Bathtub reading, health care and almost-back-to-school soak

August 10, 2009

Part-time blogging has its problems.  There’s a good post to be done on the trouble with superintendents in the Dallas area, but it requires more digging for links than I’ve had time to do.  There’s a post on test results that isn’t done.  There are a number of posts on teacher resources.

Health care needs  about 20 posts on specific facets, I figure.  Most of them will never get done.

Much of the weekend found our family at Baylor Medical Center in Dallas, doing an unintentional and surprise study on health care delivery in emergent situations.  This was prelude to a longer unintentional study on the delivery of rehabilitation following stroke.

Faith versus science: No real contest:  Science shines out, at every turn when the chips are down.  No one involved is a creationist, but of the six people in our family there including the kids, we’re talking three elders, a moderator, a patriarch.  Prayers form an adjunct to the medicine, and don’t get in the way of delivery of the medicine.  During one operation I mused on how the near-nanomachines that did the work were developed using the evolutionary paradigm.

Without evolution theory, almost all of modern medicine would be impossible, or haphazard at best.  On the day P. Z. Myers and the secular club investigated the Creationism Museum in Kentucky, I kept thinking “thank God for evolution.”  I don’t regard Ken Ham as the epitome of evil, but his work to spread false ideas about how the world works detracts from better health care in three ways:  First, it sucks money from the fight against disease and degeneration; second, it discourages good students from pursuing careers in healing people by leaving them wholly unprepared or unwilling to pursue knowledge; and third, it throws up  hurdles for research, by slandering the reputations and intentions of scientists who need our support to build the necessary instititions and do the required research, and discouraging contributors and other funding.

All of our prayers were directed to the benefit of science, contrary to Ken Ham’s evil hopes.

Stand up for good science in your schools. One of the kids in that class may invent a new clot busting, or artery-healing drug that will save your life, or the life and faculties of someone you love.

No kid who avoids evolution and hard science in school will invent life-saving devices or practices.

There were other lessons, too.

  • Speed counts in a stroke situation.  In an odd coincidence, my wife and I were by the fire station when the ambulance roared out.  It was good to see cars get out of the way and stop so the ambulance could pass.  Seconds save lives — pull over and get out of the way when an emergency vehicle comes up behind you.
  • All the talk of miracle drugs is just talk if there are medical reasons a particular miracle drug cannot be used.
  • It’s a lifesaver to have at hand a list of the pharmaceuticals one is prescribed.  Different kinds of strokes require different treatments; same with a variety of other afflictions.
  • Take a book to the hospital.  They are called “waiting rooms” for a very good reason.  There is no guarantee the program on the television will not be a brain-sucking intellectual vacuum.  No guarantee of a television.
  • Do you have emergency numbers on your cell-phone, as well as on a wall at home?  You should.  It makes things much, much easier.  Why don’t you add them right now?
  • Whiners who complain about the provisions in the health insurance reform bill that provide training for more doctors and nurses, think about what you would do on Saturday afternoon if you needed a crack neuro-radiologist/surgeon and a machine to give real-time images of blood-flow in a brain.
  • Fancy machines are expensive.  When the surgeon lays out the dangers and potential benefits of a procedure, you don’t want to have to think “will this cost more than $100?”  It will cost much more.  It’s unfair to your loved ones to have their life’s span or quality determined by how many Ben Franklins you have in your wallet at that moment.
  • Family are important.  Call yours today and let them know you care.

Update – more on stroke: You may want to view earlier posts on the remarkable story, TEDS lecture, book and writings of Jill Bolte Taylor, a brain researcher who herself experienced and much recovered from a devastating stroke.  Lecture here, more information here.

Other readings before the pages get too limp:

My fingers are all pruney now.  Enough reading for one soak.

Help your friends see things more cleanly, too:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


One less blog with history leanings

July 14, 2009

The Necromancer signed offFor several reasons including this informative discussion of dealing with creationism in the classroom, let’s hope the archives stick around online.


