March 9, 2009
Science needs your help, Texas scientists.
Last month science won a victory when members of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) agreed to strip creationist, anti-science language out of biology standards.
In the lightning round that followed the vote, however, some bad stuff was proposed. The National Center for Science Education asks every Texas scientist to contact your representative on the SBOE to urge them to vote against the bad stuff at a meeting near the end of March.
Don’t take my word for it. Below the fold, the full rundown of bad stuff, copied from NCSE’s website.
Details are available from Texas Citizens for Science.
New Texas Science Standards Will Be Debated and Voted Upon March 26-27 in Austin by the Texas State Board of Education — Public Testimony is March 25
Radical Religious-Right and Creationist members of the State Board of Education will attempt to keep the unscientific amendments in the Texas science standards that will damage science instruction and textbooks.
THE TEXAS SCIENCE STANDARDS SHOULD BE ADOPTED UNCHANGED!
The Texas Freedom Network has good information, too.
Also check out Greg Laden’s Blog.
Even Pharyngula’s in — Myers gets more comments from sneezing than the rest of us — but if he’s on it, you know it’s good science.
Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
3 Comments | 
Charles Darwin, Citizenship, Creationism, Education, Education quality, Evolution, History, Politics, Religion, Science, State school boards, Texas, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network, War on Education, War on Science | Tagged: Creationism, Education, Education reform, Evolution, Politics, Religion, Science, Science Standards, Texas, Texas State Board of Education | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
March 9, 2009
Bad himself has gone silent for a while.
But in a thread he started, originally on Ben Stein’s world tour of crackpottery, we’ve got a creationist minister who argues that evolution can’t be shown, is impossible, and that the science backs creationism.
Go give it a look.
I may post some of the stuff over here, eventually. In the meantime, go discuss. Maybe Bad can be convinced to come out of retirement.
Definitely related post:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
3 Comments | Biology, Creationism, Darwin, Evolution, Religion, Research, Science | Tagged: Bad Idea Blog, Creationism, denialism, Evolution, Religion, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
March 8, 2009
Student production from 2008:
The film’s credits say it was done by Michael Seltzer — it’s rather obviously a student production, but there is also a Dr. Michael Seltzer active in environmental protection. Are they related?
Best I can tell is that this documentary didn’t win any national awards. If the non-winners are this good, I wonder what the winners look like?
Why aren’t all the winners posted on the website of the National History Day organization, or on YouTube?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
1 Comment | DDT, History, Politics, Rachel Carson, Research, Science, Student projects, Technology, Video and film | Tagged: DDT, Environmental protection, History, Politics, Rahel Carson, Research, Science, Student projects, Technology, Video and film | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
March 7, 2009
Anthony Watts want to make a case that rising ocean levels aren’t connected to human activities, there’s nothing we can do about it, there’s nothing we should do about it, or something. Looking for a touchstone in history, Watts said:
In 2002, the BBC reported that a submerged city was found off the coast of India, 36 meters below sea level. This was long before the Hummer or coal fired power plant was invented. It is quite likely that low lying coastal areas will continue to get submerged, just as they have been for the last 20,000 years.
Submerged city? Hmm. Not in the textbooks published since 2002. What’s up with that?
NASA Earth Observatory photo of the Gujarat Gulfs, including the Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat), where a "lost city" was thought to have been found in 2001; later research indicates no city underwater.
Oh, this is what’s up: Watts links to a BBC news story, not a science journal — one of the warning signs of Bogus Science and Bogus History, both. The news story talks about preliminary findings in 2002 that did not hold up to scrutiny. Measurement error was part of the problem — the pattern of the scanning radar sweep was mistaken for structures found on the sea floor. Natural formations were mistaken for artificial formations. When the news announcement was made, archaeologists and other experts in dating such things had not be consulted (and it’s unclear when or whether they were ever brought in). The follow-up didn’t support the story, notes Bad Archaeology. Terrible archaeology to support pseudo climate science? Why not?
This doesn’t deny Watts’ general claims in his post, but it is too indicative of the type of “find anything to support the favored claim of denial” mindset that goes on among denialists. (There is evidence of a much lower waterline in the area during the last ice age; water levels have risen, according to physical evidence, but probably not inundating the what would be the oldest civilization on Earth.)
