Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ah, the start of a new legislative session always brings a raft of loopy anti-evolution bills in state legislatures around the country. Mississippi Rep. Gary Chism wants a disclaimer put in all evolution textbooks (see the full text of his bill here). Long cut and paste below the fold:
The State Board of Education shall require every textbook that includes the teaching of evolution in its contents to include the following language on the inside front cover of the textbook:"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.
Study hard and keep an open mind."
This is simply one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard. To insert such a statement in a biology textbook would be educational malpractice. But take a look especially at the part I placed in italics to see just what an egregious moron Mr. Chism is. But the problems begin right at the start, with the very first statement.
Yes, there are many meanings to the word 'theory' but only one meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. The fact that non-scientists use the word to mean any wild-assed guess they can come up with does not change the nature of a scientific theory one iota.
And the notion that if no one witnessed an event, any and all claims about the event are equally valid is breathtakingly idiotic. I doubt Mr. Chism would apply the same "reasoning" to, say, forensic medicine. We convict people and even put them to death for crimes committed with no eyewitnesses. Let's imagine a hypothetical crime and apply Chism's "logic."
A man is arrested for the rape and murder of a woman. His semen is found inside her body, his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon. But no one else was present to see him do it. Therefore, according to Chism's argument, any statement made about the crime should be considered a theory and be given equal time and equal presumed validity. Pure idiocy.
Is it a coincidence that Gary Chism sounds close to Warren Chisum, the equally stupid Texas state legislator who sent a memo to his colleagues suggesting that they learn about evolution by going to fixedearth.com, a geocentrist and creationist site that claims that evolution is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christ?
Politics
Comments
New Mississippi State Motto?
We Ain't Jest Born Stoopid - We Work At It!
Posted by: J-Dog | January 19, 2009 9:50 AM
Ed,
As the rest of these "proposals" come out, please continue to NAME the senator/representative that is proposing these types of garbage. Typically, the local news media/coverage will not provide this, and some of us, (ok, I), have a hard time figuring out, how to figure out who would propose these bills.
Posted by: Drake33 | January 19, 2009 9:56 AM
Fair is fair.
I suggest sticking the following label above "Genesis" in every bible in Mississippi:
"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."
Surely they couldn't object??? - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 19, 2009 10:09 AM
"...fixedearth.com, a geocentrist and creationist site that claims that evolution is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christ."
One more data point in the connection between Fundy websites and really, really bad design. What is it with their need to assault their readers with obnoxious taste?
Posted by: Alan B. | January 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Puleeeze!
But I doubt I had to explain any of that to anybody here, did I?
Posted by: BaldApe | January 19, 2009 10:33 AM
Rep. Gary Chism proposes lying to school children in order to defend his discredited religious beliefs.
It would be interesting to know whether any of his peers stood on the floor of their chamber and called him out for lying to kids in a manner that makes it into their legislative minutes and in their media. If not, it's hard to respect any of the members of that entire legislative body.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2009 10:51 AM
A lot of that disclaimer sure seems familiar - isn't it nearly the same as the one from Cobb County, Georgia from a few years back?
Posted by: Coragyps | January 19, 2009 11:09 AM
Coragyps,
This is much stupider than the Georgia sticker. At least with the Georgia sticker you could sort of dishonestly make the case that the sticker was just stating that evolution is a theory, and it is, so what the problem?
This one not only conflates two different meanings of the word theory and calls Evolution a "controversial theory some scientists present", but then goes on to contradicts itself by saying "Evolution refers to the unproven belief...". I'm pretty sure "unproven belief" was not among the definitions given not two paragraphs earlier. Not to mention the dozen or so logical fallacies and direct creationist lies. All in such a short amount of space.
It'd say it packs at least 10 times the stupid as the earlier sticker.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | January 19, 2009 11:36 AM
Lack of new major groups since the Cambrian explosion? It's true! Here are some of the merely minor groups to have arisen since the Cambrian:
* Tetrapod vertebrates: All amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Just minor stuff.
* Teleost Fish: The single largest infraclass of vertebrates on the planet, by any measure.
* Insects: 90% of the planet's animals minor.
* Bivalve mollusks: Any trip to the beach will show you how ignorable these guys are!
So, support your local evolution disclaimer! Nothing important has shown up since the Cambrian! You could take all the insects, bivalves, 90% of the fish and all terrestrial vertebrates off the planet and hardly anyone would notice!
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 19, 2009 12:39 PM
Someone should tell the disclaimer morons that the word they are looking for is 'phyla', not 'group'. They'd still be wrong, but not so hilariously wrong.
Posted by: Dave S. | January 19, 2009 1:03 PM
The "theory" of evolution was developed (and is now the accepted scientific paradigm) after a century of study and experimentation. Creationism and all it's variants represent religious dogma, without an ounce of objective evidence to back it up. While Mr. Chism, like many Americans, may have a mistaken view of what a "theory" really means in science, the idea that there are problems with evolution, or that science and religious mythology should share equal billing, is as misguided as ever. I hope this know-nothing and his allies are soundly defeated.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | January 19, 2009 2:34 PM
We have been following this one closely and mobilizing action with great success at Mississippi Atheists (http://www.msatheists.org). It sounds like the bill may be dead in committee, so we are cautiously optimistic.
Posted by: vjack | January 19, 2009 2:53 PM
I propose an amendment:
"Study hard what we tell you and keep an empty mind."
It's appalling when the "educators" present such crap which is downright incorrect (and misleading, disingenuous, unclear, obtuse, foolish, misinformed...)
Perhaps our new president can send some aid to this third-world country.
Posted by: Mark Duigon | January 19, 2009 3:38 PM
I grew up and attended public schools in Jackson, Mississippi. The state capitol was less than a half mile from my elementary school. Not once did any of my science teachers ever say a single against evolution. I only hope that reason prevails and this effort is soundly defeated.
Posted by: tripencrypt | January 19, 2009 3:51 PM
This Mr. Chism sounds like a true shitgeek.
Is there any evidence that these legislative shenanigans ever have any repercussions to the states (or other entities) that permit them? While we sit around and bemoan the quality of education that students are receiving in places like Mississippi, are there any known examples of, say, a business choosing not to re-locate to such a place BECAUSE of such anti-science, anti-education foolishness, or is just wishful thinking to expect that to happen?
Posted by: peter | January 19, 2009 4:27 PM
tripencrypt - Thanks for providing your perspective. It'd also be interesting to know whether your science teachers actually spent much time on the theory itself, especially including textbooks that appropriately prioritized it.
For example, did you annually review the theory building on what was learned in prior years, including the ascent of humans? Or was it taught in only one science class? Was it taught as an inherent part of biology or was it taught as if it were a distinctly separate notion?
Was your school representative of other schools in Mississippi's cities or a distinct cut above the rest?
For what's it's worth, I was raised in Michigan which has large swaths of geography that are about as red as you can get, Michigan's cities make it appear Michigan is a solid blue state, which is mostly true only in the cities and one other exception that is too complex to describe in this post (and irrelevant to this discussion). Our public schools avoided the word evolution and while they taught us Mendellian genetics for example, never presented evidence on how evolution worked beyond the inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next, which even most YECs concede. I probably learned more about evolution being forced to listen to YECs in church than I did in my science classes, which was not a good start for me though secular university science courses promptly fixed that.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2009 4:39 PM
Ed,
Thanks for posting this. One of my facebook friends is in the legislature for the state of Mississippi and I've posted this on his page.
Posted by: tripencrypt | January 19, 2009 4:41 PM
I had just an epiphany.
It seems to me that anti-science Christians are always chomping at the bit to insert the "well, no one was there" argument whenever they can. It occurs to me that these are probably the same people who legitimately try to trot out "eyewitness testimony" within the gospels as evidence of Jesus' existence and divinity. The common factor seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the hierarchy of different types of evidence. They've been told that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that (some) of the gospels claim to contain eyewitness testimony (therefore DO contain eyewitness testimony). This is the strongest evidence they've got for their position, and I've often heard in a debate setting the Christian submit the argument as if it were QED. What they fail to realize is that even in a courtroom environment, eyewitness testimony doesn't mean very much without corroborating evidence.
In this light, the bullshit they're trying to sneak in about weaknesses in Evolution seem to be par for the course, if not specifically targeting a specific demographic that already displays an affinity towards that kind of thinking.
Posted by: Justin Schenk | January 19, 2009 5:28 PM
Thanks, MyPetSlug.
That is what I was thinking exactly:
Evolution went from being "just a theory" (which I already have problems with) to "a belief" magically in a couple of paragraphs!!
Then, as stated in several comments, throw in some gross inaccuracies, and slap it in the textbooks.
disgusting...
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | January 19, 2009 6:56 PM
Michael Heath -
I'm not sure I'd call much of rural MI solidly red persay, I tend to think it's a lot more complicated than that - for that matter I think the cities are too.
I tend to look as rural MI as a rather eclectic group, compared to their counterparts in a lot of other states (IN excluded). While there is definitely a tendency towards conservativism, there it doesn't tend to be very partisan in my experience. And unlike a lot of "independents," who are nonetheless usually straight line party voters, the conservative indies in rural MI really tend to be pretty independent. I've also noted that while many of them are personally socially conservative, they tend to be pretty strong on individual rights, even if those rights are for behaviors they disapprove of.
And really, the "progressives" in the cities often have pretty strong, small l libertarian bents. A bent that is really strong in southwest MI, no matter how far out of town you get.
Then there's the UP. The major difference I've seen between most yoopers and most Canadians, is their citizenship. I've said it before, I suspect the only reason the UP is part of MI, is so we can visit Canada without leaving the country.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 19, 2009 7:12 PM
DuWayne - the exception to my point which I referred to in my previous post regarding rural MI being red state was the U.P., which is Democrat like we see in working class Pennsylvania - i.e., Reagan Democrats best defines them though they're more populist than that though just as socially conservative.
In the area where I live in Northern Michigan, Otsego County, it's uncommon to see a Democrat even run for office and even rarer to see them win. The surrounding counties are not much different with the exception of Grand Traverse county's Traverse City, which is a liberal bastion with a spirit similar to Ann Arbor. Traverse City is where Michael Moore started his film festival a few years back. In fact, there's more controversy regarding our primaries than races in November.
If you are referring to the rural counties in southern Michigan, than your point is well-taken, I wouldn't even know how they go. However, when you get north of West Branch all the way up to the Mackinac Bridge, it's pretty red.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2009 7:34 PM
Similar to the whole cdesign proponentsists thing, it seems that there has been evolution of the textbook sticker idea - this one is similar to but different from the Cobb County one.
I suppose working up a phylogeny for creotard textbook stickers wouldn't cause them to understand evolution any better, would it?
Posted by: chancelikely | January 19, 2009 8:04 PM
I briefly feel better about my own state whenever I read these idiotic efforts to undermine education. Then I remember that here in Arizona, not only are we second to last in funding (thanks Utah!), but we're dead last in achievement. Even working in an exceptional district leaves me feeling like I'm trying to put out the Chicago Fire with a teacup of water... *sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 19, 2009 8:04 PM
I'm chuckling now, because while I have spent a lot of time in a pretty good swath from about Big Rapids on down, (I was a canvasser for Michigan Environmental Defense - a scam that saw it's founder off to jail) my experience north of there is pretty much limited to Cadillac, TC and Manistee - then the U.P. And honestly, I really can't speak much for Cadillac. I mainly went through there a lot and occasionally ended up in hotels there.
About the only people I actually got to know there, were a couple women I met at a gas station at two a.m. I was passing through on my way home from a job in Manistee and stopped to get gas. One of them was inside grabbing a last minute twelve pack. Her friend was right next to where I was filling up and holds up a pipe asking if I wanted some. I explained I had a long drive or I would love to. She then lifted her shirt and asked if I would like some of these - I opted to forget heading home and had some of each her offers. Her's and her friend's:) Honestly, I never did get around to their political affiliations - though I did manage to see them on subsequent sojourns through.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 19, 2009 8:14 PM
That was you DuWayne?! Grandma talked about you for ages. :-p
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2009 8:29 PM
And which of the above definitions of "theory" would that be?
I think the italics give it away.
Such disappointing transparency.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 19, 2009 8:37 PM
"This bible contains material on divinity and theology. There are many
competing theories of divinity and theology. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered. You should study all competing theories of divinity and
theology before drawing your own conclusions as to the validity of the
material contained in this bible."
Posted by: mrcreosote | January 20, 2009 1:19 AM
What to do about this:
Lawsuit demanding equal consideration for the teaching of Marxism in highschool economics and history classes. After all, capitalism and Marxism are competing theories of economics.
For that matter, "abstinence" is a competing "theory" of teenage sexuality. Why not teach the "competing theory" that teenagers should go at it like weasels (so long as they use contraception)?
The way to sneak this through is to pass state laws that require teaching "competing theories" in ALL classes. Get the YECs to buy in and promote this on the basis that it will give them exactly what they want. Then let the other groups sue for access. Sit back and watch the fireworks show.
Posted by: g347 | January 20, 2009 4:38 AM
Let's allow Holocaust deniers to put a disclaimer in History textbooks. After all, they have a "competing theory" too, right?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | January 20, 2009 6:46 AM
Posted by: Ex-drone | January 20, 2009 7:45 AM
Aah, they've gone for the old 'life's origins' canard as well! I thought it was evolution we were discussing, not biogenesis...
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | January 20, 2009 8:25 AM
Not depending at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life; it explains the diversity of species. Abiogenesis does attempt to posit how organisms came into being, but even that has its basis in observed phenomenon.
I think that too many people think evolution is a theory that explains how the universe began, i.e. how matter, life and all things in between were created - which simply isn't true.
Believe whatever the hell you want about the origin of life; just don't try to write down "goddiddit" as an answer on a science quiz.
Posted by: MisterDomino | January 20, 2009 8:30 AM
Actually, the scientific community lacks 100% agreement on this. Not all evolutionary biologists restrict the study of "evolution" to exclude abiogenesis. I think it's better when we restrict evolution to what the ToE is actually designed to deal with, but there are others who feel differently and try to combine the disciplines.
Posted by: Josh | January 20, 2009 8:43 AM
They should put a similar statement in any textbook that mentions gravity, atomic theory, or germ theory of diseases. TI only want fairness.
Posted by: catgirl | January 20, 2009 10:46 AM
Abby -
It's good to know that I had a similar effect on her, that she and her friend had on me. I aim to be memorable......
Posted by: DuWayne | January 20, 2009 11:07 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the prosecution might try to tell you some fancy stories about how my client was found with the victim's blood on his clothes, that his fingerprints were found at the scene, and something about so-called "DNA evidence", whatever that is.
However, even the prosecution admits that at most one living person was present at the murder---my client. And he says that he wasn't! Since nobody was present when the victim died, any statement about a murder should be considered just a theory.
Posted by: MPL | February 2, 2009 12:50 AM