting it in all kinds of "fairness", "free speech", and "academic freedom" words but their rationale has little to nothing to do with improving the science education of our young. There is where I feel it would be wrong to put in a curriculum standard requiring the teaching of weaknesses to evolution! The object here isn't better science, but an effort to undermine the theory and open the door for non-scientific alternatives. Hiding behind words such as fairness and free speech is the exact opposite. The groups calling for teaching the weaknesses are the same ones, or newer versions of them, who failed to outlaw the teaching of Evolution! They have no interest in free speech or academic freedom, but an effort to push their own very personal and very religious agenda. If you don't believe me, look a the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture, the Thomas More Law Center, South Carolina's Parents Involved in Education and see what they stand for. Read their sites and examine the underlying purpose. They have no interest in science except as a way into the educational system of this country! The fact is there are many more like them, not only formal organizations, but people who think they can use their personal belief systems to push their agenda. The former school board members of Dover PA who were not only voted out of office for their actions, but lied under oath as to their reasoning and purpose. How about Sharon Lemburg, a high school soccer coach and wife of a Christian fundamentalist minister who lied to her school board about presenting a philosophy class on design, when she was really teaching an Intelligent Design class. Ms. Kristin Maguire, the president elect of the South Carolina School Board who is using her position to question science textbooks, and creationist Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas State School Board, who is apparently mum of the firing of the State Science Curriculum Director for FYI'ing an email on a presentation by an anti-Intelligent Design scientist. These people are neighbors and possibly friends but they have had no issue with lying, misrepresenting their position, and using their authority to push their personal agenda.

From that point of view I question the motives of anyone who says we must teach the weaknesses in Evolution -- I say don't do it! Do not fall into the trap of presenting the weaknesses in Evolution not matter what words they use to disguise what they are really after!

Rather the entire science curriculum should offer critical thinking in all aspects of science. Since all science is theory-based, offer strengths and weaknesses in every course of science study. Study some of the history that brought about the development of the theories and be honest about things like gaps in the fossil record or the failure of Newton to account for some planetary body motions. These are not actual weaknesses, as some would say, but gaps in science that science is looking to fill! No science teacher should be covering a subject as if it was the absolutely only way for it to be examined, but by the same token a science teacher should be required to focus only on science! Keep the intent of science one of education and a good education should include critical thinking. Let students see how theories have evolved over time. Use evolution as an example, but don't limit it to be your only example. Geology's tectonic plate theory, gravity and planetary bodies, even atomic and light theories have evolved over time and it would be a good educational experience for students to study them. Use powered flight as another example! The road of the Wright Brothers was not paved with smooth stones and easy turns. It was rough and rocky and many times because of people who refused to believe it was possible to fly.

From this point of view I think most state science standards already meet the requirement of critical thinking and scientific method. Don't allow a misguided idea of fairness or free speech allow you to think it would be fine to allow special critical analysis of just one subject area. It does more to undermine the subject rather than present a "fair and balanced" view.

Can you see why I answered first as a 'Maybe'! I truly think it should be taught, but not aimed at one theory but as part of the entire curriculum! You should also question the motives when someone pushed for teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution. Many are people who have been fooled into believing it's a fairness or free speech issue. Educate them rather than attack them. But when groups like the Discovery Institute call for it, hide the silverware! If they had their way they would outlaw evolution and only their failures in the past have forced them to adopt the appearance of fairness. They have even come out and say they recommended against the Dover School Board from taking their stand. While the cover it now is sweet sounded words, the reality is they knew there wasn't a chance in hell of winning once the suit was filed. Remember one of their fellows, Michael Behe did testify and another fellow, William Dembski chickened out. After the lawyer took apart Michael Behe, Dembski's pseudo-mathematics didn't stand a chance, and the Discovery Institute knew it!

So a good science curriculum wouldn't need to have a special "critical analysis of Evolution" built into it. So my advice is to make sure your school system has a good science curriculum which focuses on actual science, not pseudo-science, includes theory history and development, is honest about the strengths and gaps in all theories, and includes critical thinking and analysis of all theories. If anyone is pushing you to highlight any one theory for special critical analysis, tell them it's not needed and send them off to the next state to peddle their 'wares'.

First Recorded Knee-Jerk reaction of 2008

The National Academy of Science has published a report on Evolution called "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" and the Discovery Institute responded in typical fashion. According to their press release "In the ample space of 89 pages, the NAS manages to celebrate evolution as an unassailable truth, completely misrepresent intelligent design, and rehash the same standard Darwinist arguments which have been refuted by critical scientists time and again." This should come as no surprise to those of us who have grown to enjoy their press releases as such creative little marketing tidbits. Here are a few samples of their complaints:

They brought up "The NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, hyping it as "the foundation for modern biology." and they countered with their usual "700 doctoral scientists". Does 700 scientist, many of whom are not biologists, who signed a generic statement saying Darwin wasn't the end of all knowledge really constitute a challenge to the statement that Evolution is the foundation of modern biology? Darwin is still only a piece of the theory so they haven't even made an argument against Evolution. Plus just being a dissenting voice among hundreds of thousands supporting voices doesn't mean it isn't the foundation. More word shenanigans rather than an actual concrete challenge. Let us not forget the NY Times article explaining that the majority of the 700 not only are not biologists, nor are the majority leading scientists, but most are Evangelical Christians that object on religious not scientific grounds. Why did the Discovery Institute forget to mention that part?

