Michigan Bills

Major Victory in Michigan

stcynic — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:41:34 +0000

Major Victory in Michigan

Michigan Citizens for Science (MCFS) is happy to announce that we won a major victory with the State Board of Education on Tuesday. Having failed to have pro-ID language included in a bill earlier this year to harmonize the educational standards for public and charter schools in the state, House Republicans turned their attention to the State Board of Education and attempted to influence that board to include anti-evolution language into the new science standards. The BOE rejected those attempts with a unanimous vote.

Unlike the earlier confrontations on the issue before the House Education Commmittee, the state BOE operates fairly and allows both sides to have the time they need to testify on the subject. MCFS President Robert Pennock and board member Greg Forbes both got to testify against the changes, and MCFS was involved in the weeks leading up to this vote in educating the board on the misleading nature of the proposed changes. Not only did they vote unanimously to reject those changes, they also voted down yet another attempt to delay the final vote (which had already been delayed by a month so they pressure the board for the changes). A major victory for science and yet another defeat for its opponents.

stcynic Tue, 10/10/2006 - 10:41

Tags

Michigan Bills

This is fantastic news. Maybe, just maybe, reason and science will prevail over the religious thugs.

I'm ecstatic for my adopted home state. Glad to hear that sanity has prevailed there!

It is so good to see reason prevail. Perhaps there is hope after all.

A huge "Huzzah!" for the board and MCFS!

Congratulations for your state. In WA we've been pretty lucky so far (except for being the headquarters of the DI of course).

MCFS Press Release

stcynic — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:06:58 +0000

MCFS Press Release

I just sent a press release to our media contacts around the state of Michigan concerning the DeVos campaign and their false claims of being misrepresented. You can read that press release here.

stcynic Fri, 09/22/2006 - 08:06

Tags

Michigan Bills

Is it too late to correct the spelling of "devastation"?

Sorry, I'm a congenital proofreader, and things like that just leap off the page at me. It's a curse.

Ed - I never got a reply back on my email to Team DeVos asking them to clarify DeVos' position on promoting ID in the science classrooms vs. non-science classrooms. Will update you on that response if I ever get one.

Thanks Michael. And thanks for forwarding the previous reply to me, that's obviously what led to the press release. Been fielding emails from reporters all day.

Are you quoted in any articles? It's okay to brag a little when you get a mention in the press. :)

fred-

No, we try to have all public statements made by the board president, Rob Pennock. Whenever he's available, I refer media requests to him. If he's not, then I'll handle them. But I did write the press release, which I think is pretty good.

DeVos and Intelligent Design

stcynic — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:40:42 +0000

DeVos and Intelligent Design

Dick DeVos, the Republican candidate for governor in Michigan, has confirmed what we already knew from the report of one of our MCFS members in a letter to the editor last week, that he advocates teaching ID in public school science classrooms. The Detroit Free Press reports:

"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory," DeVos told the Associated Press this week during an interview on education. "That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less."...

DeVos told the AP this week that allowing school districts to include intelligent design in science classes lets them to "expose students to a multitude of ideas, ... to think through the challenges, to learn to discern between multiple theories."

And as soon as ID advocates actually come up with a theory and publish research to support it, that might matter. As of now, it's completely irrelevant. Another interesting tidbit:

The Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation, funded by the candidate and his wife, gave the Thomas More Law Center $5,000 in 2002.

That's hardly a surprise. DeVos is an Amway heir and his family has deep religious right ties. Jay Van Andel, the co-founder of Amway, funds a young earth creationist "research center" in Arizona.

stcynic Thu, 09/21/2006 - 03:40

Tags

Michigan Bills

"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory,"

That sound you hear is almost every scientist in the world beating their heads on their desks.

An amazing dichotomy, Ed, because Van Andel also endowed the academic cancer center and research institute in Grand Rapids where some of esteemed colleagues work. They have a whole program on germline modification and embryonic cryopreservation (in mice, not humans, of course).

My guess is that most of them would be appalled at these other activities of the Van Andel and DeVos families.

For me, this is another situation that shows when voting, I won't be choosing who I agree with more, I'll be choosing who I disagree with least. And who I think will do the least damage. Or be the most ineffective. As cliche as it is, the lesser of two evils generally wins. Someday I'd like to choose the greater of two goods.

The DeVos familay has also given money to the ICR, and I believe they even financed the construction of ICR's creation museum.

They are well known for their right-wing Christian activities.

Yeah, DeVos' bright idea will REALLY help Michigan's economic potential. Let's fill our kids' heads with crap - that'll create a really desirable talent pool for outside investors.

Way to go, Dick!

Has DeVos heard of the Kitzmiller decision? If not, he's been living in a cave. If so, he's pretending it doesn't exist and lying about ID's merits as all good Fundies do. Either way, he shows he's unfit for office.

Scott Page:

Do you have any evidence that DeVos has donated to the ICR or helped fund their museum? I'd love to have that documented if it's true.

"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory,"

Won't some journalist please get DeVos to explain exactly what this "theory" is?

Would it be allowable for a science teacher to use Judge Jones's Kitzmiller ruling as a teaching resource?

L.Ron Hubbard Lives!
Elron seemed to enjoy airily proclaiming that "there are thousands of study to support this" when he made whacky pseudo-scientific pronouncements. Now we're getting the same "there are lots of scientists who support this" nonsense from ID.

Jason L thats why you can vote for
http://www.gregcreswell.org/
for Michigan`s Governor

Well, if the worse does come to pass and a school district here in Michigan does start teaching ID in science class, I am willing to help out however I can in the ensuing lawsuit. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

I posted a letter to Mr. Devos' website letting him know that as a Michigan Republican he won't get my vote without retracting this statement. I then went on to fisk the ludicrous sections of this statement in my letter; I'm sure this thread needs no introduction on which portions of Devos' comments were ludicrous.

Michigan needs to emulate California in regards to retaining and attracting private capital investment, not Kansas and Missouri.

Mr. Devos won't inherit the strong economy Mr. Bush did in 2000 if he wins; we can't afford to satisfy the social conservatives, a point I hope will ring clear with him. Michigan has a lot of independent-, libertarian-skewed Republicans like me that aren't afraid to vote for moderate Democrats, I hope enough of us start turning the screws on him hard enough to take notice.

I've never been a single issue voter, but my goodness, how does one attract the high-tech talent we so desparetely need if we're catering to the Blue Law crowd? These items are noticed, I was part of a billionare-dollar start-up that decided to headquarter in San Diego rather than Ann Arbor, one driving factor was the environment the founders wanted to raise their kids in, this was during the Engler years when you couldn't need get a road repaved; Michigan didn't score well vs. San Diego. This sort of rhetoric and potential curriculm mutations will not be helpful either.

I got a reply from a Devos staffer, they reply:

"It is unfortunate that Dick DeVos was misrepresented by a reporter in a recent news article regarding his position on the teaching of intelligent design.

The truth is Dick DeVos has always believed that our children should be provided with more knowledge, not less. Lots of intelligent people can disagree about the origins of life. In the end, Dick DeVos believes in our system of local control. He believes local school boards should have the opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums." (sorry, I don't know how to indent others posts)

Unfortunately his staffer is also ignorant, they state,

"Lots of intelligent people can disagree about the origins of life".

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. It attempts to explain the origin of species, these are two very different topics. I am not a science expert, far from it, and I know this.

I do agree with the below statement,

"opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums"

which I stated in my original email to Mr. Devos; as long as ID is taught in religion and social studies classes and not in a science class.

Hopefully a sharp journalist will ask him whether he supports local school boards teaching ID as a competing "theory" to evolution in a science class-room.

Michael-

Can you forward that email to me at ebrayton@crystalauto.com? Thanks.

ID Legislation in Michigan

stcynic — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:32:25 +0000

ID Legislation in Michigan

We've got a sudden rash of ID activity here in Michigan. The MCFS board got word yesterday that the House Education Committee in Michigan was going to hold a hearing this morning on HB 5251, a bill that would require the teaching of all the major ID arguments in public school science classes. We had thought this bill was dead in light of HB 5606, which was signed into law in April. But the pro-ID language had been taken out of that bill, so the sponsors of 5251 have revived it. The language of the bill is as follows:

10) Not later than August 1, 2006, the state board shall revise the recommended model core academic curriculum content standards in science to ensure that pupils will be able to do all of the following:

(a) Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.

(b) Use relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and to formulate arguments for or against those theories.

We hastily arranged to have several members of our board at the hearing to testify against the bill. The way it works in such hearings in Michigan is that you have to show up before the meeting and fill out a card asking to testify, telling them who you are and what group you represent. The committee chair then goes through the cards during the hearing and calls people up. Committee chairman in the Michigan house are essentially all-powerful. If they choose, they can only allow one side to testify and not the other. They can give an hour to one side and 5 minutes to the other. And they can schedule a hearing on a bill with only a 24 hour public notice. Thus, the reason we didn't find out about the meeting until yesterday. Several interesting things happened at the hearing.

First, it was obvious that the other side had far more than 24 hours notice to prepare to testify. They brought in a professor from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay to testify on behalf of the bill and he read from a prepared speech, so clearly this was set up well in advance. This professor's testimony, however, was quite telling. After Rep. Moolenaar, the bill's chief sponsor, declared in no uncertain terms that the bill had nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent design, the professor's speech was a laundry list of ID arguments - irreducibile complexity, specified complexity, peppered moths, and so forth. The two main sources he cited were Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, and Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. And then after taking all of the material of his testimony from the ID movement, he himself claimed that this had nothing to do with ID.

When ID advocates say, "we don't want to teach ID, we just want to teach the arguments against evolution", they are saying nothing meaningful at all. All ID is at this point is a set of arguments against evolution. There is no ID model or theory of the natural history of life on earth, there is only a set of arguments against evolution, with the illogical conclusion that if evolution can't explain something, God must have done it. This is a "god of the gaps" argument, an argument that has failed time and time again and is, as Michael Ruse likes to say, a science stopper. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to get ID arguments into classrooms without calling it ID, to avoid judicial scrutiny. But as the ruling in the Dover trial last year showed, this strategy does not avoid being unconstitutional:

"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny, which we have now determined that it cannot withstand, by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the (intelligent design movement) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

MCFS board member Frank Ravitch was allowed to testify and he informed the committee that, just like in Dover, this policy would be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. The other board members were not called to testify. No vote was taken on the bill at this hearing, and we are hoping that more testimony will be heard next week at their regular committee meeting so that we can finish giving them our perspective on the bill. In addition to MCFS, other groups opposed to the bill include the ACLU, the Michigan Science Teacher's Association and the Michigan Department of Education. Stay tuned for further developments.

stcynic Wed, 06/07/2006 - 10:32

Tags

Michigan Bills

Update on the Michigan Bill

stcynic — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:11:09 +0000

Update on the Michigan Bill

Or bills, in this case. It turns out that there are now two bills in the state legislature - HB 5606, sponsored by Rep. Palmer, which contains the "arguments for and against" language that will inevitably open the door to ID; and a Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Kuipers, that doesn't yet have a bill designation and which doesn't contain such language. 5606 has passed the House and has been referred to the Senate Education Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Kuipers. Kuipers doesn't have to bring that bill up for a vote if he doesn't want to, and at the moment it appears that he is going to focus on passing his own version of the bill.

