Disco. Inst. tapdances, accuses me of unspecified "errors"

I hope that Crowther will correct his misstatements about me at his very earliest convenience.

Oh, I'm sure he'll get right to it, shortly after he removes all the people from the "Dissent from Darwin" list who have requested to have their names taken off.

The original post says,

A few days ago, I pointed out that his underling, Casey Luskin, has repeatedly misrepresented the Texas science standards revisions, in particular alleging conflicts of interest which do not exist while ignoring the profound conflicts of interest affecting expert reviewers Stephen Meyer (of the Discovery Institute) and Ralph Seelke.

As I said, conflicts of interest are important only where someone -- e.g., a judge -- is supposed to be unbiased, and no one is claiming that Meyer or Seelke is unbiased. Also, three of the members of the 6-person review panel are highly biased Darwinists: David Hillis is a leading spokesman of the 21st Century Science Coalition, which is trying to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language out of the new Texas science standards; Gerald Skoog signed the 21st Century Science Coalition's statement; and Ronald Wetherington tried to get Southern Methodist University to ban a "Darwin v. Design" conference.

I see no conflict between his quote of my post and his restatement of his earlier position. I did not claim that the language was of some vintage other than 1998, I merely asserted that the language in those standards was inspired by Disco. That inspiration could have taken any of several forms, and Crowther has taken no steps to deny that.

That is true -- Crowther took no steps to deny that, but I will take those steps here. Disco. could not possibly have inspired the "strengths and weaknesses" language, because this language dates back to the 1980's whereas Disco. was established in the 1990's. In a comment of 9/26/2008 12:18 PM CDT, Steven Schafersman, president of the Texas Citizens for Science, wrote on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog,

LF's pickiness is unbelievably stupid and is the typical work of a troll, as is his stupid parsing of the word "evolution." The textbook proclamations in the 1980s were the defacto state science standards in Texas. The "strengths and weaknesses" language was the same then, in 1997, and today.

Note this jerk's response to my inquiry about the beginning date of the "strengths and weaknesses" language: "LF's pickiness is unbelievably stupid and is the typical work of a troll." The jerk is still claiming that the language began in 1997.

Crowther continues by complaining that:
As for claims that we try to get intelligent design into the curriculum, that's just not the case.

IMO it is disingenuous to deny that the term "weaknesses" includes Intelligent Design. The reason for this denial is Judge "Jackass" Jones' asinine Kitzmiller v. Dover decision that ruled that teaching or even mentioning ID in public school classes is unconstitutional (I got the nickname "Jackass" from Dover defendant Bill Buckingham -- I like the nickname because it is alliterative). As anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler said, if one judge practices philosophy of science, what is to prevent other judges from doing the same? A judge could come along with a ruling that ID is the best explanation for the data. The courts should declare scientific questions concerning evolution to be non-justiciable. Questions are non-justiciable when there is "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards" for resolving the question. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277-78 (2004).

" Also, three of the members of the 6-person review panel are highly biased Darwinists"
Gasp: how dare there be scientists on a board to discuss science standards? This could lead to mathematicians discussing mathematics standards.

"IMO it is disingenuous to deny that the term "weaknesses" includes Intelligent Design. Agree: "massive stupidity, heap of lies, beliefs of morons" describe ID much better.

I suppose there is chance that Larry's post is meant to be tongue in cheek rather than tongue in ***, but after glancing at his equally stupid website, that chance is miniscule.
It's even scarier to realize that he's probably eligible to vote.

Dean,

Larry is well known around here. He's a bit of a nut, and will typically ignore any evidence which contradicts his views. He's not really much of a problem as he's usually pretty polite.

He is indefatigable in responding to replies to his posts, so most people have learned to avoid responding to him. Like many trolls, he almost never acknowledges when his opponent has provided evidence to refute his statements, but will shift the goalposts. He also tends to cherry pick his evidence and uncritically accepts statements which support his view while dismissing those which contradict them.

When his opponents give up in disgust at his lack of comprehension, he crows that he has won the argument if for no other reason than he got the last comment in.

