Why do creationists duck the debate?

November 20, 2008

More testimony from the Texas State Board of Education hearing in Austin yesterday, this time from a geologist, another member of Texas Citizens for Science:

My name is Paul Murray. I am a state-licensed geoscientist, I have BS and MS degrees in the geosciences, and I am a research scientist associate at the University of Texas at Austin. I am here today only as a private citizen and concerned scientist. I would like to speak to you about the often-misunderstood process of science.

Science begins with an idea. If you can write a coherent paragraph or two, you can submit it as an abstract to a conference. You then have the chance to present your work to other scientists. There, you will get feedback and questions from those scientists. You can use that feedback to expand your original work and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. The peer review process is brutal and impersonal; logical fallacies, bad arguments and unsupported conclusions will be threshed out; only the seed of good science will remain. When your work is published, others will analyze it again and again. Either it will grow as others build upon it, or some better idea will grow in its place.

Eventually, those ideas that become part of the accepted body of knowledge are used as the foundation upon which to build a well-rounded education. What this process does not include is an express lane for those who instead want to publish books, blogs and newspaper articles to go directly to our children’s classroom and foolishly ask them to sort out the good ideas from bad for themselves. This is like asking pilots in the second week of ground school to land a plane with an engine fire.

I am concerned by some of the “expert” feedback sought in revising the science standards. Stephen Meyer has an extensive publication record of books, reviews and newspaper articles, but has not once published a legitimate work in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Given his well-documented anti-scientific rhetoric and lack of direct participation in the process of science, I see no experience that qualifies him to comment on either science or science education.

Doctors Garner and Seelke both have publication records that at least expose them to the process; however, neither has ever published a peer-reviewed work that is even remotely critical of Darwinian evolution, which is ironic because their criticism is their main source of notoriety.

Any legitimate scientific debate to be had over evolution would be welcomed by all scientists. Science is a strong, viable process because scientists reserve the highest honors for those who can tear down our best ideas and replace them with something better. As a famous resident of Crawford, Texas once said, “Bring it on!”

But please bring it on in the proper forum for scientific debate. I ask the State Board to adopt language that recognizes the process of educating future citizens and leaders of Texas is separate and distinct from the process of legitimate scientific debate.

That the creationist experts have not published seemed to be a surprise and a concern to the creationists on the SBOE who (we must assume) worked to have the out-of-staters appointed to the review panel contradicting 40 years of “keep it in Texas” tradition.  According to some, Murray was “grilled” on his testimony; when applause broke out in support of Murray, Board Chairman Don McLeroy flew into action.  Here’s how Steve Schafersman described it at Evosphere, where he live-blogged the event to its very late end:

Gail Lowe thanked Paul for mentioning that Charles Garner of Baylor did not have any peer-reviewed “anti-Darwinian” publications, and she did not choose him because of such literature. Paul said it was true that Garner had no anti-evolution peer-reviewed publications, but his Creationism was well-know among colleagues and students at Baylor. I think Lowe knew this and picked Garner for precisely this reason. As I reported before, Garner was the only Baylor science faculty member who did not criticize William Dembski when he arrived at Baylor under a special arrangement created by its new president.

Cynthia Dunbar said she didn’t think Galileo would have been peer-reviewed well by his fellow scientists, because he was persecuted by them. Paul corrected her, saying that Galileo was esteemed by his scientific peers and was persecuted by the religious authorities of the day. With this remark, an audience member applauded and was promptly ejected by Chairman Don McLeroy, who said in a very loud voice, “Sir, you may leave!” The fellow said “Thank you” and promptly left. I felt like joining him but I need to suffer a few more hours.

Dunbar next said she only advocates academic freedom, saying that this and having students learn about any problems of explanations faced by scientists is all that she and her colleagues want.

9:20 p.m.

News reports this morning not with that air of ennui that the SBOE is again contesting evolution and other science; some of the news reports could have been recycled from four years ago.

Resources:

6 Comments | Creationism, Curricula, Education, Evolution, Politics, Rampant stupidity, Science, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Ignorance of evolution damages Texas business

November 19, 2008

Ouch.  As I noted in my testimony in 2003, much of Texas business is based on the pragmatic applications of evolution.   Today, the Texas State Board of Education heard that businesses are leaving Texas because of the danger that an ill-educated workforce might hamper the business.

According to Evosphere:

Andrew Ellington, the UT Austin biochemistry professor spoke and said that he has formed two biomedical companies that use “directed evolution” (he presumably means gene sequencing techniques) to manufactures and delivers drugs for humans. He started these in Boston, MA, and Durham, NC, not Austin, because he needed to be sure there were plenty of workers properly trained in evolutionary biology that could understand the modern recombinant DNA techniques that are needed to produce and deliver the drugs. He spoke harshly about the “retrograde” Texas SBOE and its interference in accurate and reliable science education.

Most of the members of SBOE were there in 2003 when they tried to trap Ellington into admitting that evolution couldn’t occur because of the “handedness” issue.  Ellington’s lab was where the handedness issue was put to bed, and he instead delivered a 15-minute tour-de-force lecture on how handedness is not a problem for evolution at all.

