Anti-evolution
jlynch | February 14, 2006The Ohio state school board has just voted (11-4) to eliminate a lesson plan and
science standards that opened the door to teaching ID. See here and here. Panda's Thumb alread has a thread open.
jlynch | February 5, 2006The IDists have continually argued that they are being oppressed by some sort of Darwinist hegemony. One such case is that of Caroline Crocker, a biochemist who was released from a position as a visiting professor* by George Mason University and now claims that her academic freedom (to teach ID) was infringed. PZ highlights an account in the Washington Post and neatly skewers her claims, showing her to be an appallingly ignorant mouthpiece for DI talking points. In Fall 05, Crocker taught general biology at North Virginia Community College. This spring, she does not seem to be teaching there…
jlynch | February 4, 2006There always has been tension between advocates of Young Earth Creationism (such as Ken Ham and Henry Morris) and the ID movement. While the former believe that ID supporters should actively support Biblical principles, the latter refuse to disassociate themselves from a young earth position as that would negate the "big tent" strategy perfected by Phil Johnson. Witness, for example, what Johnson says about YEC:
My approach with the young-earthers is to say, 'I'm not
asking you to give up your point of view.' In fact I'm not even saying
what my opinion is with it. I don't take any position on…
jlynch | February 3, 2006ID's martyr complex is alive and well. Witness ...
By proclaiming it illegal to "disparage or denigrate" neo-Darwinism, Judge Jones adopted the principle of the Inquisition, and in so doing rendered both himself and that state-enforced theory ridiculous. Taking a longer view, I think Dover will come eventually to be be seen as a moral victory, in the same way that Galileoâs condemnation is now viewed as a moral victory.
There is only one thing to say to Judge Jones - eppure, si muove!
Galileo they ain't! As my students noticed last week, Galileo had observations, experiments, and…
jlynch | February 1, 2006 Some quick blasts as it's mid-week, I'm busy, and probably wont do much blogging until the weekend.
Last night Bush said: "[W]e need to encourage children to take more math and science and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations." Rigorous ... as in "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. Youâre asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes"? Chris comments here.
Over at Uncommon Descent, Dave Springer loses it and probably gets bitch-slapped by Dembski. Details here…
jlynch | January 29, 2006South Carolina is currently undergoing a dalliance with ID. WIS10, a TV station in Columbia, ran an interview with the SC Governor, Mark Sanford. Here is a choice portion wherein Sanford demonstrates that science classes were wasted on him:
Q: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in public schools; for instance Intelligent Design.
MS: I have no problem with it.
Q: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching Evolution?
MS: Well I think that it's just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are…
jlynch | January 29, 2006I just don't get it. Over at Uncommon Descent, Dembski posts on a course in the philosophy of biology at the University of Bern (Switzerland) that includes a single lecture (of ten) that discusses ID, and commentators are acting like this is a big deal.
Guys, there are courses all over this country that deal with ID, though probably not in a manner that the IDists would be happy with. For example, my BIO/HPS: Origins, Evolution and Creation course has been dealing with ID since its inception in 1998 and this semester will feature over 18 hours (nearly half the course) of lectures on ID.
The…
jlynch | January 29, 2006Once again, ID supporters are being a little economical with the truth. Over at Uncommon Descent, Dembski posts an op-ed by Stephen Meyer in the Daily Telegraph (28/1/06). Meyer sets the scene with:
In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator [see here]. Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift.
And ends with:
Nevertheless, [ID]…
jlynch | January 29, 2006Yet another poll, or rather this time a nascent one being run by the boyos at TelicThoughts who mailed myself and more than a few other science bloggers to see what our answer to the question "On which points are intelligent design and creationism identical?" given the following definitions:
"creationism" will be defined as "a belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible" (source: Dictionary.com). "Evolution" will be defined as "the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common…
jlynch | January 28, 2006Over at DailyKOS, Wes Elsberry (of NCSE) gets interviewed. Wes graciously gives props to Ed Brayton, Troy Britain, Reed Cartwright, Mike Dunford, Pim van Meurs, and myself (among many many others) for our help on the Dover case, but frankly it all pales into significance compared to the work Wes, Nick Matzke and the NCSE put into the case. They are the heroes of all of this.
jlynch | January 28, 2006If only to contextualize the Harris Poll I mention below, it is worth pointing out that science literacy in this country is fairly appaling. Witness the bi-annual NSF Science & Engineering Indicators (2004), which found that forty percent believe that astrology is either "very" or "sort of" scientific. This drops from 49% to 25% as education rises. It clearly should raise alarm bells if a quarter of college graduates feel that astrology can be even "sort of" scientific. Read the whole report ... it should depress you even if you are an ID supporter.
The demographic for this survey was 7…
jlynch | January 28, 2006Over at Uncommon Descent, both Dembski and Dave Springer are highlighting this Harris poll from July of last year (you got to hand it to the ID supporters, they keep up with the literature). Dembski merely makes a number of observations (belief in ID increases with education and is more common in Democrats and in the NE and West of the country) while Springer practically passes out with excitement ("Wow! ... Amazing. I recall Bill Dembski months ago writing ID has the momentum and Evolution has the inertia. How right he was!"). However, one needs to look at the actual poll results before…
jlynch | January 27, 2006Not for the easily offended - so PZ will enjoy it ! - is the BEAST Most Loathsome People in America 2005. And who do we see at #46? Why, none other than Bruce Chapman of the DI!
46. Bruce Chapman
Charges: Founder of the misnamed "Discovery Institute." Despite its pioneering title, Chapman's organization seeks to make one of the worldâs oldest, dumbest ideas the prevailing ideology, to "undiscover" evolution and set us back more than a century. Seems to believe a petition signed by 400 PhDs and professors is convincing proof of Intelligent Design's widespread acceptance, when more scientists…
jlynch | January 26, 2006My experience of Europe in the 1980's was that creationism was a particularly American phenomenon - and frankly, I still think it is. However, the following poll from the UK gives one pause for thought:
Over 2000 participants were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
22% - creationism
17% - intelligent design
48% - evolution
15% - did not know
While this would appear to be similar to the situation here in the US, there is one important difference. When asked what should be taught (versus their own belief), 69% wanted evolution as part of the science…
jlynch | January 23, 2006Philip Skell - whom I've dealt with before - is once again shilling for the Discovery Institute. Witness:
"I am writing -- as a member of the National Academy of Sciences -- to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory"
Problem is, the NAS - which Skell and the DI cloak their antievolutionism in ("Members and foreign associates of the National Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research…
jlynch | January 21, 2006Over at Dispatches, Ed makes two interesting points about the Buttars bill I mention below. Firstly, the bill is in danger of being destroyed should it be challenged in court as the religious intent expressed by its supporters would clearly fail the Lemon test. Secondly,
We don't allow people to practice in many fields without demonstrating that they have some expertise in it. We won't even let someone cut hair without a cosmetology license in this country. And yet we allow ignorant legislators pass laws on those issues without demanding that they know anything about them. I propose a new…
jlynch | January 21, 2006Things have been quiet here - primarily because it was the first week of the semester and everything that entails. But it's over now and hopefully I can get back to blogging.
While I was away, Buttars' bill in Utah apparently advanced on to the next stage of Senate consideration. Buttars states "I've never advocated for, never included anything about intelligent design, creationism or any faith-based philosophy," this despite his statement in USA Today (8/8/05) that "I believe those fighting against the teaching of intelligent design in
schools have an ulterior motive to eliminate references…
jlynch | January 14, 2006The next big thing for the ID movement will be the publication of Darwin's Nemesis: Philip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement in April. I have previously discussed this festschrift for Johnson here and here. Over at Uncommon Descent, Dembski - whose "retirement" from blogging doesn't seem to have slowed his posting - is shilling the volume, noting that he managed to insert some comments on Dover into the preface. As you can imagine, Dembski manages to spin the decision into a good thing for ID.
Just as a tree that has been "rimmed" (i.e., had its bark completely cut through on all…
jlynch | January 11, 2006Casey Luskin, lawyer and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the DI has this to say about the El Tajon creationism class:
Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine…
jlynch | January 10, 2006I have been teaching an upper-division course on Origins, Evolution and Creation since 1998; the course has been very popular and has been cross-listed as both Biology (BIO) and History and Philosophy of Science (HPS). Every year I get 40 or so students from varying religious and educational backgrounds and we examine the evidence for creationist claims (after spending some time thinking about the nature of science and religion). Over the years it has morphed from a course largely examining "scientific creationism" to one examining intelligent design. I'm not afraid to let the students read…