Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas Board of Education, has an op-ed in the Austin American Statesman demonstrating perfectly both his ignorance of evolution and why all this talk of "strengths and weaknesses" is nothing more than a ruse to bring creationist arguments into science classrooms. First he shows his ignorance of the philosophy of science:
The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides. Using new wording from the National Academy of Sciences, Texas' standards define science as "the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process."This definition replaces the academy's 1999 language that was very controversial; it stated that science was "to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena." The change from "natural explanations" to "testable explanations" is very significant. The old definition was inferior in that it undermined both the philosophy of the naturalist and the supernaturalist. By circular reasoning, the naturalist was prevented from using science to prove that "nature is all there is," and the supernaturalist was prevented from offering supernatural hypotheses. With the new definition, both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are free to make "testable" explanations. The debate can now shift from "Is it science?" to "Is it testable?"
But of course, supernatural explanations are, by definition, not testable in this dispute. The theory of evolution makes all sorts of risky predictions, patterns and observations that must be true if common descent is true. No such predictions can be made if you begin from the assumption that a supernatural force created everything on earth. No pattern of appearance can be predicted from that premise because the supernatural force could have chosen to create in any manner whatsoever. The supernatural explanation can explain any set of data, while evolution can only explain a very limited set of data. That's precisely what makes one testable and the other untestable.
He then shows the world that when he says "scientific strengths and weaknesses" what he really means is creationist quote mining:
The next step in resolving this controversy is simply to use the scientific method to weigh in on the issue of evolution. Consider the fossil record. What do we actually observe? What are the data?Stephen Jay Gould stated: "The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. [This is called 'stasis.'] These species appear ... without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants."
"...but stasis is data..."
Once we have our observations, we can make a hypothesis. The controversial evolution hypothesis is that all life is descended from a common ancestor by unguided natural processes. How well does this hypothesis explain the data? A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.
And the standard is not religious but does raise a problem for the evolution hypothesis in that stasis is the opposite of evolution, and "stasis is data."
I submit to you that there are only two possible reasons why McLeroy would make such an argument: he is either an ignoramus or a liar. Or both. No one who actually understands evolution and Gould's claims regarding stasis would argue that the patterns of stasis and punctuation found in the fossil record are in conflict with evolutionary theory. Gould himself did not make any such claim, nor could he have.
This is a Rorschach argument. Once offered, it tells you all you need to know about the person making it. It tells you that you are dealing either with a liar or with someone whose entire understanding of evolution is cribbed from creationist pamphlets. And that is exactly what McLeroy wants put into science classrooms, the full list of arguments out of the creationist jokebook.
Politics
Comments
Bullshit. Creationists aren't owed a "satisfactory" definition of science. Science is what it is. Deal with it.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | March 26, 2009 9:46 AM
Do we get to have a definition of religion that is satisfactory to both sides?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 26, 2009 9:51 AM
James Hanley: So long as it includes Darwinism as a religion, the loons will be happy. Otherwise, not so much. :D
Posted by: kehrsam | March 26, 2009 10:00 AM
He was on NPR this morning!
He actually said the fossil records prove evolution is "false" and that the controversy was all the fault of far left radicals.
http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/mar/26/talking-about-evolution-and-education-texas-state-board-education-chair-don-mcle/
Posted by: Kevin | March 26, 2009 10:31 AM
This guy wants to change the definition of what science actually is. If you change it and do something else, it's not science anymore; it's pseudoscience at best. This guy is free to teach creationism all he wants - in a religion class. Keep pseudoscience out of our science classrooms.
Posted by: catgirl | March 26, 2009 10:56 AM
Nothing new. During the Dover trial, Michael Behe quite blatently tried to argue that 'science' should be redefined (of course, so that creationism...oops, sorry, I mean 'Intelligent Design' is included). This was quite easily countered by getting him to admit that, under his given redefinition, astrology is also 'science' (although he tried to bluster that he meant back when astrology was thought to be true, even though he admitted he didn't know if it was ever accepted as 'science', even back in the Middle Ages).
Posted by: Smidgy | March 26, 2009 11:25 AM
Hey, lets teach the controversy over murder too. You know, there are significant numbers of people who think murder is perfectly ok. While we're teaching kids idiotic views of science, why not teach them idiotic views of morality?
Posted by: Bobert | March 26, 2009 12:43 PM
unguided natural processes
bing!
dumbshit gives away his real position
Posted by: kamaka | March 26, 2009 1:30 PM
Yes people, they really are that dumb. The creationists on the board are the dumbest of the dumbest kind of creationists. The cream of the crop. Unreal!
Posted by: 386sx | March 26, 2009 2:07 PM
I say this every time a state or municipal board tries to inject religion into science curricula: Good. When Texas children receive substandard and inaccurate science education from a public school system that fails them, these kids can all grow up to be Wal-Mart greeters for all I care. It frees up more space for my children to pursue and achieve professional careers in science. Let Texas sink into the Middle Ages, take the Space Program out, relocate the high-tech sector, and let the population wallow in their spiritual giddiness and ignorance. Let jeebus save them from illness and intellectual poverty. I have neither sympathy nor patience for these willful buffoons.
Posted by: Fred | March 26, 2009 2:43 PM
God help Texas if it continues to allow a yahoo like this to run their board of education.
Posted by: Paen | March 26, 2009 2:47 PM
Texas is the second largest text book market, but California is the largest. Those of us living in rational states need to push our own state boards to maintain acceptable standards. In a fight with the text book companies over evolution, who do you think is going to win? Texas, Florida, and a group of insignificant rural states, or the West Coast, Northern Midwest, and the Atlantic seaboard?
The electoral map is easy to read. The blue shows where the people live.
Posted by: Robert Faber | March 26, 2009 3:24 PM
We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity:
http://www.superrelativity.org
Posted by: mmfiore | March 26, 2009 3:25 PM
Re mmfiore
Just answer one question. Does the theory of superrelativity allow computation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to agree with the observed value to 10 significant digits? Quantum Electrodynamics does!
Posted by: SLC | March 26, 2009 3:45 PM
SLC: To get the answer to your question, you may have to click on that prominently placed "Donate" button.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 26, 2009 3:48 PM
It appears the science standard change has stalled. The vote today was 7-7, which means it did not pass. There's still another vote tomorrow. Be sure to check out AronRa's youtube page as I'm sure he'll have something to say about it (AronRa has an excellent series on the foundational falsehoods of creationism and lives in Texas). Still scary, as half the board is batshit crazy.
Posted by: Robert Faber | March 26, 2009 4:01 PM
In current terms, a "Rorschach argument" is more likey to involve a meat cleaver or improvised flamethrower...not that I'd mind McLeroy encountering Rorschach in that context.
[/Watchmen]
Posted by: Ranson | March 26, 2009 4:05 PM
From the Super Relativity site:
That's as far as I read. Seems they found a problem with the Michelson Morley experiment.
At a glance only it seems that the tone is sufficiently studious, the jargon just familiar enough that someone without a more than basic knowledge of physics could be easily convinced of an impending revolution (that is probably being resisted by the league of anti-social scientists, though I didn't actually see anything saying so is just those words).
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 26, 2009 4:22 PM
Outstanding! Absolutely outstanding! He's admitting in writing that he wants to make the supernatural a part of science education in Texas. He's completely ceded the "purpose" prong of the Lemon test. File this one away for safekeeping, in case he ever does succeed in changing the science curriculum.
Posted by: John the Skeptic | March 26, 2009 4:51 PM
I checked out the Super Relativity site.
Oh, sweet tittyfuck.
Their explanation of the origin of Gravity starts off with a claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment only failed to detect the ether because it was using particles travelling at the highest possible velocity. This is pretty funny, since the very existence of a "highest possible velocity" is a prediction of Special Relativity which only works if there exists no privileged inertial frame of reference. It amounts to saying that The MM experiment doesn't prove Special Relativity is true because Special Relativity is true.
Even better is when they present their computer "simulations". The "simulation" steps several variables through a range of values in order to find a "solution node" where the curves intersect. In other words, it demonstrates only one thing: that the authors lack the mathematical savvy to solve systems of simultaneous equations. Even if numerical methods are called for, the program doesn't make use of even the most basic root-finding algorithms like Bisection or Newton-Raphson. It just steps from a lower limit towards an upper limit.
I couldn't read any more after that.
Posted by: DaveL | March 26, 2009 5:01 PM
I also like the idea that string theory is the current paradigm in physics. It's popular in some circles, sure, but it's entirely speculative and hugely controversial.
Meanwhile, from McLeroy:
I love the idea that somehow the NAS definition of science physically prevented people from making and testing hypotheses, or for that matter the idea that "naturalist" scientists would want to prove that nature is all there is, rather than just believing it.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 26, 2009 8:51 PM
mmfiore -
A group of what?Posted by: Taz | March 26, 2009 9:00 PM
Ed, It was a pleasure meeting you today at the PZ Myers luncheon. One of the points / questions I would have loved to have raised today and actually pertains to the topic at hand is that many Christians are not rational. By their very nature, Christians believe things that are the least likely answers to certain questions (the empty tomb, etc). Many times, folks argue with Christians as if they are fully rational. No one is but they especially aren't - they will believe things that are patently false just because it fits their worldview. So, I don't believe they are either all liars or ignorant. . . they have a belief that is so deeply held that (indoctrinated) that getting around that is impossible. I've dismantled some Christian's arguments fully and had them agreeing with everything thing I've said only to go back to square one when they realized that agreeing with me meant their worldview had a few cracks.
Posted by: ifeelfine72 | March 26, 2009 9:55 PM
ifeelfine72
I would be careful to generalize all Christians sharing traits listed in your complete post above. Those traits certainly does not describe many educated Episcopalians, Catholics or other liberal Christians. Those traits are common to those that are also social conservatives so I suggest using the term social conservatives or "conservative Christians" as more accurate terms.
Having said that, I've experienced the same type of dialogue you refer to above dozens of times. This is one reason I've changed my opinion that mere virulent ignorance is the sole contributor to their inability to adapt their understanding of reality when presented with validated empirical evidence explained in a honest well-framed context. Instead I've slowly come to agree with Richard Dawkins that delusion is at play.
We've experienced evidence of possible delusion today in another post in this forum where a creationist who clearly does not understand either scientific methodology, biology, or the rebuttals to creationist arguments made the claim that "ignorance is bliss" against those of us providing him with evidence of 'macroevolution'. This display of projectionism is a trait I find in nearly all social conservatives and a primary reason I'm leaning towards delusion.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 26, 2009 10:25 PM
Ranson:
[/Watchmen]
Perhaps its a Rorschach argument in the sense that its the disjointed ramblings of a distasteful individual of questionable mental stability?
Posted by: James K | March 27, 2009 2:05 AM
No matter how Texass votes, McLeroy & Co will go down as the buffoons of the age. Dunbar used to be the one ass that stood out in a field of morons but she has some very diligently striving company in McLeroy & Leo.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 27, 2009 8:18 AM
Michael Heath: Point well taken. I didn't mean to generalize all Christians and should have specifically named fundamentalist Christians / conservative Christians . . . I know better.
Excellent post, by the way.
Posted by: ifeelfine72 | March 27, 2009 8:52 AM
Is McLeroy suggesting that high school science classes conduct research in the supernatural? Wouldn't that upset the other wackaloons, who might fear experiments in Satanism?
Posted by: mark | March 27, 2009 12:55 PM
More McLeroy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FID0E5T3I8
He "understands" why people would think life evolves. He thinks it's a "debate" and the scientists are his "opponents" in the "debate". He thinks he understands the evidence better than they do. He doesn't understand why they are doing it! What are they being evolutionists for!! Everything is so clear to him...
Posted by: tweetybird386sx | March 28, 2009 12:33 AM