Wins in Michigan and Ohio

The second sentence in the AP story on Michigan suggests that it is OK to teach Intelligent Design in other classes, just not in science classes. The same suggestion appears in the second sentence of the story in the Detroit Free Press by a differeent reporter. See http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/mich-id/ .

Where does this idea come from? Was it spontaneously generated independently by different reporters, or is this what somebody in Lansing is telling them? Or is there some kind of textual support for this interpretation?

Kudos to the Citizens for Science in Ohio, Kansas & Michigan for their diligence during the past year.

Re your link to Paul Nelson short essay claiming great progress in ID research: I really don't grasp why he and his cohorts are so openly secretive. But then, if the process of evolution and the implmentation of the great designer's design are to remain mysterious, I suppose research into how the designer operates will also be mysterious---forever. It smacks just a bit too much of the mystery in which the church, both Catholic and Protestant, has long shrouded its theological revelations, pretending the church fathers pursued expansive seances with God when all they were doing was debating among themselves about what they should teach. I'll bet my last dollar that all the DI is doing is cooking up another PR and political campaign with a new set of phrases and key words that impart an impression to the unintiated that ID and religion are like oil and water.

Tony Whitson, the press release from the Michigan Department of Education probably gives the most accurate description. The resolution the board passed pertains only to Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Science and is unambiguous in support of evolution. Any suggestions posted about ID being fair to teach in other disciplines is embroidery for the moment.

Paul Nelson's citation of an unnamed senior researcher seems to suggest that ID promoters may be contemplating genuine research. That remains to be seen. Given the grotesque misconceptions in Dembski's work and the years of misconstruing scientific concepts by the Discovery Institute and creationist/ID followers, I would judge the probability of their success to be close to zero. Asking the right questions in research is closely linked to one's understanding of the underlying issues and scientific theories, something the Discovery Institute has systematically mangled in their attempt to advance their wedge agenda.

Robert Pennock and Greg Forbes have done an admirable job in Michigan keeping the Board of Education and some of our legislators filled in on ID history. My thanks go to them.

However, knowing some of the conservative political players in Michigan, I fully expect some weasel works promoting antievolution in the future. There is evidence that some of the church leaders are still agitating and not providing responsible leadership to their congregations on these issues. Playing on paranoia to incite their congregations seems to be a technique that has a history of working well for them. It is hard to savor a victory for rationality while waiting for the other shoe to drop, but if we learn anything from evolution, it is that much of what we see around us it the product of a very long series of arms races.

Another story on Ohio:
http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/11/20061011-B1-04.html

Beware the relentless gaze of the Panda's Thumb!

The real question is does anyone actually care what Paul Nelson thinks anymore? Of course he's going to say the objective wasn't to get ID in schools now they've had their pants pulled down because of the Dover fiasco. What's he going to say, admit that is no longer a priority because they lost horribly at trying that tactic beforehand so admit "Yeah, we have to change strategies".

Of course, if they were really doing science they would have done the research first and not bothered with any political crap whatsoever.

Wins in Ohio and Michigan are conspicious losses for the Discovery Institute and their minions Dembski and Behe.

Furthermore, anti-science advocates like Owens-Fink will be spending a lot more time at home watching Fox News.

It's a slow process, but it's a process and in time the creationists will be pushed back under their rocks where they belong.

Well, things are looking up. If these SBE wins are backed up with eliminating right-wing domination of state and federal offices we have a real chance.

If these SBE wins are backed up with eliminating right-wing domination of state and federal offices we have a real chance.

Indeed, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the funides are nothing but a sewing circle.

I agree that some fundies are turning against politicians going by comments I've seen on Christian forums. I think this segment of the electorate is starting to wake up to the fact that many of the representatives they voted for were merely making religious noises to scam Christian votes, rather than actually working to implement a theocracy. Although these politicians' inability to back up their religious overtures (or avoid sex scandals) is a good thing for the USA (and indeed the rest of the world), it certainly pisses fundies off. Whilst the religious right aren't gonna run out and vote for more left-wing candidates, I can see them staying at home instead.

This is great news for panspermia proponents!

I tried to create a new account at the URL you provided, citizensforscience.org, but the "create new account" link and many other links I tried were invalid. I would like to register and start a Kentucky organization. Please let me know what I need to do to register with this website and help start Kentucky Citizens for Science. The outgoing KY Commissioner of Education, Gene Wilhoit, recently warned that the KY Board of Education should not appoint a new commissioner who favors ID. That's the good news. The bad news is that the board is dominated by appointees of Governor Ernie Fletcher who favor ID. This statement by Wilhoit caused numerous letters to the editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal. My response to an earlier later that blamed violence on evolution can be found as the second letter in this link Letter to the Courier-Journal and is shown below.
Creationist violence
A recent letter blamed the theory of evolution for violence. I would remind the writer that all of the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center were young-earth creationists and did not believe the theory of evolution.

