Creationists: The film director who couldn’t shoot straight

September 21, 2007

Hilarity continues to roll out of Waco. The creationists can’t even shoot film straight.

Tim Woods, a reporter for the Waco Tribune-Herald tells the story well:

Baylor University’s recent controversy regarding a professor’s intelligent design-related Web site took a dramatic turn Thursday when a film crew went to President John Lilley’s office, hoping to speak to him about what they deem academic suppression.

But Lilley was out of town.

Mark Mathis, associate producer for the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and a film crew went to Lilley’s office about 10 a.m. When they learned Lilley was in Houston and unavailable Thursday, Mathis asked to speak with Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman.

Not satisfied with the hoax e-mail attributed to President Lilly by Bill Dembski, the ID version of the Keystone Kops tried to ambush Lilly. I don’t endorse ambush journalism even when the journalists are honest and competent, but Mathis’s dishonesty and lack of manners in dealing with other stars of his films suggest Mathis is the last person on Earth who should be doing such stuff.

Mathis said Stein and the film’s producers believe Baylor’s removal of distinguished engineering professor Robert Marks’ Web site devoted to evolutionary informatics — a concept Marks’ collaborator, William Dembski, termed “friendly” to intelligent design — from its server is an example of academic suppression.

While Baylor officials have said the site was removed for procedural reasons, namely the absence of a disclaimer separating the university from involvement in Marks’ research, Mathis believes it was taken down because of its content.

“To us, it seems pretty obvious what’s going on with Professor Marks’ Web site. . . . To us, that’s academic persecution and suppression,” Mathis said. “What is the problem with tenured, distinguished university professors pursuing a scientific idea? What’s wrong with that? It’s especially interesting in the case of Baylor, in that this is happening at a Christian university.”

Baylor provost Randall O’Brien, who was in New York on Thursday, said Marks is free to conduct evolutionary informatics research and, like Fogleman, denied the site was removed because of its content.

“What we say is you have the freedom to formulate your own views and so forth, just make sure that you issue a disclaimer that your particular view does not necessarily express the view of Baylor University,” O’Brien said. “We fully endorse the right and responsibilities of academic freedom.”

While Mathis was at Baylor, he could have ambushed Prof. Marks, and challenged Marks to tell him what Marks’ research hopes to find, and asked Marks to show the lab for the world.

It would have been the first time that anyone has ever caught on film that elusive animal, the intelligence design research facility.

If the lab exists, it would be the first time ever caught on film. If it exists.


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.


You can’t parody this: Jonathan Wells on “Darwinism Top 10”

September 5, 2007

Anti-science and anti-evolution groups’ desperation erupts in odd ways. When scientists get together and discussion turns to the political movement known as intelligent design (ID), they express frustration at the sheer volume of supercilious ideas and claims that surge out of ID advocates. At its heart, this frustration has an almost-humorous puzzle: Scientists cannot tell what is a real claim from ID advocates, or what is a parody of those claims.

Neither can anyone else.

I stumbled into a mackerel-in-the-moonlight* example to show the problem: Jonathan Wells, a minister in the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, wrote a slap-dash screed against evolution published by right-wing cudgel publishing house Regnery, called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Amazon.com invites authors to set up blogs, and Jonathan Wells has one. The only post there is reproduced in full below the fold — a list of . . . um, well . . . a top ten list of something (Wells just calls it a “top ten list”). It consists of amazing flights of fancy surrounding the issue of teaching science in public schools. I promise, I am not making any of this up — when I quote Wells, it will be his words entirely, completely, in context, uncut and unedited. If I didn’t tell you this was not parody, and if you have half your wits, you’d think either I was making it up, or somebody at Amazon was.

Point by point criticism, in brief, below the fold. I promise, I am not making this up.

__________________________________

* John Randolph is reputed to have said of Henry Clay: “Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks.” Read the rest of this entry »


Sample of Texas embarrassment to come

September 4, 2007

The “Godly” mathematics curricula at a San Antonio church school, and the ridicule it’s gotten, give a glimpse behind the curtain of what could happen were the Texas State Board of Education to succumb to sectarian calls to gut evolution out of biology texts.

Mathematician John Allen Paulos — known best to educators for his book Innumeracy — does a column for ABC News’ website. His latest column details some of the history of mathematics and religious lunacy, and problems with creationism; he concludes:

. . . the curricula cited above and others like them are a bit absurd, even funny. In private schools they’re none of our business. This is not so if aspects of these “creation math” curricula slip into the public schools, a prospect no doubt devoutly wished for by some.

One hopes the board will stick with letting the textbooks describe the world the Creator actually created, as opposed to a world created in the fantasies of creationists.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Pharyngula, whose note on this blog‘s original posting of the curricula from Castle Hills First Baptist School is probably what got the attention of Dr. Paulos in the first place; a tip of the scrub brush with lots of soapy fervor.


Majerus’s Peppered Moth PowerPoint

August 29, 2007

True to his word, Michael Majerus put up on his lab’s website the PowerPoint slides from his presentation in Sweden, in which he verified Bernard Kettlewell’s findings that natural selection had changed the colors of certain moths in Britain.

Go to Majerus’s website and download the .ppt presentation. Warning — it’s about 60 megabytes. [Problems of time: The PowerPoint has disappeared from that site; go here to get the paper on Majerus’s research.]

Encyclopedia Britannica, photos of peppered moths against light bark and lichens

Have you ever noticed that creationists don’t put up on their lab websites the papers or slide presentations they make at scientific meetings? What’s up with that, creationists?

See earlier post, here, “Creationists lose key Texas case.”


Creationists lose key Texas case, peppered moths

August 29, 2007

Texas creationists have lost a key case in their campaign against biology textbooks. No, not in the courts.

Peppered moth, lighter colored, against pollution-colored tree; photo by John S. Haywood

They lost their case in nature. In the wild.

Colors changed in peppered moths because of natural selection, a new study confirms. This strikes a serious blow to one of the chief creationist complaints about how evolution is discussed in biology textbooks. Photo at right showing two moths, of the light and dark forms, against pollution-colored tree bark; photo by John S. Haywood, from Kettlewell’s paper, via Encyclopedia Britannica.

British moth researcher Michael Majerus reported that a seven-year research project has confirmed the 1950s work of Bernard Kettlewell: Changes in the coloring of peppered moths is a result of natural selection at work. Majerus is the researcher whose work was mischaracterized by creationists as having questioned or disproven Kettlewell’s work, which showed that natural selection was responsible for a change in the color of most peppered moths in Britain.

Majerus reported his study at a biologists’ meeting in Sweden on August 23. “We need to address global problems now, and to do so with any chance of success, we have to base our decisions on scientific facts: and that includes the fact of Darwinian evolution. If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Texas: Doomed or not?

August 28, 2007

Phil Plait said there is good news out of Texas, the state’s not doomed, since the State Board of Education members said they don’t want to force intelligent design onto the biology curriculum. P. Z. Myers says doom still lurks, since that statement is part of the strategy of doom planned for Texas by the Discovery Institute, which is now pushing a “teach the weaknesses of evolution” tactic.

Doomed or not? Where is the tie breaker?

The tie breaker, Dear Reader, is you.  Read the rest of the post to see what you can do to save Texas, and your state, too.

Read the rest of this entry »


For Cronolink

August 25, 2007

A too-long discussion at Vox Populi, after an odd post by Vox Day. I couldn’t post my last response. I’m leaving it here for a poster named Cronolink, if Cronolink cares to continue the discussion (in comments, of course).

[See updated material:  “Vox Day:  Trapped in a quote mine cave-in”]


A religious bias against good higher education — in theology!

August 10, 2007

Some religious primary and secondary schools stand on the same, treacherous ground when it comes to curricula which deserve challenging. Castle Hills First Baptist School is not the only educational institution damning children with fool ideas.

Douglas Groothuis teaches at Denver Seminary. In his blog, Constructive Curmudgeon, he lists a set of “imperatives” that he presents annually to his class in “Christian Ethics and Modern Culture.”

Despite his imperative #9:

9. The biblical concept of truth is that a true statement corresponds with or matches objective reality. While human knowing is corrupted by sin, knowledge of the things that matters most—divine and human—is possible, desirable, and pertinent.

Groothuis continues to support and defend intelligent design, a position I find both contrary to his imperative #9, and unethical for anyone, especially Christians, in imperative #17:

17. The Intelligent Design movement is thrusting a wedge between empirical science and philosophical materialism such that the evidence for design in nature may emerge apart from dogmatic and a priori restrictions. Learn about, teach about, and support this movement. See William Dembski, The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004).

Groothuis is a genuine fan of Dembski and Jonathan Wells and all the folderol they can produce. Urging students who claim to be Christian to promote the falsehoods of intelligent design is not a major sin; it’s not so severe as coaching them on racism, genocide, murder, sexism, or disowning the poor. I fear, however, it is the seed of those greater sins. (Here’s a clue: Inter-Varsity Press (IVP) is not known for high standards on science, nor on theology, to some of us; but they are probably more reputable than Regnery publishing.) Intelligent design ideas trend to the fantastic, undesirable, and not relevant.

Shakespeare put the words in Hamlet’s mouth; if only philosophers today would pay them more attention:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

More things like: science, biology, real facts, and honesty and good faith.

What is it about philosophers (Dembski, Groothuis, others at DI)? Are they competing to become to literature and social sciences what engineers are to the sciences, with regard to creationism?


Convincing evidence against intelligent design

July 24, 2007

About half the population will give credence to this.


Creationist fear to debate in the spotlight

July 12, 2007

How can we tell creationists and intelligent design advocates fear debating their ideas with scientists?

Religious kooks send threatening notes to biologists at the University of Colorado.

Other religious kooks contemptibly make excuses for the threats.

– Don’t take my word for it; read the things for yourself, and you decide.

Bug Girl lists several instances of threats against teachers of evolution. The phenomenon is not new, and does not appear to be decreasing (though not rampant, either — thank God).

Vox Day, Pat Sullivan, time to stand up for free debate, civilized answers, and no threats — where are you?


Dembski’s blog caught hoaxing again

June 30, 2007

An acquaintance sends word he’s happy to be back in the mountains with his hammer again, breaking rocks as a geologist in support of a mining venture. The price of gold is high, a few advances in technology have helped the process, and our friend was tapped by suits with money to help keep the actual gold mining operation in the proper vein, so to speak.

Mining is best done with a good scientist on hand to make sure the hole dug out is done right, and to be sure that the digging keeps going for the genuine nuggets.

William Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent, has no scientists with any geology training, it appears. But again they’ve been mining, for quotes instead of useful ore, and they’ve come up with fool’s information. Unable to tell the difference between fool’s information and the real stuff, they’ve published the fool’s information for the world to see.

A wise person does not allow fool’s information into one’s information banks. Read the rest of this entry »


NY Times special on evolution – run, get it!

June 26, 2007

Evolution is the subject of a special edition of the Science section of the New York Times today. The section features articles by most of the best of the stable of science writing contributors the paper has, covering up to the latest developments in the field of evolution.

It’s available on-line, too, for a week or so — free subscription required. Or, Times Select customers will be able to access the stuff so long as they subscribe.

Since the section covers the best of science, there is nothing on intelligent design or other forms of creationism. The aim of the editors is the best of science, not “balance” in presenting opposing views even if vapid.

So, for $1.00, biology teachers can get a dozen weeks’ of enrichment material for this fall’s classes.

Run, don’t walk — your local Starbuck’s should have the paper, if your local newsstand doesn’t. It’s worth it just for the lead article featuring evo-devo, if that’s all you read.


Evolution as one folksinger sings it

June 23, 2007

Chris Smither, about whom I know absolutely nothing, with a song that should make you smile, about Genesis and Darwin, with commentary.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Bruce Tomaso at DallasNews Religion.


Creation Museum: Sad, beleaguered

June 6, 2007

For those of us who worry at every eruption of intentional ignorance, such as Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, the comments of BBC’s correspondent Justin Webb produce a little salve:

There is nothing remotely convincing about the Creation Museum and frankly if it poses the threat to American science that some American critics claim it does, that seems to me to be as much a commentary on the failings of the scientific establishment as it is on the creationists.

And a bit later:

At the Creation Museum, goggle-eyed children watch depictions of the Great Flood in which children and their mums and dads are consumed, because God is cross.

In a nation of kindly moderate people I am not sure this is the future.

I put my faith – in America.

Mencken’s hoax about bathtubs in the White House was innocent enough, but impossible to kill (yet). Ham’s hoax about science, at $27 million (U.S. reports) or $30 million, doesn’t have the grace of its perpetrator confessing the hoax and urging correction (yet).

Faith in America is reassuring, until one remembers P. T. Barnum’s faith that Americans include a “sucker born every minute,” and Tom Sawyer’s assessment of small town politics: ‘Ain’t we got every fool in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?’