Suzanne E. Franks: ID, the ADECs, and the Scientists

Thus Spake Zuska Has Moved!

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:15:48 GMT

Thus Spake Zuska has moved to a new site!

Zuska is now blogging at http://www.scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/.

Thanks to the folks at Seed Media Group and Scienceblogs.com for inviting Zuska to join the family!

And apologies for the long delay in announcing this...I started this post on August 7 but some family emergencies intervened. At the new blog, I'll pick up some loose threads from this site, including a follow-up on the post about Rollins President Lewis Duncan's remarks, and a response to a comment by a young woman on one of the Screen Goddess IT Calendar posts. Hope to see you over at the new site!

If you've subscribed to Thus Spake Zuska via RSS, you can continue to do so via Scienceblogs.com's RSS feed.

PHC Update: Augustine Bad, Creationism Still Safe

Thu, 18 May 2006 00:35:52 GMT

Zuskateers who've been with me since way back when might recall a little bit I wrote about Patrick Henry College. PHC has been in the news again lately. Seems five of the 16 professors at PHC have left. Over the issue of intellectual freedom. Because one of them gave a speech about Augustine who, you may be interested to know, is in hell, according to PHC's president, Mike Farris. So naturally, Christians should not talk about him. Especially if they don't also talk about the Bible. Or whatever.

Apparently, several of the professors could see that something like this was coming down the pike, and they made a pact that if one of them got fired, they would all quit. One of them got fired. Four of them quit in solidarity. Four others did not. I would like to note here that Jennifer Gruenke, the biology professor who teaches 7-day creationism, was not one of those who quit. So we can all breath a sigh of relief that at PHC, the foes of Darwinian evolution will continue to be nurtured.

A short piece about the controversy in the Chronicle of Higher Education's news blog drew 65 comments, as of the time I'm writing this. I read most of them, and I had a couple of reactions.

It isn't just us unwashed evolutionists that the Christian fundamentalists see as guilty of heresy, being an affront to all that is decent, and working against God's divine will. Apparently, other Christian fundamentalists are just as bad - if they aren't the right sort of Christian fundamentalist. Which is the Mike Farris sort, at least at PHC. Though I'm guessing even he wouldn't pass muster at Pensacola Christian College.

There seems to be a serious obssession, on the part of some Christian fundamentalists, with the need for rules to prevent immoral behavior. Umm, aren't they Christians? So presumably they aren't interested in immoral behavior? Here's one student:

But I don’t understand why students would ever come to PHC in order to loosen rules they understand in advance—making the school just like dozens of other nominally Christian colleges, if a bit more academically rigorous.

This was said to a male student who would like to be able to go to McDonald's with a girl, and not have to be questioned by the Dean or call the girl's father to explain his behavior. Bad, bad student. Next thing you know, he'll be wanting to take her to the Natural History Museum and look at some fossils.

Here's an exchange that begins with a student quoting another and then giving his response:

“What I talked about in my post was a different system of rules, not ‘looser moral strictures.’”

What would that system consist of? If it’s not looser (with the exception of your “business attire” concern), what is it? You say you’re concerned about “liberty,” so why not own up to “looser”?

“When I came to PHC, dancing was allowed on campus. Students could smoke and drink not far from campus. Girls could wear halter-tops and were not fined for accidental dress code violations.”

Well, I don’t understand that at all. I have been following the college since its inception, and I know that drinking and smoking have always been considered honor code violations, as long as students are under the jurisdiction of the school (which is to say any time they are not under the jurisdiction of parents). Similarly, it has always been my understanding that modest dress was required. I don’t see how halter tops are modest. I’ve been assuming you’re a man; do YOU think they’re modest? Or do you think, instead, that they are . . . interesting? What can be accidental about revealing clothing? This doesn’t sound honest to me. Back to your point: If what you say about these matters is true, I am amazed. I don’t understand the point of having an honor code or a dress code if they were truly ignored, as you suggest. If you are accurate, parents and students were egregiously misled.

Love the halter top commentary here. I'm guessing our guy who's all for strict moral standards wouldn't be able to take his eyes off a babe in a halter top because he'd find it...interesting. Even though he clearly thinks he's a better Christian than the loose morals dude. Bad, bad women. Jezebels. Always tempting men away from godliness. Leading them to McDonald's and the Natural History Museum. They must be covered up in modest dress, in order to protect the men. How about a burka?

“What I’m about is making PHC a better place. Why? Because this is what I think sets PHC apart: its commitment to Christ and liberty.”

Personally, I don’t see how that would set PHC apart in any way from loads of other Christian schools, if by liberty you mean fewer or looser rules. Again, if that isn’t what you mean, what DO you mean?

“If PHC is to be set apart by the strictness of its rules, I’m afraid there are several schools that go beyond even our standards. Is the school with the strictest standards the best?”

Of course not, but PHC is the only school I know of with high academic standards AS WELL AS high moral standards – which, by my lights although probably not by yours, means requirements that include modest dress, clean speech, and so forth.

Okay, Christian fundies, here's my question: why do your high moral standards necessitate RULES? If you have high moral standards, why don't you just go ahead and live by them? Instead of, you know, running around checking whether or not your neighbor has violated the modest dress code. Work on getting that timber out of your own eye, dude. Then come chat with the rest of us about our specks.

Answer: They MUST have rules. And most especially, they must have very strict rules at college. College is practice time for adult life in the world. College is where they learn how to impose morality and strictures for behavior upon each other. It's where they learn how to monitor the behavior and beliefs of others, rather than focusing on what values and behaviors they want for themselves. It's where they learn how to play holier than thou. It's where they learn that it is okay - in fact, it is God's will - to make other people believe and behave exactly as you do.

How else could they grow up to be civic leaders who want to force their religion down the throats of everyone else in the nation and turn the U.S. into a theocratic police state?

Parting thoughts: It's no secret Christian fundamentalists are anti-homosexual. What cracks me up is they make all these rules regulating the interaction of boys and girls, men and women, at their colleges. At Pensacola Christian College, boys and girls are not allowed to touch at all, ever. But boys and boys - go ahead, touch all you want. Girls and girls? Give her a big hug, hold hands, it's okay! If I'm a homosexual Christian fundamentalist - PHC or Pensacola Christian wouldn't be such a bad place to hang out, you know? Although - still not such a great place to learn science.

The Clergy Letter Project

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:56:17 GMT

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a nice long article, which you can't read online unless you have a subscription, titled "On the Front Lines in the War Over Evolution". It's in the March 10, 2006 issue. The scientific community is finally realizing the need to network with non-scientists, to do grassroots work, and especially to build alliances with clergy.

Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, recently found supporters numbering in the thousands in the Christian religious community. Mr. Zimmerman leads an effort that to date has gathered 10,300 members of the clergy to sign a letter supporting the teaching of evolution.

Yay for Dr. Zimmerman and for all the clergy who have signed this letter! Go here to learn more about the clergy letter project.

What do our friends at the Discovery Institute, generals in the ID assault on science, have to say about this?

The Discovery Institute, however, discounts the clergy letter. "Religion is irrelevant to the issue," says Robert L. Crowther II, director of communications for the institute. The beliefs of clergy members, he says, do not alter the evidence for intelligent design in DNA and biological cells.

That would be a fine response except that there is no evidence for intelligent design.

But here's something that will make you really sad. According to the Chronicle article,

Aside from the recent legal battles, educators point to several other signs troubling them about evolutionary education in the United States. For example, in a study published last year, Randy Moore, a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, reported that 20 percent of the biology teachers he surveyed in Minnesota include creationism in their classes and believe that it is scientifically valid.

Last year Ms. Froschauer's organization polled more than 1,000 science teachers, asking whether they felt pressure to teach alternatives to evolution. About 30 percent reported that they did get pressure, mainly from parents and students.

It really is a war out there. If you think college campuses are immune, think again.

The intelligent-design movement is spreading to higher education, with some colleges offering courses on the topic and clubs sprouting up on different campuses. The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, in San Diego, has 24 chapters at colleges and universities across the United States, including Cornell and the University of California at Berkeley.

The supporters of intelligent design are also moving beyond evolution to other areas of research that might mesh well with their guiding philosophy of a creative entity that manifests itself in nature. As its long-term goal, the Discovery Institute has vowed to push what it calls design theory beyond biology and cosmology into such fields as psychology, ethics, philosophy, and the fine arts.

In future posts, I'd like to talk a little about what other goodies we can expect from design theory, and some of the other fun stuff its proponents have going on right now besides trampling evolution.

Morons in Kansas and the Science of Gender Differences

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:35:27 GMT

A bunch of good stuff from Slate...

A brief bit on the ID forces in Utah

A particularly depressing story about Kansas. I really wish Phil Kline would just shut up. Because his brand of moronism is particularly dangerous. Teens in Kansas, remember: no groping. It's a crime.

This piece doesn't focus exclusively on Kansas, but there's enough Kansas in there to make me even more depressed about the state of my previous State. Galileo Groupies Now the miscreant ID minions are trying to claim Galileo as their very own hero. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't read about it. Who would ever come up with something like this? Those ID minions really put the "create" in creationism. Jerks. Leave Galileo alone, dammit!

And finally, here's a piece on the new fashion of claiming boys are the gender more at risk, and all the attention to girls is totally messing up their lives. This is a piece I wish I'd written; it so well dissects what is really going on in all this debate. I am particularly envious of what a good job Ann Hulbert does in skewering our culture's tendency to believe that a PET scan is all you need to know about immutable gender-linked traits and abilities. She delightfully analyzes something that has always annoyed me in the ever-more-elaborate scientific hunt for evidence of some kind of difference between the genders that can be yammered about: no matter what the difference is, it always seems to come out better for males, even when it supposedly is something that disadvantages them - e.g., Newsweek tells us that the supposedly inefficent male brain gives rise to "kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behavior". You'll love her comeback. I won't spoil it - go read the piece. It's good.

ID's After-Life

Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:51:58 GMT

So, with the decision in Dover in, I think we can sadly say goodbye to the teaching of Pastafarianism in the science classroom.

William Saletan has a great article on the after-life of the Dover debate.

Is Creationism Destructible?. Where to go from Dover. By William Saletan. [Slate Magazine]

Here's a quote:

Is the pseudo-science of creationism ultimately being driven by religion? Or is this brand of religion, in turn, being driven by cultural anxieties? Is it possible to open a conversation with these folks and their kids, not in biology class but in, say, social studies?

This is a very astute analysis of what is actually going on - and why creationism/ID is not going to go away anytime soon as an issue in our public schools and universities.

Inside Higher Ed weighs in as well. The article is mostly a summary of what you might have already read elsewhere, but the comments on the article are meaty. Some of them touch on the "what now?" issue.

Survival of the Fittest Theory. Federal judge rejects intelligent design curriculum as religious and non-scientific. [Inside Higher Ed]

One of the commenters, Baktu Basix, suggests a possible new strategy for the IDealogists: Argue that the teaching of evolution is a suppression of a student's religious belief. Sigh. I am sure this, and other tactics, will be deployed - for the reasons Saletan gives in the quote above.

Arnhart on Teaching Darwin

Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:23:54 GMT

Right now I am in too much of a hurry to say more than "go read this article and all the comments attached at the end." It's an extraordinary discussion, thought-provoking, substantive, and covers ground I haven't seen addressed elsewhere. I think you'll love it. More on it later.

The Fear of Teaching Darwin. Larry Arnhart wants biology students not just to learn about the father of evolutionary theory, but to read his words. [Inside Higher Ed]

Saletan's Fantasy Island

Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:46:46 GMT

Here's an interesting piece on the status of the anti-Darwinist/evolution wars.

Fantasy Island. The dwindling refuges of creationism.
By WilliamÂ Saletan. [Slate Magazine]

Christ-Hating, Christian-Killing, Commie Evolutionists

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:10:02 GMT

I have another little tome, by Hank Hanegraaff, called "Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionists Don't Want You to Know." It is a nice little book, small, fits comfortably in the hand, is well-made, the paper feels good, the typeface is easy to read, the cover-art is eye-catching. Book-lovers like myself would like this book if it were judged only on esthetics. Hank is one of Phillip E. Johnson's proteges. Phillip kindly provided a blurb for the back of Hank's book.

So what is it evolutionists don't want us to know? The publisher says:

Hanegraaff keeps Christians from falling prey to corrupting scientific speculation about the origins of life and reminds us that we are God's creation. This commonsense approach puts the concept of evolution in the grasp of everyday Christians and reminds us that ultimately the key to our purpose in this life comes from understanding Whose we are and Who created us.

But here is what I learned when I started reading Hank's sweet little book - and I'm only on page 13!

Darwin was a racist.
Evolution is racist.
Hitler was a racist.
Hitler was an evolutionist.
Karl Marx used Darwinism to support his Christian-hating Communist philosophy.
"Marx's hatred of...Christians led to the mass murder of multiplied millions worldwide."
Marx's "economic experiment...eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler's Germany."
Crusaders who killed in the name of Christianity - not Christianity's fault.
Hitler and Lenin/Stalin (racist, anti-Christian Darwinists) - evolutionary theory's fault.

So there you have it. What the evolutionists don't want us to know is that they are all a bunch of Christ-hating, Christian-killing commies. Little Hitlers, if you will. Because mark Hank's words, that's where evolutionary theory is taking you if you dare to displace God from the center of the world and put humans in His place.

And here I always thought Stephen Jay Gould seemed like such a nice guy. Go figure.

P. S. Were you, like me, still confused about the Holocaust? It's nice to have people like Hank to point out stuff like that whole Jewish thing of Hitler's just being a sideline of his Christ-hating Darwinism.

Right Answers and Ultimate Questions

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:29:59 GMT

Thanks to Steve Reuland on Panda's Thumb for alerting me to this site via his excellent post on Intelligent Design vs. Creationism. His table will help you keep these entirely different belief systems straight in your mind.

The link is to a very enlightening interview with Phillip E. Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the Intelligent Design movement's leading propagandist and a very scary man. Here's a little quote from the interview with him:

Indeed, my philosophy is, when I do a serious debate, to play for a draw because I do not want my opponent and the audience going away saying, "That is one clever lawyer who can make you look like a fool in a debate." I want them to go away saying, "There’s more to this than I thought. We ought to do this again." All you have to do is get the right issues on the table and then you win. You don’t have to worry about it, because Darwinism is wrong, and it will self-destruct.

You see, they don't really care if they win their debates. Or their court cases. Because they have gotten the issues out there. And enraged the voting religious public. Which is an extremely effective political strategy, as Thomas Frank has detailed in "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America".

I have one of Phillip Johnson's books, "The Right Questions". One of the blurbs on the back informs us that in this book "the leader of the Intelligent Design movement broadens his critique of Darwinism into an attack on numerous well-known social and political attitudes." Inside, the first chapter is "Biology and Liberal Freedom - The Right Questions About Science, God, and Morality." (But please remember, although Mr. Johnson has been described as the leader of the ID movement, ID is not about religion...) Chapter Two is "The Word of God in Education - The Right Questions About the Religious Foundations of Education". (See disclaimer following Chapter One.)

You may be interested to know that the last chapter is entitled "The Ultimate Question". However, I do not think it in any way connects to the Ultimate Answer of LIfe, the Universe, and Everything, which we already know to be 42. No, this Ultimate Question is about the most important event in human history. I wasn't able to locate the most important event in human history but I did learn the following.

Christian theism is THE correct worldview.
Ghandi? Who's going to think he's so great after India and Pakistan fight a nuclear war?
The genome project - probably going to be remembered as a very expensive delusion.
Muslims - nonpragmatic, prone to believing their religious worldview is the correct one and trying to force it on everyone else. (Ahem...)
Science - devoted to ideological causes and has abandoned the search for truth.
America - "in the mid-twentieth century abandoned the complex religious understanding that had served the nation well until that time."

How did that last one happen? It was "the cultural triumph of Darwinism" that did in our pure-hearted religious folk. "...dogmatic scientific materialists...set about driving the Christians to the margins of society, denying them influence in government, education, or cultural life"

But "faith thrives in the long run when we are persecuted." So just get those Christians feeling like they are persecuted, even though Christianity dominates political, educational, and cultural life in this country, and watch those poll numbers climb.

Humpty Dumpty Goes to Kansas

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:58:50 GMT

And here is why we must laugh when we can at the Intelligent Design crowd...

Quick Takes: Defeat for Evolution in Kansas, Income Decline Projected, U. of Colorado Foundation Criticized, 12 to Receive U.S. Humanities Medals, Senate Proposes Extension of College Tax Break [Inside Higher Ed]

Intelligent Design and Beyond...

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:40:13 GMT

Read this for a good laugh. Then read the comments. Gary is a puffed-up self-righteous moron with no sense of humor whatsoever. I swear to god, if those Intelligent Designers are going to be taking over our science classrooms, then they are just going to have to put up with a little bit of poking fun at 'em. Or maybe a whole lot of it. If I offended anyone by spelling god with lowercase g, or by using the word god in the way I did - lighten up. I am not referring to your god, whomsoever that may be. How do you know my god doesn't like being referred to with lowercase g? She's not picky that way, you know.

Designed to Please. God in the science classroom? What's next? David Galef wonders. [Inside Higher Ed]

NAS and NSTA to Kansas: Make Your Kids Stupid Without Our Help

Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:27:44 GMT

This just came in today from the AWIS Washington Wire:

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have denied the Kansas board of education permission to use their copyrighted materials in the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution. The two science organizations said that the much-disputed new standards "will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world." The stinging rebuke came less than two weeks before the state school board is expected to put the science standards into effect. While the copyright denial could cause delay in their adoption, as the standards are rewritten, it is unlikely to derail the board's conservative majority in its mission to require that challenges to Darwin's theories be taught in the state's classrooms. For more on this, visit this site. [You have to login to the NYTimes to read the article.]

Note also this quote from the NYTimes article:

A third organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, echoed [the concerns of NAS and NSTA] in a news release supporting the copyright denial, saying: "Students are ill-served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural."

It's not just a challenge to evolution that is going on. It is a challenge to the very definition of science itself. You see, the Kansas Board of Education is worried that the poor children of Kansas, when they enter a science classroom, are only getting information about naturalistic causes of the things that scientists study. You might say, well duh, that's what science is. But no, says the Board. We are limiting the information available to them. There may be other explanations for things. It is "Viewpoint Discrimination" not to allow these other types of explanations into science classrooms.

So clever. Disguise your intent to completely redefine what science is by accusing the defenders of science of being discriminatory and wanting to withhold information from the Poor Children of Kansas Who Will Not Be Informed, But Only Able To Reason, if they learn actual science. Change the definition of science from "seeking natural explanations" to "seeking logical explanations". Let's not indoctrinate our children into the Philosophy of Naturalism!

And call me an idiot, but here's something I just learned today. This whole mess is actually encouraged by the No Child Left Behind Act. In Draft 2 of the science standards for Kansas, you can read the quote they cite:

"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science."

So far, so good. You might think they were being advised to look out for Intelligent Design. But then we go on:

"Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Topics that may generate controversy - they could only think of one, and it just happened to be biological evolution. If there is not a nation-wide project to take over science classrooms and reorganize them along evangelical Christian moral precepts, and if this project does not include the efforts of politicians to aid the insertion of religion into classrooms, and if this is not all approved of by our President, then I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself.

Your National Parks: A New Place to Worship

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:55:49 GMT

It's okay with me if creationists want to believe that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and that the Grand Canyon was dug out as a consequence of Noah's flood. Really, it is.

I just don't want them using the National Park System as a pulpit to preach this message.

I have not previously said explicitly in this blog that I think the current administration is doing everything in its power to break down the wall between church and state. No, to crush every bit of the barrier into smithereens.

But. Bronze plaques with psalm verses at Grand Canyon overlooks? Having the NPS block publication of guidance for park rangers reminding them that there is no scientific basis for creationism? We're not even talking intelligent design here, folks, we're talking about something that the court system has already ruled on and thrown out of science classrooms.

I weep for the future of this nation. Handmaid's Tale, can you be far off?

Say it LOUDER: She's a Liar

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:07:03 GMT

If you can't be satisfied with just calling someone a liar and misrepresenting their scholarship on your blog, then hey, why not make up a fake interview with them and post in on your website as if it were real?

Yes, indeedy, that's what the folks at the Discovery Institute did for Barbara Forrest, as reported in The Panda's Thumb. It's a mean-spirited, nasty little parody of an interview in which Dr. Forrest is repeatedly called Bark - with the associated implication that she is a dog (and the further implication behind that that she is a bitch?) - and if this is the treatment we can expect from Christians, I say I'll take my chances with the lions.

Must Laugh. Or Will Cry.

Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:49:56 GMT

Oh, I how I wish I had written this.

Mind the Gaps. Intelligent design as an answer to all life's great conundrums. [Slate Magazine]

Dahlia Lithwick is good.

[Intelligent Design] says, 'You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."

We have to have our humor and sarcasm. Otherwise we'd be crying - no, wailing and gnashing our teeth - over the assault on science in this nation.

For a look at what's going on in Dover, PA, read what our friends at the Discovery Institute blog have to say about the latest goings-on at the trial. Then read what the folks at Panda's Thumb have to say about DI's commentary.

These two blog entries provide as tidy an illustration as one could ask for of how easily the ID forces spin their reality - Barbara Forrest is a big fat liar! - and then how difficult a rebuttal is - it takes so much work and effort and detailed information that the audience can be lost long before you are halfway there.

ID - you can't listen to this woman, she's a liar and all her supposed evidence is hearsay!
- Ahhhh....So simple, so succinct, so sufficient.
The response - many paragraphs long, and you'll have to read these court transcripts and then parse them and then let me explain the difference between the standards for evidence in academic publishing versus in a court of law and...are you still with me?
- Wha?....Say, did you hear about that Forrest woman? I heard she was a liar.

I think I have to go back to writing about science and engineering's entrenched and sometimes hostile resistance to diversity for awhile, just to cheer myself up.

The New Yorker Does Intelligent Design

Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:40:12 GMT

I am a huge mega-fan of The New Yorker. And you might be, too, after you read their take on Intelligent Design, by Paul Rudnick, in the Shouts & Murmurs feature.

Here's a teaser quote, to make you go read the whole thing:

Day No. 1:
And the Lord God said, 'Let there be light,' and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, 'Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?
'I'm loving that,' said Buddha. 'It's new.'
'You should design a restaurant,' added Allah.

Just wait till you get to the part where the Inca sun god scoffs at the Lord God and brings up evolution. :)

Read the Intelligent Designer's Prayer

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:03:41 GMT

Oh please, oh please, oh please...

You just gotta go read The Intelligent Designer's Prayer at The Panda's Thumb. An excellent blog for keeping up on all things evolution. Wonderful list of resources, including pseudo-science sites (yes, the Discovery Institute is there!), evolution resources, science & evolution blogs, and state science groups.

It's good for updates and blog chatter on the Dover, PA trial.

Unintended Consequences

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:28:40 GMT

Read this, then scroll down and read the comment by Peter Plagens - very good.

To Debate or Not to Debate Intelligent Design?. Gerald Graff, who coined the phrase "teach the controversy," applies it to the issue of the moment. [Inside Higher Ed]

I totally disagree with Gerald Graff, who ought to go read Chancellor Hemenway's article before he goes natteriing on about how teaching the debate could reinvigorate science classrooms. Designism isn't actually about debating, dude. It's about stamping out evolution.

Which is why Peter Plagens's comment is so great. The Law of Unintended Consequences - what does happen if we start teaching ID in our science classrooms and some kid wants to challenge and question ID theory just the way the ID folks want to challenge and question evolution? I'm guessing the Christian Right kids are going to get their knickers in a knot, complain at home, and Mom and Dad will march down to the school and tell the principal that their precious child's religious freedom is being impinged. Then where do we go from there?

From Slate - Darwin Gets Schooled

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:13:10 GMT

Darwin Gets Schooled. The latest chatter in cyberspace. [Slate Magazine]

Good summary of what everybody's yammering about regarding the trial in Dover, PA. With links to blogs and a summary of the trial.

Hemenway Understans the Enemy

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:43:44 GMT

Chancellor Hemenway's 1999 article on the evolution controversy in Kansas is worth reading. And as he says, if you think it can't happen in your state, think again. I heave a heavy sigh as the evolution trial gets underway in Dover, PA this week. A friend of mine who rejoiced when I moved from Red Kansas to Blue Pennsylvania said "If I didn't know better I'd think they were following you." But I love Kansas as much, I think, as I do my birth state of Pennsylvania, and it grieves me equally to see science assailed in any place.

Hemenway is disturbingly precise in describing why the Kansas Board of Education members present such a serious threat to scientific literacy, to science itself, and therefore to our society:

What has been overlooked in all the commotion is the philosophical premise underlying the thinking of the majority of the board. I believe that it wishes to destroy the idea that the public schools should be a source of truth or certainty. Whereas educational institutions - especially colleges and universities - define their mission as the pursuit of truth, the majority of the board seems to believe that the only sources of truth or certainty are the church and the family. According to that view, family values are expressed as the family's right to determine what a child shall believe, and religious values are expressed as theological beliefs that schools must accommodate. If scientific evidence conflicts with those religious beliefs, science must be rejected, no matter the weight of the evidence.

The irony of the position is worth contemplating. By rejecting scientific facts, and using the term "theory" in its lay meaning of speculation, rather than in its scientific meaning of an understanding that develops from observation, experimentation, and reflection, the Kansas Board of Education is trying to use the integrity of science to destroy science. If all science is "theory" then its uncertainty demotes it, and there is no question of its inferiority to religious faith.

It's a great strategy, isn't it? The enemy is not stupid, my friends. The enemy is very, very clever, and very, very strategic. And once science has been completely undermined and demoted, then the Discovery Institute version of Christian science can be installed.

A question that has occurred to me recently, however, is this: Who will do their science? Who will train their scientists? Will all the actual scientists be run out of the universities and the high school science classrooms, with a religious litmus test for science teachers - you know, a little like the purging of Jews from the universities in Germany in the 1930s? Where will their scientific expertise come from? Who will train the medical doctors? Or will they allow enough heathens to stay on so as to keep the machinery running? Kind of like science in the Soviet Union during the Lysenkoism phase?

I'm betting on Lysenkoism. They are too pragmatic to throw out the scientist with the evolution theory, so to speak. What shall we call it? IDism? Designism? I think Designism, because the ID forces talk about wanting to instill Design Theory principles across the board, not just in science, but as the basis for all society. Just as Chancellor Hemenway outlines above. God designed life this way, and so you must live this way. Sorry, Jews. Sorry, Muslims. Sorry, atheists. You'll all just have to get on board or be very, very quiet. Very, very sorry, homosexuals. You'll all just have to go away to another country, or die, or something. Note to teens struggling with their sexuality: the conservative Christians have an answer for you: No room for you at this inn.

Hey, didn't someone once say that to Jesus's Jewish mother and father?

Univ. Kansas Chancellor Speaks Out on Evolution

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:16:52 GMT

These are not happy times for science in Kansas.

The Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Robert Hemenway, has issued a statement affirming that "evolution is the central unifying principle of modern biology, and it must be taught in our high schools, universities, and colleges." He states that on a personal level he sees no contradiction for people of faith to believe in both God and evolution.

Within the statement there is a link to an article the Chancellor wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1999 that presents his view of how schools, science, and society connect with each other and how this matters for scientific literacy. The article focused in particular on the University's role/responsibilities for creating scientific literacy.

In today's daily update, the Chronicle of Higher Education noted:

The chancellor said candidates for faculty jobs at the university have been asking "what the environment is like in Kansas" - meaning that they are worried about the controversy over evolution versus intelligent design. Mr Hemenway said he does not believe that any candidates have declined job offers because of the controversy.

Give them time.

Mr. Hemenway sent his message just as a court battle got under way in Pennsylvania over whether to teach intelligent design in a public school district. Mr. Hemenway said the timing was coincidental, though his message did say that evolution is under attack in the United States and that intelligent design should be taught in religion classes, not science classes.

Maybe the sleeping giants of science are starting to wake up and realize that this is a PR battle as much as a battle about "truth" or "what counts as science". Zuska gives Chancellor Hemenway three major big cheers.

You have to do something in a state where Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas Board of Education, believes in creationism and says "When you get down to the bottom line, if you understand the Bible and you understand evolution, you have to decide which one you believe." (quoted in the Chronicle article) He does rush to reassure the Chronicle reporter that his "personal beliefs [in creationism] are irrelevant".

And Zuska has a bridge she would like to sell you...

Evolution Schmevolution - Slate and Daily Show Teach Us A Thing Or Two

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:42:24 GMT

Nice piece in Slate on why the Scopes trial didn't represent the triumph for science it's always been portrayed as. It's in Slate's "history lesson - the history behind current events" section and a very good history lesson it is. Read it and weep.

The Legend of the Scopes Trial. Science didn't really win. [Slate Magazine]

And then go on to watch Jon Stewart and the Daily Show with their full week of special reporting on "Evolution -Schmevolution". Watch and laugh till you weep. Here's what they promise:

For one full week, "The Daily Show" goes in-depth, around, through and quite possibly under, one of the hottest hot-button issues facing our nation: evolution. It's the accepted theory on the origin of life by an overwhelming majority of the world's biologists, but maybe they're all wrong. What's so great about the scientific method anyway? "Evolution Schmevolution" will explore:

      * What other theories are out there?

      * Who's on the frontlines of this debate?

      * Should your child's curriculum really be decided by experts in their respective fields?

See post and comments on The Panda's Thumb regarding The Daily Show's reporting on evolution. I especially liked DrTomaso's comments about ridicule as an effective tool in fighting back. I do disagree with those who are calling creationists loons and fools and other sorts of names suggesting they are idiots. I believe the forces opposing evolution are very, very clever and strategic indeed. One of the commenters on onegoodmove is hoping The Daily Show will include some pastafarians. (Remember, we chatted about them earlier?) I agree, it wouldn't be a complete debate without the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Well, this is just a sampling, but bloggers all over are tingling in anticipatory pleasure about this "Special Report". I have to say, after seeing last night's first installment - it's all that and a box of chocolates. Jon Stewart, I luv you.

Teaching the Debate in the Funny Pages

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:35:53 GMT

They gave me a free newspaper while I was in the hospital and the comics page included the one-panel strip "Kit 'n Carlyle". The panel from 9/9/05 shows a cat on the back of an upholstered chair, tossing what is apparently a catnip-stuffed mouse in the air. The thought balloon over the cat reads "If the theory of evolution was correct, cats would be cultivating our own fields of catnip by now!"

For 10 points, what is the biggest problem with this cartoon? Is it:

Cats have no need to cultivate their own fields of catnip. They have human servants to do this for them - a beautiful example of an evolved symbiotic relationship. (Some say parasitic, but the cats do occasionally give back in the form of purring.)
The cat in the panel is wearing an expression that is meant to be ecstatic ("kitty on catnip") but that more closely resembles someone straining to complete a bowel movement. Children, who read the comics page, should not be subjected to this kind of thing.
For something calling itself a comic, this panel is seriously unfunny.

If you picked #3, then move on to Round 2 and 5 extra bonus points if you can explain why the panel is not funny. Is it:

Anything having to do with science is automatically boring to the general public.
Teaching the debate is serious business. What better way to teach our children the intricate arguments underpinning the "theory" of intelligent design than by a one-panel comic strip involving a poorly drawn kitten?
Though bullshit can be hilarious, bullshit this deep never is.

To explore the reasons why bullshit of this nature is more dangerous than outright lying, may I recommend On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt.

Chronicle Colloquy on Intelligent Design

Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:56:39 GMT

The Chronicle of Higher Education sponsored a colloquy online on the subject of the Intelligent Design movement. Proponents of Intelligent Design may not have felt very welcome, given that the title was "Unintelligent Designs on Science." The guest was James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University. The debate as a whole covered a lot of familiar ground but had some interesting moments. Professor Trefil defined ID thus:

I guess I would say it [ID] is a theory driven by a belief. As I said before, if you read the main ID people carefully, they are really trying to put out scientific ideas. The existence of irreducible complexity, for example, is a perfectly good hypothesis, and it is testable. Of course, when it is tested it fails, so it turns out to be bad science. The motivation of ID people is something else. They are pretty up front about wanting to put God (or at least their God) back into the curriculum.

A good summary. Trefil's take on whyscientists are not as persuasive as ID proponents:

Scientists in this country, with a few notable exceptions, have never been very good at dealing with the public. Our training just doesn't make us good debaters. Couple this to the fact that most of the push for ID is coming at the level of local school boards, where scientists tend to be thin on the ground, and you have the makings of a bad situation. I think the motivation for ID is, for most people, a sincerely held religious belief--again, something that scientific training doesn't really equip us to confront.

These problems trump the ease with which ID's arguments can be refuted.

The dismal level of scientific literacy for the average American public is also a problem. Try to explain why some ID claim is wrong, and you have to go into such detail...eyes glaze over...people remember how much they hated their high school science class/science teacher...how they just didn't get it then...and "who is this arrogant know-it-all spouting all this crap I don't understand?"...and finally "you know, why NOT teach the debate?"

Whereas, the ID proponents don't have to explain. They just say "some things in nature are so incredibly complex they could not occur by chance. There must have been an intelligent designer who was responsible for them. If you found a watch in a field, you'd know there was a watchmaker." And people say, "oh my God, that is so beautiful! And so true! The human body is a marvel of creation! I don't see why my kids can't learn about this theory as well. Why are we telling our kids they came from monkeys?" And they vote for school board members who think like they do. These are not, usually, scientists.

Oh, the scientists are paying quite a price these days for their disengagement with the general public.

Kinda makes all those cranky men in academia who give women a hard time for wanting to participate in outreach progams look bad, now, doesn't it? And those women who waste all that time doing silly outreach work that's useless for tenure...looks like they're doing something good for the whole community, eh? Engaging kids and parents in science activities, raising interest in/awareness of science - who knew it was such important work after all?

Pastafarianism and ID - Let's Sue the Kansas School Board!

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:22:21 GMT

Bobby Henderson has found a way around the 5 reasons why scientists are ineffectual in the fight against the ID movement.

Mr. Henderson is the individual who had a divine vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who, he says, created all that we see. Mr. Henderson is concerned that children may be learning only one version of Intelligent Design, and he would like the Kansas School Board to consider teaching his theory as well.

I think this is reasonable. If we are to open up the science classrooms to one theory of Intelligent Design, why not to all theories of Intelligent Design? What was that they said...oh yes, "teach the debate". I so totally agree. I absolutely believe our nation's children should be learning about Pastafarianism along with other theories of Intelligent Design. Mr. Henderson's proposal for devoting one-third classtime to Intelligent Design, one-third to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third to "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" seems just about right.

Mr. Henderson has threatened to sue the Kansas School Board - which recently gave a preliminary thumbs up to teaching alternative theories like ID alongside evolution - unless they also give time to his theory. Apparently he is serious.

Now THIS is the kind of strategy that scientists should be pursuing. The AAAS should help this gentleman pursue his court case. At the very least some scientist who made a ton of money on some patented something or other should help fund his efforts. If you want to defend science classrooms, it will take creative efforts like this one.

If, on the other hand, you would just like to make some money, you can pick up some extra cash by proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The good folks at Boingboing.net will give you $1 million if you can do so (originally $250,000, the award for convincing proof has been increased). See their original post on the whole issue. Learn there about the schism from Pastafarianism, SPAM (Spaghetti and Pulsar Activating Meatballs).