Anti-science bills in 6 states -- in January alone

Posted 3 February 2013 by Matt Young

Update, February 4, 2013. NCSE has just reported that the Colorado bill has failed to make it out of committee. First in the nation, for this year at least! Unhappily, the vote was 7-6, which is entirely too close for comfort. January is barely gone, the groundhog may or may not have seen his shadow, and the National Center for Science Education reports that already 8 anti-science bills have been filed in 6 states: Colorado, Missouri (two bills), Montana, Oklahoma (two bills), Arizona, and Indiana. As Barbara Forrest notes, "Creationists never give up." The bills have been carefully sanitized, but all will allow teachers to teach the purported strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, most commonly "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." According to NCSE, the bills are also generally "protective" in that they forbid state and local authorities to prohibit such teaching. The bills pretend to foster debate, but the language is clearly code words for creationism. The Daily Kos, incidentally, credits (if that is the right word) the American Legislative Exchange Council for planting at least three of the bills. In an article on The Revisionaries (which we reviewed here), the Boulder Daily Camera credits the Discovery Institute -- not that ALEC and the DI are mutually exclusive. The DI's Casey Luskin told the Camera, "The Academic Freedom bills must not be construed to represent religion. The language of the bill expressly does not permit the promotion of religion in the classroom." We reported here that the Colorado bill is probably dead on arrival; perhaps readers can report on the other bills. It may be a long year, but NCSE notes that, in the last decade, only 2 out of 40 bills have actually been enacted: Louisiana in 2008 and Tennessee in 2012. Barbara Forrest attributes the bills to the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in which the judge declared teaching intelligent-design creationism in the public schools to be unconstitutional. Although always keeping their eyes on the prize, creationists are now pushing academic freedom and teaching the "controversy," but not -- God forbid -- religion.

130 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 3 February 2013

The language of the bill expressly does not permit the promotion of religion in the classroom.

Never religion, just this:

a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. --Wedge Document

OT, there's a slimy parasite infesting the forum Glen Davidson

harold · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said: Here is a petition in support of the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/on-the-teaching-of-intelligent-design/

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer? 9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these statements as facts?

Mike Elzinga · 3 February 2013

If any of these bills get passed and result in pressure on science teachers to “permit” ID/creationist “objections” to science, professional societies will have to step up their efforts to prepare science teachers to confront ID/creationist distortions of science. There can be no implicit requirement in any law that would force a science teacher to bamboozle students with pseudoscience as a teaching strategy. I know a little bit about how pressure is put on teachers; and the reply to that pressure can be that it is professionally irresponsible for a teacher to pretend that “strength and weaknesses” arguments based on caricatures of science represent a legitimate teaching strategy. As to such laws giving protection to ID/creationist teachers, it can also be the responsibility of the science departments in public schools to make sure that their teachers are not teaching pseudoscience; and ID/creationism is and always has been pseudoscience. One doesn’t have to get tangled up with accusations of “religious discrimination.” The issues with ID/creationist teachers need to center on their misrepresentations and misconceptions about science. At the high school level, these misconceptions and misrepresentations span all of chemistry, physics, and biology. If there could ever be a positive side to such heinous ID/creationist laws, it could be that they spur good teachers to hone their understanding of the basics as well as to become more effective at dealing with misconceptions and misrepresentations of science by sectarian ideologists. In something like fifty years of studying ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations, I have discovered that there are misconceptions and misrepresentations that are characteristic of ID/creationists; you seldom see these distortions anywhere else. They are out there floating around in society along with many other misconceptions. Instructors at all levels of education eventually come up against them not only in their students, but discover that they themselves have wrinkles in their own understanding that need to be addressed. So, as annoying and as unnecessarily time-consuming as ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations are, they can be turned against their political shenanigans in a way that can make them regret what they wished for. At the moment I can recall only one encounter in which I was confronted with a hostile challenge from a sectarian; but my experience with their misconceptions and misrepresentations allowed me to send a message to that community, and I was never tag teamed or challenged by them again. At least in my own experience, once they discover that an instructor can nail them on their misconceptions and misrepresentations, they quickly back down. Besides, nearly all of them are simply working from a script they don’t understand. You can be polite; but you don’t need to leave any doubt either. To take an example from the Wilberforce troll’s link:

We believe that appropriate material excerpted from peer-reviewed/edited journal articles and books that advance intelligent design as an alternative to the Darwinian paradigm (and all other models involving unguided and accidental processes) should be included within the science curriculum.

The minute they have to come up with specifics, they’re dead. All those “excerpted materials” are saturated with misconceptions misrepresentations that don’t belong in any high school science course. That very petition already has them.

harold · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
harold said: 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?
I am just the messenger. I am agnostic about the the validity of the theory of evolution.

Then answer the question (and the rest of them). What additional evidence would convince you?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
Mike Elzinga said: If any of these bills get passed and result in pressure on science teachers to “permit” ID/creationist “objections” to science, professional societies will have to step up their efforts to prepare science teachers to confront ID/creationist distortions of science.
Would you oppose students being introduced to Chapter VI of The Origin of Species that contains all the difficulties and objections associated with Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Right, let's use dated materials due to your dishonest caricature of evolution as being a mere creation of one man. Your level of discourse remains as disingenuous, ill-informed, and slimy as ever. Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

Would you oppose students being introduced to Chapter VI of The Origin of Species that contains all the difficulties and objections associated with Darwin’s theory of natural selection?

You mean cherry-picking? They can't read the entire book? They can't become familiar with the theory as it stands today?

harold · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce wrote -

I think the theory of evolution has its many merits and also its many weaknesses.

What specific additional evidence would address what your perceive as weaknesses?

I think it has some explanatory and predictive power, but that it is not (yet) sufficient to comprehensively explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth. I think that many evolutionary biologists recognize this fact but are unwilling to say so for fear of rebuke or castigation. I think we should acknowledge this rather than teach students that everything is already known and solved.

If this is your concern, then I can reassure you (although I am also compelled to wonder where you got such a paranoid idea). The job of evolutionary biologists is to continue to expand our understanding of evolution, often at a very detailed level. Thus, their job is the opposite of claiming that everything is already known. It is, in fact, creationists who teach want to teach that everything is already known. However, your original comment linked to a recommendation that Intelligent Design be taught. As Judge Jones pointed out, simply finding faults with the teaching of evolution, even valid faults (which you have not presented) would not justify the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design must have some merit of its own, to justify it being taught. I'm willing to listen. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

But a teacher should not be flayed for dwelling upon Chapter VI more than the other chapters.

Such a teacher should be fired for distorting the truth and malpractice. You need to answer Harold's excellent questions.

phhht · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
harold said:
Professor Wilberforce said:
harold said: 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?
I am just the messenger. I am agnostic about the the validity of the theory of evolution.
Then answer the question (and the rest of them). What additional evidence would convince you?
I think the theory of evolution has its many merits and also its many weaknesses. I think it has some explanatory and predictive power, but that it is not (yet) sufficient to comprehensively explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth. I think that many evolutionary biologists recognize this fact but are unwilling to say so for fear of rebuke or castigation. I think we should acknowledge this rather than teach students that everything is already known and solved.

True Professor B Wilderself sets up a classic straw man and then knocks it down and has a little self-congratulatory victory dance. He cannot name a single, solitary evolutionary biologist who will claim that the theory of evolution exhaustively explains the diversity and complexity of life on earth. Nobody teaches that everything is already known and solved. Nobody even thinks that, because it's presumptuous, ridiculous, and untrue. There is no fear of rebuke or castigation for holding such a view. The view is virtually universal. Poor old True Professor. He can't even profess his own convictions without fabrication.

harold · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
harold said: However, your original comment linked to a recommendation that Intelligent Design be taught. As Judge Jones pointed out, simply finding faults with the teaching of evolution, even valid faults (which you have not presented) would not justify the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design must have some merit of its own, to justify it being taught. I'm willing to listen.
At the end of the petition, it is mentioned that the "design inference" is used in fields as diverse as radio astronomy and paleontology. This is an unacknowledged fact that Judge Jones overlooked because he was not competent to decide on such matters of science. As for the theory of evolution by natural selection, its greatest weakness appears to be the fact that it is eminently unfalsifiable as leading biologists have themselves admitted:
“The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen." C. H.Waddington, “Summary Discussion,” in Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), 98.

I'll leave it to others to fully expound on your reliance on false analogy, and your obsession with grossly out of date and inaccurate sources. I'd like to know whether you will ever reply to my direct questions, if not I'd like to know why not. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce,

At least give us an idea of when you will be answering Harold's questions. Or don't you plan to answer them? If you don't plan on answering them, we'd like to know. Hope to hear from you soon!!

Mike Elzinga · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said: I think that many evolutionary biologists recognize this fact but are unwilling to say so for fear of rebuke or castigation. I think we should acknowledge this rather than teach students that everything is already known and solved. PW

This assertion suggests very strongly that you have never had a biology course; not even at the high school level. Why do you make assertions about things you know absolutely nothing about? Are you going to answer harold’s questions?

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!

apokryltaros · 3 February 2013

So the arrogant idiotic troll, Professor Wilberforce has returned to hijack another thread.

Has he explained to us why we should listen to his dishonest pleading, even though he demonstrates a profound lack of honesty, extreme incompetency in understanding science and science education, and a profound refusal to tell us what his point is beyond propagating science illiteracy and being a science-hating idiot?

Also, anyone want to place bets that Wilberforce will never answer harold's questions?

apokryltaros · 3 February 2013

Karen S. said: Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!

Although, is Professor Wilberforce the banned troll Atheistoclast?

apokryltaros · 3 February 2013

These anti-science bills never explain why it's so important to "teach the strengths and weaknesses" of topics to students before they have a chance to even understand the topic, nor do these bills explain why "teach(ing) the strengths and weaknesses" means "forcefeeding students recycled Creationist anti-science propaganda without teaching any actual science"

Of course, neither do their authors nor supporters can bother to explain why, either.

Mike Elzinga · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
Mike Elzinga said: If any of these bills get passed and result in pressure on science teachers to “permit” ID/creationist “objections” to science, professional societies will have to step up their efforts to prepare science teachers to confront ID/creationist distortions of science.
Would you oppose students being introduced to Chapter VI of The Origin of Species that contains all the difficulties and objections associated with Darwin's theory of natural selection?

I suspect that you haven’t even read Darwin’s The Origin of Species. In fact, I don’t believe you have read Chapter VI of that book. It is clear, however, that you don’t know anything about modern biology. Do you also advocate teaching Mach’s objections to the existence of atoms?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 3 February 2013

apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!
Although, is Professor Wilberforce the banned troll Atheistoclast?

That whole bit about teaching old objections in the Origin does sound like Atheistoclast/Bozo Joe. And it's been explained to him how outdated it is (especially, the lack of transitionals has been rectified a great deal since then), but he's never honest enough to deal with that, unless he's just that stupid (I doubt it, although keenness of mind isn't at all apparent, either). Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

These anti-science bills never explain why it’s so important to “teach the strengths and weaknesses” of topics to students before they have a chance to even understand the topic

That we already know. If you can't convince educated scientists that your hypothesis is correct, go for the schoolboys and schoolgirls, who are more likely to fall for it.

phhht · 3 February 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!
Although, is Professor Wilberforce the banned troll Atheistoclast?
That whole bit about teaching old objections in the Origin does sound like Atheistoclast/Bozo Joe. And it's been explained to him how outdated it is (especially, the lack of transitionals has been rectified a great deal since then), but he's never honest enough to deal with that, unless he's just that stupid (I doubt it, although keenness of mind isn't at all apparent, either). Glen Davidson

So do the transparently affected Britishisms, and the patently defensive adoption of the title Professor. Stand back, old chap! I'm a Professor!

Doc Bill · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilburmoron (no need to be polite to an obvious provocateur) wrote:

As for the theory of evolution by natural selection, its greatest weakness appears to be the fact that it is eminently unfalsifiable as leading biologists have themselves admitted:

Then referred to a quaint quote from back in 1967. Negative, Wilburmoron, if the phylogenetic analysis of genetic material and proteins had come out differently, confused and with no hierarchy or correlation to other biological hierarchies then the modern theory of evolution would have been in trouble. However, it didn't. In fact all evidence uncovered to this very day supports the theory quite nicely. So, Wilburmoron, you can shove your "unfalsifiable" idea where the sun don't shine because you're just flat wrong. See you on the ark, baby.

Kevin B · 3 February 2013

phhht said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!
Although, is Professor Wilberforce the banned troll Atheistoclast?
That whole bit about teaching old objections in the Origin does sound like Atheistoclast/Bozo Joe. And it's been explained to him how outdated it is (especially, the lack of transitionals has been rectified a great deal since then), but he's never honest enough to deal with that, unless he's just that stupid (I doubt it, although keenness of mind isn't at all apparent, either). Glen Davidson
So do the transparently affected Britishisms, and the patently defensive adoption of the title Professor. Stand back, old chap! I'm a Professor!

If "Professor" Wilberforce has awarded himself the title, he is either a music teacher, or the operator of a Punch and Judy show.

phhht · 3 February 2013

Kevin B said:
phhht said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
apokryltaros said:
Karen S. said: Come back, professor w! No need to be shy about answering questions!
Although, is Professor Wilberforce the banned troll Atheistoclast?
That whole bit about teaching old objections in the Origin does sound like Atheistoclast/Bozo Joe. And it's been explained to him how outdated it is (especially, the lack of transitionals has been rectified a great deal since then), but he's never honest enough to deal with that, unless he's just that stupid (I doubt it, although keenness of mind isn't at all apparent, either). Glen Davidson
So do the transparently affected Britishisms, and the patently defensive adoption of the title Professor. Stand back, old chap! I'm a Professor!
If "Professor" Wilberforce has awarded himself the title, he is either a music teacher, or the operator of a Punch and Judy show.

No matter. It's risibly pompous, and it smacks loudly of appeal to authority. I say, old man! You can't contradict me. (narrows eyes) I'm a Professor!

phhht · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
harold said: I'd like to know whether you will ever reply to my direct questions, if not I'd like to know why not.
Very well, old boy. If you insist.
1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?
I am already convinced that evolution can and does happen. I don't know anyone who does not. I just am not sure as to the extent to which living things can evolve and change over time through chance and necessity.
2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?
The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of abortion against the wishes of the people. I don't take the politically-motivated rulings of judges all that seriously.
3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?
Absolutely. I think most critics of the theory are informed.
4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
As I understand it, a design inference can only show that something has been designed rather than who the designer is.
5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
I suspect that he/it designed something. We can test this using the methodology of the established design inference which differentiates between design and non-design.
6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
An interesting question, but one which exceeds the scope of observation and inference.
7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
Can you be more specific?
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
The color traits of white skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

Oh yeah, that sure sounds like atheistoclast. His cavalier disrespect for the law of the land is what nailed it.

Matt Young · 3 February 2013

The e-mail address does not appear to be that of Atheistoclast. I think it is a new troll. It may live in the UK, though the style strikes me as more supercilious and affected than British. I cannot tell you whether it is truly confused or just baiting you, but the reference to the design inference suggests confusion.

DS · 3 February 2013

Matt,

Even though Joe has been permanently banned he has come back several times using different names in a vain attempt to propagate his insane ideas. Please check the ISP, confirm that he is once again here against the rules and ban him again.

Thank you.

DS · 3 February 2013

Matt Young said: The e-mail address does not appear to be that of Atheistoclast. I think it is a new troll. It may live in the UK, though the style strikes me as more supercilious and affected than British. I cannot tell you whether it is truly confused or just baiting you, but the reference to the design inference suggests confusion.

Well if you can't positively confirm that this is Joe yet, at least ban it to the bathroom wall please. Thanks.

phhht · 3 February 2013

Professor B Wilderself said: ...the "design inference"...

What is the basis of your "inference?" See, old spice, I don't think even an advocate like your professorial self can tell design from not-design. Show us how it's done! Answer these questions! How can you tell that this given rock is not designed? And then there is the pattern in the sandpile: designed, or not? And how about tornadoes? Designed, or not? And most important, how can you tell? See, I think you're full of shit, excuse my impudence sir, so I need to see how you manage that particular trick.

harold · 3 February 2013

You just can't answer the questions honestly, can you?

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?
I am already convinced that evolution can and does happen. I don’t know anyone who does not. I just am not sure as to the extent to which living things can evolve and change over time through chance and necessity.

You've been called out on that dodge before. What further evidence would be needed to convince you that the diversity and relatedness of the biosphere are well-explained by biological evolution? Specifically what evidence could we provide? At this point your answer can be deduced - there is no evidence that you would care about.

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?
The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of abortion against the wishes of the people. I don’t take the politically-motivated rulings of judges all that seriously.

That's an irrelevant evasion; the question was, if both could be taught, which would you prefer to have taught? However, your real answer can be deduced. Since you don't like the SCOTUS ruling, you must want full blown YEC taught as "science".

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?
Absolutely. I think most critics of the theory are informed.

No, the question says "CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT?". You haven't shown that YOU can explain it. Again, the true answer can be deduced. You can't. You've made sufficient utterly ignorant statements to demonstrate that.

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?
As I understand it, a design inference can only show that something has been designed rather than who the designer is.

Well then, that's pretty worthless.

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?
I suspect that he/it designed something. We can test this using the methodology of the established design inference which differentiates between design and non-design.

So you won't say who the designer is, or what the designer designed.

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
An interesting question, but one which exceeds the scope of observation and inference.

So you won't say who the designer is, what the designer designed, or how the designer designed it, and you want this taught in public school as "science".

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?
Can you be more specific?

No, I can't. I can't because you won't tell me who the designer is or what the designer did. You see, what I'm asking here is, whoever the designer is, whatever the designer did, and however he/she/it/they did it, when did that happen? But since you won't tell me who the designer is, what the designer did, or how the designer did it, I can't be more specific.

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
The color traits of white skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

That is a most peculiar answer. I can't imagine what it's like to be you. I can't imagine being a hypocrite, secretly trying to promote a religion that condemns lying, by lying. I can't imagine what it's like to be obsessed with talking back to the adults over and over again long after your lies have been caught. The obsessive ones just don't give up.

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

C'mon Prof Wilburfarce! We want to hear from you!

phhht · 3 February 2013

harold said:
8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?
The color traits of white skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

And it reeks of atheistoclastic psychopathy.

phhht · 3 February 2013

Sorry; that should read

harold said: 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Professor Wilberforce said: The color traits of white skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

That reeks of atheistoclastic psychopathy.

DS · 3 February 2013

Matt Young said: The e-mail address does not appear to be that of Atheistoclast. I think it is a new troll. It may live in the UK, though the style strikes me as more supercilious and affected than British. I cannot tell you whether it is truly confused or just baiting you, but the reference to the design inference suggests confusion.

If I recall correctly, he used a different E-mail address last time as well, but still posted from the same town in the UK. It shouldn't be too hard to prove that Joe is up to his nefarious behavior again. There isn't mush doubt left anyway, he just can't hide his true nature. You would think that he would realize by now that he isn't fooling anybody with his childish behavior.

Keelyn · 3 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce said:
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Yes, it is typical for most people to run away when they are getting their backsides kicked. No loss. Thanks for the entertainment - disingenuous as it was.

Doc Bill · 3 February 2013

My dear girl, I have indeed replied to your questions and all I have received is a torrent of abuse here. I don’t think I am quite inclined to continue with this discussion.

Awwwwww, poor widdle "professor" Moron can't take the heat because real scientists aren't impressed by his "chance and necessity" bullshit. Sorry, "Prof" but you were a non-starter. I've had 5th Graders articulate questions about evolution better than you. I'd suggest you go to the DI website for solace but, alas, they don't allow comments because they're all about Academic Freedom and the First Amendment and Teaching the Controversy. Good luck there, baby.

Matt Young · 3 February 2013

My dear chaps (and chappes), it now seems likely that the Wilberforce troll is none other than the Atheistoclast troll. Indeed, its e-mail address contained a clue that I ignored or overlooked. 1000 apologies, old beans, but I thought we had banned the IP address of Atheistoclast and therefore assumed it could not have been Wilberforce. In future I shall try to be more diligent.

phhht · 3 February 2013

Matt Young said: My dear chaps (and chappes), it now seems likely that the Wilberforce troll is none other than the Atheistoclast troll. Indeed, its e-mail address contained a clue that I ignored or overlooked. 1000 apologies, old beans, but I thought we had banned the IP address of Atheistoclast and therefore assumed it could not have been Wilberforce. In future I shall try to be more diligent.

Hip! Hip! Huzzah!

Karen S. · 3 February 2013

My dear girl, I have indeed replied to your questions and all I have received is a torrent of abuse here. I don’t think I am quite inclined to continue with this discussion.

Boo hoo!

DS · 3 February 2013

Matt Young said: My dear chaps (and chappes), it now seems likely that the Wilberforce troll is none other than the Atheistoclast troll. Indeed, its e-mail address contained a clue that I ignored or overlooked. 1000 apologies, old beans, but I thought we had banned the IP address of Atheistoclast and therefore assumed it could not have been Wilberforce. In future I shall try to be more diligent.

Thanks for your efforts.

phhht · 3 February 2013

There are some things of interest about the Professor Wilberforce trollery.

One is that despite, and in part because of, his preposterous pseudonym, many of us recognized atheistoclast just from his style of presentation and argument. It turns out that sometimes on the internet, everybody does know you're a dog, just by the smell.

Another is the fact that atheistoclast wants to be out and about among the sane people (yes, I know, but still). Unfortunately he thinks that saying my dear girl and old chap are some sort of adequate disguise. He wants to be among us but to deceive us, to hide himself, to wear a mask, lest his true nature be revealed. He recognizes the weakness of his ideas or his arguments, so he resorts to deception from the get-go.

Another thing is how quickly atheistoclast got banned. That's what I call responsible blog management.

It also strikes me that I gotta give up the vain hope that anybody will ever mistake one of my posts for one of Dave Luckett's.

FL · 3 February 2013

“Creationists never give up.”

That's a profoundly powerful statement that Barbara Forrest offered. Along with Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 (see below), that one statement helps to explain why approximately half of America continues to disbelieve or doubt the religion of evolution, despite years of court victories by the evolutionists and the disastrous spiritual decline of our nation. I'm sure evolutionist Forrest isn't particularly happy about her observation, but in fact it's a real statement of encouragement and hope. Whether non-Darwinists (of all flavors) win or lose in 2013, may Forrest's statement always ring true, in this "one nation under God." ****

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. -- Psalm 19:1-4a

For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. -- Rom. 1:20

Dave Luckett · 4 February 2013

No, creationists never do give up. Fanatics never do.

They'll be like Teruo Nokamura, the Japanese WW2 soldier who never surrendered, but was finally captured and repatriated on Moratai, in Indonesia, in 1974. They won't ever give up. They'll dwindle, first to a minor annoyance, then to an irrelevance and an embarrassment to their nation. Finally, they'll die off, and their devotion to a lost and foolish, even evil, cause will be passed over in silence, with incomprehension and disbelief.

If only FL were in the slightest interested in what the heavens really declare - the awesome scale and power of the Universe itself, the blossoming of simplicity into ever more mind-boggling complexity, the fascinating collapse of complexity into an awesome simplicity. For that matter, if only he were aware of the metaphor of that psalm, or could understand it for what it is - poetry of rare and brilliant power.

But no. His stunted mind can only see the psalm as a sort of shopping list, an inventory of Godly effects, and Paul's words as the perfect authority he desperately craves, even though Paul had not the slightest clue what made the stars, or the rainbow, or the thunder, or any one of the multitude of natural effects that he had to ascribe to divine cause, because nobody in Paul's world knew any better.

Five centuries ago, humans began the slow, painful haul out of the habit of ascribing anything we did not understand to divine cause. Paul hadn't even begun that hard march. He has no authority, much as FL craves it.

And neither does FL.

SensuousCurmudgeon · 4 February 2013

I hope I'll be forgiven for saying something on topic, but it should be noted that NCSE's list of six states with creationist legislation pending omits Texas. The article is chronologically correct because their topic was about creationist bills filed in January, and the Texas bill was pre-filed in December. NCSE wrote about it at the time -- "Intelligent design" legislation in Texas again. Regardless of when the bills got filed, there are seven states (so far) that have to be watched during the current legislative season.

RWard · 4 February 2013

SensuousCurmudgeon said: I hope I'll be forgiven for saying something on topic, but it should be noted that NCSE's list of six states with creationist legislation pending omits Texas. The article is chronologically correct because their topic was about creationist bills filed in January, and the Texas bill was pre-filed in December. NCSE wrote about it at the time -- "Intelligent design" legislation in Texas again. Regardless of when the bills got filed, there are seven states (so far) that have to be watched during the current legislative season.