They go on to whine"Instead of treating evolutionary theory as an area open to further scientific inquiry, the NAS report canonizes evolution as perfect and immutable, "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it." I have not read the report, but I would be hard pressed to believe the NAS used the words "perfect and immutable", please notice that those words are not in the quotes of their citation, but their own opinion of the meaning of the what the NAS did say. As usually the Discovery Institute are doing their quote mining game. Since all the new evidence discovered in the past 150 years has ended up supporting evolution, I think the NAS actually made a reasonable statement. If the Discovery Institute is hinting at some huge discovery supporting Intelligent Design that will turn evolution on its ear, well the rest of the world is waiting for it, and has been waiting. So far Zilch! I don't believe the NAS sees evolution as perfect and immutable because there are numerous real scientific research and study projects working on expanding our understanding of evolution. They are just upset because the NAS doesn't see their marketing efforts as science.

They do bring in one of their newer tactics in this quote "Under their definition, a theory is not a testable area of science but rather an unquestionable dogma," said CSC program officer Casey Luskin." This tactic is to try and cast the science of evolution as just another form of religious belief. I'm not sure how much they realize how much damage they do to their own position with this tactic, but they are the marketing experts, not me. Under the NAS definition of a theory it is a testable area of science, among other things. Evolution has been tested and will continue to be tested. It is not dogma when the answer keeps coming up "Evolution."

This one I love: "Of course, this should come as no surprise, given the NAS's bias against intelligent design, which challenges Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds. Rather than addressing the science of ID, the report misrepresents the theory as an untestable religious belief." Since the Discovery Institute has released nothing that actually counters this argument, I think any bias by NAS has pretty firm ground. Intelligent Design is not testable, it has not been tested, and nothing anyone has published has even given a hint if it will ever be tested! I do love how they toss in their unsupported statement " . . .which challenges Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds". They make that statement as if it is true!

The closure is another lawyering word trick "At bottom, this report does little more than reveal a tired and weary voice of an establishment unwilling to actually address the scientific claims or the thoughtful skepticism of a growing number of scientists who disagree." Since their are the ones raising the same tired arguments and they are the ones who have done nothing to actual advance the supposed science of Intelligent Design and since the number of scientist who have signed their little dissent from Darwin letter hasn't actually grown, what credibility can you give their closure! By the way the Clergy Project has grown to well over 11,000 signatures supporting Evolution and the teaching of Evolution is schools, and the petition in Ohio to make sure Ohio schools do not teach Intelligent Design is now over 4,700 -- now those show growth!

Apparently Florida was the place to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas has far to go!

Not only has Texas appointed a Creationist to head their state school board and not only did they fire the state science curriculum director a month before a state-wide science curriculum review, but they are poised to approve a graduate science degree program based on the Bible and Creationist teachings. At a time when teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design is ruled to be against the law in public schools, here is another back door way into the educational system. If this degree program is approved how long will it be before some of the graduates are working within the public school system teaching 'science'? Does anyone else see a problem here? You can read some of the reports and editorials in

• Faith-based science
• Creation Group seeks State's OK to Teach Teachers
• Science and Faith.

It's bad enough graduates of Liberty University can go on and get medical degrees, now we will have people with degrees on pseudo-science teaching science? I hope and pray, that if Texas approves this graduate program that any school hiring a new science teacher makes damn sure they not only are willing to comply with state guidelines on teaching Evolution, but they actually have the academic credentials to do so! A degree from the Institute of Creation Research will not adequately prepare a science teacher to teach Evolution. At best it will be taught with the marketing holes like "It's only a theory", "There are lots of gaps", and the ever popular "There are alternate theories" which are all pure unmitigated lies and misleading information. First of all the Dover trial pretty well explained the fallacy of "It's just a theory". Science explained why there are gaps and science is working hard to fill those gaps. And there are no competing SCIENTIFIC theories to Evolution, only marketing ideas -- not actual theories!

I hope Texas takes a steps back and realizes what a precipice they are looking over. The first group to be hurt is Texas school children, followed by any Texas student attempting to get into a legitimate college. Finally science and the industries that depend on science, many of whom are based in Texas, will eventually suffer when they realize how little science employees educated in Texas understand! This is a time bomb that Texas can sidestep right now!

Flock of Dodos review bring up interesting point

If you haven't heard about it, "LOCK OF DODOS: THE EVOLUTION -INTELLIGENT DESIGN CIRCUS" is a movie about the supposed controversy over teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. This review of the film is excellent but it bring to home a serious point:
"If not broached further, evolution can be trivialized more and more, and folks who champion the fact of evolution will be as ancient as those who view the Earth as a flat surface, and we’d have no one to blame but ourselves."

