Thursday, April 13th, 2006,
by Fred (,
education, evolution, FSM, intelligent design, Kansas, politics
,
So what happens when one of the ignorant cavedwellers who voted for Kansas’ new anti-science science curriculum comes face to face with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a deity created specifically to show how ignorant the Kansas Board of Education is? Not pretty.
Creature’s picture irks Board of Ed member
State Board of Education member Connie Morris took exception Wednesday to a picture of a made-up creature that satirizes the state’s new science standards hanging on a Stucky Middle School teacher’s door.Fellow board member Sue Gamble told The Eagle that Morris asked for the picture to be removed.
The creature, called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is the creation of Bobby Henderson of Corvallis, Ore. It looks like a clump of spaghetti with two eyes sticking out of the top and two meatballs flanking the eyes.
Henderson created the entity and an accompanying mythology on the origin of mankind to make fun of Kansas’ recent debate over the teaching of criticisms of evolution, including intelligent design.
In November, the board voted 6-4 to allow criticisms of evolution to be taught in Kansas schools.
Who won the battle? FSM, of course.
Gamble said she told the principal that it was his decision whether the monster could stick around.
“I advised the principal that Morris has no authority,” she said. “I told him to deal with his staff as he saw fit, not by what a state board member says.”
The picture was still on the door at the end of the school day Wednesday.
[via evolution]
Share This
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006,
by Fred (,
evolution, intelligent design, science
,
The Post-Dispatch on Tiktaalik and cortisol/aldosterone
Given the age at which life emerged on Earth and the specific conditions that allow fossils to form, there will probably always be some gaps in the fossil record. Like any human activity, science reveals an imperfect picture of the world in which we live. But unlike religion, science is always subject to revision.None of that makes science better than religion, — just different. Educators and legislators needn’t abandon their religious beliefs, only refrain from forcing them into science classes where they don’t belong.
Exactly. Unless you are a young-earth creationist or an activist trying to get pseudo-scientific claptrap like creationism intelligent design into the classroom, the recent discoveries don’t emperil your worldview. The evidence for macroevolution, common ancestry and speciation is overwhelming, and the science curriculum should focus on science, not religion.
Share This
Monday, April 10th, 2006,
by Fred (,
creationism, evolution, intelligent design, science
,
Two New Discoveries Answer Big Questions In Evolution Theory
One study produced what biblical literalists have been demanding ever since Darwin — the iconic “missing links.” If species evolve, they ask, with one segueing into another, where are the transition fossils, those man-ape or reptile-mammal creatures that evolution posits?In yesterday’s issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.
Discovered in 2004 on Canada’s Ellesmere Island by Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago and Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae “blurs the boundary between fish and land animals,” said Prof. Shubin. It “is both fish and tetrapod,” showing how life made the transition to land, evolving four limbs from fins.
Previously known fossils of ancient “lobe-finned fish” also seem poised between fish and tetrapods, with pectoral fins containing precursors of the humerus, radius and ulna of tetrapod armbones. But Tiktaalik (an Inuit word for shallow-water fish) makes a stronger case. Its pectoral fin still has thin, fish-like bones, but also contains the three armbones-to-be as well as a wrist-like structure and a hand-like one. The shoulder and elbow could bend, and the proto-wrist could extend, allowing the fin to support the body and propel it on land. “Tiktaalik shows us the stages in the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” says Dr. Daeschler.
Tiktaalik is an important discovery, although it’s not the first pre-tetrapod transitional fossil. Nor is it the singular missing link creationists/ID proponents (as if there were a difference) demand. Of course, what is far more likely is a series of fossils like Tiktaalik, rather than a single missing link.
Will the creationists go away now? Not likely.
But creationists, many of whose Web sites declare “there are no transitional forms,” are not easily persuaded. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif., says Tiktaalik “is just a variety of fish. There is still a huge gap [between fish and land-dwellers] that has to be filled.”
Add this find to the massive body of scientific evidence supporting evolution, but don’t expect those pushing intelligent design (nee creationism) to care.
Share This
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006,
by Fred (,
evolution, FSM, intelligent design, science
,
As part of the previous post about the FSM, I went to the Discovery Institute site to see if they had a response to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They don’t, other than a Jeff Jacoby column from the Boston Globe in 1995 that makes this absurd assertion:
If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism, the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren’t. Unlike creationism, which denied the earth’s ancient age or that biological forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation, is the acid test of scientific validity.
Except that they are peddling biblical creationism, and they don’t make use of “generally accepted scientific data”. From Judge Jones’ order in Kitzmiller:
- Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer
could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses.
- ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.â€
- Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
- The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
And what about ID’s devotion to scientific principles?
- ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
- What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science†which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.
- Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations.
- In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
So, since ID is biblical creationism, the hostility directed at its proponents makes sense. Glad we cleared that up.
Share This
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006,
by Fred (,
evolution, intelligent design, politics, science
,
At Crosswalk.com, a good example of intellectual dishonesty
This past February the Ohio State Board of Education voted 11-4 to remove all language that was critical of evolution from its state’s science curriculum. Previously, Ohio’s public school science guidelines said that students should be free to “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The decision by the State Board of Education effectively eliminates that freedom. This means that science teachers and students are no longer authorized to discuss scientific evidence that questions the claims of Darwin’s theory.
No, no, no. The Ohio State School Board’s decision did not “eliminate freedom.” The previous policy is what eliminated freedom, by eliminating the freedom of local schools and science teachers to determine what should and should not be taught in their classrooms. It eliminated freedom by attempting to mandate that schools introduce creationism intelligent design critical analysis into the curriculum. It eliminated freedom through ham-handed attempts to get discredited religiosity into science classrooms.
Yes, discredited. It is simply not true, as Mr. Craven claims, that “Darwinism remains as much if not more of a philosophical idea as does Intelligent Design in terms of being testable scientific fact.” The intelligent design curriculum used in Ohio drew most heavily from creationist tracts, which have absolutely no basis in scientific analysis. Unlike Intelligent Design, macroevolution and the theory of common origins are both testable and falsifiable.
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
Further, although Craven clearly views the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision as the product of an ACLU/AU cabal, Judge Jones came to the same conclusion after considering the state of scientific evidence for macroevolution and intelligent design:
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
Craven’s attack on the Ohio decision to eliminate ID’s back-door entry into the curriculum starts with a false premise (Ohio has eliminated freedom), mischaracterizes the scientific evidence for macroevolution, and proceeds to blatantly incorrect conclusions (that teachers are forbidden from teaching anything not specifically mentioned in the core curriculum). Weaknesses in the scientific support for macroevolution and non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms have long been part of the scientific curriculum. The now-rejected Ohio policy was never about a critical analysis of the scientific evidence for natural selection, common origins and macroevolution. It was about introducing unsupported falsehoods based on religion into science classes.
[via Panda’s Thumb]
Share This
Tuesday, March 21st, 2006,
by Fred (,
creationism, education, intelligent design, religion
,
Archbishop of Canterbury says no to creationism in schools
The spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans does not believe that creationism — the Bible-based account of the world’s origins — should be taught in schools.”I don’t think it should, actually. No, No,” said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reflecting on the bitter education debate over religion and science that has so divided the United States in particular.
Williams, head of a church which has no problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories.”
Asked if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, the mild-mannered and usually cautious theologian said: “Not very. Not very.”
Too bad Missouri legislators aren’t Anglicans.
Share This
Friday, March 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
evolution, HB1266, intelligent design, Missouri, religion, SB1249, science
,
First it was making Christian proselytizing in public schools OK by non-binding resolution. Now the Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would restrict teaching of evolution.
Dubbed the “Missouri Science Education Act,” the bill would require teachers to distinguish between “verified empirical data” and theories. The bill further calls on teachers to “minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism and understanding.”
The Post-Dispatch notes that “evolution” is mentioned nowhere in the bill (bill status, bill text). This is true, but it is clear evolution is the target. The bill attempts to distringuish between “verified empirical data” and everything else.
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, extrapolation, estimation, unverified data, consensus of scientific opinion, and philosophical belief, such information shall be within the purview of critical analysis and may be critically analyzed. Critical analysis includes the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
It’s not clear when science moves from the realm of theory to “verified empirical data.” The bill defines verified empirical data as
information representing physical reality based on repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results. Verified empirical data is without significant inference and is not theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, estimated data, extrapolated data, or consensus of scientific opinion.
Does the legislature think that quantum mechanics is verified empirically? What about string theory? Parallel universes? What kind of science comes without inference or extrapolation?
It’s clear, however, that this bill is all about evolution. Under the bill, information that is not verified empirical data must be identified as such, and may be “critically analyzed.” Critical analysis means
the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
So most of the time, teachers and administrators have freedom to choose whether to “critically analyze” scientific theory that is not verified empirical data. But the bill’s sponsors don’t trust biology teachers, who have been teaching evolution without governmental interference. So the bill has special language for biology:
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount. If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.
Not only do teachers have to identify scientific thought on biological origins as special, they have to teach it in a special way so as to minimize its import. And what else do they have to teach? “Alternate logical explanations”. Not alternate scientific theory, but alternate “logical” explanations. What is the best known “logical” explanation of biological origins? Our good friend intelligent design.
The creationists have been trying to shoehorn ID into the Missouri curriculum for years, but have failed to get their bills out of committee. So this time, they say “theory or hypothesis of bilogical origins” instead of evolution, and “alternate logical explanations” instead of intelligent design (which itself is used instead of what they really mean, biblical creationism). And to make sure they could get the bill out of committee, they resorted to subterfuge, putting the bill on the agenda at the last minute and without notice, ensuring that the scientific community wasn’t represented:
Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said few testified against the bill earlier this week after it was placed on the agenda with little notice. He said officials representing science teachers were not present at the hearing, but would be eager to weigh in.
Contact your legislator and tell them to oppose HB 1266/SB 1249.
Share This
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006,
by Fred (,
Alliance for Science, creationism, intelligent design, science, St. Louis
,
Lots of people are upset that a company that is controlled by the United Arab Emirates has entered into a $6.8 billion deal to oversee 6 U.S. ports. It’s created a strange set of bedfellows, with conservatives worried that Arabs will let Bad People into the ports, and liberals mad at Bush for being Bush.
It seems like a whole lot of ado about nothing. Virtually none of the world’s port operators are based in the US; the six ports at issue were previously run by a British company. The Dubai company taking over operation makes a large amount of money running ports throughout the world, and would certainly not risk that global operation in the interest of jihad. The ports will still be staffed by unionized American longshoremen and security will still be the province of the federal government. Honestly, what’s the big deal?
Is it that two of the 9/11 hijackers appear to have been UAE citizens? That several of the hijackers passed through Dubai? That UAE banks were not aggressive enough in pursuing UBL’s assets? These are as likely to be the product of a society that pursues the world’s tallest building as pro-jihad terrorism-enablers. Dubai is a bastion of capitalism. Capitalists tend not to want other capitalists blown up by terrorists.
Share This
