Is ID Science?

Incredibly the U.S. District court in the Dover case addressed the question as to whether ID is science. I’m more than a little surprised by this as I was certain that the court would not address this question. It states that it does so because:

“…after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.”

And because:

“…in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.”

While I have to agree that the court is in an excellent position to make the determination, I’m certain, unfortunately, that this isn’t going to prevent the future waste of resources.

The court found that on the question as to whether or not ID is science, ID fails on three separate levels “any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.”

1. ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.
2. The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism (to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed) that doomed creation science in the 1980's.
3. ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

I agree with the judge's conclusions in #1 and #2 but I'm not so sure about #3. It could just be really, really BAD science and still have all of its attacks upon evolution refuted.

“Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum.”

Touche! It just ain’t science and doesn’t belong in a science classroom!

“Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.”

In other words, at best only misleading, and at worse a fabricated lie. Canard is a polite word for bullshit. I’ll have to remember that one.

This decision is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the ID movement and I’m certain that we will be hearing howls of indignation and complaints of persecution and censorship but it just ain’t so.

ID is total nonsense and anyone with better than a 9th grade education and an IQ above 90 should be able to recognize it as total nonsense. Judge John E. Jones has had the courage to call a spade a spade. I’m impressed as well as surprised. I can’t wait to hear the reaction from the Christian Right. They'll probably call for Jones' impeachment.

The Decision in Dover

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones absolutely unloaded on the ex-Dover School board in particular and Intelligent Design in general. About the only thing he didn’t do was give the Dover electorate a gold star for voting the school board out of office last November.

A few of the choicer quotes from the decision include:

"Although proponents of the IDM (Intelligent Design Movement) occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses."

Yes your honor, but you have to understand that these bozos think we’re all idiots!

"A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

Again, these guys think we’re all idiots unable to see through the flimsiest camouflage. Actually, I think its more like they hope that Conservative Republican courts will see through the camouflage, but vote in their favor anyway.

"The Wedge Document states in its 'Five Year Strategic Plan Summary' that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with 'theistic and Christian science.'"

Yeah, but nobody paid any attention to “Mein Kampf.” I'm glad to see that people are taking the "Wedge Document" seriously because it calls for nothing less than the demise of science in the United States.

"…the Dover School Board members testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath…"

Ouch. Even though this was obvious to even the most casual observer, I never in a million years expected the judge to be this blunt about it.

"…an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching."

“Colossally bad teaching” about sums up the best you can say about ID. Well, at least for the moment the angels have won, but this is just the opening skirmish. Kansas is next on the agenda.

Textbook Sparks Florida Debate

I’m convinced things are getting out of hand. The Miami Herald reports on a brewing debate in Broward county Florida related to a McGraw-Hill first year biology textbook that includes a paragraph, one single paragraph, stating “common to human cultures throughout history is the belief that life on earth did not arise spontaneously. Many of the world's major religions teach that life was created on Earth by a supreme being.''

The Herald also reports that “A teacher's manual that accompanies the book suggests instructors organize an in-class debate on the origins of life.”

And the problem with this is? Well, it depends who you ask. Let’s take a look at a sampling of reactions reported by the Herald.

''Once you start asking public school teachers to instruct on matters of religion in science classes, you're in trouble,'' said one state Representative.

True, but the text doesn’t seem to be doing that. I’m not so sure about the teacher’s manual. Organizing a religious debate in a high school biology class sounds like a REALLY bad idea. Truth is not determined by the most articulate or intimidating spokesperson.

''This book is not presenting creationism in any form as a scientifically credible view, the book is a far cry from the creationist-friendly text (Of Pandas and People) at the center of an ideological brawl in the Dover, Pa., schools.'' said the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.

Yeah, I think I agree with this observation. I mean, the statement is TRUE and it’s not pushing any particular creation theory of the thousands that exist. On the other hand, we all know the only one the students are likely to be familiar with don’t we?

''When you talk about origins of man, you can't help but bring religion into the classroom. The book is making an attempt to do that; it needs to be applauded,'' 'said the executive director of the Creation Studies Institute, a church-affiliated research group in Fort Lauderdale.

Oh yes you can because evolution is not specifically about the “origins of man” and while teaching about religions is ok, advancing any particular religion is not.

The book's publisher, Glencoe, a division of McGraw-Hill, says the paragraphs do not support creationism or intelligent design and contends the book adheres to mainstream theories of evolution.

What would you expect them to say? I’d like to know the rationale behind including the paragraph in the first place. How does it enhance the teaching of biology?

A member of Broward's biology textbook adoption committee, who has taught biology for 23 years says she would have no problem teaching from Biology: Dynamics of Life, so long as the discussion does not push beyond presenting creationism as a belief, not a scientifically tested theory.

The problem is refer to the previous post related to “Closet Creationists.” While those teachers which accept evolution would not push “creationism as a belief,” those “Closet Creationists” would and are already doing so. Why provide the perfect foil for introducing Creationism as an alternative to evolution?

An executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, says teachers should not present a lesson that calls evolution into question. ”Our position on intelligent design is that it should be stamped out and the people who promote it should be stomped on,'' he said.

Stamped out and stomped on? And they accuse me of being demeaning and belittling. Allow me to suggest that the NABT also refer to the post on “Closet Creationists.” Actually while I find this kind of militant quote surprising, I don’t necessarily disagree with making statements of this tone.

To my mind the convention that says it is impolite to criticize or ridicule someone’s religious beliefs goes out the window when a religion tries to impose its beliefs on everyone else as some so-called Christians are trying to do with Christianity today.

Penguins are Fast Evolvers

Seed magazine reports that researchers studying microevolutionary changes in the DNA of penguins are surprised as how quickly the birds have evolved.

In the study, published in the November 15th issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists concluded that not only has evolution among the penguins during the past 6,000 years been MUCH faster than anyone thought, its unlikely that natural selection was the driving force. It’s much more likely that the rapid changes were driven by environmental changes which disrupted migration patterns.

Sounds like an interesting hypothesis to me (*shrug*). What I’d like to know however is HOW changes in migration patterns resulted in DNA changes? Sounds like we’re missing a few links here (no pun intended).

Closet Creationists

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that Creationism and Intelligent Design are already being taught in some public school classrooms.

Why? Not because of state or local Board of Education mandates but because that’s what the local science teacher believes. Now if you think about that logically it makes sense. How does anyone expect someone to teach something they believe is wrong?

The percentage of teachers that are “Closet Creationists” varies according to the Herald-Leader.

“At least 10 statewide studies into these issues have been published since 1999. In six of them, public school biology teachers endorsed teaching creationism in some form alongside evolution in numbers ranging from nearly 20 percent in Minnesota to nearly half in some Kansas schools and more than two-thirds in Kentucky.

In two states, 40 percent of biology teachers say they allow little or no class time for evolutionary theory, a fundamental part of modern biology. In five states, nearly one in five teachers do not accept the scientific validity of evolutionary theory. In Texas, Louisiana and Minnesota, more than one in five teachers say they accept the scientific validity of creationism.”

Scary huh? Then again if you consider how qualified science teachers need to be at the secondary school level, maybe not too surprising. I think I am willing to concede that the public school should NOT teach evolution as a fact. What should be taught are the following four things.

1. What is the Nature of Science including a little History of Science.
2. What is the “scientific method” and what are the different ways that it is applied.
3. What is the Theory of Evolution.
4. Why do most scientists, from a wide range of disciplines, accept the Theory of Evolution as probably correct.

I don't see any real need to present alternate ideas. If the kiddies have been attending Sunday School, like they are supposed to, then they already know what they are and where they came from. What the science classroom needs to provide is what are the scientific conclusions and where did they come from. Then, between school and church, the kiddies will have all the information they need to decide for themselves.

Bailing out of DEFCON

I got into a bit of a disagreement with these folks. They seem to think I'm too "disrespectful" of people of faith and that I tend to "belittle" and "demean" their beliefs in my posts.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I plead guilty to that one.

DEFCON's strategy is apparently to form a broad coalition to protect against the more extreme elements of the Christian Right and this coalition is to incude "people of faith" so clearly I don't fit in. I'd probably have a hard time accepting some of the folks they would like to have as allies and I don't have anywhere near the diplomatic skills not to make it obvious. Continuing to post there with my "disrespectful," "belittling" and "demeaning" attitude isn't going to help them or me.

Oh well, their success is certainly not going to be affected one iota by what I think. I'm sure no one will miss me posting comments on their blog. While I'm suspicious of their methodology, I sympathize with their objectives and wish them luck.