Cultural Noise

ID guru admits ID is religious, not scientific in nature

2009-08-11T13:46:00.005-05:00

I have to thank kellygrrrl at Free Range Talk for making this post today on how trolls are used as a weapon of ID proponents in the Web 2.0 world.

Over at Design Inference (website of Intelligent Design proponent and Discovery Institute bigwig William Dembski), Dr. Dembski is kind enough to post the courses he has taught over the years. the course descriptions for the courses taught this Spring at the Southern Evangelical Seminary are quite revealing. For two of the classes in apologetics labeled as AP410 and AP510, Twenty percent of the grade comes from:

"provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade)."

What catches most people's attention on reading of this is how trolls are, in fact, paid (with grades in this case) to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio on scientific debate on the web. But what is far more fascinating to me is the course and it's context.

These are courses in Christian apologetics, a term which means the philosophical defense of a religious viewpoint. Here is perhaps the most blatant admission you will ever see (by one of the preeminent "scientific" thinkers on ID) that Intelligent Design is, in fact, a religious concept and NOT a scientific one. Why else would it be taught in a class on apologetics? Why are there no other courses in apologetics that have an (allegedly) scientific idea as the core concept of the course?

For years, ID proponents have sworn up and down that ID says nothing about the designer per se, that is has nothing to do with religion, and it is merely happy coincidence that for Christians who believe in Biblical literalism that there is a ready answer for the identity of the designer (Yahweh, the god of Judeo-Christianity). But if the identity of the designer (the ID of the ID'er, if you'll allow) is not specified in Intelligent Design theory, how on EARTH can ID theory be honestly used as a tool of apologetics?

In a classic example of having his cake and eating it, too, Dembski has tipped his hand as to the real purpose of Intelligent Design. The cornerstone of Dembski's theory on ID is that coincidence constitutes evidence. If a coincidence is so improbable as to be impossible, the argument goes, then outside forces must have a hand in it. (This is what Dawkins would call the argument from personal incredulity; I can't believe in something so improbable/complex/beyond my comprehension, therefore it is untrue).

By the same token, I smell a rat (or at least a weasel). ID says nothing about the designer, but it is merely coincidence that all of the ID proponents all believe in the same god and can turn around and use ID theory as proof of his existence. Sounds like this argument has been not-so-intelligently designed to me.

Testing Science and Religion: Acceptance vs. Faith

2009-05-19T12:01:00.005-05:00

I was recently retelling someone about the discussion on science and religion that came about as a result of an email conversation that resulted from a talk I gave to the Austin Geological Society. In this conversation, I was struck by the common misunderstanding of the difference between faith in religion and "faith" in science. In this case, the person used "faith" to mean religious faith but "belief" to mean faith in science.

There are two kinds of "faith" being discussed here. Sometimes scientists use words like faith and belief (and thus they must be distinguished from religious faith). I instead avoid using words like "faith" and "belief" in scientific discussions because they are imprecise, confusing, and instead use the word acceptance because I think it more clearly relates to the underlying concepts.

An example of how this is often used in an argument: one could assert that faith in God is no different than a scientist's faith in some long held tenant of science that he/she never directly observed, such as the existence of atoms.

While I myself have never seen an atom nor done an experiment in a laboratory to confirm their existence, it is unnecessary for me to do this in order to accept the validity of atomic theory because of the way science works. Although this is a widely-accepted scientific theory, I always could (given the time and equipment) reproduce someone else's experiment to validate some prediction of the theory. This is the concept of testability. Testability is one of the key components of science. In order for any assertion to be called a scientific one, independent observers must be able to test it reliably and repeatably.

We scientists must, at some point, accept tthe work of others who have come before us has gone through the process of peer review, testing, and repeating. If an idea has been reliably demonstrated as a useful scientific hypothesis or theory, it is moved into the core of scientific knowledge. If we did not accept that the process of science works, we could never spend any of our time investigating new unsolved problems. We could constantly be caught in a lather-rinse-repeat loop of trying to verify something we already know forever and ever.

Some choose to call this "faith" or "belief" in science, but these words deny the care and rigor of the process and the underlying foundation of testability; so, I choose to say I accept these scientific ideas as valid science.

By contrast, religious faith has no foundation of testability. The distinguishing feature of religious faith is that it one is asked to accept a given idea with no possibility of testing or proving it.

I have no problem with this personally or professionally. I do not begrudge anyone their religious faith. Like Dennis Miller, I believe there is no point to "fighting to the death about what happens after you die". As a scientist, I concur that science is and must be agnostic about anything which is not scientifically testable.

The flipside of this coin is the problem we face here in Texas, around the country, and the world in general: when people use religious ideas to make scientific assertions. If you hold a religious belief that disagrees with some component of science, then you must also be aware that you are crossing the boundary between science and religion. You are now using religion to make a scientifically testable claim ("I believe science has X wrong because the Bible says Y.").

Science is agnostic about religion, despite what Dawkins, Hitchens and PZ Myers all say. Dawkins is particularly fond of his "God Hypothesis", in which he claims that the existence of God can be effectively disproved because the probability of his existence is so small as to be impossible. But this is a philosophical exercise and not a true scientific hypothesis because there is no real test.

It's also a bit disingenuous as well. In "The God Delusion", Dawkins makes the exact opposite argumen to support the search for a scientific explanation of the origin of life. Even though such an event is extremely unlikely and nearly statistically impossible, Dawkins writes, he goes on to explain that statistics and probability just tell you about likelihood and that a single event. no matter how improbable something is, it is still always physically possible, and if it happened (since we're all here, hey it must have happened somehow), then you ignore the statistics and deal with reality. He writes this after asserting his God Hypothesis and relying on the same level of statistical unlikelihood as a justification to deny the existence of God, so I find this sort of double standard unhelpful and toxic to the broader conversation to increasing peoples' understanding of science.

It also demonstrates how a single scientist can be flawed or make a false assertion, but the process of science will always win out in the end. The bad arguments, the frauds, the flawed theories--science has consistently proven that its methodology and rigorous application will eventually lead to the best ideas.

Questions and Feedback: Anti-Science Creationism in Texas

2009-05-05T23:10:00.004-05:00

My talk at the Austin Geological Society was well received by an enthusiastic audience that also included many non-AGS folks there. It was good to see interest in this topic in the wider community was enough to draw some folks out to the Pickle Research Campus on a Monday night and listen to me instead of watching "24".

I've gotten some emails today as well that hit on some fundamental issues, and I thought I might post them along with my responses.

One emailer took exception to my tone. I have no apology for this. This person suggested that scientists are partly to blame because of they approach the issues, communicate to the public, and because they lack an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. This was a bit ironic because I disagree with the way this person frames the difference between science and religion.

The email reads:

Paul,

Enjoyed your talk and appreciate you dedication to the geosciences. You probably get lots of armchair advice, which you are wise to ignore, but here is some anyway:

1. When preaching to the choir, you should revise the sermon.

Scrap all those quotes and the "politicing" and concentrate on something I was hoping to hear: the philosophy of science and its fundamental difference with the philosophy of religion. I am very unsympathetic to all the whining from scientists. We must finally admit that we shoulder the blame for the science education mess, which has arisen from our arrogance, elitism, and poor communication skills. The room was full of PhDs and I wonder how many actually have had a course in the Philosophy of Science. The worst thing scientists have done is allow the public to perceive science as a religion with absolute answers. You hinted at the core problem, but hesitated at making a full development - it's not only the religious right who do not understand, it's also, sadly, the scientists themselves.

2. Your sermon reminded me of Yeats, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

This sounds tactless and heartless, but you need an "attitude adjustment." Perhaps you are too close to the subject, but your "passionate intensity" was showing, which exposes your "lack of all conviction" for science, just as "the worst," who attack science, expose their "lack of all conviction" for faith in their religion. One slide you must eliminate is the one categorizing favorable and unfavorable theisms to science. Science does not align itself with any view of god or the existence of a god. Science is not an idealism, because it is fact-based and trapped in a lowly spatial-temporal-empirical world and religion (including atheism and agnosticism, which sit in the same pew with all other religions) is an idealist elevation above fact into the world of faith. It takes no faith to believe a fact, but it takes faith to believe something that is above and beyond fact. Science is dynamic and cannot deal with absolutes (even facts are subject to the bias of a measurement/observation reference plane), whereas religion is faith-based requiring a quantum leap into the absolute of idealism.

3. Return next year and have the courage to speak to the heart of the subject - the philosophies or science and religion and how and why they are vastly different (opposites) and how and why this bilateral vision of life is endemic to humanity. Also work on a simple one-sentence statement that clearly summarizes the philosophy of science and religion.

4. Lastly, I can share your disappointment in the media characterization of the "baffled scientists." Nonetheless, if we are baffled, at least we have recognized the problem.

A friendly and supporting critic,

(name removed)

My response:

Thanks for the feedback. It is always appreciated, even if you don’t agree with me. That’s part of the reason I talk to people!

The focus of last night’s talk was to be a summary of what happened at the SBOE and why, summarizing the process and the events as they unfolded. I agree there are some scientists who do not fully appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of science, but that was not the focus of last night’s talk, nor was it directly relevant to the subject I was invited to present to the AGS. The problems in the SBOE and the Legislature involve non-scientists who don’t understand science, which is a far wider and more pervasive problem, but I do acknowledge the other side of the coin. I am happy to talk about these subjects as well whenever I am asked to do so. I was hoping someone might ask a question about this, actually.

I respect you have a personal opinion of my own internal convictions, but must disagree with your characterization of them. If my presentation style was not to your liking, I am unapologetic because I am guided to do what I do and say by my convictions.

A few other points worth mentioning: Science is most assuredly an idealism practiced by fallible, imperfect people. Although science is the quest to obtain an objective understanding of the universe, it simultaneously acknowledges that the best we can ever do is to make proximate explanations. Most ideas in science are bad ones, and it takes the long, slow process of review, repetition and consensus to separate the good ideas from the bad and inch forward. Imperfect people choose to pursue perfection in science and strive to attain the idealism of objective understanding. It may be ugly, but it’s still the best system we have for understanding our world.

And while science is agnostic towards any claims of religion or supernatural beliefs (I heartily agree with you there), there are several religious views that do, in fact, directly disagree with much that is established within science. And given that these views are held by some of the people who are involved in dictating the standards of science education in Texas, it is relevant (and necessary) to acknowledge that such views exist. For a general audience who may not realize such views exist, a brief explanation is required. If this seemed offensive to you, I do apologize. My only response to this is that it may be cruel to point out that certain religious views disagree with science, but it is factually accurate and relevant to the topic at hand.

Religious idealism, as you note, differs from scientific idealism, but I believe for a reason other than you describe. In science, every idea must be testable. In religion, one is required to have faith when testability is utterly impossible, and therein lies the difference.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Kind Regards,

Paul

Another emailer wrote seeming to be confused that I "held a position that would not allow for even the slightest notion that anything other than a purely scientific explanation of anything science related". This is a common charge that scientists are dogmatic in their views and that science is no different from religion in this way. This person also wanted to know about "a lot of what ifs and unanswered questions as far as the fossil record goes". (The writer went on a bit, but these points were the real meat of the email.) These are fair questions.

My response:

Thank you for your interest. I am always happy to provide feedback to
people who take the time to ask questions.

First off, there are always other explanations for anything we observe
in the world. Science is one way of looking at the world. As a
scientist, I assert it is a rather useful way of looking at the world,
and as such I feel competent enough to talk about a scientific
understanding of the world.

When one of our children goes into a science classroom, I believe that
this is the place for well-understood science to be taught. I am, in
fact, not even opposed to exposing students to non-scientific,
anti-scientific, or pseudoscientific ideas in the classroom--provided
they are presented as such and not as "good" science. If a creationist
idea is presented as a viable scientific alternative to accepted
science, I have a real problem with that.

Science is a spectrum. At one end is the core of well-understood
concepts upon which we build our knowledge. Further out we have frontier
and fringe science which pushes the limits of our knowledge. On the far
end is pseudoscience. This is a continuous spectrum of ideas, and it is
not always easy to figure out where something belongs. This is the job
of working scientists to sort out.

In the science classroom where we are trying to teach the core concepts
of science to give our students a foundation, the job is a little
different. Asking students to sort out what is/is not science before
giving them a strong understanding of core scientific concepts is
pedagogically unsound. This is why we only teach core science at this
level. In order for something to be considered core science, this means
the scientific community has long ago concluded there is little debate
over such a concept. Big Bang, the cell theory of biology, geologic
uniformitarianism, Darwinian evolution--these are all core concepts in
which there is no debate among scientists. Any debates or controversies
are raised by people who do not participate in the scientific process.

So, to answer your question, yes, I don't think there is room for
anything other than purely scientific concepts in a science classroom.
But I wouldn't object to creationism being taught in a comparative world
religions class, any more than I would object to teaching Shakespeare in
English class or rules for football in P.E.

You are right that there are always unanswered questions. Another word
for that is "research", and it's how I stay employed as a scientist!
Science only offers proximate explanations, because we are building
models of how we think some part of the world works, and then testing
that model against the real world. The model is always imperfect, always
subject to revision, improvement, or abandonment if a better model or
contradictory evidence is found. Science does not deal in absolutes;
it's always our best guess of how we think something works.

In the extreme view, one could say that there is an alternative
explanation that is forever beyond our comprehension or understanding.
Let's say, for example, that our world is just a simulation, like the
Matrix, and that the laws of physics we observe here are merely the
result of someone else's computer program. We cannot possibly understand
it or have knowledge of anything outside of our simluated universe, and
that the laws of physics and nature we observe here have no resemblance
to those in the outside universe.

Even if this were true, science is still constrained by a guiding
concept (methodological naturalism) which says we still have to proceed
as though there is a testable explanation for everything we observe in
our world, and build a model for how we think everything works based on
that model. Science isn't concerned with the "truth" of our Matrix-like
world in this sense. Science is only interested in what is testable.
Science makes no claims about anything that is not testable in our
universe, and is by definition agnostic towards these other claims.
Science is (also by definition) agnostic about any supernatural claims
made by various religions as well.

What causes problems is when someone holds up a religious idea and uses
it to make a testable claim. This is the case for many types of
creationism, such as those that assert something about the age of the
Earth, evolution, geology, etc. These are testable claims about which
science definitely has something to say. When someone like Don McLeroy
says there are gaps in the fossil record and uses this to assert that
Darwinian evolution is wrong, this is a testable claim that can be (and
always is) proven false. He wants this presented to our kids as science;
I do not.

Thanks again for your questions. I hope this provides some elucidation.

Cheers,
Paul

Speaking on Creationism and Earth Science in Texas

2009-05-02T21:21:00.005-05:00

Update: Doh! I got the date wrong on the original post. It's Monday May 4, not the 5th! I'm not getting enough sleep these days!

-PM

---------

On Monday, May 4, I will be speaking at the Austin Geological Society's Monthly meeting. The topics of my talk will include:

How Earth science has been the latest victim of the anti-science creationist movement in Texas
What happened at the Texas State Board of Education in regard to the science standards for Texas public schools
Creationism on the move in the Texas Legislature
The federal lawsuit filed by the Institute for Creation Research against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Among the themes of my talk are the need for better education on these issues and more involvement of the scientific community. For too long, the biologists have been left to fight against anti-science creationists (more or less) on their own. For those who are biblical literalists, the fight over evolution doesn't stop with Darwin; they have fundamental problems with all branches of natural science. Geoscience is the next logical target, because it demonstrates the age of the Earth that is in conflict with Genesis (but this is only true if you insist on reaidng the Bible literally as the SBOE extremists and the Institute for Creation Research ideologues do).

I say "better education" is important as well, and I mean this in two ways. First off, very few scientists really understand what we are up against, and the tactics, rhetoric and arguments employed by the anti-science movement. In order to counter these arguments, you must also understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, something which is sorely lacking in geoscience. Few people who work in academic research seem to really grasp these isues, and far fewer at the Master's or Bachelor's level get training and education on things like methodological naturalism. It's mostly implied in their education. I would dare say that none of them ever get any instruction on the philosophical boundaries between science and religion (another key concept).

I invite anyone interested to come to the AGS meeting to hear my talk.

Time on Earth, Episode 4

2009-04-27T15:10:00.002-05:00

Episode 4 of Time on Earth is now up and running. It's the second half of my interview with Michelle Foss on Energy Economics. We had a great time chatting about popular misconceptions about the price of gas at the pump, energy independence and the "drill here, drill now!" mantras, and why ending all drilling for oil and gas in the U.S. is a Bad Idea.

Creationist Lawsuit in Texas

2009-04-21T00:45:00.005-05:00

The Dallas Observer Blog has reported the Institute for Creation Research has filed a federal lawsuit to give them the right to grant a Master's of Science in what they would like to call "science education". As I said in my testimony to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board hearing on the ICR last year, what the ICR calls "science education" has as much to do with science as "reality television" has to do with reality.

The text of the lawsuit can be found here.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is the body that can give accreditation to institutions of higher learning to grant degrees. In this process, a school has to apply for a "Certificate of Authority" to grant degrees and must meet a set of criteria for granting such a degree.

The ICR is an institution which affirms and avows Biblical literalism as a major tenet; According to them the Bible is factually accurate in all matters of history and science. While they could have easily called their degree program an MS in Religious Studies (that's actually what it is) and get that certified, they have forced this issue by insisting to call their program "science". Far less subtle than the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, the ICR seeks to achieve the same goal--and overt overthrow of the foundations of modern science--and they make no bones about it. They do not hide behind "intelligent design" or coy terms like "academic freedom"--the founder of the ICR (Henry Morris) literally wrote the book on Young Earth Creationism, and that's what they advocate in every one of their "educational" programs.

As a result, the THECB and it's Commissioner Ray Paredes have smartly decided to deny the ICR the right to grant a degree in science in Texas so as to preserve what little scientific dignity we have left (especially in light of what the Board of Education just did). I am still working my way through the lawsuit, but I have come away with several main themes that are reiterated throughout:

-The ICR fully admits and affirms its institutional viewpoint of Biblical literalism, and that "Darwin was wrong". (their emphasis)

-They claims that as a private institution the ICR is not subject to THECB mandates (they claim the THECB only can regulate public education institutions. Not true, as the THECB accredits a number of private schools in Texas, such as Texas Christian University, Baylor, Southern Methodist, Abilene Christian, and dozens more).

-The ICR claims freedom of press violations because they aren't allowed to advertise for their degrees to Texas residents in their publication "Acts & Facts", a glossy advertising tool that masquerades as a magazine.

-They claim the ICR "met or exceeded the Standards of Certificates of Authority" under THECB rules (this is false on its face, as I have read the expert review panel's assesment of the ICR).

-That the science-based view of the Big Bang and a ~14 billion year-old universe is a religious assertion because "no one was there to witness it", and therefore Young-Earth Creationism is just as a valid as a religious viewpoint. (Aside: Either they completely lack any understanding of science, or they are simply lying. I suspect the latter considering how many years Henry Morris has been promulgating this tripe. In which case, shouldn't the 8th Commandment kick in here?)

-Paredes and the THECB discriminated against the ICR on religious grounds (his view of the Big Bang is being "imposed" on the ICR and violates their religious freedom).

-The five "evolutionists" (read:people with actual degrees in science) on the ICR review panel were heavily biased, and the review panel failed to meet qualifications of being fair or balanced because it contained no YECs (Young-Earth Creationists) on it, nor did it contain anyone who "demonstrated any expertise regard the Biblical creationism-affirming...private Christian education".

-the THECB gave a "rubber stamp" ruling based on the review panel's (clearly biased) assessment of the ICR, and because Paredes admitted he wasn't a scientist and deferred to his experts he was illegally giving them power reserved to elected officials (although Paredes isn't elected either).

This is also the sloppiest, most sarcastic legal brief I've ever read. They even misspelled "constitutional". 8th graders can write better than the ICR's legal team.

Some other gems quotes:

"Commissioner Paredes' unquestioned faith in a 'Big Bang' of '14 billion years ago' (which he may believe in by faith, but he has no eye-witness knowledge of such) should not be confused with the 'great noise' mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10. The evolution-only viewpoint discrimination is further illustrated in Commissioner Paredes' opinion (on 4-23-2008) that evolutionary thinking is 'foundational' to 'modern science'". Yes, they actually quoted the Bible as a bibliographic source.

"ICRGS corroborates the Biblical account of the Genesis Flood (the historicity of which has been repeatedly corroborated)". Sorry, but there is no evidence for this.

"The necessarily implied criticism is that the ICRGS doesn't try to be 'fashionable' by mimicking whatever its evolutionist counterparts are now doing, thematically speaking".--Yeah, we wouldn't want to have them teaching the same sort of science as at those other schools and still call it science, eh?

"ICRGS has sincerely taught its students that the theory of evolution and the proposed notion of billions-of-year-old "geologic time" is "science falsely so-called". See accord. (1st Timothy 6:20).

But wait! It gets even better. Here is where they totally kill their own case by trying to simultaneously occupy two mutually exclusive positions on their degree program:

"The Texas Supreme Court has ruled...that no governmental claim of 'fraud' can be made if that value-judgment depends upon evaluating the truth or legitimacy of a particular religious opinion. the historic fact that the triune of God of the Bible, acting through Christ, created the Cosmos slightly more than 6,000 years ago, is a religious belief...As such, defendants...according to the Texas Supreme Court, should not be pronouncing an epistemological judgment on whether ICRGS's institutional viewpoint (regarding the universe's origins regarding mankind's origin, etc.) is 'true' or 'false', 'legitimate' or 'fraud'."

The reasoning is self-contradictory; If they were making a religious claim, they would be right, and the THECB wouldn't have anything to say about it. But they applied for the right to grant SCIENCE DEGREES!

They are literally trying to have it both ways. They demand they can teach their religious views as science and asked for the State of Texas to give them the official right to do so; but this means that their institutional views are now subject to all the rigor, tests and logic that are used in science, the foundation of which is...epistemology!

It is ironic they are necessarily inviting us to make "epistemological judgments" about the precepts of their school and pseudoscientific ideas. When they fail the test of science (which any supernatural, untestable idea without evidence always will), they then want to hide behind the First Amendment and claim this is an infringement on their religion. If this is the case, they must therefore claim (as they do in the lawsuit) their views are not scientific and not subject to scientific analysis because they are religious in nature! If that's their defense, then they should not be trying to call their degree program "science", but should instead be labeling it as religious studies...and we've gone in a complete circle 'round the mulberry bush.

Ray Paredes and the THECB made the right call be denying the ICR's accreditation for the MS Science Education degree. Let's hope that whatever judge gets this, he is as intelligent as Judge Jones was in the Kitzmiller case.

---

UPDATE: There is a bill in the TX Legislature right now related specifically to the ICR in an attempt to exempt them from the THECB's reach; it is currently listed as in committee, and I will be following up on this shortly.

On Creationists and Anti-Science Creationism

2009-04-16T23:11:00.004-05:00

I have taken the habit of addressing 7 of the State Board of Education members as the anti-science coalition or anti-science creationists. I feel this requires a brief explanation.

"Creationist" is a term that is used very loosely by science advocates. It is generally meant to imply they are anti-science creationists. Creationism encompasses a broad spectrum of belief, anywhere from total acceptance of science to total rejection of science; the former includes the views of the Catholic Church (theistic evolution); the latter would be Young-Earth Creationism, advocated by SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy. In between lies a wide range of beliefs that are numerous and mutually exclusive.

Despite what liberals outside the Bible Belt want to believe about Texas, there are a lot of good, intelligent, hard-working and rational people here who both believe in God and accept sound science. I say this anecdotally because I don't have the data to back it up; what I do know is that whenever I tell people that 7 Young Earth (anti-science) Creationists are on the SBOE, they are horrified regardless of their political or church affiliations.

It should be obvious that using a religious term (creationist) to identify a scientific opinion (acceptance/denial of certain scientific precepts) is ridiculous on its face. This violates the philosophical wall which exists between science and religion. It could also alienate a lot of people who believe in God. In part, I think the over-use of the term "Creationist" is why science advocates are often branded as/confused with anti-religion/new atheism and its advocates (Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens). These highly visible and vocal atheists openly admit to fighting a different fight than simply advocating for science; but that message gets lost unless you have a firm understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the science-vs-religion debate.

Rather than alienate the conservative, intelligent people who want better science for their kids, I try very hard to not use the term "creationist" without a proper modifier. Hence, this is why you will see me use the term "anti-science creationist" to distinguish them from thinking, rational creationists (like Ken Miller) who embrace science and clearly understand the boundaries of both science and religion.

Now, you may ask why bring religion into this at all if it's simply science vs. anti-science? Those who advocate anti-scientific agendas do so because of their religious views. Further, it is well demonstrated that the entire point of ID/Creationism movement has nothing to do with science; it is about cultural reformation and a society as they would see it be made.

(Un)-Open Records from the State Board of Education

2009-04-16T22:54:00.004-05:00

Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many emails the 7 anti-science creationists sent or received during the week of the single most SBOE meeting of the last decade?

One.

At least, this is what they are claiming.

After making open records requests to obtain emails sent to/from the 7 anti-science creationists on the SBOE, My request yielded 42 pages of emails they sent back and forth to each other, and 1 op-ed that Ken Mercer sent to several newspapers.

That's it.

Despite claiming they each received thousands of emails in the weeks leading up to the final showdown, not one email that didn't originate with an SBOE member.

No emails to OR from their "experts", despite numerous times citing such communications as support for the slew of idiotic amendments they made to the science standards.

No emails from any people with any views on this one way or the other.

14 emails. That's it.

According to the public information officer with whom I have been dealing, they have followed up and this is all that there is. She has speculated that everything else was deleted.

Well, this is far from over. The SBOE may think they can hide behind their bureaucratic Serapis, but I am no stranger to bureaucracy myself, and I have not yet begun to fight.

On The Skeptics' Guide

2009-04-04T18:03:00.003-05:00

Episode #193 of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, featuring an interview with yours truly, is now on the web.

I think I may have gotten an answer to one question partially wrong about why no lawsuits have previously been filed regarding the textbook review process in Texas. My answer was there are two radically different cases:

1) If the SBOE denies a "good" science textbook on the basis it doesn't discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of a scientific theory such as evolution; (OR, as the language is revised for the current standards, if a book doesn't analyze "all sides" of a scientific explanation".

2) If the SBOE approves a book that contains topics specifically about intelligent design or creationism;

I argued that if #2 happened, it would be much easier to find grounds for a lawsuit that demonstrates this violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. #1 would be much harder to prove in a court of law.

It has been pointed out to me that this is not as straightforward as that, and that a case could be made for #1 but that it simply hasn't happened yet. While I agree in principle such a case could be made, it's a significantly more difficult argument to make unless you are handed the evidence by a creationist too foolish to hold his/her tongue. If an SBOE board member said on the record they denied the approval of Textbook X because, "it didn't discuss the weaknesses of evolution" and didn't say anything more specific, it would be hard to get anything in a deposition that would draw a clear genetic link between that person's religious views and their denial of the textbook.

Conversely, if that SBOE member said, "This book doesn't discuss how simple molecules forming more complex ones with more information (DNA) violates the second law of thermodynamics", then you'd have something. This is a specific argument, and its provenance as a religious argument could be easily established in a court.

I am reminded of what came out in the Dover Trial, when it was revealed that at one particularly heated school board meeting, someone said, "Who will stand up for Jesus?" in the context of discussing biology books. It's pretty hard to deny that you have a religious motivation behind your dislike of evolution when you say something like that.

Anyway...thanks to the folks at the SGU, and thanks for giving me a chance to plug my podcast for my dayjob as well.

Summary of SBOE butchering of the Science TEKS

2009-04-01T18:20:00.005-05:00

Here is a summary of how the SBOE butchered the TEKS as written by the work groups in November:

1) New (c)(3)(A) in all subjects of science grade 3 and above:

"in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

2) Biology amendment to 7B: "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;"

3) Biology amendment to 7G: "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell."

4) Biology amendment to 9D: "analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life"

The real question about these first four won't be answered until textbook review time in 2011. If the same anti-science majority exists on the SBOE, then will they require the textbooks to teach
"all sides" of evolution just as they asked them to teach the "weaknesses"? Will they expect the publishers to write specifically about irreducible complexity and "sudden appearance"?

5) Earth and Space Science 4: "Earth in space and time. The student knows how Earth-based and space based astronomical observations reveal differing theories ~~information~~ about the structure, scale, composition, origin and history of the universe."

As stated in an earlier post, this is just unscientific. Observations do not reveal theories, but information that scientists can then use to form testable hypotheses which are then woven together into theories. But since most science teachers won't probably even understand this "differing theories" nonsense, they will probably ignore it.

6) Earth and Space Science (8)(A) "analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types, such as, transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations;" .

This is much closer to the original language and far better than Cargill's version she stuck in at the January meeting. Although evolution was explicitly removed from this standard, it could have come out far worse. The fact that Cargill basically restored our version of the amendment leads me to believe some horse-trading happened with the other members of the Board.

7) Earth and Space Science: (c)(4)(A): "evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model, such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation, and ~~the concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago,~~ current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe; and"

We decided not to fight them over this one since we thought we only had a limited number of amendments we could make. If they want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and at the center of the universe, I'd like to see them prove it, and deny being Omphalists.

8) The global warming denialism introduced to environmental science by Mavis Knight:

"analyze and evaluate the different views on the existence of global warming".

How is it a Democrat from an urban district proposed this amendment? I would have expected this from the creationsists, not her. I wonder if she didn't propose this at the behest of one of the Republicans as part of a vote-trading deal. Given the inarticulate way in which Knight voiced this amendment, it leads me to wonder if she had any idea what she was talking about at all.

9) All high school subjects:

"draw inferences based on data related to promotional materials for products and services"

"communicate and apply scientific information extracted from various sources such as current events, news reports, published journal articles and marketing materials"

The rest of the amendments made to the science TEKS were pretty harmless, grammatical, or practical changes that we didn't feel threatened science education in a substantial way. We had to pick our battles. After thinking about this for a few days, I would say we lost more than we won, but time will tell.

April Fools: Comer Case Dismissed

2009-04-01T11:10:00.004-05:00

In a news item that could only come to light on April Fool's Day, the Dallas Morning News is reporting that Christine Comer's lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency was summarily dismissed.

Chris was the science director at the TEA (which houses the State Board of Education) for ten years. In the fall of 2007, she was forced to resign when she forwarded an email about Barbara Forrest coming to Austin for a lecture. This somehow violated a "neutrality" policy of the TEA which requires all TEA employees to be neutral on the topic of religious creationism. Chris filed a federal lawsuit last year against the TEA and it's director Robert Scott claiming the firing was a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

When I spoke to Chris last week, she seemed to think the case would go forward but had no timetable when this would happen. The timing of this is depressing, coming on the heels of the SBOE passing the new TEKS for science.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Austin American-Statesman article on the dismissal.

UPDATE at 5:50PM: Chris has been dealing with reporters all day. The bottom line is that they are still sorting through the decision and no one is making any comment until her lawyers have had enough time to review the dismissal and decide on what to do next.

Bored of Education: Summary

2009-03-31T01:12:00.006-05:00

Welcome to Texas, or as we are probably going to be called from now on, New Kansas.

Coming up with a summary of what happened last week is not as straightforward as I had hoped. It seems that both sides are claiming victory to some extent. The Discovery Institute reposted this blog from Bruce Chapman. And he seems to have understood the real difference between the old "strengths and weaknesses" language and the new "analyze and evaluate...all sides of scientific explanations":

"Perfect! A policy distinction without a difference! In fact, the new standards are just fine, an improvement, in fact."

Ugh. Discovery Institute mouthpiece Anika Smith quoted fellow DI creationist John West who said, "Texas now has the most progressive science standards on evolution in the entire nation"; that should pretty much tell you how bad things are.

Dan Quinn over at Texas Freedom Network said it best (and I paraphrase a bit) when he said the TXSBOE closed the door on creationism, then went running around the house opening all the windows.

Here is what was achieved (both good and bad) in this process:

"strengths and weaknesses" got removed, but then replaced with seemingly narrower language of "analyze and evaluate / all sides of scientific explanations"
The creationist amendments to biology remained, another was inserted. The supposedly pro-science SBOE members were utterly fooled into voting for these inane amendments
We did remove one egregiously creationist amendment from Earth & Space Science, but apparently at a cost.

Here is what we learned about the SBOE in this process:

No one on the SBOE can be trusted. People who said they were with us--right to our faces--turned around and voted against good science five minutes later
I amend the previous statement: Mary Helen Berlanga is the only board member with integrity, and she deserves everyone's praise for holding up her end of the bargain, even while her husband is in intensive care.
The stupidity of the SBOE members is not limited to the 7 young earth creationists.
Compromise might be good for policy, but it is not how you craft good science, science education, or educational standards of any kind. Science and bullshit are not on equal footing, and both sides don't have something to offer our students.

What we don't know yet:

How much of the fix was in. Was the "analyze and evaluate / all sides" language a last minute compromise, or was this orchestrated months in advance as part of a change in strategy?
How will this play out with textbook selection in two years? If the same people are still on the SBOE, then they will repeat the same pattern of forcing textbook publishers to look at "all sides" just as they forced them to look at "weaknesses" of evolution in 2003.
Will the rise in religious fundamentalism at the state level cost Rick Perry the election in 2010?

Frankly, I am disgusted by the whole process and with the majority of the SBOE. I have seen more organized parliamentary procedure in high school student council and more informed debate among the high school students at the summer camp where I volunteer. If these are the best people Texas can find to craft education policy in Texas, what does that say about the rest of us?

I have not ever been nor will I ever be embarrassed to be a Texan, but the TX SBOE has done a pretty good job of making us look like we are all inbred, Bible-thumping rubes. I actually heard a woman scream, "My grandfather was not a monkey!" during the TFN press conference on Wednesday. For a minute I thought I had a stroke and was an extra in "Inherit the Wind". It's 2009 as this is as far as some of us have come since the Scopes Trial in 1925?

One of my co-workers bourght her high school daughter to the SBOE meeting on Wednesday to testify, and unfortunately she did not get a chance to speak. What she and her mother did get was a first class education in Pseudoscience and Religious Fundamentalism 101. I've given talks and had numerous conversations with people about these attitudes, and what is clear to me now is that unless you experience this live and in person and hear these people for yourself, you will not understand the depth of ignorance and hubris these people can have. There is simply no way to convey these attitudes, any more than I can write words to describe Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or the music of King Crimson.

As I said to my coworker today, that first experience is a shocker. To us who are working scientists, it is difficult to comprehend a perspective that both fears and misunderstands science. We don't get you anti-science creationists, and we fully admit it. But very few scientists understand the implications of this; we leave the teacher to bear the brunt of this fight.

Ignorance and arrogance are bad; when you mix them together with religious zeal, it's dangerous. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then let me simply describe what your first experience in a room full of anti-science creationsist will be like:

It's like getting unplugged from The Matrix, and there is no going back after that.

The next question is simple; knowing what you now know, what are you prepared to do about it?

Earth and Space Science Amendments: One Step Forward...X Steps Back?

2009-03-27T14:24:00.001-05:00

Craig has brought forth our proposed amendments to fix the Earth and Space Science (ESS) curriculum.

We want to restore the original language in (c)(4) of the ESS to read:

Amend Section 112.36 (c)(4) to read: (4) The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal ~~differing theories~~ information about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.

This would be far more accurate. Observations do not reveal theories, but rather reveal information that allows scientists to build theories that explain those observations.

Vote: Fails 7-8, Agosto punked us again.

Now on to (8)(A) in ESS. Again, we are proposing this be returned to the original language:

"evaluate a variety of fossil types, ~~proposed~~ transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution ~~and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence~~;"

This garbage about common descent was stuck in by Barbara Cargill in January as part of a series of silly amendments to the ESS. the underlined language (which she removed) was actually specific language in the college readiness standards, so getting this re-inserted and the getting common descent was the highest priority for us as geoscientists.

Oddly enough, Cargill (of all people) has proposed this version of (8)(A):

"analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types, such as, transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations;"

Notice that she snuck in "proposed transitional fossils"; this isn't such a big deal given the rest of the fossil analysis is restored. Common descent was removed as well. This is basically our version of the amendment, but with "rate and diversity of evolution" changes to "alignment with scientific explanations". It could be worse. It was worse, so this is an improvement.

Passed: 9-6

The TEKS have now been officially voted on as a whole. It passed 13-2, with only Nunez and Berlanga voting against it. Mary Helen Berlanga is the only person who showed any integrity in this process and voted consistently.

The flip-flop voting of Agosto, Nunez, Craig, Hardy, Allen, Knight and Miller was deplorable. They literally voted for amendments five minutes after voting against them. Don McLeroy and the other creationists completely snowed them by simply re-wording these amendments.

This is what happens when science is decided in a political process. Science happens by concensus, but it is not a democratic compromise. Horse-trading may work with making laws, but it defies the underlying pragmatism of science; you don't strike a compromise between real science and B.S. and expect it to carry weight among scientists or science teachers.

Biology TEKS Part 2: Ugly, Ugly

2009-03-27T13:27:00.005-05:00

1:30 pm: After a short break, we are back to amending biology.

Dunbar is trying to bring back 7B with new language. The original 7B they just voted to remove is:

"describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."

Dunbar's version is to simply change "describe" to "analyze and evaluate", but it is verbatim otherwise:

"analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;"

Craig has proposed a "compromise" version:

"analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;"

For those of you playing at home, all he did was remove "sufficiency or insufficiency" from Dunbar's version.

This modification is unanimously approved. I am stunned.

Vote: 13-3. So the geniuses decided to re-insert what they just voted to remove. Fooled into believing that "sufficiency or insufficiency" was the problem, they have now inserted a specifically creationist item that must be addressed in science class. Even worse, it is redundant and scientifically meaningless, because 7A states:

"analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular and developmental."

If students are required to analyze and evaluate the evidence for common ancestry in 7A, they necessarily have to look at the science behind the ideas. The entire point of 7B is the insertion of the "sudden appearance", a creationist straw man argument that McLeroy and others use as supposed "evidence" against common ancestry. It's disingenuous at best and utter crap at worst.

So, how did an 8-7 vote to remove this amendment turn into a 13-3 vote for it?

The world may never know...

1:50pm: Allen is moving to strike 7G on the complexity of the cell, another egregious amendment:

Vote: 8-7 to remove it. But wait...

Craig is going to reinsert it: "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell." What the hell is Craig (supposedly on our side) doing re-inserting creationist amendments into the TEKS?

Vote: 13-3 passes. I cannot understand what is happening right now.

Again...completely bamboozled by the fast-talking creationists.

Allen moves to strike 9D on formation of simple molecules forming more complex molecules. This amendment is a back door for irreducible complexity:

"analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life"

2:07 pm: Vote: 5-10, motion fails

Mercer proposes a harmless amendment. We are now on to chemistry and I am taking a short break.

Amending High School TEKS: Biology 1

2009-03-27T12:50:00.001-05:00

Larry Allen Jr. is proposing to remove 7B from the Biology TEKS; this is McLeroy's amendment on common descent.

McLeroy is trying to save his amendment: "The data that is in the fossil record is clear an unambiguous."

McElroy is now saying the Cambrian Explosion does not support evolution, and neither does stasis. "Stasis is data".

McElroy is passionate, but simply wrong on the facts. The fossil record doesn't have problems, and his misunderstanding of the Cambrian Explosion is a common creationist attack on evolution.

Dunbar spoke and (confusingly) defends McLeroy's amendment.

Cargill is touting her fossil collection, and how they don't appear to change over time. I don't know what her expertise in paleontology is.

Agosto's comment: I am confused by what he said, so I have to wait and see with the vote.

Mercer: no suprise here. He's a creationist:

Berlanga says she is not a scientist, so she has to rely on the experts, and they all say this is a bad TEK and should be removed.

McLeroy: "An appeal to authority is the strongest evidence". Apparently he has never heard of the logical fallacy called, "argument from authority".

"Science doesn't operate on consensus". Actually, it does.

He is now quote mining again from Gould and Niles Eldridge. Again.

Final vote: 8-7 to strike. Yay for our side! Lunch break.

A Failure to Communicate

2009-03-27T11:23:00.000-05:00

Several pages of amendments showed up. Several SBOE members asked for the TEA to prepare a summary of suggestions from the public comments that were made on the TEKS. McLeroy and some of the others are outraged.

"We obviously have a failure to communicate" - quote by Pat Hardy

Hardy says the SBOE should take responsibility for how the process of the science TEKS review is broken, and is also calling out the scientists.

She is half right: the process is broken. The SBOE is a mess. But the scientists, the expert writing groups and professional societies made excellent recommendations for clear, concise language for science TEKS. The SBOE members screwed it all up!

This is not exclusively the fault of the 7 Young-Earth Creationists on the SBOE; the other 8 members refused to pay attention to any advice given them by the science community. They failed to understand the implications of voting for the amendments proposed by the creationists. This idea that you have to "go along to get along" may work for politicians, but it has no place whatsoever in science.

Pat Hardy, like many of the others who voted for this last amendment, utterly failed to communicate. We spoke directly to them face-to-face and laid out in plain English what the boundary between good science and crap is. They didn't listen.

The scientists were consistent from the beginning. We only asked for them to pay attention when il-informed amendments were made to an excellent set of science standards.

As to these 8 pages of amendments: these are mostly small changes in wording and clarifications, but this work should have been done months ago. These comments should have been given to the working groups when the TEKS were being written.

Win or Lose?

2009-03-27T10:44:00.000-05:00

10:46 am: The Great Debate rolls on...

Cargill has asked for a slight grammatical change to the amendment as shown in the previous post. I edited that post to reflect that change, but there might be a vote on this.

10:55 am: Confusing reigns. Mavis Knight is having a hard time knowing what's going on. Cargill has asked to move a phrase to the beginning, so it would read:

"in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Vote for this change: 11-4

Vote on Craig's language for this amendment: 14-1

The vote to insert the amendment in the TEKS: 13-2.

Is this a victory? Did we lose? The TFN folks say that because "scientific evidence" was in the S&W language, it's a loss. Genie and Josh from NCSE aren't very happy with what happened either.

How will this language be applied to textbook selection? Tune in during 2012 to find out.

But the battle rages on, and we are going grade-by-grade for amendments. When we get to 9-12 grades, we will see if we are successful in getting some pro-science changes made.

Texas State Board of Education: The Final Round

2009-03-27T09:02:00.001-05:00

9:05 am: The State Board of Education meeting begins this morning with the jazz choir from Bowie High School in Austin. This is probably the most pleasant thing I've heard in this room in the last several months.

9:23 am: Roll call and approving the agenda. Mary Helen Berlanga and Mavis Knight are participating at-a-distance from remote regional offices. Both are dealing with health-related issues as best I can gather from the comments of the other Board members

10:10 We are back form a recess, and the discussion of amendments is about to begin.

Dunbar has proposed an amendment for S&W in another form. She wants to insert into the 3a TEKS for all subject grade 3 and up:

"analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, by exmaining both scientific evidence that is supportive and not supportive of those explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Craig, also a lawyer and usually friendly to out side, has proposed amending this:

"analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

The SBOE members have all confused each other by trying to amend and amendment. Because two members are not physically here, they are having a hard time keeping up with what happens.

10:33 - The discussion is now going on about this amendment. Dunbar has seconded Craig's amendment to her amendment. Although Genie and the TFN folks are quite disgusted, I think Craig's amendment is a marked improvement because it limits discussion of "all sides" (the language TFN and NCSE think is objectionable) to all sides of "scientific evidence".

Mary Helen Berlanga is not supporting either version of the amendment, but what will Craig and Agosto do? As my old boss would say, Cluster Foxtrot.

Hard at Work: Will It Pay Off?

2009-03-26T23:20:00.000-05:00

We spent the afternoon working on strategies to remove the bad amendments this afternoon with Genie Scott and Josh Rosenau (from NCSE) and the good folks over at Texas Freedom Network. We are hoping to make an impact on the full board tomorrow.

We picked out the most egregious amendments and focuses on how to get them out of the TEKS. As one TFN spokesperson said, "They closed the door on strengths and weaknesses but threw open the windows."

Occasionally, I have been in situations where a team of people works very rapidly to achieve an incredible amount of work in a short time. When you have a clear aim and you all work together, amazing things can happen. Experiences like this truly test your notions of what is possible, and why organization is so critically important.

The pro-science coalition of the Texas State Board of Education has been woefully disorganized. Trying to communicate to these people what is at stake is difficult. It is truly a study in contrasts when I compare the last several months of SBOE meetings to one afternoon in the TFN office. I would dare say we accomplished writing better amendments in a mere fraction of the time. But will they have any traction?

On a related tangent, I have encountered the same sort of resistance within the geoscience community as well. I think there is some genuine arrogance on the part of scientists who are unfamiliar with the fight over science education and how the public perceives what is going on. In my own field, I have seen geoscientists react very slowly (if at all) because they don't understand that we might actually lose these battles. There is a belief that simply because we have science on our side, it will all come up roses for us in the end. The anti-science crowd is terribly motivated, well-organized, well-funded, and very savvy when it comes to PR and use of the media.

Well, now we see exactly what can happen if we are not vigilant and we do not take threats to science seriously. Regardless of what happens tomorrow, I hope this scares the geoscientists in Texas into getting off their rear ends and doing something about it.

Global Warming and Creationist Information

2009-03-26T15:19:00.002-05:00

The environmental systems TEKS has garnered a discussion on global warming following an amendment by Mavis Knight. "Everybody is not on board about global warming".

The amendment offered: "analyze and evaluate the different views on the existence of global warming".

This amendment passed unanimously.

Terri Leo introduces this amendment to Biology 9D:

"analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life"

An abuse of information theory is a common creationist claim, that simple molecules organizing into complex molecules with more "information" is a violation of information theory and thermodynamics, but this belies an ignorance of both.

This passes 9-5.

TEKS are passed unanimously. Just so people are not confused, this voting today was done by the "Committee of the Full Board", which is legally a subcommittee of the Board. The full Board will meet to vote tomorrow and the final votes will occur then. The absent Mary Helen Berlanga will be here tomorrow by teleconference.

Earth and Space Science Amendments

2009-03-26T14:41:00.001-05:00

Craig's amendment to remove "differing theories" and change it to "information about" in regards to Cargill's horrible amendment to the Earth and Space Science (ESS) TEKS.

The vote fails 6-8 with Rick Agosto voting against us. As a geoscientist, I am outraged.

Craig proposed another amendment (suggested by the ESS), which fails 7-7.

Attempts to remove the 8A) amendment by Cargill.

"Universal Common Design"- a freudian slip by Cargill if I ever heard one.

Agosto also voted against this, fails 6-8. What are you thinking, Ricky?

Cargill is proposing more amendments to the ESS:

4A) horrible amendment about the "differing" theories about the age of the universe and removing language about the expanding universe.

Mavis Knight: "If we were specialists ourselves, we wouldn't need the work groups."

This amendment passes 11-3; WTF?!?

6A) amendment: adding the words "thought to have occurred", passed 10-3;

13F) amendment adds "given the complexity of living systems". passes 9-5; we can live with this amendment.

On to environmental systems...

More Bad Amendments on Parade

2009-03-26T13:43:00.003-05:00

It's after lunch now and we are on to biology standards. Bad news...

Mavis Knight moves to remove the "common ancestry" amendment made to the TEKS by Don McLeroy. This is 7B in proposed TEKS, reading:

"describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."

McLeroy defended his quote mining

The amendment to remove failed 6-7 with Agosto abstaining.

McLeroy offers a new amendment: "Analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell."

His justification for this includes a quote from Dr. Bruce Albert's article (2/6/1998--I'll get this reference later).

Now he's talking about codons for collagen and the compexity of coding for proteins via DNA.

Craig suggests changing this to "Analyze and evaluate the evolutionary explanation of the complexity of the cell."

McLeroy says his wording is more clear because he is challenging the two foundational principles of Darwinian evolution: common descent and natural selection.

Now he wants to change it to "unguided natural processes" from "natural selection", but later changes his mind.

Craig's change fails 6-8; the amendment overall passes 9-5. Rene Nunez and Rick Agosto are now officially the top stooges. For voting against good science, they are going to have to answer for what they did.

So, we now have a 7G in Biology which reads:

"analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell"

The State Board's Got Balls

2009-03-26T11:48:00.000-05:00

Debates over what equipment should be required in elementary school classes. Things like pullies, wagons, windsocks, etc. But my favorite quote is about balls.

"Balls that students have been playing with all their lives..."

"Should we re-insert balls?"

"It does give the freedom to use the balls..."

More High School Amendments: Marketing in the high school

2009-03-26T11:42:00.002-05:00

Gail Lowe is offering a set of amendments to all of the high school science subject areas:

There is a proposed amendments to 3B/C :

"draw inferences bas on data related to promotional materials for products and services"

"communicate and apply scientific information extracted from various sources such as current events, news reports, published journal articles and marketing materials"

Marketing materials?!? I am dubious. Does this mean a teacher can bring a Disco 'Tute pamphlet into the classes?

The question is being raised right now. The intent of this is (on its face) is to analyze advertising claims, product labels, etc.

It passed...

At lunch, I spoke to Ron Wetherington about this amendment and feel better about it. Apparently the intention is for students to analyze marketing/advertising claims. I am all for this, and I have no problem with students showing up with whatever they want to bring to class to discuss. My concern is what a teacher will bring into the classroom, and whether or not students will be able to tell the difference.

Strengths and Weaknesses: Pwned!

2009-03-26T10:13:00.000-05:00

Ken Mercer is offering an amendment to restore the "strengths and weaknesses" language to all sections of the science TEKS.

Mercer claims that somehow, the newspapers made this language about evolution, and that S&W is about critical thinking in regards to all science.

Of course, if this were true, then why were the amendments offered to the TEKS, why do they ONLY address universal common descent.

Mercer claims there is near complete consensus about micro-evolution, and is rehashing the lame micro/macro evolution debate, and is citing the "Dissent from Darwin" list from the Discovery Institute. He is recycling his tired arguments about Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, peppered moths which he has repeated for months. Clearly he read "Icons of Evolution" and stopped there.

Mercer has been railing about this notion of "academic freedom" for months, claiming that students don't somehow have the right to ask questions, but "S&W" will give them this right.

Favorite quote: "You could lose your tenure if you dare question evolution."

Bob Craig proposes a substitute amendment to avoid the controversy of the S&W language. He is going over the history of S&W and how it was political, non-scientific language to achieve a compromise, and the meaning of these words in the context of science has changed. His amendment basically changes S&W to "analyze and evaluate".

Because Mary Helen Berlanga is not here and unless the creationists switch votes, this amendment will probably fail.

Tincy Miller is seconding Craig's amendment. She says the majority of commentary by those against S&W come from people who haven't even read the TEKS, and are going on propaganda and hearsay, falsely believing evolution will be taught as "fact". She says most of the people who have been unwilling to listen to the actual language.

Mavis Knight seconds Miller's experience that most reasonable people understood that exclusion of these words does not end debate in the classroom; others wanted to open the door for putting religion in the classroom with S&W. There is too much emotional attached to the S&W language.

Pat Hardy: supports the substitute amendment.

Terri Leo: doesn't support the amendment. Says it's too vague. And "weakness" is specific?!?

Great qoute: "Theories are proven facts. What science is that?"

Allen: supports the amendment.

Dunbar: doesn't support the amendment

Agosto: He is the swing vote and doesn't support the amendment. "It just doesn't feel right". This substitute amendment will fail.

Agosto: "If it's not fully understood, I don't consider that science". In truth, ALL science is not fully understood; that's why I have a job.

Gem quote: "If I can't understand it, it's not science."

Cargill: Sticking with S&W.

Mercer: "This doesn't pass the Mercer smell test." "What is the other side afraid of?"

Knight: adds a friendly amendment to Craig's suggestion.

Vote Craig's amendment: fails 6-8 (Agosto voted against).

Mercer's S&W amendment: 7-7; fails!

Some protestors (a man and his two children) at the back of the room held up signs reading, "Don't censor science!". Agosto asked for a DPS officer to remove the signs. They are still standing at the back of the room.

Are we in for more circus antics today?

At the circus, Day 1

2009-03-26T09:52:00.000-05:00

I decided to start keeping this blog after coming to the Texas State Board of Education meetings on the science standards for K-12 in Texas. Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science keeps a live blog of the meetings as they go, so this is not intended to duplicate his efforts.
Rather, this is more commentary on the process overall and the larger discussion about science education in Texas.

Yesterday I sat through six hours of public testimony on the science TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills), which are the standards used to guide teachers in designing their lesson plans. Additionally, the TEKS are used to evaluate textbooks (textbooks are reviewed by the SBOE as well, and they must have content which addresses all items in the TEKS). My initial thoughts on the level of discussion inspired the name for this blog, as well as the behavior by some creationists during a press conference.

After watching a few hours of horrific testimony by creationists, my anger at the lack of balance and the insistance of the anti-science coalition on the SBOE to grandstand faded. "It is better to be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt," kept echoing in my mind. With any luck, the wild testimony has convinced the 8 pro-science board members to stay the course, remove the bad amendments from the TEKS and take a stand.