But for all that, I don't think he really is a troll. He isn't going out of his way to annoy people.

So no, Larry has doesn't see that because Meyer and Seelke will personally gain from Texas adopting their textbook there is a conflict of interest. Even Josh has, repeatedly, pointed out that there are plenty of creationist in Texas, like Dembski, who wouldn't have that conflict of interest.

Instead Larry ignores the distinction between a difference in ideologies which is what seperates the creationists from the scientists on this second (unecessary) panel, and a financial conflict of interest which clearly impacts two of the creationists on this (unnecessary) panel.

And, it has been pointed out to Larry, repeatedly and with links to evidence, that the ideology of the scientists is supported by evidence while the ideology of the creationists is only support by vapor.

If we believe DI fellow Michael Medved, ID is exactly what the Texas "teach the weaknesses" standards were all about:

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331212438&pagename=JPost%2FJPAr…

So unless we've been hit in the head hard enough to actually believe the DI that they want to teach "more about evolution" (like they're pushing to increase the time spent on evolution, so both "strengths" and "weaknesses" (and what are these weaknesses? I'd like to know) can be adequately considered), the "challenge" of the supposed "weaknesses" is what ID really is.

I suppose one could note that ID does differ from creationism in that it gave up the falsifiable (and falsified) claims of creationism, and are solely focused upon attacking evolution. But as Jones mentioned, it's still nothing but creationism, winnowed down into an even less scientific form (that is, unfalsifiable).

The IDists need to keep a better handle on their people. Some of them seem to think that honesty is allowable, which presumably is responsible for what Medved stated. Honesty, however, gives the game away.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Larry, you know better. Having an opinion doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Using a position of public responsibility to benefit one's own private financial interest is. Consider http://www.usoge.gov/common_ethics_issues/conflict_financial.aspx

I see no conflict between his quote of my post and his restatement of his earlier position. I did not claim that the language was of some vintage other than 1998, I merely asserted that the language in those standards was inspired by Disco. That inspiration could have taken any of several forms, and Crowther has taken no steps to deny that.

wesele,

What? You merely copied Josh Rosenau's statement without comment. Why did you do that?

Josh Rosenau said,

Having an opinion doesn't constitute a conflict of interest.

Maybe not, but having a pre-formed opinion can constitute bias. Judges and jurors have been disqualified, and court decisions have been vacated or reversed, because of bias. Judge Jones should have been disqualified because of his statement in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.

Using a position of public responsibility to benefit one's own private financial interest is.

That's true. However, consider the following factors:

(1) This is not a textbook selection committee -- the state science standards have at most an indirect effect on the selection of textbooks.

(2) While retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" language might improve the chances of Meyer's and Seelke's book being selected, omitting this language would not prevent selection of their book, because teaching the weaknesses of scientific theories would still not be prohibited by the standards.

(3) Retention of the "strengths and weaknesses" language might actually result in making sale of Meyer's and Seelke's book in Texas and elsewhere (many school boards outside Texas tend to adopt Texas textbooks) more difficult because major textbook publishers often tailor textbooks to the Texas standards and hence would be more likely to include weaknesses of evolution in biology texts, hence there might be less reason to purchase Meyer's and Seelke's book. I assert that the conflict of interest here is too nebulous to justify disqualification or recusal of Meyer and Seelke.

(4) Also, panel member David Hillis is a major spokesman for the 21st Century Science Coalition, which seeks to prevent retention of the "strengths and weaknesses" language. He was a speaker at a press conference of that organization. He of course is going to use his position on the review panel to promote the interests of that organization. That too is a conflict of interest -- conflicts of interest are not necessarily financial by definition.

dean said,

Gasp: how dare there be scientists on a board to discuss science standards? This could lead to mathematicians discussing mathematics standards.

Gasp: how dare state board of education members who support retention of the "strengths and weaknesses" language choose review panel members who support that position.

If biased people should be excluded from the review panel, then shouldn't signers of the 21st Century Science Coalition's statement be excluded?

Stephen Meyer is eminently qualified to be on the review panel -- he is a philosopher of science and there is a lot of philosophy of science in the proposed Texas science standards. And Ralph Seelke is a scientist.