It will be interesting to watch what happens. Will Watts note an oopsie and apologize, or will the entire group circle their Radio Super wagons around the issue and call it a mainstream science plot against them? Will Watts correct his citation, or will they move on to cite the disappearance of Atlantis as evidence that warming can’t be stopped?
Anybody want to wager?
What sort of irony is there in a guy’s complaining about a scientific consensus held by thousands of scientists with hundreds of publications supporting their claims, and his using one news report almost totally without any scientific corroboration in rebuttal?
Resources:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
1 Comment | Ancient history, Archaeology, Bogus history, Climate change, Global warming, History, Prehistory, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Anthony Watts, Archaeology, Bogus history, bogus science, Cambay, Climate change, denialism, Global warming, Gulf of Cambay, History, India, Khambhat, Lost City, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, Watts Up With That | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 28, 2009
In a move that is likely to panic climate change denialists (and others who claim not to be denialists, but oppose acting because they claim to be “skeptical”), federal agencies working under the new Obama budget might actually do some of the necessary research. Bob Parks told the story in his weekly missive.
3. NASA: THINGS HAVE NOT GONE WELL IN CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS.
First there was the Bush Administration’s shameful cancellation of the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) launch in 2000. The only fingerprints on the cancellation belong to Dick Cheney. It would by now have settled the critical issue of the role of solar variation in global warming. Then, on Tuesday, the $278 million Orbital Carbon Observatory, designed to measure greenhouse gas emissions, crashed shortly after launch. The good news is that the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that passed on Wednesday provides $9 million for NASA to refurbish DSCOVR, which has been shut up in a Greenbelt, MD warehouse for 9 years.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
17 Comments | Climate change, Global warming, President Obama, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, CO2, Global warming, NASA, Politics, President Obama, Research, Science, Solar Variation | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 28, 2009
Do the math: 930,000 U.S. kids with synesthesia, out of 60 million students. (Okay, “synaesthesia” for the British search programs.)
You might have one. A pyschologist in Britain did the research.
For the first time, psychologists have documented the prevalence of a form of synaesthesia – the condition that leads to a mixing of the senses – in a large sample of children. Over a twelve month period, Julia Simner and colleagues tested 615 children aged six to seven years at 21 UK schools and conservatively estimated that 1.3 per cent of them had grapheme-colour synaesthesia, in which letters and numbers involuntarily trigger the sensation of different colours.
“[This] implicates over 170,000 children age 0–17 in the UK alone, and over 930,000 in the USA,” the researchers said, “and suggests that the average primary school in England and Scotland (n = 168 pupils) contains 2.2 grapheme-colour synaesthetes at any time, while the average-sized US primary school (n = 396 pupils) contains 5.1.” Inevitably, the prevalence for synaesthesia as a whole, considering all the sub-types, would be even higher.
A hall-mark of grapheme-colour synaesthesia is that the colour triggered by a given letter or number is always the same – a fact the researchers exploited to identify the condition in school children.
Indeed, when asked to associate letters with colours, the children identified as synaesthetes showed more consistency over a 12-month-period than the other children did over a ten second period!
Researchers calculated about 5 such students in the average U.S. school, assuming a student population of about 400.
400! In Texas that’s a tiny high school that may have difficulty fielding a football team.
In Brain, a journal of neurology (abstract available, full text with subscription).
J. Simner, J. Harrold, H. Creed, L. Monro, L. Foulkes (2008). Early detection of markers for synaesthesia in childhood populations. Brain, 132 (1), 57-64 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn292
Tip of the old scrub brush to Research Digest Blog.
Resources:
- More synesthesia research noted at Research Digest Blog
- Simner’s site at the University of Edinburgh (with links to news stories)
- BBC 2005, “Why some see colours in numbers”
- BBC’s Horizon, program on synesthesia
- New York Times, “When people see a sound and hear a color,” 1999
- New York Times, “Synesthesia: A strange gift,” letter to the editor, July 2, 2006
- New York Times, “A reason we call our cheddar ‘sharp’ and shirts ‘loud,'” Sandra Blakeslee, April 10, 2001
- The Man Who Tasted Shapes, Richard Cytowic (MIT Press 2003) (a reissue of the 1993 book?)
- Cytowic’s website, entry on The Man Who Tasted Shapes
- [Michael S. Gazzaniga reviewed Richard Cytowic’s The Man Who Tasted Shapes in the October 24, 1993 edition of the New York Times; I can’t find the review, but there are letters in response]; “All mixed up,” letter to the editor, November 21, 1993; second letter, same date
- Invitation to join the Synesthesia List, at the bottom of this page
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
1 Comment | Books, Brain development, Brain learning, Learning, Neurology, psychology, Research, Science | Tagged: Books, Brain Science, Learning, Neurology, psychology, Science, Synaesthesia, Synesthesia | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 23, 2009
Earth and Sky reminds us that tonight is a good chance to see Comet Lulin, if you can see it at all from where you are.
Earth and Sky shows where to see Comet Lulin on February 23, 2009
Comet Lulin probably won’t be high enough in the east for decent viewing until 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. Later at night is even better. At mid-evening, two respectively bright starlike points of light bedeck the eastern sky. The higher of these two lights is the star Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo the Lion. Saturn is to the lower left of Regulus, its golden color contrasting to that of sparkling blue-white Regulus. If you can’t distinguish their colors with the unaided eye, try looking at Saturn and Regulus with binoculars.
Comet Lulin and Saturn will remain within each other’s vicinity all night long, until morning dawn finally washes them from the sky. Look for Comet Lulin and Saturn to swing highest up for the night around 1 a.m. on February 24, at which time they’ll be due south. If you’re up before dawn on February 24, look for Comet Lulin and Saturn in your western sky.
Astronomers believe this is Comet Lulin’s first trip into the inner solar system. There’s always an element of unpredictability associated with comets, especially a pristine comet like Comet Lulin. Comet Lulin may match, exceed or fall short of expectations, but there is no way to know for sure unless you look!
If you miss Comet Lulin by Saturn on February 23-24, try again on the night of February 27-28, when Comet Lulin will cozy up with Regulus!
I understand t The comet’s discoverer is a school boy 19-year-old university student in China, who found the comet in photos taken at Taiwan’s Lulin Observatory (usually comets are named after their discoverer, but not this time). Way to go, amateur astronomers! Way to go, cooperation between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China.
And, if you have really great telescope, here’s what you can see:
NASA's APOD caption: "Explanation: Sweeping through the inner solar system, Comet Lulin is easily visible in both northern and southern hemispheres with binoculars or a small telescope. Recent changes in Lulin's lovely greenish coma and tails are featured in this two panel comparison of images taken on January 31st (top) and February 4th. Taken from dark New Mexico Skies, the images span over 2 degrees. In both views the comet sports an apparent antitail at the left -- the comet's dust tail appearing almost edge on from an earth-based perspective as it trails behind in Lulin's orbit. Extending to the right of the coma, away from the Sun, is the beautiful ion tail. Remarkably, as captured in the bottom panel, Comet Lulin's ion tail became disconnected on February 4, likely buffeted and torn away by magnetic fields in the solar wind. In 2007 NASA satellites recorded a similar disconnection event for Comet Encke. Don't worry, though. Comet tails can grow back." Photos copyright by Joseph Brimacombe
Resources:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
3 Comments | Astronomy, Science | Tagged: Astronomy, Comet Lulin, Cool Stuff, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 20, 2009
I had work to do, and I missed it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson casts spells over the audience at the University of Texas at Arlington, on February 17, 2009 - UT-Arlington photo
America’s living-room astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson came to Texas. Last Tuesday he spent a day trying to inspire college kids to study physics, or to stick with physics, and then he spent the evening with 3,000 close friends in an auditorium at the University of Texas-Arlington, talking about how much fun physics is, and how the use of real science and reason could improve our lives.
According to the on-line press release from the University Tyson covered a lot of topics, deftly and smartly:
The greatest scientist of all time was Isaac Newton. “Hands down. Darwin and those other guys pale by comparison. Newton is the reason we have seat belts, because he proved objects in motion stay in motion. If you ask people in cars who are not wearing seat belts if they ever took a college class in physics they say no, every single time.”
About using math illiteracy to distort truth, Tyson said he was called for jury duty and the defendant was charged with possession of 6,000 milligrams of a controlled substance.
“Why would you say that? Six thousand milligrams is 6 grams, about the weight of a dime,” he said. When a newspaper headline proclaims half of the children at a school are below average on a test, he said, no one stops to think that’s what average means.”
On the importance the media places on celebrity news, Tyson showed a newspaper cover with a near full-page cover story on entertainer Michael Jackson and two important news stories teased in small boxes above the fold. Tyson said the country suffers from a “warped sense of what is important.”
Great scientific discoveries have not come about because people are interested in science, Tyson said. Just like the voyage of Columbus, funded by Queen Isabella of Spain, discovery is spurred by wars, cold wars and economic gain, he said. The only other inspiration for counties to spend lots of money is to celebrate royalty or deities, like with the Pyramids or the great cathedrals in Italy.
“We live in a country where people are afraid of the number 13. It’s delusional,” Tyson said, pointing to a book titled, “How to Protect Yourself from Alien Invasion” and the hysteria a few years ago with the Mars Hoax, with lots of science fiction circulating because Mars came closer to Earth than it had in 60,000 years. The widely circulated reports overlooked the fact that Mars was just a few inches closer and that was completely insignificant, Tyson said.
And then, according to the blog Politex, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (one of America’s legendary newspapers now facing the crises that seems to afflict all our better news organizations) someone asked him about creationism:
During the Q&A, an audience member asked Tyson about conservative members of the state Board of Education who want to teach the “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution in Texas high school classrooms.
“I think they should stay in the Sunday school,” Tyson said. Calling intelligent design theory a “philosophy of ignorance,” he argued that a lack of appreciation for basic scienctific principles will hurt America’s scientific output, which has been the largest economic engine in the country’s history.
“If nonscience works its way into the science classroom, it marks…the beginning of the end of the economic strength this country has known,” Tyson said.
Tyson, who spent time in Washington, D.C. after being appointed to committees by then-President George W. Bush, went on to say that he always knew a Republican judge in Pennsylvania would ultimately side with evolution backers in the high-profile Dover education case in 2005. The judge understood that respecting science is good for the US economy, Tyson said.
“What I learned from my tours of duty in Washington is no Republican wants to die poor,” Tyson said.
He’s right about Republicans ( said the former employee of Orrin Hatch/William Bennett/Lamar Alexander). I hope it’s true for Texas Republicans, especially those on the Texas State Board of Education.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Ediacaran, on the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex. Another tip to Physics Today from the American Institute of Physics.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
15 Comments | Creationism, Evolution, History, Physics, Science, Texas | Tagged: Biology, Creationism, Evolution, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Physics, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 19, 2009
You can go read this at P. Z. Myers’s Pharyngula, but I’m going to pirate most of his post here to reiterate the point for Texas: Intelligent design doesn’t belong in Texas science classrooms, and intelligent design’s attacks on evolution don’t belong there either, because they are not backed by science.
ID’s propaganda tank, the Discovery Institute, invited a biologist from the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, to debate one of their spokesmen. The biologist declined.
Unable to perform in science venues, the Discovery Institute is working to get Texas high school students to take Dr. Gotelli’s place. That’s why Texas scientists and educators are up in arms against the proposals from the Texas State Board of Education — Texas high school kids cannot do the work of science, and shouldn’t be called on to be the patsy for the Discovery Institute in classrooms, for grades.
Here’s the invitation; be sure to read Dr. Gotelli’s response, further below.
Dear Professor Gotelli,
I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.
Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you’re aware, he’s known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I’ll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views–in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.
I’m hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.
A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer’s book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”
On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.
Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?
With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
Gotelli wrote back:
Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:
Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.
Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded
institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.
So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.
In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.
Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Of course, that’s what Judge William Overton told creationists to do way back in 1982, in the Arkansas trial. Just do the science, and it will be in the textbooks as if by magic.
If creationists won’t listen to a federal judge, why would they listen to Vermont biologist?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
111 Comments | Creationism, History, Intelligent Design, Research, Science | Tagged: Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Nicholas Gotelli, Quackery, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 14, 2009
I worry about pollsters. Gallup will tell you they carefully design their questions, as all the good pollsters do. Sometimes, though, you gotta wonder.
Here’s the Gallup press release headline for February 12: “On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”
Excuse me? I’m a Christian. When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I reply that, as a Christian, I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus as my savior. But I understand how evolution works, and I find it to be good science. I usually add, “I find it to be true science.” Then I point out their question assumes a faith response in science, while a faith response would be anti-science itself.
Gallup hasn’t figured that out yet?
The results are good — “belief” in evolution is rising slowly, over the years, comparing Gallup polls. Most polls show just under 90% of Americans call themselves Christian — were the fundamentalists to have nearly so much sway as they wish, 40% rejection of their messages on evolution would not be possible. After more than 100 years of preaching that Darwin is evil, only 6 in 10 Americans accept that message. That’s not bad.
But what would the response be were Gallup to ask these questions:
- “Faced with a diagnosis of cancer, would you rely solely on prayer, or would you take advantage of evolution-based medical treatments?”
- “Because DNA demonstrates family relationships so accurately, we use it to establish paternity in court proceedings. Do you think we should stop using evolution-based science like DNA analysis to establish paternity?”
- “DNA evidence is based on evolution theory. Do you think we should stop using DNA evidence in court, in rape and murder cases, or do you support such uses of evolution theory?”
What do you think the polls would show?
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
4 Comments | Evolution, Politics, Science | Tagged: 2009, DNA, Evolution, Gallup Poll, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 14, 2009
On Darwin’s birthday, two Texas legislators wrote about the stakes in the tussle between creationists on the one side, and educators, scientists and economic development on the other, in the Houston Chronicle.
Somebody gets it! Will Gov. Rick Perry and SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy get the message? McLeroy was reappointed as chairman a week ago — but the appointment must be approved by the State Senate. Is a fight possible?
[Can a newspaper copyright the words of public servants doing their jobs?]
Feb. 12, 2009, 12:14AM
As scientists and educators across Texas and the nation mark the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin with calls for a renewed commitment to science education, the State Board of Education continues to engage in narrow theological debate about the validity of evolution. If Texas schoolchildren are to succeed in the 21st Century economy, the SBOE must focus less on internal philosophical differences and more on improving science instruction.
Last month, the board once again got bogged down in a bitter dispute over this issue. Members tentatively approved new science curriculum standards that protect teaching of evolution in one area, while creationists succeeded in watering it down elsewhere. Sadly, it was just the latest battle in the “culture war” being fought by a board that decides what more than 4.7 million Texas children learn in their public schools.
Families should be the primary educators on matters of faith, not our public schools. Regardless of board members’ personal beliefs on creationism and evolution, science classrooms are not the place for resolving such disagreements about faith. Those classrooms should focus on science.
Despite one’s personal stance on evolution, its teaching is critical to the study of all the biological sciences.
Scientists from our state’s universities have expressed this to the board, and have warned that watering down science education would undermine biotechnology, medical and other industries that are crucial to our state’s future.
Last session, the Legislature committed to investing $3 billion over the next 10 years in making Texas the global leader in cancer research and finding cures. This historic investment is certain to bring economic and academic opportunities to our state.
Sadly, even as our state takes one step forward, the SBOE moves us two steps back by continuing to support a diminished standard for science education. Texas’ credibility and its investment in research and technology are placed at risk by these ongoing, unproductive debates.
This is a critical issue and a critical time. Study after study has demonstrated that states which do well in science education have the brightest long-term economic future. According to Gov. Rick Perry’s Select Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness, despite improved scores in math and reading, Texas’ students continue to lag alarmingly behind other states in science proficiency.
The National Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only 23 percent of Texas 8th graders achieved proficiency in science, compared with 41 percent of students in the top-performing states — the states with which we compete for jobs.
Yet the board continues to undermine high-quality science instruction, allowing our students to slip further behind.
To ensure that the SBOE works as it should, we have filed legislation to place the board under periodic review by the Sunset Advisory Commission and hold them accountable for their performance, just as we do the Texas Education Agency and other state agencies.
The decisions of the SBOE not only impact millions of young lives on a daily basis, but impact the economic progress of our state as well.
For these reasons and many others, the public has a right to full disclosure and oversight.
The board has escaped such scrutiny for far too long. The disregard for educators, instructional experts and scientists can’t continue. It’s time to take a closer look at the operations and policies of the State Board of Education.
Our state, and especially our kids, deserve better.
Ellis represents the Houston area and parts of Fort Bend County; Rose represents Blanco, Caldwell and Hays counties.
Thank you, Houston Chronicle.
Resources:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Leave a Comment » | Creationism, Education, Education reform, Evolution, Government, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science, Separation of church and state, State school boards, Texas, Texas Lege, Textbook Selection, Textbooks | Tagged: Competitiveness, Creationism, Education, Intelligent Design, Science, Texas, Texas Lege | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 12, 2009
Interesting compilation: In honor of Darwin’s 200th anniversary, take Steve Bratteng’s 13 questions evolution answers that intellligent design cannot; add to that some almost-recent polling data on creationism among Republicans, and kick off a discussion.
Someone posting at the Cecil Adams’ site, Straight Dope, did just that. Go join the discussion.
Trying to flatter me, of course, they linked to this blog — but it’s all Steve Bratteng’s work.
His questionnaire deserves a much broader audience. So, Welcome Straight Dopers.
Update: Goin’ viral now — A forum at Free Republic picked up on the quiz, too (from Straight Dope?). Go check out the discussion there — lots of concern that the malaria question is answered by the existence of Rachel Carson, which means those who propose that don’t understand evolution and haven’t read Rachel Carson, either. Welcome, Freepers.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
6 Comments | Charles Darwin, Darwin, Evolution, Health care, Intelligent Design, Science | Tagged: Charles Darwin, Darwin, Evolution, evolutionary medicine, Intelligent Design, Science, Steve Bratteng | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 12, 2009
Generally it would be an insult to call someone a bird brain. We may need to revise that thinking. In contrast to climate change denialists, 177 species of migratory birds in North America have adjusted their migrations because of a warming climate. The birds know something the denialists don’t.
The news comes from the National Audubon Society, after analysis of 40 years of bird count data.
Migrations has the story, along with the map that is appearing in U.S. newspapers this week. Cornell University’s ornithology blog, Round Robin, provides history to the study and a couple more links to science reports.
How will denialists spin this? It’s difficult for them to claim that the birds have been hornswoggled by inaccurate newspaper accounts, since these are not the birds whose cages are lined with newspapers.
Eastern Meadowlark, photo by FWS/John and Karen Hollingsworth
We don’t have a canary in a mine warning us, this time. It’s the meadowlark on the prairie. Will we listen, in time?
Eastern and Western Meadowlark: These popular robin-sized grassland birds form winter flocks and always feed on the ground. Neither species has been wintering farther north over the past 40 years, probably because the quality of northern grasslands is not sufficient to support these birds through the winter. The Eastern Meadowlark is one of Audubon’s Common Birds in Decline; its population has plummeted 72% in population over the last 40 years.
Also see this earlier post, “Plants refuse to listen to climate change skeptics.”
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
46 Comments | Annals of Global Warming, Climate change, climate_change, Environmental protection, Global warming, Ornithology, Research, Science | Tagged: Audubon Society, Bird Count, Birds, Climate change, Environmental protection, Global warming, Migration, Ornithology, Research, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 12, 2009
Is it an unprecedented coincidence? 200 years ago today, just minutes apart according to some unconfirmed accounts, Abraham Lincoln was born in a rude log cabin on Nolin Creek, in Kentucky, and Charles Darwin was born into a wealthy family at the family home in Shrewsbury, England.
Gutzon Borglum’s 1908 bust of Abraham Lincoln in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol – Architect of the Capitol photo
Lincoln would become one of our most endeared presidents, though endearment would come after his assassination. Lincoln’s bust rides the crest of Mt. Rushmore (next to two slaveholders), with George Washington, the Father of His Country, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and Theodore Roosevelt, the man who made the modern presidency, and the only man ever to have won both a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Nobel Prize, the only president to have won the Medal of Honor. In his effort to keep the Union together, Lincoln freed the slaves of the states in rebellion during the civil war, becoming an icon to freedom and human rights for all history. Upon his death the entire nation mourned; his funeral procession from Washington, D.C., to his tomb in Springfield, Illinois, stopped twelve times along the way for full funeral services. Lying in state in the Illinois House of Representatives, beneath a two-times lifesize portrait of George Washington, a banner proclaimed, “Washington the Father, Lincoln the Savior.”
Charles Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London – NHM photo
Darwin would become one of the greatest scientists of all time. He would be credited with discovering the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection. His meticulous footnoting and careful observations formed the data for ground-breaking papers in geology (the creation of coral atolls), zoology (barnacles, and the expression of emotions in animals and man), botany (climbing vines and insectivorous plants), ecology (worms and leaf mould), and travel (the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle). At his death he was honored with a state funeral, attended by the great scientists and statesmen of London in his day. Hymns were specially written for the occasion. Darwin is interred in Westminster Abbey near Sir Isaac Newton, England’s other great scientist, who knocked God out of the heavens.
Lincoln would be known as the man who saved the Union of the United States and set the standard for civil and human rights, vindicating the religious beliefs of many and challenging the beliefs of many more. Darwin’s theory would become one of the greatest ideas of western civilization, changing forever all the sciences, and especially agriculture, animal husbandry, and the rest of biology, while also provoking crises in religious sects.
Lincoln, the politician known for freeing the slaves, also was the first U.S. president to formally consult with scientists, calling on the National Science Foundation (whose creation he oversaw) to advise his administration. Darwin, the scientist, advocated that his family put the weight of its fortune behind the effort to abolish slavery in the British Empire. Each held an interest in the other’s disciplines.
Both men were catapulted to fame in 1858. Lincoln’s notoriety came from a series of debates on the nation’s dealing with slavery, in his losing campaign against Stephen A. Douglas to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. On the fame of that campaign, he won the nomination to the presidency of the fledgling Republican Party in 1860. Darwin was spurred to publicly reveal his ideas about the power of natural and sexual selection as the force behind evolution, in a paper co-authored by Alfred Russel Wallace, presented to the Linnean Society in London on July 1, 1858. On the strength of that paper, barely noticed at the time, Darwin published his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, in November 1859.
The two men might have got along well, but they never met.
What unusual coincidences. Today is the first day of a year-long commemoration of the lives of both men. Wise historians and history teachers, and probably wise science teachers, will watch for historical accounts in mass media, and save them.
Go celebrate human rights, good science, and the stories about these men.
Resources:
Charles Darwin:
Abraham Lincoln:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
10 Comments | Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Civil Rights, Civil War, Evolution, History, Holidays, Human Rights, Politics, Science | Tagged: Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Darwin, Emancipation, Evolution, History, Lincoln, Politics, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
February 9, 2009
Is there a climate change denialist blog that hasn’t tried to claim that the rest of the world is crazy, and that polar bears are in no danger at all?
As a tactic to save polar bears, denial doesn’t work. Arctic Economics reports on research showing polar bears often go without food, a bad tactic for long-term survival.
Polar bear in the open ocean, Los Angeles Times photo
You want that in English? Sure: Polar bears are starving to death because of climate change. Shifts in the ice have ruined their hunting.
And, as often these days, I mention that here because it is one more case where “falsified data” or “badly placed measuring stations” can’t affect the outcome. Polar bears don’t read The Economist. Last I checked ticket sales, no polar bear had ever seen Al Gore’s movie, let alone been misled by it. It cannot be the case that polar bears starve because they believe hyped and false claims about global warming. Polar bears starve because it’s really warmer.
___________
Update, 3-5-2009 — One of the signs of insanity among warming disbelievers is their practice of censoring comments on their blogs, when the blog owner edits the comments of opponents to make them look silly and, importantly, to keep contrary views backed by reason from infecting the blog.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
9 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, Global warming, Natural history, Natural resources, Research, Wildlife | Tagged: Arctic, Climate change, Decreasing Ice, Global warming, Nature, Polar Bears, Science, Wildlife | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