The Texas Bill pertains to higher education:

An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

This is good news. It means we can look forward to actual intelligent design research. I can't wait.

harold · 4 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: No, creationists never do give up. Fanatics never do. They'll be like Teruo Nokamura, the Japanese WW2 soldier who never surrendered, but was finally captured and repatriated on Moratai, in Indonesia, in 1974. They won't ever give up. They'll dwindle, first to a minor annoyance, then to an irrelevance and an embarrassment to their nation. Finally, they'll die off, and their devotion to a lost and foolish, even evil, cause will be passed over in silence, with incomprehension and disbelief. If only FL were in the slightest interested in what the heavens really declare - the awesome scale and power of the Universe itself, the blossoming of simplicity into ever more mind-boggling complexity, the fascinating collapse of complexity into an awesome simplicity. For that matter, if only he were aware of the metaphor of that psalm, or could understand it for what it is - poetry of rare and brilliant power. But no. His stunted mind can only see the psalm as a sort of shopping list, an inventory of Godly effects, and Paul's words as the perfect authority he desperately craves, even though Paul had not the slightest clue what made the stars, or the rainbow, or the thunder, or any one of the multitude of natural effects that he had to ascribe to divine cause, because nobody in Paul's world knew any better. Five centuries ago, humans began the slow, painful haul out of the habit of ascribing anything we did not understand to divine cause. Paul hadn't even begun that hard march. He has no authority, much as FL craves it. And neither does FL.

That is a very good analogy. Because in a sense they do give up - incrementally. Their original goal was just full blown "creation science" in public schools. That was modified to "equal time" for YEC creation science. Those goals have been abandoned for now. After the defeat of "creation science" two new strategies emerged. Vague magical evolution denial - "ID" - to imply that the "real answer" "must" be right wing Protestant Christianity was the widely accepted strategy. The Kansas School board of 1999 tried a different approach - simply censoring evolution. That approach might or might not have been legal, in the most narrow sense. On one hand there's no national law, for better or for worse, that directly forbids bad schools. Hypothetically, you can leave out evolution, or algebra, or US History, if that's the local decision. The Kansas School Board decision was what caused me to discover political creationism. At the time, it was noted that since the censorship would put all students at an academic disadvantage, but was for the benefit of only one religious sect, it might still be illegal government favoritism of one religion. That idea did not have to be tested, as that school board was voted out. ID was tested in court in 2005, against the wishes of the DI. ID lost in court, and the school board which had tried to introduce it was eliminated. Simultaneously, the Freshwater affair, in which an individual teacher was disciplined for teaching science denial, in violation of school district policy, is ongoing. (I believe that a number of teachers in other districts have, in the same time period, actually been successfully disciplined for preaching instead of teaching.) It's worth noting that all serious efforts to push sectarian science denial into public schools to date have occurred in conservative areas, and have nevertheless often resulted in election defeats, as well as court defeats, for creationists. The next round has been to resort to an even more indirect and weaselly strategy. Amusingly, the party usually that wants to fire teachers for any possible reason now pushes bills that are designed to make it impossible to fire teachers for engaging in sectarian science denial during science class. "Academic freedom" has not been enthusiastically embraced by teachers in Louisiana and other places with such bills, to date, though, and a possible reason suggests itself. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that a state law that violates the US constitution might tend not to stand up to court challenge. It's also not clear that the bills would protect from civil suits, teacher reassignments, or numerous other possible negative outcomes, even without the underlying law being directly declared unconstitutional. It is very true that the concentration of creationist activity over time follows a pattern of flare-ups and exponential decay. Every now and then there's a flare-up (Scopes Monkey Trial, Creation Science, ID, "Academic Freedom" bills), which is followed by a decline which is at first somewhat steep (mainstream media loses all interest, etc), but which never quite reaches zero, so that another flare-up is always possible, if not inevitable. But the victories have been very strong and meaningful, and have markedly impacted on creationist strategy. Each flare-up to date has represented the embracing of a less ambitious goal than the immediate prior one. They've gone from firing and criminally charging teachers for teaching evolution, to demanding "equal time" for creationism, to demanding "equal time" for disguised creationism, to trying to create a system in which individual teachers aren't disciplined for denying evolution in science class.

harold · 4 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: No, creationists never do give up. Fanatics never do. They'll be like Teruo Nokamura, the Japanese WW2 soldier who never surrendered, but was finally captured and repatriated on Moratai, in Indonesia, in 1974. They won't ever give up. They'll dwindle, first to a minor annoyance, then to an irrelevance and an embarrassment to their nation. Finally, they'll die off, and their devotion to a lost and foolish, even evil, cause will be passed over in silence, with incomprehension and disbelief. If only FL were in the slightest interested in what the heavens really declare - the awesome scale and power of the Universe itself, the blossoming of simplicity into ever more mind-boggling complexity, the fascinating collapse of complexity into an awesome simplicity. For that matter, if only he were aware of the metaphor of that psalm, or could understand it for what it is - poetry of rare and brilliant power. But no. His stunted mind can only see the psalm as a sort of shopping list, an inventory of Godly effects, and Paul's words as the perfect authority he desperately craves, even though Paul had not the slightest clue what made the stars, or the rainbow, or the thunder, or any one of the multitude of natural effects that he had to ascribe to divine cause, because nobody in Paul's world knew any better. Five centuries ago, humans began the slow, painful haul out of the habit of ascribing anything we did not understand to divine cause. Paul hadn't even begun that hard march. He has no authority, much as FL craves it. And neither does FL.

I should add, the fact that creationists are authoritarians plays a major role in the pattern of creationist demands over history. My subjective impression is that although they like to use the language of martyrdom and persecution, that isn't how creationists, as a group, behave at all. They don't sacrifice for principles, as a general rule. They like to enrich themselves, and they follow a dogma that allows them to do anything at any time as long as they slyly "repent" later. What they respect most seems to be winning and dominating. Therefore approaches and individuals that lose become scorned, or at best, minor background figures, as new, untested figures move to the foreground. They constantly look for a new angle, but what that means, in a beneficial sense, is that the approaches they attempt become more and more constrained. It's unthinkable that the DI or an "academic freedom" bill would overtly call for teaching that the Noah's ark chapters of Genesis are "literally true" and should be taught as straight science. You'd be fired from the DI as fast for doing that, as for conceding that the bacterial flagellum evolved. Yet that was their approach not long ago, during the creation science battles of the eighties. It's worth noting that the defeated ID jargon of the early and mid-nineties ("complex specified information" and so on), is almost never mentioned any more, except by out-of-touch internet trolls. Once it fails, it's relegated to the hidden world of pure YEC web sites and their pay-to-play home-schooled customers. Each time a strategy is defeated, a new one eventually springs up, but the overall pattern is that each new strategy is less ambitious than the one before.

Joe Felsenstein · 4 February 2013

harold said:
Dave Luckett said: No, creationists never do give up. Fanatics never do. ... Five centuries ago, humans began the slow, painful haul out of the habit of ascribing anything we did not understand to divine cause. Paul hadn't even begun that hard march. He has no authority, much as FL craves it. And neither does FL.
That is a very good analogy. Because in a sense they do give up - incrementally. Their original goal was just full blown "creation science" in public schools. That was modified to "equal time" for YEC creation science. ... [Snip good summary of legal strategies tried by creationists]

There is another sense also in which they gradually give up, the scientific criticisms of evolution that they try. These have shifted a lot over time. In Darwin's day (1) they denied the existence of deep time, (2) they insisted on the fixity of species, which did not change, and (3) once the argument involving natural selection was laid out and gained support from scientists, they argued that natural selection did not cause changes, even within species. Over the years the number of opponents of evolutionary biology that have found themselves forced to acknowledge deep time has increased. YECs are now only about half of the people that do not think that humans evolved. They have also mostly given up on saying that there is not change within species. Now they say that of course they have always acknowledged that change happens within species. Which they have not at all always acknowledged. Furthermore, many of them have acknowledged that there may be common descent among "kinds", so that they acknowledge the existence of limited evolutionary trees. Species are no longer the entities that are fixed. The rise of "baraminology" even sees them using evolutionary tree programs to infer these small trees. Look for the size of baramins to increase. Of course they are not self-consistent:

When people argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes adaptation in evolution impossible, they are really arguing that there is not adaptation by natural selection even within species.
And Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information is another supposed "law" that makes each and every adaptation essentially impossible.
But the No Free Lunch argument does allow for evolution to hill-climb for short distances on an adaptive surface -- it just argues that the surface is too wrinkly for there to be much adaptation.
Dembski's later Search For A Search argument does not even try to rule out longer-term change -- it just wants to argue that a Designer chose the fitness surface,
Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument, on the other hand, leaves it open for there to be considerable adaptation by natural selection in all the non-IC cases, and Behe even admits much common ancestry.
And when creationists zoom immediately off to discuss the Origin Of Life, they are implicitly conceding that once life arises, it can evolve, and adaptations can arise.

So many creationists are gradually backing away from their statements one by one, furiously erecting barriers further back and trying the defend them. Let's remember that in about 1700 there was still serious debate among scientists as to whether fossils were remains of real organisms, or just inorganic mineral deposits. It is certainly possible that fluctuations in U.S, politics will result in more right-wing Supreme Court justices being appointed, in which case some of the legal progress may get undone. But even then the scientific arguments used by the deniers of evolution will continue to be continually forced to concede more and more.

TomS · 4 February 2013

RWard said: The Texas Bill pertains to higher education:
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
This is good news. It means we can look forward to actual intelligent design research. I can't wait.

I am pleased that they come to the defense of Scientific Storkism, the "alternate theor[y] of the origination and development of organisms."

TomS · 4 February 2013

Joe Felsenstein said: In Darwin's day (1) they denied the existence of deep time, (2) they insisted on the fixity of species, which did not change, and (3) once the argument involving natural selection was laid out and gained support from scientists, they argued that natural selection did not cause changes, even within species. Over the years the number of opponents of evolutionary biology that have found themselves forced to acknowledge deep time has increased.

Before about 1960, YEC had very few adherents. For example, the Scofield Reference Bible taught the "Gap Theory", that there was a gap between "the beginning" and the six days; and William Jennings Bryan, I believe, was one of the many who held that the "days" were long periods of time ("Day-Age Theory").

eric · 4 February 2013

Matt Young said: In future I shall try to be more diligent.

I think it would be safe to presumptively BW anyone who puts "Professor" in their screen name. :)

j. biggs · 4 February 2013

eric said:
Matt Young said: In future I shall try to be more diligent.
I think it would be safe to presumptively BW anyone who puts "Professor" in their screen name. :)

Especially if their handles refer to obscure historical anti-evolution figures.

harold · 4 February 2013

TomS said:
Joe Felsenstein said: In Darwin's day (1) they denied the existence of deep time, (2) they insisted on the fixity of species, which did not change, and (3) once the argument involving natural selection was laid out and gained support from scientists, they argued that natural selection did not cause changes, even within species. Over the years the number of opponents of evolutionary biology that have found themselves forced to acknowledge deep time has increased.
Before about 1960, YEC had very few adherents. For example, the Scofield Reference Bible taught the "Gap Theory", that there was a gap between "the beginning" and the six days; and William Jennings Bryan, I believe, was one of the many who held that the "days" were long periods of time ("Day-Age Theory").