More Christo-totalitarianism: Science not welcome

July 10, 2009

Ooooh, I guess I push the buttons on these guys.

I’ve been banned from two more blogs run by smiling Christo-totalitarians, Dr. Doug Groothuis in Denver (second or third banning, I can’t recall), and another pontificator of Christography, Paul Adams in Arizona.

My sin?  I dared call their hand as they post false bloviations from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer in Meyer’s national anti-science campaign.  Adams claims I violated his guidelines.  Since I was polite, but sharp, I assume that they regard any dissent as “ad hominem” or discourteous.

And, since they banned me, they wiped out my posts.  No need to answer the difficult questions if they can just pretend the questions don’t exist.

They especially do not like my noting creationism and intelligent design as voodoo science, and the bizarre accounts creationists tell of the origins of evolution theory as voodoo history.  Truth hurts too much, I guess.

Creationism might be on its last legs, when otherwise Christian people are driven to totalitarian actions like this, baby camel nose that it is.   Christianity generally flourishes when it’s oppressed.  When Christianity is the basis of oppression, however, the faith falters.  There is a darker possibility:  It may be Christianity that totters with creationism gnawing at the legs and tunneling through clay feet of the Christian monolith.

You may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get patently offensive.  One, their inability to muster rational arguments to defend their unholy War on Science always exposes them.  And two, there is always some hope that they might see the light, open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears — at least there is hope on my part.

Both Groothuis and Adams are otherwise edified philosophers (which only makes their actions more amusing).  What is it about philosophers that makes them try to philosophize away the world they do not like?

On principle I am open to Groothuis or Adams trying to defend their assault on science in comments here, if they can.  This is an invitation to them to discuss their claims. I ask them to keep it clean and polite.   Since there is no rational or factual basis to their claims of intelligent design, they will have little to say.  Nor will they bother, I predict.  Creationism, including intelligent design, can only function in a fawning, unquestioning atmosphere filled with ignorance of science.

If you want some good clean fun and you can stand a little aggravation when they get all huffy about it, Dear Readers, stroll over to Groothuis’s inaptly named Constructive Curmudgeon or Adams’s In Christus, and post the facts of science that Stephen Meyer wishes to ignore. Be aware, they are likely to censor comments and ban commenters who assault them with science.  Even Christians with Ph.D.s fall victim to Ray Mummert’s disease.

These are two men who should know better.  These are two men whose faith claims should prevent them from supporting voodoo science, junk science, and the War on Education.

Vampires of fiction and cockroaches of reality are negatively phototropic.  They avoid light generally, they cannot stand sunlight, the light of day.  Oddly, creationists share that trait.

Update: Adams, whose philosophy appears to include neither manners nor good science, will not do me the courtesy of saying why he banned me despite two e-mails, but he will respond at his blog when a fellow totalitarian writes in, leaving off any evidence of what he claims is true.  Adams said today:

I spent some time crafting my guidelines and intend on holding to them, expecting everyone to do same.
They’re not optional. Perhaps I should change to “Rules.”

In my estimation, Mr. Darnell committed the ad hominem fallacy violating guideline #2 when speaking to Doug’s inability to respond, rather than addressing the content/substance of Dr. Meyer’s presentation.

How convenient that is.  Adams can claim that I posted nothing of substance against Meyers’ unscientific diatribe, and then Adams doesn’t have to answer.  As best I can figure it, when I note Meyer’s errors, Adams regards that as “ad hominem.”   If Adams were consistent, he’d take down Meyer’s piece. Meyer cannot talk without ad hominem, especially since he has no science to back his claims.  Don’t take my word for it.  Go look at Adams’ blog — warning, he’s unlikely to leave your post up if you point out any of Stephen Meyer’s many errors, or rudenesses, or ad hominem claims — and see for yourself.  If you think for a moment or two that Meyer starts making sense, keep that thought and go look at a serious review of his claims by professionals, here. Adams can’t tell you why he completely disregards Dr. Gotelli, nor will he explain why a link to Gotelli’s critique of Meyer is unacceptable on his blog.  There is no good reason other than Adams’ bigotry against science.  Gotelli, of course, is a practicing scientist in the field in which Meyer polemicizes about.


On the immorality of Darwin, Hubble and others

June 16, 2009

Thought of the day, stumbled into at John Wilkins’s site, Evolving Thoughts, “The Demon Spencer”:

Surely that's an avatar, and not really John Wilkins!  It looks like Snowflake.

Surely that’s an avatar, and not really John Wilkins! It looks like Snowflake.

RBH // June 16, 2009 at 7:56 am |

I wait in vain for a condemnation of Newton’s laws of motion, since they account for so many deaths in virtue of their description of how bullets, speeding automobiles, and the like generate so much energy of impact. F=MA must be immoral.

Where are Richard Weikart, Francis Beckwith and Douglas Groothuis when they could be useful?

Why is it Darwin gets all the flack from fundamentalists, when it was Newton who pushed the angels out of the heavens, Hubble who peeked into the universe’s running without gods?

Wilkins’s post is also useful for his scalpel-like arguments disembowling the claim that Darwin led to Hitler, in comments.

 


In comedy, truth, wisdom, and education

June 13, 2009

Remember Jonathan Miller and “The Body in Question?

Dick Cavett remembers, discusses the now-75-years-old man.  Plus, delightfully, Cavett has video at his blog at the New York Times.

And here, Miller explains to Cavett just why creationism is in error, and why the study of Darwin and evolution is worthwhile.  You’ll have to go to the  Times site for the full program; here’s a few minutes’ of of Miller:


Alberta: Academic freedom, or shackles?

June 3, 2009

Alberta, Canada’s legislature passed a bill that allows parents to pull kids out of the classroom if evolution is taught, or almost anything else that the parents deem counter to their own religion.  It’s a passive-aggressive response to laws that require non-discrimination against sexual orientation.

Or does it really allow an opt-out for evolutionMaybe.  Who can tell?

Even Albertans agree they don’t want to be Arkansas:

‘All they’ve done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and sound like Arkansas.’— Brian Mason, Alberta NDP leader

Oy.  Canada has its own version of the Texas Lege.

Bill 44 represents a deep-seated resentment of education in the hearts of conservatives.  It strikes at the purpose of education, to make students aware of society and other people.  It suggests that some ideas are so dangerous they cannot be discussed, even to rebut.

Fears of parents and conservatives are real.  Often what they fear is not real, or not a problem, or maybe even part of the solution.  Can they come to understand that if they can’t even discuss the issues?

Resources:


Texas Senate rejects creationist’s nomination

May 28, 2009

A victory in a war that should not be.

Texas Freedom Network carries the news (4:43 p.m. Central) that the Texas State Senate voted 19-11 in favor of Gov. Rick Perry’s nominee to head the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, a wedge politician who represents the Beaumont area on the board of 15 commissioners.  Fortunately for Texas, the nomination needed 20 votes for approval.

Difficulty arises because there is not a candidate on the horizon from among the board’s members who probably has Perry’s favor and who is not a creationist, wedge politician.  Technically, Perry could reappoint McLeroy, some observers think, and he could occupy the seat until the next regular session of the Senate in two years.

It’s a story about a road that goes on forever and the bad politics never end.

Press release from TFN below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


McLeroy nomination – still dead?

May 26, 2009

Molly Ivins’ untimely passing becomes acutely painful when the Texas Lege comes down to the last days of a session.  Who can make sense of it without Molly?

We thought a couple weeks ago that Gov. Rick Perry’s nomination of creationist wedge politician Don McLeroy was dead, when the Senate Nominations Committee took testimony and failed to report the nomination, to chair the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE).

Then last week, in one of those surprise moves that even the Texas legislators responsible often cannot explain, the nomination rose from the dead and stumbled, zombie-like, to the Senate floor for a vote this week — maybe as soon as today, Tuesday, May 26.

The Houston Chronicle reports that all 12 Senate Democrats will vote against the nomination, dooming it (according to The Lonesome Mongoose, via Pharyngula).

The Bryan dentist has presided over a contentious 15-member State Board of Education that fought over curriculum standards for science earlier this year and English language arts and reading last year. Critics faulted McLeroy for applying his strong religious beliefs in shaping new science standards. McLeroy believes in creationism and that the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

“This particular State Board of Education under the leadership of Dr. McLeroy has been divisive. It’s been dysfunctional, and it has been embarrassing to the point of having commentary on this in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal,” said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

McLeroy’s leadership, she said, had made Texas “the laughing stock of the nation.”

It takes 11 votes to block a gubernatorial nomination. Van de Putte said all 12 Senate Democrats plan to vote against McLeroy

Don’t count your dead nominations before the silver stakes are driven.  Stay tuned.  Maybe you should call your Texas senator again on Tuesday. Pray, cross your fingers, hope, and pass the ammunition.

If the nomination fails, it is still foggy as Donora, Pennsylvania on its worst days as to who will head the group.  The chairman must come from one of the 15 elected members.  Most people who might win Rick Perry’s selection are creationists.  If Perry is wise, he’ll try to choose someone who is a capable administrator, wise chairman of hearings, and who lacks the desire to annoy key players in education, like administrators, teachers, parents, Texas college presidents and professors, and state legislators.  Alas for Texas, Winston Churchill is not a member of the SBOE, nor is Mitt Romney.

The Senate rarely blocks a governor’s appointment.

There is speculation in the Capitol and within the Texas Education Agency that Gov. Rick Perry might elevate Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, to lead the board. Like McLeroy, Dunbar also holds strong Christian beliefs and recently authored a book that advocates more religion in the public square.

“We believe that Texans deserve better than divisive, destructive, extreme leadership,” Shapleigh said. “If the governor chooses to appoint someone more extreme and more divisive, we’ll have to deal with that at the appropriate time.”

McLeroy’s tenure as chairman of SBOE is one of those waves we were warned about in 1983 lin the Excellence in Education Report, which warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity.”  The divisions and crude politics, heavy-handed destruction of statutory and regulatory procedures, at best distracts from the drive for better education, but more often leans toward the worst, sabatoging the work of students, teachers, parents, administrators and legislatures.

Do you pray?  Pray that Texas education be delivered safely and intact from this time of trial.  Whether you pray or not, call your Texas legislator and tell her or him to straighten out the SBOE.

Resources:


Man the ramparts: Texans, call your legislators!

May 22, 2009

Texans, the information on finding your state representative and state senator are below — call them, today.

In a surprise move, the Senate has moved the nomination of Don McLeroy to the floor for an up-and-down vote.

McLeroy has ushered in a new era of bitter, partisan and divisive politics to the State Board of Education.  In the past year he has insulted English teachers, citizens of Hispanic descent, unnecessarily gutted a good mathematics text from the approved list (just to show he can do it), and done his best to butcher science education standards for Texas.  He suspended work on new social studies curricula because, in part, he doesn’t like the term “capitalism,” insisting on “free enterprise” instead, contrary to almost all scholarly writing on the topic.

The man is a menace to education.  He uses wedge political issues to divide educators from parents, parents from schools, schools from the community, students from teachers, and education from propaganda.

I quote the entirety of the post from Texas Freedom Network’s Insider blog, below, to explain:

UPDATE: Click here to see video of the committee vote.

In a surprise meeting on the Senate floor, the Senate Nominations Committee in Austin has just approved the appointment of Don McLeroy as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. It appears that McLeroy’s supporters plan to bring his confirmation to the full Senate early next week. Confirmation will require a two-thirds vote.

Committee Chairman Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, had said he would not bring up McLeroy’s confirmation for a vote in committee unless he thought there were enough votes to get it in the full Senate. We don’t know at this point whether opposition from nearly all Democrats and some Republicans has softened, but the signs are alarming.

If you haven’t done so already, it’s critical that you contact your senator and tell him or her that you oppose McLeroy’s confirmation. You can find the name and contact information for your senator here.

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller has released the following statement:

“If the Texas Senate genuinely cares about quality public education, they will reject as state board chairman a man who apparently agrees that parents who want to teach their kids about evolution are monsters. And we’ll see whether senators really want a chairman who presides over a board that is so focused on ‘culture war’ battles that it has made Texas look like an educational backwater to the rest of the country.”

Gov. Perry appointed McLeroy board chairman in July 2007. Since then, the board has turned debates over language arts and science curriculum standards in “culture war” battlegrounds. Chairman McLeroy has also endorsed a book that says parents who want to teach children about evolution are “monsters” and calls clergy who see no conflict between faith and science “morons.” This spring McLeroy led other creationists on the state board in adopting new science curriculum standards that call the scientific consensus on evolution into question and no longer include references to scientific estimates of the age of the universe.


Ida, our only Darwinius masillae: Are we a lemur’s nephews and neices?

May 22, 2009

She’s being called Ida (EE-duh, to the Brits, EYE-duh to Bob Wills fans).  How could you miss all the hype about her unveiling this week?

Science fans complain that the hype might be over done.  Creationists appear a bit panicked by the developments.

Ida herself?  She’s beautiful.  Here’s an interview with Michael Novacek from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, carried on the public television news program World Focus.

Here’s a collection of British television stories on Ida, including David Attenborough’s animation of the reconstruction of her skeleton — some great graphics:

See also:


Evolution 2009, in Kearney, Nebraska

May 20, 2009

Evolution 2009 kicks off Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at the University of Nebraska atKearney.

In honor of Darwin’s birth bicentennial and the sesquicentennial of his most famous work, the program is dedicated to evolution in different fields of biology.

High school instructors can get in for $75.  World class scientists like Jack Horner, Brad Davidson, Shannon Williamson and Randy Moore will present — along with world class evolution and legal evidence expert, Nick Matzke.

The main hotel will be the Ramada Inn in Kearney, where I spent a cold, snowy night in November 1979 after a kindly truck driver from Consolidated Freightways rescued me from certain hypothermia a few miles out of town, where my car had spun into nearly six feet of snow.

Now, can I find some excuse to get to the conference?

I predict:  For the 21st consecutive year since the field of intelligent design was proposed, there will be no new research supporting intelligent design, even in the poster sessions.  This is a science conference, and intelligent design supporters will quietly boycott the entire affair.


Using evolutionary science to fight fire ants

May 17, 2009

No real Texan would ever entertain the slightest doubt about the accuracy of evolution theory, once that Texan understood how evolution helps fight the imported Argentine fire ant, Solenopsis invictaAnd, who could invent flies that turn the tiny ants into zombies as their larva eat the brains of the ants?

Evolution theory suggests that predators, or at least a parasite, exists for almost every species on Earth.  Fire ants, though seemingly invincible (hence the species name, invicta), also have predators and parasites.  Control of the ants may be a function of finding the right natural enemy of the ant.

Caption from TAES:  As the eggs of a new type of phorid fly develops inside the heads of red imported fire ants, it takes over the control of the host, said Dr. Scott Ludwig, Texas AgriLife Extension Service integrated pest management specialist. Ludwig released fire ants infested with the parasite at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Overton on April 29. (Texas AgriLife Extension photo by Robert Burns)

Caption from TAES: As the egg of a new type of phorid fly develops inside the heads of red imported fire ants, it takes over the control of the host, said Dr. Scott Ludwig, Texas AgriLife Extension Service integrated pest management specialist. Ludwig released fire ants infested with the parasite at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Overton on April 29. (Texas AgriLife Extension photo by Robert Burns)

Bill Hannah reduces the science to a good lay explanation in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

It sounds like something out of science fiction: zombie fire ants. But it’s all too real.

Fire ants wander aimlessly away from the mound.

Eventually their heads fall off, and they die.

The strange part is that researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M’s AgriLife Extension Service say making “zombies” out of fire ants is a good thing.

“It’s a tool — they’re not going to completely wipe out the fire ant, but it’s a way to control their population,” said Scott Ludwig, an integrated pest management specialist with the AgriLife Extension Service in Overton, in East Texas.

The tool is the tiny phorid fly, native to a region of South America where the fire ants in Texas originated. Researchers have learned that there are as many as 23 phorid species along with pathogens that attack fire ants to keep their population and movements under control.

Resources:


History: May 15, 1953 and the mysteries of life’s beginnings

May 15, 2009

May 15, 1953, saw the publication in Science of Stanley Miller’s dramatic experiment showing that essential chemicals of life rise spontaneously.

The late Prof. Stanley Miller.  ISSOL photo

The late Prof. Stanley Miller. ISSOL photo

As usual, the real history is better and much more serendipitous than anyone could imagine in a fictional account; here’s an account from the International Astrobiology Society (ISSOL), from their 2003 celebration of the 50th anniversary of Miller’s paper’s publication:

The University of Chicago Chemistry Department seminars were held on Mondays in Kent Hall, an old building where the floors creaked and there was a smell of dust and mildew. Only the most distinguished scientists were invited to speak at this seminar, many had Nobel prizes or were to receive one, and the list included Franck, Urey, Calvin, Seaborg, Eigen, Libby and Taube.

But this day was different because a second year graduate student, Stanley Lloyd Miller, was speaking, and the room was full because the word had spread that something important was to be presented. In addition to the famous scientists and less famous but equally high-powered scientists was an undergraduate, Carl Sagan attending his first chemistry seminar. The topic was the synthesis of important biological compounds, using conditions thought to have existed on the primitive Earth.

Miller reported that by sending repeated electric sparks through a sealed flask containing a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, he had made some of the amino acids found in proteins. Perhaps, he suggested, this was how organic compounds were made on the ancient Earth before life existed.

While Miller was confident of his results, the rows of famous faces in his audience were, to say the least, intimidating. He was bombarded with questions. Were the analyses done correctly? Could there have been contamination? After the event, Miller thought that the questions had been constructive, but since the results were hard to believe, they had simply wanted to ensure that he had not made some mistake. However, Carl Sagan thought that Miller’s inquisitors seemed to be picky and did not appreciate the significance of the experiment. Even the relevance of Miller’s results to the origin of life were questioned. When someone asked Miller how he could really be sure this kind of process actually took place on the primitive Earth, Nobel Laureate Harold Urey, Miller’s research advisor, immediately interrupted, replying, “If God did not do it this way, then he missed a good bet.” The seminar ended amid the laughter, and the attendees filed out with some making complimentary remarks to Miller. Miller changed clothes, went back to the lab and started a paper chromatography run.

The events leading up to this dramatic seminar began two years earlier in October, 1951 when Urey presented the Chemistry Department seminar on the origin of the Solar system. In addition to the usual high powered scientists, the audience had contained the then first year graduate student, Stanley Miller.

Read “Prebiotic Soup—Revisiting the Miller Experiment” by Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano published in Science300 (2003) 745-726 in full text or as a PDF.

This is an abridged version of the Stanley Miller’s 70th Birthday published in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 30: 107-112, 2000 by Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano and The Spark of Life – Darwin and the Primeval Soup by Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada, Perseus Books, 2000.

More than 50 years ago scientists demonstrated that basic chemicals of life, thought previously by some to be too complex to arise naturally, could occur in nature spontaneously. Much of the misunderstanding and crank science behind creationism is devoted to hiding these facts.

Lift a glass to Stanley Miller and his experiment today, a toast to learning, a toast to the truth.

More Resources:


A different view of the California creationism in the classroom decision

May 10, 2009

Wired takes a different view of the California case in which an AP history teacher was found to have violated a student’s rights with comments about creationists — at least, different from the view I’ve articulated here.  It’s worth a look — and it shows that this case needs to be evaluated more carefully and closely.  Alexis Madrigal wrote at Wired’s website:

The teacher got into hot water because the creationism statement came outside the context of his AP European History class. In making the statement during a discussion of another teacher’s views on evolution, the court could not find any “legitimate secular purpose in [the] statement.”

However, Judge Selna found a second statement that Corbett made about creationism did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights, although it’s an equally pointed critique.

“Contrast that with creationists,” Corbett told his class. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

That statement was OK because it came in the context of a discussion of the history of ideas and religion. Thus, its primary purpose wasn’t just to express “affirmative disapproval” of religion, but rather to make the point that “generally accepted scientific principles do not logically lead to the theory of creationism.” One might expect that if creationism came up in the context of evolutionary biology, it would be similarly OK to say, “Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

The nuanced decision prompted the judge to append an afterword. Selna explains his thinking a basic right is at issue, namely, “to be free of a government that directly expresses approval of religion.” Just as the government shouldn’t promote religion, he writes, the government shouldn’t actively disapprove of religion either.

It seems to me, still, that the instructor was well within legal bounds.  For example, we would not ask a biology instructor to pay deference to the Christian Science view that disease is caused by falling away from God (sin), and not by germs, and consequently that prayer is effective therapy.  As a pragmatic matter, Christian Scientists don’t demand that everybody else bow to their view; but in a legal suit, the evidence of Pasteur’s work and subsequent work on how microbes cause disease would trump any claim that Pasteur was “not religiously neutral.”

We still await word on whether the district and teacher will appeal the decision.


Evolution theory driven by anti-racism

May 3, 2009

Here’s a book that most creationists hope you never read and which strikes terror in the hearts of Discovery Institute fellows: Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution.

Cover of Desmond and Moores 2009 book, iDarwins Sacred Cause/i

Cover of Desmond and Moore's 2009 book, Darwin's Sacred Cause

It’s another grand book on Darwin from the team of Adrian Desmond and James Moore, based on their deep diving into the archives of writings from and about Darwin in his own time.  Their earlier book, Darwin, is a bit of a modern classic in biography, and a must-read for anyone seriously studying Darwin and evolution.

This book promises to eviscerate a favorite chunk of calumny claimed by creationists, that Darwin’s theory is flawed because Darwin himself was a racist.  Scientists painstakingly note that the racist views of a scientist don’t affect the theory (think of William Shockley and the transistor), but creationists still use the false claim as fodder for sermon’s and internet rants.  Or, in the case of the Discovery Institute, the false claims is used as a justification to appoint a fellow in the propaganda department, Richard Weikart.

Desmond and Moore confront the claims head on, it appears.  How will creationists change their story to accommodate these facts?  Or, will creationists resort to denial?

One theme that may be supported in the book is the realization that pursuit of a noble cause frequenly ennobles those who pursue it.  Certainly it is easy to make a case that Darwin’s hatred of slavery and advocacy for its abolition colored his views of what he saw, though perhaps not so much as what he saw colored his views of slavery and abolition.  Desmond and Moore have a chapter that discusses Charles Lyell’s trips to America, and Lyell’s different views on slavery having traveled the American south.  Lyell did not travel as an abolitionist, and his views suffer as a result.  Lyell was a product of his times in the portrait Desmond and Moore paint.  Darwin demonstrated the power of science, and the power of personal use of science, in using the facts to overcome racism; Darwin used his experience and study to rise above the times.  That may be the difference between the men, why we celebrate Darwin today, and remember Lyell as a good scientist, but usually a footnote to Darwin.

Resources: