Puncturing gas bags

November 24, 2007

Bad, from The Bad Idea Blog (the guy who uses that amazingly ugly fish with the huge proboscis-like thing as his avatar), has done a fine job of defending Darwin, evolution, science, reason, manners, Mom, apple pie, the American flag, free markets, liberty, and the 8th Amendment, over at a blog called Seedlings.

The proprietor of Seedlings is unhappy with people who contest his claims. That he’s let Bad go so long is a tribute to Bad — and worthy of your looking in. There is nothing quite so pompous as a creationist ruling that biologists don’t know beans about biology. It’s astounding such rooms full of balloons don’t attract more kids with pins.

Don’t forget to see Bad’s blog, too.


Unread scripture: Come, let us reason together*

November 23, 2007

The right-wing nominally Catholic journal First Things features another assault on the quest for reason in its October issue.

Pope John Paul II said evolution is a scientific understanding of creation and should be studied by people, with no claim that it conflicts with Christianity. Since his death, and since the installation of Pope Benedict, Benedict and several cardinals have been backpedaling as fast as they can. When they get called on some of their more radical statements, they claim that “radical atheists” have forced them to their public relations firms and far-right magazines. So far, Pope Benedict has not directly claimed Pope John Paul II to have been in error about evolution. He seems happy to let others make that inference explicitly, however.

I am particularly troubled by Cardinal Dulles’ citing of an article by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, published on July 7, 2005, as an op-ed in the New York Times. Schönborn’s view sounded oddly as if it squared completely with the fundamentalist Christian view espoused from the Discovery Institute in Seattle. It turns out that Schönborn had not written the piece at all, but instead was asked to sign his name to a piece written by one of the Discovery Institute’s commercial public relations groups.

It is probably not fair yet to say that Pope Benedict has been purchased by the Discovery Institute. But it would be good if Catholic officials were to stick to Catholicism and leave the petty, erroneous science politics and destructive education politics to the Discovery Institute; it would be better still if the Discovery Institute were to abandon such things, too.

Tip of the old scrub brush to a commenter at Telic Thoughts. [And, yes, this sat for a while in my draft box.]

* Isaiah 1:18

The verse is almost always cited out of context. In this verse a prophet Isaiah recites words he’s been given from God, by his account. This opens an invitation, from God, to the people of Judah, to discuss their actions. God was particularly concerned about injustices and inequities practiced by the people; for example, in the verses immediately preceding, Isaiah quotes God (CEV): “No matter how much you pray,/I won’t listen./You are too violent./Wash yourselves clean!/I am disgusted with your filthy deeds./Stop doing wrong/and learn to live right./See that justice is done./Defend widows and orphans and help those in need.” It is my view that Cardinal Dulles is missing that context here. The scriptures call us to see that justice is done, first. Slamming evolution and the rest of science is not such action.

Other sources


Why creationists? Why Rachel Carson critics?

November 22, 2007

At least once a week I buy the New York Times. Tuesday’s edition carries the Science section. It’s better than a weekly science magazine.

And especially since the Dallas Morning News absent-mindedly closed down their award-winning science section and misplaced their award-winning science section editor, Tom Siegfried, the Times is even more important here in Dallas.

Last Tuesday’s main story explained a lot about some of the issues I write about here: Why do people deny obvious stuff — creationists, DDT nuts, history revisionists, Christian nationalists, and so on? Go check out “Denial Makes the World Go ‘Round.”

I’m sorta surprised the guys at denialism blog (“don’t mistake denialism for debate”) haven’t mentioned it.


Intelligent designers plagiarize Harvard film

November 20, 2007

Ms. Smith at ERV caught Bill Dembski of the Discovery Institute looking for all the world as if he’s plagiarizing a video produced at Harvard showing the inner workings of a cell in animation.  She’s got the videos to prove it.

Uncomprehensible. Do these guys really represent Christians?


It was religion all along

November 17, 2007

The Discovery Institute implicitly admitted that their concern about evolution is religious today. They named Michael Medved a fellow.

No, Bill Dembski cited the press release, Medved was not invited because of his acumen in urban planning, or even his experience fighting traffic in California. No, no one even thought Medved has any science chops.

It’s the religion, stupid!

“Michael Medved is an intellectual entrepreneur, a political and cultural polymath with great insights, judgment and wit. We are delighted to have this new relationship with him,” said Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman.

“Intellectual entrepreneur?”

The Seattle prayer tank suffered serious blows in 2005, 2006 and 2007, when their fellows abruptly dropped defense of intelligent design as presented by the Dover, Pennsylvania school board, a federal court ruled that ID is not science but is religion-based, and the respected science production NOVA produced a two-hour program highlighting and explaining that court decision.

So, the DI poobahs figured, what better to do than hire a nationally-syndicated culture-lamenting talk radio guy to front for the band? One wonders if Rush Limbaugh turned them down.

The research agenda for the intelligent design movement could have used the money, and appointing a research fellow would have helped establish that science remains a focus of Discovery Institute work.

Science won’t fill the pews, though. So they hired Medved.

See more comments at Panda’s Thumb. (Did I mention Bigfoot?) And a tip of the old scrub brush to P. Z. Myers, who will probably not much like my post on Ken Miller coming up, who pointed me to Amused Muse.


Creationism eruption in Cincinnati City Council race

November 5, 2007

Is there a miasma that spreads from the Creationism Museum of Ken Ham, that has finally gotten to Cincinnati?

The Daily Bellwether reports a Cincinnati City Councilman wants to put creationism into the schools. I hope that the schools are not governed by the City Council.

______________________

And — could you guess? — the guy’s an engineer:

Monzel, 39, is trying to hold onto a seat that the GOP appointed him to after he was voted out of office in 2005. He is an engineer and holds a masters degree in public policy from Harvard University. He was the valedictorian at parochial Moeller High School in 1986. He is a very intelligent fellow. He did not elaborate on the questionnaire exactly what it is that teachers should offer as contradicting Charles Darwin. Perhaps intelligent design, perhaps scientific creationism, perhaps Genesis or something from Greek mythology. Perhaps a script from Star Trek.

He was asked about “Alternatives to Evolution,” and the question reads:

“When lessons on the origins of life are taught in Ohio public schools, do you support or oppose requiring teachers to present the evidences (sic) both supportive and contradictory to the theory of evolution?” Monzel is in the supports box.


Happy birthday, Earth! (October 23, right?)

October 23, 2007

You do recall from Creationism 102 that the Earth was born on October 23, yes?

Why not celebrate, like these wise Austinites? Surely it’s scientific, and reasonable . . .


Bumper sticker science

October 13, 2007

Wes Elsberry at Austringer does a bit of design on the side. Here’s his latest:

ID flunked

Tip of the old scrub brush to P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula


Life in a test tube

October 7, 2007

News reports say Craig Venter will announce the creation of the first artificial life form sometime this week. 

Interesting to me that the post that alerted me to the issue is in the Religion Blog part of the Dallas Morning News blog stable. But then, the religion section was just downgraded. The paper killed its award-winning science section completely.

But it does seem the religious people are more worried about the impact of this sort of science on believers and reasons to believe, than scientists are interested at all.

DMN religion reporter Jeffrey Weiss points to an article in the Guardian:

Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.

The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming.

Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be “a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before”.

Expect more comment from religion pages of newspapers than other sections. Evolution and other science deniers will be greatly stressed by such an announcement — if the Guardian story is accurate, as early as this next week.

See also this longer piece in the New York Times about the methods used — from last month’s editions.


Intelligent design: Pigs still don’t fly

October 1, 2007

Encore Post

On the road for a day and a half. Here is an encore post from last October, an issue that remains salient, sadly, as creationists have stepped up their presence in Texas before the next round of biology textbook approvals before the Texas State Board of Education. I discuss why intelligent design should not be in science books.

Image: Flying Pig Brewing Co., Everett, Washington 
Flying pig image from Flying Pig Brewery, Seattle, Washington.

Flying pig image from Flying Pig Brewery, Everett, Washington. (Late brewery? Has it closed?)

[From October 2006]: We’re talking past each other now over at Right Reason, on a thread that started out lamenting Baylor’s initial decision to deny Dr. Francis Beckwith tenure last year, but quickly changed once news got out that Beckwith’s appeal of the decision was successful.

I noted that Beckwith’s getting tenure denies ID advocates of an argument that Beckwith is being persecuted for his ID views (wholly apart from the fact that there is zero indication his views on this issue had anything to do with his tenure discussions). Of course, I was wrong there — ID advocates have since continued to claim persecution where none exists. Never let the facts get in the way of a creationism rant, is the first rule of creationism.

Discussion has since turned to the legality of teaching intelligent design in a public school science class. This is well settled law — it’s not legal, not so long as there remains no undisproven science to back ID or any other form of creationism.

Background: The Supreme Court affirmed the law in a 1987 case from Louisiana, Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578), affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a state law requiring schools to teach creationism whenever evolution was covered in the curriculum. Summary judgment was issued by the district court because the issues were not materially different from those in an earlier case in Arkansas, McLean vs. Arkansas (529 F. Supp. 1255, 1266 (ED Ark. 1982)). There the court held, after trial, that there is no science in creationism that would allow it to be discussed as science in a classroom, and further that creationism is based in scripture and the advocates of creationism have religious reasons only to make such laws. (During depositions, each creationism advocate was asked, under oath, whether they knew of research that supports creationism; each answered “no.” Then they were asked where creationism comes from, and each answered that it comes from scripture. It is often noted how the testimony changes from creationists, when under oath.)

Especially after the Arkansas trial, it was clear that in order to get creationism into the textbooks, creationists would have to hit the laboratories and the field to do some science to back their claims. Oddly, they have staunchly avoided doing any such work, instead claiming victimhood, usually on religious grounds. To the extent ID differs from all other forms of creationism, the applicability of the law to ID was affirmed late last year in the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Read the rest of this entry »


Another creationist eruption

September 30, 2007

For a brief period yesterday Prof. Smith’s Weblog was one of the most popular among WordPress’s 1.25 million blogs. It’s not ranked there for brilliant writing or wonderful content — most of it seems to be apologetics for creationism and intelligent design. I suppose creationist sites might have discovered it.

Prof. Smith is not identified in any way. A rational person and others of good character might take alarm at how such a site can be so popular, without showing Brittany Spears or Lindsay Lohan undressed. The bare facts, offensive as they may be, would be an improvement over misleading material.


Take Ben Stein’s brain

September 27, 2007

 

Ben Stein in a tub of money

Cornelia Dean’s article in the New York Times on September 27 reports that several scientists got the same deceptive invitation to appear in a documentary movie that has not been made, but instead discovered themselves in a different movie, a sort of mockumentary in support of the discredited concept of intelligent design.

Actor/comedian/lawyer/economist Ben Stein is the producer and narrator of “Expelled!” P. Z. Myers kicked off the blog discussions when he noted his own appearance in the movie, not exactly what it was billed — Myers posted the invitation letter, related the story, and eventually posted the kiss-off letter from the producer, who seems too embarrassed to talk about his deceptive actions.

One has to wonder, is such a vanity production in defense of voodoo science the best use of Ben Stein’s money? Is it the best use of Ben Stein’s brain? What was he thinking?

Let the record note: Scientific contributions from intelligent design and the rest of creationism, for 2007 and 2008, was a mockumentary movie, based on deception-obtained interviews.

Is that what they want us to teach the kids in high school?

Also see:

Image: AV Club.com

 


Creationist upwelling in Iowa creates muddy water

September 26, 2007

The Des Moines Register followed up on the story of the community college professor who said he was fired for teaching the Bible as literature, and not as religion, in a class on western civilization.

I still think the fired teacher, Steve Bitterman, could have a contract claim against the school.  But the article points out that adjunct faculty often do live in a sort of “adjunct hell,” in which they have few rights, but lots of obligations, all at something less than half-pay.

But that’s not news.


Meanwhile, creationist oppression rolls on

September 22, 2007

While Mark Mathis was leading a bumbling raid on rationalists at Baylor University, Biblical literalists took another scalp in Iowa, of a college instructor this time. Maybe it’s time to beef up tenure, and make it easier to get.

(Maybe I need to add a new category along with “voodoo science” and “voodoo history”: “Voodoo literature.”)

Tip of the old scrub brush to Pharyngula.

Skirmishes before the war? Creationist assault on Texas

September 21, 2007

Intelligent design advocates’ chief claim holds that where a pattern may be discerned, there is someone with intelligence scheming away.

That explains a recent spattering of activities in Texas that otherwise are just blots of minor, irritating news. It points to animus against science in top religious and political circles in Texas — if, of course, there is anything at all to intelligent design’s chief premise.

Scientists and citizens for good government, and parents concerned about good education, should note these recent actions:

First, ID advocates tried to establish a stealth toehold at Baylor University. The Waco Tribune explained the otherwise odd events surrounding Bill Dembski’s latest foray into Baylor — he got himself designated as a “post-doc” student for an engineer’s project, and a website featuring a new sciency term, “informatics,” quickly appeared. School administrators were not satisfied with the transparency and legitimacy of funding for the project, and pulled the plug on it, producing wails of “oppression” from the ID harpy chorus.

Dembski is a professor at the Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. Had he been collaborating with Robert Marks at Baylor, one would think that collaboration from his professorial position would carry more clout, attract more funding, and generally make a lot more sense than having the multiple-degreed Dembski do post-doc work in engineering, a field he’s not yet got a degree in. Apart from the sheer humor of Dembski pursuing one more degree that is not biology in order to try to get the credentials to assault biology, the sheer stupidity of the affair has put scientists off-guard, satisfied that Baylor’s integrity watchdogs have protected science adquately. I’m not so sure.

Second, without much fanfare outside extreme fundamentalist circles, the Institute for Creation Research moved most of its operation from California to Dallas. The stated reasons include proximity to DFW Airport, which makes sense for a corporation like J. C. Penney or Exxon-Mobil, but doesn’t really make a lot of sense for a “school” that has fought to get the right to grant graduate degrees in California.

Third, Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s appointment of a stiff-necked creationist to be the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education produced concern among educators and scientists, especially remembering Chairman Don McLeroy’s positions on creationism and evolution in the last biology textbook approval round, in 2003 (not to mention his anti-disease prevention stance on health books in 2004). Concern was defused by a Dallas Morning News article in which McLeroy and other creationists on the board said they would not work to put intelligent design into the curriculum.

But reports from meetings of the SBOE in the past week make it clear that the creationist agenda is still very much alive, with McLeroy working with other creationists to break standard procedures for curriculum review, and to stack panels reviewing science standards with people who will work against evolution, cosmology, environmental protection and wildlife management, and disease prevention. Politics of Christian dominionists appear to dominate the discussions at the education board, rather than the rigor of the curriculum or how best to teach students so they can ace federally-mandated state tests. Pedagogy takes a back seat to religious politics.

Individually, each of these events is just another in a long string of nuttiness.  The moving of ICR to Texas, however, means that ICR representatives would have the Texas citizen’s right to testify at textbook hearings.  These may be unconnected events of wingnuttery, or they may be initial moves to be in the right place to gut science textbooks in the next round of Texas textbook approvals.

It is best not to assume intelligent design where mere incompetence also provides an sufficient answer.

But watch what happens next.