Letter to the editor correction

Posted on July 31, 2010 by Michael

After butchering a previous letter to the editor I wrote, the Kennebec Journal has printed my correction.

On July 19, the Kennebec Journal ran a letter with my name as the author. Neither the title nor the edited content reflected what I had originally written.

The piece was titled “Irreparable harm to sciences if LePage is elected?” The substance of the letter did not make any such claim. Paul LePage will cause harm to science, but it will not be irreparable. Science is the best way of knowing we have; it can recover from an anti-science politician like LePage. It would just be preferable to avoid any harm in the first place.

Two paragraphs were edited to say “LePage seems to indicate he thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.” I stand by what I wrote: “Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.”

I used this wording because when asked in a debate if he believes in creationism and if he thinks it should be taught in schools LePage’s answer concluded, “I believe yes and yes.” My second paragraph compared LePage’s rationality to a common aquatic bird found on many Maine lakes.

The KJ has offered me this space so I may clarify the original letter. For that, I am thankful. But there is the much more important issue of LePage’s anti-science stances.

Any politician who rejects some fundamental aspect of any field of science based on religious belief is unqualified for any public leadership position.

Eliot Cutler, Kevin Scott and Shawn Moody have all voiced their support for the strong teaching of evolution in public schools. Libby Mitchell has not stated a position, but there is little doubt of her support for the fact of evolution. All are far better choices than LePage to lead Maine.

For those who haven’t read or don’t remember my first letter, that “common aquatic bird” is a loon. Personally I think I was being too generous.

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

LePage: lying about his creationist views

Posted on July 27, 2010 by Michael

When asked if he believed in creationism and if it ought to be taught in schools, Paul LePage answered this.

I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.

It’s a ramble, but a ramble that ends with a definitive answer: “I believe yes and yes.”

But now LePage is lying.

Over the weekend, during a whistle-stop train trip through the Midcoast, LePage told reporters that his opponents had claimed LePage was not fit to be Governor because he’s French and Catholic. He claimed the comments had been made in blogs by Arden Manning, manager of the Democrats’ statewide campaign effort, called Victory 2010.

Manning says he doesn’t have a blog, denies ever making such comments, and says LePage’s allegation is “a lie”. But LePage was defended by Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster. He told NEWS CENTER that Democrats have been attacking LePage as “too extreme” because of his French Catholic values.

Webster and LePage both claim the issue revolves around creationism and whether it should be taught in schools. LePage says he has never said it should be taught, but MPBN radio has reported that during a GOP primary debate on MPBN television, LePage answered that he believes it should be taught.

Aside from no such blog or comments existing about LePage’s heritage or religion (both of which are strong forces in many parts of Maine anyway), LePage did – definitively – profess support for the teaching of creationism. Since that time he has backed away slightly, saying he supports local boards deciding what ought to be taught. Unfortunately, this still means he is okay with allowing creationism in schools. A rational person would reject such rubbish getting anywhere near children.

What I really want to hear is someone ask LePage how old he thinks the Universe is, how life has come to its current state – with specific reference to whether or not he accepts the fact of evolution – and if he believes Adam and Eve really existed. These are important questions that LePage needs to directly address – and not lie about later.

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

Barbara Forrest exposes lying creationist

Posted on July 25, 2010 by Michael

I’ve said it before: public figure creationists are liars. They don’t care about being honest or straight-forward. That’s what the whole intelligent design bullshit is about: call God a “designer”, deny that’s exactly what they’re doing, and cry academic oppression all over the place (despite almost never being associated with anything remotely close to the academic world). They lie, lie, lie.

One of the results of all this lying has been that awful bill, the Louisiana Science Education Act, signed by creationist governor Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Now a school board is considering utilizing it.

[Jan] Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.

Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

Students will be taught nonsense if these board members have their way. They should all be kicked out and forced to take a college level biology course.

But that’s the thing. Most if not all of these people are ignorant: ignorant of science first and foremost, but also ignorant of just how much creationists lie. Fortunately, National Center for Science Education board of directors member Professor Barbara Forrest has some revealing information.

In his June 26 response to Charles Kincade, the Rev. Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), portrayed the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) as “landmark” legislation — a “bold step” to “promote critical thinking skills” in public school science classes.

But legislation that is about real science education need not include religion disclaimers. Disclaimers are typically included in creationist laws, which are precisely about promoting religion. Moreover, only creationists complain, as Mills did, about “Darwinian dogma in our schools.”

…

Finally, Mills’ referring to public schools as “our schools” is sheer hypocrisy. Mills considers himself qualified to manipulate the education of other people’s children in public schools to which he doesn’t send his own. In his 2008 Christmas newsletter, updating readers on his children’s activities, he revealed that they don’t attend public schools. They are home-schooled and attend a private Christian school. Yet this man is dictating educational policy.

People like Gene Mills love to lie. They love to make up this false reality to trick everyone. They’re well aware of the American penchant for terms like “freedom”, rah! rah! rah!, so they usurp this politically charged language and appeal to the simplest of American libertarianism, fooling everyone into believing they just want to be fair in how they indoctrinate educate children.

But will Barbara Forrest’s thrust for honesty make much of a difference? I have to doubt it. Her case is exceedingly convincing, what with all those pesky facts, but most Americans aren’t looking for that. Instead they want emotional appeals; they want to be given an opportunity to feel as though they’re acting in the promotion of their rah! rah! rah! principles.

Above that, though, people want to see religious vindication and that’s the biggest problem of all. American ideals are fleeting; the country may well not exist 300 years from now. But religious ideology digs itself into the mind like a tick in a dog’s skin. Except unlike lyme disease, religion is a virus – a virus which is all too often inherited. That’s what motivates these people to want to teach creationism. Their public figure leaders will appeal to vague American principles in a faux attempt at a secular argument, but it’s the undercurrent of religion that fundamentally moves this wave of educational destruction.

Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

LePage will allow schools to teach creationism

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Michael

I’ve gotten many comments from many people who have claimed Paul LePage’s support for creationism will not find its way into Maine schools. This is untrue, especially given the fundamental dishonest nature of creationists, but now I have proof. I sent this question to the LePage campaign:

I have become aware that in an interview in May you said you support teaching creationism in public schools. I asked for a clarification on your fan page, but my post was deleted (and my posting privileges removed). I’m hoping you can clarify why you support such a position. Do you see scientific evidence for creationism? Do you disagree with court rulings that have said creationism is religion and thus illegal in public schools? Which version of creationism do you support?

John McGough of the campaign offered this evasive response.

Dear Michael:

Thank you for emailing Mayor LePage. I am a volunteer helping the Mayor answer the thousands of questions and requests we are receiving after winning the primary.

The Mayor will not seek to have Augusta make all curriculum decisions for local school districts. He believes that locally elected school board members and parents should have input in their children’s education. This includes allowing local school boards to provide guidance as to whether classroom discussions on the origin of life be included with scientific theories. As Governor he will work to ensure that every child receives a quality education so they can succeed while allowing local school boards and parents input in their children’s education.

This isn’t some political spin. It isn’t some bullshit.

Paul LePage will allow schools to teach creationism.

Any rational person would be against this. Any rational person would stand up and say, “No, you may not teach known falsehoods to students.” Any rational person would not allow religion an in-road to the minds of children at public, secular schools.

But Paul LePage is not rational.

He is a creationist.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | 10 Comments »

Letter to the editor: LePage will harm science

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Michael

I’ve written a letter to the editor which appeared in the Kennebec Journal today. As is ever so common, the KJ threw in some poor editing. One of the changes I’ve noticed has to do with an omission – I refer to Paul LePage as a loon. Another is that they changed “okay” to “OK”. I half-expected the first change; the second change is just bad writing. I would never use “OK” anywhere besides maybe a text message.

But then there’s the big change. Here’s how the paper starts my letter.

In a televised debate on May 27, Paul LePage seems to indicate he thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

No, no, no. Paul LePage actually, literally, without any doubt said he supports the teaching of creationism in public schools. He is a creationist. The KJ is effectively lying when they put these words into my mouth. I would never make such firm claims on such flimsy (and poorly written) grounds. Here’s how I actually started my letter.

Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

He’s a loon.

Now does that sound a bit more like me?

In addition to this malarkey, the KJ also changed my final sentence, taking away its punch. Whereas I say, “Do not vote for Paul LePage”, they’ve pretended I said, “Do not vote for LePage”. In addition to this, they also made the title of the letter “Irreparable harm to science if LePage elected”. That’s crap. Bush harmed science greatly, but it isn’t irreparable.

Given all the errors the KJ has forced upon me, I will be giving them a call very shortly. I may report back on it. Until then, enjoy the letter I really wrote.

Paul LePage thinks public schools ought to teach creationism to children.

He’s a loon.

Creationism, in one version, means telling students that Adam and Eve really existed, that the entire globe flooded (in just over a month, no less), and that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

All these things are falsehoods. And LePage is okay with teaching them to children because he doesn’t really understand science.

This isn’t just some abstract misfortune in science education. There will be real world consequences including, for example, the harming of future conservation and management efforts.

Biologists often use genetic markers to determine variation within and between populations to determine the best way to maintain healthy species. One example involved the use of microsatellites to determine the temporal and spatial population structure of Atlantic cod populations across the Gulf of Maine. Were we seeing several distinct populations or was there breeding between seemingly distant groups? How much variation was there within populations that were being treated as separate? These were just some of the questions that had to be asked in order to better manage Maine’s Atlantic cod population.

Under LePage, students could be discouraged from ever getting to know what microsatellites are, what their importance in genetic testing is, or what they mean to management services in Maine. LePage could instead encourage students to reject science – especially biology and its underlying theme and fact of evolution – by having teachers instruct them that faith is an okay way of knowing. If LePage has his way, the future of Maine biologists – and all the species they manage – will be threatened. And that’s just the first field of science we know he could harm.

Do not vote for Paul LePage.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , | 23 Comments »

More creationist canards

Posted on June 27, 2010 by Michael

In my post on the continued dishonesty of the LePage campaign I skipped over a few creationist canards from LePage’s creationist supporters. (As he is an ardent creationist, believing it is okay to tell children that dinosaurs and people walked the Earth together, he has many creationist supporters.) Here’s one of the most common from Christopher Bowker. (Scroll down to the question from Matt Ellis – I cannot link directly to the wall post in question.)

I have a BA in Zoology from the Univeristy of Maine. I am also an evangelical christian, believe me when I say you can believe God created the world, and species can evolve from other species, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I say be tolerant of each other, this scientific theory take a bit of assumption or faith, as much as believing the biblical account. Learn as much as you can and make your own judgement. People who believe in the Genesis account aren’t forcing their beliefs on anyone. Keep an open mind!

He starts out okay – people can believe God created the world while also accepting the fact of evolution. Unfortunately, he quickly takes a wrong turn. The two are mutually exclusive as a matter of philosophical compatibility. One is an ancient sheepherder’s myth while the other is established science. Bowker may as well say it isn’t mutually exclusive to believe in gravity while also believing the Earth rests on the backs of turtles.

What is actually true is that plenty of people can believe two distinct, conflicting ideas. Everyone does it. In fact, as with Bowker, Christians who accept any science whatsoever are constantly doing it. But that isn’t an important point in the whole compatibility debate insofar as the question of whether these things are true or not is concerned. I know, I know. Then why do Christians constantly point out all the scientific authorities who manage to hold biblical and scientific beliefs? It’s because they’re bad at argumentation. No, really. It’s that simple.

Yes, people can hold two beliefs. No, this does not mean they are not in conflict. Internal harmonization of the world does not equate to external harmonization.

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

Kevin Scott responds

Posted on June 26, 2010 by Michael

I’ve received direct responses from three candidates for governor for Maine regarding my question about their position on teaching creationist garbage. Eliot Cutler and Shawn Moody do not want it taught. Now Kevin Scott weighs in.

Hello Michael, creationism as science is not acceptable for teaching in public schools for a number of reasons – certainly not as an element of the curriculum. K-12 should teach tolerance and world cultural views but a “religious” doctrine of any kind is not acceptable in our K-12 public school system.

I firmly believe religious and moral values are derived from family, not public school. In my view schools are for academic pursuits and the home & church is for social value development.

We need to elect a Governor who will work to make society, jobs, policies, etc… that will empower families and add value to individual efforts to raise and grow a family.

He posted this post on his Facebook page as well as in a private inbox message to me. Another good answer.

I’ve also received an indirect response from that poverty-loving, equality-hating, ignorant bigot Paul LePage: he deleted my question and prevented me from asking it again on his page. Fortunately, I have a blog with nearly 150,000 hits. That isn’t me bragging, like LePage. It’s me pointing out that I might be able to encourage some of my readers to head over to LePage’s Facebook page and ask him to clarify his position. He has recently said he supports teaching creationism, but he never said why. The answer is presumably that either 1) hates science or 2) is ignorant. But he needs to give the answer. So go ask him.

I’ve also reiterated the question to Libby Mitchell. She’s a smart lady so I can just about guarantee that she rejects the teaching of creationism, but it wouldn’t hurt to try and prompt a response from her as well.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Eliot Cutler responds

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Michael

I’ve asked the three main candidates* to either state or clarify their positions on the teaching of creationism in public schools. Paul LePage acted like a spoiled little brat and deleted my question from his Facebook page. Libby Mitchell has yet to respond. Eliot Cutler, on the other hand, has responded. First, here is how I worded my question.

Mr. Cutler, I recently left a message on Libby Mitchell’s and Paul LePage’s respective Facebook pages asking them to either state or clarify their position on teaching creationism. Mitchell wants to be known as the “education governor”, so I presume she will favor teaching the basis of biology – evolution. (But I await… a response.) LePage, on the other hand, has had my question deleted and kicked me from his Facebook page. I presume he views his support for creationism as a liability.

What is your position? Thanks.

And once I write up a letter to the editor explain Paul LePage’s actions and inane, anti-science position, I hope his ignorance does become a liability. But first, here is Cutler’s response.

Hi Michael,

I support the teaching of evolution in elementary and secondary schools. Evolution is fundamental to every student’s comprehensive understanding of the world they live in and their ability to reason critically from evidence.

I have no objection to referencing creationism as an alternative view, but I do not believe it should be taught as part of the curriculum in public schools.

As a matter of principle, I do not believe that religion should make rules for government or that government should make rules for religion.

Eliot

It took me a second to digest this response. At first glance, being okay with references to creationism sounds sketchy, but then I thought back to my first biology course at university. Intelligent design and creationism were referenced before much got started. The professor basically covered his ground so that students wouldn’t be bringing silly challenges to him. He certainly welcomed a whole range of questions (and fielded them incredibly well, as he’s likely one of the smartest people I know), but he wasn’t there to undo 20 years of religious indoctrination. In that light, Cutler’s response works for me.

*Update: I’ve also asked Shawn Moody and Kevin Scott for their positions. They aren’t as high in the polling as the others, but they certainly aren’t off the radar.

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

Robin Ince on creationism

Posted on June 18, 2010 by Michael

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

Paul LePage is a creationist

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Michael

Like several other states, Maine recently had its party primaries for governor. Three candidates have emerged as the overall front runners. Libby Mitchell won the Democrat primary, Eliot Cutler didn’t have to worry about any of that since he’s running as an independent, and Paul LePage won the Republican nomination. And that’s where the danger is.

Paul LePage isn’t too far from the ideals of the Teabaggers. He hates government, poor people, basic services, and most of all, education. In an interview from May 27, he was asked “Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?” Here is his answer.

I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.

It’s unclear what the word “intelligence” is doing in his answer as the concept is nowhere to be found.

Few if any who visit FTSOS are going to vote for LePage, I know. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to get the word out that he is anti-science. One way to do this is to buy a bumper sticker which reads “No Creationism in Public Schools. No to Paul LePage.”

This is the last guy any state needs as a leader.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »