I've already mentioned that the Texas biologists are coming out on the side of science, but there's also another group gearing up to fight: would you believe that they are oxymoronically (or perhaps, just moronically) called Texans for Better Science? They're no such thing, of course — they want Intelligent Design creationism taught in the schools.
When will they learn that naming your organization dishonestly merely testifies to the fact that if people learned what you actually want, they'd dislike you, so you need to mask your motives? It seems you only find right wing crazy groups doing this. Other groups don't. The World Wildlife Fund, for instance, is honestly and upfront admitting that they are raising money to preserve wildlife; you don't see them misrepresenting themselves with their name to raise cash by misleading people — they aren't called "Gun Lovers In Favor Of Increasing Game Populations".
- Log in to post comments
No, that would be Ducks Unlimited.
ZING!
I don't think it's dishonest. They just have different criteria for "better."
To us, better means more accurate, more consistent with empirical evidence, etc. To them, better means more consistent with their religious dogma, regardless of the evidence.
;-)
Great sentiment PZ. These shifty IDiots and their ilk need to be called out at every opportunity. They deploy dishonesty quite consistently just to gain sway. "Pro-Life" - does that mean that those who want to keep a women's right to choose are "Anti-Life"? - or "Pro-Death?". More dishonesty. More false-dilemmas.
These are deranged, mentally-ill, persons.
To be fair, we're not always completely transparent either.
Take the NCSE, for instance. They don't call themselves "Evil Atheists Bent on World Domination and Corruption of our Precious, Precious Youth." Nor do the Jews call themselves "Christ-Killing Semites Whose Plan B Involves Banking and the Media, Somehow" or homosexuals call themselves "Sickos Who Hate the Family and Want Us All to Marry Our Pets Because No One Will Think of the Children".
But obviously*, that's what they are.
*Obviously, of course, to your standard issue Christian Conspiracy Theorist.
I found this article on teh internets in which the TSBE members are interviewed about their views
This isn't about changing reasonable people's minds. We should be looking to depose these nuts and replace them with people whose scientific education got past the 12th century.
"Evil Atheists Bent on World Domination and Corruption of our Precious, Precious Youth."
You forgot the part about eating babies.
Re my post. The article is here: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories…
*Obviously, of course, to your standard issue Christian Conspiracy Theorist.
Don't you mean "Loving, Caring Person's of Faith Who Only Want To Create A Better World Through Jesus?
If the religious types are intent on forming a 'scientific' organization with such a dishonest title then why don't the real scientists just play them at their own game to see how THEY like it. How about forming a "Fundamentalist Baptist Convention Against Roman Catholic Approved Science"?
The members of that group could argue that Jesus should be brought back to the biology class when the talking snake theory is brought back to its rightful place, that T-Rex ate coconuts and that there are no stars more than 6000 light years away from the earth.
A few well versed agent provocateurs will do more to advance the case for having a proper non religious scientific education than any number of scientific pleadings.
"This isn't about changing reasonable people's minds. We should be looking to depose these nuts ..."
Absolutely.
We all need to at every opportunity - point, laugh, deride, gawk, guffaw, belittle, and debunk their asinine assertions. They are not reasonable. They make a mockery of rational thought and debate. Unfortunately, reason does not disarm these fools, nor does empirical demonstration. They see the world through their narrow, child-like, lenses and will never stop clinging to their beliefs simply because of mere reason. That would be far too scary for them.
haha, I ran across the Texans for "Better" Science Education site when I was trying to find "Texas Citizens for Science" again (http://www.texscience.org/ ) -- At first I thought TCS had just moved some things around on their website, but then I looked at the content, and blink, blink, blink -- I'm still trying to get it out of my mind -- oh the pain!
The ads for Expelled should have tipped me off immediately.
And I want them to define "Better".
Alex: I don't even think that ridicule works with these idiots. I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's quote on the Bush administration.
"Evil Atheists Bent on World Domination and Corruption of our Precious, Precious Youth."
Ah,yes, the EABWDCPPY
A few well versed agent provocateurs will do more to advance the case for having a proper non religious scientific education than any number of scientific pleadings.
Nah, if we are dishonest, even a little bit, we will get bulldozed. That is exactly what they are looking for.
I have just followed the link to "Texans for Better Science". They have a form you can fill in to report what your child is being taught at which school and from which book etc, etc. I submitted that my child is being taught that the earth is supported on the back on a giant turtle, and below that there were turtles all the way down (after Carl Sagan). My submission was apparently accepted even though I left all other details, i.e. which school, who I was, where I came from etc, blank. If there are any followers of the FSG or the Invisible Pink Unicorn out there, why not add your comments before they get wise to the way their blog is set up.
Oh, that was so yesterday's news -- the danger is greater than anyone dares imagine.
Remember that the Institute for Creation Research moved to Dallas earlier this year? They are petitioning the state for authority to grant graduate degrees in creationism. No doubt "Texans for Better Science" is supporting them completely.
No, I am not kidding. Texas Observer has the story, here:
http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=718
And here:
http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=719
Thanks for noticing, P.Z., and readers of Pharyngula. Exposing pathogens to sunlight often does the trick.
RamblinDude said
"Nah, if we are dishonest, even a little bit, we will get bulldozed. That is exactly what they are looking for."
Frankly, I think theres nothing dishonest with the title -
"Fundamentalist Baptist Convention Against Roman Catholic Approved Science"
- Its simply an accurate representation of the broad creationist movement. Obviously I wouldn't advocate an atheistic scientist to be the one who forms or promotes this sort of group but we must have some brothers in arms on the side of the constitutional separation of church and state who could do so without risk of compromising their credentials.
I had no idea Gollum was with the NCSE staff.
Or our new Homeschooling mother chair of the SC Board of Education, member of the suspiciously named SC PIE
Parents involved in Education... ok maybe but isn't it really involved in damaging education?
Concerning the TFBS, on the form mentioned by Sceptical Chymist, there's a section asking if you can hand deliver a DVD to your child's teacher. I've emailed them to find out what that DVD might be. I'm patiently waiting a response from them. Anyone know what it is?
The report form looks a lot like Big Bro in action to me.
When oh when will they stop calling Abiogenesis "Evolution"?
in the interest of full disclosure:
"Evil Atheist Trolls Scandalizing our Precious, Unspoiled, Pristine, Pious Youth"
aka
EATSPUPPY
As soon as we start calling intelligent Design "science".
EATSPUPPY and BABIES
Beguiling
All
Believers
Into
Evolution's
Scam
You wrote:
When will they learn that naming your organization dishonestly merely testifies to the fact that if people learned what you actually want, they'd dislike you, so you need to mask your motives?
Actually, this is not true. Furthermore, one of the failings of the atheist movement is that they fail to respect the facts about marketing and, thus, find themselves impotent against it.
For all practical purposes, these people are seeking to create a change in the language by misusing words. They want to change the public definition of "science" - the definition that pops into the mind of the common speaker - so that their religious views fit within that definition.
The way to do this is to spend a great deal of money and use whatever other tactics are available to get their meaning in front of the people - so that people (particularly young people) constantly encounter the term with its new meaning, then come to adopt it.
The will be effective at doing this unless and until enough people are willing to spend enough money and make enough noise to prevent the public from casually learning this new definition.
This means hiring a marketing company (preferably one in Texas), giving them a large amount of money, and telling them to come up with a marketing campaign that will teach people why intelligent design is not science.
Unless and until scientists and those friendly to science are willing to actually make contributions of time and physical labor to talk to the public, those who seek to promote their agenda by manipulating the language will win.
@20: I think you might find the somewhat predictable answer right here:
http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Teacher.Resources.htm#Videos
If you have already seen Unlocking the Mystery of Life you will not find any new material in Where Does the Evidence Lead?, but you will find a great tool to introduce Intelligent Design in a classroom or small group setting.
Here is what they are telling people the 'weaknesses' of evolution, are:
(1) Weakness: Chemical Origin of Life Has Not Even Been Demonstrated To Be Possible!
(Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.)
(2) Weakness: No Transitional Fossils, particularly in huge systematic gaps, not just species to species!
- Talks about the 60's and 70's!
(3) Weakness: Haeckels Embryos Were Fraudulent!
(Stephen Jay Gould, Atheist-Marxist-Evolutionist)
(4) Weakness: The Assumed Early Atmosphere in Miller Urey was Wrong!
(Gribbin, John, "Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia--And Life," New Scientist, vol. 94 (May 13, 1982), pp. 413-416.)
(5) Weakness: The Assumed Early Atmosphere in Miller Urey was Wrong - Part 2!
(6) Weakness: The Assumed Early Atmosphere in Miller Urey was Wrong - Part 3!
(7) Weakness: Even RNA Life Doesn't Explain It and Isn't Consistent With What is Seen Today!
(Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp. 77-83.)
(8) Weakness: Explanatory Power is Weak...There Are More Questions than Answers!
(Dose, Professor Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4 (1988), pp. 348-356.)
(9) Weakness: DNA Chirality Is A Necessity but Remains A Mystery!
(Cohen, Jon, "Getting All Turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth," Science, vol. 267 (March 3, 1995), pp. 1265-1266.)
(10) Weakness: Pathways of Evolutionary Development in Chemical Origin of Life Remain Unexplained and Even Unimaginable!
(Dyson, Freeman, "Honoring Dirac," Science, vol. 185 (September 27, 1974), pp. 1160-1161. Dyson was at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.)
There are more, but you get the picture. I will allow others to point out the dishonesty. Suffice to say, it doesn't look good when most of the evidence has either nothing to do with evolution, or is but one example, often from between 20-30 years ago. Barstewards!
Sounds like the New McCarthyism, New Stalinism, or New ChristoMullahs. Soon, they will have lists of known science teachers in Texas schools. Known evolutionary biologists. Complete with photos and their addresses and phone numbers. For informational purposes only of course. If someone burns a cross on their lawn or shoots their dog, well gee, we had nothing to do with it. Then one day, some fruitcake assassinates a teacher or scientist.
Don't laugh. MDs have been dealing with this sort of terrorism for 15 years now. Seven have been killed, 17 attempted murders, and roughly 200 wounded, some seriously.
Just business as usual. The American Talibans can get quite violent and terrorism is just politics by other means.
Glad I don't live in Texas. I used to travel their on biz every once in a while. Not setting foot in that state for the forseeable future.
It would be fun to mess with the minds of this Bestest Science cult from Texas. Maybe someone who is trying to be "helpful" should send them some choice quotes from the creationists in Kansas to use in their own presentation. ("We need more imperialism in science," etc.)
I'll think about this some more. *Rubs hands together*
C'mon people, predict here: http://www.ziitrend.com/predict/on/which_state_will_be_the_location_of_…
Made that especially for PZ! :-)
Alonzo, I agree with your post, however, it only underscores their dishonesty. Furthermore, language manipulation is a grade-school tactic that falls apart in places like a court of law (Dover) and rational discussion. However, as you stated, it does sway perceptions. But so do their trounsings (Dover).
btw, did y'all see this awesome documentary on PBS? Now viewable online, 'Intelligent Design on Trial':
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
Very, very informative...
Unless and until scientists and those friendly to science are willing to actually make contributions of time and physical labor to talk to the public, those who seek to promote their agenda by manipulating the language will win.
Well spoken.
Probably veiled Death Threats. You were expecting something else from Death cultists? Maybe Michael Korn burned a DVD.
We probably aren't to the letter-DVD bomb stage yet.
It's a shame, really, that someone apparently tipped off the folks at Texans for Gooder Science before they took it to the media.
Mr. Bradley, R-Beaumont. "Given that none of today's scientists were around when the first frog crawled out of the pond, there is no one who can say exactly what happened."
You know, the same stupid logic can be applied to this Jesus character.
Having clicked through to get to the website for "Texans for Better Nonsense (oops..I meant non-Science)", it is apparent they skipped the necessary evolutionary step of "Texans for Better Web Design". It'll take a while for my eyes to recover from that train wreck.
Lyin' for Jesus is an ancient, but sorry practice. See John Chrysostom, 5th century Christian theologian, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1. A good example of how the end justifies the means (as long as you're doing it for the "good" of others.)
Source: www.newadvent.org/fathers/19221.htm (provided for the broader context; take note, ID quote-miners).
Of course, not all Christians accept this kind of rationalization of lying. Some of them even speak and act ethically.
Chrysostom: "What is the wrong that I have done you, since I have determined to embark from this point upon the sea of apology? Is it that I misled you and concealed my purpose? Yet I did it for the benefit of yourself who wast deceived, and of those to whom I surrendered you by means of this deceit. For if the evil of deception is absolute, and it is never right to make use of it, I am prepared to pay any penalty you please: or rather, as you will never endure to inflict punishment upon me, I shall subject myself to the same condemnation which is pronounced by judges on evil-doers when their accusers have convicted them.
But if the thing is not always harmful, but becomes good or bad according to the intention of those who practise it, you must desist from complaining of deceit, and prove that it has been devised against you for a bad purpose; and as long as this proof is wanting it would only be fair for those who wish to conduct themselves prudently, not only to abstain from reproaches and accusation, but even to give a friendly reception to the deceiver.
For a well-timed deception, undertaken with an upright intention, has such advantages, that many persons have often had to undergo punishment for abstaining from fraud.
And if you investigate the history of generals who have enjoyed the highest reputation from the earliest ages, you will find that most of their triumphs were achieved by stratagem, and that such are more highly commended than those who conquer in open fight. For the latter conduct their campaigns with greater expenditure of money and men, so that they gain nothing by the victory, but suffer just as much distress as those who have been defeated, both in the sacrifice of troops and the exhaustion of funds. But, besides this, they are not even permitted to enjoy all the glory which pertains to the victory; for no small part of it is reaped by those who have fallen, because in spirit they were victorious, their defeat was only a bodily one: so that had it been possible for them not to fall when they were wounded, and death had not come and put the finishing stroke to their labors, there would have been no end of their prowess. But one who has been able to gain the victory by stratagem involves the enemy in ridicule as well as disaster. Again, in the other case both sides equally carry off the honors bestowed upon valor, whereas in this case they do not equally obtain those which are bestowed on wisdom, but the prize falls entirely to the victors, and, another point no less important is that they preserve the joy of the victory for the state unalloyed; for abundance of resources and multitudes of men are not like mental powers: the former indeed if continually used in war necessarily become exhausted, and fail those who possess them, whereas it is the nature of wisdom to increase the more it is exercised. And not in war only, but also in peace the need of deceit may be found, not merely in reference to the affairs of the state, but also in private life, in the dealings of husband with wife and wife with husband, son with father, friend with friend, and also children with a parent. For the daughter of Saul would not have been able to rescue her husband out of Saul's hands except by deceiving her father. And her brother, wishing to save him whom she had rescued when he was again in danger, made use of the same weapon as the wife. 1 Samuel 20:11"
@27: I especially enjoyed this quote from that horrendous list:
(Note: Until his recent death, Stephen J. Gould was one of the most outspoken proponents of evolution, specifically the punctuated equilibrium variety.)
There's no definitive statement on how he felt after his death but hey, he may have changed his mind, who knows?
"You know, the same stupid logic can be applied to this Jesus character."
Ah yes...but it is a sign of poor character and sinful nature to question and doubt holy writ.
It seems like "TFBS" has been around for at least 4 years and pretty much consists of one idiot YEC named Mark Ramsey... so I don't see how this constitutes gearing up for the fight. Pretty pathetic really.
"I don't think it's dishonest. They just have different criteria for "better.""
It's not so much better that they are miss-defining, but science. They could easily call themselves Texans for Better Stupidity and keep the same abreviation.
This fits right in with Republican bills like the "Clean" Air Act and the "Healthy" Forests Initiative.
For that matter, it's also what they've done to the Consumer Product "Safety" Commission and the Government "Accountability" Office.
Another point to me made about "morally upright" individuals that advocate deception. John Chrysostom's (see #38) anti-Semitic sermons were later used by Nazis as justification for their practices. Chrysostom, literally "golden mouthed," offers numerous examples of 5th century hate-speech--by a high church leader.
A nice counterpoint to the typical ID-creo BS about Darwin inspiring Hitler.
This group's dishonest name is just one more example of what Mooney talked about in his book last year. It's an extension of the "sound science" meme which itself is/was absolute garbage because it promoted teh stupid, especially with regard to global warming.
Texans for Better Science. Right. Who's got money on not a single member having anything approaching a science degree or professional background?
Ah yes, Texans for BS.
Sound Science is Better Science.
I think that in order to learn more about their motivations we need to study the minds of third-graders - and in some cases, first graders.
"Sound Science is Better Science."
I favor Light science for those who don't have a lot of study time.
New Clear Science is good for those with lots of study time.
Tastes great? Less filling? Enquiring minds want to know!
(PS: Shouldn't that be spelled Lite?)
You're careless with your chastising #1. I've worked directly with Trout Unlimited and Pheasants Unlimited members clearing invasive vegetation and in stream restoration in Massachusetts. They work toward maintaining and increasing habitat for the type of game they hunt. If you've had a different experience with them, I'd like to hear it.
Jim @ #14 wrote:
I like that! I think it could be worked into a catchy song.
Refrain: EABWDCPPY diddy dum, diddy do!
The Dallas Morning News article from today had a great quote from Chris Comer, the lady who was sacked from the TEA:
I welcome creationism in the schools as a challenge to science. Its not that I believe in creationism but rather its because I believe in supporting any and all challenges to our current scientific thinking. That's what keeps it strong. If science is afraid to entertain any and all challenges then its weak science.
Re: #45
In fact, in regards to Hitler's influences, it occurs to me from my extensive research into Hitler's life* that, while he didn't spend much time reading Darwin, he was really into American Old West novels by German author Karl May. One could just as easily, and more accurately, claim that Hitler's views were shaped by the "dog eat dog" world of the American Old West than by the "survival of the fittest" world of Darwin's theory.
*For a novel. Really, I swear!
"....I believe in supporting any and all challenges to our current scientific thinking."
Ummm...yeah. Well that's nice. Nothing that creationism asserts is a challenge to "our current scientific thinking". That's precisely what the issue is with them. Ignoring the fossil record, geology, embryology, cladistics, or astronomy is not the way to challenge science. Nor is clinging to magical ideas about how Nature works. There is no magic, only misunderstanding and ignorance. Both of which yield to the scientific method.
@Mark (#55):
Right. Let's keep scientists and science teachers busy by having them answer to any fool who comes along spouting tired old pseudo-arguments. I mean, that has got to be more useful than having them, y'know, do research and teach science.
That's because he's (dishonestly) going by his old, family-friendly name: Smeagol.
Mark #55:
Scientists challenge other scientists by doing the work and vetting their critiques through peer review. Trying to hold this process in children's classrooms is public marketing, not science.
So far there isn't any challenge from creationism. It's simply not a controversy. There is exactly zero science being done on the creationism side. It's all hand waving, smoke an mirrors performed with the shoehorn of people's emotional ties to their religion trying to cram the actual scientific evidence out there to fit their lying ways.
And as Sastra says, the highschool classroom is not the place. The laboratory is. As soon as (cough cough) the Creatinoists or IDists come up with some real science that they are willing to submit to peer review then we can maybe talk.
Re: Mark#55
Science research is not done in high school classrooms. But the door is wide open to get new scientific theories and ideas into them. Just do the research and experiments, publish the results for peer review. If it survives this, it will show up in science text books.
Hint: While you are waiting for a pass, biologists all over the world are bringing it.
I am going to use this opportunity to advocate, once again, that intelligent design be taught in science classes.
I think they should be tested on it.
The first science test in every science class from one end of this country to the other should have the short essay question:
(1) Please explain what science is and why intelligent design is not science.
Once the people are properly educated, we can do away with this nonsense.
"Gun Lovers In Favor Of Increasing Game Populations".
T'ain't World Wildlife Fund tis Ducks Unlimited.
Just to keep piling on poor Mark: Today's Cretinism is -- at most -- a challenge to the science of 1860. It's not one to the science of 1960, let alone 2007.
How can the repetition of long-disproven arguments -- in a word, ignorance -- be a challenge to science?
In principle, you're right. The Behes and Dembskis of this world have every right to come up with a challenge and publish it. They still haven't done it, though, so I can't see any reason to squeeze yet another subject into the laughably short time available for science (...or just about anything...) in school.
I welcome creationism in the schools as a challenge to science. Its not that I believe in creationism but rather its because I believe in supporting any and all challenges to our current scientific thinking. That's what keeps it strong. If science is afraid to entertain any and all challenges then its weak science.
Posted by: Mark
A high school classroom is not the place for these "challenges". A high school science classroom is for giving students a foundation of scientific knowledge that will give them a basic understanding of major science concepts in order to prepare (and hopefully inspire) them for in depth study of same at the university level.
Teachers have a hard enough time cramming in the basics without having to waste class time on creationist or IDiot nonsense. The more time wasted on silliness such as that, the less prepared those students are for college. The only place that silliness deserves in the typical science classroom is as a negative example when covering critical thinking and the scientific method.
And today Texas gets the news that the Institute for Creation Research, relocated from California to Dallas, is one step away from granting graduate degrees in creationism in Texas.
Who is it God wants us to let go? How can we end these plagues of locusts, blood suckers, and child miseducators?
RE #1, 64: Yes, I thought of Ducks Unlimited too. But in all fairness, while their goal is to be able to shoot and eat ducks (waste of time IMO because you have to pick out all the shot first), they do a lot of good work in the restoration and preservation of wetlands and biodiversity.
DR
Just to keep piling on poor Mark: Today's Cretinism is -- at most -- a challenge to the science of 1860. It's not one to the science of 1960, let alone 2007.
How can the repetition of long-disproven arguments -- in a word, ignorance -- be a challenge to science?
In principle, you're right. The Behes and Dembskis of this world have every right to come up with a challenge and publish it. They still haven't done it, though, so I can't see any reason to squeeze yet another subject into the laughably short time available for science (...or just about anything...) in school.