Kansas Removes Anti-Evolution Science Standards

It's official, the Kansas state school board has removed intelligent design and the fraudulent claim that evolution is widely challenged by science from their public school curriculums.

Let's give three cheers for science!

Read more here.

The Creationists' Biggest Mistake

I wrote a post on this subject a couple of days ago, but the blog Hell’s Handmaiden brought a poignant article from Answers in Genesis to my attention, and it inspired me to expand on some of my ideas. The article’s author, Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham, laments the fact that most colleges will not accept credits from Christian home schooling or Christian schools:

Let’s face it. Secular humanists have, by and large, won the culture war in America’s public schools. But not just satisfied with victories there, they are now aiming at Christian schools and homeschools. Yes, Christian institutions are becoming more and more marginalized in the US. And, I think you will be shocked at the latest developments.

Then he goes on to show his winner takes all mentality:

So, the major argument presented against homeschooling in the US and Britain is that most of the parents teach their children the biblical account of creation. The secularists recognize that if the account of creation in the Bible is true, then Christian doctrine and morality are also true—and that humans are accountable to their Creator God (who is the absolute authority in all things). Therefore, people who deny they are responsible to a Creator—and who demand that morality be relative and lobby for the legalization of abortion, “gay” marriage, etc.—are often intolerant of those (i.e., biblical Christians) who oppose them.

The logical, if unsaid, flip side to Ham’s argument is that if the biblical account of creation is untrue, then Christian doctrine and morality must be false. I don’t think Ken Ham realizes how damaging this can be to his religion. He stakes the entire basis of his faith on whether or not Genesis is 100% accurate then leaps headfirst into an argument he’s poorly prepared to fight. People don’t need their scriptures to be completely true to maintain their faith. Just ask the millions of moderate Christians in this country who accept evolution.

Plus, Ham chooses to ignore the reams of evidence in favor of an old Earth just so he can validate his faith. Unfortunately for Ham, it’s hard to fight reality. Galileo is an excellent example of this. It took a few centuries, but the Catholic Church eventually had to reconcile with the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and apologized to Galileo. Reality simply didn’t support that biblical claim, and forced the Church to admit that the Bible should not be taken literally.

More than anything, Ham’s efforts don’t help him spread his faith. It might make the true believers feel good since they won’t do any research, anyway. However, the more moderate, educated Christians will scoff at Ham’s efforts and might even buy into his winner takes all mentality, except they’ll probably go the opposite direction from what Ham wants. It might make them actually question the validity of their faith when they look at the evidence against the Bible being 100% accurate.

How do I know? Well, it’s what drove me away from Christianity. I grew up with a general acceptance of the findings of science, and, at the same time, I was comfortable with the idea that the Bible was more a set of morality tales than literal history. I didn’t need it to be true to have faith. However, the more I noticed the Creationist claims against evolution, the more I did some research to formulate my own opinion. I learned what the evidence was for evolution and a 4.6 billion year old Earth and what the Creationists' counter evidence was. I found the Creationist side to be severely lacking. It showed me just how lousy Creationist evidence is and how dishonest and willingly ignorant they are. It also caused me to actually read the Bible and realize that we don’t get any of our morality from it. If anything, Christians ignore most of the morality requirements in the Bible, particularly those in the Old Testament. In the end, it showed me that I didn’t need religion to have a fulfilling life. And it was all because of the Creationists. For that reason, I’m actually thankful for their efforts. They helped me gain a better perspective on life, the universe, and everything.

Finally, Ken Ham is sorely mistaken if he thinks humans must be “accountable to their Creator God (who is the absolute authority in all things).” Is it so wrong to be accountable to you fellow man? Sure, no human can threaten you with eternal damnation, but is that really a bad thing? In my opinion, it is morally superior to help others because you want to alleviate suffering in the world, not because you’re afraid of punishment. Mr. Ham, you must have a terribly dark opinion of your fellow humans if you think the threat of punishment is the only way we can be good. Shame on you.

The Bible vs. Science

USA Today (via Yahoo) has an excellent opinion piece by Tom Krattenmaker titled "The Bible vs. Science." Here's a small taste of what Krattenmaker has to offer:

How many Americans are ready to accept the proposition that science has made a colossal error interpreting the fossil and geological record and - more radical still - that the validity of Christianity depends on proving it? If anything, a stance like this repels those wavering between faith and disbelief and gives skeptics one more reason to reject religion.

I have to say I agree completely. In the long run, it seems the idea that Bible must be completely true or Christianity will fail seems like a losing battle for fundamentalist Christians (which isn't so bad). If anything, their ploys point out the most unsupportable claims of the Bible, severely undermining their position that the Bible is 100% accurate. Even someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the scientific method will see how shoddy or nonexistant Creationist research is. Plus, when one actually weighs science next to religion, what has actually done more for humanity in terms of making the world a better place to live? Who will a majority of people actually trust?

My greatest fear is that Americans are becoming too ignorant to care. For many, the Creationist claims will seem good enough and will not prompt them to learn anything else on the subject. Perhaps that is the goal. Creationists want to provide enough smoke and mirrors to make Creationism seem scientific enough for an ignorant populace.

In the end, I have to comfort myself with the fact that reason has always won out in the end. Sure, things can digress a great deal, but the attempts to halt progressivism invarably fail. I certainly hope history will repeat itself. Hopefully, this is just another last gasp from the willingly ignorant before the next great wave of progressivism.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the opinion piece. It gives me hope that the Creationists are just shooting themselves in the foot.

New Rediculous Claim Against Evolution: Darwinism Causes Terrorism

It seems someone really wants France to reject the theory of evolution. French schools and universities have recived tens of thousands of copies of a textbook advocating an Islamic view of creation. From Yahoo News:

Entitled "The Atlas of Creation," the 770-page book by Turkish author Harun Yahya quotes several passages from the Koran and asserts that "human beings did not evolve (from another species) but were indeed created."

Clearly, the Koran is an unquestionable source of scientific evidence.

The most ludicrous part of the whole thing is Yahya's claim that Darwinism is the cause of terrorism:

The book features a photograph of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center with the caption: "Those who perpetuate terror in the world are in fact Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that values and incites conflict."

All I can say is wow. Is Yahya retarded? Does he really think the 9/11 perpetrators had glowing images of Darwin in their minds as they flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? Does he really think that the 9/11 perpetrators saw their actions as the perfect fulfillment of natural selection? Talk about living in a delusion. Is Yahya so oblivious that he completely rejects the idea that Muhammed Atta and his gang were believers in fundamentalist Islam? Is it not possible that the Koran inspired them to commit their act of terrorism? What about all the violence in the thousands of years of human history that came before Darwin lived? How does Yahya explain that?

Obviously, it's foolish to try and apply logic to someone so far off the deep end. It seems Yahya refuses to accept the fact that the the 9/11 terrorists were members of his religion. What I want to know is: who wasted all the money it required to get tens of thousands of copies of this book into the French schools. Does he think such a saturation will cahnge opinions overnight. Rediculous.

The real shame is that so many trees were wasted on this effort. On the upside, at least France has a ready supply of toilet paper for the next few weeks.

God Said it, I Believe it, that Settles it!

Crooks and Liars has a short clip from Alexandra Pelosi's film, Friends of God, dealing with evangelical views towards evolution. I recommend you check it out.

From watching it, one can easily see why Creationism endures in America. As the woman early in the clip said, "Creationism is easy." Most people don't want to take time to understand science, and then they believe in liars like Ken Ham just because he speaks from the pulpit.

Then you have adults doing everything they can to prevent children from thinking for themselves with the line "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." There's few things worse than willingly supressing a child's ability to learn and forever closing his or her mind to inquiry.

Montana Loves Freedom

Last Friday, Representative Robin Hamilton of the Montana House of Representatives introduced House Joint Resolution No. 21, which would ensure separation of church and state, particularly in Montana's public education system (see the NCSE post about it here). Here's the main language of the bill:

WHEREAS, a high quality science education is critically important for Montana students to be able to participate in today's technologically driven society; and
WHEREAS, the statewide science standards adopted by the Board of Public Education and implemented through a science curriculum designed by local boards of trustees across the state have resulted in a very high quality education system in our state; and
WHEREAS, Montana is fortunate to have many knowledgeable science teachers who are well qualified to determine appropriate strategies and tools for teaching science to Montana's students; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of national fundamentalist organizations seeking to force local schools to adopt a science curriculum that conforms to their particular religious beliefs and that includes theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, these organizations were successful in pressuring the Kansas State Board of Education into removing evolution theory from the science curriculum, resulting in the State of Kansas being held up to national ridicule and portraying that state in a very negative light; and
WHEREAS, these national efforts undermine a community's local control, a teacher's academic freedom, and a student's opportunity to receive quality science education; and
WHEREAS, the doctrine of separation of church and state protects citizens, churches, and religious organizations from the government adopting or endorsing a particular religion's teachings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
(1) That the Montana Legislature support local adoption of a science curriculum that is based on sound scientific principles and supported by science teachers, parents, and the local community.
(2) That the Montana Legislature oppose the efforts of national organizations seeking to impose their religious interpretations of events and phenomena on local schools under the guise of science curricula.
(3) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of teaching Montana students about religious traditions, beliefs, and history and encourage inclusion of these topics in religious studies, sociology, and history.
(4) That the Montana Legislature recognize the importance of and support the separation of church and state to protect religious freedom of all citizens to worship as their conscience guides them.

I must say, I am extremely glad to see something like this appearing in a state legislature to ensure the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Furthermore, teaching children ID and creationism does not teach them anything about science. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world. It's the antithesis of science. Every state in the nation should have something like this to keep us from falling behind the rest of the world scientifically and technologically.

Unfortunately, I don't know how likely this bill is to pass, but a similar measure died in committee in 2005, so we'll see what happens.

ID Organization Begs for Money

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that published the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People, is getting ready to publish their new ID textbook the Design of Life. There's only one problem: they need $200,000 and they want YOU to donate the money. Why should you support this cause? Well, Jon Buell provides a number of laughable reasons in his fundraising letter. First off, Buell says points to the desperate state of "Darwinists" and their supporters:

The Darwinists believe they are losing. Why else would they politicize an academic debate, take it into courts, and punish skeptics?

Wait a minute. Wasn't it ID supporters who lobbied school boards to change the curriculum of several public school districts? Wasn't it ID supporters who hoped to force the issue in court to overrrule Edwards v. Aguillard? Now, who actually politicized this? As for the punishing skeptics part, the major example IDists push, the whole Sternburg saga, is a situation where the guy deserved to be fired (read more here).

And fascinating facts are surfacing. Careful analysis reveals that 90.9% of Judge John E. Jones's verdict was lifted, almost verbatim, including the errors, from the ACLU's submitted "Findings of Fact." The opinion is not his own analysis at all.

Despite the fact that this claim has long since been dealt with, I'll address it again here for the sake of education. When a judge agrees with one side's findings of fact, then he or she will use it. That is how they regularly operate. They're not writing literature, a historical essay, or a scientific paper, so it's not a matter of plagurism (read more here).

Meanwhile, Interest in Intelligent Design is Exploding!

Biochemist Franklin Harold said, ". . .but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

In an MIT Press book, Origination of Organismal Form, the authors admit, "neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative."

Google reported over 24 million hits on the term intelligent design during most of the trial.

Two movies are in the works on ID, one from each perspective.

Over 4.000 gathered in the Univ. of So. Florida Sun Dome Sports Arena for an ID conference.

A Texas Voter's Guide published in the fall reached 6 .4 million, reporting the views of candidates on various issues of public interest. Those favoring the inclusion of ID in biology courses outnumbered opponents by a three-to-one margin.

Franklin Harold's quote is a push to remove excessive speculation and focus more on observation when using the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with ID. Origination of Organismal Form is meant to stimulate research to produce a more comprehensive theory of evolution, which is simply science doing what it's supposed to do: explore the unknown. Once again, it has nothing to do with ID. Google hits? Please. I've Googled Intelligent Design. That doesn't mean I support it. As for the ID conference, if you Google it, you'll get hits from a bunch of ID websites. It seems like it's only a big deal in the minds of the IDists. The actual scientific community didn't even notice. Finally, Buell doesn't provide the source for his "three-to-one margin" data, so that's extremely suspect.

So we have a couple of lies and overblown or misleading claims. But it gets better:

The stage is set for The Design of Life:

The manuscript is complete. The book itself is a phenomenon.

It is scheduled to be released on March 1st, 2007, provided we can secure the funding for this exciting project.

We've got a start on booking Dembski to speak at universities with this book.

We have hired a marketing and PR firm to work with us and a comprehensive plan for marketing the book is in the works.

It has the explosive potential to reach young people, as the recent gathering of young people at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome attests.

Christianity Today calls Dembski "Johnson's successor as the informal leader of the intelligent design community." Dembski authored the first ID book by a major university press (Cambridge University Press, 1998). He edited Darwin's Nemesis (IVP), a Festschrift in honor of Prof. Phillip Johnson. His work has been featured on the front page of the New York Times, he has debated top Darwinists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and has appeared on ABC's Nightline. He lectures around the globe (the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, Cambridge and Oxford, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, Princeton, Yale, MIT) on ID.

Wow. A phenomenon. Well, I can't wait. It's also interesting that the "informal leader of the intelligent design community" is a mathematician, not a biologist. Enough said there.

Buell then goes into a lengthy allegory about "Darwinists" unknowingly flying upside down, which results in materialism, immorality, etc. Then he finishes by saying, "Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented!" Right. Because as an atheist, I really base my morality on the theory of evolution. Like I've always said. Evolution is not a basis of morality, nor should it be. It simply describes an observed natural phenomenon. As an atheist, I base my morality on the principle of empathy, not a scientific theory. Clearly, Buell's diatribe reveals the underlying fundamentalist Christian motives of the ID movement (not like there was any doubt, anyway).

Next, we have this gem:

Friends, the time is ripe for the next step-leap, really-in this movement. We can bring what has seemed like a dream to full reality. I urge you to embrace and adopt this vital and noble vision as your own! Are you giving what you can to bring a big and noble vision to fruition? Whether for the sake of the school children you see out romping over the Christmas vacation, or for the future of America, the West, and of civilization, there could be no greater reason to reach out, seize a great vision, and embrace it as the cause that you will fight for, bleed for, deny yourself for, take risks for, and champion among your friends.

The future of Western Civilization depends on the success of ID? Riiiiight. Too bad it's science that has made the West such a great place to live. What did a completely Christian society bring us? Oh that's right. The Middle Ages and Puritan New England, just to name a couple of examples.

Then the letter begs for $200,000 with the promise that The Design of Life will triumph over the repressive government. What, was Of Pandas and People not sneaky enough? Did it not sound "sciency" enough. Did you not make a profit of of Pandas? Considering the lies Buell told above to try and convince people to give him money, I seriously doubt this "phenomenon" of a textbook will have an honest representation of evolution. Pandas certainly did not.

Finally, just in case we weren't sure ID was religiously-motivated movement, the letter ends with:

Would you prayerfully consider what you are able to do to help? And please also pray for us in this exciting adventure! God bless you!

You know, if ID could stand on its scientific merit, then it wouldn't need prayer. At any rate, it's good to see that a leading ID organization is strapped for cash.

Colorado State Senator Wants to Destroy State's Education System

Here's a little local news for me today. Too bad it's not positive. State Senator Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs (where else?) recently introduced a bill in the state legislature to create a "Public Schools Religious Bill of Rights." Besides being completely unnecessary, the bill would give students wildly different educations depending on the religious views of their teachers.

The bill seeks to codify several rights students and teachers already have, including the right to proclaim their religious beliefs, hold prayer meetings outside of school hours, wear religiously themed clothing, exchange gifts, etc. All of these rights are already guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Most of the proposed bill is pure fluff.

However, there are two proposed rights I would like to comment on:

(V) USE A RELIGIOUS GREETING;

This is almost humorous coming from a Republican considering the Right has been the only group trying to limit the winter holiday greetings to "Merry Christmas." Regardless, it's guaranteed by the Constitution, making this proposed right as unnecessary as the others.

The most harmful proposal is the following:

(VII) [A teacher or an employee of a public school may:] NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

This is obviously a sneak attack directed towards teaching the theory of evolution. The problem is that if a teacher refuses to teach a topic on religious grounds, then his or her students will suffer while students who recieve the instruction will have an advantage. It creates a harmful disparity in education. As goverment officials, teachers have a constitutionally mandated responsibility to not respect an establishment of religion. Teachers can have whatever beliefs they want, but those beliefs cannot be forced onto their students.

Luckily, the bill doesn't stand a chance of passing. As Senator Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, said, "I would have to question whether or not Sen. Schultheis is serious about passing meaningful legislation or whether he just wants to throw something inflammatory out there and get shot down and then go play the martyr." It makes sense. Considering Schultheis represents the evangelical enclave of Colorado Springs, this is probably just a way for him to appeal to his voters. More than likely, he wants to look like another poor, persecuted Christian so he'll be reelected whenever his term ends.

Mississippi Wants a Lawsuit

Representative Lott of the Mississippi House of Representatives recently introduced House Bill 625, which would allow public schools to teach ID and creationism. The bill reads as follows:

The school board of a school district may allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the schools within the district. However, if the theory of evolution is required to be taught as part of the school district's science curriculum, in order to provide students with a comprehensive education in science, the school board also must include the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the science curriculum.

I bet the Discovery Institute is stomping their feet in frustration over this one. Did Representative Lott not get their memo that ID cannot be equated with creationism? Luckily, the Supreme Court's decision of Edwards v. Aguillard defintively prevents this bill from being legal. If it does pass, it won't last long.

At Least the British Know Where Education on ID Belongs

The United Kingdom recently released a plan to teach intelligent design in their public schools. No, it's okay, though, because ID will be right where it belongs in Religious Education classes. Furthermore, the class will feature the writings of Richard Dawkins to teach the atheist side of things. I bet this will have the IDists kicking and screaming in no time.

In my opinion, this is a great idea because it might actually show atheism in a positive light and will allow students to see for themselves just how much ID relies on theology rather than science. It'd be nice if we could do that here, but I'm sure the conservative Christians would throw a fit over it. Just image the uproar if the atheism part were taught. It'd be pandemonium. As you can see I don't want to censor ID. It can be in public schools, but it needs to be where it belongs: a class on religion not science.

Read the article from the Guardian here.

Intelligent Design Is Actually Quite Clever (from a PR Standpoint)

Despite the clear lack of science in Intelligent Design, the whole effort is actually quite clever from a PR standpoint. The greatest asset ID advocates have going for them is this nation’s overall ignorance of science, and they exploit this asset to its fullest.

Unfortunately, most citizens of this country don’t have a solid understanding of science. The scientific method is almost always misunderstood, especially when it comes to the idea that hypotheses and theories have to be falsifiable. Furthermore, theories don’t actually “prove” anything, but are supported by evidence. Most people assume the opposite. They think science proves the existence of something and that scientific truths become infallible “laws.” One common argument I hear in favor of “scientific truths” is: “science has proven that the Earth revolves around the sun,” which is not entirely true. All science is driven by evidence, and evidence supports the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. This theory could still be falsified with the proper evidence. I seriously doubt we’ll ever find this evidence, but that’s the best part of science. The door always stays open to allow new ideas to flourish and refuses to encourage rigid dogma.

ID advocates have seized this ignorance and run with it. Since most of the public has no idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable, ID advocates can push a “theory” that is impossible to falsify, and the public accepts it out of a lack of knowledge. When actual scientists or people who understand science speak out, IDists turn around paint themselves as victims of scientific dogma, saying that science is a religion that refuses to allow new ideas and will never let go of its evolution “myth.” However, ID advocates ignore the fact that evolution would be falsified overnight if paleontologists found human fossils that were contemporary with dinosaurs (or found anything else in the fossil record out of order). Of course, that would require them to do actual research and publish peer-reviewed articles—something they have yet to do—and they continue to cling to their long-debunked evidence that they claim falsifies evolution.

Next, ID uses scientific-sounding words and concepts such as irreducible complexity to further confuse the public. To a layperson, it sounds like real science. ID advocates use examples such as the mousetrap problem to show that mechanical devices don’t work if you take out a piece of it or that evolution is like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. These are nothing more than gross distortions of the theory of evolution, and ID advocates know it. Evolution is a complex theory and difficult to understand. Indeed, many Americans do not understand it, so it is not hard for IDists to use the examples above to distort evolution to make it seem preposterous. ID advocates also cling to obscure aspects of biology such as the bacterial flagellum to show that it could not possibly have evolved. Then, when scientists find evidence suggesting otherwise, IDists simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact that ID advocates have not pushed their “evidence” falsifying evolution past their well-used and debunked examples shows just how little they actually have to go on. Even then, it’s all erroneous because evidence falsifying evolution does not automatically become proof of ID.

Furthermore, people don’t know enough about ID to realize what it stands for. When most people think about intelligent design, they assume it’s something closer to theistic evolution (evolution directed by God). Few people realize that ID is the complete antithesis to evolution and suggests that animals just suddenly appeared on Earth after being made by the “intelligent designer.” I’m certain ID advocates know this, which is why they remain vague with the public when it comes to explaining ID.

Then, of course, there's the "evolution is just a theory" claim. You can see my earlier post on the subject here.

Finally, Americans like to encourage free and open discussion. It’s an essential part of our culture. When ID advocates pop up demanding equal time and debate, Americans feel inclined to support that debate, regardless of the fact that no actual debate exists within the scientific community. Now, I’m all for freedom of thoughts and discussion, but that debate should not occur in a high school classroom. If we were to let every fringe idea that comes up have “equal time” in science classrooms, then schools had better include ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Hindu creation myth in their curriculums.

What am I getting at? Even though most scientists scoff at those who support ID, we need to realize that ID advocates have actually been extremely clever. They’ve done an excellent job disguising the scientific shortcomings of ID by relying on public ignorance. Furthermore, they appeal to Americans’ sense of freedom and equal opportunity to demand equal time in science classrooms. Since most people are confused about the nature of ID, it sounds like a reasonable demand. Plus, the straight-up lies that IDists tell by claiming that there’s a debate within science over the validity of evolution certainly helps their case. To the average layperson, it might sound like evolution is not accepted just because a few people with science PhDs, regardless of whether or not they are biologists, speak out against evolution.

Even considering how clever ID advocates have been, all it takes is knowledge to defeat ID. Once a person understands science, it’s easy to see ID for what it is: theology. Plus, the public needs to know why ID came to be. It doesn’t come any clearer than the Discovery Institute’s document, “The Wedge Strategy” (you can see it here), where they proclaim that the purpose of ID is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” (“The Wedge Document,” Introduction). Once the public realizes this, ID will no longer be an issue and will go by the wayside. However, one can never let down their guard. ID supporters have proven time and again just how effective they are at influencing an ignorant public.

Correction: Smokey brought an important correction to my attention:

Unfortunately, setting the goalpost at "peer-reviewed" was a mistake, because there are a couple of peer-reviewed articles (that really suck).

The most important criterion is that they use tests of a hypothesis to generate new data. This works even if the hypothesis is wrong.

Real scientists are eager to do the most stringent tests when they have confidence in a hypothesis. The fact that no ID proponent has sufficient faith in ID to put it to the test says that in their hearts, they know that ID is a crock.

Thanks Smokey.

Update: PZ Myers of Phayngula was kind enough to post a link to this article on his blog. There he said:

There's an important ingredient of the recipe missing there: in addition to understanding that ID is theology, they have to understand that that is a bad thing. I suspect the majority of the IDists already know that it is a strategem to grant a god the privilege of being scientifically credible…the only issue is that they know you're not supposed to admit it.

I was hoping it was obvious that ID was sneaky and a bad thing. Oh well. Thanks to Prefessor Myers, though.

Teacher Caught Preaching Speaks Out

Last month I wrote a post about David A. Paszkiewicz, the teacher from Kearny, NJ who was called out for preaching in a classroom after telling his students that they would go to hell if they did not accept Jesus.

Well, Mr. Paszkiewicz recently send a letter to his local newpaper defending his actions. Unsurprisingly, he makes the "Christian Nation" defense and finds a few quotes from the founding fathers to support his claim that they never intended for there to be a separation of church and state. Paszkiewicz makes this oft-used argument: "the words 'separation of church and state”'cannot be found in our Constitution." Then he goes on to use a bunch of quotes from Thomas Jefferson to show that he never intended it, nevermind the fact that Jefferson coined the term in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

The fact remains that "separation of church and state" is a layman's way of describing the esblaishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Why do conservative Christians have such a hard time understanding this phrase?

In Paszkiewicz's case, his letter further plainly reveals how detached he is from reality and how much his religion controls his mind. He claims, "It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms." Looking past his laughable "conviction" in a wide-ranging conspiracy (another oft-used fundamentalist claim), is he so brainwashed that he doesn't realize that preaching in a school undermines others' religious freedoms? Doesn't he realize that it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers believed? We should not elevate them to the status of gods. They were human like the rest of us. In the end, all that matters is what is written in the Constitution, and the fact remains that it says nothing about Jesus, God, etc.

The scariest part of this whole episode is that Paszkiewicz was preaching while teaching a course on the Constitution. How can someone teach about our governing document when he clearly knows nothing about it? When someone cultivates ignorance in children, it's nothing short of child abuse.

Update: I recommend reading Ed Brayton's article on the subject at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's good stuff.

Here's the letter in its entirety:

It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms. Kearny has been characterized as a backward town inhabited by barbarians. This is unfortunate, because Kearny (the town I love, have chosen to live in and serve) is nothing of the sort. It is made up of intelligent, hard-working, benevolent, tolerant people and it pains me greatly to see it maligned. In light of the current controversy concerning church and state in Kearny, I would like to share some thoughts from our founders.

But first let me say this, the words “separation of church and state” cannot be found in our Constitution. The intent of the founders was to limit the government’s encroachment into matters of conscience and religion, not to exclude any discussion of religion from public life. The so called “wall of separation” is mentioned only in a letter to an organization of Baptists in Danbury Conn. in which Jefferson uses that phrase to assure them that he will not restrict their religious liberty. It is unfortunate that this is the only Jefferson quote on the subject that gets attention in the press. Allow me to share some more. The first group I’d like to share concern Jefferson’s beliefs.

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” (Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803).

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781).

These next quotes concern Jefferson’s thoughts on the courts. I’m sharing these because they seem to have been prophetic. Jefferson’s worst nightmare has come true! The courts have been used to strip us of our liberty!

“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Spencer Roane Sept. 6, 1819).

“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal ... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis Sept. 28, 1820).

It is abundantly clear to me that popular conceptions of our First Amendment freedoms have drifted far from what the founders intended. Jefferson is often quoted by the enemies of religious freedom who appeal to the decisions of tyrannical courts rather than the will of the people, the minds of the founders or the Constitution. Jefferson would be appalled if he were alive today!

George Washington, the venerated father of our beloved country, also had some interesting thoughts on the subject:“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” (Washington’s speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779).

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore his protection and favors.” (Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation Oct. 3, 1789).

I would be remiss to fail to include quotes from another icon of the anti-freedom of religion crowd, Benjamin Franklin:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” (Constitutional Convention 1787).

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered … do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” (Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787).

In 1749, Franklin put a plan together for public education in Pennsylvania and he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

In 1787, he helped found Benjamin Franklin University. It was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the cornerstone.”

This is a mere sampling of what was on the minds of our founders as they formed this great nation of ours. May we walk worthy of the great heritage they left us. Let us remember that it is in this context that we have preserved the freest nation on earth!

In closing, with regard to this town being made up of unintelligent barbarians … if that is true, it is only because they share the same thinking as Jefferson, Washington and Franklin!

David A. Paszkiewicz, Kearny

Park Rangers Can't Disclose Grand Canyon's Age

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has reported on a troubling development in one of the nation's premier national parks. Bush political appointees have applied pressure to the staff of Grand Canyon National Park, forcing them to refrain from saying anything about the landform's age.

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

Furthermore, the Park's bookstore, which law and park policy dictates must act like a public school, stocks the book Grand Canyon: A Different View, a Creationist book claiming that the Grand Canyon was formed by waters from Noah's great flood. The park's superintendent tried to remove the book from the store's shelves, but was halted by political park officials who promised to review the book's content. Three years on, the book remains on shelves and thre review has still not occurred.

Why does a national park have to worry about offending fundamentalists? Now that they've done this, they're offending people who can think for themselves. At least with the naturalistic stance, they had a view supported by evidence geologic evidence. If fundamentalists don't like the facts, that's what they get for refusing to acknowledge them. Maybe they'll learn something instead of using a book written in the Bronze Age for scienific knowledge.

As for removing the Biblically-inspired book from the park's bookstore, I'm all for it. Normally, I'd be against censorship, but since the park legally acts as a public school, then it must remain secular. The government cannot respect a religious establishment in this manner. It's unconstitutional.

Check out PEER's article here.

Update: It has since come to light that PEER was dishonest in regards to their "no comment" claim. Read more here.

The Failure of the "Just a Theory" Claim

With the legal death of Intelligent Design as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board ruling, the current trend within Creationist circles is to “teach the controversy” surrounding evolution. Creationist organizations such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington are currently trying to convince school boards to place stickers in biology textbooks with a disclaimer saying the theory of evolution is “just a theory” and there is not a universal agreement on the theory within the scientific community. For the first part, that’s kind of redundant. Secondly, evolution is one of the most agreed upon theories in science. Not all scientists agree on the exact mechanisms of how evolution works, but that’s science in action. It fosters debate with goal of gaining knowledge, unlike religion, which seeks to stifle all debate. The only “scientists” that fully reject evolution usually work at places like the Discovery Institute and take part in no actual peer-reviewed research.

Next, one needs to look at what exactly constitutes a theory. Perhaps Creationists don’t know what “theory” means in scientific terms. However, I doubt this, and it seems more likely that organizations such as the Discovery Institute want to exploit the public’s misunderstanding of science for their own purposes. The word “theory” has significantly different meanings between its uses in science and common English. In English, a theory is nothing more than a guess. This fits closer to the scientific term hypothesis. In science, a theory is an explanation for natural phenomena that is supported by a large amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, theories can never be proven right, but they can be falsified. However, no evidence has come to light proving evolution to be false. Scientists have certainly tried, but any hypotheses against evolution have quickly been ruled out. Furthermore, the evidence for evolution continues to grow. The fossil record supports it. Genetics supports it. Advances and discoveries in modern medicine support it (the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for example). I could continue, but the fact remains that it would take a monumental discovery to debunk evolution. Just to give you an idea of the type of find it would take, British scientist J.B.S. Haldane famously said it would take “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” to falsify the theory of evolution.

Now, if schools have to put stickers in biology books saying “evolution is just a theory,” then those same schools had better put stickers in physics books saying “gravity is just a theory,” too. Like evolution, the theory of gravity describes an observed, natural phenomena. However, scientists have no idea what actually causes gravity. A great number of hypotheses exist, but no evidence has been found to support any of them. In some ways, evolution is better understood than gravity because we know the mechanisms behind it.

As for Intelligent Design, it is not a theory at all. It breaks the cardinal rule that all scientific theories must adhere to: it cannot be falsified. We cannot observe the supernatural “Intelligent Designer,” therefore, it is impossible to prove or disprove its existence, which makes Intelligent Design (and its parent, Creationism) outside the realm of science and reason.

The next time someone tells you “evolution is just a theory,” please educate them and tell them: “At least it deserves the status of theory, unlike Intelligent Design or Creationism, which do not even adhere to the conventions of science.”

Quote of the Week

“My answer to my kid being forced fed prayer?
No I have no problem with the school requesting that my child pray with the rest of the class.
Now if he were forced to pray to a Allah then I would have a problem with that.”

- Response from a fundamentalist Christian on DefCon's comments page. Is he so blinded by his faith that he is incapable of seeing an issue from the other side?

Proof that Abstinence-only Education Causes More Harm Than Good

CNN has reported on a recent study that shows 95% of Americans engage in premarital sex. If that isn't proof that abstinence-only education won't work, then nothing is. Clearly, Americans are going to have sex whether you tell them to or not. Not teaching them anything about contraceptives, or teaching that contraceptives are harmful, is criminal in my mind. If the RR wants to reduce teen pregnancies and abortions, then they need to face reality and actually educate children on the propery way to prevent pregnancies. Of course, the RR operates in a dreamworld of magic, and everyone knows that reality has a strong liberal bias.

To read the CNN article, click here.

Teacher Caught Preaching in Public High School

Here’s a disgusting story from the New York Times. In New Jersey at Kearny High School, a high school teacher named David Paszkiewicz was caught preaching in the classroom. A student recorded the teacher saying that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven.

This disgusts me to no end. First off, what about the students who are not Christian? What are they to think? Public schools are not a place for preaching, EVER. To do otherwise is unconstitutional, i.e. illegal. Religion must stop at the door and remain a private decision.

What’s worse is that the student was chided by the school and he even received death threats after bringing his teacher’s statements to the press. Christian love, eh?

The last disturbing part of this story is that the class was on the US Constitution. How can a teacher explain a document when he clearly doesn't understand it? *sigh*

Americans Don't Want Abstinence-Only Education

A new study has shown that only 18 percent of Americans support abstinence-only sex education. This is just more proof that the Religious Right is terribly out of touch with mainstream America. Now people just need to vote and show that the Christian Right truly is a monority and that their sway over the Republican party will no longer be tolerated.

Quote of the Week

"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."

–Tom DeLay, Former House Majority Leader, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999

Ann Coulter on Newsnight

If you haven't heard the ignorant, hateful, and arrogant crap that spews from this woman's mouth...well, I'll let you see for yourself. Whatever you do, don't give this woman money and buy her books.