Ball State Makes the Front Page

USA Today is carrying a story about a professor at Ball State that is, apparently, teaching creationism in science class.  Originally from the Star Press of Muncie, Indiana, the article, written by Seth Slabaugh, has this to say:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose mission is to act as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the principle of separation of state and church, filed an objection to Eric Hedin's teaching.

In a letter to BSU President Jo Ann Gora, the group claims Hedin's "Boundaries of Science" Honors College class "takes your school motto, 'Education Redefined,' too far."

"BSU appears to offer a class that preaches religion, yet gives students honors science credit," foundation attorney Andrew Seidel wrote to Gora. "BSU appears to have a class with a non-biologist undermining genuine science and scholarship of the Ball State biology department by teaching creationism, a religious belief ... masquerading as science."

If he were teaching these subjects in the context of differing perspectives on origins and creation along with mainstream scientific viewpoints, then the course would probably earn its name. Such would only be the case if the problems of these perspectives were pointed out, however. According to Jerry Coyne, however, that is not what is happening:

"All the books are by creationists, IDers (intelligent designers), or people who try to show that science gives evidence for God," evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, a professor at the University of Chicago, told The Star Press, referring to the bibliography for Hedin's course. "There are no straight science books."

It appears Hedin "presents a non-view of science in a science class," said Coyne, author of the book "Why Evolution is True."

"The students are being duped. It's straight theology with no alternatives. It's a straight Christian intelligent design/creationist view of the world, which is wrong. It's not science. It's not that it's not science, it's science that has been discredited. It's like saying the Holocaust didn't happen."

First, there is not a single book by what is commonly known as a "creationist" on the list that Coyne produces in his blog.  Some are ID, quite a few are theistic evolution in bent and some address the fact that there exist components of life beyond science.  It would be more appropriate to call the course "theological ruminations on science," or some such thing but it is pretty clear that nobody is being taught young earth creationism.  I think the charge of undermining genuine science might have some merit with regard to the ID books, but given the reputation of people like Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, Nigel Brush and Roger Penrose, it is pretty hard to argue that genuine science isn't being taught at all.  It might be taught in a philosophical arena, with musings on the ultimate questions of life's origins and things like that but there is nothing necessarily inappropriate about that.   It seems to me that the professor wants his students to try to think beyond the realm of science to address ultimate causes.  It is not clear, in the least, that he "wants his students to believe in Jesus."

In this case, it appears that Coyne has a case of the vapors only because he can't stand religion of any kind.  It sounds like a fun course to take.

"Critical Thinking" and "Intelligent Design" Bills Fail To Make It Out of Committee in Missouri

The Missouri State legislature failed to move on several bills, letting them die in committee.  The first one would have promoted "critical thinking" and allowed for opposing views and discussion of "differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution."  Here is the text of the bill, HB-179.

The second one, HB 291, is no better, since it specifically supports the teaching of ID.  It is somewhat dishonestly called the "Missouri Science Standard Act," since it carries no provisions for any scientific disciplines other than evolutionary theory.  If critical thinking is desired, why don't we apply it to all scientific disciplines?  How is it that all of the rest of science has gotten it right and the evolutionists have gotten it wrong?  Equally maddening is that all of the topics covered in the language of the bill (lack of transitional forms, irreducible complexity, reuse of proven designs) have been discredited by mainstream science.  The people promoting these bills either don't care or can't be bothered to learn any of the science involved.

Once again, more badly thought-out legislation sponsored by Republicans who don't know any better.

Hat tip to Robert Luhn. 

Addendum to Kentucky Junk Science

Here is the complete text of the section of the Kentucky state law (KS 158.177) that is quoted in the story from Leo Weekly:

158.177 Teaching of evolution -- Right to include Bible theory of creation.
(1) In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the creation of man and the earth, and which involves the theory thereon commonly known as evolution, any teacher so desiring may include as a portion of such instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may accordingly read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby affording students a choice as to which such theory to accept.
(2) For those students receiving such instruction, and who accept the Bible theory of creation, credit shall be permitted on any examination in which adherence to such theory is propounded, provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.
(3) No teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational religious belief.
(4) This section is not to be construed as being adverse to any decision which has been rendered by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Effective: July 13, 1990
History: Repealed and reenacted 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 476, Pt. V, sec. 403, effective July 13, 1990. -- Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 261, sec. 1.

It is the last part of the statute that really rattles my cage. This means that, if a school child takes a quiz like the one that was given at that South Carolina private school, they get full credit for it as far as the state is concerned. How is that credible on any level.

Interestingly, if you will recall, the University of Southern California refused to accept the credits of a student who was instructed in just this way.  The parents sued the state and lost.  

P.S., The father that pointed out the quiz that his daughter took is yanking her out of that school.

Enact a basic science test
Enact a basic science test
Enact a basic science test 

Biologos Survey of Pastors

Biologos contracted with the Barna Group to conduct a survey on the views of origins expressed by pastors. 

What they discovered is that, out of 743 pastors interviewed over the phone, 19% are hard-core young earth creationists while 35% "lean" that way.  7% are progressive creationists, with 8% leaning and 15% leaned toward theistic evolution with 3% hard core.  12% listed their view as "uncertain."

Most of the findings are straightforward and what you would expect.  They are afraid that the disagreements with science are harming our witness, and most are concerned about evolution. One of the findings was that pastors weren't avoiding science:

The majority of pastors think that addressing issues of science for their congregations is an important part of their work. Of those surveyed, 72% felt that addressing science issues in the local community was somewhat (51%) or very (21%) urgent. When asked about science on a national and global level, even more pastors felt that addressing science issues is important (43% somewhat and 46% very).

But it does not appear that they are attempting to learn more about it. While a sample size of one, the level of scientific understanding expressed by Ken Ham is minimal, at best. Even my paster, it is clear, is not familiar with modern evolutionary concepts. If they are representative of pastors as a whole, it will be a long, hard road ahead.  Read the whole thing. 

"Junk Science" From Kentucky

From the land that gave us the Creation Museum, we now have a bold, public attempt to teach creationism in the public schools of Louisville.  Joe Sonka of LEO Weekly writes:

A new group of Christian educators in Louisville conducted a unique training session for Jefferson County Public Schools teachers last Thursday inside the auditorium of The Gheens Academy for Curricular Excellence and Instructional Leadership. The group’s ultimate goal: spreading their faith to public school students.

This is probably controversial from a church/state point of view but that is not what got my interest. He continues:

While the event wasn’t sanctioned by JCPS — LACES rented out the space — speakers included Kirk Lattimore, assistant superintendent for academic achievement, and Bryce Hibbard, Southern High School principal.

Hibbard and other speakers told the teachers present that it was perfectly acceptable under Kentucky law to teach biblical creationism in addition to evolution in science classes, and he suggested future meetings with biology teachers to craft curriculum.

“I taught biology for 20 years in this state and didn’t know that if evolution is part of the curriculum, that I could have been teaching creation,” Hibbard said. “I thought I was sneaky if I had the kids … present it. So it was presented in my classroom by the kids, but I could have been doing it and didn’t know that.”

This remark is followed by a stunning display of lack of scientific knowledge:

Principal Hibbard told LEO that while he would not order his science teachers to promote or discuss biblical creationism, he would not discourage it and has let them understand they are allowed to do so under Kentucky law. When asked if such biblical lessons in science class — taking time away from learning actual science — would stunt the academic growth of students, Hibbard replied that it would not, as creationism is “just another theory.”

“Certainly, that’s what (creationism) is,” Hibbard said. “A theory is a scientific understanding of what we know today. So evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. The theory of relativity is a theory. Yeah.”

So, instead of teaching modern science, we are going to teach modern gnosticism.  We have heard this before. It began with Ronald Reagan's pronouncement that evolution was "only a theory." modern-day creationists pounce on the misunderstanding of theory and run as far with it as they can.  To equate a testable framework such as evolutionary theory with young earth creationism is laughable.  The fact that the only aspects of the YEC model that do lend themselves to testability get blown out of the water every time doesn't seem to matter.  People like Hibbard won't take the time (despite the fact that the qualifications of their job demand it) to learn this.

This is probably the only instance in which I think that a top-down approach must be taken.  A basic science test must be in force to weed out the people the run for school boards or education committees that obviously can't even define basic scientific concepts like "theory." 

A Catechism of Creation

I found this by way of a Pete Enns article on episcopalian attitudes toward science.  It is a catechism that integrates the scriptures with the world around us.  A downloadable version of it is here.  Of creation, it has this to say:

Our creation faith is a Trinitarian faith: the Father, who is the Source of all that is, creates and upholds the creation, that is, the visible and invisible universe, through the Son, who is the pre-existent Word who speaks the universe into being, and in the life-giving, sustaining and renewing Spirit.

About Genesis 1:

Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good. Finally, Genesis 1 teaches that the Sabbath, God’s holy day of celebration and rest, is anchored in the act of creation.

It specifically deals with the concept of an evolving creation and, instead of recoiling from it and rejecting it, as those who follow young earth creationism have done, the idea has been embraced:

...When astronomers look out into space they look back in time. Thus, they are able to see our universe at many stages of cosmic evolution since its beginning in the Big Bang. Here on earth biologists, paleontologists, geneticists and other scientists are showing that life has evolved over four billion years, and are reconstructing evolution’s history. None of these scientific discoveries and the theories that explain them stands in conflict with what the Bible reveals about God’s relationship to the creation.

Conspicuously absent, however, is any mention of Adam and Eve and how we are to integrate the fall in the garden story into our understanding of an evolving creation. I have written them to see how they reconcile this. I will let you know what I find out. Although the official position of the Episcopalian church on evolution is that they don't have one, that they are open to the ideas implied by the scientific evidence is good.

Washington Post: Louisiana Supreme Court rules school voucher funding unconstitutional

It has happened as I feared.  The Louisiana state Supreme Court has ruled that the use of school vouchers to send kids to religious schools is unconstitutional.  Valerie Strauss writes:

The voucher program was part of a 2012 school reform program that allows the state to offer vouchers to more than half of Louisiana students, expand the number of privately managed charter schools and give letter grades to preschoolers. Opponents have called it nothing less than an assault on public education.

Some 5,000 students are using vouchers this year, even though 450,000 students were eligible, and about 8,000 were recently approved to get voucher money for next year. Many of the voucher students attend private Christian schools which use curriculum that promotes Young Earth Creationism, which holds the belief that the universe is no older than 10,000 years old despite definitive scientific evidence that it is billions of years old. Many of the schools teach things as fact that are actually fantasy, such as that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.

One can only wonder how much of a role that creationism had in this ruling but it is clear that it had some because of the work of Zack Kopplin, who tirelessly pointed out the use of the public money being used to teach creationism. So, a program that could have helped kids escape failed public schools and have a better chance at succeeding in life is ruined by the stinkweed of creationism.  What a tragedy. 

AIG: Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School

In response to the publicity that the fourth grade science test got in Snopes recently, Answers in Genesis posted a rebuttal against "those intolerant atheists."  Ken Ham, himself, writes:

Today, we bring your attention to another attack on Christian education. A Christian K–12 school in South Carolina, with dedicated and highly qualified Christian teachers,1 has come under vicious attack by atheists. Why? Because one of its instructors, a fourth-grade teacher, tested her children about biblical creation, science, and dinosaurs (using AiG resources), and she has become (in)famous on many atheist websites and blogs.

It is not clear to me that she has become infamous on many atheist websites.  Many sites that aired the controversy are not atheist sites.  Like me, they simply cannot believe that this is being taught as science.  Ham is blanketly calling anyone who disagrees with the teaching of this in fourth grade as "atheist."  This is simply name-calling.  For the entire length of the response, however, there is never a question about the quality of the instruction, only the assertion that it is "the atheists" that want to remove the "biblical approach to dinosaurs."  He writes:

For the next two years, our special theme for the Answers in Genesis ministry is “Standing our Ground, Rescuing our Kids” (Galatians 1:4). We, too, have experienced recent increased attacks by atheists, especially whenever they discover we are influencing children with the truth of God’s Word. These anti-God people hate the fact that Christians are teaching children to stand on the authority of the Bible; they want to be the ones teaching children and indoctrinating them into atheism.

For Ken Ham, there is not the slightest possibility that a person can be a Christian and not accept this way of looking at scripture.What happens to these kids when they reach adolescence or adulthood and discover that he is wrong about how the universe is put together?  What then?  Will he feel responsible when they walk away from the faith? 

Evidence For Human Behavior Pushed Back

Science Daily is running a story on some research done at Kanjera, in Kenya.  According to the story:

The fossil evidence for hominin hunting is particularly compelling. The record shows that Oldowan hominins acquired and butchered numerous small antelope carcasses. These animals are well represented at the site by most or all of their bones from the tops of their head to the tips of their hooves, indicating to researchers that they were transported to the site as whole carcasses.

Many of the bones also show evidence of cut marks made when hominins used simple stone tools to remove animal flesh. Some bones also bear evidence that hominins used fist-sized stones to break them open to acquire bone marrow.

In addition, modern studies in the Serengeti--an environment similar to KJS two million years ago--have also shown that predators completely devour antelopes of this size within minutes of their deaths. As a result, hominins could only have acquired these valuable remains on the savanna through active hunting.

The site layers are around 2 million years old.  This pushes evidence for this back into the very earliest time period of early Homo, when you had two forms running around the landscape but some two to three hundred thousand years before you had Homo erectus.