All of this leaves things quite unsettled for the moment. The ID language could be added to the Kuipers bill by amendment, or in a post-approval joint conference to reconcile the two bills should it go that far. Kuipers is very conservative himself and is pro-ID, but he appears to want to keep this bill clear of such language so that it has the broadest appeal possible. Whether he can do that remains to be seen.

In addition to the ACLU's press release yesterday, Alan Leshner and Gilbert Omenn of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had an op-ed piece in the Detroit Free Press pointing to the ID language in 5606 and arguing strongly against it. The AAAS is also sending a letter to every state Senator, Representative and State Board of Education member urging them to make sure such language does not make it into the final bill.

Rep. Palmer also had an op-ed piece in the Free Press responding to the AAAS officers. He writes:

Some claim, and it is a very small minority, that HB 5606 attempts to undermine evolution. A plain reading of the text shows that all that is required under the science section is that a part of the new science curriculum include, at a minimum, instruction in the scientific method.

Any scientist worth his or her salt as a professional will acknowledge that the scientific method is one of the most fundamental principles of scientific thought. It is a foundational principle upon which the entire discipline rests, and it is among the first items taught. The Michigan Curriculum framework references this in its vision statement and through its first two strands.

This is rather disingenuous. It's not the invocation of the scientific method that is troublesome, it's the phrase requiring students to "formulate arguments for and against" scientific theories that opens the door to ID. This is code language straight from the Discovery Institute's playbook. it's virtually identical of the language they pushed in Ohio's "critical analysis" lesson plan and it's all part of the "teach the controversy" strategy, which no less an authority that William Dembski admits is "the clarion call of the intelligent design movement".

Likewise, Stephen Meyer of the DI has been pushing this idea of teaching the arguments for and against evolution since at least 2002 in Ohio. He uses the exact same phrase to describe his advice to the Ohio school board then:

Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view.

So there really should be no doubt that such language is straight out of the ID movement's playbook. And as Judge Jones noted in the Dover ruling, this strategy is designed to accomplish surreptiously what they've been unable to accomplish explicitly:

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny, which we have now determined that it cannot withstand, by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the (intelligent design movement) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

It is unlikely, then, that this new stealth tactic will survive a court challenge any better than the more explicit Dover policy did. The legislature, by inviting local school boards to incorporate ID into science classrooms under the guise of teaching the "arguments for and against" evolution, are essentially luring them into a "Dover trap". Once such a policy is implemented, lawsuits will be filed and the local school boards will face legal bills that could go into the millions of dollars. The state legislators will be term limited out of office, but the results of their folly will have ramifications for local school districts far beyond that time.

Update to the Update: Kuipers' bill, which now has the designation of SB 1124, was passed by the Senate Education Committee today and moved to the full Senate. None of the troubling language from 5606 was added to the bill, though that could still happen when it comes to a floor vote or if/when it goes to a conference committee. We testified on the bill today before the committee and told them that we support the bill as long as the language we object to is added at some point during the process, then we will oppose it.

stcynic Thu, 03/09/2006 - 14:11

Tags

Michigan Bills

The lawsuit that is applicable to HB 5606 is not Kitzmiller v. Dover, which banned a requirement for mentioning ID in public-school science classes, but is Selman v. Cobb County, which banned a textbook sticker which called for critical analysis of evolution theory. An appeals court panel appears to be leaning towards reversing the Selman decision -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District
-- and --
http://nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=439&DID=37549

Also, there are several scientific criticisms of evolution theory besides irreducible complexity, the only such criticism that was reviewed in the Dover case, and some of these other criticisms have little or nothing to do with "design," intelligent or otherwise. For example, there is specified complexity (also considered part of ID, it may be similar to irreducible complexity) and criticisms related to (1) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms and (2) the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

Also, it is clear that some individual legislators have far too much power. In the case of this Michigan bill, a single state senator is able to prevent a Senate committee from voting on a bill that has already passed the House. Recently, in Utah, a single representative in the House was able to prevent the full House from voting on a bill that had already passed the state Senate and the appropriate House committee -- see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/UT/603_antievolution_bill_in… The veto power of governors just does not compare.

[W]e support the bill as long as the language we object to is added at some point during the process, then we will oppose it.

I'm pretty sure there's an important word or two missing from that sentence.

Oops. Obviously I meant as long as the language we object to is not added at some point.

Luskin on Michigan Education Bill

stcynic — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:02:15 +0000

Luskin on Michigan Education Bill

Somehow I missed this from several days ago. Casey Luskin has a post on the DI blog about the Michigan bill that is rather amusing and highly inaccurate. His rhetorical device of choice these days is the notion of "false fear syndrome", whereby the ID movement keeps making its strategy more and more vague and then makes fun of those who actually pay attention to the terminology changes and points out the reality behind those changes.

The entire history of ID creationism is one of increasing vagueness. ID is essentially creationism with all of the potentially testable hypotheses taken out. Now that courts have caught that fact, they are moving on to urging the teaching not of ID but of the "controversy" or the "arguments for and against evolution". Or, in the case of the Michigan bill, merely to urge the fostering of "critical thinking" about evolution. At each step, they use increasingly vague language to cover their tracks. And then when we point out that this is coming from the very same people who were pushing ID yesterday and creationism the day before, they disingenuously claim that we are suffering from "false fear syndrome" and seeing ID boogeymen in perfectly benign legislation.

In the case of the Michigan bill, Luskin says that no one in their right mind could possibly think that a bill that encourages critical analysis of evolution could be a trojan horse to allow the teaching of ID or pro-ID arguments in science classrooms. The relevant portion of the bill reads:

The course content expectations for science shall include using the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories and using relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and formulate arguments for and against those theories.

And indeed, this does sound quite benign and even laudable. Who could be against critical evaluation of any idea? Luskin continues:

Clearly this language has nothing to do with intelligent design and would simply bring scientific critique of theories taught in the classroom, and makes absolutely no mention of teaching intelligent design or any form of a "replacement theory" for those currently-taught theories that are being critiqued...Some Darwinist educators apparently felt the best way to protect dogmatism and one-sidedness in science education was to inflame False Fears that Palmer's bill would bring in the teaching of intelligent design.

But are those fears false? Not at all. I'll give you several reasons why the accusations that this is a trojan horse to allow local school boards and teachers to teach ID. First, because if you look at the full text of the bill, you'll notice that the science section is completely different from all the other sections. The bill sets statewide standards in every department in public schools in Michigan. In every other department, the language is very specific, outlining exactly what information must be included in the course. I'll quote just a couple of them for you:

The course content expectations for mathematics shall focus on the study of measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using both numbers and symbols...

The course content expectations for civics shall focus on the constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, and the history and present form of government of the United States and of this state and its political subdivisions...

The course content expectations for world history and geography shall focus on the development of cultures before 1600, beginning with consideration of the Mesopotamian and Hebrew civilizations. The course shall be designed to acquaint pupils with the historical roots of the Western heritage.

Now compare that to the section on science that I quoted above. Notice the difference? In all the other areas, it spells out exactly what must be included in the classes in order to meet the state standards. But in the science section, it's not specific at all. It doesn't say what theories have to be addressed, it doesn't say what ideas must be included to meet the standards, it only says that "critical evaluation" must be used to "formulate arguments for and against" those theories. This is a very obvious change in both tone and substance and when I read the bill, it jumped out at me.

I immediately got on the phone and began calling my contacts in the state legislature on both sides of the aisle and I asked them why this section sticks out so much and is so different from the rest of the bill. I was told by Republicans that the real goal of the bill was to standardize the curriculum between public schools and charter schools, but that the section on science was indeed put into the bill as a "bone" to induce the IDers to jump on board. And that fact did not go unnoticed. In the very same Detroit Free Press article that Luskin cites, he conveniently left out this statement:

The wording for Palmer's bill was taken from a bill by Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland. That bill would require a statewide high school curriculum to include a critical evaluation of the theories of evolution and global warming. Palmer's bill, however, doesn't mention evolution or intelligent design.

Moolenaar said Palmer's does not require the teaching of intelligent design, but that such a decision would be up to local school boards.

Notice again how a more specific bill was replaced by a less specific bill. This is part of the ID strategy to give less and less of a target to hit that I mentioned earlier. And notice how even their own proponents admit that this bill will allow local school boards to teach ID. Indeed, how could it not? The bill doesn't spell out what "arguments against" evolution are to be "formulated", but where do you suppose teachers and school boards are going to turn for them?

To the ID movement, of course, who are more than happy to provide them with an armload of arguments against evolution, from irreducible complexity to Dembski's "explanatory filter" to Wells' book full of dishonest critiques of the "icons of evolution". The language of the bill clearly tells school boards that they can teach these ID arguments without actually teaching ID itself, and this again is all part of their political strategy. Judge Jones wasn't fooled by this, however. In his ruling, he addressed this strategy:

Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Judge Jones wasn't fooled by this strategy of teaching ID arguments without mentioning ID. We aren't fooled by it. ID supporters in the legislaure have admitted that this is the goal. Yet Luskin, apparently with a straight face, attributes this all to "false fear syndrome". I would suggest that Casey is suffering from real fear syndrome - the real and genuine fear that their political strategy will be transparently obvious to both proponents and critics alike, as it is in this case. Thus the need to say "pay no attention to that ID advocate behind the curtain".

stcynic Tue, 02/14/2006 - 04:02

Tags

Michigan Bills

I find it interesting that a lot of these bills also have language directed at global warming. Are there any links between ID groups and global warming skeptics?

Ed - Thank you for your usual excellent fisking. I am constantly amazed and amused by Lusken's version of reality. He HAS to know he's lying, yet continues to pump out drivel and dreck for the DI. Does he need the DI check that bad? Can't he find an honest job? Or does Lying For Jebus pay so well that he can ignore the cesspool he works in and stilll sleep at night?

afarensis wrote:

I find it interesting that a lot of these bills also have language directed at global warming. Are there any links between ID groups and global warming skeptics?

Not really direct links, but I think the link comes in the minds of the conservative politicians who are opposed to both evolution and global warming. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the two scientific theories they want to encourage "critical thinking" on just happen to be the two theories they reject. No one ever complains that the germ theory of disease is "taught as fact" by "dogmatic Pasteurists". No one ever demands that students study the arguments for and against the theory of relativity. And this is exactly why their arguments are disingenuous. Their goal is not to encourage critical thinking, their goal is to sow doubt about ideas they don't like.

Ed writes:

No one ever complains that the germ theory of disease is "taught as fact" by "dogmatic Pasteurists".

The AIDS deniers come pretty close.

"No one ever complains that the germ theory of disease is "taught as fact" by "dogmatic Pasteurists"."

No one except, say, Bill Maher, and a large portion of the Anti-vaccine, alt-med contingent. They suffer from a form of denial very comparible to creationists/IDists. Anti-vaccine proponents and their ilk often speak of diseases as coming from an "aggragate toxicity" rather than from bacteria or viruses. They are, in effect, specifically rejecting the Germ Theory of Disease. They even have their own historical myths that mirror, eerily, the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" nonsense. In the anti-vax case, Darwin and Lady Hope are replaced by Pasteur and Beauchamp. Some relevant links from your fellow scienceblogger, Orac:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignoran…
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignoran…

Could the link between global warming and ID be that, since IDers are clearly reheated creationists, global warming would imply that the designer/god/bigdaddy is not all pwerful and that mere man can screw up the world? Or could it be that global warming is part of the end times and that to "interfere" in it would just piss god et al off?

The Missouri bill, although not mentioning global warming directly, had some language that made me think of global warming. Strikes me as more than coincidence that some of the newer bills are taking shots at both, I wonder if there is a "master copy" floating around out there. I also wonder if this isn't an attempt to make the tent bigger by reaching out to contrarians of all stripes...

Re: global warming

There is a lot of anti-environmental propaganda circulating in churches. Try googling "Dominion Theology" and you will get an eye-full. The line is, in it's most extreme form, that God told us we could exploit the earth in Genesis, therefore if you tell us that we shouldn't for any reason, then you're an idolator (earth worshiper). It's a big stretch to get that from the Bible, but they're sure trying, and people who don't know any better are believing.

A relative of mine joined a weird evangelical church in central Mich. I visited once, picked up from their table of literature a newsletter that was published jointly by several churches in the area. The front page lead article, I kid you not, was about how environmentalists favor genocide. To buttress this claim it quoted from an environmental group's web site that had merely tried to show that the earth couldn't handle anywhere near the current population if everybody consumed at the Western rate.

Un. be. lievable. This church was also against Harry Potter, Pokemon, modern psychology, seemingly anything mainstream and secular.

Although I don't know it for a fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they were against evolution as well.

Whoops. A better google search would be "dominion theology environmentalism" or "dominion theology global warming". Articles on dominion theology don't necessarily mention attitudes towards the environment.

Luskin apparently knows very little about pedagogy, and the Republicans in the Michigan legislature seem to be anti-education as well. How can I tell?

To teach any idea to be analyzed critically, the idea itself must be specified and taught, first. This is basic learning stuff, basic pedagogy. If they want to criticize evolution, evolution must be taught first.

Teach the facts first.

If they wanted to teach critical analysis of science, they'd have to teach science first -- and that's what they're trying to avoid.

Next time we get these clowns in court, let's hit them on bad pedagogy, too. We'll get all the teaching experts in to point out that they're going about teaching the criticism exactly wrong. It's just one more indication that they don't really care about the kids at all, but instead care only about scoring political points.

At some point one starts to get furious with these liars and hypocrits. They claim a righteous moral position, harmonious with their religious faith, and then proceed to lie, cheat, deceive, condemn, and other immoral and unethical behaviors to achieve their agenda. Is it not lost on the very believers themselves, or are we living in a time when the dominionist/ reconstructionist goals outweigh the need to act morally and righteously in pursuing them??

Is it not lost on the very believers themselves, or are we living in a time when the dominionist/ reconstructionist goals outweigh the need to act morally and righteously in pursuing them??

It seems as though loyalty and conformity are the prime virtues in the front lines of the "culture wars." Not sure where love of God and neighbor fits in there.

Vaguely on the same topic: I remember a guy at a restaurant at the next dinner table some years ago, in our area (Tennessee). I swear he was trying to convince the others in his conversation that lesbianism was tantamount to genocide -- Because of all the babies in future generations that would not be born.

There must be some strange preaching going on behind our backs.

No one except, say, Bill Maher, and a large portion of the Anti-vaccine, alt-med contingent.

Yep it's true folks. Here's a transcript from the Larry King show a couple of months ago. Apparently Mr. Maher isn't into that fancy schmancy "western medicine" stuff.

It's kinda sad the the anti-evolution camp has hijacked that terminology. One major limitation in science education is that the students are taught an encyclopedia of facts rather than the scientific method. I would love to see the scientific method emphasized in middle school and high school science courses, but not in the same way that the ID camp envisions it. We should not manipulate science in order to point out the weaknesses in well established theories. We should teach the students how the encyclopedia of knowledge that they must learn was determined via scientific investigation.

It makes sense to me that the same people who buy into Dominion Theology would also buy into creationism/ID, or at least to have significant overlap between the two groups. Could it be that the Big Guns behind the DI (Ahamson and his ilk) are also into Dominion Theology?

No, the Bible doesn't say humans should "exploit" the Earth. In those two charges from God, once to Adam and once to Noah, the charge is to be stewards of the Earth, to have "dominion" (in the KJV) over the Earth.

"Dominion" doesn't mean "exploit." In fact, in KJV English, it specifically prohibits the right to "waste" land, to clear cut, or to do anything else that either damages the natural productivity of the land or poses a nuisance to any neighbor (or anyone else proximate).

Dominion theology types are as bad as IDists -- they do their utmost to cover up what "dominion" really entails.

Maybe this trend is a good thing.

What are we really worried about with ID/creationsism? I'm worried two things: public schools indoctrinating my kids into a religion I don't share, and science curriculums losing rigor.
As ID/creationist arguments get watered down, it seems like they get further from indoctrination of religion. And at the same time, they seem to get closer to interesting philosophical arguments about what science really is all about -- something that's totally relevant to a high school science class.

Personally, I don't care if it's the same people, or if their real goals are still the same (indoctrination). As long as their actual approach no longer poses a danger that I care about -- isn't that a good trend??

If anything, there is more resistance to accepting that global warming is a man-made problem than there is to teaching evolution. The more rational (as in non-fundamentalist) right-wingers are quite happy to agree that evolution happened but, for various reasons are dead set against accepting global warming as a problem of our own making.

Frankly the level of debate from the right of the political spectrum hasn't risen much above things like "We got 3 feet of snow yesterday? How can there be global warming?" (I kid you not).

I'm not sure it's really a religious issue though. It's political--a combination of the pro-business lobby fighting against sensible efforts to curb pollution and those who simply see global warming as something being formented by the "whacko-lefist environmentalists".

In the long run, this deliberate ridiculing of the warnings given about global warming could be much more damaging to the USA than the threat of ID (not that the anti-science themes in both are unconnected).

When you have people like Rush Limbaugh lying to the public about there being no loss of the northern polar ice cap then I really don't hold out much hope that things will change until it's too late. Only then, I fear, will we see how Bush's grand plan of inventing our way out of this crisis comes to naught.

What are we really worried about with ID/creationsism? I'm worried two things: public schools indoctrinating my kids into a religion I don't share, and science curriculums losing rigor.

The problem is that this "watering down" is just a front. Their hope is that once they get the watered down science standards past the legislatures and the school boards and reach into the local schools, the teaching of ID will metastasize and be much harder to stamp out.

Their end game hasn't changed, it's still to overturn the foundations of science as taught and practised in this country. Never forget that. All that's changed is the length of time they are prepared to wait for it to happen. Having been thwarted by their more overt efforts so far, they are learning to be much more patient.

And we should never forget that IDists have made a conscious choice to bully their way into the school system. There is no reason why they can't invest heavily in new ID research programs at some of the many ID-friendly colleges around the country. The money is there--the Templeton Foundation was doing their best to throw cash at them.

dan7000:

The danger is not just the teaching of religion, it's also the teaching of bad science. Do you want your kids being taught the kind of nonsense that is in Icons of Evolution as long as the teacher doesn't mention religion? I certainly don't. Secondly, this bill opens the door to the teaching of ID under the guise of "arguments against evolution".

The language of these ID bills will continue to morph over time - getting more and more vague - until something sticks somewhere. The best we can hope for is that what sticks will be so vague as to be essentially useless to the movement.

I'd say the language in the Michigan bill is sufficiently vague in that way. As a matter of state law, it does not explicitly authorize the teaching of ID. The local school boards (or an individual school) will need to implement the language in an unconstitutional manner, i.e. using it justfication for promoting ID, before it can be successfully challenged. It will be the local policy, however, that will be constitutionally tested, not the State law.

Now that I'm thinking about it, vagueness at the state level might be somewhat of a boon considering the great number of individual localities that would have the opportunity to exploit it. It's one thing to bring an establishment clause lawsuit in one jurisdiction at a time. It's quite another to sue five or ten (or more) all at once.

I've decided that "critically analyze" is ID-speak for copy&paste. I spend a lot of time reading letters to the editor from around the country on this subject. It's very rare to find a pro-ID letter with an original thought -- or even an original way of expressing an argument.

BTW, for Darwin Day I attended a program at Willamette University in Salem, OR. There was a panel of local public school science teachers. It was really heartening to see how much passion they have for their subject and the creativity they use to lead their students to "getting it!"

In the case of the Michigan bill, Luskin says that no one in their right mind could possibly think that a bill that encourages critical analysis of evolution could be a trojan horse to allow the teaching of ID or pro-ID arguments in science classrooms.

I would have thought that no one in their right mind could possibly think that the Santorum Language of the NCLB Act could be a trojan horse to allow the teaching of ID, especially given that it wasn't even a part of the law. But no sooner had the ink dried than the IDists went on cross-country trips to argue in front of legislatures and school boards that the law required them to introduce ID concepts in classrooms.

I'm afraid it's a little late in the game for them to pretend as if innocuous-sounding language won't be used to encourage and/or defend the teaching of ID in public school classes. They've been pulling this stunt since the ID movement's very inception.

It seems to me that requiring critical analysis, by whatever exact terminology, of any scientific theory, is asking too much of a high school student. It is known, for instance, that the theory of gravity is incomplete at the intersection with quantum mechanics, but you need to be well up toward degree level physics to actually understand the questions, much less meaningfully criticize existing theory.

The "arguments for and against evolution" are very much like the arguments for and against gravity; there are none. There are, in both cases, open questions about mechanisms at the margin, but none that are simple enough to reasonably include in a high school curriculum. Thus, the DI demand is not just unscientific; it would make the curriculum impossibly difficult.

New Michigan Science Bill

stcynic — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:04:30 +0000

New Michigan Science Bill

We have a new bill here in Michigan that contains language that sounds very objective and unconnected to ID, but that will obviously pave the way for the introduction of ID (or at least common ID arguments) into science classrooms. HB 5606 apparently replaces HB 5251, which was introduced last year. While the previous bill specifically mentioned evolution and global warming as theories about which "critical thinking" should be required, the new bill does not mention any particular theories. Here is the relevant text:

The course content expectations for science shall include using the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories and using relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and formulate arguments for and against those theories.

This is part of a much longer bill that sets standards on what must be taught in every subject. This is a pretty broad statement. Do they really want students to formulate arguments for and against heliocentrism or the germ theory of disease? Of course not. This is aimed at evolution and everyone knows it. The Detroit Free Press even notes that one legislator who supports the bill, Rep. Moolenaar, acknowledges that it will lead to the teaching of ID at the whim of the local school board:

The wording for Palmer's bill was taken from a bill by Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland. That bill would require a statewide high school curriculum to include a critical evaluation of the theories of evolution and global warming. Palmer's bill, however, doesn't mention evolution or intelligent design.

Moolenaar said Palmer's does not require the teaching of intelligent design, but that such a decision would be up to local school boards. He said Darwin's theory of evolution is under legitimate scrutiny, and that science students should know about the theory's possible weaknesses. "A scientific controversy should be viewed in a teachable moment for a student to learn the scientific method," he said.

But in fact, this will lead to the opposite result of what Palmer claims to want:

Palmer said his aim is to standardize what is taught in mandated courses. For example, it would require all world history classes to focus on cultures before 1600, starting with the Mesopotamian and Hebrew civilizations, designed to "acquaint pupils with the historical roots of the Western heritage."

But with the broad wording of the science section of the bill, the opposite will result. Some teachers and school boards will certainly take this as permission to teach ID as a critique of evolution, or at least adopt ID arguments. Other teachers will likely go in the opposite direction and teach that ID is not a valid scientific critique of evolution because it requires supernatural causation and so forth. The result will inevitably be less standardization than we have now. If the bill should pass, the result will be some schools teaching ID and being challenged in court, as they were in Dover.

stcynic Sat, 01/28/2006 - 15:04

Tags

Michigan Bills

Moolenaar said Palmer's does not require the teaching of intelligent design, but that such a decision would be up to local school boards.

Palmer said his aim is to standardize what is taught in mandated courses.

How does every school district in the state making its own decisions about what to teach lead to greater standardization?

I'm a Michigan resident, and I've been following a different aspect of this bill closely; basically, it is an attempt to require that certain classes be taken at all schools statewide. Previously, the requirement was for a certain number of science classes, which could be fulfilled in a variety of ways.

I had not heard of this provision, so thank you very much! I will be following this closely and am going to make sure to talk it up with everyone I can!

I'm not sure I understand your point about heliocentrism. Of course no one doubts its veracity but how is it good, pedagogically, not to provide students with the reasons why heliocentrism works and geocentrism does not? Surely the evolution in thought from geocentrism to heliocentrism is relevant to an understanding of the scientific method.

,,,all world history classes to focus on cultures before 1600, starting with the Mesopotamian and Hebrew civilizations...

So, in addition to ID Creationism in science class, we are going to essentially study Bible stories in world history class as well...

And since the focus is on cultures before 1600, that is, before the Enlightenment, students will be missing that important foundation of Western culture. As well as missing, oh, say, the history of the contemporary Middle East, where many of them will, no doubt, be deployed as soldiers a few years hence...

Re Dave's coment above, it is a good point of pedagogy to bring up heliocentrism, particularly in light of the religious opposition to it in the past, and it does bring up a great point of comparison with religious opposition to Evolution going on now. This is an opportunity a good science teacher would seize upon.

But I think the poster's point is that the purpose of the language in the bill is not to make such valid points about what is and is not science; it is clearly a Trojan horse designed for one purpose: to allow arguments against Evolution to be taught in Science class by Creationist-minded teachers, and to allow them to be angled in such a way as to discredit Evolution in the eyes of the students.

The phrasing has the words "Discovery Institute Lawyers" written between the lines.

Dave, Eugene,The problem, of course, with working through the heliocentric view of the solar system and showing why it is wrong requires a fair degree of math and physics, both of which are probably going to be beyond grade k-8 (or 9-12 for that matter) students....particularly in light of the religious opposition to it in the past...Nitpick. Galileo's problems were more due to the tricky political currents of early modern Italy than The Church Fighting Science. Copernicus, after all, was a good son of the Church for all of his life.I say this because far too often when people talk about the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, they're actually talking about today. There is, for example, a horrible book out called The Politically Incorrect History of Islam (and the Crusades) which, though putatively talking about what is in the title, is actually talking about how the U.S. military should kill lots of Muslims. Likewise, when people say, "Yeah, well Islam preserved civilization when Christians were savages!" they are usually actually saying, "I oppose robust military action by the U.S. in the Middle East."The same goes for people talking about Galileo. Galileo's problems with the Jesuits are a fascinating story, but they are a story of Early Modern Europe. When you try to make the affair a parable about early twenty-first century American politics, you wind up understanding neither.Okay, done ranting.

Dave wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your point about heliocentrism. Of course no one doubts its veracity but how is it good, pedagogically, not to provide students with the reasons why heliocentrism works and geocentrism does not? Surely the evolution in thought from geocentrism to heliocentrism is relevant to an understanding of the scientific method.

This is certainly true as a historical point, but that's not what I was referring to. The text of the bill actually expects students to "formulate arguments for and against" scientific theories. Now this isn't a problem with almost any theory other than evolution. The chances of finding a teacher who thinks the kinetic theory of gasses or the theory of relativity is wrong are slim. But a sizable portion of science teachers are creationists in one form or another and this bill gives them permission, essentially, to make arguments against evolution and teach them to kids. And the standard creationist arguments, while wrong, have a strong appeal to the badly educated because they can be stated in such simple form and it requires far more detail to debunk them.

There were hints in the last Ohio State Board of Education meeting that the "critically analyze" language would be used to teach crap in other areas of science. Deborah Owens-Fink, one of the two primary ID pushers on the Board, specifically mentioned global warming as a candidate. Read the Wedge document again:

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Ed -

I think you have hit the problem on the head. What this Bill would allow is for teachers/school boards to essentially use their own discretion to determine what is and what is not well-supported, accepted science. Many teachers are themselves well educated and quite capable of making this distinction, but unfortunately many others would not recognize a the difference between a genuine scientific controversy verses a social one if they were slapped in the face it. And frankly, as in the case of ID or other forms of creationism, they wouldn't much care. As for school boards, the sorry experience in Dover should be illustrative.

The El Tejon case is a good example of what happens when a board/teacher totally out of their element thinks they have the green-light to present the "controversy".

This language merely invites more of the same in Michigan. That's hardly a recipe for good science education and consistant standards.

As for mentioning the fact that the state would not require ID teaching, I think that is quite irrelevant. Allowing school boards or teachers to "opt out" of endorsing religious notions like ID does not relieve those that do not of their Constitutional responsibilities.

Here's the slogan we need to repeat: Teach the facts first. Teach the facts first.

Once the kids have the facts, they can discuss differing views on them -- and in fact, that's exactly what current books do. One may check the Advanced Placement Biology texts, and one will see that there are more controversies discussed -- but the kids are expected to really learn the facts first, before attempting to form opinions.

The litmus test is this: Will the new language encourage kids to get the basics first, or is the new language intended instead to frustrate the teaching of the basics?

You'll also see the sponsors of these bills discussing what they think the criticisms of evolution theory are -- but they won't come close to the mark. Here are a few of the real controversies from my lay perspective (some are pretty well settled, really); note in each case that one must understand how evolution works in order to discuss intelligently:

1. Does evolution proceed at predictable rates?
2. Does evolution proceed at different rates at different times?
3. Does evolution occur to smaller family groups within populations, or only to larger populations; how big a population is required to say that evolution occurs?
4. Can we improve our predictions of the evolution of pathogens, such as influenza viruses, to the extent that we can prevent pandemics?
5. How does the rapid evolution of HIV in its victims affect the possibility of a vaccine, and how does it affect treatment and possibilities of cure?
6. Should we regulate pesticides in order to prevent insects, weeds and microbes from evolving into forms resistant to the pesticides? Who should do this regulating, if so?
7. What is the effect of prions on evolution, if any; does the interspecies effect of prions suggest we need to worry about other pathogens jumping species?
8. Is it ethical to allow the patenting of living things, such as the e. coli modified to produce human insulin? Is it ethical to use bovine insulin to treat human diabetes in the light of bovine spongiform encephalathy? (spelling?).
9. Is it ethical to confuse people about how evolution works in world where treating our major diseases and much of our food supply rely on the application of evolution theory?

I suggest that Michiganders find a legislator, quick, who will amend that bill to require the teaching of real evolutionary controversy. It will probably kill the bill outright -- but if it doesn't, at least some real learning could take place.

By the way, Randolph Nesse is a professor at the University of Michigan (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/). He's one of the principal exponents of evolutionary medicine. It would be completely irresponsible for the Michigan legislature to pass any bill on evolution without having Nesse add what should be studied in evolutionary medicine. It would be akin to passing a bill requiring kids to study the biology, ecology and economic effects of lions and tigers in Detroit, without consulting the Detroit Zoo, the Detroit Tigers or the Detroit Lions.

The hypocrisy of this kind of legislation is infuriating. It's proposed under the guise of encouraging "critical thinking", yet nowhere else is critical thinking encouarged.

How about critical thinking in a comparative religion class, to "critically evaluate" the claims of each religion? I don't think that would fly very far. Or how about critically evaluating US governemnt policy (both today and in the past) in a government or civics class? Or critical evaluation in math class (e.g, who says you can't square the circle?).

If they want to encourage critical thinking how about mandating covering it a logic class or something to that effect? No, critical thinking is the last thing they want taught. Because then the students, teachers and school boards (the ones who aren't already of the fundie persuasion, anyway) could see through the politics - and that would be the death of ID.