Scientists, science teachers, doctors, parents, and really anyone who thinks science is something critical to the future of humanity should see this as a call to arms. More has to be done to improve science education in this country. When something like Intelligent Design can gain such popular support that should indicate a problem. When a group like the Discovery Institute can cause such enormous expense on behalf of school boards across the country through nothing but marketing, that indicates the problem is serious. When University finds it's tenure decisions questions when it was pretty obvious the person failed to meet the tenure requirements or a prestigious organization like Woods Hole is the subject of a lawsuit because an employee refused to do the job they were hired to do, that indicates the problem is also widespread.

It's time to put an end to such nonsense and it starts in school! Every school board meeting should be examined for evidence of not only attempts to teach Intelligent Design, but efforts to water down evolution. Every person on a school board should be watched to make sure their personal religious beliefs aren't driving their behavior on the job, like South Carolina's Ms. Maguire. Every current lesson plan and curriculum guidance change from this day forward should be the subject of details validation to make sure it remains focused on science and not pseudo-science. And every parent should take a long hard look at what is being taught to their children and make sure the focus is where it belongs. I know few parents who wish a science biology class should teach their children theology as much as they want their local priest, rabbi, iman, reverend . . . teaching science during services.

Judgement Rebuttals Slides 10 and 11

I know, I left off without finishing my rebuttals of the fun slides the Discovery Institute has been putting out. This one, slide 10, was tons of fun as usual. They even use a picture from the movie Planet of the Apes to add to the fun. I wonder if that picture is copyrighted? Oh well not my concern!

As for this whole argument, I see it as the Discovery Institute unwittingly showing anyone who reads this as how science works. You see something and develop a theory based on current knowledge. As you learn more, you modify the theory. As you still learn more, you further modify the theory. Years ago, when the study of DNA was in its infancy, the close correlation of human to chimpanzee DNA was discussed. As more work was done the precise level of differences between us and chimps has been further refined. And just because the two numbers aren't identical, they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater! As different methods are used, the exact accounting of the differences between human and chimp may change even more. My question is 'So what?' Rather than focus on the differences, focus on the similarities! My God (used deliberately) how can anyone deny the similarities that exist even without looking at the genetic level, just examine the physiology and the parallels are amazing! Biology predicts the similarities long before DNA added to our knowledge of the relationship. Science predicts and new knowledge confirmed it! What has Intelligent Design predicted lately, or even ever?

My wife reminded me about Continental drift. She saw something that struck her as funny and she came and told me. It was during a program on the formation of the Earth. School children saw that the continents could fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle, but science never took it seriously. She's right, science didn't take it seriously, but some scientists kept after it. It took decades from when the idea was first published before it became an accepted scientific theory. Now it has widespread acceptance and large piles of evidence to prove at one time the continents were connected, the theory refers to it as Pangaea. That's how science works!

This is another example of the Discovery Institute co-opting science and claiming it as their own. Look at this quote form the slide: "Intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry, but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design. Just as intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan."

I love this"unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design", which of course science does, it does exclude it because it brings nothing scientific to the table. But they are willing to grant human/ape ancestry? So they are saying it's true only if it's their idea? They again bring in this unsupported idea of Intelligent Agent. I guess this is the new critique when someone says they are trying to put God in a box by treating the Bible as a biology text, they can say it wasn't God, just God's agent.

I was always taught the best lies contain a germ of truthfulness. How is this any different? There is too much evidence to demolish evolution, so they take the truthfulness proved though evolutionary thought and tack-on their own spin. Gotta love a flexible, or dare I saw it, an evolutionary approach!

Slide 11 is mostly quote mining at its best. You take a quote and place it out of context. Then you further mislead with the old Gaps argument and what do you have? Well you have another example of Marketing ala Discovery Institute. Are there gaps in the fossil record, yes and they were predicted by science. Do we have an absolute 100% perfect picture of human evolution? No, we may never have evidence of every step in the chain. But of course the Discovery Institute calls that weaknesses. I call them what they are -- areas that need further study.

Let me remind you of another set of Discovery Institute gaps, read the original "Darwin's Black Box" book by Michael Behe, a DI Senior Fellow. He listed specific examples of his 'idea' of irreducible complexity. They included bacterial flagellum, human immunity system, and blood clotting, among a few others. In each one he wrote about how these systems couldn't possibly be explained thought evolutionary means. Fast forward almost 10 years and read Michael Behe's testimony during the Dover trial. Examples of papers proving how these specific examples of his could have formed through evolutionary means and he dismissed them as being insufficient -- insufficient even though he claimed not to have read them! Not only marketing, but denial and refusal to recognize published scientific evidence.

That's one of the problems with using gaps to support your own ideas. Once someone fills in the gap, you have to find new support. Keep lofting up them softballs!

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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