That's also a fairly important point for those who would understand current political creationism. Without wishing to initiate a long discussion of historical trends, I think it's reasonable to note that the US experienced dramatic social changes during the 1950's through early 1970's, particularly but not exclusively, the end of legal ethnic segregation, widespread legal availability of effective contraception for women, and achievement of greater professional and social equality by women, or at least, middle and upper class women. In addition, during the late sixties and throughout the seventies, a series of unexpected crises struck American society. This observation is also so straightforward that I think few would disagree with it. A very partial list of the crises at the time includes environmental disasters, difficulties related to the Vietnam war, a sudden major rise in violent crime, a wave of political assasinations, a faltering of the economic boom, the "oil crisis", the Iranian hostage crisis, and even the widespread recognition that smoking cigarettes was more harmful than expected (that sounds funny, but I'm not even 50, and I can remember when bus seats, airplane seats, restaurant tables - most tables for that matter - nearly always had ash trays, and when "non-smoking" sections - which received plenty of smoke - were considered to be for children and eccentrics). In response to all this, many believe that a political movement which amounted to an allegiance of two previously unpopular and mutually antagonistic groups - right wing religious authoritarians and advocates of the "robber baron" economic policies - was able to come together and, by blaming the crises on the previous liberal consensus and pandering to resentment of women's/civil rights, become a political force. I could provide references, but don't think it's necessary to bother, as again, this is so well known. This analysis would be accepted, perhaps not stated this bluntly, but certainly in other terms, on most right wing sites. The idea that the current party on the right requires a coalition of "social conservatives" and "economic conservatives" is hardly controversial. We get libertarian types here who claim to regret the inclusion of religious social conservatives, but that position is actually a rare one. "Biblical literalism" is important leg of that coalition, because you need a reason to tell people that they can't support something that seems reasonable, like equal rights for women. You can easily find "liberal theologians" who will "interpret" the Bible as advocating equal rights for women, so you can't make it a duel of interpretations. You have to claim that harsh passages are "literally" true. Current ID/creationism is very much a product of that. Henry Morris era "creation science" emerged as a force in the late sixties, and that's no coincidence. The change in society was quite dramatic. I'm also old enough to remember when, if you asked people to name a part of the US where religious authorities had a lot of power over local laws, they would have said "Boston". Of course, post-modern creationism is still strongly linked to modern and pre-modern versions. The Scopes trial is echoed in the Dover trial. One thing post-modern ID/creationists don't want, though, and this is probably a difference between them and many (but not all) mid-century "fundamentalist" authorities, is any real compromise with progress. They'll accept YEC creation science, they'll accept disguised YEC creation science, they'll accept just plain evolution denial with no reference to any positive claims, they'll even accept just plain censoring evolution out of the curicculum and never bringing either evolution or creationism out. But they won't accept "Old Earth Creationism" or "theistic evolution", because those are compromising positions that try to make religious dogam less contradictory to science. That's not what they want now. That day is over.

j. biggs · 4 February 2013

Regarding the (resurrection of) two (previously tabled) bills in Oklahoma, there isn't much to worry about. Jim Halligan is the chair of the Senate education subcommittee and has a history of tabling anti-science bills like these. Neither bill is likely to make it even as far as the floor the Oklahoma Senate. Halligan may be a republican but he has also been a great friend to education in the state of Oklahoma.

Paul Burnett · 4 February 2013

harold said: Simultaneously, the Freshwater affair, in which an individual teacher was disciplined for teaching science denial, in violation of school district policy, is ongoing. (I believe that a number of teachers in other districts have, in the same time period, actually been successfully disciplined for preaching instead of teaching.)

Somehow this reminds of the David Coppedge / JPL affair, in which Coppedge's lawyer (a sore loser) now claims the right to preach is a "civil right" and they (presumably including the Dishonesty Institute as well as the Moody Bible Institute and its subsidiaries) will appeal.

Carl Drews · 4 February 2013

It is really not very smart to dismiss global warming in Colorado. Much of our state's economy is based on tourism, both from winter sports and summer recreation. March 2012 was the driest March on record in Colorado. Climate scientists do not usually attribute a single event to climate change, but rely on long-term statistics instead. Nevertheless, I have been skiing and snowboarding and hiking in Colorado for 30 years now, and we took a ski trip to Copper Mountain for Spring Break during the last week of March 2012. It felt like mid-May! There were no lift lines, but there was a good reason for that: No new snow in the last month. March should be the snowiest month in Colorado. Just in the past few years I have seen whole forested mountainsides turn brown because of the mountain pine beetle. We have been suffering from a severe drought. The temperature-related factors that affect our forests are:

Drought stress on trees.
Reduced winter mortality among beetles.
Doubling of the breeding cycle during the longer summer seasons.

I will save the anthropogenic vs. natural arguments for another thread, but Colorado's high country is changing before my eyes. Climate change really is well-documented and serious. By the way, we sometimes use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" to emphasize the changes that are not defined by temperature. As a snowboarder with a family, I don't care much if the temperature outside is 2 C warmer - I just leave my sweater in the condo. But when a ski trip to Copper Mountain at the end of March 2012 involves dodging numerous and growing bare patches on the slopes, that really gets my attention! The ski conditions resembled the end of April or mid-May in a normal year. Precipitation is more personally significant than temperature.

Paul Burnett · 4 February 2013

Joe Felsenstein said: And when creationists zoom immediately off to discuss the Origin Of Life, they are implicitly conceding that once life arises, it can evolve, and adaptations can arise.

Once "life" gets off Noah's Ark (in 2347 BC per Ken Ham), hyper-evolution / hyper-adaptation must arise, particularly if, for instance, there was only one pair of the "beetle kind" on the Ark, which then miraculously expanded as noted by J.B.S. Haldane.

harold · 4 February 2013

Paul Burnett said:
harold said: Simultaneously, the Freshwater affair, in which an individual teacher was disciplined for teaching science denial, in violation of school district policy, is ongoing. (I believe that a number of teachers in other districts have, in the same time period, actually been successfully disciplined for preaching instead of teaching.)
Somehow this reminds of the David Coppedge / JPL affair, in which Coppedge's lawyer (a sore loser) now claims the right to preach is a "civil right" and they (presumably including the Dishonesty Institute as well as the Moody Bible Institute and its subsidiaries) will appeal.

The attitude is indeed identical - "Not being allowed to violate your rights is a violation of my rights". Authoritarian creationists unconsciously presume superiority and privilege. However, just to remind everyone, Coppedge was laid off along with a group of other people. Based on what is available in the public record, it seems that Coppedge did have a record of distracting other employees with unwanted and controversial religious discussions, but he was not fired for that, nor technically, fired at all. It has also been alledged on the internet, and may be verifiable via court records or other public documents, that Coppedge didn't do a very good job of keeping his sysadmin skills updated. It's unlikely that he could have avoided layoff by doing so - the project he worked on was over - but we'll never know. He was laid off, along with many other people, because a particular project was finished. The court found that there was no evidence of religious discrimination. He does have a right to preach, as much as he wants, on his own time, under his own name. That right can be constrained by employers who pay him, either in the workplace or if he in some way associates his employer's reputation with his preaching, but that isn't what happened. They didn't fire him for preaching in a way that was at odds with an employment contract, they laid him off because his position was no longer required. Along with many other people who were laid off at the same time, for the same reason. Freshwater actually was dismissed, rather than laid off, after an extremely extensive hearing, for insubordination. So far courts have found against him but the Supreme Court of Ohio has not decided on the matter yet.

tomh · 4 February 2013

Until the Supreme Court weighs in and allows teaching ID or so-called alternate theories I don't think these bills are much of a problem, since it doesn't look like any of them can pass. A much bigger problem, and a much more difficult one to solve, is that in the majority of public schools in the US, evolution is basically ignored. It is well-known that up to three quarters of public high school science classes give short shrift to evolution, and a sizeable minority of science teachers expose students to out-and-out creationism. You catch one once in a while, like Freshwater, but most stay under the radar, and they don't care about court decisions or laws. Many have tacit approval from local school boards. How you solve this problem is beyond me.

Mike Elzinga · 4 February 2013

harold said: Each time a strategy is defeated, a new one eventually springs up, but the overall pattern is that each new strategy is less ambitious than the one before.

I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now. There are a number of pseudo-philosophers over there trying out things like a “Semiotic Theory of Intelligent Design” and other rationalizations that presumably trump all of science and don’t require that anyone know anything about science. These arguments are portrayed as “higher level” metaphysical arguments that stupid scientists can’t possibly comprehend. The arguments are portrayed as requiring such high intellectual acumen that anyone who questions them is sneered at as though they are uneducated rubes. So it appears that they have simply copycatted the accusations leveled at them about their lack of knowledge of science and are trying to turn the tables on science. It’s all about philosophy; no science required. Not only do they put forth these “philosophical” arguments and sneer at questioners; they also have a couple of crude, flying monkeys who swoop in and throw feces at all skeptics. That UD site is a pretty good sampling of what we would get in science education if ID/creationism were to take over public education.

SWT · 4 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: There are a number of pseudo-philosophers over there trying out things like a “Semiotic Theory of Intelligent Design” and other rationalizations that presumably trump all of science and don’t require that anyone know anything about science. These arguments are portrayed as “higher level” metaphysical arguments that stupid scientists can’t possibly comprehend. The arguments are portrayed as requiring such high intellectual acumen that anyone who questions them is sneered at as though they are uneducated rubes.

I am reminded of the segment from 4:40 through 8:12 of this exposition on the nature of philosophy...

Robin · 4 February 2013

Matt - Cleanup on aisle three. Seems a whole section of the comments got dupped somehow.

Henry J · 4 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said: So it appears that they have simply copycatted the accusations leveled at them about their lack of knowledge of science and are trying to turn the tables on science. It’s all about philosophy; no science required.

That sounds quite similar to a thread presently in progress (or is that regress?) over on AtBC.

diogeneslamp0 · 4 February 2013

Can we please get this thread back on topic?

What can we do about these bills, and about the whole "strengths and weaknesses" argument in general?

I suggest we write a petition that addresses

1. our opposition to the "strengths and weaknesses" argument and

2. rejects the false ID claims of suppression of ID and intimidation of teachers by atheists scientists.

Then get a lot of scientist to sign it. We need a succinct, easily understandable, explanation of why we are against "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

Mike Elzinga constantly uses the phrase "misrepresentations and misconceptions" but this phrase is weak and wordy and should not be used.

I suggest we say:

"All creationist criticisms of evolution are either based on factually false statements, or redefinitions of the scientific method."

Put that in a petition, repeat it over and over.

Moreover, we must include in the petition examples of such "weaknesses" of evolution based on factually false statements, such as:

1. No natural process can increase genetic information
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible
3. No transitional fossils

etc., feel free to suggest some.

And let's be clear about our rejection of the phony claim that creationist teachers are intimidated, silenced and suppressed. Then let's get a bunch of scientists to sign it.

harold · 4 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said:
harold said: Each time a strategy is defeated, a new one eventually springs up, but the overall pattern is that each new strategy is less ambitious than the one before.
I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now. There are a number of pseudo-philosophers over there trying out things like a “Semiotic Theory of Intelligent Design” and other rationalizations that presumably trump all of science and don’t require that anyone know anything about science. These arguments are portrayed as “higher level” metaphysical arguments that stupid scientists can’t possibly comprehend. The arguments are portrayed as requiring such high intellectual acumen that anyone who questions them is sneered at as though they are uneducated rubes. So it appears that they have simply copycatted the accusations leveled at them about their lack of knowledge of science and are trying to turn the tables on science. It’s all about philosophy; no science required. Not only do they put forth these “philosophical” arguments and sneer at questioners; they also have a couple of crude, flying monkeys who swoop in and throw feces at all skeptics. That UD site is a pretty good sampling of what we would get in science education if ID/creationism were to take over public education.

I'm going to be cautiously optimistic. UD may be a pretty good indication of the decline and fall of the DI version of ID/creationism. It started as Dembski's own site, back in his brief period of celebrity in the early 2000's. It immediately became known for deletion of critical comments. For some reason or other Dembski stopped moderating it circa 2004, and turned it over to someone named "davescot", who predicted that ID/creationists were sure to win in Dover because Judge Jones was a "good ol' boy appointed by George W. hisself" (use of fake "folksy" language being popular with creationists). The site became known for banning of accounts of anyone who rubbed "davescot" the wrong way, and "davescot" had very thin skin. The "big tent" rule may have been disregarded, and a fair number of actual creationist accounts may have been banned. Eventually "davescot" seemingly disappeared into a cyberspace wormhole. At this point, it's a seldom-visited site, and a substantial proportion of visits are from pro-science people. The strategy of "disproving evolution from above without knowing anything about evolution" is a constant one. But, and I never thought I'd say this, Granville Sewell has one thing right. If some aspect of the theory of evolution was at odds with thermodynamics, either the theory of evolution or thermodynamics would have to change. However, the theory of evolution, unlike ID/creationism, is not at odds with physics and chemistry. A "philosophical disproof" of evolution, as opposed to a scientific one, is not even relevant. So what? Everyone knows that the theory of evolution is valid only within the framework of assumptions and logic structure that apply to science (a framework which almost everyone intuitively accepts if it is spelled out, I should note). Anyone can make up a philosophical position that denies science. It's a barely disguised demand that science itself not be taught. By the way, in defense of the philosophy community, ID has most certainly NOT been widely praised and adopted by philosophers. The only professional philosopher I'm aware of who has much interest in it at all is Barbara Forrest. Just because some dullwit narcissist on a web site that deletes all critical comments calls his nonsense "philosophy" doesn't make it philosophy. I've encountered the strategy of memorizing a few common academic words like "semiotic" or "epistemology", claiming that the use of those words validates any absurd construction, and then declaring that anyone who criticizes that position must not know what these common words mean. Not just from creationists. It borders on being the lowest possible form of argument - a particularly lazy version of "baffle them with bullshit".

Karen S. · 4 February 2013

I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now.

Philosophy? What about the Great Debate at the AMNH, where the philosophers William Dembski and Robert Pennock faced each other? Dembski's butt ended up in the middle of Central Park West.

j. biggs · 4 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: Can we please get this thread back on topic? What can we do about these bills, and about the whole "strengths and weaknesses" argument in general? I suggest we write a petition that addresses 1. our opposition to the "strengths and weaknesses" argument and 2. rejects the false ID claims of suppression of ID and intimidation of teachers by atheists scientists. Then get a lot of scientist to sign it. We need a succinct, easily understandable, explanation of why we are against "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. Mike Elzinga constantly uses the phrase "misrepresentations and misconceptions" but this phrase is weak and wordy and should not be used. I suggest we say: "All creationist criticisms of evolution are either based on factually false statements, or redefinitions of the scientific method." Put that in a petition, repeat it over and over. Moreover, we must include in the petition examples of such "weaknesses" of evolution based on factually false statements, such as: 1. No natural process can increase genetic information 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible 3. No transitional fossils etc., feel free to suggest some. And let's be clear about our rejection of the phony claim that creationist teachers are intimidated, silenced and suppressed. Then let's get a bunch of scientists to sign it.

Unfortunately this is politics not science that we are fighting against. You can tell politicians that there is no scientific contraversy until you are blue in the face and it will make no difference. What has worked well in Oklahoma is e-mail and snail-mail campaigns to the senators and house members in their respective education sub-committees. The letters should politely emphasize that the intent of bills like these are to introduce sectarian religion into the class-room because some of them honestly don't know that. Typically the authors of such bills say really stupid things about the bills when quoted by the media. For instance Brecheen who (re)-introduced SB 758 has been quoted as saying that his bill will require schools to "...teach the debate between Creation and evolution..." Obviously a quote like that backs up this claim nicely. Secondly you should point out that having a legislature that is outwardly aggressive towards science can be bad for the economy. Research facilities are likely to pass over states that despise a sound science education. First of all these facilities aren't particularly fond of the idea of the state government might interfere with their work, but also it is hard to find qualified applicants locally when the local population has been told to distrust science. Third you can bring up ways in which laws like these are used to violate the religious sensibilities of mainline protestants, Catholics and other religious groups. Many of these other religious groups together represent the majority of voters, even in places like Oklahoma where religious fundamentalists abound. If enough people e-mail each senator and house member about their feelings on how this bill marginalizes their religious beliefs (or lack there of) in favor of others, these politicians will get the hint that it could be bad for their careers to let anti-science bills out of their sub-committee. This strategy has worked well in Oklahoma in the past. Of course it doesn't hurt that we have a former president of OSU as the chair of the Senate subcommittee on education either.

j. biggs · 4 February 2013

I would like to change that first sentence to. Unfortunately this is a political and not a scientific battle we are fighting.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 February 2013

The only professional philosopher I’m aware of who has much interest in it at all is Barbara Forrest.

Well, there's Thomas Nagel, with his book on non-theistic teleology, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, a book on why his own intuitions are so much better than the science. Most philosophers who reviewed it seem to have dissed it, as they should have, but not all. Plenty to be said for philosophy, but the inherent lack of much external constraint to keep whimsy from being taken as insight does mean that a lot of junk is written in the name of philosophy. Nagel's book being a superb example of same. And we keep hearing how he's a "respected philosopher," as if that means anything (or anyhow, as if it should mean anything) when it's clear that he buys into a lot of junk beliefs. Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 4 February 2013

ID/creationist “arguments” have degenerated into a series of flailing efforts that attempt to sound erudite, but instead, they always manage to come off looking stupid.

I don’t think there is much danger from ID/creationist “arguments.” The minute they have to defend them, they’re finished.

The remaining threat appears to be more in the grass roots political attempts at revising the public school curriculum. As that recent documentary The Revisionists seems to note, there was more success in resisting changes to the science curriculum in Texas than in resisting changes in the Social Studies curriculum. The extreme Right Wing has a broader agenda than just getting rid of evolution.

The fingerprints of Casey Luskin and the DI are all over the science revisions and legislation in the states listed. If passed, those “revisions” can be easily beaten back by some simple pedagogical exercises in physics, chemistry, and biology that convincingly demonstrate the misconceptions and misrepresentations by ID/creationists.

ID/creationists have been living in their echo chamber for over fifty years now; and they believe their own pseudoscience. I think they could be stunned into confused silence just as effectively as the recent Presidential election stunned the Right Wing echo chamber. When their distortions of science concepts have to come up against some simple facts and calculations, ID/creationists tend to slink away. Pushy ID/creationist parents and their duped kids don’t like to be embarrassed in front of other people’s smarter kids. Subtle social pressures against those who choose to remain stubbornly stupid still work.

Revisionist history gets more political because decisions about which events and persons in history have been major influences degenerate into ideological wrangling about who the historical heroes are. Historians are coming under attack just as scientists have come under attack. Don McLeroy was giving voice to a constituency that hates experts.

I think that strong professional support for the conscientious teachers who try to be professional in their jobs will go a long way toward building stronger departments within the public schools. If school districts get a reputation for trying to beat up on well-prepared, professional instructors, those districts will not be able to hire good teachers. Idiocy can be boycotted until the idiocy is cleaned up. I think we can eventually see more of the heroic pushback from professionally responsible teachers that we saw in Dover.

diogeneslamp0 · 4 February 2013

harold said: For some reason or other Dembski stopped moderating it circa 2004, and turned it over to someone named "davescot", who predicted that ID/creationists were sure to win in Dover because Judge Jones was a "good ol' boy appointed by George W. hisself" (use of fake "folksy" language being popular with creationists).

I think this quote is incorrect, which made it difficult to google. This I think is the correct one:

DaveScot said [in 2005, before the Dover decision]: "Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too." [At dead link: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371, cited here]

After the DI got their asses kicked by the judge they thought they owned, John West launched one personal attack after another against Judge Jones to stick him into the "liberal activist judge" category required by right-wing ideology. See here for John West's despicable quote-mine of Judge Jones, in which West lies about Jones by inserting a creationist ellipsis in something he said, to make it appear that Jones wants guilty murderers to go free-- which according to West's fascist distortion of liberalism, would make Judge Jones a liberal. Also see here for John West's substitution of one conservative fantasy for another, where West informs us that:

John West said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West... "...This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur." [Discovery Institute]

The arrogance and egomania of anti-scientists is astounding. Without quote-mines and ad hominems, IDers have nothing.

eric · 4 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: I suggest we write a petition that addresses 1. our opposition to the "strengths and weaknesses" argument and 2. rejects the false ID claims of suppression of ID and intimidation of teachers by atheists scientists. Then get a lot of scientist to sign it.

Why give them the publicity they probably seek? Most of these bills are political theater, offered by a representative to build support among their constituents but with no serious chance of passage. Would they actually support it if it ever got out of committee and was put in front of the whole legislative body of their state? Yes. Do they or anyone else think that's going to happen? No. Let's let the NCSE and others like them work somewhat behind the scenes to squash these things. It IS important to fight them. But its also important that we not make creationism-supporting representatives get public coverage to look like martyrs, Davids, etc. That would also be a form of win for them.

Karen S. · 4 February 2013

The only professional philosopher I’m aware of who has much interest in it at all is Barbara Forrest.

There is also Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, who was also a member of the "Altenberg 16" group. He wrote an excellent, laugh-out-loud book called Nonsense on Stilts - How to tell science from Bunk, which includes a chapter on the Dover trial. It also includes a fascinating account of the poorly written, scientifically-bungled article about the Altenberg meeting by Suzan Mazur (she met with him and ignored everything he told her), and the adoption of Mazur's myth by the Discovery Institute as a strike against Darwin and evolution. Dream on, DI. Pigliucci is pro-evolution. This is a classic case of unrequited love--in his book Pigliucci refers to the DI guys as "buffoons."

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlokeR0Hv-BU2vdoUzh0HdqetT4OJglIkI · 4 February 2013

Professor Wilberforce is what happens to a human when they spend their whole life defending a lie.

diogeneslamp0 · 4 February 2013

I've been working on a petition that addresses the "strengths and weaknesses" claim in the most frontal way possible. We need succinct, easy-to-understand language that obliterates the "strengths and weaknesses" language concocted by Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute. This language must not rely on argument from authority ('but scientists believe in evolution') but must be understandable to all, and must not dodge the question. Here's what I've got so far.

Opposing Teaching So-Called "Weaknesses" of Scientific Theories We, the undersigned scientists oppose educational policies generally called “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution” on the grounds that so-called “weaknesses” of evolution popularized by creationists are known to be based on factually false statements, or on redefinitions of the scientific method. Factual falsehoods that are incorrectly called “weaknesses of evolution” include, but are not limited to, claims that 1. No natural process can increase genetic information; 2. There are no transitional fossils; 3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible; 4. Increases in biochemical complexity via evolution have not been observed; etc. What creationists call “weaknesses of evolution” are contradicted by published results, have no support in the scientific literature, and thus have the same status as urban legends or internet scams, like the Nigerian Prince email. Some claims, like the bacterial flagellum argument, are a hundred years old, yet are now dishonestly called “modern cutting edge science” by opponents of science. Scams do not belong in classrooms. We oppose attempted redefinitions of the scientific method, such as 1. defining so-called ‘origins science’ as not real science, and 2. promoting vague claims of supernatural causation, which do not make testable predictions, as viable alternatives to real theories that have already made many testable predictions confirmed by observation, namely evolution and the Big Bang. We recognize that, within major religions, different sects are in conflict over evolution, but sectarian conflicts do not belong in classrooms. We also reject smears and allegations that the scientific community intimidates or unfairly discriminates against ID creationists. Claims that most teachers feel ‘intimidated’ when teaching theories of origins are based on phony poll numbers doctored by the pro-ID Discovery Institute (as Prof. B. Forrest has documented); the real, undoctored poll numbers show most teachers polled do not feel intimidated. In multiple court cases alleging ‘discrimination’, creationists have consistently lost, because courts recognize the absence of facts to support their claims of victimization. The scientific community is composed of people of many ethnic and religious backgrounds, all united by a common dedication to the scientific method. We feel that urban legends, internet scams, and sectarian conflicts do not belong in classrooms.

Dave Luckett · 5 February 2013

diogeneslamp0, I have taken the liberty of editing your text.

Opposing Teaching So-Called “Weaknesses” of Scientific Theories We, the undersigned scientists, oppose policies that call for “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution”. Such wording always signals a dishonest attempt to smuggle creationism, and hence religion, into the public schools. There are no such “weaknesses” of evolution. There are only falsehoods popularized by creationists. These falsehoods include, but are not limited to, claims that 1. No natural process can increase genetic information; 2. There are no transitional fossils; 3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible; 4. Increases in biochemical complexity via evolution have not been observed; 5. Life, or some features of it, are too complex to have evolved. All of these, and all other creationist claims, are false to fact. They are contradicted by published results and have no support in the scientific literature, giving them the same status as urban legends or internet scams, like the Nigerian Prince email. Scams do not belong in classrooms. None of the claims is new. Some are a hundred years old, yet are dishonestly called “modern cutting edge science” by opponents of science. More generally, we oppose attempted perversions of the scientific method. Science is based on evidence, and it makes testable statements and predictions, including statements about past events. Attempts to define so-called ‘origins science’ as not real science are dishonest; vague claims of supernatural causation ("intelligent design") are not testable. Real scientific theories like the theory of evolution, or the expansion of the singularity, have already made many testable predictions confirmed by observation. Different sects of major religions are in conflict over evolution. To teach the view of any one of them, or any view other than the scientific consensus, is to import that conflict into the public classroom, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. We also reject smears and allegations that the scientific community intimidates or unfairly discriminates against creationists and those who propound "intelligent design". In multiple court cases alleging ‘discrimination’, creationists have consistently lost, because courts recognize the absence of facts to support their claims of victimization. Allegations of "intimidation" are fraudulent, as Dr Barbara Forrest's analysis confirms. The scientific community is composed of people of many ethnic and religious backgrounds, all united by a common dedication to the scientific method. We know that urban legends, internet scams, and sectarian conflicts do not belong in classrooms. We urge you to oppose any such legislation.

harold · 5 February 2013

Dave Luckett said: diogeneslamp0, I have taken the liberty of editing your text.
Opposing Teaching So-Called “Weaknesses” of Scientific Theories We, the undersigned scientists, oppose policies that call for “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution”. Such wording always signals a dishonest attempt to smuggle creationism, and hence religion, into the public schools. There are no such “weaknesses” of evolution. There are only falsehoods popularized by creationists. These falsehoods include, but are not limited to, claims that 1. No natural process can increase genetic information; 2. There are no transitional fossils; 3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible; 4. Increases in biochemical complexity via evolution have not been observed; 5. Life, or some features of it, are too complex to have evolved. All of these, and all other creationist claims, are false to fact. They are contradicted by published results and have no support in the scientific literature, giving them the same status as urban legends or internet scams, like the Nigerian Prince email. Scams do not belong in classrooms. None of the claims is new. Some are a hundred years old, yet are dishonestly called “modern cutting edge science” by opponents of science. More generally, we oppose attempted perversions of the scientific method. Science is based on evidence, and it makes testable statements and predictions, including statements about past events. Attempts to define so-called ‘origins science’ as not real science are dishonest; vague claims of supernatural causation ("intelligent design") are not testable. Real scientific theories like the theory of evolution, or the expansion of the singularity, have already made many testable predictions confirmed by observation. Different sects of major religions are in conflict over evolution. To teach the view of any one of them, or any view other than the scientific consensus, is to import that conflict into the public classroom, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. We also reject smears and allegations that the scientific community intimidates or unfairly discriminates against creationists and those who propound "intelligent design". In multiple court cases alleging ‘discrimination’, creationists have consistently lost, because courts recognize the absence of facts to support their claims of victimization. Allegations of "intimidation" are fraudulent, as Dr Barbara Forrest's analysis confirms. The scientific community is composed of people of many ethnic and religious backgrounds, all united by a common dedication to the scientific method. We know that urban legends, internet scams, and sectarian conflicts do not belong in classrooms. We urge you to oppose any such legislation.

There's certainly nothing wrong with this, but see the comment by J. Biggs above. Pragmatics should also be emphasized. 1) The politicians who support these bills don't give a damn about anything in this petition, so reaching out to them is utterly pointless (it has to be done, but it can't be the only thing done). Address the public as much as possible, and make it easy for potential opponents of the politician who introduced or supports the legislation - including primary opponents - to get the message. 2) Don't try to fight an impossible war, fight a winnable battle. The sole objective of the bills is to damage the teaching of local public high school science by introducing evolution denial, therefore the primary objective of the response should be to protect local public high school science. Local religious figures who are pro-science are valuable allies. 3) Hammer on potential concrete, pragmatic bad outcomes. Teaching sectarian will dogma lead to expensive court cases. Bad science education could make it harder to attract good businesses to the state. Bad science education will put the state's students at a disadvantage when they apply for college, relative to students from states with good science education. Bad local science education could put the local most academically oriented state university system - typically an extremely popular and respected local institution - at a disadvantage in recruiting top faculty. Ideally I should illustrate these points with a petition or more concrete suggestions. I'm not going to do that right now, but I'll try to in the near future.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.

Henry J · 5 February 2013

Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.

But teach what, though? What do they have that isn't simply an attack on science and scientists? While that might not be unconstitutional, it would still be sabotage of the educational system.

eric · 5 February 2013

Henry J said:
Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.
But teach what, though? What do they have that isn't simply an attack on science and scientists?

Well, you'd start with Anaxagoras and the formulation of the teleological argument. Then read about Aquinas' version and his contemporary critics. You might mention Newton's Mercury-pushing angels as an 18th century example of how the idea was still around but slowly falling out of favor (because he saw it as a last resort). Then you'd probably spend a bunch of time on Paley and his contemporary critics like Darwin. For US students, a unit on the Scopes trial and fundamentalist opposition to evolution in the US through the 20th century would not be out of place. You'd cover how the two SCOTUS cases in the '80s (first McLean v. Arkansas and then Edwards v. Aguillard) found creationism to be religious, rather than science, effectively barring it from the classroom. You'd talk about the creationism community's response (i.e., relabeling), covering Behe and Dembski and their critics. You'd talk about the origin of the 'formal' term in OPAP, then the Dover trial, the ID community's attempt to dissociate the argument from earlier (historical) linkages to God, and finish up with a survey of post-Dover responses by the DI and others. I think I'm probably missing some important historical stuff in the 1,600-year gap between Anaxagoras and Aquinas, but the point is, you could in fact make a fairly decent elective college or honors HS course out of this. The design argument is old, has a lot of history in terms of being seen as a mainstream part of philosophy and theology for a couple thousand years, and even just an historical survey of its various forms + responses by critics could pretty much fill a semester.

harold · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.

1) I agree that the current issue is science class. See my comment above. 2) Publicly funded high school philosophy or comparative religion classes still have to be constitutional. They can't set up a class that uses government resources to favor one narrow sectarian dogma over other views and call it "philosophy", either. This is not a current problem, because the current attacks are focused directly on science class, most high schools don't have "philosophy" or "comparative religion" classes, and introducing such classes to public high school would likely be explosively controversial. If, in the future, creationists attempt a strategy of allowing science to be taught but creating a separate sectarian science denial class labeled "Philosophy Class", that, too, would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constition and a waste of precious time and resources. 3) It's possibly constitutional to directly teach why ID/creationism is wrong from a scientific point of view, but I personally oppose that as unnecessary and a waste of time, too. Teach the science. Period. Almost all creation myths are at odds with science if interpreted "literally" (and irrelevant to science if taken as metaphors). Creation myths are for anthropology, theology, psychology, etc, most of which are not routinely taught in public high schools, except at "AP" level in some very well-funded districts. Just teach the science. 4) There are no legal restrictions on teaching ID at the university level, so the Texas "higher education" bill is, in my view, irrelevant. Dembski was asked to leave Baylor, a private, Baptist university, for being uncollegial, not for teaching ID. Behe doesn't work in Texas but has not been negatively impacted by teaching ID. Because ID is a load of repetitive crap that is published only by right wing religious lay publishers, and has flaws that make it almost impossible to get it into a rigorously edited publication, it will be hard for anyone to base a serious academic career in a mainstream institution on ID, but that's a different issue.

harold · 5 February 2013

I'm going to repeat this -

Essentially the sole objective of the round of bills under discussion here, with the exception of an irrelevant higher education bill, is to damage local public high school science classes by allowing teachers to sectarian insert evolution denial.

If you are opposing a bill that would permit dumping of excess mercury into water supplies, right now, your best bet is to explain why excess mercury in local water, right now, is a bad idea.

It needs to be expressed that the reasons why these bills are bad, are -

1) They encourage what is almost certainly an illegal activity that has always led to expensive, losing lawsuits in the past.

2) A reputation for bad science education may discourage businesses that need some technologically or scientifically trained workers from locating in the area.

3) Poor high school science education will put local students at a disadvantage when they apply for and attend university. Students from science denying religious schools have been denied credit for much of their work in some cases. Families who make that choice should use private schools; public schools should give students the chance to compete.

4) The state university system may find it difficult to recruit top science faculty if local schools and students have a reputation for poor science education.

5) Politicians who propose these bills should be challenged at the primary as well as general election level. Other politicians, regardless of party affiliation, should be encouraged to see the downside of supporting these bills.

6) Intensive efforts need to be made to help ordinary local citizens de-code propaganda language like "academic freedom". It's an easy argument. Public high school teachers need to teach the curriculum competently, and to not violate the rights of students' families. They can't teach holocaust denial, evolution denial, flat earthism, or anything similar. They can "believe" what they want but if they can't teach and test the curriculum in a competent, legal way, they need to explore new careers.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

Harold, I agree with you.

TomS · 5 February 2013

I don't know to what degree this is a factor in hiring, but what about the effect on potential employees when they think that their kids will get a poor education in the local schools?

Carl Drews · 5 February 2013

TomS said: I don't know to what degree this is a factor in hiring, but what about the effect on potential employees when they think that their kids will get a poor education in the local schools?

I would not take a job in Louisiana for that very reason. I made that decision about ten years ago after a business trip.

Henry J · 5 February 2013

Eric,

Somehow I don't think that's what the ID pushers have in mind. LOL.

Henry

j. biggs · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.

Already tried in the El Tejon Unified school district. It resulted in litigation (Hurst et al. v. Newman et al.) when the the teacher decided to teach creationism which directly challenged the schools Biology curriculum. Sharon Lemburg (the teacher) also misrepresented Ken Hurst and Francis Crick as supporters of her views. Unfortunately any "Philosophy of Design" class is likely to be abused by sectarians this way. I would actually encourage my kids to take a philosophy of design class with the syllabus presented by eric, so long as it wasn't taught by a teacher with an ax to grind.

Mike Elzinga · 5 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said: I've been working on a petition that addresses the "strengths and weaknesses" claim in the most frontal way possible. We need succinct, easy-to-understand language that obliterates the "strengths and weaknesses" language concocted by Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute. This language must not rely on argument from authority ('but scientists believe in evolution') but must be understandable to all, and must not dodge the question. Here's what I've got so far.

These are all good thoughts; however, setting out such a manifesto only encourages leaders of the ID/creationist movement to taunt scientists and those who popularize science into public debates. Ken Ham has been drooling and slobbering all over himself trying to get Bill Nye to debate a member of the AiG staff after Bill Nye had publicly criticized ID/creationism. This tactic of taunting scientists – preferably high-profile scientists and educators – into public debates was an original tactic of Henry Morris back in the 1970s. They managed to leverage a lot of publicity and “legitimacy” by not only getting free rides on the backs of scientists; they also got paid to do the debates. Finally the science community wised up and stopped taking the bait. As I have said before – and in my experience this works pretty well – ID/creationists need to be taken down by “nobodies” coming out of nowhere and disappearing back into nowhere. That can be done by well-informed scientists working in the community and on various panels that vet educational materials for public education. ID/creationists should never be able to see it coming and never know who took them down. It can also be done by conscientious instructors who are welcomed into the professional community of science educators and researchers. ID/creationists should never have a target to taunt or debate. Since ID/creationists are not part of the peer-review community of scientists, and since they do not participate in the enterprise of science, they don’t know anybody or have the trust of anybody in the science community. They are clawing, grasping outsiders trying to grab legitimacy and glory without doing any work or making any contributions. If ID/creationists what legitimacy and respect, they should do what every scientist has to do; namely submit research proposals for peer review, get funding, and carry out research programs that add to our knowledge and form the basis on which further research can be done by others. Spending all their time sitting on the sidelines kvetching, hijacking the publications of others, and pretending to critique them, while it might score them some points with their rube followers, is not going to get them what they want from the science community.

TomS · 5 February 2013

j. biggs said:
Karen S. said: I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.
Already tried in the El Tejon Unified school district. It resulted in litigation (Hurst et al. v. Newman et al.) when the the teacher decided to teach creationism which directly challenged the schools Biology curriculum. Sharon Lemburg (the teacher) also misrepresented Ken Hurst and Francis Crick as supporters of her views. Unfortunately any "Philosophy of Design" class is likely to be abused by sectarians this way. I would actually encourage my kids to take a philosophy of design class with the syllabus presented by eric, so long as it wasn't taught by a teacher with an ax to grind.

What about the reverse situation, in which a teacher decides to directly challenge the argument from design? Even if a teacher would fairly present "both sides" of the argument from design, which would entail pointing out plausible weaknesses in the argument, I think that it can be guaranteed that there would generate anger from a substantial and influential segment of the local community. Even if being extremely careful not to teach against the argument from design, it would surely be interpreted that way by some of the kids and their parents, the teacher would not last a semester.

SWT · 5 February 2013

Henry J said: Eric, Somehow I don't think that's what the ID pushers have in mind. LOL. Henry

Hey, teach the controversy!

eric · 5 February 2013

Henry J said: Somehow I don't think that's what the ID pushers have in mind. LOL.

Well no, but the same thing is true for bible-as-literature classes: a real, solid, academic curriculum is not going to resemble the sort of thing the fundies want, and vice versa.

eric · 5 February 2013

TomS said:
j. biggs said: Unfortunately any "Philosophy of Design" class is likely to be abused by sectarians this way. I would actually encourage my kids to take a philosophy of design class with the syllabus presented by eric, so long as it wasn't taught by a teacher with an ax to grind.
What about the reverse situation, in which a teacher decides to directly challenge the argument from design?

Well, I think any good historical course would have to cover what the contemporary critics said about the design arguments given in their times. But those are going to be very different: midaeval philosophers did not respond to Aquinas the same way Darwin did Paley, and the modern responses to Demski's information stuff is very different from either. The legal responses to it were also different than the academic ones, focusing more on the question of whether its religious than the question of whether its right. There is no single challenge; there have been many. They should all be covered. I would think a good course would strive to give a sense of the history of the argument, how it has evolved (heh) over time, what experts in each era thought about it, and what its status is today. Certainly talking about why modern mainstream biologists reject it today is fair game. But a teacher standing up and opining that it is 'wrongity wrong wrong just because...science!' would not be doing the subject justice.

I think that it can be guaranteed that there would generate anger from a substantial and influential segment of the local community.

Well, yeah. But that also has its place. Secularists have generally been successful at removing sectarian prayer from schools etc. by taking full advantage of various schools claims to be open to free expression. The same tactic has been effective in response to nativity scenes on public grounds: if its open, we're going to participate too. There may be no better way to quash a local movement for design-based classes than to give them exactly what they ask for, but do it the right way. The moment local fundies realize that secularists are serious about participating, they will likely decide that no coverage of the subject is better than secular coverage of it.

j. biggs · 5 February 2013

TomS said:
j. biggs said:
Karen S. said: I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.
Already tried in the El Tejon Unified school district. It resulted in litigation (Hurst et al. v. Newman et al.) when the the teacher decided to teach creationism which directly challenged the schools Biology curriculum. Sharon Lemburg (the teacher) also misrepresented Ken Hurst and Francis Crick as supporters of her views. Unfortunately any "Philosophy of Design" class is likely to be abused by sectarians this way. I would actually encourage my kids to take a philosophy of design class with the syllabus presented by eric, so long as it wasn't taught by a teacher with an ax to grind.
What about the reverse situation, in which a teacher decides to directly challenge the argument from design? Even if a teacher would fairly present "both sides" of the argument from design, which would entail pointing out plausible weaknesses in the argument, I think that it can be guaranteed that there would generate anger from a substantial and influential segment of the local community. Even if being extremely careful not to teach against the argument from design, it would surely be interpreted that way by some of the kids and their parents, the teacher would not last a semester.

Hence, why I don't believe the high-school setting is the appropriate venue for any such class. The potential for abuse is too high, and if the teacher presents the material fairly, the fundamentalists will raise a ruckus. Just look what the fundies do with science which makes no argument for or against God whatever. When creationists say they want both sides taught, they are being disingenuous. They want only their point of view taught (or presented in a positive light) or nothing at all; whatever it takes to keep the youth stupid, superstitious and submissive to their authority.

Mike Elzinga · 5 February 2013

TomS said: What about the reverse situation, in which a teacher decides to directly challenge the argument from design? Even if a teacher would fairly present "both sides" of the argument from design, which would entail pointing out plausible weaknesses in the argument, I think that it can be guaranteed that there would generate anger from a substantial and influential segment of the local community. Even if being extremely careful not to teach against the argument from design, it would surely be interpreted that way by some of the kids and their parents, the teacher would not last a semester.

I suspect that this will depend a lot on what the local community is like and how paranoid ID/creationist parents are. Most of the best biology instructors I know in my community teach evolution without apology or without directly challenging any sectarian forms of ID/creationism. They simply lay out the evidence and the concepts and flesh out the interesting history. On the other hand, there are still some biology teachers who are skittish around the sectarians who supported Duane Gish and who still invite Ken Ham into their churches. This is why outreach by professional societies and teaching organizations is important. I think most of the professional societies are doing this nowadays. It used to be the case that public school science teachers were not integrated very well into the broader scientific community; but fortunately most professional societies have come to recognize that their own welfare depends on good public education and now have divisions devoted to supporting public education and public school teachers. Similarly, in chemistry and physics courses, there are exercises that students can do that preclude any temptation to fall into the ID/creationist trap that asserts that physics or chemistry forbids evolution. One doesn’t even have to mention the phony ID/creationist arguments; students get the point from just understanding some of the mechanisms about how atoms and molecules interact. There are extreme variations in the quality of science teaching across the country. Much of the motivation behind the opposition to national standards is derived from those local ideologues who want to control what is taught in school, evidence be damned. So the problem is primarily political and dependent on local power groups. Universities have some influence in how they accept credits from various local school districts; but this also requires that there are people involved in the selection processes who are up to date on what various local school districts are doing. That’s not easy. State standards can set benchmarks; and when political ideologues try to grab power over state standards, it is important that they be placed in a glaring spotlight so that everyone can see what they are doing. Most of these ideologues make complete asses of themselves without ever recognizing how others see them; they are horribly self-centered and self-important. Politically cagy; but stupid.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

What about the reverse situation, in which a teacher decides to directly challenge the argument from design?

You could mention that design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science. I mean, fight fire with fire. And if they try to sneak ID into the cafeteria, you could mention that people choke because of stupid design.

Paul Burnett · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: There is also Massimo Pigliucci (who) wrote an excellent, laugh-out-loud book called Nonsense on Stilts - How to tell science from Bunk...

I hadn't heard of this book - it's $5.13 at Amazon for the Kindle edition - bought it and starting reading it at lunchtime on my iPhone. Love this tech. Thanks, Karen.

harold · 5 February 2013

j. biggs said:
Karen S. said: I think that what you guys mean is that we don't want it in the public school science classroom. Judge Jones mentioned that it might be permissible to teach ID in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class.
Already tried in the El Tejon Unified school district. It resulted in litigation (Hurst et al. v. Newman et al.) when the the teacher decided to teach creationism which directly challenged the schools Biology curriculum. Sharon Lemburg (the teacher) also misrepresented Ken Hurst and Francis Crick as supporters of her views. Unfortunately any "Philosophy of Design" class is likely to be abused by sectarians this way. I would actually encourage my kids to take a philosophy of design class with the syllabus presented by eric, so long as it wasn't taught by a teacher with an ax to grind.

It isn't complicated. Creationists are obsessed with denying, distorting, or censoring the teaching of science in public schools. They will try anything they can to do so. Narrow, sectarian science denial dogma isn't allowed in public schools. It isn't allowed if you call it "science". It isn't allowed if you call it "Philosophy of Design". Despite its massive, verbose, and repetitive oeuvre in commercial books for the general public, Intelligent Design can be dismissed with a few basic statements. Talk about "archaeology", "Mt Rushmore", etc = False analogy. Currently, we recognize animal designs (humans are animals) only when we have some idea of the nature of the designer, including its limitations. We may not know the specific individual who constructed a bird's nest, but we can recognize a bird's nest because of what we know about birds. We cannot "infer" design by a completely unspecified and unlimited designer. Complex Specified Information is essentially argument from incredulity; a term used to specify that the user refuses to believe whatever he is talking about evolved naturally. It has not usefully defined, and has not been shown to have any sensitivity or specificity for the detection of anything. Irreducible complexity is a common feature of evolved systems; its presence does not argue against a trait having evolved. ID/Creationists also misidentify systems as irreducibly complex, which are not. The "design filter" is a glorified false dichotomy. You don't need an entire course. The verbosity of the source material is an effort to disguise the lack of content. I am intensely reminded of verbose video internet ads that are building up to selling a product that is useless or available elsewhere free.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

From NCSE's facebook page:

Testimony against Montana's creationist bill, HB 183! When the time came for Montanans to speak about a creationist bill, no one but its author could be found to speak for it. Dozens of scientists, educators, theologians, and concerned parents came to the legislature to insist: "No creationism in Montana."

Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX9QYMWsFzY&feature=share&list=UUXlZRCBefkIvRuv5zUrXEdg

Everyone should go to NCSE's facebook page and "LIKE" it

Mike Elzinga · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: You could mention that design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science. I mean, fight fire with fire. And if they try to sneak ID into the cafeteria, you could mention that people choke because of stupid design.

I once started coughing after I had inhaled some saliva while giving a physics lecture. When I stopped coughing, I made an offhand, laconic comment, “Stupid design” and continued with the lesson. The class got the point and cracked up laughing.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

You can thank God for the Heimlich Maneuver.

j. biggs · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: You can thank God for the Heimlich Maneuver.

I didn't realize Henry Heimlich is God!

duanewaiteinla · 5 February 2013

Does anyone have information on the Arizona bill? Google is failing me....

Matt Young · 5 February 2013

Does anyone have information on the Arizona bill? Google is failing me.…

Google shmoogle -- just follow the links above to here.

harold · 5 February 2013

What's up with the Timothy Sandefur post?

The link to the SCOTUS blog page is helpful, but not exactly a rare resource.

No comments, and although he talks mentions a blog post, the blog is available "by invitation only".

Seriously, that's one step sillier than UD and similar sites. At least UD let's people post something first, before they delete comments and ban accounts. Indeed, the point of a blog is eventually lost if it is made exclusive enough, something UD illustrates. Why bother making a blog post and telling people about it, but then telling them they can't read it?

I don't do anything at PT except make comments, so it's not my place to tell administrators, who put in volunteer hours, how to run the blog. If I want to run a blog I'll start my own.

However, I do feel justified in commenting that secretiveness always makes me worry about what is being concealed. I hope all of the administrators feel secure that nothing that would violate their own standards of decency or honesty is being associated with their domain name.

This will be my final comment on this topic. I would be interested in seeing some replies; if I dont', that's fine.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

Montana's antievolution bill tabled

diogeneslamp0 · 5 February 2013

@All,

I have been totting up the various recommendations/ additions suggested for the proposed petition and I will post later with a summary of suggested additions.

diogeneslamp0 · 5 February 2013

Mike Elzinga said:
diogeneslamp0 said: I've been working on a petition that addresses the "strengths and weaknesses" claim in the most frontal way possible... [SNIP]
These are all good thoughts; however, setting out such a manifesto only encourages leaders of the ID/creationist movement to taunt scientists and those who popularize science into public debates. Ken Ham has been drooling and slobbering all over himself trying to get Bill Nye to debate a member of the AiG staff after Bill Nye had publicly criticized ID/creationism. This tactic of taunting scientists – preferably high-profile scientists and educators – into public debates was an original tactic of Henry Morris back in the 1970s. They managed to leverage a lot of publicity and “legitimacy” by not only getting free rides on the backs of scientists; they also got paid to do the debates. Finally the science community wised up and stopped taking the bait.

Yeah I know, and Ken Ham dared Zack Kopplin to debate the "scientists" at AIG-- probably Menton on Purdom. Kopplin is bright but he's 19. I didn't want Zack to take Ham's bait, so I took the liberty of emailing AIG and challenged Ken Ham to debate me instead of Zack. I commented at Zack's blog that he should not take Ham up on the challenge. No response from KH so far. Ken Ham's a big chicken, like Klinghitler and the Discovery Institute blowhards.

As I have said before – and in my experience this works pretty well – ID/creationists need to be taken down by “nobodies” coming out of nowhere and disappearing back into nowhere.

Hmm. Seems to describe me.

harold · 5 February 2013

Karen S. said: Montana's antievolution bill tabled

The one silver lining to all of these stupid bills, which cause so much waste of time, is that if they're all defeated, that will be a good message.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

The one silver lining to all of these stupid bills, which cause so much waste of time, is that if they’re all defeated, that will be a good message.

Exactly! Easy come and easy go. This bill was a farce--just watch the video. One guy showed up to defend it, and a crowd of scientists, teachers, parents and a theologian showed up to oppose it.

SLC · 5 February 2013

The implication to those not in the know is that Barbara Forrest supports ID. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prof. Forrest is one of the most effective opponents of creationism and ID and was the witness in the Dover case who most impressed the judge.

harold said:
Mike Elzinga said:
harold said: Each time a strategy is defeated, a new one eventually springs up, but the overall pattern is that each new strategy is less ambitious than the one before.
I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now. There are a number of pseudo-philosophers over there trying out things like a “Semiotic Theory of Intelligent Design” and other rationalizations that presumably trump all of science and don’t require that anyone know anything about science. These arguments are portrayed as “higher level” metaphysical arguments that stupid scientists can’t possibly comprehend. The arguments are portrayed as requiring such high intellectual acumen that anyone who questions them is sneered at as though they are uneducated rubes. So it appears that they have simply copycatted the accusations leveled at them about their lack of knowledge of science and are trying to turn the tables on science. It’s all about philosophy; no science required. Not only do they put forth these “philosophical” arguments and sneer at questioners; they also have a couple of crude, flying monkeys who swoop in and throw feces at all skeptics. That UD site is a pretty good sampling of what we would get in science education if ID/creationism were to take over public education.
I'm going to be cautiously optimistic. UD may be a pretty good indication of the decline and fall of the DI version of ID/creationism. It started as Dembski's own site, back in his brief period of celebrity in the early 2000's. It immediately became known for deletion of critical comments. For some reason or other Dembski stopped moderating it circa 2004, and turned it over to someone named "davescot", who predicted that ID/creationists were sure to win in Dover because Judge Jones was a "good ol' boy appointed by George W. hisself" (use of fake "folksy" language being popular with creationists). The site became known for banning of accounts of anyone who rubbed "davescot" the wrong way, and "davescot" had very thin skin. The "big tent" rule may have been disregarded, and a fair number of actual creationist accounts may have been banned. Eventually "davescot" seemingly disappeared into a cyberspace wormhole. At this point, it's a seldom-visited site, and a substantial proportion of visits are from pro-science people. The strategy of "disproving evolution from above without knowing anything about evolution" is a constant one. But, and I never thought I'd say this, Granville Sewell has one thing right. If some aspect of the theory of evolution was at odds with thermodynamics, either the theory of evolution or thermodynamics would have to change. However, the theory of evolution, unlike ID/creationism, is not at odds with physics and chemistry. A "philosophical disproof" of evolution, as opposed to a scientific one, is not even relevant. So what? Everyone knows that the theory of evolution is valid only within the framework of assumptions and logic structure that apply to science (a framework which almost everyone intuitively accepts if it is spelled out, I should note). Anyone can make up a philosophical position that denies science. It's a barely disguised demand that science itself not be taught. By the way, in defense of the philosophy community, ID has most certainly NOT been widely praised and adopted by philosophers. The only professional philosopher I'm aware of who has much interest in it at all is Barbara Forrest. Just because some dullwit narcissist on a web site that deletes all critical comments calls his nonsense "philosophy" doesn't make it philosophy. I've encountered the strategy of memorizing a few common academic words like "semiotic" or "epistemology", claiming that the use of those words validates any absurd construction, and then declaring that anyone who criticizes that position must not know what these common words mean. Not just from creationists. It borders on being the lowest possible form of argument - a particularly lazy version of "baffle them with bullshit".

harold · 5 February 2013

The implication to those not in the know is that Barbara Forrest supports ID.

Yes, true, I took it for granted that the reader would know (or quickly discover, via Google, Wikipedia, or a similar source), that Barbara Forrest has an "interest in it" in the sense that she is strongly associated with opposing it. My point, which I stand by, is that, whatever other complaints people may have with professional philosophers, they are not, as a group, embracers of the the ID scam.

Flint · 5 February 2013

I agree with several here that these bills are re-election fodder, not shoved into the hopper with the slightest expectation that they will ever even be looked at by any committee. It's just part of the legislator re-election dance that the vast majority of submitted bills aren't considered and aren't expected to be considered. I've heard of legislators who have submitted many hundreds of bills, not one of which ever even got so far as to be voted down in a committee.

Hell, there are probably some legislators who submit these things who wouldn't go near them if they saw any light of day -- and it's not all that uncommon for the person who submitted a bill to vote to table it later. Especially legislators from divided districts, where it's necessary to pacify the dummies to get enough votes in the next election.

Karen S. · 5 February 2013

The implication to those not in the know is that Barbara Forrest supports ID. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Same goes for M. Pigliucci--his only interest in ID is to debunk it.

scienceavenger · 6 February 2013

Wilberforce said: The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of abortion against the wishes of the people.

OT I know, but I had to note here that our troll apparently thinks judges should base their decisions on popular opinion, which places his understanding of our judicial system on a par with his understanding of science.

scienceavenger · 6 February 2013

I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now.

Great. What's next, reading entrails?

scienceavenger · 6 February 2013

Karen S. said: You could mention that design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science.

Indeed, as well as the fact that it has no influence on other fields. The world of science is a tapestry of interconnected disciplines. The world of pseudoscience is one of isolated islands which have so little to say about each other that they might as well be on other planets.

harold · 6 February 2013

scienceavenger said:
I’ve been looking in on that Unimaginably Dense site from time to time (I can’t stand it for very long), and it appears they are trying out “philosophical” arguments now.
Great. What's next, reading entrails?

Mike may have been too generous (it's almost impossible not to). I looked over there and it was literally the same thing as it was the last time I looked - which may have been a year ago. The same few regulars (my approximation is that you can count them on the fingers of one hand). They link to perfectly okay articles from the biology section of Science Daily. Then they verbosely pretend that (the terse, imperfect journalistic summary of) a basic article supports creationism because whatever trait it's about "couldn't possibly have evolved because it's too complicated". Well over half the comment words seem to come from someone whose handle is literally "born again" something, who apparently spends his day policing the comments section, using the weapons of repetitive verbosity and declaring his incredulity very, very aggressively, to drive off critics. It's essentially all argument from incredulity, all the time. It's an intriguing question whether or not it's worth it to try to communicate with these minds. My take is that it isn't. Brainwash is very hard to fix. They spend all day reinforcing their brainwash, and tamping down cognitive dissonance. It would be like trying to help a terrified, wounded animal - you'd be dealing with people who are pumped up to view you as the maximum threat and to spend every iota of their energy to resist or escape you. You'd probably have unethically and illegally create a "Stockholm syndrome" type of situation to win them over. And then, they'd still be authoritarians, so rather than gaining insight, they'd probably just switch to being authoritarians who oppose whatever authoritarian thing they previously supported, much like early seventies "communist radicals" later becoming neoconservatives. To date, a combination of a majority favoring good science education and law courts that at least some of the time uphold the law has worked. If a true majority of the population takes up hard core brainwashed denial of scientific reality, it's all over. That doesn't seem to be the current trend, though. So it makes more sense to deal with those who can be convinced. I do address creationists, but only in venues where third party observers can be impacted by the exchange, and never with the delusion that I can convince a creationist.

scienceavenger · 6 February 2013

harold said: I do address creationists, but only in venues where third party observers can be impacted by the exchange, and never with the delusion that I can convince a creationist.

Exactly. There is a reason so many of them are eager to engage in private email debates.

diogeneslamp0 · 6 February 2013

I am at work revising the proposed petition, and I have tried to take into account as many suggestions as possible. Below I have summarized, paraphrased, and re-written some additions to the proposed petition that have been suggested here. Below each suggestion I list the ID's of those who inspired the addition. Keep in mind that I have rewritten each suggestion so the wording below is not the same as that of the people named. If I have misrepresented anyone's views, I apologize. I do not claim to exactly reproduce your ideas. Rather I am trying below to synthesize different people's suggestions into single sentences, which makes it necessary for me to change the wording. If anyone seriously objects to my re-wording of the suggested additions, again I apologize, and feel free to suggest more revisions. I have ordered them into what is, in my opinion, high priority to low. I'm grateful for everyone's interest and contributions but realistically, we can't add everything or the petition will be a phone book. Some Suggested Additions to Proposed Petititon

Harms students futures: It can be extremely difficult to undo the popularization of urban myths and scientific hoaxes, like “living dinosaurs” and “Intelligent Design.” Terrible science education will put your state’s students at a disadvantage when they compete for jobs and college admissions against students from abroad and from pro-science states. [Harold, Tom S?]

Reduce business investment: When a legislature attempts to change the facts of science by legislative fiat, high-tech companies will reasonably fear excessive government overreach and invest elsewhere. This will harm your state’s economy. [j. biggs, Harold]

Reduces educated work force: High-tech companies that desperately need a well-educated work force may invest instead in pro-science states that do not teach children hoaxes, like that dinosaurs are living now in Africa. [Harold]

Religious conflict, lawsuits: Teaching sectarian dogma in public schools is an illegal activity that will bring religious groups into conflict with each other. Historically, this has often led to successful, expensive lawsuits that seriously drain small communities’ budget coffers. [Harold, j. biggs]

First Amendment, religious intent: Intent is religious, a dishonest attempt to smuggle creationism & religion into the public schools, violation of First Amendment [j. biggs, Dave Luckett]

Damages education: Objective of the bills is to damage the teaching of local public high school science by introducing evolution denial [Harold]

Harms faculty recruitment: State university system may find it difficult to recruit top science faculty [Harold]

Weaknesses don't exist: There are no such “weaknesses” of evolution [Dave Luckett]

No progress of ID: Intelligent Design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science [Karen S]

AltairIV · 6 February 2013

These bills should more accurately be called what they really are: academic anarchy bills.

I don't know who first coined it, but to my mind it's a perfect term for what would result from giving teachers the "freedom" to, at their own discretion, ignore or contradict anything in the prescribed academic standards that they happen to personally disagree with.

Just Bob · 6 February 2013

diogeneslamp0 said:
No progress of ID: Intelligent Design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science [Karen S]

Related to Karen's suggestion: ID proponents are never able to articulate any possible USE for ID-inspired "science"? How would ID enhance the researches of scientists? What problems could be better addressed by ID than by 'naturalistic' science? What new cures would be discovered or technology developed that are impossible under the 'naturalistic' paradigm? There is no obvious or even plausible way in which ID would actually make science more productive for society; and there are obvious ways that it can stifle science (the designer made it that way and we can't know why). Since ID does not even propose to be a USEFUL or PRODUCTIVE adjunct to the scientific endeavor, the only remaining reason for its proponents wanting to include it in public school curricula must be to promote belief in their own religious stories, in disregard of other parents' beliefs or disbelief, and in contravention of the Constitutional protection that prevents government from favoring any religion over others.

Karen S. · 6 February 2013

Good work everyone. You might also explain the real reason for academic freedom, and why its proper place is in the university. A high school kid should be learning the scientific basics: the consensus view of the vast majority of mainstream scientists. That's the only way a kid is going to be be prepared for science classes at the university. Learning about Bill Dembski's beliefs (subject always to Baptist Seminary crackdowns) just doesn't cut it.

Rolf · 7 February 2013

Just Bob said:
diogeneslamp0 said:
No progress of ID: Intelligent Design has made no scientific progress, a hallmark of pseudo science [Karen S]

Related to Karen's suggestion: ID proponents are never able to articulate any possible USE for ID-inspired "science"? How would ID enhance the researches of scientists? What problems could be better addressed by ID than by 'naturalistic' science? What new cures would be discovered or technology developed that are impossible under the 'naturalistic' paradigm? There is no obvious or even plausible way in which ID would actually make science more productive for society; and there are obvious ways that it can stifle science (the designer made it that way and we can't know why). Since ID does not even propose to be a USEFUL or PRODUCTIVE adjunct to the scientific endeavor, the only remaining reason for its proponents wanting to include it in public school curricula must be to promote belief in their own religious stories, in disregard of other parents' beliefs or disbelief, and in contravention of the Constitutional protection that prevents government from favoring any religion over others.

Wait a minute, they want credit for opposing the term 'junk DNA' and what do you know, it wasn't all junk. Where would science be without ID to keep it on the narrow path? ;)

apokryltaros · 7 February 2013

Rolf said: Wait a minute, they want credit for opposing the term 'junk DNA' and what do you know, it wasn't all junk. Where would science be without ID to keep it on the narrow path? ;)

Ending world hunger, discovering the answers to billion-year-old mysteries, building hoverboards, and building Moon-Utopias III through XII.

Karen S. · 7 February 2013

Another thing to add to the list: ID is not testable. How, for instance, would a scientist control for the action of intelligent designers in a laboratory experiment? Are designers causing evolution in Lenski's e. coli experiments, or even hampering it? ID advocates make this problem especially difficult by refusing to answer any questions about the designer. You can't nail jello to the wall.

Henry J · 7 February 2013

You can’t nail jello to the wall.

Maybe duct tape instead of nail?

Karen S. · 7 February 2013

Maybe duct tape instead of nail?

Now that's intelligent design!

Just Bob · 7 February 2013

Karen S. said: You can't nail jello to the wall.

I can. It's called "finger jello". All one needs to do is vary the H2O component using methodological naturalism and the problem is solved. Prayer, on the other hand, doesn't work so well.

gaythia · 8 February 2013

One of the proposed Missouri bills is worthy of note due to its lengthy list of amazingly unscientific definitions. This goes well beyond simple "intelligent design" .

This Missouri bill probably won't make it far, and hopefully Missouri State Rep. Rick Brattin, who proposed this, will have a very short political career.

His definitions include:

"Hypothesis", a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. One person may develop and propose a hypothesis;"

And:

" "Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;"

And one some of us may be surprised to find in a list of terms supposedly dealing with science, destiny:

" "Destiny", the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race and which may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs;"

The bill gives a lengthy list of such terms, See:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0291I.htm

Also described here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/intelligent-design-missouri-evolution

EvoDevo · 16 February 2013

Hopefully the other bills end up "losing" too.
Just

EvoDevo · 16 February 2013

Like Dover. My computer messed up.