You can open the paper almost every day and read about violence perpetrated by those who do not believe in evolution. Yet those who support intelligent design regularly charge that violence is a result of evolution. They do this because they have made a habit of ignoring obvious evidence.

Teaching that there is an alternative to evolution in biology is like teaching that there is an alternative to numbers in mathematics.

Re "like teaching that there is an alternative to numbers in mathematics."

There is - set theory. ;)

Actually, the solidarity between pols & fundies could be crumbling.

I have a rare disagreement with one of favorite posters here, Rev Lenny. I think the GOP has done too damned much for the ID/fundie folks, even though granted they have certainly not come close to enacting the entire fundie agenda. But Bush coming out publicly in favor of ID didn't help our fight any, nor is all the time they waste fighting the prayer-in-school issues, or sex education, or safe abortion, or a host of other issues. How many fundies weren't thrilled with Bush's SCOTUS appointments? I'd bet it was a damn sight more than most of us were.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush IS a fundie. His "thought" processes throughout the Iraq war and most of the other agendas he pursues mirror creationist "thought" lines frighteningly: Begin with the conclusion, cherry pick data that appears (at least to idiots) to support that position, squash opposing views, data mine experts that "support" your cause, and as a last resort, flat out deny the facts. Let's not forget that part of the reason the federal deficits are so large is that he lowered taxes according to Laffer's theory that is easily discredited by anyone capable of obtaining government income figures for the Reagan years and adjusting for inflation.

If the fundies pitch a fit because of a perception that Pachyderms haven't done enough for them, I'd say that would be about as accurate is their perception that they are persecuted for their beliefs, when all that has really been done "to" them is that they are not allowed to force their views on everyone else all the time. They are the civic equivalent of spoiled brats, as Bush so eloquently demonstrated when his defense of his changes to the Geneva convention amounted to "Give me what I want or I'm taking my ball and going home". Let's hope the fundies follow their leader on November 7th.

But Bush coming out publicly in favor of ID didn't help our fight any,

nor is all the time they waste fighting the prayer-in-school issues, or sex education, or safe abortion, or a host of other issues.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush IS a fundie.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush IS a fundie.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

He certainly is. But the real decision-makers around him are not. Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz --- they all think the fundies are nuts.

Lenny, the fundies HAVE made many political gains during the current administration.

It's nice to think they haven't, but several states have passed very strict anti-abortion legislation, and here's a nice list of the things the Bush Administration has done for the fundies:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm#Influence

it's by no means complete, but saying that it's all been a bunch of handwaving for votes isn't exactly accurate either.

Lenny,
I agree with some of what you have said. Rove et al have cynically used the evangelical vote for short-term gains and have thus alienated a lot of their "base." The Pachys are about to eat their jocks because of their obvious hypocrisy. It's not unlike what happened with the televangelist scandals of the 80s that blew apart the Moral Majority and hamstrung the Christian Coalition for a long time.
BUT...there has been a significant religiousification (how about that word?) of government during the Cheney...er...Bush administration. Faith-based initiatives? Why not call them government-subsidized Christian groups? Bush's first move in office was to cut the funding that went to global health non-profits that provided abortions and what's that about abstinence only education? Samuel Alito? John Roberts?
I would say that even the fact that "God" or "Jesus" in so much political campaign talk shows that the Bush admin has managed to corrupt the political process with a stupid level of religiosity.

The original creation science scam outfit the CRS is based in Michigan so the issue isn't going away for the forseeable future. How long has that operation been in business? 40 years? Claiming a win is like plugging one more hole in a colander with a limp noodle.

BUT...there has been a significant religiousification (how about that word?) of government during the Cheney...er...Bush administration.

...as Bush so eloquently demonstrated when his defense of his changes to the Geneva convention...

— MarkP

It's why, despite total control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the Federal judiciary, they passed NONE of the fundie agenda.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

It's nice to think they haven't, but several states have passed very strict anti-abortion legislation, and here's a nice list of the things the Bush Administration has done for the fundies: http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm#Influence

— Sir_Toejam

Let's not forget that part of the reason the federal deficits are so large is that he lowered taxes according to Laffer's theory that is easily discredited by anyone capable of obtaining government income figures for the Reagan years and adjusting for inflation.

It says I don't have permission to see that, but I'd really, really like to.

Pity about that.

Weird, though. As much idiocy as Bush has inflicted upon us, why would you feel the need to exaggerate? :-)

Flint Presumed:

"This is probably simplistic. Yes, it's really easy to say 'Look, these guys lowered taxes, and deficits skyrocketed. Duh!' Not so easy, but a little bit more intelligent, to look at total revenues before the tax cuts, and graph them for some period of time."

"Duh" back at you, that is what I meant and what I did. Let me introduce myself: I'm an actuary, not a biologist. The oft-chanted claim by Limbaugh and others that "revenues doubled" because of the Reagan/Laffer supply-side cuts dissolves immediately upon reflection of the actual revenues adjusted for inflation, and I invite anyone that doubts me to get the data and perform the analysis yourself. Without labels, no one looking at it could identify the years the supply side cuts had their supposed positive impact. It's as empty a claim as the one that claims ID has vast scientific support, and derives ultimately from the same faith-based view of the world.

MarkP:

I personally think the Laffer relationship holds only at extremes we haven't reached yet. But nonetheless (and as I think you are saying your numbers reflect), what has caused deficits is spending, not tax cuts. I doubt total Federal revenues would have changed all that much under Gore's policies. But deficits are caused by outspending your revenues. To blame the deficit on only half of this equation is misleading and simplistic.

Yes, you say "part of the reason" for the boggling deficit is tax cuts. What you don't mention is that there is some debate among economists as to whether the cuts made any difference in revenues (you say yourself this is hard to identify). Expenses, however, are neither ambiguous nor contentious. Bush's administration, and Congress too, have opened the spigots on spending. So if we don't like deficits, let's place the blame where it really lies.

My argument is simple: Federal revenues have been ample during Bush's administration to live within them easily, and continue a surplus. But Bush wanted to conquer the middle east, Congress wanted enough pork to ensure re-elections, and revenues became pretty irrelevant. When it comes to casting votes on election day, a balanced budget is well down on the list of public priorities.

Did Einstein, or Watson and Crick, lobby school boards to get their theories into the schools so that they would later be accepted in the scientific community? The very idea is ridiculous.

Excerpts from an internal memo to the Board of Directors, Trollheim Sanatorium & Pharmacia:

Inexcusable it is, the number of recent episodes of customers from our facility leaving, the terms of their admission disregarding!

The security and customer care staff repeatedly these disgraceful episodes to occur have been allowing, but--despite the most diligent efforts on my part to effect the readmittance of these customers--said staff utterly ineffectual at re-securing the departed customers have been!

More clear it could not be, serious lapses in training and discipline ongoing are!

No fewer than [exact number deleted pursuant to privacy regulations] of our cusomers the wide world--and, worse, this new-fangled internet--roaming now are! Our customer care staff--despite adequate equipment for purpose by me having been issued!--completely incapable and incompetent at up-rounding this veritable plethora of troll-kins are proving!

First, my little "M_____ M.", then [a long list of escaped trolls, all familiar to PT, follows, ending with--] and now my poor, befuddles "HG"!

Utterly disgraceful it is and myself not much longer up-putting with it am being! In the strongest terms the continuance of this situation must I protest!

My most cordial personal regards am I nonetheless extending,
Bettinke, R.N., Chief, Aberrant Troll Treatment and Rehabilitation Clinic

I keep reminding you, they passed the laws against stem cell research.

However, by comparing ID theory with Einstein, Watson, & Crick you seem to be lending scientific credibility to ID.

If this is the motive of the ID community, then I would have to agree. Let there work stand on its own.

— HG

As for the ridiculous notion posted by Edwin that faith is responsible for violence...

— HG

They set out three stages, scientific research, public opinion making, and cultural "renewal".

Flint,

We are in substantial agreement on the political issues, but that is not why I raised the Laffer curve as a topic. I raised it, not to debate the proportion of the deficit due Laffer, but to reveal the generally religious mindset of the Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, manifestng itself in an arena other than biology. My point holds even if, as you suggest, it turns out the supply side tax cuts had no impact on revenue at all.

In my opinion, the fact that Bush implemented them, with confidence far out of proportion to the evidence supporting them, shows that the battle we fight here against creationism is a fight much broader than just this one very important scientific issue. It really goes to the heart of how people think (or not), and use the scientific method (or not).

Now if you all knew this already my apologies. I just found this place, but I like it here, and was anxious to make a contribution when the discussion seemed to meander into my intellectual neck of the woods.

"Cultural renewal" is an evangelical and political objective of *new evangelical* Christianity.

— HG

IMO this is evidence of the connection between Creationism and religion.

— HG

IMO this is evidence of the connection between Creationism and religion.

A recent posting by HG suggested that I blamed violence on faith. HG, I never used the word faith or religion in my letter to the editor or in Pandas Thumb. An earlier letter to the editor blamed evolution for violence, since evolution teaches people that humans are animals. I simply pointed out that there is much violence in the world caused (such as acts of terrorism) by creationists and others who do not believe in evolution. I never said anything about faith or religion causing violence. Please read what I said again and write more carefully.

Okay, guys, HG hasn't really given any sign of being a troll. Actually, talking with him has been the best conversation with a creationist I've had in a long time.

Flint - You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater on that site.

you find reason to dismiss it for the listing of the gun legislation issue, while ignoring the list of appointees with deliberate xian fundie connections.

sure it's a shotgun approach, but a lot of the pellets hit their target dead on.

don't like that site? there are dozens of others detailing the excesses granted to the fundies by GW and co.

you should check for yourself, rather than flippantly dismissing them for whatever reason.

Reporting continues to say that what the Michigan Board decided last week is that it IS ok to teach ID in Michigan, just so long as it is not in science classes. See
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/spinal-mi-id/