Dr. Andrew Ellington, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Texas, spoke to reporters at a Texas Freedom Network press conference following his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education, November 19, 2008

Dr. Andrew Ellington, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Texas, spoke to reporters at a Texas Freedom Network press conference following his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education, November 19, 2008

I guess they didn’t listen then.  Will they listen now?

11 Comments | Business, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics, Science, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

98% of Texas scientists say ‘teach evolution, not intelligent design’

November 18, 2008

Many scientists and researchers call Texas home, working at the Johnson Space Center, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas, University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Christian University, Southern Methodist University, Baylor University, Rice University, the University of Houston, Texas Tech, the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center . . . well, you get the idea.

These are people who work in science every day.  Many of them dedicate their lives to research in biological sciences, where evolution theory is the foundation and framework that hold all the biological sciences together.

In a groundbreaking poll released today by the Texas Freedom Network, 98% of Texas scientists told the Texas State Board of Education to quit trying to inject religion into public school science classes under the guise of intelligent design.

Will the Texas State Board of Education members listen to wise, professional advice?

The report highlights five key findings from the survey:

1. Texas scientists (97.7 percent) overwhelmingly reject “intelligent design” as valid science.

2. Texas science faculty (95 percent) want only evolution taught in science classrooms.

3. Scientists reject teaching the so-called “weaknesses” of evolution, with 94 percent saying that those arguments are not valid scientific objections to evolution.

4. Science faculty believe that emphasizing “weaknesses” of evolution would substantially harm students’ college readiness (79.6 percent) and ability to compete for 21st-century jobs (72 percent).

5. Scientists (91 percent) strongly believe that support for evolution is compatible with religious faith.

The survey results show that politicians who argue that there is a scientific controversy over evolution are not supported by scientists even in a state as conservative as Texas, [TFN President Kathy] Miller said.

Texas scientists report that their students from Texas too often are unprepared for college science curricula in biology because evolution wasn’t taught to them.  This increases costs at the college level where remedial work must be done, and it discourages many capable students from pursuing careers in science. The report urges SBOE to listen to Texas scientists:

It is no exaggeration to say that Texas colleges and universities have a world-class science faculty and boast some of the most respected science educators found anywhere. These scientists should be an invaluable resource in crafting curriculum standards that prepare Texas schoolchildren for college and for the jobs of tomorrow. But is anyone listening? The State Board of Education would do well to heed the advice from these professors. The science education of a generation of students hangs in the balance.  [page 9]

Hearings on proposed changes to the science curriculum are scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, in Austin.  Steve Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science, will live blog the hearings for his Houston Chronicle blog, Evosphere.

Resources:

37 Comments | Creationism, Education, Intelligent Design, Politics, Science, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Live blogging Barbara Forrest at SMU

November 11, 2008

Speeding across Dallas at rush hour isn’t fun, but is sometimes necessary. Got here as Kathy Miller of TFN was introducing Dr. Forrest, found a seat with an outlet, it’s 6:25 CST.

Forrest’s book has an update for the Dover trial. She notes the key players at the Discovery Institute, and says she will discuss why Texas should be wary.

___________

Forrest says the “Trojan Horse” term is even more adept if we forget the Greek story, and concentrate on the computer definition of some virus that, once introduced to the system, does damage.

Forrest is doing a primer on intelligent design, the usual players, the Texas friends of the Discovery Institute, and the Wedge Strategy.

Do any readers here not know the usual intelligent design stuff?

ID code words:

  • Teach the controversy
  • Academic freedom
  • Critical analysis of evolution
  • Strengths and weaknesses of evolution
  • Strengths and limitations of evolution
  • Arguments for and against evolution

Terms are used to avoid federal courts, to dodge the radar on First Amendment.

_____________

Chou Romanesco, a vegetable, a plant that grows naturally according to Fibonacci numbers, meets all of Dembski’s rules for intelligent design. Nice photo of the stuff.

Forrest points to testimony by Ariel Roth, a young Earth creationist (YEC), which echoes almost exactly Behe’s irreducible complexity. And, to Norman Geisler on complex specified information, as Dembski uses it — but 16 years before Dembski. These are YEC ideas, she says.

_____________

Forrest says only a small handful of states — five or six — haven’t had eruptions of creationism in the past three years.

_____________

History of the Wedge Strategy: Forrest got a copy of the Wedge Strategy, leaked by Tim Duss, early on. She noticed that the Discovery Institute is following all of their confrontational strategies to promote ID, but is not doing any of the research planned and promised early on. 6:43 p.m. CST

_____________

Forrest notes that ID proponents define intelligent design in Christian gospel terms: Logos theology out of John’s Gospel. Quoting Dembski in 1999 and Johnson in 1996. “Empirically detectable in biology,” they allege.

She’s showing us that ID is rooted in creationism.

Here’s a site to see: Forrest’s stuff: http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

_____________

Forrest said that compromise with creationists is always a win for creationists — “and the children lose, every time.”

_____________

After the March 1992 conference at SMU, Mark Hartwig described Dembski, Myer, Behe and other now-Discovery Institute minions as creationists, in an article in Moody Magazine designed to attract creationists from Baptist churches to their cause. Forrest relates the history of Dean Kenyon, and his morphing into an “intelligent design” advocate after he got slapped down for trying to teach creationism instead of science.

Myer, in Scientific Tenets of Faith in 1986, argues that science should presuppose the Bible.

At that point, they were openly working to get creationism into school curricula.

______________

In 1999, Meyer, with DeWolf and another, wrote Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula – A Legal Guidebook, in which they argued that teaching intelligent design is “a mandate” by the Supreme Court in the Edwards case. In Ohio in 2002, however, Meyer backed off from “mandate.”

In November 2003, Meyer is backed off completely from requiring ID in curricula, suggesting it’s only an effort to be fair. 7:01 p.m.

______________

Forrest played an excerpt from MSNBC’s Abrams Report featuring Steve Meyer and Eugenie Scott. He said that intelligent design is not religion, but is science.

Forrest then noted Paul Nelson’s article in Touchstone magazine, in which Meyer argues that ID doesn’t have any theory yet. She also noted several other links showing the religious nature of Meyer’s work.

Uh oh — now she turns to Dr. Don McLeroy’s Sunday School lecture on intelligent design. She’s bringing it home to Texas. McLeroy says creationists have been making these arguments for decades, and the ID movement is just the latest incarnation.

7:10 p.m.

______________

ID is “A biological theory — or, I guess you could leave off ‘biological’ . . .” according to McLeroy. Four excerpts, each showing the link to religious dogma.

______________

McLeroy sometimes says that he’s not interested in getting ID into the curricula. But almost as often, he wanders off the authorized script, and says he doesn’t believe evolution, doesn’t think that evolution should be taught, and suggests he’s all about getting ID into the schools. Watch out, Forrest warns: Bobby Jindal in Louisiana was targeted by the Discovery Institute, and so is Texas.

She’s concluding, with pictures of Texas school children in 1944, from the Library of Congress. “These little kids are now probably grandparents. It’s sad to think that their grandchildren will be no farther along in science.”

Much applause — people jockeying for the microphones. Ten minutes for questions.

_____________

First question. Guy from Utah originally wonders why creationists always attack the model, instead of going after the research.

“This isn’t about science,” Forrest said. “These guys are very smart — they know exactly what the evidence shows.” They believe teaching evolution without saying God did it, without any mention of God, that undermines the beliefs of children. “This is very much about their fear, and their attempt to control public policy.”

It’s about power, religion and politics, not science.

Second question: Who are the primary financial supporters (guy with great white beard).

No real faith-based connection — biggest donor is Howard Ahmansen, is now on the DI’s Board of Directors. Grants from evangelical organizations, but Ahmansen is the biggest donor.

Third question: How successful have they been in their goals — and what about Dawkins?

Biggest success is getting stuff out to public — “a public relations operation to kill for” — and getting information out to churches. They also cultivate high level political support, all the way up to President Bush. “That’s probably going to change.” Some applause.

Academic freedom bills introduced in six states last year. Clock ran out in Florida. Passed in Louisiana.

Dawkins: Everything DI does is in response to Dawkins’ book. It was one of two that Phillip Johnson read to make him launch the ID movement.

Fourth question: What can we do? Any chance of slick PR?

Educate and organize. They don’t hesitate to use other people’s children — organize to stop it.

Fifth question: ‘I’m aware of most of the weaknesses argument — any new ones?’

Nothing really new with evolution. “They’re recycling the old creaitonist complaints against evolution.”

But they’re now attacking the idea that the mind is a function of physical bodies. They’re claiming there is a supernatural connection — an attack on neuroscience. They say the mind is a product of the soul, not the body.

Sixth question: Fibonacci numbers used against ID. Couldn’t an intelligent being have made math that way?

“If you’re asking couldn’t there be a supernatural being who works through natural processes, that sounds like you’re asking whether God could be involved in the workings of nature.”

“I guess that’s what I’m asking.”

That’s basically mainstream religious belief, where most mainstream Christians and Jews make peace with science.

And that is something the Discovery Institute rejects utterly.

Seventh question: What about the anthropic principle?

It’s not new in ID. Forrest explains the principle with regard to ID, notes DI has a book on the stuff.

Eighth question: Thanks, guy says — he heard Meyer last spring, and he’s glad to see the dirty underbelly exposed. Are the academic freedom laws vulnerable?

Forrest says she has a paper on how the language of DI is changing, even before the Dover trial. “We at the NCSE knew we’d be seeing a raft of bills with this sanitized terminology.”

Language is sanitized, and presents more of a problem with litigation — facial challenge problems. Louisiana bill doesn’t mention ID, but uses the code words. Forrest says to look for her analysis at the Louisiana Citizens for Science website. The bill has the code words, and was sponsored by religious organizations.

But what would a judge think? Can’t say.

Ninth question: “I’m a physicist . . . but I’m also a Christian.” If there’s a supernatural explanation, it’s still not science. “They’re giving me a bad name.”

Forrest said the bad name rap is not fair. She notes Ken Miller and Keith Miller.

Questioner asks her to keep science as science and not redefine it. How do we keep science and religion separated?

Forrest said it’s a Constitutional question. Constitution says the government won’t establish religion, but that’s what a teacher does when she introduces religion into her classroom.

