The Slander of “Darwinism”

Kenneth Miller has written yet another extraordinary essay, this one on the nature of the term “Darwinism” and how it is pejoratively used by those insistent on trashing evolutionary theory.  He writes:

He could have just said he didn’t believe in evolution, or that evolution had flaws. Or, he could have said that a book with a whole unit on evolution was just too much. But William Buckingham, of the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania, didn’t use the “E” word when he explained his objections to the biology textbook selected by the science teachers at Dover High School. Instead, he invoked a term that didn’t even appear in that textbook. Prentice Hall’s Biology: The Living Science, he claimed, “was laced with Darwinism from beginning to end.” Surely, he must have thought, “Darwinism” was a disqualifying slander that everyone could understand.

Buckingham, who was singled out for special re-probation by Judge Jones at the end of the trial, was at once ignorant and pejorative.  He was ignorant in that Darwin was not the only one to develop the idea of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace being the other one. He meant to be pejorative (in the same way that all of the Discovery Institute writers intend) because he knew that the term “Darwinism” carries with it the baggage of animus and atheism.As Miller notes, when an entire branch of science is referred to by its founder's name, then it takes on the air of an ideology, rather than a legitimate field of study.  The ideology can then be characterized as agenda-driven, attempting to tear out the heart of morality and decency.  None of this, of course, is true but the perception is rampant.  Miller also points out something of which I hadn't thought:

The overuse of Darwin’s own name facilitates another line of attack, by pretending that the field relies entirely on Darwin’s own work, fashioned in an age before the modern sciences of genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology emerged to confirm and expand his ideas. This allows the pretense that evolution is a stolid, unchanging field, with few new ideas that might refresh its 19th century heritage. Any scientist would scoff at this, of course, knowing the vigor that new discoveries constantly infuse into evolutionary biology. But to laypeople, unfamiliar with the rapid pace of scientific discovery, this can be a persuasive argument.

This would be no different from referring to modern physics as “Newtonism”  despite the vast advances that have been made since Newton's time.  Miller laments that these perceptions are hard to fight against because they appeal to emotions rather than empirical thought. Further, there are those of the atheist perspective who argue that, as humans, we are no better or special than any other species on the planet.   For this, though, he has an answer:

We are the children of evolution in every sense, part of Darwin’s fabled “tangled bank.” We must never forget that. But we must also remember that we are the only creatures to emerge from that thicket and make sense of it all. “Darwinism” does not diminish us. Rather, it puts the human experiment into a truly scientific perspective. We are not just hairless bipedal primates. We are creatures capable of the fugues of Bach, the verses of Yeats, the stories of Twain, the creations of Dalí and, for that matter, the mathematics of Gödel, Ramanujan and Turing.

In contemplating the lessons of evolution for our species and our culture, this is how we should overcome the mindless use of “Darwinism” as a slur. Some may feel demeaned by our evolutionary heritage, but I would argue that the more appropriate emotions are joy and delight. Joy that we are approaching a genuine understanding of the world in which we live, and delight at being the very first stirrings of true consciousness in the vastness of the cosmos. Far from diminishing us, knowing the details of Adam’s journey ennobles each of us as a carrier of something truly precious—the genetic, biological, and cultural heritage of life itself. Evolution describes not the death of Adam, but his triumph. That is the great truth of our story.

Masterful.

NCSE Post Reflecting on Kitzmiller, Twelve Years Later, by Eugenie Scott

NCSE has a guest post by Eugenie Scott, in which she remembers some of the points about Kitzmiller that might not have been public at the time.  It is part one of two.  In the run-up to the Kitzmiller trial, the plaintiffs did not know who the judge would be:

Well, the case was assigned to John E. Jones III, a fiftyish Republican who had been appointed by George W. Bush to the federal bench a few years before. “Intelligent design” proponents were delighted! In their blogs, they were quick to point out that Jones was a mover and shaker in Pennsylvania GOP politics, was a self-described conservative Republican, and was a church-going Lutheran, who certainly would be likely to find the ID policy constitutional.

I must say, our lawyers, who pay attention to judges more than we science types do, were a little apprehensive. What was this guy going to do? He’d only been a federal judge for a couple of years, so there wasn’t much of a record to go on.

His being a person of faith wasn’t an automatic concern. It’s so easy to misconstrue the creationism/evolution controversy falsely as “science versus religion,” when really it is one particular religious perspective versus everyone else’s. People are sometimes surprised to learn that our best allies in support of teaching evolution are other Christians: Catholics and mainstream Protestants— such as Disciples of Christ [with which Transylvania University is affiliated]—don’t want children taught Monday through Friday in science class that God specially created the universe in its present form 6,000 years ago, and then have to straighten them out on Sunday—because their theology is that God created through evolution.

One of the things that came out of the trial was how much the defense lied about what their true motives were. Although her post does not mention these events, it is an interesting account.

The York Dispatch: The Losers Are Winning in Dover

The York Dispatch has an editorial on the aftermath of the Dover trial and how it has affected the plaintiffs in the case.  In short: not well.  First they remind us of the words of John Jones III at the trial:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for (intelligent design). It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Despite this, as the editorial outlines, Bryan and Christy Rehm have been the target of veiled attacks and have been ostracized:

The Rehms, whose days in Dover Township are numbered, recently told The York Dispatch that they've had enough of the negativity that has followed them since the trial. They're moving.

"It just never goes away," Christy Rehm said. "We have proof it never goes away. We still feel it. We have neighbors that aren't so friendly with us."

Religious literature regularly fills their mailbox, and people call them "heathens" behind their backs, they said.

"We've given so much time, effort and energy to this district," Christy said. "A lot of people — a lot of our friends — have walked away, and we're still here. People just don't stay here."

What a rotten Christian witness from people who don't seem to know better but should.  I am sure there are quite a few people who didn't treat them this way, but the stench remains.  This is one reason (out of many) that I am almost done with modern evangelical Christianity.  Not Christianity, just the way people in the modern evangelical movement practice it.  I have a friend who went that route (not for the same reasons) a few years ago and converted to Orthodoxy.  That is looking better and better. 

York Daily Record: Ten Years Since Kitzmiller

The York Daily Record has an issue on the ten year anniversary of the Kitzmiller decision that devastated the intelligent design movement.  Among the articles, an interview with Judge Jones, the fate of the book that started the problem, Of Pandas and People, and the social and legal consequences of the decision. About Pandas:

In a deposition, school board member Bill Buckingham said he did not know how they were donated to the high school. Another member of the board, Alan Bonsell, denied that he knew anyone, except his father, who was involved in giving copies of the books.

During the trial, Buckingham said members of his church felt there was a need to give money, but that he did not consider that a collection. Bonsell said that he got an $850 check from Buckingham.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote in his decision that the "inescapable truth" is that both Buckingham and Bonsell lied during their depositions.

Today, only one "Of Pandas and People" book remains, in the Dover Area School District's administration building, according to the library catalog. The catalog also reports there's one copy of the book that's listed as "lost."

So, what happened to the other 48 books? With the exception of three copies, nobody seems to know.

Hopefully, into the circular file. That is certainly where it belongs.

Judge Jones, when asked about the misconceptions that the Intelligent Design community derived from the case:

I would say the main one is the role of precedent.

In the Kitzmiller case, there's a very clear line of cases from higher courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, that set out tests that we use in deciding whether a particular policy violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Those are etched in stone.

Now, people may disagree with those tests, but I have to, had to, as a federal judge, apply them. I have frequently said since the Kitzmiller case that I think any federal judge in the United States would have decided it exactly the same way that I did by applying those tests.

Now, they may have written the opinion a little bit differently, but the result would have been the same. That is, that the board, at that time, had a clear religious motivation, and violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment by its policy introducing intelligent design into the curriculum. The misconception arises because, frankly, people either deliberately — or from a lack of understanding — think that we make this stuff up as we go along, and that we're not bound to apply these precedents, these mandates, from higher courts. And that's exactly what I did in deciding the case.

All of the articles are fascinating examinations of the make up of the ID movement and its aftermath.

Hat tip to the NCSE.

Meanwhile, Over in "Oiho"

The Dayton Daily News is covering the goings on of the Springboro School Board, which is in the news yet again, and is locked in a tussle with some parents and the ACLU over the inclusion of creationism in the county school curriculum.  Lawrence Budd writes:

Local parents and the American Civil Liberties Union urged the Springboro school board on Thursday to abandon plans to pass policies inserting creationism and other religious issues into local classrooms.

Parents, teachers and students crowded a board meeting at Springboro High School where the board sought comments on policy changes including creation and evolution in a list of controversial issues.

Lynn Greenberg said the renewed consideration of bringing creationism into classrooms was just the latest controversy diverting attention from educating Springboro students.

“We’re being defined by our issues and not our accomplishments,” said Greenberg, a parent.

This kind of thing seems to be playing out in quite a few venues across the country and, with the advent of the Internet and the instant news cycle, it is likely that these events, which have probably been going on all the time, are now brought to our attention.  It does not help that the recent spate of "academic freedom" bills at the state level has given these school boards cover to attempt imposing not just ID but creationism at a local level.  The ability to shine a national spotlight on these sorts of debates, however, does make it hard for another Dover to occur.  In that case, the local school board was counting on people not paying attention.

Teachers and Evolution: Coming Through the Back Door

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an interesting editorial on the creation/evolution question as it pertains to science teachers and, in the process, points out an insidious back-door approach that some teachers take. The article chronicles the experiences of a woman who took an AP course in biology that gave evolution short shrift.  When she got to college, she realized that she had been under-educated.  David Templeton writes:

Her experience represents the ill-kept secret about public school biology classrooms nationwide -- that evolution often isn't taught robustly, if at all. Faith-based belief in creationism and intelligent design continues to be discussed and even openly taught in public school classrooms, despite state curriculum standards.

This is not new per se. This particular issue has been fought in Louisiana, Tennessee, and, of course, in Pennsylvania.  But this represents an additional facet of the problem.  Even though quite a few teachers are following the mandate to not teach creationism, that does not cover how they teach evolution:

But Mr. Berkman said their most alarming finding was that teachers need not introduce creationism in class to undercut interest and belief in evolution."You just have to throw doubt and downplay evolution," he said. "The idea that teachers are doing a really weak job -- many a really weak job -- of introducing evolution, we think, is because of reactions they get and maybe because of the lack of confidence in what they are teaching. That especially is the case with evolution, where many students have been primed by parents and youth groups to raise difficult and challenging questions."

This produces students who have little to no knowledge of evolution when they reach college. If they skip through college with minimal biology (engineering majors, let's say) and then end up in school boards later in life, they won't have the knowledge to make educated decisions about how evolution should be taught.  Thus, the cycle simply continues.

Another issue at work is that high school teachers differ from college professors in how they are trained.  High school teachers go through a curriculum that is heavily geared toward the facets of pedagogy and less, if at all, towards the particular subject they will be teaching.  Basically, they are taught to be teachers, not biologists, or chemists, or what-have-you.  We ask how, of those polled, 19% of science teachers can believe in young-earth creationism?  That's how.  

Tennessean: TN evolution law may change nothing

According to an article in the Tennessean, the new “monkey bill” may change nothing about the way science is taught. Here is the accompanying video. The first speaker intelligently lays out her opposition to the bill, the second one not so much.



Heidi Hall writes:

Supporters of Tennessee’s newest education law envision classrooms where teachers lead robust conversations about evolution, analyzing its strengths and weaknesses with students who are freshly engaged with this new approach.

Creationism wouldn’t be mentioned, they say. Neither would intelligent design. Teachers know those would violate the First Amendment, plus the new law expressly forbids promoting religious doctrine.

“I trust science teachers are smart enough to keep the discussion on a scientific level,” said Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the Discovery Institute, which wrote a model bill Tennessee lawmakers consulted. “I don’t see why anyone would bring religion into the discussion.”

I sometimes wonder if Casey says these things because he actually believes them or if he hopes that his listeners will. It is remarkably naive because he knows good and well (or he ought to) that, when polled, over 10% of science teachers actually support teaching creationism. It is also naive in that, during the Dover trial, it became clear that some members of the school board were committing terminological inexactitudes. They said they wanted "critical thinking" about evolution when they really wanted creationism. She continues:

Tennessee’s law isn’t the same as the Dover school board’s policy, but it sets up conditions for a lawsuit, said Vic Walczak, an ACLU attorney who represented the Dover, Pa., families.

“It basically neuters school boards and administrators from disciplining teachers who run off the rails,” he said. “And when the district gets sued by a parent, the teacher gets off scot-free? Why would you do that?

You would do that if you wanted creationism taught in the public school.

Todd Wood Thinks SB893 is Superfluous

Todd Wood has written to Governor Haslam, arguing that the passage of SB893 is pointless. The link to the letter appears to be broken on Todd's page, so I quote it in part. He writes:

Because of my religious convictions, I am a committed creationist, but unlike many creationists, I have grown quite weary of the creation-evolution propaganda war. I believe this bill is an ideal example of what's wrong with the creation-evolution war. For example, since the bill clearly states that religious discussions are not protected, it could not be used to permit "some Sunday school teachers to hijack biology class by proxy," as the editorial in the March 21 edition of the Tennesseean suggested. On the other hand, my own reading of the bill indicates that it provides no protection that teachers don't already have. Teachers are already well within their rights to discuss any scientific evidence that pertains to the prescribed curriculum and to encourage critical thinking about it. Many already do.

Interestingly, he hits on a particular problem in his opening statement involving creationism: it doesn't stand on its own merits. It is specifically tied to a “religious commitment.” This is counter to the position by the mainstream organizations such as AiG and the ICR, which have argued for decades that their science is as good as mainstream science and shows that the earth was created in six days six thousand years ago.

I have often wondered if a challenge should be issued: that someone would come forward who is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth and the universe were created in six twenty-four hour days six thousand years ago and that the geological column represents the effects of a world-wide flood but who is either an atheist or a hard-line agnostic. I doubt such a person exists.

The second problem that I have is that I don't think that the law is superfluous. Right now, if someone teaches recent earth creationism in the classroom in public school, they run the risk of being fired, like John Freshwater was. Now that the law has been passed, there is no oversight and such teachers are beyond the veil of accountability. The only way such a person would be stopped is if a lawsuit such as the one at Dover, PA were brought forth. Does the state really want that, with the media circus it would entail? Then it really would be Scopes II.

----------------
Now playing: Stan Getz - Sunshower
via FoxyTunes

Video on the Deliberation of SB893

Here is the deliberation of the senate bill by Bo Watson, which passed 7 to 1, with one abstaining (click on SB0893). There was one amendment to the bill in which the word “controversial” was replaced with “debated or disputed.” I do not know how that changes anything. They are only disputed by those who do not grasp the evidence.

Watson claims that school teachers should have the freedom to debate the controversial nature of these subjects in science class but that such debate should occur within the constructs of the state curriculum standards. Guess what? Such safeguards were in place in Dover, Pennsylvania. Didn't matter. They were in place in Louisiana. Didn't matter. Young earth creationism was introduced in both cases. In Dover, some of the local school board members even lied about what kind of curriculum they wanted taught, trying to introduce YEC arguments under the cover of ID.

Science and politics simply should not mix. It never ends well. Expect fallout like that which occurred in Louisiana (stories here and here).

----------------
Now playing: Art Blakey & The Jazz Messengers - Webb City
via FoxyTunes

New Book on the Dover Trial

Research and Markets is hawking a new book by Gordy Slack on the Dover trial that pitted ID against some agitated parents and wound up being a complete takedown of ID as a legitimate theory to be taught in science class. From their website:

Journalist Gordy Slack offers a riveting, personal, and often amusing first-hand account that details six weeks of some of the most widely ranging, fascinating, and just plain surreal testimony in U.S. legal history—a battle between hard science and religious conservatives wishing to promote a new version of creationism in schools.

Should be a fascinating read. I will stick it behind the other thirty books that I need to read.

----------------
Now playing: Eric Tingstad & Nancy Rumbel - Elysian Fields
via FoxyTunes

Indiana: They Did It Anyway...

WANE-TV in Indiana is reporting that, with a vote of 28-22, the Indiana Senate passed a law to teach creationism in the Indiana public schools. They write:

The bill permits local school boards to offer classes that include origin theories from religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.

Democratic Sen. Tim Skinner of Terre Haute, a former high school teacher, said he believed few teachers would be qualified to teach a class covering multiple religions and worried about the lack of specifics on what such a class would include.

"I think you are just asking schools --and I think you're asking teachers -- to do something that is going to open up a door that is probably going to result in a lawsuit which is going to be costly," Skinner said.

Ya think? Have none of these senators heard of Dover, Pennsylvania, or the countless court cases that came before it? The first lawsuit, and there will be one, will be very costly and stupid. the story also notes:

Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse of Auburn, the bill's sponsor, said the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the teaching of creationism since the 1980s and that the court could rule differently today.

The problem is that in the Dover case, the prosecution was successful in linking the ID policies of the school board to the underlying creationism principles, right down to “cdesign proponentsists.” This one ought to be fun to watch.

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren - A Dream Goes On Forever
via FoxyTunes

“Academic Freedom” in Ohio

The Columbus Dispatch reports on the town of Springboro that is attempting to add “supplemental” material to their school curriculum. As the editorial writer (unsigned) points out:

There is no question that those who believe in creationism are sincere. They believe their children are being led astray, and that, taught evolution, they will question the very bedrock of their family’s faith.

Kelly Kohls, a Springboro board member pushing for creationism in the classroom, said she is doing so as a concerned parent.

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” she told the Dayton paper, “ It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

She could take a lesson from another small community that exposed its students to “intelligent design,” a kind of creationism dressed up to look more scientific.

The reference is, of course, to the Dover, Pennsylvania trial in 2005, which was a rout for evolution education supporters.The editor fears that such a trial would come to Springboro in no time, were the materials added. They are probably right. Such a trial may be brewing in Livingston Parrish, Louisiana, as well. What is happening is that local school boards are interpreting the latitude of the academic freedom legislation to allow supplemental material as license to teach creationism.

Gee, who didn't see that coming?

----------------
Now playing: Paul Desmond - Samba De Orpheu
via FoxyTunes

Casey Luskin Invokes Need for Tennessee HB 368

In Evolution News and Views, Casey Luskin has endorsed the need for Tennessee House Bill 368. He writes:

Why do we need academic freedom legislation like Tennessee's HB 368? In case biology lecturer Allison Campbell decides to relocate to the United States. Sadly, even if she remains in New Zealand, there are already people here who don't allow for the free flow of ideas, especially when it comes to discussion of evolution.

Biology lecturer Allison Campbell at the University of Waikato in Hillcrest, New Zealand, exemplifies a mindset that is tragically common in academia. She openly boasts that if a student were to use standard ID arguments such as the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, that student would be "marked down."

He then argues that she has gotten a number of points wrong. Lets see what he writes:

She capitulates to the conspiracy theory that ID is creationism because of the editing of the Pandas textbook, ignoring the fact that prepublication drafts of Pandas used the term "creationism" in a way that is very different from standard formulations of creationism that caused it to be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. (For details, see here or here.)

In the first document that Mr. Luskin cites, he argues that a blanket designation of “creationist” is inappropriate:

It is important from the outset to understand that labeling ID “creationism” simply because many of its proponents believe God created the universe would define the term so broadly as to make it largely meaningless. For example, biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, conceded on the witness stand that he was a creationist when “creationist” is understood to mean anyone who believes that the universe was created by God.

There are two problems here. The first is that calling Kenneth Miller a “creationist” is not meaningless. Kenneth Miller is a creationist. So am I. We are both evolutionary creationists. Casey Luskin, William Dembski and Hugh Ross are Intelligent Design Creationists. Ken Ham and John Morris are Young Earth Creationists. This tree might be instructive:
Note: I have since adopted the term “evolutionary creationist” as being preferable to “Theistic Evolutionist.”

The second problem is that Luskin and others consistently use the terms “Darwinist” and “evolutionist” in their writings and, by doing so, fail to make the same distinctions that he claims are not being made about the use of the word “creationist” (see here, here, here, and here). What he and other writers of the Discovery Institute and Young Earth Creation groups mean when they use these terms is those individuals who are philosophical naturalists, but they do not make this distinction. There are many evolutionists who are also Bible-believing Christians. That is not a very useful distinction when you are trying to denigrate evolution, however.

Also, in his defense of the idea that ID is not creationism, Mr. Luskin never addresses the “smoking gun” problem of the “cdesign proponentsists.” which clearly linked the terms “creationists” and “design proponents.”

He continues:

She rants about the "Wedge document" even though its actual text is far more benign than she realizes, ignoring the fact that leading evolutionists have expressed their own motivations in the debate over ID and evolution.

Luskin fails to mention the fact that there are serious objections to the way in which Discovery Fellows like Michael Behe define science (his definition of science would accept astrology) or the fact that Phillip Johnson wants to abandon the entire scientific enterprise or that the ID movement is, in William Dembski's words, "just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."¹ While I also accept the word of God, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, nor was it meant to be. The text of the Wedge Document is not benign with regard to dismantling the scientific enterprise.

He finishes up by writing:

Dr. Campbell might not realize it, but she just heartily endorsed what is perhaps the most illiberal and anti-freedom aspect of the Kitzmiller ruling. In America, Judge Jones' logic is usually immediately seen as bigoted because the fact that someone believes in God should never be taken as a reason to dismiss or ban their scientific views. (For a discussion, see here or here.)

More smoke and mirrors. That is not what Judge Jones did. He said absolutely nothing about belief in God. He decided that ID was religiously-based, a conclusion that was very easy to draw based on the testimony of the defense, some of whom lied in the court room about their reasons for wanting ID taught in the schools. Furthermore, I have read the book that the defense trucked into the schools in the dead of night, Of Pandas and People. The book is awful and if this is representative of the supplementary material that the supporters of this bill want to use, then the opponents of this bill have every right to voice their opposition.

I would like to have an open mind about HB 836. It is certainly true that critical thinking is required in Any scientific endeavor. Doesn't it seem odd, though, that only evolution is being singled out? Sure seems odd to me.

¹William A. Dembski, (1999) Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design, Touchstone, July-August, 84.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - To the Lighthouse
via FoxyTunes

Education Week: Evolution Education Working

According to an article in Education Week, the fallout from the Dover trial in 2005 has been bad for creationism and intelligent design. Sarah Sparks writes:

The National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and other groups have increased research investment on identifying essential concepts for teaching evolution, including creating the Evolution Education Research Centre, a partnership of Harvard, McGill, and Chapman universities, and launching the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the subject, Journal of Evolution: Education and Outreach.

The journal was free for its first two years but now is behind a subscription wall. It is a top notch journal, though and worth seeking out. Sparks goes on to describe the different programs that are being implemented throughout the country but cautions that there are still problems:

Teacher education also has opened up as a new front in the battle over evolution in the classroom, according to Mr. Eberle. The Institute for Creation Research, which promotes creation-based science teaching, recently moved from California to Texas to fight for state accreditation to establish a master’s degree program in science education. Also, Louisiana has passed an “academic freedom” law protecting teachers who supplement their standard science textbooks with other materials; a state committee explicitly rejected a move to bar creationist or intelligent design materials from those supplements.

“If you take this term of ‘academic freedom’ more broadly, does it mean a teacher can teach anything?” Mr. Eberle asked. “It’s been narrowly applied to evolution, and I think it’s another term to accomplish the same goal” to undermine the scientific validity of evolution.

It should be noted that the ICR failed miserably in its bid to get accredited in Texas and has closed their "graduate program" in science. Interestingly, while there are many teachers that are skittish about teaching evolution, if you asked them if they were going to teach transmutation of gold or that the earth is flat, they would respond negatively. Why people feel different about evolution lies mostly in their lack of understanding of what the theory does and does not explain and deep-seated fears that it will upend their faith. The problem is that, if you are a young earth creationist, it will.

2theadvocate Opines on Livingston Parrish

In an unsigned editorial (why?) in 2theadvocate, the writer expresses dismay at the goings on in Livingston Parrish over the proposal to teach creationism next year. They write:

Members of Livingston’s School Board expressed interest in including “creationism” in science classes in the public schools. The system’s curriculum director, Jan Benton, said that under a new state law “critical thinking and creationism” materials can be introduced into science classes.

“Critical thinking” is the code for questioning evolution because of a fundamentalist belief in the literal story of the Creation in Genesis. While most faiths would not say Genesis is incompatible with evolution, there are those who differ — and they are politically engaged and ready to impose their beliefs on others.

Professional educators who promote this idea are not lining themselves up as profiles in courage.

Critical thinking and creationism, huh? Actually, the law did not say anything about creationism. It allowed for "supplementary materials" to be included in the classroom if they promoted critical thinking regarding a topic. "Critical thinking" and "creationism" don't normally find themselves in the same sentence, and the local folk who are promoting this have little to no understanding of the various scientific disciplines involved. Judging from the rumblings on the net about this story, the consensus is that people expect these proposals to die in committee or get blown out of the water by means of a trial a la Dover.

I am of two minds about this. I hate to see people of a town get dragged through the mud because of the unfortunate actions of a few school board induhviduals. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing another exposé of creationism. In the Dover case, the school board did things under the cover of night, trucking in copies of that dreadful book Of Pandas and People when nobody was looking. Five years later, with elections coming up, people are much more attuned to this controversy. It is harder to hide.

Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute

Gordon Glover has a new video on Youtube that is a complete howl. It takes on the "academic freedom" legislation to point out that, given that we should be open to teaching "the controversy," anything can be thought of as science. In this case, it is alien technology. This eerily reflects the testimony of Michael Behe during the Dover/Kitzmiller trial, in which he stated that, under his definition of science, astrology would be included.




The best part is the picture of Seattle in the background, which is where the headquarters of the Discovery Institute is located.


----------------
Now playing: David Lanz - Song for Monet
via FoxyTunes

Josh Rosenau Calls Casey Luskin on the Carpet

Josh Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas notes that Casey Luskin's recent apology for misreading Kenneth Miller comes off a bit lacking in factual integrity. Luskin wrote:

In a recent post, I noted that Ken Miller misrepresented Michael Behe’s arguments on the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade in his book, Only a Theory. When I blogged at the end of last year about Miller’s similar mistakes at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Dr. Miller responded by making me aware of something I did not previously know: apparently Michael Behe wrote the section in Of Pandas and People on blood clotting.

Rosenau responds:

Under normal circumstances, it would suffice to congratulate Casey for finally acknowledging his ignorance, but alas, we must not pause to revel in that minor miracle. Like so many miraculous claims, it vanishes under investigation.

First of all, it is implausible that Casey wouldn't have been aware of Behe's involvement in Pandas. Casey, after all, has been involved with Behe, Pandas, and the broader ID movement for long enough that ignorance of any widely known fact in any of those three areas is a dubious claim.

Indeed, Casey was at the Dover trial when Behe discussed his involvement in writing parts of Pandas. He even used that involvement to browbeat reporters during the trial itself, writing:

"Behe was a contributor to Pandas, it was on the blood clotting cascade section (found in Chapter 6, "Biochemical Similarities")…"

I would like to think that Mr. Luskin forgot this little bit of information. We all forget things. Luskin's account of the differences between Behe's early work with Of Pandas and People and what showed up in Darwin's Black Box goes like this:

I contacted Behe about the differences between the two works, and he informed me that the differences between the treatment of blood clotting in Pandas (1993) and Darwin’s Black Box (1996) were the result of his refining, tightening, improving, and revising his arguments before publishing Darwin's Black Box. There's nothing wrong with Behe updating and improving his arguments.

That is fair enough. The rest of Luskin's post is an attack on the "random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection" language that shows up in several places in Miller and Levine's textbook on biology. I do not have a copy of this book so I have no reason to doubt Luskin on this. There may be more than enough fuzzy memories to go around on this one.

A Brief History of the Discovery Institute

I missed this one a few years back. In 2006, Roger Downey wrote a column for the Seattle News about the history of the Discovery Institute (or "Disco. 'Tute", as Josh Rosenau has been given to calling it). The article was written a short time after the Dover-Kitzmiller trial that saw all of the gains that the intelligent design washed away. According to the story, the public attention to the Discovery Institute began with the discovery of the "Wedge Strategy" and a part-time employee by the name of Matt Duss:

Curious, Duss rifled through the 10 or so pages, eyebrows rising ever higher, then proceeded to execute his commission while reserving a copy of the treatise for himself. Within a week, he had shared his find with a friend who shared his interest in questions of evolution, ideology, and the propagation of ideas. Unlike Duss, the friend, Tim Rhodes, was technically savvy, and it took him little time to scan the document and post it to the World Wide Web, where it first appeared on Feb. 5, 1999.

The unnamed author of the document wasted no time getting down to his subject. "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Yet little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science." Such thinkers as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and, above all, Charles Darwin promulgated a "materialistic conception of reality" that "eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and music."

This has always been one of the Achilles heels of the DI in its quest to divest intelligent design from its religious roots. It was clearly obvious from the start that the DI's Center for Science and Culture had, as one of its main goals to remake society and science in a theistic manner. ID was simply a means to that end. As the movement gained momentum (and attention), it became clear that there were a great many people that did not share their vision. Consequently, they began to change tactics:

Indeed, as more and more school boards seriously took up consideration of intelligent-design programs, the Discovery Institute became concerned that some of the people they were trying to influence might grow so enthusiastic as to push the newly moderate ideological envelope. They professed no knowledge of the origins of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's founding Wedge document. They also dropped the loaded word "renewal" from the name and ceased demanding that intelligent design replace Darwinism in the high-school curriculum, or that it even be actively taught there. All that was asked now was that students be apprised that there was a controversy.

Then came Dover. Although several of the Discovery Institute's fellows, Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, agreed to testify, William Dembski pulled out of the trial. It has been suggested that he did so because of the withering pre-trial testimony of Jeffrey Shallit, who had originally been called to testify against Dembski's expertise. Shallit's expert rebuttal is here. It is, indeed, withering. As all reports have indicated, the trial was an unmitigated disaster for the purveyors of ID. One peculiar aspect of it, though, was that it was not clear who was using who. It is clear that the ID crowd was using Dover as a test. It is also clear that the local creationists were using the ID crowd to gain a degree of legitimacy. Eventually, the facade was discovered. As Judge jones put it:

In the realm of the lay witnesses, if you will, some of the school board witnesses were dreadful witnesses and hence the description “breathtaking inanity” and “mendacity.” In my view, they clearly lied under oath. They made a very poor account of themselves. They could not explain why they did what they did. They really didn't even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom. They were unfortunate and troublesome witnesses. Simply remarkable, in that sense.

Although the decision was rendered narrowly, no one actually thought that school boards across the country were not paying attention:

No one believes that Judge Jones' decision, even if it's replicated in courtrooms across the country, is going to stop the campaign against materialism and for a God-centered worldview. But it surely must be seen as a catastrophic defeat for the notion of intelligent design, and no single institution is so identified with it, and has more of its financial and intellectual resources tied up in it, than the Discovery Institute of Seattle. Maybe the group can regroup and make a comeback, but for now, the mighty wedge is irreparably blunted.

Since the writing of this document, the Discovery Institute has shifted its tactics once again and is now focused on "academic freedom" to the extent that it has drafted a document that is a blueprint for legislatures across the country sympathetic to the cause of ID to use. In its public relations, the DI has been increasingly vocal about its dislike for all things evolution and has come to resemble many young earth creationist organizations in the approach that it has taken, especially when arguing against the evidence for evolution. As I have written previously, this now should be considered in the realm of culpable ignorance, since the evidence has been presented and rejected for no good reasons.

The "academic freedom" legislation has fallen on rocky ground, however, with several bills falling short (Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri) and others passing with bad press, like that in Louisiana.

What will be their next move? It is hard to tell. One thing is for sure: they will not go ahead blindly like their YEC cousins, who have almost become a caricature of themselves, so academically isolated they have become. The ID crowd will certainly try a new avenue to get the message out.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Sleepfall: The Geese Fly West (2008 Remaster)
via FoxyTunes

Rumblings in Kentucky

The Kentucky Board of Education is still debating about who to appoint as their head. According to a story in the Lexington Herald Leader, when one, Dennis Cheek was accused on a blog of having creationists leanings, he responded forcefully:

Cheek told reporters outside the meeting that he had sent a reply to the blog. He said he believes evolution, not creationism, should be taught in science classes. He said he also supports the 2005 federal court ruling that struck down the teaching of "intelligent design" in science classes in Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.

"What should be taught in school is exactly what the judge in the Dover case said. He was quite clear ... and I concur 100 percent with the decision that was made," Cheek said.

Cheek said that while people of various religious beliefs can differ on evolution, "when it comes to what is taught in the science curriculum, evolution can be demonstrated and seen in many different dimensions of science."

This seems to mirror the views of the other three finalists as well. A far cry from Texas.

----------------
Now playing: David Lanz - Faces of the Forest
via FoxyTunes

Of Pandas and People, Part 3

Two of the central concepts in understanding descent with modification are analogy and homology. Analogy is where different anatomical structures are used to solve the same biomechanical problem. An example of analogy are the differences between the bat wing and the bird wing. While these structures share the same function, a cursory examination of each reveals that they are composed of different skeletal elements and are constructed differently. This, in conjunction with the known information that bats are mammals and birds are in the class Aves, strongly suggests that these structures are not evolutionary related. Homology is similarity of structures due to common descent. An example of this would be the primate arm and bat wing, both of which are constructed from the same anatomical features.

The writers of OPAP get this concept wrong from the get go. On page 115, they write:

The Darwinian definition of homology, however, does not rest upon the two parts being identical, or even similar for that matter, in appearance or function. Darwinists have defined homology as correspondence of structure derived from a common primitive origin, a definition that assumes macroevolution to be true.

For starters, it was the overwhelming evidence of homology in the natural world that allowed Darwin to formulate his theory of descent with modification in the first place. The authors correctly state that homology as a concept had been around since before Darwin's time. Darwin simply used the concept of homology, he did not redefine it.

On page 124, they write this about homology:

But consider how limited the usefulness of the concept is; it cannot replace subjective judgments, nor can it deliver us from the influences of our presuppositions. Notice that the truth of Darwinism must be assumed before such an assessment of relationship can be made. Marsupial pouches and bones are considered homologous because it is assumed that the organisms possessing them descended from a common ancestor.

This is exactly backward. The fact that the animals display homologous traits indicates that they share a common ancestor. Linnaeus formulated his binomial taxonomy based on relationships between organisms based on homology. All palaeontologists do is extrapolate that concept into the past to make inferences about descent.

On the next page, they write:

Why were not the North American placentals given the same bones [as the marsupials]? Would an intelligent designer withhold these structures from placentals if they were superior to the placental system? At present we do not know; however, we all recognize that an engineer can choose any of several different engineering solutions to overcome a single design problem.

We don't know? If something has been intelligently designed, it ought to be obvious, like the truck in the middle of the field. If the placental system is better than the marsupial system and yet the marsupial system is the norm in Wallacea (Australia and New Zealand), how intelligent is that? The only reason the marsupial system is the norm in Wallacea is that the Wallace Trench prevents placentals from entering the region. Where they are transported to the region by other (more modern) means, they outcompete the marsupials for resources--hence the "Rabbit-Proof Fence."

In the "A Note to Teachers" section, the authors state that:

Since the 1970s, for example, scientific criticisms of the long-dominant neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (which combines classical Darwinism with Mendelian genetics) have surfaced with increasing regularity.

The sources the authors cite are an amazingly diverse lot. Four of them are creationist sources, Six are general sources and several are journal articles. Three were published prior to 1970. I have read most of the journal articles and they do not criticize the domiant neo-Darwinian theory of evolution as defined here. There are questions about the tempo and mode of evolution but all evolutionary biologists assume that genetics play an important role. The authors do not define "classical Darwinism." This is a standard creationist ploy--make a blanket statement and then support it with references that are either outdated or do not necessarily support what they are saying.

On page 154, the authors state:

In the spirit of good, honest science, Pandas makes no bones about being a text with a point of view. Because it was intended to be a supplemental text, the authors saw no value in simply rehashing the orthodox accounts covered by basal textbooks.

"In the spirit of good, honest science..."? Since when is it good, honest science to promote a particular viewpoint? Science goes where the evidence leads, not where you hope it will lead. Then you report what you find and integrate it into a larger body of knowledge about a particular field.

On page 155, the authors pull the old "double shuffle." They state:

Many people assert that evolution in this second sense [descent with modification] is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. But the two situations are hardly analagous . The fact of gravity can be verified simply by dropping a pencil--an experiment anyone can perform. Common ancestry, however, cannot be directly verified by such an experiment.

In the first part of this section, the authors mention "descent with modification." In the last part, they talk about " common ancestry." The two are not the same. Descent with modification can be observed in just about any population of organisms. A change in gene frequencies from one generation to the next is "descent with modification." This is basic evolutionary theory. It is the theoretical extrapolation through time across the species boundary that the authors object to and they have lumped it all together.

There is this goody on page 160:

For example, the mutational events that allegedly produced reptiles, birds, mammals, and even humans have never been observed--nor will they ever be observed. Similarly, the transitional life forms that occupy the branching-points on Darwin's tree of life are also unobservable. Transitional forms exist now only as theoretical entities that make possible a coherent Darwinian account of how present-day species originated.

By this reasoning, no fossil form could ever be transitional. So when we find Archaeopteryx, with its reptilian body plan and hollow arm bones and feathers, this is not transitional. It is simply a form of animal that was created by divine fiat--despite what its existence STRONGLY suggests.

Other scientists have reviewed this book and a list of those reviews can be found here. These usually proceed from specific subject areas of expertise but, when taken together, form a consistent theme: OPAP is bad science and a bad textbook. If this is the current state of Intelligent Design education, then it surely does not belong in a science classroom, First Amendment issues aside. Reading this book was a truly depressing experience and it shows that many creationists have made little to no progress at understanding basic biological concepts in the last seventy years. If your child is in a school district that is using this book or you know of one, alert them immediately!! This book should be avoided.