Flex said,

He is indefatigable in responding to replies to his posts, so most people have learned to avoid responding to him.

You obviously haven't learned.

Even Josh has, repeatedly, pointed out that there are plenty of creationist in Texas, like Dembski, who wouldn't have that conflict of interest.

Dembski has written books that could be used as supplemental reading or reference books in schools -- e.g., "The Design of Life" (intended as a replacement of "Of Pandas and People," the book involved in Kitzmiller v. Dover) and "No Free Lunch."

If Meyer and Seelke supported removal of the "strengths and weaknesses" language, you Darwinists would not object to their being from out of state -- or to their "conflict of interest." Trust me.

And, it has been pointed out to Larry, repeatedly and with links to evidence, that the ideology of the scientists is supported by evidence while the ideology of the creationists is only support by vapor.

Even teaching pseudoscience in science classes can be justified on the following grounds: broadening students' education, encouraging critical thinking, helping students learn the correct material, increasing student interest, preventing misconceptions, and helping to assure that highly technical material is taught by qualified science teachers.

Regarding
"Gasp: how dare state board of education members who support retention of the "strengths and weaknesses" language choose review panel members who support that position."

Larry, what you obviously can't understand, don't care to understand, or understand but don't care about, is that a board charged to deal with standards about science should have, well, scientists and people familiar with science on it,as opposed to the intellectually (and often morally) bankrupt ID folk who are doing their best to sneak religion (and really crappily done religion, which is what creationism and ID boil down to) into the classroom.

"Even teaching pseudoscience in science classes can be justified on the following grounds"

Fine - here's the discussion: "ID is a load of crap. Now to the real science."

That what it deserves: somehow I doubt that's what you'd be happy with.

"the state science standards have at most an indirect effect on the selection of textbooks."

I'm sorry, and thanks for playing. This is not actually true, alas. According to Texas Education Code 31:

§ 31.023. TEXTBOOK LISTS. (a) For each subject and grade level, the State Board of Education shall adopt two lists of textbooks. The conforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education and contains material covering each element of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook, as determined by the State Board of Education under Section 28.002 and adopted under Section 31.024. The nonconforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that:
(1) meets applicable physical specifications adopted by the State Board of Education;
(2) contains material covering at least half, but not all, of the elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook; and
(3) is adopted under Section 31.024.
(b) Each textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list must be free from factual errors.

Emphasis added. The only things the reviewers of textbooks can look at is the conformance with TEKS and the physical construction of the book. That's pretty direct.

As for the relevance of these standards to EE, I merely quote IDolator Casey Luskin, who says that EE "would be very well-suited to be used in this kind of a standard."

I find your assertion unworthy of response. You are not credible independent of some outside source.

As for the alleged conflict for Hillis, please cite some generally accepted ethical principle or rule which supports your claim. Nothing in the US Office of Government Ethics rules supports that claim, and the claim strikes me as possibly defamatory.

(http:// prefixes removed from URL links to prevent comment from hanging up -- links must be copied and pasted)

I'm sorry, and thanks for playing.

You'll be even sorrier when you see my refutations of your arguments. I don't know what in the hell gives you the cockamamie idea that the mere introduction of new arguments means that the debate is over.

You are only helping to make my point. According to §31.023, "Explore Evolution" by Meyer and Seelke is not even eligible for the "nonconforming" list because it does not even cover "at least half" of the biology material:

The nonconforming list includes each textbook submitted for the subject and grade level that: . . . .. . . (2) contains material covering at least half, but not all, of the elements of the essential knowledge and skills of the subject and grade level in the student version of the textbook, as well as in the teacher version of the textbook; . . . .

§31.023 appears to apply only to main textbooks. What about supplementary or reference material?

Making the lists does not guarantee that a book will be selected as a textbook -- far from it.

In Texas, unlike most states, textbooks are selected and purchased on a statewide basis and are then provided to the local school districts by the state. Textbook publishers often tailor the textbooks to the wishes of the Texas board of education -- see

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DC113EF93AA15755C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The Austin American-Statesman says,

Though the "strengths and weaknesses" verbiage has been in the Texas curriculum standards for nearly 20 years, the board has not had the votes to require that any specific challenges to evolutionary theory be taught. That could change with the current curriculum revision, a process that only takes place every 10 years. In previous public discussions, seven of 15 board members appeared to support, on some level, the teaching of the weaknesses of evolution in science classrooms.

--- from
www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/24/0924science.html

Well, if the Texas board of education was going to require that the textbooks include the weaknesses of evolution, why hasn't the board done it already? And if the board gets serious about requiring that the weaknesses be included in textbooks, then the weaknesses can be added to the standard textbooks, which would shut Meyer's and Seelke's book out of the market in Texas as well as in the other places that adopt the Texas textbooks.

As for the relevance of these standards to EE, I merely quote IDolator Casey Luskin, who says that EE "would be very well-suited to be used in this kind of a standard."

Since when does Casey Luskin officially approve textbooks for Texas?

I find your assertion unworthy of response. You are not credible independent of some outside source.

What assertion is that?

As for the alleged conflict for Hillis, please cite some generally accepted ethical principle or rule which supports your claim.

Please cite some generally accepted ethical principle that says that "conflicts of interest" must be financial by definition. Hillis is a leading spokesman -- not merely a member or a signatory -- of the 21st Century Science Coalition, which seeks to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" language from the Texas science standards. That is a big conflict of interest right there.

Nothing in the US Office of Government Ethics rules supports that claim,

The following US OGE rules say nothing about financial gain:

Executive branch employees must not use their public office for their own or another's private gain.

An employee may not have outside employment or be involved in an outside activity that conflicts with the official duties of the employee's position.

Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.

Also, those are just the federal ethics rules -- Texas may have its own ethics rules.

and the claim strikes me as possibly defamatory.

The truth is a defense against charges of defamation. I said that Hillis is a leading spokesman of the 21st Century Science Coalition, which opposes the "strengths and weaknesses" language -- that is a true statement. Whether or not that constitutes a conflict of interest is a matter of opinion -- IMO if that is not a conflict of interest, then nothing is a conflict of interest.

You Darwinists have this big phobia about criticisms of evolution. As I said, there are good reasons for teaching criticisms of evolution even when those criticisms have little or no validity -- those reasons are to broaden students' education, encourage critical thinking, help students learn the material, increase student interest, help prevent misconceptions, and help assure that highly technical criticisms of evolution are taught by qualified science teachers.

OOPS -- one of my links disappeared when my comment was posted, and I don't know why. Here it is again --

In Texas, unlike most states, textbooks are selected and purchased on a statewide basis and are then provided to the local school districts by the state. Textbook publishers often tailor the textbooks to the wishes of the Texas board of education -- see

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DC113EF93AA15755C0…

"there are good reasons for teaching criticisms of evolution"

If you actually meant discussions based on facts, supportable science, and testable hypotheses, you would be correct. The criticisms you back are not supported by anything more than
(generous take) gross misunderstandings of science and the scientific method
(more honest interpretation) outright lies and deception fueled by a desire to force you "true religion" onto others

there is no more reason to discuss ID or creationism in a science course than there is for me to argue in my math courses that the true value of pi is 3, or (as some of my students have asserted) "it is impossible for such things as infinite decimals to really exist, since numbers are creations of man and only (their) god can understand infinity"

The fact that many people believe such stupidity does not mean it is worthy of mention in every arena.

Larry, the Texas editions of biology textbooks are required to include a section with the title "Weaknesses of evolution." Thanks for playing.

"What assertion is that?" This one: "I assert that the conflict of interest here is too nebulous to justify disqualification or recusal of Meyer and Seelke."

Conflict of interest is not a matter of opinion. It is an ethical violation and, in some cases, a legal violation. That is the potentially defamatory part of your claim, and the one you have failed to support.

Josh Rosenau:

Larry, the Texas editions of biology textbooks are required to include a section with the title "Weaknesses of evolution."

Then how do you explain the following statement -- which I quoted above -- from the Austin American-Statesman:

Though the "strengths and weaknesses" verbiage has been in the Texas curriculum standards for nearly 20 years, the board has not had the votes to require that any specific challenges to evolutionary theory be taught.

Thanks for playing.

Don't you ever get tired of that "thanks for playing" crap?

"What assertion is that?" This one: "I assert that the conflict of interest here is too nebulous to justify disqualification or recusal of Meyer and Seelke."

I will repeat:

(1) This is not a textbook-selection or textbook-recommendation committee.

(2) Omitting the "strengths and weaknesses" language would not prevent the Texas board of education from selecting Meyer's and Seelke's book "Explore Evolution."

(3) Retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" language would encourage addition of the weaknesses of evolution to standard biology texts, and such addition would make "Explore Evolution" superfluous.

Conflict of interest is not a matter of opinion.

Wrong. I said that David Hillis's leading position in the 21st Century Science Coalition constitutes a conflict of interest and you disagree. Hence, whether this is a conflict of interest is a matter of opinion. And conflict of interest is just a potential cause of bias. Bias is bias -- what difference does it make what causes it.

That is the potentially defamatory part of your claim

Then let him sue me. That would really make my day.

dean:

there is no more reason to discuss ID or creationism in a science course than there is for me to argue in my math courses that the true value of pi is 3, or (as some of my students have asserted) "it is impossible for such things as infinite decimals to really exist, since numbers are creations of man and only (their) god can understand infinity"

Don't you Darwinists ever get tired of making these straw-man arguments? I am not just proposing "poof"-type creationism -- I am proposing technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution that encourage critical thinking and require students to use scientific knowledge. I discuss some of these criticisms on my blog under the post-label title "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" -- See

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/search/label/Non-ID%20criticisms%2…

These non-ID criticisms of evolution on my blog include: the co-evolution of obligate mutualism and complex parasitisms (including multiple-host parasitisms), the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and chromosome counts.

I wonder what kind of math students you have if they believe that pi equals 3. Even the ancients knew that pi is greater than three. It's something that's very easy to verify.

The mere fact that you happen to think that the sky is green does not mean that opinion is divided on the color of the sky. If you can show some sort of evidence for your claim, it's one thing, but as it stands, all you've done is cite irrelevant passages and then baldly asserted that you see a conflict. What that conflict consists of is unclear, but it seems to be the belief that holding an opinion constitutes a conflict. This is false. Using government power for private interest is a conflict, but no evidence exists that Hillis is double-dealing in any way, while there is evidence that Meyer and Seelke are, or could be, doing so.

As the Office of Government Ethics explains: "In addition, employees must strive to avoid any action that would create the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards." There is no appearance of impropriety from Hillis, but there is from Seelke and Meyer.

If you are right that Dembski would be conflicted as well (dubious, since there's been no comparable push to bring Design of Life into high school biology classes), that still leaves the hardworking creationists at ICR and Carl Baugh as local creationists who were passed over to bring in out-of-state creationists with transparent conflicts of interest.

Larry;
the fact that you believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports an argument against evolution is sufficient evidence of your ignorance, and indicates that the rest of your arguments are "technically sophisticated" only to you.

Yes, it is easy to verify that pi is greater than three: apparently my point was too subtle for you: the belief that pi is 3 is on the same level of validity as ID and creationism: the denial of facts in mathematics that lead to the statement is no less and no more than the denial of the facts of evolution.

Sorry, at the end of ID there is "so if it isn't evolution, something designed it." That is POOF, as put it, and it is a very accurate description of its underpinnings.

My final line of my previous post should be
"...POOF, as YOU put it, ... underpinnings."

A lot of us have been wondering how high school students will be able to evaluate the "strengths and weaknesses" of the science of evolution, when they are only beginning to learn the basics of the subject (and likely lack the basics of other, related sciences).
So how does Crowther, or Luskin, or any other Creationist propose that this be done? Are they suggesting much extra time be set aside for the study of evolution and all the related subjects? Do they suggest that young brains be polluted with pseudoscientific drivel contained in anti-evolution books? Do they detail how the weaknesses of the anti-evolution assertions will be explained?