Posted by Reed on July 07, 2005 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1)

The Tulsa Zoo has voted 3-1 to reverse its decision to create a creationism display.

A group called Friends of Religion and Science … collected nearly 2,000 signatures on an online petition asking the park board to reverse its decision.

Previous Post

Posted by Matt Inlay on July 06, 2005 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

A new article appeared in the education section of CNN.com.  For those following the debate, there’s not much new material here.  However, as evidenced by this article, the media seems to be getting better and better at filtering through the IDists’ spin.  Gone is all pretence that ID is not based on religion, or has anything to do with science.

Continue reading  “Teaching the Fake Controversy on CNN.com”

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06, 2005 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

The National Public Radio website now has a set of articles up giving a historical perspective on trials concerning evolution and creation.

The entry point is “The Scopes Monkey Trial, 80 Years Later”.

The linked articles include “Timeline: Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial by Noah Adams “,  an audio report on “Echoes of Scopes Trial in Maryland by Barbara Bradley Hagerty”, and a report on “Scopes 2: Arkansas’ Creationism Trial by Jeffrey Katz”.

The last article links to the McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project. There is some news there: a new member of the McLean Project, Jason Wiles, is in Arkansas this summer, and is collecting various of the materials on the Project wish list. The TalkOrigins Foundation is now providing financial support for the Project. Transcription charges don’t come cheap, so if you’d like to help, please use the donation button at the bottom of McLean Project main page.

Posted by Reed on June 25, 2005 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (1)

Several funny things have happened recently in Selman v. Cobb County School District, the Georgia case involving evolution disclaimer stickers.

First off, Roy Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law had their pro-disclaimer amicus brief rejected by recess appointee William Pryor because it challenged clearly established Supreme Court precedent.  Knowing the source, you can probably guess how bad and loony it was.  Now Moore’s cabal is asking for their brief to be reconsidered:

[T]his Court’s order misconstrues the relevance of, or entirely ignores, the arguments contained in the Foundation’s brief, and … the order has dangerous implications for future constitutional litigants before this Court … .

Continue reading  “If You Litigate, They Will Come.”

Posted by Reed on June 24, 2005 | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Robert Camp over at nighlight exposes Johnathan Wells’s deception of television viewers: “Do Biology Textbooks Pit Evolution Against Theism? - A response to Jonathan Wells”.

The Lou Dobbs Tonight program is broadcast nationally by CNN. Dr. Ruse was representing the mainstream biology point of view, Jonathan Wells the “intelligent design” position, and John Morris that of “scientific creationism.” Additional context to consider is that Dr. Wells is well educated (he possesses two PhDs, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University [2]) and has written and spoken extensively on these issues. As such he is clearly an intelligent individual, aware of the nuances of personal responsibility and contextual suitability regarding public discussion of complex issues. Dr. Wells was perfectly aware that he was speaking to a national, not limited, demographic and representing “intelligent design” in its broadly understood context, not relying upon personal definitions of terms such as evolution and theism that might be unrecognizable to most listeners.

In other words, the claim made by Wells, that he has textbooks which “…explicitly use evolution, misuse evolution, as an argument against theism, belief in god, Christianity…” is clear and requires that the books in question commit the proposed misdeeds unambiguously and with obvious intent. Although the exculpation of any of the books on Dr. Wells’ list would be enough to invalidate his claim, I believe that it is in the interest of the integrity of biological pedagogy to allow that if just one is guilty of the charges this will suffice to support his claim.

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 14, 2005 | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

This editorial from the Anchorage Daily News is one of the best-informed I’ve ever seen about the creationists’ national strategy to “Teach the [made-up] scientific controversy about evolution!”  It appears that a number of scientists and educators turned out for public hearings on Alaska’s new science standards last week, and they educated both the board and the media in the process.

It would be nice if every newspaper was this smart about the creationists’ “teach the controversy” strategy:

Without much fuss, the Alaska Board of Education put an essential bit of science back into the state science standards last Friday. That was thanks to more than a bit of civil discussion that took place the day before.

[…]

But to teach the “evolution vs. intelligent design” controversy in science classes would give too much weight to ideas that haven’t earned their scientific keep. There are better challenges to evolution on scientific grounds.

That does not mean evolution is only a hypothesis. As speakers at last week’s Alaska Board of Education hearing on state science standards pointed out, the theory of evolution is as sound scientifically as the theory of gravity. Both raise unanswered questions, but they are generally accepted in the world of science, acted upon in real life and, most of all, supported by the preponderance of evidence.

The serious scientific challenges to evolution or Darwinism are not from creationists or intelligent design theorists who draw their inspiration from faith, but from scientists who draw their conclusions from evidence. Evolution is sound theory, not fixed dogma. It can both withstand and profit by continued scrutiny and revision.

(Anchorage Daily News, "Board restores reason to evolution studies")

While we’re on the subject of Alaska, be sure to check out the website of Alaska artist Ray Troll (www.trollart.com).  He did the shark image in this post, and he does some great art on ocean biology, fossils, and evolution.

Also, the Evolution 2005 meeting has been going on up in Fairbanks.  I suspect PT poster Reed Cartwright, who is at the meetings, will have a report at some point.

Continue reading  “Evolution in Alaska”

Posted by RBH on June 13, 2005 | Comments (39) | TrackBack (6)

The Discovery Institute has a habit of misrepresenting issues, thereby publicly shooting itself in the foot.  The most recent instance is a press release misleadingly titled Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom.  In it, Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, presents a version of events filled with fabrications and misrepresentations.

Let me first briefly recapitulate the actual sequence of events.

• Sometime in the past, months or years ago, Bryan Leonard, a doctoral candidate in science education at The Ohio State University, put together a dissertation committee whose composition violated the clear requirements of the program in which he was seeking a degree.

• On Thursday, June 2, 2005, an assistant professor of French & Italian assigned to Leonard’s defense withdrew from the committee and was immediately replaced by Dr. Joan Herbers, Dean of the College of Biological Sciences and an evolutionary biologist.  According to the graduate school, it was Paul Post, Leonard’s dissertation advisor, [corrected in edit] Peter Paul, head of the School of Teaching and Learning, who initially got the graduate school involved, resulting in the change in Leonard’s committee. 

• In a letter dated and delivered on Friday, June 3, three full professors — Rissing, McKee, and McEnnis — transmitted concerns raised by Leonard’s public testimony in the recent Kansas BOE hearings to the graduate school of the Ohio State University.  That letter is a public document, available to the press on request  (using an official Ohio Request for Public Records procedure if necessary).  The formal letter communicating concerns to the OSU Grad School was requested by and sent to a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch on Wednesday 8 June.

• Also on Friday, June 3, Leonard’s advisor, Paul Post, requested a postponement of Leonard’s defense.  In other words, contrary to Bruce Chapman’s claims (discussed below), Ohio State did not prevent Leonard from defending his dissertation; his advisor requested the postponement the day after a qualified faculty member was appointed to his committee and on the same day that questions were raised about the composition of the committee.

• On Tuesday, June 7, 2005, I posted a description of what was then known about the Leonard affair, together with some reasonable inferences from that description.  Notice of my posting was transmitted over my signature to members of the press.

• In statements since then, the Graduate School has said that it is looking into the circumstances surrounding the composition of Leonard’s committee and questions about the conduct of his research.

So we have a series of events, precipitated by Leonard’s advisor [corrected in edit] the School of Teaching and Learning and by Leonard himself in Kansas, that resulted in his advisor requesting the postponement of Leonard’s defense after a qualified faculty member — Dr.  Herbers — was appointed to his committee.

Continue reading  “The DI Spins Academic Freedom”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 12, 2005 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

On page 28, in the Kansas Science Hearing May 5, Mr. Irigonegaray is cross examining witness Harris and exposes the contradictory beliefs.

Harris clearly accepts that science should be dealing with naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations should not be allowed. And yet he objects at the same time that the science standards should mention something about guided/unguided and the fact that they don’t is a problem…

It seems to me that Phillip Johnson has left a legacy of confusion when he conflated philosophical and methodological naturalism. Too bad that countless Christians are left with an inability to reconcile their faith with scientific fact and theory: Christianity in Crisis…

Continue reading  “Kansas Hearings: Harris”

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 12, 2005 | Comments (211) | TrackBack (0)

Set your irony meter on max.  Imagine if someone had pro-ID talking points from someplace like the Discovery Institute, but transposed them to Utah’s new proposal for “divine design” legislation in 2006. The result:

Some will argue that this is an inappropriate mixture of science and religion, but again, divine design does not purport to say who or what the designer was.

("Survival of the fittest theory," The Spectrum (southern Utah))

Looks like another trip to the irony meter store for me…

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 11, 2005 | Comments (57) | TrackBack (5)

The transcripts from the Kansas Kangaroo Court of May 2005 are finally up (unfortunately labeled, “Science Standards Expert Testimony” — someone should count how many times the witnesses said something like “I’m not an expert” on relevant scientific questions).  Briefs, presented materials, etc., are also available on the KSDE website.

The transcripts run to 308 pages total, if I count correctly.  Still, it’s far better than trying to listen to the recordings and write down the shocking bits.  I planned to do this one weekend, but it took me most of the day just to get through Bill Harris’s opening presentation.

Hear is one random bit of bogusness from Harris’s talk:

Continue reading  “Kansas Kangaroo Court transcripts are up”

Posted by Reed on June 08, 2005 | Comments (97) | TrackBack (2)

As reported by Red State Rabble, the Tulsa Zoo has approved a new exhibit.  This exhibit will chronicle the biblical account of creation.

The new exhibit was promoted by architect Dan Hicks, who some may recall was involved in the Tulsa Zoo “removing” evolution displays in the late nineties.  (He also doesn’t like gays at the zoo.)

According to the Tulsa Beacon, Dan Hicks has pushed for a display on biblical creation because other idols, like Ganesha, are displayed at the zoo.

Hicks said his display, a series of photographs by Oregon photographer Rick Ergenbright from his book, The Art of God, should be presented because of the numerous displays of pagan religions throughout the zoo. Either put them all up or take them all down, Hicks said.

Posted by RBH on June 07, 2005 | Comments (129) | TrackBack (11)

Bryan Leonard is a recently visible figure in the intelligent design creationism movement.  Leonard is a high school biology teacher at Hilliard Davidson High School in a suburb of Columbus.  As an appointee to the Ohio State BOE’s model curriculum-writing committee, he was the author of the IDC-oriented “Critical Analysis” model lesson plan adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education last year, and he recently testified at the Kansas Creationist Kangaroo Court hearings.  The credential that endears him to the IDC movement is that he is a doctoral candidate in science education at the Ohio State University, and his dissertation research is on the academic merits of an ID-based “critical analysis” approach to teaching evolution in public schools.

Leonard was scheduled to defend his dissertation yesterday, June 6, but we learned late last week that his defense has been postponed.

More below the fold.

Continue reading  “ID vs. Academic Integrity: Gaming the System in Ohio”

Posted by Guest on June 06, 2005 | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)

By Connor J. O’Brien

As we are all aware, the recent publicity surrounding the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt and the Dover, PA case has led many academics outside of the biological sciences to weigh in on the place of Creationist ideas like Intelligent Design in the scientific discourse. The rhetoric of these missives will be familiar to anyone who’s paid attention to creationist attacks on the theory of evolution over the years. In short, there’s nothing new here, but I think one particular element of the specious reasoning often employed calls for a thorough analysis. The following quotations are just a small, representitive sample.

Continue reading  “Occam's Hammer: Creationist Rhetoric and the Myth of Philosophical Naturalism”

Posted by Reed on June 04, 2005 | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, backers of “divine design” want equal time in Utah public schools.

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, plans to lead the fight for instruction of divine design in Utah public schools. He wants to defuse some of the expected controversy by avoiding the term “creationism” altogether.

Instead, he favors “divine design,” sometimes called “intelligent design,” which “doesn’t preach religion,” he said. “The only people who will be upset about this are atheists.”

Supporters of intelligent design say nature is so complex that it could not have occurred without the guidance of some higher power, maybe God, maybe something else.

They say this differs from traditional creationists who believe that God created the Earth, and argue the distinction means its inclusion in public school curriculum would not violate church-state separation.

”The divine design is a counter to the kids’ belief that we all come from monkeys. Because we didn’t,” said the conservative Republican and retired director of a private school for troubled boys. “It shocks me that our schools are teaching evolution as fact.”

Buttars doesn’t disregard evolution completely, rather he believes God is the creator, but His creations have evolved within their own species.

“We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a ‘dat,’ ” he said.

Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 03, 2005 | Comments (60) | TrackBack (0)

Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch have published an interesting perspective in Academe

They provide us with an in depth overview of the Wedge approach of Intelligent Design and its scientific vacuity (scientific sterility they call it).

Over thirty years ago, the great geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,” and his words continue to ring true today. Biologists, and scientists generally, know that evolutionary biology continues to thrive, despite constant claims by its ideological opponents that it is a “theory in crisis.” Insofar as biologists are aware of intelligent design, they generally regard it as they do young-earth creationism: negligible at best, a nuisance at worst. But unlike young-earth creationism, intelligent design maintains a not inconsiderable base within academia, whose members seemingly exploit their academic standing to promote the concept as intellectually respectable while shirking the task of producing a scientifically compelling case for it. To be sure, academic supporters of intelligent design enjoy, and should enjoy, the same degree of academic freedom conferred on the professoriate in general. But academic freedom is no excuse for misleading students about the scientific legitimacy of a view overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. In short, the academic supporters of intelligent design are enjoying, in the familiar phrase, power without responsibility. It is a trend that their colleagues ought to be aware of, worry about, and help to resist.

Francis Beckwith and Walter Bradley object to some minor quibbles

Comments on Beckwith’s article at Right Reason.

Dawson family protests Beckwith’s appointment to Baylor institute By Marv Knox Posted: 9/19/03

Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 30, 2005 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Gonzalez said this common charge isn’t true and reflects mistaken beliefs about science by its critics.

“They come from a specific philosophical point of view,” he said. “Any explanation apart from law and chance is not permitted in science.”

October 12, 2004 A universal debate By Lucas Grundmeier Daily Staff Writer

What else is there other than law and chance? Ignorance?

Also remember that in Privileged Planet, Gonzalez et al do not eliminate chance and law, only chance. In other words, they accept that laws can explain the universe.
Why is it that ID proponents have no problem accepting front loading in astronomy but insist on intervention in biology?

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 28, 2005 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

In an online press release on 2005/05/25, Oklahoma state Senators Mike Mazzei & Clark Jolley announced, "Henry Nominee for Textbook Committee Opposed".

Interesting... what, in particular, made them think that the nominee in question, Dr. Virginia Ann Dell, should be opposed?

“Despite her impressive academic degrees and her service as a teacher at the Oklahoma School of Science and Math, her errant belief that the teaching of the Intelligent Design Theory blurs the line between the separation of church and state is the first of many problems to arise with her nomination,” stated Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.

Sen. Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, stated, “Nothing exists in state or federal law that prohibits the discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design theory in the classroom. Let’s encourage open and honest discussion of all theories so students can learn to think critically and, with their parents’ guidance, develop their own worldview.”

Dell’s responses to questioning in the Senate Education Committee showed she is unwilling to even allow a mention or discussion of alternative theories on the origins of the universe.

So, someone with actual academic training, experience as a science teacher, and apparent familiarity with the legal status of antievolution efforts (such as Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard, which show Mazzei to be behind the times as far as legal issues go) is definitely someone to keep away from helping make decisions on textbooks in Oklahoma.

Continue reading "Oklahoma, Textbooks, and Ignorance" (on The Austringer)

Posted by pz on May 26, 2005 | Comments (45) | TrackBack (1)

A reader sent me a link to this horrid anti-evolution guest column in the MetroWest Daily News (I presume this is a suburban branch of the Boston Herald). It's appallingly bad, but so typical of the creationist strategy: fast and furious falsehood flinging, and the presumption no one will have the initiative or the ability to crosscheck the claims. It's also all stated in a pompous, self-satisfied style, as if the author knows more about biology than all those biologists out there…yet as becomes quickly obvious, the man knows nothing about genetics.

Well, I know a little about biology and genetics, and I'm willing to rip his dishonest essay apart, and there's always Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims, which is a wonderful resource that makes it easy to tear into articles like this. It always surprises me, though, how unimaginative creationists are—it's always the same old bogus nonsense, repeated over and over again, with such oblivious confidence. Everything in Marty Pomeroy's essay has already been refuted.

Continue reading "Marty Pomeroy, advocate for anti-science" (on Pharyngula)

Posted by Reed on May 24, 2005 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting today that efforts are now under way in Cobb County, GA to remove the evolution disclaimers placed on science textbooks.

The county is still appealing, and if they manage to eventually win, we may see the disclaimers placed back on textbooks.

Posted by Steve on May 20, 2005 | Comments (65) | TrackBack (0)

A couple of days ago (infinity in blog-time), Chris Mooney had an interesting post about a 20 year-old article on the creation/evolution debate.  As Chris writes… 

I have just been reading an interesting article: Thomas F. Gieryn; George M. Bevins; Stephen C. Zehr, “Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/Evolution Trials,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jun. 1985), 392-409. What the article reveals is that during the 1981-1982 McLean v. Arkansas case, anti-evolutionists were using a very similar strategy to the one promulgated today: Attacking evolution for its own alleged religious (i.e., atheistic) biases.

Mooney produces some choice quotes from the article that I won’t bother to reproduce here (you should go to his blog to read them).  The article was written in 1985, but it could have been written yesterday; the motives and tactics of today’s anti-evolution movement have changed little.  At least in 1985, they were honest enough to still call themselves creationists.

John Calvert’s impending legal strategy (which seems to be the standard strategy for the ID movement) was aired during the recent Kansas kangaroo court.  As reported by Stan Cox, it tries to paint evolution as necessarily atheistic, and therefore demands that ID be brought in for balance.  Not only is this strategy not new, it’s already dead.  One thing that Mooney neglects to mention is that this strategy backfired badly the first time around.  Let’s take a look…

Continue reading  “The More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same.”

Posted by Reed on May 20, 2005 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

NCSE is reporting that the Missouri legislature has ended and its anti-evolution bill has died in committee.

Posted by Reed on May 20, 2005 | TrackBack (0)

I am working on a joint statement from Citizens for Science groups about “intelligent design” creationism influencing education.  I already have several groups on board but am wondering if there are any I’ve missed.  If you are a member of a Citizens for Science organization, either local, state, national, or international please the contact information and background of your organization.

Don’t forget to spread the word.

(Comments will be disabled to make people email me.)

Posted by Reed on May 13, 2005 | Comments (83) | TrackBack (1)

Well, the Kansas Kangroo Court is over, and it did not produce the outcome that the anti-evolutionists wanted.  “Experts” from around the world were flown to Kansas to put on a state funded advertisement for intelligent design creationism because the local lay people were not doing a good job of it.  Well, the “experts” that came to Kansas didn’t do a much better job.  They routinely answered questions by admitting non-expertise.  They were even caught having not read the standards they were supposedly testifying about.  (Let’s be honest, the hearings were not about science education in Kansas but about giving intelligent design creationism a forum to advertise.)  These revelations did more harm than good for the school board’s impending decision to accept the minority revisions to the standards.

Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education, has gone into damage control with a letter to the Wichita Eagle.  Steve Case, chair of the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards Committee, has written a letter in response which was read by Pedro Irirgonegaray on the final day of the hearings.

Continue reading  “Exchange of Words in Kansas”

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 12, 2005 | Comments (289) | TrackBack (2)

If anyone needed any more evidence that the scientists’ boycott of the Kansas Kangaroo Court was an excellent idea, and that the Kangaroo Court didn’t go at all well for Intelligent Design Creationists
(most of the ID proponents were proved to be straight-up creationists at the hearings) — well, here it is.

William Dembski, in a post entitled “The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists,” is now fantasizing about “the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views.” 

As a bonus feature, the post features photos of a stuffed Darwin toy with his head being squished in a vise (see photo, above left). (Let me be the first to pass on the indignant cry of Professor Steve Steve and condemn this flagrant abuse of plush toy rights.)

Continue reading  “More evidence that the Kansas Kangaroo Court didn't go well for ID”

Posted by Reed on May 10, 2005 | Comments (70) | TrackBack (1)

A bill has been introduced in New York that would require “all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state [to] receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution.”  Hopefully this is a reminder that creationism is not a political concern for education in just “red” states.

Additionally, Florida’s “Academic Freedom” Act has died.  It would have allowed students to sue teachers who stated that evolution is a fact.

Posted by Reed on May 09, 2005 | Comments (50) | TrackBack (1)

A report from Joshua Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas:

I see things a little differently from Pat Hayes’s metastory.

Red State Rabble explains The Kansas Science Hearings Metastory, concluding that:

The barnstorming brotherhood of bible college biologists came, they saw, they did not conquer.

That remains to be seen.  I’ve seen letters to the editor today complaining about the boycott and others criticizing Kathy Martin in harsh terms.  I think the metastory (the story about the story) is still congealing.

I’m optimistic.  But we will almost certainly have bad standards, and if the public isn’t outraged enough, anything Governor Sebelius does to delay their implementation could make her re-election campaign more complicated.

The other problem is that the coverage was almost uniformly over the ID vs. evolution perspective.  That’s only half the story, at best.

The consistent theme of Saturday’s hearings were not so much a criticism of evolution as an attack on science.  Any sort of naturalism was decried as an attack on theistic belief.  Teaching science as scientists practice it was attacked as disenfranchisement of religious people.  Again and again, practical naturalism (or methodological naturalism) was attacked.

That would open up the door not just to ID, but to creationism, flood geology, and Raelianism.  Definitions of science may be in flux, but there’s a pretty sound consensus that flood geology is apologetics, not science.  Astrology isn’t science, but it seems to fall within a supernaturalistic form of science.  We can all agree that that doesn’t make sense.

And that explains the attacks on “historical sciences.”  If evolution, astronomy and geology can be cut off from the other sciences, it makes this radical, fringe agenda seem less insane.

That’s the battle.  It isn’t just evolution, it’s “materialism” or “naturalism.”  It’s the culture war.  I don’t know whether we’re winning that battle.

Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 08, 2005 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

The Kansas Citizens for Science website has many useful documents relating to evolution, intelligent design and the ongoing struggle in Kansas.

Continue reading  “Kansas Citizens for Science”

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 08, 2005 | Comments (10) | TrackBack (2)

(Important Preliminary Note: The phrase, “Why do the Muslims hate us?” is derived from political discussions after the 9/11 terror attacks and is based on bogus assumptions on several levels.  It is employed in the title as parody.  See point 4 of this post for the context.)

While a flood of news stories came out at the beginning of the Kansas Kangaroo Court, stories on the end of the hearings (Day 3) seem to be coming out very slowly.  Here is the first and only one I’ve seen so far.  I suspect that exhaustion, boredom, and/or cynicism took their toll on the reporters. (See Note 1)

The slow press coverage is kind of a shame for the IDers, because it appears that they scheduled their A-team for Day 3 — Stephen C. Meyer (director of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, and a very rare pro-ID Steve to boot); Warren Nord (religion-in-public-schools advocate and Dover expert witness for ID); Angus Menuge (a philosopher with a serious-sounding name at the serious-sounding Cranach Institute; if I recall correctly, Ronald Numbers pegs the Cranach Institute as the home of the Lutheran Young-Earth Creationists), the famed Michael Behe as the cleanup hitter, and the obligatory non-conservative-Christian ID supporter, the conservative Muslim Mustafa Akyol. 

Mustafa Akyol is an interesting character.  Earlier this week, Tony Ortega of The Pitch, an alternative newspaper in Kansas City, published a detailed writeup on Akyol (Ortega’s full story on the Kansas hearings, “Your OFFICIAL program to the Scopes II Kansas Monkey Trial, is a must-read).

Continue reading  “Why do the Muslims hate us? It's the methodological naturalism!”

Posted by Reed on May 07, 2005 | Comments (106) | TrackBack (0)

Jack Krebs is our main connection to these Kansas hearings.  But, as vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, he is too busy to act as a reporter for us.  However, at least two bloggers from Kansas have enough time to issue reports about the hearings.

Red State Rabble

Thoughts From Kansas

If you have a report about events at the hearings send it in, and I will consider posting it.

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 07, 2005 | Comments (137) | TrackBack (0)

Just about the most common words that come out of the mouths of “intelligent design” proponents are “We’re not creationists!” 

Why, then, has everyone that has testified so far in Kansas Kangaroo Court (see roundups by the Red State Rabble and Pharyngula) conceded that they think that humans do not share common ancestry with apes, in opposition to the scientific consensus and in flagrant contradiction of the actual scientific evidence?

Red State Rabble reports for us this morning (May 7, 2005):

The Score Card So Far

During cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.

So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

Continue reading  “"Waterloo" delayed? Again?”

Posted by Reed on May 06, 2005 | Comments (47) | TrackBack (5)

Pat Hayes of Red State Rabble sends us this report from Kansas:

As the Kansas science hearings got underway in Topeka this morning, there was a feeling about the room that these hearings would produce little real drama. By the end of the first day, the testimony of the intelligent design witnesses seemed to have fallen into an all too predictable pattern. Ennui began to envelop attorneys, witnesses, the media, and spectators alike. The process would go on, but rather like a tree falling in the forest that goes unnoticed.

The crowds were smaller, lines shorter despite increased security procedures that forced participants to pass through a metal detector, and many of the big media figures who attended the first day decamped for greener pastures.

Then, out of the blue, under a withering cross-examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray the hearing room was electrified by Edward Peltzer’s admission that he had not read the science standards draft written by the pro-evolution majority of curriculum committee. Peltzer, a Scripps Institution oceanographer and intelligent design witness was flown in from California to share his expert evaluation of the competing science standards drafts, and is currently enjoying the hospitality of Kansas taxpayers.

As the day wore on, each witness in turn was forced to fess up — to an increasingly scornful Irigonegaray — that they too hadn’t bothered to read the majority draft before giving their testimony. This despite the fact that each had earlier testified — in response to questions from intelligent design attorney John Calvert — that the minority draft was superior to the pro-science majority draft.

“I’ve not read it word for word myself,” confessed board member Kathy Martin in an ill-fated attempt to salvage the credibility of the witnesses.

As groans erupted through the hearing room in response to Martin’s admission — and AP reporter Josh Funk ran for the exit to phone the story in — a new feeling that the intelligent design showcase was turning into a failure began to seep into the room.

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 05, 2005 | Comments (63) | TrackBack (2)

Interestingly for a group that says they are not promoting intelligent design or creationism, the Kansas Kangaroo Court today called Charles Thaxton, the creationist who had the bright idea to rename creationism as “intelligent design” back in 1988.

According to Red State Rabble:

During cross examination, Thaxton admitted that he does not believe that humans — homo sapiens — evolved from hominid ancestors.

According to MSNBC:

During the hearing, Irigonegaray asked Thaxton whether he accepted the theory that humans and apes had a common ancestor.

“Personally, I do not,” Thaxton said. “I’m not an expert on this. I don’t study this.”

What’s that?  A chemistry professor testifying against evolution says that he is not an expert on human evolution, but defies the scientific consensus despite unfamiliarity with the evidence?  Makes perfect sense to me.  If listeners are supposed to disregard all of the antievolution testimony before the Kansas Kangaroo Court whenever the antievolution witnesses speak on topics outside of their professional expertise, then there wasn’t much point in these hearings. 

Let’s review some of the evidence on the somewhat important question of human evolution.  It is not as if it is hard to find.

Continue reading  “Clueless creationist testifies for Kansas BoE”

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 05, 2005 | Comments (26) | TrackBack (3)

The Kansas Kangaroo Court hearings have commenced.  See the latest from Red State Rabble, and see the story by  Jodi Wilgoren.

“Can you tell us, sir, how old you believe the Earth is?” the lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked William S. Harris, a chemist, who helped write the proposed changes to the state standards.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Harris replied. “I think it’s probably really old.”

There’s your 21st century science for you, from a leader of the Kansas Intelligent Design Network.

Note to Harris: The right answer is 4.5 billion years, give or take maybe 1%.  Go read The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple, who was just awarded a National Medal of Science by George W. Bush.

“There is no science without criticism,” said Charles Thaxton, a chemist and co-author of the 1984 book “The Mystery of Life’s Origins,” which questions traditional scientific explanations. “Any science that weathers the criticism and survives is a better theory for it.”

And anyone that promotes creationism, like Charles Thaxton, should realize that it has failed to weather criticism for the last 150 years and should have been discarded long ago, not continually promoted by various sneaky strategies, like those being used in Kansas.

Posted by Reed on May 05, 2005 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (1)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Cobb County School District’s request to stay the removal of the evolution disclaimers stuck on thirty-four thousand biology textbooks until after the circuit has ruled on the district’s appeal.  The Marietta Daily Journal has the scoop:

Marietta attorney Michael Manely, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, defended the plaintiffs in district court, said that to get a stay, it has to be proven that the case is likely to succeed on its own merits.

“This showed it’s not likely to prevail,” Manely said. “It’s the first serious nail in the coffin from the Court of Appeals. They are expressing their preliminary thoughts on the subject. This is like a preview of what is certain to come. It tells the board that this corpse is beginning to smell really bad.”

School staff has already experimented with removing the stickers, using such things as nail polish. Removing so many stickers will not be easy, she said.

“I’m going to offer to help take out the stickers,” said east Cobb parent Jeffrey Selman, who filed suit against the school board in August 2001, along with the ACLU, claiming the stickers were unconstitutional.

“I bet I can get a whole bunch of people to help them,” Selman said. “God bless the judges. They can see right through this sham.”

Prof. Steve Steve has also offered to come back to Georgia to do his part in removing the disclaimers.

Posted by Reed on May 04, 2005 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (1)

From Bob Collins:

Dear Friends of Science and Education:

We won!!!

Tuesday, May 3, was the deadline for bills to pass at least one house of the Alabama Legislature, or they would be dead for the remainder of this session.

The three creationist bills, HB352, HB716 and SB240, each misnamed “The Academic Freedom Act”, all failed to pass even one house by that date, so they have now died a well-deserved death.

These bills were supported by the Alabama Christian Coalition, who emailed 6 separate “alerts” asking their membership to ask their legislators to support these bills.

Last year, a creationist bill was approved by the full Senate and the House Education Committee, and was within hours of passing the full Alabama House of Representatives when the legislature ran out of time. We were better organized this year, and it worked!!

Thanks to everyone who called, wrote, faxed, talked to their legislators and/or testified.

We made a difference!!!!

There is no time to rest. This summer and fall, the Alabama State Board of Education will pick science textbooks for our schoolchildren. They will also decide whether to continue use of the embarrassing “Evolution Disclaimer” pasted in the front of every elementary, middle and high school textbook that mentions anything that happened over 6,000 years ago.

We will be monitoring the textbook selection process and will keep this email list informed.

Thanks again

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 02, 2005 | Comments (68) | TrackBack (0)

The Coalition for Science is planning a series of events as the Kansas Kangaroo Court on “evidence against evolution” gets going.

The Coalition for Science is planning ahead for media participation. They will have a Media Booth with media information kits and people on hand to answer questions from the media throughout the day, a broadcast media briefing at 3PM each day, and scientists and educators will conduct an analysis of the day’s hearings half an hour following the close of hearings each day (with a light meal provided… these folks appear to know their media relations).

Pedro Irigonegaray was asked by the Department of Education to represent the Draft 2 science standards at the hearings, empowered to call science witnesses to testify. In the newsblog of the Coalition for Science, Pedro speaks out on the hearings:

The KSBE subcommittee has made it clear that they do not support Draft 2 of the standards and that they support the non-scientific opinions of the Intelligent Design (ID) Minority.

It is our opinion that the intended purpose of these hearings is:

· to provide the controlling Majority of the KSBE a rationale, in essence a façade of credibility, when they eventually change the standards; and

· to give the Intelligent Design movement a national forum to present their theological and anti-science ideas disguised as ‘science.’

I have joined thousands of scientists worldwide who recognize these hearings to be no more than a showcase for Intelligent Design, and to be rigged against mainstream science. I support their refusal to participate.

Posted by Nick Matzke on April 25, 2005 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Last week, Bob Collins of Alabama Citizens for Science Education discovered that the third creationist bill of the 2005 Alabama Legislature had been introduced late in the legislative session (see older NCSE news on Alabama for a history of this bill).  A hearing on the bill before the House Education Committee was scheduled for last Wednesday, and although the hearing was apparently not announced on the website of the Alabama Legislature, Bob Collins and others organized rapidly to speak out against the bill.

A committee vote is scheduled for next Wednesday.  Bob Collins has asked that the following message be as widely distributed as possible, so I am posting it to PT for any Alabamans that might be reading.

Continue reading  “Message from Bob Collins of Alabama Citizens for Science Education”

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 23, 2005 | Comments (137) | TrackBack (1)

Dr. Eugenie Scott appeared on the MSNBC interview show "Hardball" on April 21st. There is a transcript available here. Along with host Chris Matthews, there was Reverend Terry Fox on the program. The topic was the push in Kansas to change public school science standards. Dr. Scott was able to make several good points despite the tendency of Matthews to interrupt his guests.

Continue reading "Dr. Eugenie Scott on 'Hardball'" (on The Austringer)