Forrest noted how she deals with the issue in her classes. Religion takes us beyond where science can reach. “There’s really no way to incorporate that into a science class. And why would you want to do that?” If you introduce a religious question, and science answers that question, “You have shrunk your god. Why would you want to do that?”

Kids will get religion in church and at home. They’ll get science only at school. Kids need to get it there.

_______________

Done at 7:39.  I’ll correct typos, mispellings, and other errors if I find them, and add links if I can — but later.

4 Comments | Creationism, Education, Evolution, Politics, Science, Separation of church and state, Texas, Texas Freedom Network | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Tonight! Science educators, go see Barbara Forrest at SMU!

November 11, 2008

Reminder:  Dr. Barbara Forrest, the noted science historian whose testimony was key to the decision in the Dover, Pennsylvania, evolution trial, is speaking at 6:00 p.m. at SMU tonight, November 11, 2008.

If you’re in Dallas, go.

Also, I got word today that Texas teachers can pick up CEU credits for this event, sponsored by the science and philosophy departments at SMU together with the Texas Freedom Network. Check in at the registration table.

Forrest’s presentation will serve as a warning to Texas: “Why Texans Shouldn’t Let Creationists Mess with Science Education.”

The event is at the Hughes-Trigg Student Center, in the Hughes-Trigg Theatre (map with free parking shown) — more details at the Texas Freedom Network site.

Hope to see you there.

Leave a Comment » | Creationism, Education, Evolution, History, Law, Politics, Science, Teaching, Texas, Texas Freedom Network, Textbook Selection, War on Education, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Faith and Freedom speaker series: Barbara Forrest at SMU, November 11

November 10, 2008

Update:  Teachers may sign up to get CEU credits for this event.  Check in at the sign-in desk before the event — certificates will be mailed from SMU later.

It will be one more meeting of scientists that Texas State Board of Education Chairman Dr. Don McLeroy will miss, though he should be there, were he diligent about his public duties.

Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of the world’s foremost experts on “intelligent design” and other creationist attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution, will speak in the Faith and Freedom Speaker Series at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas.   Her evening presentation will serve as a warning to Texas: “Why Texans Shouldn’t Let Creationists Mess with Science Education.”

Dr. Forrest’s presentation is at 6:00 p.m., in the Hughes-Trigg Student Center in the Hughes-Trigg Theatre, at SMU’s Campus. The Faith and Freedom Speaker Series is sponsored by the Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) education fund.  Joining TFN are SMU’s Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development, Center for Teaching Excellence, Department of Anthropology, Department of Biological Sciences, and Department of Philosophy.

Hughes-Trigg is at 3140 Dyer Street, on SMU’s campus (maps and directions available here).

Seating is limited for the lecture; TFN urges reservations be made here.

Dr. Forrest being interviewed by PBSs NOVA crew, in 2007. Southeastern Louisiana University photo.

Dr. Forrest being interviewed by PBS's NOVA crew, in 2007. Southeastern Louisiana University photo.

From TFN:

Dr. Barbara Forrest
is Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. She is the co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (2004; 2007), which details the political and religious aims of the intelligent design creationist movement.  She served as an expert witness in the first legal case involving intelligent design, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. She is a member of the Board of Directors for the National Center for Science Education and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Widely recognized as a leading expert on intelligent design, she has appeared on Larry King Live, ABC’s Nightline, and numerous other television and radio programs.

Also see:

Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Biology, Creationism, Education, Education quality, Ethics, Evolution, Famous trials, Freedom - Political, geology, Heroes, History, Hoaxes, Intelligent Design, Junk science, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Natural history, Paleontology, Politics, Public education, Rampant stupidity, Science, Separation of church and state, State school boards, Teaching, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network, Textbook Selection, Voodoo science, War on Education, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Is our children learning science? O, woe is Texas

November 5, 2008

So, last week or so I commented on the woes of Kentucky, where, the polls showed, 28% of voters were yoked with the millstone belief that our president-elect is Muslim. Someone commented, and sent me the link that showed 23% of Texans carry a similar burden in their own swim.

Can it get much more weird, more divorced from reality?

How about we marry bizarre, untrue beliefs about religion with bizarre, untrue beliefs about science? And then — God save us, please — how about let’s put that person on the state school board during a rewrite of science standards?

Meet Cynthia Dunbar, member of the Texas State Board of Education.

Cynthia Dunbar, Texas State Board of Education member

At the tinfoil hat website “Christian Worldview” (as if Christians are unable to see normally), Dunbar posted this bizarre statement:

So we can imagine the blatant disregard for our Constitution, but what other threats does an Obama administration pose? We have been clearly warned by his running mate, Joe Biden, that America will suffer some form of attack within the first 6 months of Obama’s administration. However, unlike Joe, I do not believe this “attack” will be a test of Obama’s mettle. Rather, I perceive it will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny.

Challenged by the Texas Freedom Network to do the American, patriotic thing and take the comments down, Dunbar refuses.

Dunbar was not worried about martial law when President George W. Bush actually took the steps she claims to worry about now, assigning troops to domestic crowd control in the U.S. It’s the marriage of presidential power with the bizarre phantasms of “the Christian worldview” that makes Ms. Dunbar’s views so nutty. It’s her position on the Texas State Board of Education that makes her views troubling, if not downright dangerous.

Her statement is as crazy as if she had accused John McCain of being a communist sympathizer, and Manchurian candidate, for ‘having spent so much time schmoozing with North Vietnamese officials.’ It’s also every bit as offensive as such a claim would be.

One mystery remains: Do wacko views produce creationism, or does creationism produce these wacko views? We await the creationist who can make an argument in favor of creationism without making a detour off the deep end.

It’s going to take more than tinfoil to protect Texas’s children, and Barack Obama, from these nuts.

If you want to pray, pray that God grants us reason, to save us and our children from such nuts, and this one especially.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Chris Comer.

_________________



10 Comments | Barack Obama, Bogus history, Creationism, Education, History, Rampant stupidity, Science, State school boards, Terrorism, Texas Freedom Network, Textbook Selection, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Dating carbon, for the shy and inexperienced

October 26, 2008

A sure sign of scientific naiveté, especially among those of the creationist religion, is the raft of pseudo complaints about dating the ages of objects, especially fossils, through the use of radioisotopes.

First, creationists will complain that dating things with radiocarbon is impossible.  They aren’t sure why they think that, but it just makes sense to them that radioactivity in stones can’t be used to tell time, and don’t confuse them with any information about how their watches on their wrists are driven by electric currents sent through quartz crystals, and for God’s sake do not confuse them with any references to quantum theory and the workings of the cell phones most of them use to tell time since they evolved to lose the ability to read analog watches anyway (evolution always is to the detriment of the creature they believe, and try to demonstrate).

Then, without any hint that they understand or even see the irony, creationists complain that scientists lie when they say isotope dating puts the age of the Earth and the Moon at about 4.5 billion years, because, they observer, carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 years in most circumstances, and certainly no more than 100,000 years.  Don’t confuse them by telling them that dating of rocks almost always involves an isotope of an element other than carbon, like uranium.

As if to prove their science untrainability, from time to time a creationist will send a sample of something to a lab, asking that it be dated.  When the lab returns a date of several million years for the stuff dated, the creationists crow that they had crushed a brick, or in some other way provided a tainted sample, and they’ve “proven” that carbon dating doesn’t work.

Aardvarchaeology offers a quick primer on carbon dating, “Think before you carbon date.” Bookmark the site.  It’s a good rebuttal for whatever pseudo science claims creationists make about carbon dating.

Real scientists have to do real work.  Radiocarbon dating, or any isotope dating, is usually pretty expensive as a general rule.  It’s not something to be done lightly.  In addition to the expense, to get the dating done correctly, there is a lot of preparation to be done.  Martin Rundkvist details the process, from a live project of his. If you read his piece carefully, you note that he’s giving a primer in dendrochronology, too, the science of dating by tree rings.  

Real science is always more interesting than creationists can imagine.  Go see how it works.  Great stuff

5 Comments | Accuracy, Archaeology, Creationism, Education, Evolution, History, Physics, Science, Technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Quote of the moment: Nobel physicist Stephen Weinberg, on creationism

October 24, 2008

Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution

“By the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without any alternatives being presented.”

–Dr. Steven Weinberg

[After the 2003 round of hearings on biology textbooks for Texas schools, I edited from the transcript of the hearings before the Texas State Board of Education the short speech made by Stephen Weinberg, who graciously joined in the fight for science, and shipped the remarks to anyone who wanted them.  The American Institute for Physics (AIP) put Dr. Weinberg’s remarks up on the web — here they are.  Something to think about now that the SBOE has stacked the science standards writing group with creationists unqualified in almost all sciences.

For the record, for your edification, for the advancement of truth in the fight for science, justice and the American Way:]

The following is a transcript of testimony to the Texas State Board of Education. Dr. Steven Weinberg, professor of physics at the University of Texas at Austin and a Nobel prize winner for electroweak theory, addresses the Board.

DR. WEINBERG: Thank you. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. I should say at the outset that I haven’t read the textbooks in question and I’m not a biologist.

Stephen Weinberg

Stephen Weinberg

My Nobel Prize is not in biology, but is in physics. But I have been a physicist for a long time. And I think I have a good sense of how science works. It doesn’t deal with certainties. We don’t register things as facts that we have to swear allegiance to.

But as mathematics and experiment progress, certain bodies of understanding become as sure as anything reasonably can be. They attract an overwhelming consensus of acceptance within the scientific community. They are what we teach our students.

And the most important thing of all, since our time is so precious to us, they are what we assume as true when we do our own work. Evolution — the theory of evolution through natural selection has certainly reached that status as a consensus.

I’ve been through these issues not very much professionally in recent years, but I was on a panel of the National Academy of Sciences some years ago that reviewed these issues in order to prepare an amicus brief in a similar argument that was taking place in Arkansas at that time. At that time, it had reached the courts. We know that there is such a thing as inheritable variations in animals and plants. And we know that these change through mutations. And it’s mathematically certain that as given inheritable variations, that you will have evolution toward greater adaptation. So that evolution through natural selection occurs can’t be in doubt.

As I understand it, many who want to put alternative theories into our textbooks argue that, although that may be true, we don’t know that that’s all that happens, that there is not some intelligent design that also assists the process of evolution. But that’s the wrong question. We can never know that there isn’t something beyond our theories. And that’s not just true with regard to evolution. That’s true with regard to everything.

We don’t know that the theory of physics, as it’s currently understood, correctly accounts for everything in the solar system. How could we? It’s too complicated. We don’t understand the motion of every asteroid in the asteroid belts. Some of them really are doing very complicated things. Do we know that no angel tips the scales toward one asteroid moving a little but further than it otherwise would have in a certain time? No, we can never know.

What we have to do is keep comparing what we observe with our theories and keep verifying that the theories work, trying to explain more and more. That’s what’s happened with evolution and it continues to be successful. There is not one thing that is known to be inexplicable through evolution by natural selection, which is not the same as saying that everything has been explained, because it never will be. The same applies to the weather or the solar system or what have you.

But I can say this, and many of the peak scientists here will have said, I am sure, the same thing. You must be bored hearing this again and again. But how can you judge? I’m not a biologist, you’re not biologists.
There is a natural answer which is very congenial to the American spirit, I think. And that is, well, let the students judge. Why shouldn’t they have the chance to judge these issues by themselves? And that, I think, is the argument that many are making.

But judge what? Judge the correctness of evolution through natural selection? Judge the correctness of Newton’s law or the conservation of energy or the fact that the Earth is round rather than flat? Where do we draw the line between the issues that we leave open to the student’s judgment and the issues that we teach as reasonably accepted scientific facts, consensus theories?

The courts face a similar question. They often are presented with testimony or testimony is offered, for example, that someone knows that a certain crime wasn’t committed because he has psychic powers or someone sues someone in tort because he’s been injured by witchcraft. The Court does not allow — according to current doctrines, the Court does not allow those arguments to go to the jury because the Court would not be doing its job. The Court must decide that those things are not science. And the way the Court does is by asking: What — do these ideas have general scientific acceptance? Does witchcraft have general scientific acceptance? Well, clearly, it doesn’t. And those — that testimony will not be allowed to go to the jury.

How then can we allow ideas which don’t have general scientific acceptance to go to high school students, not an adult jury? If we do, we are not — or you are not doing your job of deciding what is there that is controversial. And that might be an interesting subject to be discussed, as for example the rate of evolution, the question of whether it’s smooth, punctuated by jumps or whether it’s — or whether it’s just gradual. These are interesting questions which are still controversial which could go to students and give them a chance to exercise their judgment.

But you’re not doing your job if you let a question like the validity of evolution through natural selection go to the students, anymore than a judge is doing his job or her job if he or she allows the question of witchcraft to go to the jury. And why this particular issue of evolution? Why not the round Earth or Newton’s theory or Copernicus, the Earth goes around the sun? Well, I think it’s rather disingenuous to say that this is simply because there’s a real scientific conflict here, because there is no more of a scientific conflict than with those issues.

I do get involved in this issue. I think it’s clear that the reason why the issue was raised with regard to evolution is because of an attempt to preserve religious beliefs against the possible impact of the theory of evolution.

I don’t think teachers have any business either preserving religious beliefs or attacking religious beliefs. I think they should teach science.

And science, as the courts understand it, in that other context, is what is generally accepted by scientists. And what is the evidence that evolution through natural selection is generally accepted through science? I don’t think — general acceptance doesn’t mean unanimity.

I know there are Ph.D. scientists who take an opposite view.

There’s not one member of the National Academy of Sciences who does.

There’s not one winner of the National Medal of Science who does.

There’s not one Nobel Laureate in biology who takes the view that there’s any question about the validity of the theory of evolution through natural selection or that there is any alternative theory that’s worth discussing.

So by the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without any alternatives being presented.

Thank you very much.

3 Comments | Accuracy, Creationism, Evolution, History, Politics, Public education, Science, Texas, Textbook Selection | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Lookin’ good, for 4.28 billion years old

September 25, 2008

New candidate for “oldest rocks on Earth,” from Canada.  They come in perhaps as old as 4.28 billion years.

They’re older than John McCain!

1 Comment | Bell Ringers, Creationism, Evolution, Geography - Physical, geology, History, Science, Travel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

China-Olympics-sized stakes in science education

August 25, 2008

Frank Rich, in Sunday’s New York Times:

We don’t have the time or resources to go off on more quixotic military missions or to indulge in culture wars. (In China, they’re too busy exploiting scientific advances for competitive advantage to reopen settled debates about Darwin.) Americans must band together for change before the new century leaves us completely behind.

It’s an aside in a longer piece of advice to Obama on issues for the rest of the campaign.  It’s a Sputnik statement for this century, for anyone with the brains to pay attention.

Leave a Comment » | China, Creationism, Darwin, Economics, Education, Science, War on Education, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Dangers of failing to teach evolution, part I

August 24, 2008

From comments at the website of the New York Times today, on the story, “A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash”:

I teach biology and I would like to add a story in encouragement to other biology teachers. About 15 years ago I was teaching a botany course to college sophomores and started discussing the evolution of land plants. Expressions began to harden. Students stopped taking notes. So I stopped and asked if my discussion of evolution was bothering them. Many nodded and one said, “Why do teachers act like evolution is a fact?” At the time I had little experience and had assumed they had a working knowledge of evolution from previous classes at college as well as from high school biology. They did not. I didn’t have much time left that day, but I did explain some of the lines of evidence that support evolution.

