Well, nuts. I may have been wrong. And while in science being wrong generally leads to new and better insight, in this case it leads to a heightened feeling of doom.
In a recent post (the third in a most likely infinite series) about Texas, I said that several of the members of the State Board of Education were pushing back against the teaching of creationism being propounded by the head of that board, Don McLeroy, a know-nothing creationist.
However, I may have been wrong. Synapostasy points out that McLeroy himself says that that the members of the Board from 2003 wanted to teach "weakness of evolution" (creationist code for creationism). Many of the members of the Board in 2003 are still members now, so one may assume that they still want to use creationist tactics to weaken science.
At this point the battle gets confused. I am in no way inclined to trust anything McLeroy says, since he clearly has no contact with reality. Yet he is the one saying the Board wants to weaken evolution teaching. Do we trust him on this?
Well, no. I would be happier to hear from all the Board members myself on their stance in this issue. Unfortunately, my schedule is a bit swamped; I have deadlines for the book, a cruise to jump on in a few days, and several other projects. I also suspect that my contacting those members may not be met with much progress, since I am not a Texan.
So: are you a Texan, and willing to go the distance? Contact all the members of the State Board of Education, and ask them clear questions, such as these:
1) Do you agree with Don McLeroy that evolution is wrong, and that its weaknesses should be taught?
2) Is evolution science? Is ID?
3) If evolution is shown to have problems, does that strengthen ID?
4) Is ID different than religion? How so?
I’m sure you can think of your own questions too.
So, we must now ask instead of aver:
Texas: Doomed?
August 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The caveat here is that “weaknesses in evolution” is pretty much just the new label creationists are putting on the campaign to discredit science, much like “intelligent design” replaced “creation science”. The actual content of the meaning behind the label is the same, though — tired, retread, debunked arguments against science like Wells’ “Icons of Evolution”. All ID has ever been is a set of arguments against evolution, exactly the same thing they’re trying to say they want textbooks to have from here on out.
Only the label has changed. This is still anti-evolution nonsense being wedged into science textbooks under a different guise. Nothing is different — you had it right the first time.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Told ya. My doom detector is never wrong.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“It’s a trick. Get an axe.”
Those are considerably more fair questions than I would ever ask of these ID lackwits. I would be more confrontational lest they get the feeling that they and their ridiculous philosophy are actually wanted in the educational system.
The fact is, ID does damage, and America is already struggling with a failing educational system. Throwing some silly mythology into the mix and pretending it’s actually science will not make anyone any smarter.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“My name is Ash and I am a slave. As far as I can tell, the year is 1300 A.D”
August 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
If you’re an American, it is your patriotic duty to oppose ID/Creationism.
No sarcasm! If your education system gets any worse, you’ll eventually lose your (already slim) technological edge. A nation of 99% morons and 1% educated elite cannot survive in the modern world. And there are plenty of competitors on the world stage that would love to assume your current position of economic and military dominance.
And much as I dislike the current American arrogant and bullying foreign policy, I vastly prefer you guys being the sole superpower versus, say, the Chinese or the Russians!
So get your act together, dammit! Create some sort of enclave, far from civilized society, that you can exile these fundamentalist saboteurs to! Antarctica might be a good spot…
August 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Fools and Blasphemers, all of you! Know you not of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnivorous Flying Spaghetti Monster?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I remember going to high school in the Middle East where any teaching of evolution was against the law. They didn’t care to replace the curriculum with ID, there was just a hole. I got to bypass this by both going to a private school and taking an honors program known as IB (an international competitor to AP), where the curriculum required learning evolution.
Oh it covered both ID and Panspermia. It did not teach either, it simply mentioned them, dubbed them non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific and went straight on to Darwin without flinching. The curriculum was very strong in terms of teaching scientific method and critical thinking, and it was very obvious the people who wrote the syllabus decided to use these ideas as examples of what science is NOT. Now I live in Georgia where the Cobb County has been trying to insert disclaimers in textbooks. I can never seem to escape these people! Thankfully I live in Fulton County smack in the middle of Atlanta, home of DragonCon.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hey, Stuart, in the last Texas thread I sugested sending them to colonize the moon… hey, wait! But then THEY’D have all the fun! I also suggested that WE all leave Earth on an extended expedition to Europa to get some breathing room. You in?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I hopefully look forward to the upcoming post “Texas not not not doomed”.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“weakness of evolution”
I see nothing wrong with teaching that in a science class as long as you stick to scientific arguments, logic and reason. It should be possible for a reasonably adept teacher to slip in the 10 minutes required to fully cover that topic on any day during the course.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Texas is not doomed.
In the same way that many nations were not doomed because they hadn’t heard of the Rennaisance; the Enlightenment; Doctor Who or anything that has brought advanced thought as opposed to ill-advised superstition to the fore.
Texas will exist.
But in what sort of state will it be?
Seriously (because I’ve used up all my puns now), I can see (even from the other side of the pond) that this is bad news for the second largest state (I think Alaska is bigger – or is that just Mercator?). But I don’t understand how (since I am not well-versed with the American political system) this can be directly influenced? It seems to me that each state can make up their own laws rather than adhering to a unified whole (again, forgive me; I realise that the Constitution overrules all – although it is open to interpretation (a bit like the Bible?)). Other than voicing an opinion what can non-Texans do?
Since many of the discoveries about the actual age of the universe have come about through the workings of those good people based at the fourth largest city in the USA, Houston, I wonder what the future for manned space flight and scientific endeavour is with such political mandarins.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Dan, your sequence of events is scrambled. First you ask their position, then call them lackwits. It helps make sure you label the actual lackwits.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I am doomed. I live in Texas and I’m stuck here. As much as I want to get out of here, I can’t afford to live as well anywhere else on my Social Security.
I am convinced that McLeroy is lying through his teeth. Plus, I received an insipid response to my letter to Governor Perry from which I infer a complete lack of interest that the governor’s office will be doing anything about McLeroy. I expect a few lawsuits will be required to straighten this mess out.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
No, not Antarctica, that’s too close to New Zealand!
And I just read in New Scientist that Bush just signed legislation to recruit thousands of new teachers, update the maths and science skills of your kids to help them launch careers in science. How, exactly, would that happen when they are taught out of textbooks that are removed from reality?
August 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I find it funny how “weaknesses of evolution” provides a ground on which to teach something that has no evidence whatsoever.
I mean, one could just as well claim weaknesses in the Big Bang theory, weaknesses in our view of what gravity is, weaknesses as to what’s inside the Earth, ect ect.
But does ANY of this provide ground for an alternative that has NO evidence?
That’s right, creationists/IDers. Despite your best arguements, there is NO evidence to support YOUR ideas.
When you get some, THEN you can try to force your way into science. NOT BEFORE.
Can non-Texans have a say in what goes on there? I’m a Floridian.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Grand Lunar.
I think that was partly what I was wanting to say.
But your argument has a flaw.
Gravity doesn’t exist – the earth sucks.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I am a physics professor in Texas. I will ask the questions (just printing off the letters now…) Once I get some responses, I’ll let you know if we’re doomed or not.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I don’t know if I’ve said this hear before but I think it’s a mistake to insist on the tired line that ID isn’t science. ID isn’t *motivated* by scientific concerns but there are plenty of historical examples of science motivated by religious or philosophical concerns (just more reasonable ones). If we found out einstein suggested GR out of some weird religious belief it wouldn’t make it suddenly something other than science. What makes something science is it’s content not the motivation for the proposal.
Now as far as the content of ID goes it is testable despite what is frequently claimed. It is tested and found wanting every time we find an intermediate fossil or show how supposedly irreducibly complex features could have evolved. I mean hell it is even *logically* possible for us to prove ID right. For instance suppose we discovered a crashed alien spaceship with advanced technology and a complete blueprint describing how they designed homosapiens and embedded a cryptographically hidden message in our DNA which we verified.
Of course we won’t discover such a spacecraft or find any other evidence supporting ID because it is VERY VERY BAD SCIENCE. It’s unscientific to suggest that ID is a plausible or reasonable theory but the theory itself is a scientific theory.
At the very least the fact that eminent philosophers of science (Elliot Sober) argue that ID is a scientific theory (just a refuted one) means that one shouldn’t make the status of ID as science a litmus test for reasonable views about the matter.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
OT but pertinent.
There is an initiative on the California ballot next June which, if approved, would divide up the states electoral votes according to the popular vote. This is nothing but a Rethuglican attempt to steal the 2008 election because if it passes, there is no way a Democrat can win without all of Californias’ 55 electoral votes. The liberal blogasphere had better get cracking on this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601184.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
August 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for the link, cap’n. I did a bit more research… turns out the 2003 textbook vote was 11-4, with the antievolutionists (McLeroy included) being in the minority. All four of those members are still on the board, and three of them said “no” when interviewers asked them if they supported teaching ID. (Terri Leo declined to be interviewed.)
But before we applaud the other 11 (six of whom still serve), there are complications; all the textbooks were approved in one vote, whereas McLeroy was pushing to vote on each book individually. Might approval of other books have masked disapproval of evolution for some (or all, as McLeroy claimed) majority voters? Pat Hardy was on the board at the time, and from her interview she claims to be “open” to teaching ID.
I hope you get some answers to your questions.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
TruePath: Under no circumstance is ID a scientific theory. It is not testable, and more so, IT BEGINS WITH THE CONCLUSION! Read a book.
Evolving Squid: I absolutely agree that teaching weaknesses in the theory of evolution for about 10 minutes would be fine. However, only if the same amount of time is given to teach weaknesses in ALL theories such as gravity. I don’t believe evolution should be given special treatment simply because it steps on dogmatic toes, know what I mean?
August 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Yes, Selina Morse, Alaska is bigger.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
#21: er… 10 minutes for weaknesses in theory of gravity? Which
one? Seeing that GR can’t be taught without about a semester of
differential geometry of manifolds (and a good chunk of prerequisits),
presumably you are talking about the Newton’s one? Good luck doing
that in 10 minutes without turning it into empty handwaving. Even the
issues Newton had with non-local aspects of the theory can’t be dealt
with unless you have PDE and Gauss Theorem (at least; to deal with
that for real, you’ll need more diff geometry that for GR itself).
Mentioning Mercury perehelion is going to be pure handwaving without
more celestial mechanics than taught in US schools, unless I’m
seriously underestimating them… And any serious discussion of
GR problems, early alternative models and the reasons why they fail,
interaction with QM, etc… not even funny.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I absolutely agree that teaching weaknesses in the theory of evolution for about 10 minutes would be fine. However, only if the same amount of time is given to teach weaknesses in ALL theories such as gravity. I don’t believe evolution should be given special treatment simply because it steps on dogmatic toes, know what I mean?
Ok, 15 minutes and then gravity and relativity weaknesses can be covered too. We’re talking high school kids here, not postgraduate students. At that level, theories like gravity and evolution are pretty much rock solid.
There are some weaknesses. In the theory of gravity, for example, it remains unknown how gravity is transmitted/conveyed. Gravitons, for example, have eluded detection, as have gravity waves. Even with this weakness, the theory still stands up to scrutiny better than “God designed things to be sticky in the cosmic sense.”
August 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Again, keep an eye on what the raving creationist Terri Leo says. If she’s on board with a softly-softly approach to teaching evolution then there is definitely a DI-sponsored conspiracy afoot. Otherwise, perhaps there maybe some hope. I doubt too many people want to go through the same circus we went through last time.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Make teaching creationism a crime punishable by public stoning. Support for teaching evolution should shoot up, because most everyone in texas likes to see crime severely punished.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Richard Wolford: “TruePath: Under no circumstance is ID a scientific theory. It is not testable, and more so, IT BEGINS WITH THE CONCLUSION! Read a book.”
I don’t think that you read TruePath’s post carefully. He preempted your statement that ID is not testable with “It is tested and found wanting every time we find an intermediate fossil or show how supposedly irreducibly complex features could have evolved.”
I suspect that your response was of the knee-jerk variety that I have also come to have with creationists (I grew up in rural Texas and have little patience for them), but TruePath’s post wasn’t at all some rehashing of creationist/ID arguments, but a point about the philosophical difficulties that come with saying that ID is an inherently untestable and/or unscientific claim.
Astrology can similarly be considered a scientific claim in that it can be addressed by scientific tests. The most salient sense in which it’s “unscientific” is that most of those tests that have been performed on it haven’t yielded results in its favor.
While everyone’s suggesting reading to one another, there was an insightful article on the matter by Larry Laudan called “Commentary: Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern” published back in 1982 (when it was called “Creation Science”) in “Science, Technology and Human Values”. There’s an opposing viewpoint from Michael Ruse. Laudan’s position seems to be essentially the same as that of TruePath.
It’s well worth reading both articles if you’re interested in the rather messy (and highly philosophical) business of classifying statements as scientific or not.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Has anyone else considered that what he means by “Board members want to weaken the teaching of evolution,” is that evolution-teaching would be weakened if the presentation of his deluded “controversy” was not present?
Which is still lying through his teeth: he’s attempting to be misunderstood by a misunderstanding public: if they believe that not including “controversy” is mistreating evolution, it might be an effective way to gains support for Creationism.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Selina Morse: this is bad news for the second largest state (I think Alaska is bigger – or is that just Mercator?).
Yes, Alaska is bigger. If you cut it in half, Texas would be the third largest state.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
SelinaKyle: Alaska is big. Mind-bogglingly, vastly big. You may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s peanuts compared to Alaska.
Those of us in the rest of the US are used to looking at fundies with a sort of amused, baffled contempt (ignoring people with weird beliefs is a survival skill here in California) that has only recently been turning to horror. It’s like living in a particularly biting Monty Python sketch, only without the funny.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Thanks for the coverage. At least we have a fairly strong science-based part of the economy in Texas. The last time this came up (about 3 years ago?) the argument that worked best that weakening science education would hurt the economy (particularly in Houston and Austin). Sigh. I hate to say it, but Rick Perry makes Bush (as governor ONLY) look pretty good. Yes. Creationism is evil!
August 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
When your first story came up I made certain to send mail to my state senator, my state representative, and the board of education member who represents my geographic region (I live in Dallas).
I basically laid out my concerns of trying to pass off a “theory” that doesn’t adhere to the scientific method as science. Also I mentioned failures of abstinence only education. We’ll see what kind of response that gets.
I’ll let everyone know once I get a response.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
MattFunke:
In fact, I’ve seen a proposal to do just that, just to piss Texas off.
Or we could annex Australia and make Texas #8 or something.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Escuerd, thanks for explaining my point better than I could. And pointing me at the article you mentioned.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Growing up in a small Texas town, I’m not really surprised by things like this anymore; I just shake my head sadly and pray for the day that Austin decides to secede from Texas to get away from all the crazies. When I was in high school (5-6 years ago), the biology teachers at the school refused to teach evolution. My teacher came right out and said he didn’t believe in it, and most of the class didn’t believe in it, so there was no point in teaching it.
Whenever evolution came up, it inevitably came with the comment “I ain’t descended from no monkey. And if we did descend from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys, huh?” How could I argue against rock-solid ‘logic’ like that? (I’ve gotta get out of this state…)
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Update:
I’ve heard from three board members so far in response to my letters. So far, the consensus seems to be to “teach the strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. I don’t like where this is going, I’ll post more details once I get some more responses.