Texas Citizens for Science: Report on creationist certification

December 20, 2007

To provide a little greater access, below the fold I reproduce the complete report from the Texas Citizens for Science on the Institution for Creation Research’s bid to get approval from Texas to grant graduate degrees from the ICR’s Irving, Texas, campus.

If you are tracking this issue, you should also see these posts and sites:

The TCS report is also available at the TCS website.

Read the rest of this entry »


Quote of the moment: Ted Williams (the conservationist)

December 8, 2007

It’s a long passage, but worth the read. Go to the Audubon site for the full essay; it’s longer, and worth more. (Photo: Bald eagle, from the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Bald Eagle, USFWS photo

This is from an essay the great conservation curmudgeon Ted Williams published in Audubon in December 2004.

I envy young environmentalists of the 21st century, but I feel bad for them, too. They don’t know what it feels like to win big against seemingly impossible odds. When I started out, America and the world were environmentally lawless. There was no Endangered Species Act, no Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, no Clean Water Act, no Clean Air Act, no National Environmental Policy Act, no National Forest Management Act. In 1970 I remember standing on the steps of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife field headquarters and arguing with a colleague, Joe, about the banning of DDT. “It will never happen,” he told me. When DDT was banned two years later, he said, “It won’t make any difference.”

For a while it didn’t. The March 1976 Audubon reported “considerable gloomy speculation” about the plight of endangered bald eagles in the Lower 48—more birds dying than hatching, fewer than a thousand nesting pairs. Today there are an estimated 7,000 nesting pairs. The September 1975 Audubon reported that 300 brown pelicans transplanted from Florida to Louisiana—”the Pelican State”—had died from lethal doses of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. Today Louisiana has more than 13,000 nesting pairs. In 1972 I was assigned by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to write an article on the peregrine falcon in the East—a history piece, because the species had been extirpated from the region. By 1999 peregrines had fully recovered, and they were removed from the Endangered Species List.

The hopelessness I felt about DDT in 1970 was nothing compared with what Rachel Carson felt when she started her campaign against this World War II hero. Writing a book about DDT seemed impossible; she was a nature writer, not an investigative reporter. Barely had she taken pen to paper when she was assailed by arthritis, flu, intestinal virus, sinus infections, staph infections, ulcers, phlebitis, and breast cancer. She didn’t get discouraged; she got mad. Her ulcers, she told her editor, “might have waited till the book was done.” Radiation treatments were “a serious diversion of time.” She found the phlebitis that prevented her from walking “quite trying””not for herself but for “poor Roger,” her adopted son.

When Silent Spring appeared in 1962, Chemical World News condemned it as “science fiction.” Time magazine dismissed it as an “emotional and inaccurate outburst.” Reader’s Digest canceled a contract for a 20,000-word condensation and ran the Time piece instead. But only seven years later Time used a photo of Carson to illustrate its new Environment section. Silent Spring was not a prediction, as anti-environmentalists profess; it was a warning, full of hope. “No,” Carson wrote her friend Lois Crisler, “I myself never thought the ugly facts would dominate. . . . The beauty of the living world I was trying to save has always been uppermost in my mind.” If Rachel Carson could find hope in the face of what and who were closing in on her, no environmentalist has the right to feel discouraged in 2004.


Unintelligent designs in Texas

November 29, 2007

The Texas Education Agency has lost its mind.  Again, or still.

P.Z. has details. I’m off to discuss economics with economics teachers.  Talk among yourselves until I get back later tonight.

If someone organizes a march on the TEA with torches and other farm implements, somebody text message me, please.


Paul Davies bucks the trend toward reason in physics – faith instead?

November 24, 2007

In 2003 Physics Nobel Winner Steven Weinberg made a stunning presentation to the Texas State Board of Education on why evolution needs to be in biology texts.

Live by the physicist, die by the physicist: Paul Davies takes it back, giving aid and comfort to the intelligent design/creationist camp, in Saturday’s New York Times. While he doesn’t mention evolution or biology, the Public Spin Department at the Discovery Institute is probably at work on press releases touting Davies’ piece right now.

Oy.


“Judgment Day” censored in Memphis?

November 18, 2007

PBS’s ombudsman takes note of worries that Memphis did not get the NOVA program on the Dover, Pennsylvania trial of intelligent design. “Judgment Day” was not aired in the normal NOVA timeslot.

Station management pleads that they made no decision to censor, just a decision to run supporting program for Ken Burns’ massive film project, “The War,” instead. (HD viewers could see the NOVA program).

Let’s hope that’s accurate.

In the meantime, the letters to the ombudsman give a clear probe into the minds of viewers; favorable reactions were many; more numerous, unfavorable reactions seemed to come mostly from the reason-challenged side of humanity. It’s worth a read.

Sample of the unfavorable:

After tonight’s program on Intelligent Design it proves that PBS has a “design” of its own — it’s one that is driving the country to destruction — your bias is completely counter to history, to the very foundation of our nation and history of nations. Every part from beginning to end had its own objective; completely counter to the Truth which is proven in the rise and fall of nations.

Daryle Getting, Winter Park, FL
It doesn’t take a “Rocket Scientist” to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were “Created” by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you’ll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our “Creator”!!! It shouldn’t take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!

Sonya L. Johnson, North Port, FL

Sample of the favorable:

I just watched your program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” Fantastic! I don’t remember recently watching such an informative and well put together program. PBS deserves to be awarded for this stellar program. Thank you so much for actually airing a program that was intelligent, well put together, and fun to watch. Superb. Atlanta, GA

Am I unfair in labeling some “reason-challenged?” Certainly fact challenged. Read the rest of this entry »


Analyses of proposed changes to Texas science standards

November 17, 2007

Before new science textbooks will be approved by the Texas State Board of Education, the Board is engaging in a review and possible rewriting of science standards. In the wake of the Board’s voting to require Texas high school graduates to get an additional year of science education, this should be a good sign of concern for tough standards and high quality education.

Science standard rewrites in other states have been seen as open season on evolution in biology, however. Ohio and Kansas experiences in the since 1999 suggest advocates of science and education should be wary. Texas is not known for strong support of evolution by education officials (a reputation that serious education officials should think hard about changing).

Texas Citizens for Science, a group assembled in 2003 to defend good science and especially evolution, is watching the SBOE actions. TCS President Steven Schafersman has shared his views on actions in the past month, in an e-mail to TCS members and supporters of good textbooks. For the record, I reproduce his e-mail text completely below the fold. This material is also available in different form at the TCS website.

Citizens still carry a lot of clout in government in this nation. Good science standards in textbooks require vigilance of such people. We thank them.

Read the rest of this entry »


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 . . .


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.


Breastfeeding still recommended, despite DDT contamination

September 23, 2007

Despite DDT’s being affiliated with reduced cognitive ability in infants after intrauterine exposure, and despite indications that DDT may retard fetal development, a team of Spanish researchers urges mothers to breastfeed anyway. Their study shows that breastfed kids develop better despite after birth even when exposed to DDT in utero, despite any dangers of exposure to DDT and other chemicals in breast milk.

No, the study does not say DDT is harmless.

From the American Journal of Epidemiology, abstracts of the study have been released in advance of publication in the October 2007 edition.

Beneficial Effects of Breastfeeding on Cognition Regardless of DDT Concentrations at Birth

Núria Ribas-Fitó1, Jordi Júlvez1, Maties Torrent2, Joan O. Grimalt3 and Jordi Sunyer1,4 1 Centre de Recerca en Epidemiologia Ambiental, Institut Municipal Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain
2 Àrea de Salut de Menorca, Servei de Salut de les Illes Balears, Menorca, Spain
3 Departament de Química Ambiental, Institut d’Investigacions Químiques i Ambientals de Barcelona–Centre Superior d’Investigacions Científiques, Barcelona, Spain
4 Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Correspondence to Dr. Núria Ribas-Fitó, Centre de Recerca en Epidemiologia Ambiental, Institut Municipal Investigació Mèdica, C. Doctor Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain (e-mail: nribas@imim.es)

Received for publication March 19, 2007. Accepted for publication June 13, 2007.

The authors previously reported that intrauterine exposure to background concentrations of p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) reduces cognitive performance among preschoolers. Breastfeeding has been associated with both increased exposure to certain pollutants during infancy and better performance on cognitive tests. Thus, the authors examined the role of breastfeeding in cognitive function among preschoolers, taking prenatal DDT exposure into account. Two birth cohorts in Spain (Ribera d’Ebre and Menorca) were recruited between 1997 and 1999 (n = 391). Infants were assessed at age 4 years using the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities. Levels of organochlorine compounds were measured in umbilical cord serum. Information on type and duration of breastfeeding was obtained by questionnaire when the children were 1 year of age. Children who were breastfed for more than 20 weeks had better cognitive performance regardless of their in utero exposure to DDT. A linear dose response between breastfeeding and cognition was observed in all DDT groups (for children highly exposed to DDT, adjusted ß = 0.30 (standard error, 0.12) per week breastfed). Despite the possibility of harm from environmental contaminants in breast milk, breastfeeding for long periods should still be recommended as the best infant feeding method.

breast feeding; child; child development; child, preschool; cognition; DDT; infant; intelligence

Abbreviations: DDE, p,p’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT, p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; IQ, intelligence quotient

Some of the members of this research team have also tied DDT’s daughter product, DDE, to increased asthma in children, in research published in Environmental Health Perspectives in December 2005.


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.


Hijacking science in Texas

September 20, 2007

It looks a lot like inside baseball. It’s conducted away from classrooms, while teachers struggle to deliver science to students in crowded classrooms without adequate textbooks, without adequate science labs and without adequate time. The perpetrators hew to Otto von Bismark’s claim that the public shouldn’t see their laws or sausages being made.

Since Bismark, in the U.S. we have food safety laws to protect our sausage. In Texas, the political scheming in the State Board of Education (SBOE) continues to spoil science education.

Science standards for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) — the Texas state science education standards — are being rewritten by the Texas Education Agency, under direction of the SBOE. While procedures have been consistent over the past 15 years or so, and the state legislature reined in SBOE from political shenanigans in textbook selection, SBOE members are fighting back to get the right to skew science standards. For weeks the selection of committees to review specific standards have been held up so members of the SBOE can stack the committees to put their political views in.

Board members are insisting on stacking the review committees now, weeks after the deadline for members to nominate qualified teachers and experts to review the standards.  This is the gateway to the path of bad standards through which we earlier watched other school boards frolic — Cobb County, Georgia, Dover, Pennsylvania, and the State of Ohio.  Taxpayers in Cobb County and Dover paid the price when courts correctly noted that the changes proposed violated  the religious freedom clauses of the state constitutions and the First Amendment.  Ohio’s board backed down when a new governor cleaned house, and when it became clear that their position would lose in court.

Simply gutting the standards, however, may not rise to the standard of illegal religious influence.  Keeping kids in the dark may not violate federal or state law.  It’s immoral, but would the Texas State Board stick to that side of morality?  Many observers doubt it, given the track record of recent years striking important health information from texts that might save a few lives, and the legislature’s pro-cancer legislation this year.

Some observers have provided detailed reports that to many of us look like simple foot dragging. In the past week it has become more clear that the foot dragging is really political positioning.

If anyone was lulled to sleep by the Dallas Morning News article a few weeks ago which touted board members’ claims they would not advocate putting intelligent design into the biology curriculum, the greater fears now seem to be coming true:  Board members did NOT say they would stand for good science, or that they would not try to cut evolution, Big Bang, astronomy, geology, accurate medicine and health, and paleontology out of curricula.  The Corpus Christi Caller-Times warned:

Board chairman Don McLeroy, though indicating that he won’t support the teaching of intelligent design, says he would like to see more inclusion in textbooks of what he called weaknesses in the evolutionary theory, a sentiment expressed by many of the predominantly Republican 15-member board.

This only sounds like another version of a common tactic by religious pressure groups that seek to create a controversy about evolution that only exists in their opposition. That nicely covers their ultimate goal of converting classrooms into pulpits for religious teachings.

Texas schoolchildren will be the losers if the teaching of science, or health, or history — all subjects that have been the target of pressure groups — is based on something other than the best known and most widely accepted bodies of knowledge. In a pluralistic nation with many creeds and religions, letting personal faith become the guiding force for the public school curriculum invites creation of a battleground.

Texans should watch the State Board of Education in the months to come.

Just over a month ago one of the chief theorists behind Big Bang theory died in Austin, Ralph Alpher. His death went largely unnoticed. In 2003, with the Nobel Prize winning-physicist Ilya Prigogine of the University of Texas not yet cool in the grave, charlatans felt free to misrepresent his work on thermodynamics, saying he had “proved” that evolution could not occur.  In fact, his prize-winning work showed that on a planet like Earth, evolution is a virtual certainty.  Prigogine, Alpher: A greater tragedy is brewing: Will Big Bang survive the hatchets of anti-science forces on the SBOE? Many hard theories of science are unpopular with religious fanatics in Texas. Those fanatics are over-represented on the SBOE.

Don’t just watch.  Write to your board member, to the TEA director, to the governor, to the legislature.  One way to keep “no child left behind” is by holding all children back.   Texas and America cannot afford such Taliban-like enforcement of ignorance.


Aid and comfort: Turkey creationism

September 6, 2007

Public Radio International’s daily news program, The World, reported today that a group called “Discovery” (the Discovery Institute?) and mathematician David Berlinsky are in league with Islamic fundamentalists in Turkey in their pushing of creationism over evolution theory. (Still can’t get a biologist to go along with them? Mathematician? What are the odds that he knows anything about biology?)

Update: Here’s the link to the creationism story, creationism in Turkey.

True stripes show, eventually: Creationism in Turkey is pushed by a bunch that uses threats of violence against teachers of science at all levels, and bullying tactics otherwise, to “persuade” others (so far as I can tell, this blog and all other WordPress blogs are still being blocked in Turkey due to bizarre legal maneuvers by the charlatan science commentator Adnan Oktar, who publishes under the pseudonym Harun Yahya some of the most inaccurate material and fantastic fabrications in their war on science).

The story is not up in the archives for The World, yet — archives generally run a day behind. The story was broadcast today, September 6, 2007. It featured wild track tape of Berlinsky lecturing in Turkey, if I heard correctly, and further interviews with him.

Stay tuned.


Preacher looks again: Did Hubble kill God?

August 30, 2007

Sometimes religion and science don’t clash at all.

 

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image Reveals Galaxies Galore

[Update February 17, 2015:  Real Live Preacher is a dead blog.  Author Gordon Atkinson now writes here (and other places you can find from there); but most of these links won’t work.  My apologies for the passage of time . . .]

Unlike the last time we visited this remarkable photograph, some people of faith look at it and see beauty, insted of seeing conflict between reality and their holy books.

I know of a Real Live Preacher who doesn’t abuse the science in finding a religious message in the photo.

Image of man and stars, from Real Live Preacher

So first vertigo, then panic, then longing. After that I generally calm down a bit. My tiny mind and delicate emotions cannot bear even my small thoughts of the universe for more than a few minutes. I relax. Sometimes a shrinking reality can be a comfort. My sins, the things that I have done wrong and the ways that I cannot be what I should be, also shrink. I feel I can forgive myself for them, small man that I am. Why the hell not? Look at the size of the universe!

This forgiveness is the Grace that Christians speak of. The main story of our faith tells us that we must be forgiven and can be. Funny how it takes science to bring that reality to my guts.

For some reason, this experience always ends with a crazy happiness that I cannot easily explain. I become giddy with the knowledge that ultimate reality is so far beyond our grasp. This lets me off the hook, to a certain extent. We’ll never know reality. We’ll never even map our solar system, you and I. We’re small people, but we have grasped the idea of existence. We know love, seek knowledge, and recognize goodness and evil.

Our saintly scientists, single-minded and incredibly committed to the search for truth, draw down amazing pictures from the ancient light in the sky. These pictures help me to know that it is okay to be nothing more or less than what we are.

One might visit Real Live Preacher just for the art, too (see sample above). A remarkable site.

Read the rest of this entry »


π = 3: A discussion of Biblical literalism

August 29, 2007

In the comments — continued from a thread at Gospel of Reason, a blog no longer growing.


Texas education board opposes intelligent design

August 24, 2007

Front page headline in the Dallas Morning News this morning: “Intelligent design? Ed board opposed.

And the subhead: “Even creationists say theory doesn’t belong in class with evolution.”

Remember, this is the state school board that is dominated by creationists, and whose chair, appointed just about a month ago, is the famous creationist dentist Dr. Don McLeroy. Just what is going on? According to the article by Terrence Stutz:

Interviews with 11 of the 15 members of the board – including seven Republicans and four Democrats – found little support for requiring that intelligent design be taught in biology and other science classes. Only one board member said she was open to the idea of placing the theory into the curriculum standards.

“Creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in our science classes,” said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. “Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not.”

Mr. McLeroy, R-College Station, noted that the current curriculum requires that evolution be taught in high school biology classes, and he has no desire to change that standard.

“When it comes to evolution, I am totally content with the current standard,” he said, adding that his dissatisfaction with current biology textbooks is that they don’t cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

Really noteworthy:

First, McLeroy chooses to act as a more of a statesman than he has in the past — this is good. Chairing a board like this is an important job. Such leadership positions require people to rise above their own partisan views on some issues. McLeroy has demonstrated such a willingness.

But, second, and important: McLeroy uses the campaign line of the Discovery Institute and all political activists against evolution and science: “Cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.” That’s a line invented by Jonathan Wells, the great prevaricator ID advocate, and what it means to him is fuzz up the facts, fog the books and the debate to the point that learning actual science and what the actual theories of evolution are will be impossible.

“Teach the weaknesses of evolution” should be heard as “keep the kids ignorant of the real science.”

Today’s article holds a spark for the fire of hope, and a gallon of cold water on the idea that the board will strongly support science.

Read the rest of this entry »