The next day, one of my students came in and slammed a stack of books onto her table. She said, “I am so mad! I am so angry!” She looked near tears. She said, “My parents never let me even hear the word, evolution! They said it was all lies! I went to the library last night and got out books about it!” (and here she held up Origin of Species) Then she said, “It makes so much SENSE! I am so angry I never got to learn about it before!”
Now I teach a class entirely about evolution and I think of her often. She still gives me inspiration to keep on trying to open up minds.

— Bio prof, Ohio

Related resources:

14 Comments | Accuracy, Biology, Creationism, Dissent, Education, Ethics, Evolution, Newspapers, Religion, Science, Teaching | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Read this: Teaching science is hard, made harder by religious claptrap

August 24, 2008

Page A1 of the New York Times on Sunday, August 24, 2008: “A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash.”

Read it, and consider these questions:

  1. Would your local paper have the guts to report on this issue, for your local schools? (The Times went to Florida; heaven knows few Florida papers could cover the issue in Florida so well.)
  2. What is your local school board doing to support science education, especially for evolution, in your town? Or is your local school board making it harder for teachers to do their jobs?
  3. What is your state education authority doing to support science education, especially in evolution, in your state? Or is your state school board working to make it harder for teachers to do their jobs, and working to dumb down America’s kids?
  4. Do your school authorities know that they bet against your students when they short evolution, because knowledge about evolution is required for 25% of the AP biology test, and is useful for boosting scores on the SAT and ACT?
  5. Does your state science test test evolution?
  6. Do your school authorities understand they are throwing away taxpayer dollars when they encourage the teaching of voodoo science, like intelligent design?

It takes a good paper like the Times to lay it on the line:

The Dover decision in December of that year [2005] dealt a blow to “intelligent design,” which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone, and has been widely promoted by religious advocates since the Supreme Court’s 1987 ban on creationism in public schools. The federal judge in the case called the doctrine “creationism re-labeled,” and found the Dover school board had violated the constitutional separation of church and state by requiring teachers to mention it. The school district paid $1 million in legal costs.

That hasn’t slowed the Texas State Board of Education’s rush to get the state entangled in litigation over putting religious dogma in place of science. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is already embroiled in one suit, brought by the science-promoting science curriculum expert they fired for noting in an e-mail that science historian Barbara Forrest was speaking in a public event in Austin. TEA may well lose this case, and their side is not helped when State Board Chairman Don McLeroy cavorts with creationists in a session teaching illegal classroom tactics to teachers. Clearly Texas education officials are not reading the newspapers, the court decisions, or the science books.

Here’s one of the charts accompanied the article. While you read it, consider these items: The top 10% of science students in China outnumber all the science students in the U.S.; the U.S. last year graduated more engineers from foreign countries than from the U.S.; the largest portion were from China. China graduated several times the number of engineers the U.S. did, and almost all of them were from China.

Copyright 2008 by the New York Times

Copyright 2008 by the New York Times

Can we afford to dumb down any part of our science curriculum, for any reason? Is it unfair to consider creationism advocates, including intelligent design advocates, as “surrender monkeys in the trade and education wars with China?”

Update: 10:00 p.m. Central, this story is the most e-mailed from the New York Times site today; list below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments | Biology, Charles Darwin, Creationism, Darwin, Education, Education quality, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics, Public education, Religion, Science, Separation of church and state, State school boards, Teaching, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Education Agency (TEA), Texas Freedom Network, Voodoo science, War on Education, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

A Texas riddle indeed: Why is McLeroy hanging with creationists?

August 21, 2008

Here’s the post from über creationist Ken Ham’s site, in its entirety:

A Texas Riddle

Last week, AiG speaker Mike Riddle did a series of talks in Brenham, Texas. On the first day, Mike did four different sessions for 1st–6th graders. He usually speaks to young people on topics like “The Riddle of the Dinosaurs,” AiG’s well-known “7C’s of History,” and fossils.

image001.jpg

On the next day, Mike did four special sessions for teachers. Each presentation was geared to help instructors be better prepared to teach origins in the public schools. In addition to speaking on what creationists believe, he spoke on understanding presuppositions and assumptions in the origins debate–and using critical thinking skills. Mike also had the opportunity to meet with the Chairman of the Texas State School Board, Don McLeroy (a biblical creationist), and gave presentations to an open audience at the Brenham High School auditorium.

image003.jpg

Mike and Don McLeroy (Chairman, Texas State School Board)

“Special sessions for teachers?” Oy vey.

1. I’ll wager, if those were real, public school teachers, they were given continuing education credits for attending. That would be illegal, especially if Riddle did not preface his presentations with a legal disclaimer that what he urges is contrary to Texas science standards and contrary to the Constitution. Want to wager whether he did?

2. What’s McLeroy doing there? Doesn’t he know he’s supposed to maintain antiseptic separation from such controversial stuff? They fire people from the TEA for attending sessions that are legal and support the Texas standards. What sort of Quisling action is this on McLeroy’s part?

3. Is Rick Perry watching? The state’s legal fees will rise dramatically as a result of this kind of bad judgment at the SBOE. Can Texas taxpayers afford this?

4. Why does Don McLeroy hate Texas’s smarter, college-bound children so?

It takes a particular form of chutzpah to stand idly by while qualified science teachers are fired from the state’s education agency for promoting science, and then go cavort with creationists. It may not be cowardice exactly, but courage is its antonym.

4 Comments | Education, Ethics, History, Politics, Religion, Science, State school boards, Teaching, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Education Agency (TEA), Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Alligator bait: Louisiana science teachers, and school boards

August 18, 2008

Louisiana’s state legislature — the legislature that the Supreme Court slapped down in 1987 for trying to introduce religion into science classes in Edwards v. Aguillard — rushed through a bill drafted by the deaf-to-the-law Discovery Institute which purports on its face to make it legal for Louisiana science teachers to teach creationism, intelligent design, tarot card reading, UFO-ism, or any other crank science that the teacher feels compelled to offer.

A Louisiana alligator used by c design proponetsist Denyse OLeary to illustrate a blog post about Louisianas litigation bait law on creationism in schools. Without any appreciation of irony, or as a subtle warning, we cant say. (photo from The Advocate?)

A Louisiana alligator used by c design proponetsist Denyse O'Leary to illustrate a blog post about Louisiana's litigation bait law on creationism in schools. Without any appreciation of th irony, or as a subtle warning, we can't say. (photo from The Advocate?)

Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-Mars, rushed to sign the brain-sucker into law, in his ambitious quest to get John McCain to name him as the nominee for vice president. It appears on the surface that Jindal’s national political aspirations will have to wait, but the law he signed requires Louisiana’s school districts to be ready when the students come back in the next few weeks, to do whatever it is they are going to do about creationism and other crank science.

Discovery Institute minions have been hawking creationism wares, and other creationists have offered to put Genesis into the science curriculum — but the law does not authorize those actions or wares itself. Instead, it passes the judgment to local school boards, sort of.

“Sort of.” Words that make a litigator’s heart flutter when talking about to-be-implemented laws! You’d think that, with all the money the Discovery Institute spends to entice legislators and school board members to poke their noses into matters they do not know, DI could spend a few thousands of dollars to get a competent legislative law drafter to draft a workable law. The cheapskates always pay more, Click and Clack say, and here’s another case to prove the point. It would have been difficult to intentionally write a law better intended to get local school boards sued.

A few of us noted the law does not indemnify local school districts against lawsuits if they goof and put religion into science classes. This is important, because the law requires local school districts to step up to the line and have a policy in place by the start of this school year. Which means, if the district doesn’t have the policy written out now, they’re late.

Tony Whitson at Curricublog spent time this summer pondering exactly how the law works, what it requires, and who it requires to act. His analysis — that the law is litigation bait just waiting to snare a local school board, a real “Dover Trap” — is cool, hard, and chilling. Go read it at his blog.

Whitson recommends that the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education get an opinion from the state’s attorney general. This will not comply with the impossible and punishing deadline the legislature established, but it’s a much wiser stewardship of local monies, to try to avoid litigation. Tony wrote:

Taking stock of the situation: To summarize where things now stand, in light of everything above:

The law is by no means so benign as its promoters pretend. It will unleash all manner of chaotic mischief. On the other hand, there is a method to this madness, making it predictable that the perpetrators’ strategy will be to insinuate Exploring Evolution into the state’s (and then other states’) public schools.

BESE and the school districts cannot comply with the statute, which commands that

The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

There are legal requirements (public notice, etc.) for adopting administrative rules for implementing legislation that make it impossible for that to be done by every state and district school board before the new school year begins.

So what can BESE do?

My suggestion is that BESE, at it’s meeting Tuesday, should move to request an opinion from the State Attorney General. They should ask him for an opion advising them, the district Boards of Education, and individual school principals, as to who will be responsible for the costs of defending against litigation for unconstitutional state promotion of religion in the use of supplemental materials. Presumably, if there’s a suit brought directly against BESE itself because of the substance of a text they have approved, then they would be defended by the AG’s office, on behalf of the state (like when the AG hired Wendell Bird as as special assistant for defending the state’s “Balanced Treatment” law). But will the AG commit his office to defending every district, every school, and every teacher whose use of “supplemental materials” is challenged for violation of the First Amendment?

Louisiana’s legislature set a trap for Louisiana science teachers and local school boards — whether intentionally or not is immaterial. Rather than authorize specific material for the curriculum, the new creationism law requires school boards to analyze materials to supplement the science curriculum. The law passes the buck to the local school boards.

So, Louisiana school board members now must become expert on science, and Constitutional law.

Rule of thumb: It costs a school board about $1 million every time they goof and put religion into science classrooms, in litigation costs alone. Louisiana’s legislature didn’t appropriate any money to compensate the school boards.

This law promises to entangle science educators and curriculum, and ensnare local school boards – all of which helps dumb down science achievement and prevent U.S. kids from getting the education they need to compete in a global economy. Alas.

3 Comments | Creationism, Education, Education success, Evolution, First day, History, Intelligent Design, Politics, Rampant stupidity, Science, Teaching, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »