House Bill 597 enshrines ignorance

Posted 5 September 2014 by Richard B. Hoppe

The more I think about this the madder I get. In a Facebook comment on my previous post, Anne Jefferson made a trenchant point:

We're not going to teach about process, but we're going to expect students to critically evaluate? Right.

She's exactly right. Here's the relevant language from the Bill:

(iii) The standards in science shall ... focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and encourage students to analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards.

So students are blocked from learning about the processes of science, about how science evaluates and tests knowledge claims, about the interplay among theory, hypothesis, and data. Then, against this background of ignorance, they are to critique scientific knowledge claims. They are to evaluate scientific theories without having learned how to evaluate them! I no longer believe that the authors of this Bill are merely ignorant. I now believe that they are consciously and deliberately subverting science education. They would produce students who are shackled to pre-existing ignorance, who don't have the tools necessary to evaluate scientific knowledge claims, who are sheep ready for shearing by demagogues and charlatans. The authors of the Bill are profoundly anti-science. They prefer uninformed opinion and myths to real knowledge of how the world actually works.

61 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 September 2014

They can always ask, "Does it look designed?" Thus implying that it does, and playing off of the human bias toward inferring intention.

Don't ask, "Does it appear evolved?" Clearly life does, looking more and more evolved (derived, notably) the closer we look, and increasingly appearing "less designed."

No more critical evaluation is necessary, clearly. But if you insist, respond that functional complexity is the mark of design, ignore the evidence that life's functional complexity is evolutionarily derived (or pretend that slavish derivation makes no difference to "design"), and ask if life is functional and complex.

Why pretend that analysis is hard, something beyond the skill level of sixth-graders?

Glen Davidson

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 September 2014

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin, by the way, likes the original form of HB 597. I wonder how he feels about this version. According to Casey, "...the bill barely deals with teaching science at all,..." (italics original). Right. Just barely enough to eviscerate science education.

TomS · 5 September 2014

I note that this includes "academic" as well as scientific.

I know that this is just repeating what you have said, but:

"analyze, critique, and review" is the process. If we assume that that includes experiment and observation.

Maybe the bill should be expanded to say "observe, analyze, critique, and review"?

Just to make it plain to the ~~dullest legistator~~ ... oh, forget it.

callahanpb · 5 September 2014

Do any of the bill's authors want to go on record about what they think are weaknesses of specific scientific theories?

And if "strengths and weaknesses" is a good approach, why not extend it to the whole curriculum? What's special about science?

Jack Krebs · 5 September 2014

Excellent rant, Dick. Exactly right on.

Tom English · 5 September 2014

RBH, you're right, of course. But your point is too subtle for a great many people. The shocker is that the bill makes laboratory exercises illegal. You can fill in the rhetorical blanks.

TomS · 5 September 2014

callahanpb said: Do any of the bill's authors want to go on record about what they think are weaknesses of specific scientific theories? And if "strengths and weaknesses" is a good approach, why not extend it to the whole curriculum? What's special about science?

I'm sure that they would love to extend that to history. And there would be no objection to literature. Where they'd draw the line, it would be in sports. How about pointing out that in some sports (track, golf) the lowest score is the winner, unlike others (football, basketball), and let's analyze, critique, and review the designated hitter, or why it takes 4 (rather than 3) balls for a walk.

harold · 5 September 2014

Remember, laws like this are the true sole objective of creationists. Theyâve got their own churches, theyâve got their own private schools, theyâve got their own web sites, theyâve got their own think tanks, theyâve got their own millions in donations from bigots, wealthy and poor alike. None of that satisfies them. Somebody somewhere is still learning science properly, and they wonât be satisfied until they shut that down.

This is what they want. They want to shut down science.

Why "just science"? Not just science. But especially science. Because their dead end ideology is based on denial of reality, and science demonstrates reality.

Mike Elzinga · 5 September 2014

The well-prepared science teachers should stick to teaching process and defy the ID/creationists to sue.

Instead of ID/creationists making everybody else pay for lawsuits filed against them, school districts need to force the ID/creationists spend their own damned money by taking the initiative to sue the district.

Since Dover has set a strong precedent, ID/creationists have a high probability of losing AND picking up the costs. How many ID/creationists would dare sue a district for teaching real science?

ksplawn · 5 September 2014

Mike Elzinga said: The well-prepared science teachers should stick to teaching process and defy the ID/creationists to sue. Instead of ID/creationists making everybody else pay for lawsuits filed against them, school districts need to force the ID/creationists spend their own damned money by taking the initiative to sue the district. Since Dover has set a strong precedent, ID/creationists have a high probability of losing AND picking up the costs. How many ID/creationists would dare sue a district for teaching real science?

1) Which Creationists picked up the tab at Dover? 2) If Creationists could learn from history, they would cease to be Creationists.

Mike Elzinga · 5 September 2014

ksplawn said:
Mike Elzinga said: The well-prepared science teachers should stick to teaching process and defy the ID/creationists to sue. Instead of ID/creationists making everybody else pay for lawsuits filed against them, school districts need to force the ID/creationists spend their own damned money by taking the initiative to sue the district. Since Dover has set a strong precedent, ID/creationists have a high probability of losing AND picking up the costs. How many ID/creationists would dare sue a district for teaching real science?
1) Which Creationists picked up the tab at Dover? 2) If Creationists could learn from history, they would cease to be Creationists.

The school district (taxpayers) picked up the tap on Kitzmiller vs Dover. No creationist got stung financially for what they did; even though they lost the case. I don't recall any incident involving lawsuits against ID/creationists where taxpayers didn't ultimately get stung picking up the tab. ID/creationists are first and foremost political operators; they will stick anybody else with the bill. They weasel their way into positions of power, start messing with the educational curriculum, and then, as official members of a tax supported entity, they get sued. They don't personally get hurt financially; but others always do. That needs to stop.

Robert Byers · 6 September 2014

I get madd about a lot of things too.
I don't know the motives here.I suspect they sincerely want freedom to teach the truth without resistance.
I suspect they are not creationist friendly but need to figure out how to have academic freedom while obeying the censorship laws.
Its all about controlling what is taught as truth or as a option for truth in public schools.
Freedom must once again fight for its exclusive right as a tool of truth.

harold · 6 September 2014

Robert Byers said: I get madd about a lot of things too. I don't know the motives here.I suspect they sincerely want freedom to teach the truth without resistance. I suspect they are not creationist friendly but need to figure out how to have academic freedom while obeying the censorship laws. Its all about controlling what is taught as truth or as a option for truth in public schools. Freedom must once again fight for its exclusive right as a tool of truth.

If there was any "censorship" of creationism you wouldn't be able to make these comments. Panda's Thumb would be shut down for allowing your comments. Not having your particular brand of religion taught in public schools, at taxpayer expense, as "science", is not the equivalent of "censorship".

Frank J · 6 September 2014

I no longer believe that the authors of this Bill are merely ignorant. I now believe that they are consciously and deliberately subverting science education.
— Richard B. Hoppe

Thank you! Some day, though probably not in my lifetime, we'll stop hearing that "creationists" "believe this" or "don't understand that." For all we know, most of these scam artists privately accept every word of evolution, and understand it better than most nonscientists. 17 years ago Ronald Bailey made an excellent case for why they would fake the misunderstanding and/or denial. As I'm often reminded though, just as we can't assume what they believe or misunderstand, we can't assume that all of them are faking it for what they think is a noble cause, i.e. a sincere belief that the "masses" will not behave properly if they accept evolution. Some may just be selling snake oil because it sells. What I like Bailey's explanation is that it allows us to treat anti-evolution activists as "innocent until proven guilty" without contributing to the counterproductive public perception of creationism as "what's the harm? let them believe."

Not having your particular brand of religion taught in public schools, at taxpayer expense, as âscienceâ, is not the equivalent of âcensorshipâ.
— harold

You left out the best part: "But what the scam artists are promoting is."

TomS · 6 September 2014

harold said: If there was any "censorship" of creationism you wouldn't be able to make these comments. Panda's Thumb would be shut down for allowing your comments. Not having your particular brand of religion taught in public schools, at taxpayer expense, as "science", is not the equivalent of "censorship".

Let's also make it clear that Intelligent Design in particular, and other forms of creationism to a lesser degree, is based on not giving any answer. To that extent, for the state to dictate what must not be taught - evolutionary biology - it is closer to censorship. It remind the readers that ever since Darwin, the principal reaction to evolutionary biology has not been to offer an alternative scenario: an account of what happens, when and where, why and how that the world of life turns out as it has. There is no theory of creationism/design, no theory without common descent with modification involved. The opponents have not been able to make any progress - indeed, they sometimes admit that they have no interest in - formulating an alternative. But when they resort to the power of the state to gain what they cannot gain by other means: to suppress the teaching of a science - is that censorship?

Frank J · 6 September 2014

To that extent, for the state to dictate what must not be taught - evolutionary biology - it is closer to censorship.
— TomS

It is not "closer to," it is censorship. Ignore for the moment what is legal for public schools or appropriate for any science class, public or private. What these scam artists and their trained parrots make 100% clear every time is that they are hell-bent on censoring the refutations of their misrepresentations of evolution. Have you ever seen any one of them advocating Mark Isaak's "The Counter Creationism Handbook" as the supplemental text? Why not? It lists every conceivable anti-evolution argument that they would ever want students to learn. They avoid it because also lists the refutations of those arguments, and also calls attention to the embarrassing and hopeless contradictions among the various creationist positions, and how the ID scam tries to cover them up. Bottom line: When they have the outrageous chutzpah to accuse us of "censorship," showing that we are doing nothing of the sort is necessary but not sufficient. Every missed opportunity to unequivocally show who the real censors are gives them another free pass.

Mike Elzinga · 6 September 2014

Frank J said: Bottom line: When they have the outrageous chutzpah to accuse us of "censorship," showing that we are doing nothing of the sort is necessary but not sufficient. Every missed opportunity to unequivocally show who the real censors are gives them another free pass.

One should also recognize that all these ID/creationist tactics are designed to force debates with them; it is their only way to leverage "respectability" and "legitimacy" off the backs of scientists and trained educators. These shenanigans remind me of the quad preachers who deliberately taunt passersby and then zero in on anyone who makes any kind of an overt response. I don't think ID/creationists should ever be allowed to know where the takedowns of their ID/creationist crap are coming from. If it ever turns out that ID/creationists somehow manage to corrupt enough easily corruptible politicians to get laws passed that force, or even allow, the teaching of ID/creationism, I can think of many ways to train teachers to teach real science in a way that makes ID/creationism look as wrong and stupid as it really is while never mentioning ID/creationism. And there would be no way for an ID/creationist to respond.

Frank J · 6 September 2014

One should also recognize that all these ID/creationist tactics are designed to force debates with them; it is their only way to leverage ârespectabilityâ and âlegitimacyâ off the backs of scientists and trained educators.
— Mike Elzinga

And with that they not only get to promote censorship in classes where they get their nonsense taught (whether it adds misrepresentation or substitutes it for some of the material that has earned the right to be taught), but also by tricking critics to help them mislead even more people (e.g. parents of the students). When these debates occur - where it's perfectly legal to talk about Creators and designers - they do everything in their power to keep the debate on their terms, namely bogus "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," etc. So even when audiences have enough time or interest to follow the technical refutations, they will hear few if any details of the alternate "theory," how the proponent refuses to test it, and increasingly refuses to even describe it (in the case of IDers). One of the most annoying things that most critics do, intentionally or not, is to come across like their opponent's brand of creationism (especially if it's the heliocentric YEC that the media loves) is the only one that exists; fatal contradictions, and ID's coverup are rarely mentioned, even by critics who know better. Add to that that most audiences lack the time and interest to listen to and understand the refutations, and only hear the catchy but misleading sound bites from the anti-evolution activists, and the net effect is yet more censorship. One might object that they're technically not concealing the information, only making it harder for the audience to get it, but that is still tantamount to censorship. And it is certainly deliberate.

I can think of many ways to train teachers to teach real science in a way that makes ID/creationism look as wrong and stupid as it really is...
— Mike Elzinga

That might be already occurring in Louisiana. Surely many teachers there despise how the academic "freedom" scam protects the real censors. So they do what they can to expose the misrepresentations that teachers who favor the scam might try to get away with. There's no need to mention Creators or designer to do that. When describing how science works they can mention how pseudoscience doesn't work, because it cherry picks evidence to promote unreasonable doubt, defines terms to suit the argument, and quote-mines to pretend that some real scientists support it. And how pseudoscientists never test and develop their own theories, but try to sell their propaganda directly to the public. Astute students will know that those teachers are talking about ID/creationism, even though what they say applies to all sorts of pseudosciences.

Robert Byers · 6 September 2014

harold said:
Robert Byers said: I get madd about a lot of things too. I don't know the motives here.I suspect they sincerely want freedom to teach the truth without resistance. I suspect they are not creationist friendly but need to figure out how to have academic freedom while obeying the censorship laws. Its all about controlling what is taught as truth or as a option for truth in public schools. Freedom must once again fight for its exclusive right as a tool of truth.
If there was any "censorship" of creationism you wouldn't be able to make these comments. Panda's Thumb would be shut down for allowing your comments. Not having your particular brand of religion taught in public schools, at taxpayer expense, as "science", is not the equivalent of "censorship".

The censorship only refers to the state censorship. not the street. Its the schools, that reach the millions, that the state wants to control on the credibility or conclusions on origin matters. Its not a brand of religion but conclusions. Banning it IS the state saying its false because the purpose is to teach the truth about origins. Its not a religion. Its about the true facts of origins. Either both sides or none is what the state must do. In fact the state has no place dictating conclusions in natures story. its a post WW11 evolutionist/liberal etc agenda to teach against christian doctrines without rebuttal. I believe thats the motive. The people should decide what, if anything, is censored in school courses. not the courts. Evolution is afraid of creationism in competition before teenagers. they are right I think.

stevaroni · 7 September 2014

Robert Byers said: The censorship only refers to the state censorship. not the street. Its the schools, that reach the millions, that the state wants to control on the credibility or conclusions on origin matters.

Yes. The state does censor what gets taught in the schools as to "origins". The standard is that you may teach any demonstrable fact supported by objective evidence. that is an incredibly straightforward standard, Robert. It's the simple standard that "conventional" science has been held to for three centuries. It's so simple, Robert. It's been 2000 years, why, oh why, can't you just put some evidence - any evidence - on the table? I'll wait. (cue sound of crickets chirping)

harold · 7 September 2014

The original question was whether or not a decision by Springer not to publish the proceeds of a certain conference was "censorship".

The term "censorship" is usually taken to imply unjust government suppression of speech that should be allowed under the US Bill of Rights or similar legal structures in other countries.

To use the term "censorship" every time a private individual or entity chooses to express this thing or that thing trivializes the term.

Such use also creates the impression that the person so using the term feels at some level that others are obliged to provide them a forum. Because of the implication I noted above.

I think it is also unreasonable to refer to the non-inclusion of items in public school curricula as "censorship" in any reasonable sense of the term.

The school day is limited, and we include only science, and carefully prioritized and selected science at that, in science class. There is literally an infinite amount of stuff that is NOT included in high school curricula. I recall a junior high school biology textbook from the seventies with a massive section on classification insects. That material likely can't be used as much any more. Science has progressed and there is more basic molecular and cellular biology to cover. Students can form an entomology club though. Entomology isn't being censored. It isn't reasonable to claim that non-inclusion of something in the public school curricula is "censorship".

If the government tries to shut down the AIG website, THAT would reasonably be construed as censorship.

So no, I don't even agree that the state can be reasonably said to "censor" what can be taught about "origins". The state can't teach religious dogma, but that's the opposite of censorship. That protects Robert Byers from having religions other than his given official favoritism. It protects his freedom of religion to have only science taught in science class. I realize that he doesn't appreciate this and never will, but that's how it works.

Henry J · 7 September 2014

"Origins"?

Sure, the theory of evolution is used to analyze past history of species. But it's also used to provide understand of why nested hierarchies are such a prevalent pattern among species (esp. among eukaryotes) (rather than "designs" being shared among species with similar needs), why there is a strong tendency for close relatives to be nested geographically and temporally (rather than by type of environment), why there is correlation between time since separation and amount of genetic difference, why species with short generation times seem able to adapt to changes in their environment, why it's easy to find examples of ad-hoc "solutions" to problems a species had in the past, etc.

Most of that is not even about origins, as such. Even the part that is sort of about that is really about past history, and not origins, per se.

(Though of course anything I say here is simple review of basics for most of the people here, many of whom know way more than I do (there seem to be way too many such people), but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents anyway.)

Henry

Robert Byers · 7 September 2014

stevaroni said:
Robert Byers said: The censorship only refers to the state censorship. not the street. Its the schools, that reach the millions, that the state wants to control on the credibility or conclusions on origin matters.
Yes. The state does censor what gets taught in the schools as to "origins". The standard is that you may teach any demonstrable fact supported by objective evidence. that is an incredibly straightforward standard, Robert. It's the simple standard that "conventional" science has been held to for three centuries. It's so simple, Robert. It's been 2000 years, why, oh why, can't you just put some evidence - any evidence - on the table? I'll wait. (cue sound of crickets chirping)

Its not about standards. Its about the public or the gov't can't decide standards. its all about the courts saying its illegal period to teach religious conclusions on origins. Therefore if the truth is the priority in teaching these subjects and the popular historic viewpoint is banned then its a official state opinion that the religious conclusion is wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship. Equation here.

Robert Byers · 7 September 2014

harold said: The original question was whether or not a decision by Springer not to publish the proceeds of a certain conference was "censorship". The term "censorship" is usually taken to imply unjust government suppression of speech that should be allowed under the US Bill of Rights or similar legal structures in other countries. To use the term "censorship" every time a private individual or entity chooses to express this thing or that thing trivializes the term. Such use also creates the impression that the person so using the term feels at some level that others are obliged to provide them a forum. Because of the implication I noted above. I think it is also unreasonable to refer to the non-inclusion of items in public school curricula as "censorship" in any reasonable sense of the term. The school day is limited, and we include only science, and carefully prioritized and selected science at that, in science class. There is literally an infinite amount of stuff that is NOT included in high school curricula. I recall a junior high school biology textbook from the seventies with a massive section on classification insects. That material likely can't be used as much any more. Science has progressed and there is more basic molecular and cellular biology to cover. Students can form an entomology club though. Entomology isn't being censored. It isn't reasonable to claim that non-inclusion of something in the public school curricula is "censorship". If the government tries to shut down the AIG website, THAT would reasonably be construed as censorship. So no, I don't even agree that the state can be reasonably said to "censor" what can be taught about "origins". The state can't teach religious dogma, but that's the opposite of censorship. That protects Robert Byers from having religions other than his given official favoritism. It protects his freedom of religion to have only science taught in science class. I realize that he doesn't appreciate this and never will, but that's how it works.

The courts dictate to the state they must censor creationism. its not a choice. its not about standards of content or too much content. its a clear state censorship, dictated by the court, that they can/must censor particular popular, historic, conclusions about origins. On the grounds these conclusions advocate religion. So the creationist , logically, argues the prohibition , in a subject/class, whose purpose is the truth is therefore teaching that what is censored is not true. So breaking the state/church separation concept. The state is aggressively teaching God/genesis is false and not even a option. The law has said the bible is wrong. This is illegal. Can't beat the equation here. The state can't be neutral on religious conclusions when its censoring those conclusions in classes dealing with the conclusions that religion touches on. The state is insisting those conclusions are wrong by the banning. One would not ban options in a serious class dealing with the truth of something. Anyways its all silly. The constitution never had in mind or dealt wioth school subjects. Its a post ww11 invention to ban creationism. More public attention and court cases should overturn the present state censorship. Freedom will come again. I think.

eric · 8 September 2014

Robert Byers said: The censorship only refers to the state censorship. not the street. Its the schools, that reach the millions, that the state wants to control on the credibility or conclusions on origin matters.

AFAIK, all states allow biblical study electives, and all states would probably allow a decently constructed 'Intelligent Design Thought Through History' elective. So you are not being censored from teaching the content. What the state is doing is preventing ID from being taught as science because it's not science. They are preventing false advertising. The truth of the matter is that you YECs refuse to go the elective route because the opportunity to present your material is not what you really want. What you really want is (1) to co-opt scienc's reputation, and (2) to force students who would not elect to learn about creationism into learning it.

Banning it IS the state saying its false because the purpose is to teach the truth about origins.

Except its not banned. You folks can propose an elective class in it any time you want. So why don't you do that instead?

Evolution is afraid of creationism in competition before teenagers. they are right I think.

YECs are afraid to create and teach creationism electives because they are afraid that no non-YEC students will take them...and evangelism is the point here, not mere presentation. Any claim that you just want to be heard is a lie. The system gives you the opportunity to be heard, and you refuse to take it.

KlausH · 8 September 2014

eric said:
Robert Byers said: The censorship only refers to the state censorship. not the street. Its the schools, that reach the millions, that the state wants to control on the credibility or conclusions on origin matters.
AFAIK, all states allow biblical study electives, and all states would probably allow a decently constructed 'Intelligent Design Thought Through History' elective. So you are not being censored from teaching the content. What the state is doing is preventing ID from being taught as science because it's not science. They are preventing false advertising. The truth of the matter is that you YECs refuse to go the elective route because the opportunity to present your material is not what you really want. What you really want is (1) to co-opt scienc's reputation, and (2) to force students who would not elect to learn about creationism into learning it.
Banning it IS the state saying its false because the purpose is to teach the truth about origins.
Except its not banned. You folks can propose an elective class in it any time you want. So why don't you do that instead?
Evolution is afraid of creationism in competition before teenagers. they are right I think.
YECs are afraid to create and teach creationism electives because they are afraid that no non-YEC students will take them...and evangelism is the point here, not mere presentation. Any claim that you just want to be heard is a lie. The system gives you the opportunity to be heard, and you refuse to take it.

What evangelists really fear is CONTEXT. Legal courses would cover the actual history of their religion and compare their beliefs to others. Evangelicals can not stand any grey area, for them, their current beliefs are THE WORD OF GOD ALMIGHTY, and all other beliefs, including clearly demonstrated facts, are heresy.

Frank J · 8 September 2014

Except its not banned. You folks can propose an elective class in it any time you want. So why donât you do that instead?
— eric

If they really wanted to stop what they perceive as "censorship," then they would be concentrating their efforts to getting rid of public education altogether. When they're not whining about "Darwinism," they certainly have many other complaints (as I do too, for what it's worth) about the public school system. In fact, most career activists send their own children to private schools or home school them anyway. So why are they such bleeding hearts for others' childern? The reason is simple: they don't want to stop censorship, but to start it. On the taxpayer's dime, no less. Another quibble: What you attribute to "YECs" is even more applicable to ID activists.

ksplawn · 8 September 2014

Frank J said:
Except its not banned. You folks can propose an elective class in it any time you want. So why donât you do that instead?
— eric
If they really wanted to stop what they perceive as "censorship," then they would be concentrating their efforts to getting rid of public education altogether.

Hence the movement towards charter schools and vouchers, leaving the public schools underfunded and crumbling. Starve the Beast.

Richard B. Hoppe · 8 September 2014

Well, well. I'm informed that the wording of the fourth clause in the revised HB 597 is very similar to that in the 2012 Tennessee Monkey Bill of 2012. Compare the Tennessee wording with the Ohio wording: Tennessee:

...teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

Ohio:

encourage students to analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards.

My my. What a coincidence.

Frank J · 8 September 2014

ksplawn said:
Frank J said:
Except its not banned. You folks can propose an elective class in it any time you want. So why donât you do that instead?
— eric
If they really wanted to stop what they perceive as "censorship," then they would be concentrating their efforts to getting rid of public education altogether.
Hence the movement towards charter schools and vouchers, leaving the public schools underfunded and crumbling. Starve the Beast.

Then why don't they only pursue vouchers and charter schools? If "Darwinism" is as bad as they claim, wouldn't letting public schools teach only that make the beast "starve" faster in their paranoid little minds? I for one think that many, possibly most, anti-evolution activists know it. But they also know that (1) evolution is not dead, dying, falsified or unfalsifiable, and (2) that public schools are not going anywhere any time soon. And (3), unless they get a radical authoritarian science-hater judge like Scalia, they'll always lose in court. So for them, merely maintaining the % of evolution denial - much greater than the % that is committed fundamentalist, and relatively unchanged over 30+ years despite a dramatic increase in evidence for evolution - is a victory. As is spreading catchy but misleading sound bites like "I hear the jury's still out about evolution."

TomS · 8 September 2014

Frank J said: science-hater judge like Scalia

Is Scalia a science hater? Or does he just treat science like any other tool - when it stands in his way, it is an adversary; when it is helpful, he uses it; otherwise, he ignores it. I think that his dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard was based on his determination to do away with the "Lemon" test, not that he cares anything about creationism. But IANAL.

Frank J · 8 September 2014

@TomS:

"Science hater" may be a bit harsh, but Scalia has had 27 years to explain his decision. Even GWB, who innocently said that he thought it was OK to "teach the controversy," in a quote that ironically came just a month or 2 before Dover, said in interview a few years later that he didn't deny evolution. As you might recall, I too briefly fell for "teach the controversy" in the 90s. And I was a mid-career chemist who had accepted evolution for 30 years prior.

OTOH, as you know, I blame our side just as much for not demanding that these people clearly state their opinions on "what happened, when where and how" in life's history. Once a reporter asked Rick Perry a simple question on the age of the earth, and he claimed to not know. Unfortunately the reporter missed the opportunity to follow up with: "99+% of scientists - including a majority of the ~1% of sell-outs who signed that bogus "dissent" statement - all say 4.5 to 4.6 billion years. Do you think they are correct, mistaken or lying?" Perry had appointed McLeroy long before the question was asked, and thus was aware of the YEC-OEC debates and the big tent strategy. So the "answer" was pure evasion, just as I get when I ask the trolls who try to hijack these threads.

stevaroni · 8 September 2014

Robert Byers said: The courts dictate to the state they must censor creationism. its not a choice.

Then don't worry about teaching creationism. Demand instead that your school district teach the objective facts that point to a 6000 year old Earth and a 4000 year old mega-flood. Oh, that's right... you can't do that because there are none.

callahanpb · 8 September 2014

Frank J said: "Science hater" may be a bit harsh,

I would call that a fairly mild epithet to apply to Scalia. There's nothing in his approach to jurisprudence to suggest that he has the slightest regard for any open-minded thinking, let alone the scientific method. I would be astonished if Scalia does not feel a lively, active hatred for scientists who come to conclusions that conflict with his worldview. That said, he's Catholic and not likely to be a creationist based on cultural affinity. This is by itself is no reason to hold back on "harsh" judgment. He'd be harsh with you.

Frank J · 9 September 2014

Demand instead that your school district teach the objective facts that point to a 6000 year old Earth and a 4000 year old mega-flood. Oh, thatâs rightâ¦ you canât do that because there are none.
— stevaroni

And no one shouts that louder than the anti-evolution activists themselves. So they don't just censor real science, they censor themselves - at least the ones of them who actually believe that nonsense (if any). But let's be even more charitable. Since YEC is a minority (albeit a large one) among the "creationist" beliefs of rank-and-file evolution-deniers, let's include the "evidence" of independent origins of "kinds" and/or "saltation" an/or front-loading during the 4-billion years of life that IDers hint as the alternate "theory." They never, ever demand that students learn the "strenths and weaknesses" of them! Even though it would be perfectly legal, and not require any mention of "creation" or "design."

That said, heâs Catholic and not likely to be a creationist based on cultural affinity.
— callahanpb

If what you are saying is that he probably does not personally believe any YEC or OEC nonsense, or even the saltation or front-loading suggested by IDers, but nevertheless would demand handouts for them to teach long-refuted lies about evolution, I agree 100%.

harold · 10 September 2014

Once a reporter asked Rick Perry a simple question on the age of the earth, and he claimed to not know. Unfortunately the reporter missed the opportunity to follow up with: â99+% of scientists - including a majority of the ~1% of sell-outs who signed that bogus âdissentâ statement - all say 4.5 to 4.6 billion years. Do you think they are correct, mistaken or lying?â Perry had appointed McLeroy long before the question was asked, and thus was aware of the YEC-OEC debates and the big tent strategy. So the âanswerâ was pure evasion, just as I get when I ask the trolls who try to hijack these threads.

This is an extremely important point. I hope some people are reading this. When talking about the age of the Earth, common descent, etc, "don't know" and "could be" language is 100% coded pandering. Language that implies exaggerated doubt about established science is pandering to denial. Not just with creationism. "Cigarettes 'could' or 'are said to' be associated with disease". "Climate change 'may' be occurring". "HIV 'could be' the cause of AIDS". Here, when the subject is Rick Perry, no-one is fooled. Just remember it's the same thing when anyone does it. Don't try to make excuses for dishonest panderers. Don't try to find examples of them saying that science "could be" correct about something in order to partially excuse them. You will find exampes, but that language is designed to reduce your vigilance while sending dog whistle code to science denying ideologues.

Even GWB, who innocently said that he thought it was OK to âteach the controversy,â in a quote that ironically came just a month or 2 before Dover, said in interview a few years later that he didnât deny evolution.

What was his exact language? Another form of "could be" pandering to denial is "I don't personally". To fully understand why this type of language is raw BS, read the following. "It could be that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than vice versa. I don't personally deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I don't know if microbes cause infectious disease. I don't know basic elements combine to create other chemical compounds. I don't know if the periodic table of elements is accurate. It could be that the Moon revolves around the Earth. I don't know if I am typing a comment for Panda's Thumb. It could be that the internet exists, I am typing a comment, and the comment will be posted on Panda's Thumb." Do NOT EVER be fooled by this type of language. To compare this type of language to the Trojan Horse insults the honesty of the original Trojan Horse plan.

harold · 10 September 2014

To a creationist, "You could be right", or even "I'm not sure you're wrong" represents surrender to their point of view.

And they are correct. It is a surrender, or a signal of alliance.

If it "could be" correct, if it's "just as possible" as established science, well then, Scalia is right, it should be taught as science in taxpayer funded schools.

They can't be right. Neither their absurd latter day overt YEC efforts to claim that a few arbitrarily chosen, harsh, obviously metaphorical Biblical passages are "literally true", nor their clumsily legalistic disguising of evolution denial as verbose repetition of the same few stock logical error tricks and attacks on straw man constructions that constitute literally all of ID (all billions of pages of it can be tersely summarized in a paragraph or two in my opinion) can possibly be correct.

"Could be", "personally", "some believe", etc, are weasel words of pandering.

Frank J · 10 September 2014

Do NOT EVER be fooled by this type of language.
— harold

I'm not fooled. But is anyone else not? I recall a YouTube video from 2008, after GWB had some time to think about Dover, and Judge Jones' scathing reaction to the antics of the anti-evolution activists. If anyone is interested, they can check his exact words. That said, I doubt he gave Jones or Dover more than 5 minutes' thought, but probably enough to know that the judge neither sold out nor was not bullied, as the scam artists insist. Like most politicians, GWB probably has no clue how scientists reach their conclusions. Most nonscientists, and unfortunately most of those who accept evolution (or the caricature of it they have in mind), think that scientists just "take a guess." So GWB probably just thinks that evolution is a "good guess," which means that 5 minutes with a skilled activist could easily him that evolution has "gaps," and more importantly, get him to parrot that. And if that happens, I for one won't be fooled into thinking that it means that he honestly believes that the universe is only 1000s of years old and that humans walked with dinosaurs. Only that he thinks that misleading students on the taxpayers' dime is a good thing. In fact he probably thinks that anyway, even if he's thoroughly convinced of evolution.

Frank J · 10 September 2014

Should be "...nor was bullied...."

Frank J · 10 September 2014

Donât try to make excuses for dishonest panderers. Donât try to find examples of them saying that science âcould beâ correct about something in order to partially excuse them.
— harold

I often say this, but maybe I need to preface everything I say with it: But my purpose in showing examples of anti-evolution activists personally accepting some or all of evolution, or thinking that most or all of creationism is nonsense, is not to "make excuses" for them in any way, but to show that they are probably less honest about their intentions than most people think. If any of the big name anti-evolution activists thought that there was the slightest evidence for any of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis - or even Behe's "designed ancestral cell" - they would never settle for students merely learning bogus "weaknesses" of evoluton. Rather they would demand that their "theory" be taught, and that students learn its "strengths and weakneses."

TomS · 10 September 2014

My guess is that any politician capable of rising even moderately high in the hierarchy, does not think ever about the evidence or reasoning behind a stance, but what will be of use to him, and he assumes that the same is true of others. They will look upon us who are concerned about evidence and reasoning as not worth the time to be concerned with, as we have demonstrated our perversity in not making deals. We obviously are motivated by what is of use to us, as is everybody, but we don't play fair.

harold · 10 September 2014

Frank J said:
Donât try to make excuses for dishonest panderers. Donât try to find examples of them saying that science âcould beâ correct about something in order to partially excuse them.
— harold
I often say this, but maybe I need to preface everything I say with it: But my purpose in showing examples of anti-evolution activists personally accepting some or all of evolution, or thinking that most or all of creationism is nonsense, is not to "make excuses" for them in any way, but to show that they are probably less honest about their intentions than most people think. If any of the big name anti-evolution activists thought that there was the slightest evidence for any of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis - or even Behe's "designed ancestral cell" - they would never settle for students merely learning bogus "weaknesses" of evoluton. Rather they would demand that their "theory" be taught, and that students learn its "strengths and weakneses."

I completely agree. I didn't mean to sound insulting to anyone when I referred to "making excuses" for ID/creationists. I went through a brief phase of trying to do that myself. Science supporting people tend to be honest. In the contemporary milieu, biomedical research can get very competitive and some of the more well funded scientists may be ruthless at times, but overall, science tends to appeal to minds that can accept the idea of using evidence and logic to persuade. Even the most cutthroat pre-med frat boy, or the most ruthless, self-promoting celebrity molecular biologist, is psychologically capable of working in a milieu in which evidence and well-reasoned arguments ultimately prevail. So those of us who support science tend to project some level of logical consistency, willingness to try to understand the argument of the other person, and self-awareness onto ID/creationists. Often, it just isn't there. Authoritarian ideologues don't care about evidence or logic.

Frank J · 10 September 2014

I didnât mean to sound insulting to anyone when I referred to âmaking excusesâ for ID/creationists. I went through a brief phase of trying to do that myself."
— harold

No insult taken for me, but I know that I'm not often clear to readers. Interestingly when I first heard of ID (mainly Behe's "Darwin's Black Box") I did think that their concessions to old earth and common descent made them less extreme. And Indeed the first version of NCSE's "Creation-Evolution Continuum" had ID right next to Theistic Evolution, with Flat-Earth-YEC at the far end. The updated version more clearly showed ID as the "umbrella," as it accommodates everything from Flat-Earth-YEC to "virtual evolution." As a strategy, ID has shown itself to be the most extreme.

Authoritarian ideologues donât care about evidence or logic.
— harold

Right, because they care only about what their followers must believe. So even if they personally think that mainstream science has the evidence and logic, they will never admit it. At first it's paradoxical: IDers seem more "liberal" in that they don't care if their followers accept ~4 billion years of common descent, while YEC activists demand that they accept the whole 6-day-~6000-years thing. But YEC (and Biblical OEC) are rigid and idealistic; their promoters know that they risk that the more observant potential followers see the fatal flaws and contradictions. By keeping it all about the "Darwinism" caricature, and misrepresenting it in every way possible, ID's "big tent" scam has fooled the largest audience.

TomS · 10 September 2014

Another thought about the NCSE's Creation-Evolution Continuum.

It has always seemed to be that including Flat Earth belief is introducing a straw man. Since the death of Charles K. Johnson, I don't think that there are any sincere Flat Earth advocates who are competent and willing to present that case. IOW, I think that it is, literally, a joke. I can't see how the frequent trans-continantal travel and communication, and daily use of satellites has moved it beyond a marginal belief. The Geocentrists, by way of contrast, count among their number intelligent people who can hold their own as well as any YEC.

Frank J · 11 September 2014

Since this thread is about Ohio, this golden oldie from 2002 is especially relevant. It was one of a few key things that led me to believe that anti-evolution activists are much less honest about their personal beliefs and intentions than most people â including most of their critics â think. Note how Rick Santorum, a self-described conservative, whines that science education in Ohio was too âilliberal!â Also note how he begins the article with the Voltaire quote about defending ones right to say something, even if itâs something he âhates.â

Just before and after that article, I had a few letter exchanges with my then-senator from PA. In one of those letters he bragged about speaking to 150 scientists about evolution. That, plus certain awareness of his own Popeâs famous acceptance of the âconvergence, neither sought nor fabricatedâ of evidence for evolution, indicates that Santorum undoubtedly knew that evolution â and the whole ~4 billion years of common descent with modification â had the overwhelming support of multiple lines of independent evidence, not just some âforced consensusâ by 99+% of scientists. Oh, Iâm sure that anyone can easily quote mine him to make it look like heâs a flaming YEC, but I am almost 100% certain that heâs not. Since heâs not a scientist, he may have been be fooled into the DIâs vague âdiscontinuitiesâ â which they refuse to test because they know that its pure nonsense. But itâs very possible that he even privately realizes that the DIâs âscienceâ is as bogus as that of the YECs and flat-earthers.

But as I said in previous comments, that is not a defense of Santorum by any means. Quite the contrary, itâs an even more damning accusation than most of his critics are willing to make. Whatever he might privately believe about science and scientists â anyone with a shred of honesty can see that those who whine about being âexpelledâ only âexpelâ themselves â he was, and probably still is â 100% aligned with the radical, paranoid authoritarians of the anti-evolution movement.

Frank J · 11 September 2014

It has always seemed to be that including Flat Earth belief is introducing a straw man.
— TomS

Johnson died in 2001, and the original "continuum" was published in 1999, so Flat-Earthism may have still had some "visibility." More importantly, though, what NCSE was trying to show was a range of potential beliefs. Only later, when they revised it, did they make it a little clearer that ID was not any one particular "belief" but rather a strategy to promote any belief as long as it rejects "Darwinism." I for one wish that they would go further, and show ID on the far end, where it belongs, and also combine the "theistic" and "naturalistic" evolution parts (including "evolutionary creationism" if it's still there), as they have no disagreement on the science or how to teach it. While there still would be a huge gap between science and pseudoscience, OEC, YEC, Geocentrism & Flat-Eathrism, though solidly on the pseudoscience side, would be slightly closer to science than ID, if only because they make their own testable "what happened when and where" hypotheses. As I like to say, they are wrong but ID is "not even wrong." Another miconception that many people have is that OEC is as obsolete as Flat-Earthism. Yet if you ask properly-worded questions (IOW anything but that idiotic Gallup one), most evolution-deniers-on-the-street are some kind of OEC. It's the OEC activists who have all but disappeared. Some surely gave up and quietly conceded evolution while remaining sympatetic to evolution-deniers, so they're no longer activists. But probably most became IDers because they found it's "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" strategy much more effective.

harold · 11 September 2014

IDers seem more âliberalâ in that they donât care if their followers accept ~4 billion years of common descent

To raise a subtle point here, again, casting excess doubt on established science is a form of denial. Language like "could be" or "I don't know" or "teach both sides", when speaking of obviously established science, is denial. Since Rick Perry used the exact same technique, as illustrated above, let's use him as a clear example. I suppose it's possible, in a technical sense, that he doesn't care whether or not his followers accept a 4-5 billion year old earth. However, I think he's prefer that they deny science wholeheartedly. His own "beliefs", if that word is even meaningful when discussing someone of his ilk, aren't relevant and can never be known. Someone who dissembles and hedges about the age of the earth is pandering to YEC. So I'm not so sure ID is as separate from more open YEC as you suggest. Pushing something in a more sneaky, deceptive way is still pushing it. The only point of ID is to put a clumsy legalistic strategy and faux intellectual sheen on pre-existing science denial. It didn't emerge spontaneously. Even Behe, who comes close to being the most original, surely knew who was going to be most enthusiastic about his books. His statements "accepting" mainstream science are always very hedged and dissembling when examined closely. The whole point of ID is to disguise something. (Hugh Ross exists but is "living fossil". OEC was a transitional form that otherwise went extinct; it was a form of "theistic evolution" that could exist before molecular genetics made evolution denial too absurd. Although he undoubtedly supports right authoritarianism, and tries to fit uncomfortably in the not so big tent, his existence should not be taken as evidence that other science deniers aren't pandering to YEC in code, because they mainly are.) (Also, no implication of any particular coherence or consistency in ID/creationist claims is intended here. It's ultimately "say and do anything to hurt science education". I don't think we disagree here in the slightest. I just want to emphasize the subtle point that "not caring" whether someone accepts common descent is a way of pandering to those who deny common descent. It's like saying I "don't care" whether or not you rob a bank. The sole reason for saying that would be to imply that I have a lot higher regard for bank robbery than the average person.

Frank J · 11 September 2014

Someone who dissembles and hedges about the age of the earth is pandering to YEC.
— harold

Of course, but why is YEC - and I guess you mean heliocentric YEC - always singled out? As I often mention, it's not even the majority opinion of rank-and-file evolution-deniers. Even if it were, there's absolutely nothing special about it other than it was the first form of creationism that was repackaged as pseudoscience. That plus it has a convenient "Goldilocks" quality about it (geocentrism is "too hot", OEC is "too cold") that makes the media keep it on "life support." You are certainly correct that anti-evolution activists want their audience to deny the entirety of the science process (and also believe the lie that scientists are conspiring to replace God with Hitler, but I digress), so the more that their audience denies in terms of the facts - age , shape position of the earth - the better at least in terms of consistency. I don't even think that Ken Ham demands acceptance of heliocentrism. He just knows better than to challenge it. As for OEC - and I guess you mean the OEC strategy - being a form of "theistic evolution," that's not how I heard it. AIUI it rejected not only the "RM + NS" of evolution (that ID rejects) but explicity rejects the common descent that ID is officially "unsure" of. Theistic evolution may be a belief but it doesn't challenge evolution or the nature of science, and even rejects the false dichotomy (either nature did it this way or a designer did it that way) that is ironically agreed on by evolution-deniers and some atheistic evolutonists.

TomS · 11 September 2014

There seem to be only one variety of denial of evolutionary biology that makes enough noise to get the attention of politicians and journalists and writers of letters to the editor, the dinosaurs-on-the-Ark-but-solar-system-is-OK YEC variety. For all of their efforts, the don't-ask-don't-tell ID variety don't seem to be able to get their point across to the general public. One can almost have sympathy with their insistence that "we aren't (YEC) creationists", for they can't get any traction with politicians except by those who want to pander to their YEC consistency. Outright denial of the reality of the extinct fauna has been forgotten, nobody even considers it an option that dinosaurs are a hoax. Flat-Earth belief is a slur. I sense that there is a dark horse to be watched for in Geocentrism. While outside of the loud-mouth class, some form of OEC, confused, not sure what they believe, may represent the majority, but everybody ignores them. I think that some kind of almost-everyting-except-human-evolution-but-god-directed "theistic evolution" may actually represent the "silent majority" but they are lacking a big name advocate to articulate a coherent alternative. (I'm not sure that everything-except-the-human-soul should even be counted as science-denial.)

harold · 11 September 2014

Of course, but why is YEC - and I guess you mean heliocentric YEC - always singled out? As I often mention, itâs not even the majority opinion of rank-and-file evolution-deniers.

While this may be a rather subtle point to bother with, given the strong general agreement between all three people involved in this conversation, I'll explain myself a bit more. Because the whole ID/creationism system does exist to pander to YEC beliefs. I'm not sure why you think it's not the majority opinion of evolution deniers. Polls indicate that it is. Up to 45% of public will deny evolution if you bias the question enough, and 25% or so of the public are YEC. Twenty-five is more than half of forty-five. And I correctly count everyone who refuses to admit the unequivocal measured age of the earth as either being YEC, or coyly pandering to YEC. If you don't, explain why nobody is ever saying that the earth "could be" older than 4.5 billion years. If the denial movement isn't dominated by YEC concerns, why are there no deniers insisting that science has undercounted the age of the earth? Why is there no "ID advocate" arguing for a trillion year old earth? They're always willing to say that a similar magnitude of difference from reality in the other direction is "possible". If they're not pandering to YEC, why is 10,000 years "possible", but, presumably, a trillion not possible? ID/creationists use language signals that YEC is "one possibility". And for obvious reasons. Whether they are a majority, I don't know (I strongly suspect they actually are the majority of evolution deniers), but they are certainly a critical and deep pocketed part of the coalition.

There seem to be only one variety of denial of evolutionary biology that makes enough noise to get the attention of politicians and journalists and writers of letters to the editor, the dinosaurs-on-the-Ark-but-solar-system-is-OK YEC variety. For all of their efforts, the donât-ask-donât-tell ID variety donât seem to be able to get their point across to the general public.

Why does ID exist? What is your explanation? Here's why - "Creation science" for public schools was hitting the courts hard in the 1980's. The big SCOTUS test case was Edwards v. Aguillard. And creation science was pure YEC and mainly focused on denying physics. That's why some of the regulars here come from the physics community. Almost as soon as they lost Edwards they began concocting legalist, dissembling ways to get evolution denial into public schools, and calling those ways "ID". But they only weasel and dissemble because they have to. They wanted Creation Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science ID is to some degree just an extreme sore loser reaction.

TomS · 11 September 2014

harold said: Why does ID exist? What is your explanation?

Of course, the law is a major factor. But the excesses of YEC have to be an embarrassment to anyone with the ability to deal with reality. As if it isn't enough to expect one to believe the bare-bones Ark narrative, in the attempt to make it possible, the YECs pile on impossibilities on impossibilities. The Vapor Canopy? Super-fast evolution in the "baramins" saved on the Ark? And, of course, the solutions to the speed-of-light problem? Yet the YECs represent a substantial consistency that cannot be ignored. The solution is not to talk about it. That happens to agree with the legal strategy. BTW, there once was a scientifically possible (indeed, the majority) option of an eternal universe. It was a philosophically respectable opinion ever since Aristotle. What with all of the ways around a few billion years, surely it would be a piece of cake to dream up a way that it could be, I don't know eternal life, Earth or the universe.

Robert Byers · 11 September 2014

harold said: To a creationist, "You could be right", or even "I'm not sure you're wrong" represents surrender to their point of view. And they are correct. It is a surrender, or a signal of alliance. If it "could be" correct, if it's "just as possible" as established science, well then, Scalia is right, it should be taught as science in taxpayer funded schools. They can't be right. Neither their absurd latter day overt YEC efforts to claim that a few arbitrarily chosen, harsh, obviously metaphorical Biblical passages are "literally true", nor their clumsily legalistic disguising of evolution denial as verbose repetition of the same few stock logical error tricks and attacks on straw man constructions that constitute literally all of ID (all billions of pages of it can be tersely summarized in a paragraph or two in my opinion) can possibly be correct. "Could be", "personally", "some believe", etc, are weasel words of pandering.

It all comes down to who decides what is true and so taught in schools. Right now they try to use the constitution but this will fail under any investigation once creationism starts hitting at the law. Yet it still means who decides what is taught. I say it must be the people and not elites. The truth is the priority and enough people say evolution is not true and enough scholarly YEC and ID scientis and researchers say its not true. Time for fair play and freedom of enquiry. the schools must represent the nation on these matters.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 12 September 2014

Robert Byers said:
harold said: To a creationist, "You could be right", or even "I'm not sure you're wrong" represents surrender to their point of view. And they are correct. It is a surrender, or a signal of alliance. If it "could be" correct, if it's "just as possible" as established science, well then, Scalia is right, it should be taught as science in taxpayer funded schools. They can't be right. Neither their absurd latter day overt YEC efforts to claim that a few arbitrarily chosen, harsh, obviously metaphorical Biblical passages are "literally true", nor their clumsily legalistic disguising of evolution denial as verbose repetition of the same few stock logical error tricks and attacks on straw man constructions that constitute literally all of ID (all billions of pages of it can be tersely summarized in a paragraph or two in my opinion) can possibly be correct. "Could be", "personally", "some believe", etc, are weasel words of pandering.
It all comes down to who decides what is true and so taught in schools.

Like the people who actually use evolutionary theory to do science. I can't think of anyone better positioned to decide it, certainly not idiotic ignoramuses such as yourself.

Right now they try to use the constitution but this will fail under any investigation once creationism starts hitting at the law.

Stupidity will win?

Yet it still means who decides what is taught.

Gee, who decides what medicine to give to a delirious child? A moron like Robert, or someone who actually knows something? So far, the courts know better than to ask incompetent trolls like Byers what to do when someone is sick.

I say it must be the people and not elites.

You mean, not the experts, but the dullards like yourself who haven't a clue, and only repeat pathetic garbage.

The truth is the priority and enough people say evolution is not true and enough scholarly YEC and ID scientis and researchers say its not true.

Even paid liars disagree with evolution. That's as impressive as that a dumb and extremely ignorant dolt like Robert disagrees with it.

Time for fair play and freedom of enquiry.

Dishonest sermons, like IDiot propaganda, do not lend themselves to freedom of inquiry. Rather, they are appalling impositions upon children who should be learning something worthwhile.

the schools must represent the nation on these matters.

The moment you buffoons start leaving your health to the latest polls, I'll believe that you're honest morons, rather than the dishonest cretins that you apparently are. Education isn't properly done by gibbering fools like Robert. Glen Davidson

harold · 12 September 2014

TomS said:
harold said: Why does ID exist? What is your explanation?
Of course, the law is a major factor. But the excesses of YEC have to be an embarrassment to anyone with the ability to deal with reality. As if it isn't enough to expect one to believe the bare-bones Ark narrative, in the attempt to make it possible, the YECs pile on impossibilities on impossibilities. The Vapor Canopy? Super-fast evolution in the "baramins" saved on the Ark? And, of course, the solutions to the speed-of-light problem? Yet the YECs represent a substantial consistency that cannot be ignored. The solution is not to talk about it. That happens to agree with the legal strategy. BTW, there once was a scientifically possible (indeed, the majority) option of an eternal universe. It was a philosophically respectable opinion ever since Aristotle. What with all of the ways around a few billion years, surely it would be a piece of cake to dream up a way that it could be, I don't know eternal life, Earth or the universe.

TomS - I think maybe I'm breaking though. Consider these points. 1) The excesses of YEC were just as embarrassing the day before the Edwards decision, but there was no "ID" until the Edwards decision. Then it appeared. It did not appear spontaneously. Your point about the former respectability of eternal universe thinking makes my point. Why, then, for the ID advocate, is it always only that it "could be" less than 10,000 years old? Why are there NOT "universe 'could be' older" advocates? 2) The body of DI fellows includes plenty who are YEC. No ID advocate seems to object to YEC advocates being considered to practice ID at the highest level. Why not, if their bothered by the "excesses of YEC"? 3) Any evolution denial is just as embarrassing as YEC, no matter what the background details. Once you deny evolution you're already off the rails. There is no honest person who accepts all of science except that "ID causes them to have doubts about evolution". Everyone I have ever met who pretended to be such a thing was a right wing authoritarian trying to pander to YEC when the surface was scratched. And point "3", I think, is the key one. We absolutely should not think of ID as in some way less absurd or more honest, or even more genteel, than YEC. If anything it's worse, because it's YEC with all the testable positive claims disguised. "ID advocates" are no more civil or honest than overt YEC types. Actually often less so. Not to give Ken Ham credit, but the more "genteel" and "intellectual" Dembski has also "debated" science supporters, and Ham behaved better. Dembski also once almost questioned a literal Noah flood and then quickly back pedaled to keep his job, of course. 4) Robert Byers makes my point better than I could for myself.

Frank J · 12 September 2014

Iâm not sure why you think [YEC is] not the majority opinion of evolution deniers. Polls indicate that it is. Up to 45% of public will deny evolution if you bias the question enough, and 25% or so of the public are YEC. Twenty-five is more than half of forty-five.
— harold

If you add those "unsure" of evolution it's ~60%, then if you add those who have no problem with evolution but think it's "fair" to teach some "alternative" it's 70% or more. The 45% from the idiotic gallup poll is misleading because it makes people "think souls, not cells." Wording is crucial, of course, but I have seen between 10 and 22% that are strict YECs. More importantly, most of those who lean YEC or OEC, or even "evolutionist but with problematic sympathy toward deniers" tend to dismiss it all as "a long time ago" and don't consider "when" and "which are the 'kinds'" very important. When you ask them enough questions they usually concede, however reluctantly, that "mainstream science has the evidence, but..." Probably at least 25% insists on a global flood, but even most of them admit "day-age" or "gap" if asked. But as you know, most people don't ask, but just assume. But whether more or less than half, it's far from "all," dereases when questions are asked, and sometimes even when YEC activists make too many absurd claims that alienates potential fans like Pat Robertson. On that note:

For all of their efforts, the donât-ask-donât-tell ID variety donât seem to be able to get their point across to the general public.
— TomS

Not directly, of course. Committed Biblical literalists, whether they are YEC or OEC, follow people like Ken Ham and other Biblical activists. But I think that the ID scam has indirectly and subtly influenced many non-committed evolution-deniers. One poll I saw a few years ago had the % "unsure" of evolution tripling (~7% to ~21%) in a recent ~20 year period. If DI folk want name recognition, they have been failing badly. The only household name is Medved, and probably very few of his fans know that he is a Fellow of an anti-science "think tank." But they have been spreading memes, and maintaining a majority that is at least sympathetic to "teach both sides." All this while the evidence (and the convergence thereof) for evolution increases dramatically. I wish I could run a control experiment to "rerun" the last ~25 years with the same degree of anti-evolution activism that we had, but with all of the activists being strict Biblical YECs, with no IDers. I'm convinced that % of committed evolution-deniers would be at most the same as it is now, and probably a bit lower. What would not change is that nearly all committed evolution-deniers would also be committed Biblical literalists. But more importantly, that the % unsure and/or sympathetic to "teach both sides" would be much lower.

And point â3â, I think, is the key one. We absolutely should not think of ID as in some way less absurd or more honest, or even more genteel, than YEC. If anything itâs worse...
— harold

Exactly (emphasis added)! Since you mention Dembski's "flood" speech, I should note that it demonstrates even more of the sheer deviousness of ID. When Dembski said (in obvious pandering to his seminary bosses) that it was good to believe a literal flood, several critics giddily reacted with (my paraphrase) "Dembski is a YEC! I knew it all along!," then had to backpedal when other critics showed that Dembski was very consistent about billions of years of earth and life. Net effect: scrabled egg all over "Darwinist" faces. In fact, Dembski admitted that there was no evidence of a global flood, even on that old earth with billions of years of prior life. That was neither a slip-up or a frank admission, but purely tactical. He knew that most committed literalists (like his bosses) take their literalism "on faith," and care little to none about conflicting evidence.

TomS · 12 September 2014

harold said: TomS - I think maybe I'm breaking though. Consider these points. 1) The excesses of YEC were just as embarrassing the day before the Edwards decision, but there was no "ID" until the Edwards decision. Then it appeared. It did not appear spontaneously. Your point about the former respectability of eternal universe thinking makes my point. Why, then, for the ID advocate, is it always only that it "could be" less than 10,000 years old? Why are there NOT "universe 'could be' older" advocates? 2) The body of DI fellows includes plenty who are YEC. No ID advocate seems to object to YEC advocates being considered to practice ID at the highest level. Why not, if their bothered by the "excesses of YEC"? 3) Any evolution denial is just as embarrassing as YEC, no matter what the background details. Once you deny evolution you're already off the rails. There is no honest person who accepts all of science except that "ID causes them to have doubts about evolution". Everyone I have ever met who pretended to be such a thing was a right wing authoritarian trying to pander to YEC when the surface was scratched. And point "3", I think, is the key one. We absolutely should not think of ID as in some way less absurd or more honest, or even more genteel, than YEC. If anything it's worse, because it's YEC with all the testable positive claims disguised. "ID advocates" are no more civil or honest than overt YEC types. Actually often less so. Not to give Ken Ham credit, but the more "genteel" and "intellectual" Dembski has also "debated" science supporters, and Ham behaved better. Dembski also once almost questioned a literal Noah flood and then quickly back pedaled to keep his job, of course. 4) Robert Byers makes my point better than I could for myself.

As far as the belief in the eternity of the universe - indeed I meant that as supportive of your point. Other things are just really my feelings. I tend to look back on the "good old days", when evolutionary studies had not matured, and one could almost be a rational doubter - and the doubters were almost rational. Of course, science has progressed on many fronts, such as the leaps in chronology and the whole DNA industry, not to mention paleontology, and the doubts have become laughable. Anybody with a slight grasp on reality will want to distance oneself from the excesses of YEC. Some of the stars of the ID movement are bright enough to be embarrassed by the constructions erected on the Ark narrative. They've got to know that is no prospect of salvaging YEC. But they also know that they have nothing better to offer, and no prospect ahead. What is a competent person to do, other than retreat into negativism? Thus the intellectual basis for ID. The political basis is obvious, the preachers preaching, and their mindless followers, and the pandering politicians who sense an easy voter bloc ripe for the picking. And, as we all agree, the legal basis. (Hey, it just came to me, the three-legged stool for ID. ;-))

harold · 12 September 2014

Since you mention Dembskiâs âfloodâ speech, I should note that it demonstrates even more of the sheer deviousness of ID. When Dembski said (in obvious pandering to his seminary bosses) that it was good to believe a literal flood, several critics giddily reacted with (my paraphrase) âDembski is a YEC! I knew it all along!,â then had to backpedal when other critics showed that Dembski was very consistent about billions of years of earth and life. Net effect: scrabled egg all over âDarwinistâ faces. In fact, Dembski admitted that there was no evidence of a global flood, even on that old earth with billions of years of prior life. That was neither a slip-up or a frank admission, but purely tactical. He knew that most committed literalists (like his bosses) take their literalism âon faith,â and care little to none about conflicting evidence.

I'm not saying that Dembski "is" a YEC. I wouldn't even know what that meant. Who knows what Dembski "is", other than a very unpleasant individual. What I'm saying is that Dembski panders to and gets money from people who are YEC. Therefore, while he routinely hurls the crudest false accusations at science, while he routinely invents straw man distortions of science, while he was fired from a university that is evangelical enough to obsess over whether or not students should be allowed to dance http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/19/us/after-151-years-dance-ban-ends-at-baylor.html for not being collegial, and rightfully so, he never, never, never ever even quite overtly denies, let alone in the same way attacks, YEC. You'll always find his statements that don't seem YEC top be ambivalent. Read carefully. You won't call anyone "YEC" unless they proudly and openly declare that they think the earth is 6000 years old, but you'll call anyone who chooses an anti-evolution answer in the most biased possible poll question an evolution denier. Fair enough. That's one way of looking at it. That's a method of maximizing the estimate of people who will deny evolution without being strictly defined YEC, of course. Even by that method, though, at least a third of people who will deny evolution are YEC. In my personal experience, everyone who denies evolution is either an authoritarian YEC, or an authoritarian right wing Republican who knows that he isn't supposed to insult the YEC contingent. To put it another way, those who deny evolution but are not YEC are probably not "real" evolution deniers, either, they are all merely pandering to YEC because YEC fundamentalists are a big part of the coalition. Some people desperately attack evolution because they have an emotional need to believe a harsh ideology, and the Earth being 6000 years old is for them a litmus test of that ideology. Other people are merely willing to attack evolution to pander to those people I just described, in order to help achieve right wing goals. And most important of all, a good number are secretly YEC, as "sincerely" as one can sincerely be, but make statements like "there is good evidence for common descent" as a Trojan Horse strategy, to create the false impression that their evolution denial is something other than plain old creationism They're all either deluded, liars, or both, and you can't tell what they "really" believe. The "there is 'some evidence for' common descent" guy may be a YEC Moonie who thinks saying that will reduce the defenses of science supporters and act as a foot in the door for evolution denial in schools. The guy who says "I don't know the age of the Earth" may be laughing at the boobs who don't realize it's billions of years old, or may be thinking "I know it's 6000 years old but there's an election coming up and I don't want to take any chances with the Hell-bound Catholic vote by exposing that I'm a Protestant fanatic". It's extremely common for people who are secretly in favor YEC to disguise that fact. It's just like any other emotional bias that people hold to, while knowing it is not quite respectable. One guy says what he thinks about women having equal rights, another guy secretly likes what he hears, but doesn't state it as openly. These contemporary "Biblical literalists" don't give a damn about the parts of the Bible that tell you to be honest. They only care about talking snakes and magic floods. You don't know what they're thinking and I don't know what they're thinking, and we never will. But I DO know that Creation Science was A-okay will all of them until it lost in court, and that ID suddenly sprang up, denying evolution but dissembling about the very features that got Creation Science thrown out of schools. And that is not a coincidence.

TomS · 12 September 2014

harold said: In my personal experience, everyone who denies evolution is either an authoritarian YEC, or an authoritarian right wing Republican who knows that he isn't supposed to insult the YEC contingent.

My experience has been rather more diverse. I'll mention one friend who reported being a creationist, but changed after reading Behe's "Black Box". And there are older family members whom I shocked (as I now realized - at the time I remembered being puzzled by their reaction when I casually referred to evolution as an ordinary matter of fact). And remember adults who wanted to restrict human evolution. (To be frank, I never was interested enough to ask for details.) I rarely met people who questioned the idea that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but most would not discriminate between 100 million and 1 million - it all being prehistoric. I think that I first encountered YEC when hearing some radio preachers in the rural South. That was when I first heard of "kinds".

harold · 13 September 2014

TomS said:
harold said: In my personal experience, everyone who denies evolution is either an authoritarian YEC, or an authoritarian right wing Republican who knows that he isn't supposed to insult the YEC contingent.
My experience has been rather more diverse. I'll mention one friend who reported being a creationist, but changed after reading Behe's "Black Box". And there are older family members whom I shocked (as I now realized - at the time I remembered being puzzled by their reaction when I casually referred to evolution as an ordinary matter of fact). And remember adults who wanted to restrict human evolution. (To be frank, I never was interested enough to ask for details.) I rarely met people who questioned the idea that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but most would not discriminate between 100 million and 1 million - it all being prehistoric. I think that I first encountered YEC when hearing some radio preachers in the rural South. That was when I first heard of "kinds".

That raises some questions for me. How did your friend "change"? Did he stop denying science? Decide to selectively deny evolution? Which political party does he support? What are his views on women's access to contraception? On gay marriage? What were they when he self-described as a creationist? If he has "changed" from creationism to a more slippery "ID" stance, can you get him to state categorically that the Earth is several billion years old and a religious stance dependent on saying otherwise must be wrong? Or will he try to trick you with "don't know" and "could be" language, Rick Perry style? I strongly stand by what I said above; I didn't mean that there could never be a single exception. Although not personally religious, I am from a non-right wing evangelical background. I was raised by tolerant, kind, forgiving, progressive Baptists. They were still Baptists. I know Baptists. I know evangelicals. I know the difference between honest Baptist obsessions and smirking, coded dog whistle ideology. Creationism and its more dissembling illegitimate child ID are ultimately grounded in, or at least massively associated with, authoritarian social and political impulses. Having said that, I realize that there is some segment of the population - maybe 20% or so - who are neither willing to totally commit or grovelingly pander to political YEC, yet who can be swayed one way or the other on human evolution denial with biased questions and the like. Ask them if plants evolved adaptations to different environments over a long period of time and they'll all say yes. Show them early dinosaurs and later dinosaurs and ask them if one group was ancestral to the other group and they'll probably say yes. Ask them if humans evolved from ape-like ancestors and they'll start to squirm. Push them into a corner and force them to answer some biased poll question that is basically almost "Do you dare to defy the Word of God Almighty, puny mortal, or do you agree that humans were created suddenly in the Garden of Eden", and they'll nearly always panic and choose the answer that "doesn't contradict religion". The biases at play are unconscious tribalism (not wanted to have descended from or be related to "different" people) and a desire to be "respectful" of religious beliefs. If ID was supposed to reach these people, it seems to have failed. Evolution denial in public schools is far less of an issue than before Edwards. The only current polling trend over the last twenty years, at least on Gallup, is an increase in the number choosing the "God played no part" answer to biased questions about human evolution. Note that these land line polls over-sample the elderly. Even the "in their current form" answer is not increasing, and the "God played no role" is, albeit at the expense of "there was evolution and God guided it". http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Frank J · 13 September 2014

But I DO know that Creation Science was A-okay will all of them until it lost in court, and that ID suddenly sprang up, denying evolution but dissembling about the very features that got Creation Science thrown out of schools. And that is not a coincidence.
— harold

You are certainly correct that up to 1987, Creation "science" was A-okay with nearly all anti-evolution activists, which you know is a very tiny group compared to rank-and-file deniers, whether one means the 10-25% strict YEC-believers or the ~70% that has "some problems" with evolution. But what changed suddenly, was (1) identifying the Creator/designer, (2) using words with "creat" in them, and (3) other overt references to Genesis. What did not spring up suddenly, however, but evolved before that, is the most essential feature of ID, the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when." I'm often reminded (even though I never denied it) that Kenyon and Davis - the "first" IDers, before Johnson took over - had been YEC peddlers. But early drafts of their textbook, while still overtly religious, omitted "evidence" for a young earth. Even for "kinds," from what I heard, they had only the vaguest language to suggest that some did not share common ancestors, whenever they originated (all at once? periodically over billions of years?). Probably other groups also "speciated" from the "lineage" that still promotes YEC directly, but since K and D are ID's spiritual founders, let's just focus on them, and wonder what was going through their minds before the frantic and sloppy editing. Had there been a shred of evidence - even with "creative" cherry picking - to support YEC, or even OEC with independent origins of "kinds," they would have been all over it in their book, listing plenty of "what happened when" stuff, and gladly having students critically analyzing that. Instead there was a retreat from that, one that apparently began in the earliest days of "scientific" YEC (I recall a reference of even Henry Morris backpedaling). Surely they knew that replacing "creat" with "design" was almost as risky, as both reek of "free will" and untestable "ultimate causes." But they had no choice because (1) they knew the evidence for a young earth and "kinds" was not there, and (2) they knew that most students, including many who would reject evolution, would never buy the whole young-earth nonsense even if they did fall for "kinds." As you note above, Rick Perry's evasion could mean "I know itâs 6000 years old but thereâs an election coming up and I donât want to take any chances with the Hell-bound Catholic vote by exposing that Iâm a Protestant fanatic," just as easily as it could mean "I know that 'Darwinists' are right, but admitting that would be political suicide." But as you know, neither one is the same as "I know that there's evidence, independent of Genesis, of a young earth and independent origin of 'kinds'." In that sense, the number of "YECs" is exactly zero.

TomS · 26 September 2014

Frank J said: What did not spring up suddenly, however, but evolved before that, is the most essential feature of ID, the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when."

I think that that has been a trait of anti-evolution back to the 19th century. There is that 1852 essay of Herbert Spencer, "The Development Hypothesis", which complains that there was no rival description (let's not get into evidence, just description) of "what happened when".