Archives for January 2005

January 24, 2005

WaPo editorial - Amen

After a neat and tidy shredding of the Intelligent Designers, the Washington Post takes a thoughtful look forward, and mentions a rarely commented on (but ultimately quite important) factor that burbles beneath the surface of each of these controversies - the brain drain that is already ongoing in the American scientific community.

[T]he breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world.

posted by scott pilutik at January 24, 2005 08:39 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 23, 2005

NY Times editorial rips evolution foes

The New York Times makes many good points today in an editorial titled "The Crafty Attacks on Evolution". Their layman interpretation of the Cobb County sticker is especially astute (and not all that different a conclusion than Judge Cooper's):

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.

The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

posted by scott pilutik at January 23, 2005 07:14 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 21, 2005

Paging the ACLU - ID finds its way into another school district

Story courtesy Tearsa Smith, WATE-TV News 6 News Anchor/Reporter, we learn that Intelligent Design has burrowed into another school board, this time in Blount County, Tennessee. I'm just going to paste the entire story here, in case the details magically morph between now and later:

BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.

Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent design.

However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to introduce.

"Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.

The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent force.

"Encouraging our teachers to teach the controversies with respect to biological origin, within a secular content, not relying on anything other than the research," McNelly says.

The move comes on the heals of a national debate and controversy. Some parents in Dover, Pennsylvania are outraged with their school system's adoption of intelligent design. They're even suing the town, calling the move unconstitutional because it favors creationism.

Blount County officials hope to avoid that. "We haven't relied on any religious background, any religious theory. It's secular and it says in essence it's life that has been designed, has to have been designed," McNelly explains.

To the best of the school boards' knowledge, there isn't a current text book that teaches intelligent design. For now, teachers will have to design their own curriculums.

So they don't have a text book. They just know that they want ID in their curiculum. I'm curious as to what literature, then, triggered such a decision. Anyway,

It's notable that these quotes from board member McNelly deliberately avoid religion as a motive, using terms like 'secular content' (even though he most likely meant 'secular context'). No word on whether News 6 Anchor/Reporter Tearsa Smith is a product of the Blount County school district, but it might help explain the passage:

The move comes on the heals of...

It'll be interesting to see what happens next on this new front.

posted by scott pilutik at January 21, 2005 04:40 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 20, 2005

Funny Because it's True

This is probably from the New Yorker, but I saw it first on The Poor Man

posted by scott pilutik at January 20, 2005 10:45 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 19, 2005

text version of Selman v. Cobb County

Here. Enjoy.

posted by scott pilutik at January 19, 2005 10:59 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

ID FAQ

Yet more hilarity [from Fanatical Apathy]:

Q: So these ID guys don't believe in God. A: Oh no, they do.

Q: All of them?
A: Pretty much. So what? Doesn't mean they can't be scientists.

Q: Oh. So there's all these scientific papers they write, right?
A: Yes.

Q: What do they say?
A: Well, they're diverse and technical, but they all come to the conclusion that life was created by an intelligence.

Q: Why?
A: Because it looks like it.

Q: That's it?
A: Pretty much. It's all about how the design of life resembles the designs of people. And a lot of stuff about how it's a better explanation than evolution.

Entire FAQ at Fanatical Apathy

posted by scott pilutik at January 19, 2005 08:29 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

Scientamism with Bill O'Reilly

From Newshounds:

Michael Grant, Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado squared off with Bill O'Reilly to debate the merits of Intelligent Design. A 'what is science' debate ensued, as did much hilarity:

O’REILLY: OK. But science is incomplete in this area of creationism, is it not?

GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.

O’REILLY: Well, I don’t agree with that. Science is not always incomplete and I’ll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That’s science. And there are four seasons. That’s science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want. However, if I’m a student in your class and you’re telling me, well, there might have been a meteor or big bang or there might have been this or there might have been that, I’m gonna raise my hand like the wise guy I am and say “Professor, might there be a higher power that contributed to the fact that we’re all here?” and you say - what?

GRANT: I say that’s something you need to question, you need to think about, you need to discuss with other people. You need to do that in the proper class. In the biology class we deal with science, with the natural world and what fits our conventional concepts of science.

O’REILLY: But, what if it turns out there is a God and He did create the universe and you die and then you figure that out? Aren’t you gonna feel bad that you didn’t address that in your biology class?

GRANT: Well, to quote a famous quote ...

O’REILLY (overtalks all words): ‘Cause then it would be science, wouldn’t it? You know, if tomorrow the deity came down and proved himself, then it would be science, wouldn’t it, sir?

GRANT: If it meets the convention standards - whatever it is you’re referring to - meets science, then I certainly would be convinced. And, until and unless that happens, I’m going to go on teaching what I see is current science.

O’REILLY: Alright. See. I think this is a narrow-minded view, with all due respect, that you are holding. But I must point out to our viewers that most academics agree with the professor. Alright. It’s pinheads like me that cause trouble.

posted by scott pilutik at January 19, 2005 07:48 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 17, 2005

Cobb County

At some point soon I'm going to tackle the entire Cobb County School District opinion [pdf] with some in-depth legal analysis, but for now, I'll just say:

1) Yay!

2) Wow. I didn't quite expect this, being that so many other 'meatier' intrusions on evolution are burbling under the legal surface, some even finding air (Dover). Here, the court found that a sticker that didn't even mention religion, much less Intelligent Design, was a violation. How the court got there is quite interesting. In essence, the court considered a wide range of evidence, all of it quite relevant and all within SCOTUS prescribed guidelines, but wide nonetheless.

For instance, the court cited the controversy itself as a likely inference students would draw when reading the sticker. By that logic, nearly any preemptive attempt by the Christian Right inclusive of a negative slant on evolution would be barred by the Establishment Clause. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

But while the Court explicitly stated up front that its decision only has bearing on the sticker issue and the sticker issue alone, similar enough cases are on their way to courts, and by this court's reasoning, they'd all be disposed of in summary judgment. In other words, any attempt to undermine evolution (which presumably comes attached to attendent controversy) would arouse suspicion in a reasonable student it was aimed at, and thus have a religious effect, since we all know where it's coming from. This reasoning has the effect of establishing a much deeper moat for the creationists to crawl though. Scrivener's Error agrees with me:

"[Judge Cooper] took notice of reality beyond the parties' attempts to confine it."

Which is also not a bad thing. Of course, though, this case will be appealed (to the 11th Circuit), whose affirmance would only bind Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (unless, after 11th Circuit affirmance, it was reversed by SCOTUS). And I'm not entirely convinced the 11th Circuit will affirm. My best guess is that another lawyer(s) will take over and argue that the District Court allowed too much evidence in.

Again, I'll explain/defend these points in a subsequent post.

3) The Thomas More Center is becoming a huge player in Dover and is highly critical of the Cobb County Decision. And it would be unsurprising to see them heading the appeal in Cobb County. But their very presence (as a self-described "not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians...") in Dover only emphasizes the fact that this controversy has nothing to do with any internal scientific squabble and everything to do with certain groups of Christians trying to shoehorn creationism into the public schools, any way they can. And this is one reason why the Discovery Institute does not want the Dover lawsuit at this point in time - their ducks are not in a row, and too many vulnerablities exist to allow for a successful suit.

The Thomas More Center is just finding out about vulnerabilities too (from the York Daily Record):

School board members Bill Buckingham, Sheila Harkins and Alan Bonsell and Supt. Richard Nilsen have, under oath, either said they have no memory of making the remarks related to creationism or denied making them.

But some residents and former district officials insist the board members made the statements they later denied making.

What remarks, you ask?

In a school board meeting: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?"
In a TV interview: "the book that was presented to me was laced with Darwinism from beginning to end."

Perhaps after reading the District Court Judge Clarence Cooper's analysis inclusive of the leadup to the suit in Cobb County, the Thomas More Center refreshed Buckingham's memory:

"Never said it."

But a taped television interview at the time shows Buckingham, the board’s chief proponent of intelligent design, talking about teaching creationism in science class.

Such delicious irony when a Christian client lies to make its Christian law firm's case easier. I guess lying isn't one of the ten commandments, so they're all on safe ground.

Anyway, my point is simply that the Thomas More Center is becoming *the* player in this controversy, and it seems likely that the Discovery Institute is cringing as they watch these yahoos play damage control with some worst-case-scenario clients.

4) Panda's Thumb has some very astute non-legal analysis on the Cooper opinion. As does, the aforementioned Scrivener's Error (which has legal analysis).

posted by scott pilutik at January 17, 2005 07:01 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 11, 2005

Salon on Dover School District

I think Kevin Drum and Chris Mooney both make good points as per Michelle Goldberg's excellent Salon article on the ID controversy in Dover. That is; once America gets a good look at the illiterate nutjobs that comprise much of ID's visible 'fighting force', they'll recoil in horror (Mooney); and, the mainstream media's bias toward a more educated stance works against the ID crowd (Drum).

But these points also miss on two important levels: first, the policies in question that have allowed this controversy to percolate at this very moment are being forced from a confident Congress and pro-active President. And this confidence comes from some very friendly poll numbers that favor the teaching of not only ID, but of creationism (although Aguillard precludes that from actually happening). But as much as ID is in fact 'creationsim in a lab coat', it is also a different creature - molded for the sole intention of passing the First Amendment Lemon Test. To underestimate the work that went into this would be a huge mistake.

Evidence of this can be found in the Goldberg article - the politically savvy Discovery Institute is, wisely enough, against the Dover action because the 'time isn't right' - they're waiting for a friendlier Supreme Court. (And this may actually be the reality-based-community's saving grace - a negative outcome in Dover will have a precedential effect that a less friendly Supreme Court will have a difficult time overturning.)

Circumstance has shone brightly on ID: The No Child Left Behind Act, by mandating curriculum reviews in each district, has opened many doors that many ID proponents have since jammed their feet in.

It's easy to glibly point out whose side the media will fall on, but the media doesn't set policy. And it's not as if the media is somehow going to sway enough people to erode opinion polls that state that 65% of Americans favor teaching creationism alongside evolution. If anything, those numbers are going to float the other way over time, as the well-oiled Discovery Institute makes more lobbying headway.

On some Sunday morning in the near future, the ID debate won't be between Phd. Secular-Scientist vs. Bible-Thumping Hick-Tard, but rather Phd. Secular-Scientist vs. Phd. Pseudo-Scientist - and each will sound as intelligent as the other to the average viewer.

posted by scott pilutik at January 11, 2005 10:06 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

"Agape" pretty much sums it up.

Allow us to break away, for a moment, from the continuing battle to stop stealth theocrats from inflicting the internally oxymoronic theory of Intelligent Design on American schoolchildren to highlight a article posted by self-styled "Christian News Service" Agape Press on comments made by Indiana congressman Mark Souder at a recent prayer breakfast on Capitol Hill:

An Indiana congressman is warning that an Iraqi-style democracy may not make much of a change there. Why? Because the Judeo-Christian ethic is critical to the success of such a venture, he says.

Earlier this week, Republican Mark Souder was one of the speakers at a bipartisan prayer service before the opening of the 109th session of Congress. He told the audience that religious faith is the conscience of democracy.

"The United States was at its founding, and still is, not only a religious nation but largely a Christian nation," Souder said. "Through Judeo-Christian beliefs that anchor our legal, our economic, our military, and our political system, the balance of powers and constraints upon the state -- and thus upon the majority -- assume the sinful nature of man and one that is not perfectable."

Without a faith grounded in such beliefs, the congressman said, democracy as it is known in the United States cannot work -- and he believes that could well be the case in Iraq.

"John Adams said, 'Our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people,'" Souder noted. "Does democracy in Iraq mean the majority Shia, upon winning, can deny rights to women and to religious minorities, not to mention exact revenge upon the Sunni? Why not do these things if the only standard is democracy?"

He offered a recent demonstration of the nation's morality, whose "premises rest at least upon the echoes and remnants of Judeo-Christian teaching," he says.

"Over 75 percent of the American people profess to be Christian, and an even higher percentage believe that they were created by God -- not some randomly evolving blob of amoeba," Souder stated. "So when a tragedy hits Asia, we don't say 'Tough luck. It's social Darwinism. The fittest will survive.'"

He continued: "They are fellow souls, each one fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Our hearts ache; our hearts cry out at the pain and suffering we see; our hearts bleed."

Intrigued by what appeared to be an almost self-parodying display of a fundamental ignorance of the governments and citizens of many other countries around the world -- including one directly to the north of the United States -- that have somehow managed to cobble together democratic governments, and have, in recent days, offered up not only compassion, but cold hard cash to victims of the tsunami victims -- and all without being "not only a religious nation but largely a Christian nation," in the words of Souder, a quick Googling brought up the full text of Souder's remarks on his official webpage.

While we found the comments that made it to press via Agape, we were even more intrigued by the context, and the portion of his remarks that somehow ended up on the Christian press cutting room floor:

If we don’t understand who we are as a people, if we don’t understand why our legal and economic system works, why are we surprised that we have problems when we try to export it?

Capitalism without morality equals greed. Adam Smith made that clear, as do modern examples of nations where the elite used unfettered capitalism only to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Why, we wonder, didn't the Agape article note that Souder -- whose remarks, we hasten to add, we are not in any way defending, and stand on their own as a demonstration of faith-based obliviousness -- was, in his own way, expressing caution over unfettered capitalism in a post-war Iraq, rather than over the failure of those stubborn Muslims to convert to Christianity post-haste, as initially proposed by Ann Coulter?

Could it be because, perhaps, the editors at Agape don't want to raise the ire of its hyperconservative Christian readership, who are more interested in punishing 'sinners' than showing truly "Christian" charity?

By no means should our scepticism over this article be interpreted as any sort of support for Souder or, indeed, his politics, which are clearly lodged deep in the heart of the new Christian right.

At the same time, however, we can't help but wonder whether even a bona fide conservative such as Souder could find his words manipulated by the Jebus Noise Machine if he should veer even slightly off script.

posted by sangwyn at January 11, 2005 02:27 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink