Texas gets it right

Posted on January 2, 2009 by Michael

Texas actually managed to get something right.

The final proposal for the state’s science curriculum pleases scientists and watch groups, who say it will help protect Texas public school classrooms over the next decade from what they call “watered-down science” — specifically during the instruction of evolution.

Much of the concern over earlier versions of the proposed curriculum centered on a requirement that students be able to analyze the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, a phrase which some say is being used by creationists — including some members of the State Board of Education — to subvert the teaching of evolution.

It’s high time this was settled. Creationists compose the most dishonest bunch of crazies we have running around in the world. They’ve never added anything of worth to the world that comes directly from creationism. Everything they believe is worthless garbage that deserves nothing but ridicule and derision. They explain nothing while taking the beauty out of the world. They want us to be satisfied with not understanding the Universe because doing so allows them to continue in their delusion. The fact that this group had a voice at all in a worthy process such as the creation of science standards for children shows a pathetic lack of education among those involved in the process.

The third and final draft says students should be able to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations. There is also a new requirement that students should be able “to evaluate models according to their limitations in representing biological objects or events,” but it would take a mind-boggling leap for anyone to interpret that as applying to evolution, Quinn said, particularly when viewed through the plan’s new definition of science.

The old definition — which included phrases like “a way of learning about nature” and “may not answer all questions” — has been replaced with a definition from the National Academy of Sciences. It states that science involves using evidence to form explanations and make predictions that can be measured and tested. It also warns that questions on subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science.

Bam. Peace out, creationism. Magic cannot be used to make predictions, cannot be tested, and is unfalsifiable. Fail, fail, fail. There is no point where supernatural beliefs have any relation with science. Well, to be fair, that isn’t entirely true. I can imagine an SAT question that says “False is to true as creationism is to ____” with the correct answer being “science”. That relation works quite well, actually.

Don McLeroy, the state board’s chairman, has said that science should admit the possibly of the supernatural when natural explanations fail. But he has also said that he is not trying to put creationism in public schools.

There’s a pretty good explanation of some more creationist dishonesty. McLeroy (who is a dentist) wants nothing more than to sneak magic into public schools. It is his raison d’être. All he wants to do is find a point where science has yet to explain something and then institute something which can absolutely never explain anything. That is creationism. He may as well have said “I want creationism in our public schools, but I don’t want creationism in our public schools.” Jackass.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Coy Creationists

Posted on December 22, 2008 by Michael

Have you ever noticed that creationists are getting more and more coy and more and more dishonest? From repeating claims about evolution that are blatantly false even after the real answer has been explained to them to coming up with the hooey that is intelligent design (as if it isn’t a repackaging of creationism), so many have turned to flat out lying. They’re liars. They’re immoral charlatans and mountebanks, peddling lies to society, especially children. Why they are given even a modicum of respect is beyond me.

Filed under: Creationism, Misc, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Nothing makes sense except in the ‘light’ of creationism

Posted on December 16, 2008 by Michael

At least not in Louisiana.

Not far back, I warned that we need to watch out for Bobby Jindal. He’s the anti-science mook of a governor from Louisiana that recently signed into a law a bill which targets the facts of evolution and global warming.

Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that “Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education,” and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would “unleash an assault against scientific integrity.” Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading “that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science.”

But all these protests were of no avail. On June 26, 2008, the governor’s office announced that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” which includes providing “support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.” What’s not to like? Aren’t critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote.

s always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.

It’s fascinating that the group of people who claim to be the most moral of all mankind are the ones who are constantly seen lying about their intentions. Rather than to continue saying “We are creationists. We believe absurd things which have no basis in science. We want these things taught in the secular school system. Oh, and by the way, we need to talk about the whole “secular” thing”, they instead say “Academic freedom is being quashed because our ideas are not being accepted.” Of course, academic freedom has nothing to do with accepting every bad idea that comes around. If it did, not only would the Bible be an acceptable alternative discussion to the fact of evolution, but so would the Koran, Greek myths, and whatever the hell it is Tom Cruise believes. We would see Christian Science being regarded as an acceptable alternative to actual medicine and medical practices. We would see astronomy professors attempting to inform students of stellar evolution while in the next class an astrologer would tell the students why it’s a lucky week for capricorns.

Creationism and its twin in a cheap tuxedo, Paley’s Watchma…I mean, intelligent design…are not rejected on the basis that evolution cannot stand up to criticism. They are rejected because evolution already has stood up to criticism. That is why it’s a scientific theory. It stands with equal validity to cell theory, atomic theory, and the theory of gravity. It is established beyond all doubt. Proposing a necessarily complex (not to mention invisible) creator only raises more questions – namely, if the question is “How do we explain complexity?” then we are raising that very question with such a proposition. That is, saying life is so complex it needs a creator raises the question of the existence of the complexity of that creator.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Nothing makes sense except in the 'light' of creationism

Posted on December 16, 2008 by Michael

At least not in Louisiana.

Not far back, I warned that we need to watch out for Bobby Jindal. He’s the anti-science mook of a governor from Louisiana that recently signed into a law a bill which targets the facts of evolution and global warming.

Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that “Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education,” and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would “unleash an assault against scientific integrity.” Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading “that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science.”

But all these protests were of no avail. On June 26, 2008, the governor’s office announced that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” which includes providing “support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.” What’s not to like? Aren’t critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote.

s always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.

It’s fascinating that the group of people who claim to be the most moral of all mankind are the ones who are constantly seen lying about their intentions. Rather than to continue saying “We are creationists. We believe absurd things which have no basis in science. We want these things taught in the secular school system. Oh, and by the way, we need to talk about the whole “secular” thing”, they instead say “Academic freedom is being quashed because our ideas are not being accepted.” Of course, academic freedom has nothing to do with accepting every bad idea that comes around. If it did, not only would the Bible be an acceptable alternative discussion to the fact of evolution, but so would the Koran, Greek myths, and whatever the hell it is Tom Cruise believes. We would see Christian Science being regarded as an acceptable alternative to actual medicine and medical practices. We would see astronomy professors attempting to inform students of stellar evolution while in the next class an astrologer would tell the students why it’s a lucky week for capricorns.

Creationism and its twin in a cheap tuxedo, Paley’s Watchma…I mean, intelligent design…are not rejected on the basis that evolution cannot stand up to criticism. They are rejected because evolution already has stood up to criticism. That is why it’s a scientific theory. It stands with equal validity to cell theory, atomic theory, and the theory of gravity. It is established beyond all doubt. Proposing a necessarily complex (not to mention invisible) creator only raises more questions – namely, if the question is “How do we explain complexity?” then we are raising that very question with such a proposition. That is, saying life is so complex it needs a creator raises the question of the existence of the complexity of that creator.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Shared errors

Posted on December 10, 2008 by Michael

Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers has a post which first destroys some creationist misconception, but then, far more interestingly, goes on to interpret a recent peer-reviewed paper on copy number variants, or CNVs. The whole piece is worth reading, but what I think is worth of a little extra attention is the brief point our shared errors.

An architecture does not imply intent or purpose, but they often imply a history. The pattern described — that chimps and humans share some common structural elements in their genomes — is better described as evidence of common ancestry than of well-designed function. An intron, for instance, is a piece of random, usually useless DNA inserted into the middle of the sequence of a gene that must be excised from RNA before it can be used to make a functional protein. It’s a little piece of garbage that must be cleaned up before the gene product can do its job. That a human and chimpanzee gene has identical introns is an example of an architecture, true enough, but it is of a shared error. Some all-knowing god—he seems to be consistently making the same mistake.

Okay, let’s take the recent hoo-hah with Coldplay and Joe Satriani. Basically, Satriani is claiming Coldplay ripped off one of his songs. There is some fairly compelling evidence to this claim, but it is far from airtight. What we have are four of the same chords repeating through parts of the songs, but only three consecutive notes are truly in common. We can potentially call this one a coincidence (especially since this song has been around forever and Satriani is only suing now that after Coldplay has won a slew of awards. Essentially, we see two instances of people creating similar things.

Now let’s consider someone learning the Satriani song. I don’t feel like finding the actual chord progressions, so let’s just say it goes A, B, C, D. The person begins to learn things, but is apparently a horrible musician and substitutes an F# for the C. Okay, fine. So we have a version of the song out there which is now A, B, F#, D. Now let’s say this person has a friend who wants to rip the song off. But instead of listening to the original Satriani version, he listens to the mutated version with the F#. Now we have some evidence of a copycat. It isn’t very strong evidence because there is just one error. In both instances, we have just four chords. But let’s say another error is made further along in the song. A chord in the bridge is misinterpreted by the original person learning the song. And, naturally, the copycat makes the same error. As we go deeper and deeper into errors, we begin to get better and better evidence of a common origin – the friend was learning from the interpreted version of the song, not the Satriani version, because it is unlikely he would make, say, 5 of the same errors as his friend. The chance for coincidence shrinks while the odds of identifying the correct source rise.

The way this is like CNVs is that we are seeing common errors being made again and again – and these errors are present in both human and chimp genomes. Of course, it should be noted that it isn’t entirely clear if these errors were directly inherited from a common ancestor or if it was the hotspot for ‘making’ errors is what was inherited, but at any rate, it is evidence for our common ancestory with the other apes. There are far too many common errors being made to simply file this under ‘God did it’. The evidence says that is – still and again – superfluous.

Filed under: Creationism, Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Discussing science

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Michael

I find I often subject myself to a surprising amount of anti-science misery, otherwise known as the Crosswalk forums (with alternative names such as ibelieve.com). If you dare to read that rubbish, you’ll actually find a thread linking to one of my posts. I was banned long ago (it’s lifelong; I’m so flattered!), so it was actually a friend who made the thread. Anyway, it has generated a good deal of traffic for me, as well as quite a few responses, even if a large number of them are wholly devoid of any education. One reason it has generated traffic is because this blog (and science) tends to be a tad abrasive toward creationism and I guess there’s a whole slew of other people who like subjecting themselves to material which disagrees with what they believe, too.

Here’s a sample of the rubbish which is put on these forums.

NS [natural selection] is just a filter. It doesn’t create anything, it just weeds out stuff. Contrary to Darwinism, it doesn’t necessarily keep stuff either. There is nothing that stops deleterious mutations from undoing neutral and/or good ones.

Natural selection is a filter, but it does not exist, apparently.

Well, just speculating here, but if the tooth of a little dinosaur was made into a necklace, would anyone necessarily think of it being a dinosaur? A lot of what we see in the museums are people’s ideas of what they may have looked like, so I’m not entirely sure that what we see in the pictures are what they really even looked like.

Those silly misleading fossils. Scientists just guess how they go together.

So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups [of horseshoe crabs] followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.

This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Please see Gould.

Ok so here are some of the major reasons why I believe Darwinism will collapse.
Darwinism will ultimately collapse as a valid theory of life origins because :

It fails to explain the origin of complex coded information contained in all living organisms
It fails to explain the origin of nano bio-machinery contained in all living organisms
It fails to account for irreducibly complex systems contained in all living organisms
It fails to account for the human moral sense and altruism
It fails to explain the general lack of transitional forms in the fossil record which should number in the multiple millions but don’t
Natural selection (originally a creationist concept) has failed as a sufficient explanatory mechanism for the level of complexity and diversity in nature
Random mutations can never account for the sophisticated, factory-like organization within the cell
It fails to account for how, in the midst of greater numbers nefarious mutations, any of the rare beneficial mutations could dominate bio history = see 1st quote below
… IDists and creationists are invited to add to this list if you have more reasons

My head hurts.

Okay, I’m sorry for posting this, but I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have a redeeming link, I promise. For actual discussion on evolution where people have [i]actual[/i] educations, the Richard Dawkins forums are excellent. I don’t personally post very much, but simply reading good discussions about science is refreshing and wonderful. And it isn’t necessary that you be an atheist to post or enjoy the read.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Editorial does creationists no favors

Posted on December 6, 2008 by Michael

Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer is wondering why secularists are so afraid of the Creation Museum.

The live Nativity at the Creation Museum will have an actual, living, cud-chewing camel. Frightening.

There will also be goats and sheep. Terrifying.

Cuddly lambs might seem harmless to the average visitor, but some people are scared witless by the possibility that some innocent, devout secularist could accidentally wander onto the grounds of the Creation Museum and get exposed to radioactive Christianity or other dangerous ideas that should be outlawed.

Let’s just cut straight to the chase. Bronson is making up shit. The reasoning for the reaction to the Zoo/Museum combo ticket has nothing to do with fear or any other bull like that. Evolution is a settled question among scientists. There is zero doubt that it happened. It is just as sound a theory as gravity – insofar as it taking place. Precisely how it has taken place is still a huge field of study and interest and wonder and beauty. Much has been decided – random variation is acted upon non-randomly by natural selection. A fuller, more robust history of life is still waiting to be discovered – not by belief in ancient texts and magic, but through the power of the scientific method.

The Creation Museum web site gets about 1 million hits a month that could have been linked to the zoo. But the zoo got angry calls and e-mails that protested the promotion.

Here’s a sample of the flavor, from the Enquirer Web site:

“Asking me to ‘tolerate’ this kind of worldview is akin to asking me to ‘tolerate’ illiteracy. Both are problems of education and intelligence. Creationist thought is … naïve, it is anti-intellectual, and it harkens back to pre-enlightenment thinking. I don’t have any tolerance for that.”

Got that? Creationists are stupid, illiterate, naïve and backward.

It was an analogy, Bronson. That person did not say creationists were stupid or illiterate. Given that he was presumably writing a letter to voice his opinion to both rational people and creationists, it’s safe to assume he’s well aware creationists have the ability to read; they are, afterall, a bit attached to one of the greatest literary publications in history. What the e-mailer was saying was that creationist thought is unworthy of tolerance because it is shallow and dismisses evidence when that evidence doesn’t match a presupposed conclusion. It opposes the scientific method. For that reason, it is a bad thing. You are naive and backward, however. Good job.

“They’re the ones who are being intolerant,” [Museum owner and notorious creationist, Ken] Ham said. “We’re not afraid of creationists going to the Zoo and seeing their messages about evolution. People have to stand on their own beliefs. It’s not up to us to say you can’t go to this place or that place.

“But they’re sure worried about people hearing about creationism,” Ham said. “More and more, the secularists and atheists don’t want people to even hear the other side.”

First of all, no one is stopping anyone from going anywhere. Insofar as creationist thought should actually be tolerated it is in the sense that no law should be made which prevents people from their free thought – of course, that is concern for a principle, not creationism specifically. Second, a large portion of Americans believe “the other side”, Kenny. That makes this whole martyr complex all the more perplexing.

It makes me wonder: If the science is so unshakeable, what are they afraid of? Why wouldn’t they welcome a debate? Why not encourage open-minded exploration? Isn’t that what scientific inquiry is all about?

I’m going to let PZ Myers take this one.

Again, abandon that premise. We are not afraid. The real issue is that this is a settled scientific question, long resolved and with growing evidential support, and there is little point in continuing the discussion.

Anyone who has had kids knows this situation: when they discover the word “why”, they learn that it is a tool for starting an unending conversation. Give ’em an answer, and they just say “why” again; explain that, and it’s “why” again; the game keeps going until the adult gives up in exasperation. We all know that the kid is not trying to think or get a complete answer — he just wants attention. We can answer for a while with patience, but at some point we have to stop and insist that the child exhibit a little more honest curiousity to trigger more answers.

Creationists passed the point of honest inquiry long ago. I would suggest to Mr Bronson that he go through his little essay and try replacing every instance of the word “afraid” with “exasperated” and he might see his way through to a little more truth.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Ebert Takes Stein to Task

Posted on December 3, 2008 by Michael

A bit late, but Ebert has a review of the movie Expelled

Idiot

Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it “From Darwin to Hitler.” He finds a Creationist who informs him, “Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism.” He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal. Arbitrary forced sterilization in our country has been promoted mostly by racists, who curiously found many times more blacks than whites suitable for such treatment.

Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a field trip to visit one “result” of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. “As a Jew,” he says, “I wanted to see for myself.” We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. “It’s difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place,” he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.

I could have sworn Hitler was an evilutionist.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Good job, Cincinnati Zoo

Posted on December 1, 2008 by Michael

Good job, Cincinnati Zoo.

A promotional deal between the Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum was scuttled Monday after the zoo received dozens of angry calls and emails about the partnership.

The promotion was billed as “Two Great Attractions, One Great Deal” and offered a package deal on tickets for the zoo’s annual Festival of Lights and a museum event called Bethlehem’s Blessings.

The deal appeared on web sites for both institutions Friday, but it was pulled by the zoo Monday morning after complaints about the partnership started pouring in.

Most of the protests echoed the same theme: the Creation Museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo’s scientific mission. The museum promotes a strict interpretation of the biblical version of how life began, and it suggests that dinosaurs and man once lived side by side.

“They seem like diametrically opposed institutions,” said Dr. James Leach, a Cincinnati radiologist who emailed zoo officials about his concerns. “The Cincinnati Zoo is one of this city’s treasures. The Creation Museum is an international laughing stock.”

It’s nice that this has been corrected so quickly. If you emailed the zoo to complain, it’d be nice to email them some praise on their swift action.

This surely brings to light (again) the anti-science joke that is the Creation Museum. It’s just unfortunate that it’s for the very reason that it is anti-science that so many people seem to like it. We have the best way of knowing available to us, revealing so much beauty in the world, yet so many reject it as mechanical and bland and heartless. I hope people living in the area will visit the Cincinnati Zoo and maybe experience a little of the figurative magic of science. It’s certainly better than the literal magic peddled by the Creation Museum.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, News | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Cincinnati Zoo aligns with ignorance

Posted on December 1, 2008 by Michael

Apparently, the Cincinnati Zoo is offering some awful deal where people can get into both its attractions and the Creation Museum for the price of one admission.

PZ Myers has a post on his blog on the topic. He has provided contact links for the zoo, along with some encouragement to raise some noise about this anti-science malarkey. The Creation Museum is a joke, but the fact that it has somehow managed to latch its claws into a reputable organization is far from funny.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »