Give an inch . . .

Florida, in an effort to avoid being embroiled in the political argument of evolution and intelligent design require evolution as part of the science curriculum, but they don't call it evolution, they call it "Change over time". Check this out.

In a recent report the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., that focuses on education reform graded Florida science standards as "disappointing, due to a prevalence of errors in fact and presentation," "naive," "scanty," "nebulous" and "vague".

Florida state Board of Education appointed a 45-member task force to rewrite the standards to make them more detailed and more rigorous. One of their recommendations is to call the study of evolution . . . Evolution.

Christian fundamentalists, the Discovery Institute, and one school board member disagree with that. On the board is Donna Callaway, a former principal from Leon County. Callaway recently told the Florida Baptist Witness newspaper that she will vote down the new standards. As she explained, "I agree completely that evolution should be taught with all of the research and study that has occurred. However, I believe it should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life."

Florida has a problem with very poor science education standards and a minority is working to undermine the process unless their personal and religious points of view are given an opening into the curriculum. I hope the State School Board can summon the intestinal fortitude and deny them this legal pretext of validation. They need to stand firmer than when they decided to try and avoid the political controversy. If they had used the word Evolution in the first place, they wouldn't be having this argument now. Give in a little bit and you can see what happens!

I am not the only person saying this stuff

Last month Dr. Steve Kay, dean of UCSD's Division of Biological Sciences, wrote "Why evolution matters," for the San Diego Union-Tribune. (It can be found here.) Dr. Kay continued his discussion on evolution and its importance in modern biology by answering questions. Here are a few that I particularly liked:

Censorship is in the eye of the beholder:

wild_card(Q) Regarding the stats on Americans that do not believe in evolution, what is your response to those who reject it on the basis that it is said to censor other scientific theories, such as Intelligent Design?

dr_steve_kay(A) To put the record straight, Intelligent Design is not a credible scientific hypothesis, because it relies on the supernatural belief of a creator. My impression from reading some of the ID literature is that this is not a theory or hypothesis, it makes no predictions, and it has no place in the science classroom because of this. It is therefore a false assertion that evolution "censors" ID. ID is not in the domain of science.

Is Evolution a religion?

dgish(Q) Dr Kay, Michael Ruse an evolutionist and a philosopher of science professor now at Florida St Univ published the following statement in an article in a Canadian newspaper in which he said: "evolution is promoted by its practiioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion--a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.....evolution is a religion."

dr_steve_kay(A) Understanding and accepting evolution does not equate with morality or religion any more than any other major scientific theory - be it quantum theory or relativity. I find myself more in awe of nature as I learn MORE about it, not less. My understanding of how life has evolved on this planet and generated such marvelous biodervisity inspires me to want to protect it better - to be a better steward of this planet. I hope others would feel the same.

The Gonzales whine:

wild_card(Q) How would you respond to legitimate scientists with legitimate degrees from secular universities being fired or denied tenure for refusing to accept or teach evolution because they wish to explore other options for the origins of life, a concept that is fundamentally the basis for scientific inquiry?

dr_steve_kay(A) I would expect faculty not to contaminate their scientific views with their personal belief systems - our students need to learn the plethora of science out there by learning modern scientific methods and thoughts. My perusal of the news also turns out more teachers and professors being disciplined due to their stand on evolutionary science, rather than their opposition to it.

I like his final point "My perusal of the news also turns out more teachers and professors being disciplined due to their stand on evolutionary science, rather than their opposition to it." While The Discovery Institute makes such a point about folks like Gonzales, but have they said anything about Comer?

I guess I need more in another post on this one. Macro evolution and Micro evolution are smokescreens to give Intelligent Design proponents an excuse to accept parts of evolutionary theory.

Bohr(Q) Do you feel that the terms micro and macro evolution are simply a dodge, in the sense that creationists and ID'ers are simply looking for a way out when confronted by the evidence of evolution presented in species with much shorter life cycles (and hence generations), such as bacteria?

dr_steve_kay(A) Yes, i think that micro and macro evolution is used as a dodge. Evolutionary biologists use micro evolution - the study for example of how microbes can change in successive generations, to learn about detailed specific mechanisms that may contribute to the larger picture of how organisms evolve under natural conditions.

Religious Belief, I like the way he worded it!

mayday(Q) I'm bothered by the phrase "believe in evolution", as though it is an article of faith. Nobody asks about belief in relativity or quantum theory.

dr_steve_kay(A) You are right, it is more accurate to type that they are convinced or adhere to the body of evidence, rather than "believe" in it.

It's nice to see support for my own thoughts on the subject!

Dembski wrotes yet another book (yawn!)

For the record I haven't read it yet. I will, as soon as one of my local libraries gets a copy. I refuse to add any of my own money to support his efforts. I will read it and report here. One of the librarians at my nearest library has read most of the Intelligent Design popular press books and has wondered why they are in non-fiction. I just smile when she says that.

What I wanted to address was an interview he gave about his new book. He makes several indefensible points in answer to a simple question. The question was "Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?" He starts his answer with "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

OK that question at least lets God into the mix, but one of the annoying things is how the Intelligent Design proponents keep using "Designer" in print, but they are willing to associate "God" when speaking. Disingenuous at best. He goes on to say "The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program."

My question back to him is if he really wanted to develop Intelligent Design as a science program he wouldn't be writing these books. He would be working hard to prove it and be able to publish in the scientific press, not just the popular press. The level of proof required in scientific journals is obviously well beyond what he is capable of. He does seem to agree with Michael Behe on the relative youth of the whole Intelligent Design movement when he says "We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented . . ." This has become one of the pet excuses as to why there is no science in Intelligent Design. But he continues his statement and blames evolution: "I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up." Oh I love this, why don't you have any science in Intelligent Design, its because how easily we brilliant pseudo-scientists were misled.

I think the blame is much closer to home, I think the reason there is no science is because only just recently Intelligent Design was formed to try and put a religion-neutral face on Creationism and there is no science to find. But that's just my thinking. If he said it, it would cut into book sales.

He does make bold statements about how his research will affect the world of science. Please remember that so far his work hasn't been much impact. I do object to the characterization that anything in this book smacks of research! If he really did research that could prove any of his point he wouldn't be writing in the popular press! My favorite line is "I don’t see how you can read this book, if you’ve not been indoctrinated with Darwin’s theory, and go back to the evolutionary fold. " He's pre-built himself an excuse for when people who read his book dump all over it, like his other books. He also states "The case against this materialistic, undirected evolution is overwhelming." But doesn't make a case and has never made a case. In fact NO ONE has made such a case. Oh they have opinions and they yell a lot. Or they are like Ann Coulter who uses her bombastic style to repeat word for word what Philip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Michael Behe all told her to say.

He ends the interview by claiming that his book will address the whole debate [Intelligent Design and Evolution] effectively. That is a another unsubstantiated bold claim. I am looking forward to reading it if for no other reason to give me more ammo for my blog.

Mr. Dembski is one of those educators that characterizes a flaw in the educational system. He is a philosopher, historian, and mathematician. But when he speaks of Intelligent Design he uses his academic credentials to give credence to his views. That in my mind should be a crime. Michael Behe does is as well. To me those advanced degrees tell me you have no idea how science works or why it works. Remember he is the one claiming the theory of evolution mislead us, but he isn't a biologist!

Once again, does evolution equal atheism?

On the Conservative Voice website there is an article which also illustrates one of the issues in trying to address this whole ID/Evolution political debate. Now remember that there is no scientific debate, just one created by a small segment of conservative Christians who refuse to believe anything but their own dogma.

While Mr. Gray does make that very common error, along with most of his fundamentalist Christian buddies, his postings demonstrate the error of his ways and also the error of the person he is supposedly debating with. He raises some questions on the Big Bang, "My questions for him have been: Who or what created that extremely dense object? Who or what created space? Who or what hung that object in space and kept it there? What caused the explosion called the Big Bang?" that do deserve answers. My issue with the Intelligent Design/Creationism side of things is that you aren't interested in answers. You stop asking questions once you reach a point where you say "God" did it. Science is the only avenue that may one day answer those questions. Who knows, science may also reach a point where the answer is "God", but the difference is he starts with that answer and closes the conversation.

I do have a question for him. What in the universe makes you think everything that propagated from the Big Bang is in an "organized manner"? Oh you use some of the more common questions designed to stop any rational thought: "What causes our earth to spin on its axis, at the precise tilt which sustains life, in twenty four hour cycles, giving us day and night? What causes our earth to orbit around the sun in one year cycles, giving us the four seasons, and at the precise distance to sustain life on earth?" Here you are making a huge assumption that you seem to miss. Our form of life evolved because of the environment, stating that the environment was placed here just for us to evolve is nothing but pure hubris on your part. If the conditions were different, a different sort of life may have evolved. One day we might progress, through science, to worlds beyond our own and discover life vastly different from our own. If you discount that possibility, then the conceit you feel is of your own making. Because I believe God truly is omnipotent, unlike the limits you seem to want to place. The universe is an extremely large and disorganized place and who knows what we will find.

The Atheist he is supposedly arguing with is doing exactly what Mr. Gray is doing. Mr. Gray is using a religious argument to tear apart science. The Atheist is apparently using his disbelieve in God to disprove Intelligent Design. Both arguments lack an understanding of science!

You do not have to be an Atheist to disbelieve in Intelligent Design, just ask several Popes and 11,000 other American Christian Clergy members who not only don't agree with it, but they argue that teaching is propagates ignorance.

Arguments V - Transitional Forms

This is one of my favorite arguments against evolution. Of course it does nothing to advance intelligent design, but then neither do most intelligent design supporters.

The argument goes like this "Where are all the transitional forms that should have evolved? Where are the organisms in mid-evolution? Why do Apes still exist if we evolved from Apes, shouldn't there be some transition between us and apes?" You get the point. I hate to do this again, but we need to settle on a definition here. When someone utters this types or arguments, we need to know what they mean by transitional form.

The very first time I had this discussion with a creationist friend of mine I was shocked to learn what he expected in the way of transitional form. He was expecting some part-man, part-fish, part-bird like creature that would exist today to show the relationship. I really thought he was talking about some B-list science fiction movie, the type you would see on late night TV.

I had to sit back and think on it for a little while and it dawned on me his biggest problem was the time frame. He's a YEC, a Young Earth Creationist, who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You know for Evolution to have worked it 'magic' in only 6,000 year, he's right, there would be some pretty strange fossils and potentially even living creatures today.

But when the time frame is extended into the billions of years, the need for transitional forms to be radical disappears. At this point the Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and others makes much more sense. For a more interesting list check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

When you consider the long time for forms to transition, you can see that the changes were much less radical. A shoulder joint here, a wrist here, or feathers here, as opposed to a single organism with characteristics of multiple species in one generation.

Of course my YEC friend denied my evidence. "It's a conspiracy of "paleontologists" who would be out of a job if the 'truth' were known." was one of his responses. At this point I think I truly decided that Intelligent Design had no place in the science classroom. My friend was perfectly willing to disregard the work of hundreds, even thousands of scientists because it didn't agree with his personal religious belief. He had no other basis for his disagreement other than vehement denial.

This form of denial was later repeated by Michael Behe who denied evidence of evolution on his examples of irreducible complexity during the Dover PA trial. I cannot get behind any idea where the main line of argument is to deny evidence. Fossils don't support your idea, so just toss them out -- or claim they were all formed in one world-wide flood. Radiological dating doesn't support your idea, so toss it out -- without realizing that the physics behind it, Thermodynamics, is also the science behind your car running. Geology dates the Earth at more than 4.5 billion years, just toss it aside because you don't like it. Then abuse religion to trick people into agreeing with you. "You believe in God, so you must be an anti-evolutionist!" "The Bible is the only biology text worth studying!" "More people believe in God than Darwin!"

OK, enough said for the moment. Transitional forms existed and today we are the transitional forms of what will come tomorrow. If you disagree, look at your children. They are like you in some ways, like their other parent in others, and still they are their own person. If you still disagree, also look at the furniture of Colonial America. Why are the beds so short . . .were the trees shorter also? Or was the average height less than it is today? We are taller and live longer than 200 years ago. It's Evolution . . . Live and In Person!

Coexistence III - Tejon CA

This is from last year, but I wanted to put it here lest we forget the changing tactics and methods used by groups to get Intelligent Design in science class.

In the lovely mountain community of Tejon, Ca the school board was presented with a class concept called "The Philosophy of Intelligent Design". Without a lot of detailed information the Board did ask their legal advisers if teaching this class would be legal and the reply was perfectly acceptable. "As long as the class is a Philosophy class that would be fine. In all honesty the Board only had about 24 hours to make a decision, I wonder if that was part of the tactical approach?

Well the school board gave it's blessing and a course description was given to the students:

"The class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the
scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy
is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative
response to evolution. Topics that will be covered are the age of the earth, a world
wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and
geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting
the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture
discussions, guest speaker, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position
paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."

The teacher, a special education teacher with a bachelor of arts degree in physical education and social science with an emphasis in sociology and special education. She also had no training or certification in the teaching of science, religion or philosophy.

What was also interesting is the course was a mix of videos and guest speakers. The videos, 24 of them. 23 of the 24 videos are produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance. The 24th video has nothing to do with creationism or evolution; it is thus unclear why it even appears on the list. And this is a Philosophy class?

The funny part was that of the list of speakers purported to have been invited to speak, only two were advocates of evolution, the rest were all creationists and intelligent design proponents. The two supposedly speaking for evolution were Dr's Kenneth Hurst and Francis Crick. Dr. Hurst never received an invitation to speak and Dr Crick, Nobel Prize winner and half of the team that discovered the double helix structure of DNA has died two years previously.

OK, what I see here is a stacked deck. Not only was Evolution not represented in the videos, or I should say only represented by groups with a grudge against it, but the evolution supporting speakers certainly had no chance to actually speak. The teacher herself was ill suited to present a true class on Philosophy.

Well after parents complained there were a few changes. One video on evolution added, and the speakers list was left vague. The name of the class was even changed to "Philosophy of Design" but the parents were already alerted and took the case to court.

Rather than a large battle, this was settled quickly and the class canceled. The local paper reported that even the Discovery Institute recognized the original obviously creationist agenda couldn't be defended in court.

Look at the tactics! Short notice to the school board with ambiguous explanations, an unqualified teacher, and the syllabus dominated by a singular point of view. An attempt to sneak it in which failed and could have become an expensive trial for that school system. School Boards and Parents have to keep their eyes open or this might happen to their kids. Also apparently only 13 kids signed up for the class, and even though this was below the minimum number required or a class is canceled, the class still started and didn't stop until the legal action began.

Arguments IV - Catch Phrases

How about avoiding the dictionary this time and just look at some of the catch phrases designed to 'slip' Intelligent Design into the science classroom.

Like "Teach the Controversy", the "Fairness", "Balanced View", "Allowing Students to Make Up Their Own Mind", and "Free Speech" are all aimed at the same thing, finding a legal pretext to bring Intelligent Design into the science classroom. For the moment forget that it has no basis in science as of yet, forget that it's illegal to teach it as science in the public school classroom, and forget all the religious connections that the Discovery Institute is constantly trying to smokescreen from view. Don't even think about science right now, focus on these phrases and what their impact might be on what is taught in any subject.

Let's take a different subject, one less fraught with emotion, Mathematics. Is there currently Free Speech, Fairness concerns, a Balanced viewpoint, or are students allowed to make up their own mind? Hell no! Look what this would do to Mathematics?

"2+2 is whatever you want it to be, Little Jonnie!"

"If Susie has 5 oranges, and you took 2 away, . . .No, I don't know why they took two oranges. I guess they only had 1 and now they both have 3 -- regardless of the fact Susie earned her 5 oranges . . ."

"How many students want to solve multi-dimensional quadratic equations today? OK no one, then let's go back to our discussion on how many ghosts Scooby-Doo helped catch!"

I know I am being a little silly, but do you get my point? We don't consider these things in our school curriculum? We teach the things believed to provide a well-rounded education and to give kids a start in the rest of their life! That's not free speech! We don't hold the curriculum of any class up for debate! We teach the current thinking of the subject matter! We prep our kids for further education and life! Do we do a perfect job, no! There are still kids who graduate high school who somehow miss some basic skills, like reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic, but how many more would graduate without skills if we spent so much time trying to meet some fairness doctrine that required us to teach every possible side to every possible idea?

Look at the study of History! Let's teach American history from the point of view of the European settlers and then let's teach it again from the point of view of the Native Americans and just for fun let's teach it from the African point of view. Now let's teach it from the immigrants viewpoint throughout history. Now I am not saying these things shouldn't be studied, but remember how different the story would be if you made the study completely "Fair and Balanced". You wouldn't have time for anything else.

Since you cannot teach an infinite number of things in any course of study Most states have created guidelines for the development of curriculum and school boards and teachers are required to follow those guidelines. Teachers are also well training in their field of study, I mean you rarely see a physiology major teaching Physics? I can see the teacher selection board now "Physiology . . . .Phsy . . . .Physics . . .yea, we have a match!" You see, you have to, at some point, filter what is going to be taught for a number of reasons including time, level of importance, applicability, and even age group. You aren't going to start teaching the Big Bang in First Grade, are you? So this filtering needs to be done professionally and not based on the wispy concept of what is fair! Fair should be a consideration, but only fairness of those things that are actually part of the curriculum area of study. You aren't going to teach how to balance a checkbook in political science class, are you? Oh that leads it's self to so many jokes doesn't it?

So as we can see the fairness principle is built in, but it still needs to cover only those things that are applicable to the subject matter. As I have said many times Intelligent Design is not science so keeping it out of the science curriculum is the proper decision.

I love the Free Speech and Let the Students decide for themselves line. Is there free speech in the classroom? Not when it comes to curriculum content, not in any subject area. Keeping Intelligent Design out of science isn't a violation of free speech, it's smart teaching. Let's also remember that with free speech comes responsibility. I mean you are free to walk into a crowded movie theater and shout "Fire!" But as we all know there better be a damned fire or you are going to jail! Plus the civil lawsuits for anyone physically hurt or emotionally upset by your action! Free Speech doesn't mean that you get to say anything you want whenever you want and it never has. As for letting the Students decide for themselves, as if an Intelligent Design supporter really wants this. What would a curriculum really look like if students got to pick and choose the details of what gets taught? Imagine English class? Students are not a good judge of what they will need later in life, are they? I personally remember thinking "What use is this subject after high school?" and later needing it and using it and thinking "Damn, I guess it was a good thing after all." Ha that applied to every subject, of course not, but back in High School I would have dropped nearly all the curriculum content for history, geography, bachelor living (guy's home economics), and most science. Oh but then I found myself working with electronics, living alone and all that it entailed, and traveling the world thanks to the US Air Force and I found myself grateful for my education. The reason I would have made a poor judge of what subjects to teach is simply because I am a poor judge of where I was going in the future.

So these catch phrases are nothing more than emotional arguments designed to make it sound like inserting Intelligent Design into the science curriculum is the 'right' thing to do. The opposite is true, it would be the wrong thing on so many levels! Plus, as they discovered in Dover, it will open your school system to an expensive lawsuit, wasting money better spent on education.

Arguments III - Controversy

Today's word of the day is "Controversy", again let's start with the basic definition from Webster's:

1. a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute
2. quarrel, strife

Frequently when you hear someone expressing a viewpoint on Intelligent Design the rallying cry is to "Teach the Controversy". Now like many statements said this one doesn't mean what you think it means. Or maybe I should say the point of view being expressed is a lie!

First of all there is a controversy concerning teaching intelligent Design in science class, but it is a contrived controversy created by and marketed by Intelligent Design supporters. They make it sound so reasonable and so fair, but it's they who have created this controversy. They imply there is a controversy in the science community when they know there is not! But by attempting to make themselves sound fair, they are in fact deceiving us.

I can say this with certainty, the scientific community is like many others. There are agreements and disagreements. There are people of character and there are people of less than sterling character. But by a vast majority there is no controversy over Intelligent Design. The science community calls it bunk, junk-science, pseudo-science . . . and those are the ones being polite. Having a few trained scientists, like Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez, step out of the bounds of science and spout an idea like Intelligent Design isn't a controversy -- it's the normal way science goes about it's business. Even having a hundred or a thousand scientists doesn't make it a controversy. The Discovery Institute likes to show off their list of 700 scientists who they claim support Intelligent Design. Once again look at what those 700 signed up for and Intelligent Design wasn't even on the list! The question remains where is this controversy?

Well the controversy never got serious in the scientific community, so groups like the Discovery Institute took it to the streets. They help publish popular press books and articles, because they know the level of proof in the popular press is magnitudes less than any scientific journal. They go to churches, schools, school boards, and PTA meetings and encourage dissent from teaching Evolution. They put out videos and build laughingly called museums that make the Flintstones look like a reality show. They do all this and then raise their hands in innocence and tells us there is a controversy. They should know, they are fomenting it.

They lose one battle in court and they just repackage everything and try again. One attempt was the ban the teaching of evolution. But in 1968 they lost that one. (Epperson v. Arkansas)
Next up, let's demand equal time for both Creationism and Evolution. Well that one failed as well. (Daniel v. Waters (1975)). In 1981 they tried to make it a law to teach them both and that went down in flames (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education). Tried it again in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard) only instead of mandating Creationism, the name of the subject was Creationist Science. Most recently the latest re-packaging was the take Creationism and yank out all direct reference to God and call it Intelligent Design. In 2005 eleven parents of Dover PA school children took their own school board to court and the ruling was a serious blow to organizations such as the Discovery Institute.

So if they can't fight it is court, let's create an artificial controversy, funnel serious money behind it and attack the hearts and souls of people rather than perform the science that would welcome them into the science class. I question why they cannot put more effort behind the science and the only answer I can come up with is they are faced with a battle they cannot win on the science front, so they are attacking on every other front they can.

So in closing (for now) please when you hear about the 'controversy' remember that it's an effort to win peoples hearts by artificially creating a controversy where there was none. It's mostly a word game because when an Intelligent Design supporter says to teach the controversy, you assume they mean there really is a controversy within the realm of science. The fact is they have created one and brought it to the school board meeting near you! Dover PA wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Florida, Ohio, and Texas seem to be shaping up to be the next states attacked by the dull toothed piranha, I just wonder which school board will fall for the whole controversy and be led down to another multi million dollar lawsuit.

So if there is no controversy in the scientific community

God carries gasoline!

I think I need to encourage folks to comment here rather than email, but I guess any feedback does tell you someone is reading -- even if they tend to get annoyed.

Got another email with some interesting feedback. Let me address things here rather than respond one-on-one.

(1) You might think because the only time I mentioned prayer was when my car might not have started that I am some sort of Atheist and quoting me "There are no atheist in foxholes" is going to get my goat, you are in error. Before you accuse me of being someone who only prays when they are in trouble, or when their sports team is on the verge of elimination, do me a favor and ask me first! You have no idea my belief system or my religion. I have repeated stated I am against Intelligent Design and Creationism in Science Class! My reasoning is spelled out in many posts. I used the car analogy to make a point, which you obviously missed.

(2) Now as I said in my post God may have reached down and helped my car start -- or it would have started because the science and engineering behind it made sure it would start under those brutal condition. I cannot prove it either way and I would have no idea how to start. As for your car analogy I would love to see you prove it:

You are driving along and suddenyl you run out of gas and your car won't start. Miraculously a tow truck driver pulls in behind you and already has a gas can full that you can use.

You see this as proof of Intelligent Design? OK, you need to be much more clearer because I thought you made my science point for me. First of all the reason the car wouldn't go is because you were OUT OF GAS! This is pure science because it's been proven many a late night on a small quit road without a service station in sight that car's need gas to run. You can claim all you wish about how you happened to run out of gas, including divine intervention, but trying to use this as an example of Intelligent Design in biology beats the hell outa me. Now again you could say God sent the tow truck guy, but what is the Intelligent Design point of that part of the argument. You missed me completely. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I know a number of people who wound up walking to get gas. One Thanksgiving a family ran out of gas right around the corner of my house as my family and I were out strolling after eating a wonderful dinner. We took them to get more gas and helped them on their way. Did God intervene? Maybe he did, but proving it would be impossible! Even the Discovery Institute wouldn't try and sell that one.

(3) My posts are not for your enjoyment and they are not there to preach Atheism. [can Atheism actually be preached?] The purpose of this blog is to give me an avenue for venting more than anything. I see something incredibly foolish going on and I refuse to keep silent. If no one reads my posts, OK, no worries there. But obviously at least you did! Thanks!

OK in closing go ahead and use the comments feature, they are enabled. So that way if anyone else is reading, they might like to see your feedback. Oh, and as far as I know using intemperate language does show up in comments as well as emails!

Intelligent Design rears its ugly head in Ohio

Pymatuning Valley School District may be the next venue in the argument to keep Intelligent Design out of the science classroom. The Star Beacon in Andover Ohio reported this. Two things struck me in the article. First a parent, a Mr. Frank Piper, seems to have the same problem many people do and distinguishing between Creationism and Intelligent Design. That one was less scary than the quote from the School Superintendent, Dr. John Rose: “The big-bang theory has been around forever, but (the parent is) right; it’s just a theory,” Rose said." Doctor Rose is falling into the use of the word Theory, which I have already spoken of in thei Blog. Scary thing!

I fired off this letter to all members of the school board. Not sure it will do any good, but without any dissenting opinion, Pymatuning could find itself embroiled in a lawsuit like Dover PA, and that is money better spent on improving education rather than introducing unscientific topics into science class.

Here is my letter:

Last night I read [Star Beacon, 11 Dec 2007, Parent wants intelligent design in PV] how one parent asked about teaching alternatives to the Theory of Evolution and I would very much like to present my opposition to that idea. I’m sure you are aware of what it cost a school system in Dover PA when they attempted to have a statement concerning Intelligent Design read in class. Not only did the biology teachers refuse to read the statement, but the members of the school board who supported that idea were voted out of office. The court case ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was tantamount to teaching Creationism, something already ruled unconstitutional in previous challenges.

I was also concerned by something in the article, a quote by Superintendent Rose: “The big-bang theory has been around forever, but (the parent is) right; it’s just a theory,” The superintendent is falling into a semantically trap set by anti-evolutionists. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory. By definition a theory is just an idea – but a scientific theory is an idea that has been proven to explain observable phenomena in a plausible and acceptable way. These two different definitions of the word theory are usually used in differing contexts and stating that Evolution is just a theory was specifically found during the Dover trial to be a deliberate word trick designed to weaken the theory in the eyes of students.

Rather than believing me, take a look at the following Internet Website: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm. It’s a letter signed by over 11,000 Christian Clergy in support of the Theory of Evolution. In that letter they specifically state: “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.”

Before taking it upon yourself to go against current state curriculum standards and risking a lawsuit similar to Dover’s, please discuss this matter with your Biology teachers and consult with the legal staff who can advise you. The Dover PA school board ignored the advice of their legal counsel and completely disregarded the wishes of their biology teachers and paid a high price.

One last point, many public figures have expressed the idea of teaching both Evolution and Creationism/Intelligent Design, but few have detailed what they mean by teaching them both. There is nothing that says Creationism/Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a sociology or philosophy class. The rulings of the past have stated that they cannot be taught as science in science class.

There is a widespread public relations and marketing campaign to convince people of the scientific validity of Creationism and Intelligent Design and so far has failed to actually put forth scientifically valid proof. Any controversy over teaching Evolution exists in the social forum and not in the scientific community. According to Professor Michael Behe, an Intelligent Design supporter, in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the definition of science would have to be expanded to include actions by the supernatural. In doing so science would also become the home of other currently unscientific areas of interest. Allowing Creationism into the science classroom by redefining science may open the doors to Astrology in place of Astronomy, Alchemy instead of Chemistry, and Phrenology rather than Psychiatry. Please don’t be a part of such an action.

Thank you for your time and attention. I would like to close by saying that what is taught in the classroom needs to be guided by many factors. But when it comes to specific curriculum areas, like science, mathematics, history, languages, and such, are also guided by the way that discipline is accepted and used following High School and for the rest of life. Science should remain within the realm of science; mathematics should remain in the world of mathematics and so on. Allowing a religious subject, like Creationism, into science class and allowing a science teacher to cover such a subject would be the equivalent of asking my family priest to teach biology. Keep theology where it belongs, in the realm of church and keep science in the science classroom.

Thank you,