Update: Welcome, readers of Crooks and Liars! You may want to read the next blog post in this series when you finish the one below. This story gets better and better.
What the heck is wrong with Texas?
First, they get a creationist governor. Then their creationist governor appoints a creationist to head the State Board of Education.
And now, when Chris Comer, the Texas Education Agency’s director of science curriculum, sends out an email announcing a talk by anti_creationism advocate Barbara Forrest, the TEA forces her to resign.
Why? Hold on to your seats here, folks, because you won’t believe this:
[Texas Education] Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, “it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science.”
The memo adds, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”
That’s right, the Texas Education Agency must remain neutral when it comes to science versus antiscience!
If a speaker came advocating astronomy over astrology, would that cause problems for TEA? How about an HIV denier? Could they speak out against such a person?
Funny. I would think that it would one of TEA’s biggest goals to promote science over antiscience, and to actually teach people the difference between reality and fantasy.
So Ms. Comer has been forced to resign, and she claims that it is political in nature, and that she is being railroaded. I am of the very strong opinion that she is absolutely correct. It’s very clear that at most she might have deserved to be reprimanded for sending out the email, even if the TEA policy about neutrality is really stupid. But if you read the whole article you’ll see that petty politics and pro-creationist administrators are behind this.
As noted anti-creationist Genie Scott commented in the article,
“This just underscores the politicization of science education in Texas,” Scott said. “In most states, the department of education takes a leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do the bidding of the board.”
As you might expect, PZ has some things to say about this as well. So does Josh. In fact, expect to see this news hitting the science blogosphere like a bomb.
The fight against antiscience, the fight against theocracy, the fight against nonsense will never stop, because their minions are always lurking somewhere. Keep fighting, people. We must never tire. Because if we do:
Texas:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Can’t say it surprises me. I’d never live in Texas. I think I’m at the point that I’d never vote for a presidential candidate who ever lived in Texas. Except for the lovely purple area around Austin, people in Texas are surprisingly similar to people in Iran – theocracy over all.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
It conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science???
Yeesh! What a load. A heaping stinking load.
Do creationists really think these tactics are anything less than completely 100% transparent? This boggles the mind and boils the blood.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
@ Laurie
As someone who has never lived in Texas, when did you become an authority on the general population of the state? I am more than sure you can find people outside of the Austin area that disagree with the decision made by the TEA. And it is very likely, you will find people in Austin who would agree with the decision. Majority ≠Everyone
November 29th, 2007 at 10:59 am
If that cat is anything like my cat, Texas really is in big trouble.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
It’s both sad and frustrating that people continue to close their eyes to reality and continue to believe the fairy tales that are given to them since childhood. It’s even worse when this refusal to face reality is turned into a political agenda, and when people of power use it to further this agenda.
It was education that opened my eyes to reality, but if the education in Texas turns into an anti-science tripe, I doubt that any level of education there could help the people being subjected to it.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
> If a speaker came advocating astronomy over astrology, would that cause problems for TEA? How about an HIV denier?
Hey now, astrology is science by some definitions of science.
I define science as two slices of dark rye and some sauerkraut. So yes, by my definition, this reuben is mostly science.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I was just going to email you this story.
Feh. I am so embarrassed to be living in this state. I mean, WTF? The head of the science curriculum is supposed to be neutral about freaking creationism?
You are right. We are doomed. And the asshats who run this state show no signs of letting go.
Bah.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Spent 12 years in Texas. At one time, Plano had one of the finest educational systems around. Our children were(academically) two years ahead of the schools in Phoenix, Az. I have no idea how far they have fallen, since I haven’t lived there since 1986, but if your post is any indication, it appears they’ve gone straight down the tubes. Ah well, I suppose it comes from all those kids questioning their parents lies,,,and then leaving Texas for California,,,what a brain drain.So, keep them stupid and down on the farm. What the heck, if they don’t know about it, they’ll never long for Paris,,, or real knowledge.
GAry 7
November 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Just as an addendum(hey, this IS about science) you might find this reference to the SIRT1 enhancing drug,,,interesting. Similar to Resveratrol, but 1000 times more potent and they use the logic of a treatment for type II diabetes(one of the fastest growing endemics ever) as the basis for their human trials, under FDA guidelines. Way to go, guys.
GAry 7
http://www.sirtrispharma.com/
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Tracy, I know not everyone in the state believes in that crap, but, unfortunately, the voters in your state keep electing idiots who do.
Also, the Texas people had the famous textbook committee, which for about 40 years has been killing off any critical thinking about the sciences.
The last marginally progressive politician to have come from Texas seems to have been President Johnson. That’s something of a scary thought.
Gary, I had a friend back in the ’60s and ’70s who was educated in Massachusetts and New York. When she moved to Georgia for high school, she automatically skipped a grade.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
>”We must never tire.”
That’s the problem, though. I’m tired.
Every year closer to retirement (and probably to another country) is one year less that I care.
Bet you didn’t know the year was a unit of measurement for caring.
Sorry, but it is the way it is.
And besides, I just bout Mass Effect *and* Super Mario Galaxy. I’m busy.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Just to make it worse, take a look at the text of the email Comers sent. This is what freaked out the big tough Texans?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
People pride themselves on being ignorant and bigoted when it comes to Texas, and then they say all Texans are bigoted and ignorant. It boggles the mind. Stupid people in some other state? Oh, that’s just people being stupid, has nothing to do with where they are. But if it’s in Texas, then it must be something about Texas and Texans that makes them so stupid.
As a lifelong resident of Texas, I can tell you that I am in the minority by far, most people in Texas today have come here from somewhere else, usually from somewhere up north, or from Mexico. I guess you could make the case that all Texans are stupid because all the stupid people from other states have come to reside here, but seriously, I do think there are still some stupid people in other states as well.
As for the inanely uninformed comment about Texas and school textbooks, it’s not really possible for a textbook committee to kill off critical thinking about the sciences. In fact, until the past couple of years Texas has been a bastion against creationists, IDiots, and other anti-scientific ne’er-do-wells. My daughter’s high school biology textbook was as good as any I’ve seen, and I’ve seen plenty. It devoted a third of a page, out of about 1100 pages, to “alternative” theories, and the teacher herself told the kids that evolution was a fact, and they just needed to get over it.
And as for our dumbass, Bilderberger of a governor, only 39% of Texans voted for him. Unfortunately our state constitution makes no provision for runoff elections, it’s by plurality takes all.
If you talk about “Purple Austin” take a look at the big picture while you’re at it http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ .
Sure, we’ve got our work cut out for us, to get the schoolbook commission back on track, but that is by no means an impossible task. For all those here who are embarrassed to be in Texas, write some letter to your the schoolbook commission, and to your elected officials. Politics isn’t all that hard, but it does take some work now and then, so get up off of your ass and do something about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
You know what this thread needs? Bill Hicks quotes! Mildly censored for the sensitive and because Phil decrees it.
“You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?”
“Fundamentalist Christianity. Fascinating. These people actually believe the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God! Based on what? I asked them. “Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible, and we added them up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages – 12 thousand years.” Well, how [bleeping] scientific! Okay! I didn’t know that you’d gone to so much trouble there! That’s good!”
“Folks: It’s time to evolve ideas. You know, evolution didn’t end with us growing thumbs. You do know that, right? Didn’t end there. We’re at the point, now, where we’re going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so [bleeped] up is we’re undergoing evolution. And the reason our institutions, our traditional religions, are all crumbling, is because … they’re no longer relevant. They’re no longer relevant. So it’s time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, you see. And that’s okay ’cause that’s our right, ’cause we are free children of God with minds who can imagine anything, and that’s kind of our role.”
“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.”
“I was adopted by pro-life Christians when I was a kid. … Please, give me the Satan-worshiping family down the block … the ones that have the good albums.”
November 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I think there’s an overarching problem with education in this country, particularly at pre-college levels. The main problem is that while an education degree teaches you how to teach, it doesn’t teach you enough of what you’re teaching. Please don’t misunderstand this as saying “education degrees aren’t real degrees” or “teacher don’t know their own material.” They most certainly are and they most certainly do. But the number of science teachers I’ve had and know that other people have had who really don’t know much science is surprising. Or who don’t know much other than what’s in the books and have trouble explaining things beyond what’s in the books. And what’s in the books is NEVER good enough.
And this same problem goes 10 times over for school administrators and anyone involved in setting curricula and buying books.
I may be (probably am…:) ) speaking from ignorance here, but I think that people who get education degrees and teacher’s certifications need to also major/minor in what they’ll be teaching. If you’re going to be teaching physics at the high school level, you need to at least minor in physics, preferably major. If you’re going to be selecting science textbooks for a school system, you need to have a degree in some scientific field. Same for math. Same for literature. Same for… all that.
We should have a selection of the best, most highly trained people educating our kids and making decisions about their curriculum. But we don’t. Because we, collectively, have decided not to.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
To commenter Laurie Mann, your ignorance astounds. I’ve lived in Texas all my 25 years. I was raised Catholic, went to private schools in the DFW area. Only in my theology classes was I taught the bible’s creation stories. In my Catholic high school they were taught as parables, not as literal truth. I had never heard of any of this creationist BS until the news stories came about and I was well into college. I don’t have a single friend who believes in the bible’s creation stories. Most of my friends are agnostic or atheist. Please do not generalize about the state. Generalize about our legislators, or maybe even our voters, but to state your belief in such an obviously wrong generalization just “makes me wonder about your state”. Quoted for sarcasm.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I’m happy living in Germany not having such terrible, stupid problems! Here it is SO clear that state (and so teaching) and church are devided and shall not interfere with each other. Everyone knows this, everyone is happy with this and NO one will crack this! God, damn it, I’m so happy!
Good luck with the fight against creationism, I’m with you!
November 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
..for that invest-in-my-company-hype science-addendum-my-foot spam. I forwarded your URL to some people who are interested in quashing spam, so thanks.
PZ, thanks for the link to the actual email. It’s so amazingly biased that my eyes are bleeding….oh, wait, it’s actually not even endorsing the position of the speaker. Some folks sure scare easily.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Men will cease to be fools only when they cease to be men.: — Democritus
“I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability.” — Oscar Wilde
November 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Doc, don´t be so complacent. He do have a couple of nutcases, except (currently) everyone else is (still) sane enough to see them as nutcases and there is (currently) no chance in hell they´ll achieve anything in the forseeable future.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Geez, sorry….that “website” field fools me every time because it seems like there should be a “subject” going in the field right above the text.
My post should have started with “Thanks, Gary Ansorge…” Apologies because my post will seem nonsensical after the spam is removed.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
@ fourlegsgood: You are right. We are doomed. And the asshats who run this state show no signs of letting go.
It’s worse than that, I’m afraid. Not only are they not letting go, they are reveling in their idiocy, making idiocy required, lowering expectations, and pandering to the LCD, instead of aiming for the stars.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
One of the many reasons why I send my kid to private school – and I live in one of the top rated school districts in Texas.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I will be interesting what impact the Dover decision will have on the next round of science textbook Texas roundup.
My guess is that the BOE will seek to prevent the same type of highly public beating they took last time around, and with plenty of help from the DI they will be better prepared, better marshaled, more devious and more subversive this time.
But, in the end, it won’t do them any good. Even if they win, and ID-lite gets into the textbooks, they will probably lose in court. But I suspect that it won’t get to that. Austin is blessed to have one of the finest centers of higher science education in the country (UT) and they will help to bring all the pressure the BOE can bear and more in defense of decent science standards.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
As for “my ignorance…”
Did you folks already forget the Gablers, who ran the textbook committee since the ’60s? I used to take notes on the unbelievably stupid things they said on TV – they represented your state and manipulated textbook publishers for years. They fought the teaching of evolution and sex education for years. It was appalling.
As for education, I was talking public schools. I know Catholics aren’t fundamentalists (my husband taught science in a Catholic high school for two years). If there are science teachers teaching science in Texas, that’s great to hear. But it sounds like the government is making that increasingly difficult.
I know what it’s like to be completely embarrassed by your representatives. Rick Santorum was my senator. *Gag* While our new junior senator, Robert Casey, is also pretty scientifically illiterate, he’s still slightly better than Santorum was.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
This thing is so overblown. Few mentions of creationism in a textbook is a threat to public education? Please.
Personally, I am much more concerned with real threats, like the people who push “fuzzy math” and other crap like that. These people aren’t exactly religious fundamentalists, are they?
Frankly, I would rather send my kids to a school that teaches creationism together with reading and multiplication, than to one that teaches nothing but “self-respect,” “self-expression”, and so on.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Don’t just bitch and moan here. Go tell the TEA just what you think about this:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/contact.html
Here’s what I said:
“What’s going on with forcing out Barbara Forrest? Shouldn’t your Director of Science BE pro-science in the classroom? Were you asleep two years ago when a Federal judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science? Wake up, it is the 21st century. “
November 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Al-where exactly do I go to learn “fuzzy math?” I don’t seem to remember seeing it offered anywhere except in fantasy-filled republican economics talking points. Is it before of after trig? Do students start “fuzzy math” before learning to count, or after? Does it involve muppets? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about?
I also missed out on all these easy “self-respect” classes, which is strange considering how often I hear these worried, second-hand accounts of all the vauable class time being wasted. I had freshman orientation in college, which I believe had a little section on self-esteem, right after cultivating good note-taking skills and the part about binge drinking and date rape. Did I miss the gravy train of easy A’s, or are you just making things up so you can blow your booty-tuba about how telling kids outright lies disguised as knowledge isn’t so bad?
Every school I’ve attended (all of them public schools out here in Crazy California) have been strong on reading, writing, and arithmetic, as well as science, vocational training, and the arts. We achieve it without excessive property taxes, we achieve it with a surplus of english-second-language students, and we achieve it without pandering to any of the myriad ridiculous superstitions that our voters hold.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
And you’re surprised because….? Texas is the state that gave us George W. Bush. What did you expect?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Neil,
These days fuzzy math is called something else. Here is a pretty good description of what’s happening out here in NYC:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fuzzy_math_isnt_cuddly_685276.htm?page=0
My son is one of those kids whose math homework consists of cutting, gluing and coloring. I can’t tell you how angry I am about that. Of course, we make him do real math as an additional homework.
By the way, apparently Texas had just dropped this nonsense from their curriculum. I say, good for them! This makes Texas, in my book, far ahead of NYC, education-wise. Textbooks that mention ID? Pfui. I can explain that to my son in about five minutes. It’s much harder to undo the damage done by fuzzy math (or whatever it’s called now.)
November 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I must defend my home state for a moment.
Let’s be clear, Lugosi: George W. Bush is certainly not originally from Texas. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Al, your argument is founded on a logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. You quietly propose that a school which teaches creationism will not have a compromised math curriculum, while a school which teaches only evolution will have such a compromised curriculum.
This is obviously and patently absurd. The two matters are wholly independent. Additionally, I’m a touch wary of claims deriding educational techniques without solid scientific evidence, particularly when applied to math.
You remember the new math? I don’t. But knowledge of axiomatic set theory (to say nothing of practical knowledge of base conversion and elementary operations in nondecimal bases) would certainly have put me on the fast track in theoretical computer science. As it is, (thanks to the traditional approach to math education) I had to learn this fairly difficult conception and its associated symbology as an adult. Instead of learning theorems and proofs in grade school, I struggled with them in High School.
The New Math fell flat because parents couldn’t understand that sometimes 1+1=10, and that there’s nothing wrong with it.
Parents complaining about their children’s math education are often thoroughly ignorant of both mathematics and education. Fuzzy Math (an unfortunate name for an apparently solid concept) particularly focuses on word problems and realistic (for certain tolerances of “realism,” to be sure) applications of mathematical concepts. The failure to do this in traditional math education can cause significant difficulties for students later in life.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Nick, that may be true, but it wasn’t Connecticut that made him a Governor.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I revised the letter so evolutionists can see why an email like this is bad… amazing how it just pops out at you when you read it with a creationist slant…
I mean, imagine if it was pro-creationist and had been sent out on offical letterhead.. just in case you wanted to know what that would sound like, here it is below:
“Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,
I thought that you might like to know that Dr. William Dembski will be speaking on “Evolutions phalanx of false-Certitude” in Austin on November 2, 2007. His talk, sponsored by the Right to Life Foundation, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.
In his talk, Dembski will provide a detailed report on his expert testimony in the re-hashed scopes monkey trial as well as an overview of the history of the “evolutionist” movement. Dembski is a Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the first director of the school’s new Center for Theology and Science (since taken over by the well known creationist Kurt Wise).[1] On 1 June 2006 Dembski became research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
For further details, visit: http://www.discovery.org
Sincerely,
Joe Christian
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
lol, to think someone actually needs to show you all that “endorsing” one side via company letterhead on something as unprovable as “origins” is a bad thing.. even if you’re pro-evolution.. there’s a time and a place for your own personal views.. we all know using the company to promote your OWN causes is just plain wrong. Unless you own the company of course.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Religion is all over our education system. It most obvious when it starts encroaching into the curriculum like in Texas. But in GA we a had district put stickers in it’s science books stating that evolution is just a theory.
To me the real worrisome place religion has in school is in the moment of silence, praying sports teams and other sanctioned religious activities.
I tend to agree with Bolo regarding educating teachers. They need to have content back ground. I don’t think having a degree in math should be mandatory for a math teacher. But experience with content should be.
There is no question teachers can be better but teachers need help with learning how to teach content in a meaningful way to all students. Which means they can not be one trick ponies. Lecture only sucks and fuzzy math only sucks. The truth is kids have many different learning styles. Teachers also lack time. They need time to plan lessons and learn content.
Finally, the other piece is states need coherent curriculum that relates content to students’ reality.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Oh, MikeJ, as usual, you have missed the point entirely.
The point is that the Texas Education Agency should understand the difference between reality and nonsense, and not remain “neutral” in the matter… especially when being neutral is a tacit admission that there are two sides to this issue. There aren’t. There is reality, and there is nonsense.
Creationism is nonsense.
As always, MikeJ, you’re making my point even easier for me to make.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Creationism is nonsense. – BA
———————–
If that’s what you believe, fine!
I however, don’t believe in the unproved, unseen, never been replicated in the lab “primordeal soup” that you all “believe” in.
So I say, evolution is nonsense.
Please try to get your head around this, you “believe” in “the soup”.. believe is a crucial word, because it has never been seen, or tested… just like God.
You believe this “soup” was “created” over millions of years of rocks raining down on the earth, cooling, mixing with water and becoming electrified OR heated (LOL!) (Holt 2001)
Phil, have you ever seen or observed the aforementioned phenomenon? If not, then what you are espousing is called a BELIEF in unseen things.
Sure you have “evidence” that you point to which is subjective of course.. but none of it has been observed or tested. Just like the creationist can point to pre-big bang and say “SEE, because we are even here at all, this is proof that a beyond natural force is at work”.
Your theory is an idea, a cough-cough hypothesis among other equally subjective ideas.
You just think your idea makes more sense because you don’t believe in a creator.
Ironically this is very unscientific to preclude certain ideas from consideration in order to fit your worldview, as opposed to letting the facts determine your beliefs.
If a fact comes along that blows evolution out of the water, as a scientist, you should be all for it.. rather I see you clinging on to evolution, and futhermore, you advocate the silencing of other theories.
It’s what the “scientists” of the enlightenment did to Galileo and Kepler… it was wrong then, and its wrong now.
You’re arguement that creationism is unscientific is laughable, theories are to be debated not silenced… if the theory is wrong it will be proved wrong via debate.. so to say the debate is closed, when your side hasn’t provided the answer to the “origins” question… i.e. big bang, first RNA/DNA, Cells etc… You have no proof, only guesses.
Once you realize that your guess is no better or worse than other peoples guesses, only proved, observed, tested SCIENCE should be considered FACT, then you’re on the road to true intellectual freedom.
Until, keep goose-stepping with your cronies, i’m sure (from what I can remember from my days of being an agnostic-evolutionist atheist) that is very soothing to the ego.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Religion in the schools is frightening. In GA we had a school district put “evolution is a theory” stickers in their Bio books. I think it is a little easier to monitor religion creeping into curriculum. But what worries me are the many instances where religion goes unnoticed in schools like the morning moment of silence and praying football teams.
I agree with Bolo in a way. I don’t think teacher need degrees in a content area. They must know it from some formal education. For example I have math teachers in my department that have degrees in related fields – no question about content. But for education to get better teachers need to have time to learn new teaching methods that help them meet needs of more kids, time plan lessons and learn classroom management skills. Bottom line teachers need time to get better at their jobs. The reality is that there are teachers that are unwilling to improve and there also time pressures in schools that never get alleviated.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
# Nick Anthison 29 Nov 2007 at 5:03 pm
I must defend my home state for a moment.
Let’s be clear, Lugosi: George W. Bush is certainly not originally from Texas. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut
He behaves like a Texan though. You don’t tend to have folks from Connecticut wearing large hats and talking about going back to the ranch.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
MikeJ, again you don’t get it.
it’s not a matter of believing creationism is nonsense. It’s a matter of evidence. There is no evidence for creationism, and hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence against it. There are just as many pieces of evidence for evolution.
Really, and as I have said to you repeatedly, you need to do at least some reading on this before writing the silly stuff you write.
And in the end — and this is really the whole point — as the Dover case proves beyond any rational doubt, creationism and its bastard child intelligent design should not be taught in school. It’s a violation of the First Amendment. It’s just that simple.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Phil,
I’ve read HUNDREDS of books, articles, commentary, and papers on “origins”.
Specifically when I received my Bachelor’s in Computer science / Artifical Logic , and when I recieved my MA in Chemical Engineerin from Washington University in Missouri, I did much research into the subject.
You see, I used to be a so-called atheist. Until I looked into the “origins” of the big bang– I had to ask myself as a believer in facts only, how science could say that something came from nothing BEFORE the beginning of space-time.
The way I originally looked at it was… I imagined a completely empty room (which symbolizes spacetime), with no doors, windows or openings to it at all (closed model universe that science says we live in).
Then inside this empty space, I imagined something “coming out of nothing” as science textbooks say it happened…
So I imagined 20 trillion tons of hydrogen appearing in this closed space (a fair guess at the amount it would take to expand the universe to its current point today), and then I further imagined that it exploded somehow…
The conclusion I came to, logically, is that if even a little amount of hydrogen “appeared” in a closed space, that by definition, there is something BEYOND nature that must be responsible for this hydrogen appearing.
This logical conclusion to the big bang THEORY is what set me off on questioning the entire science “groupthink”. You must understand that since you’re wrong about the big bang, its hard for a TRUE SKEPTIC like me to “believe” your “guesses” about planetary accretion, “the unseen soup”, or the unseen jump from one species to another over time…
You’ve admitted it yourself several times, science is constantly proved wrong.. so I ask then .. why do you “believe” it?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I’d like MikeJ to answer an easy few questions.
Given that some God created the universe/world/bald men/whatever, why do Americans assume it is the Christian god, and not, say, Vishnu?
Surely a billion Indians who have had civilization longer than Europeans by a long shot, must have something on the ball?
When people want to “teach the controversy” why aren’t they teaching the creation myths of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and North American Aboriginal religions? There’s controversy there for sure?
And finally, why does it make more sense to believe legends told by bronze-age, tribal goat herders than it does to believe the preponderance of evidence collected by civilized people since then?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Bolo:
I’m a science teacher and have been teaching chemistry for ten years. My chemistry education degree required that I take chemistry classes alongside B.A. majors, but required three less classes in “related hours” from other departments. I ended up also getting an endorsement to teach physics, which covered the related hours for the B.A. in Chemistry, and I only needed one more upper-level class to get the B.A. in Physics, so I ended up triple-majoring because of the fortuitous overlap.
Most high school science teachers I’ve worked with (I’ve worked in two districts on the opposite ends of the state) are very knowledgeable about their subject – in fact, when you get them talking about science in general, it’s hard to get them to shut up! One of the main reason science education suffers across the board is due to outside pressures and time sinks. Most school systems offer only a minimal amount of planning time to review materials, develop lessons, plan and prepare lab activities, and most significantly, collaborate with other educators within and outside the district. Combine this with all of the other time requirements – grading, discipline, paperwork, parents, extracurriculars, some faint wisp of a social life – and teachers usually start out just trying to survive their first few years. The profession of teaching is tremendously rewarding, but it’s also really draining, which is why 50% of teachers quit the profession within the first seven years.
This doesn’t explain away bad teachers, because we all know they exist. I’ve had them as a student, and I’ve worked with them as colleagues. However, most teachers that I’ve worked with are well-trained professionals that really love their topic but are either trying to keep their heads above water (if they’re young/inexperienced) or have settled into something comfortable and reliable (if they’re older/experienced). You should look up an education degree program’s requirements from a state university and see how many credit hours of their subject area they have to take. I used to sit in my upper-level classes and wonder when, if ever, I would use what the professor was talking about in my own classes. The truth is that I don’t ever use it explicitly, but it has helped me understand major concepts better so I can in turn explain them better to my students.
Anyway, I know I’m just a random person commenting on a blog, but if you ever want to check this out for yourself, you should sign up to substitute teach in your local school district. Most states require subs to have at least a bachelor’s degree, and admittedly a lot of what you’ll be doing is babysitting, but you’ll get an opportunity to talk to some of the teachers there and either verify or discount what I’ve said.
Time to go grade papers!
November 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Out here in far West Texas (no, we do not have bible study in the local school curriculum), we’re starting to wonder if we can’t voluntarily return ourselves to Coahuila… or maybe secede and annex ourselves to New Mexico.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I’d like MikeJ to answer an easy few questions.
Given that some God created the universe/world/bald men/whatever, why do Americans assume it is the Christian god, and not, say, Vishnu?
Surely a billion Indians who have had civilization longer than Europeans by a long shot, must have something on the ball?
—————————
Nowhere did I say “teach the christian bible”.. all I said is that the “origins” question cannot be solved using the big bang/evolution model.. as it doesn’t explain the beyond natural (aka supernatural) origin of the “hydrogen”.
The only logical way to explain something coming out of nothing is that the “something” did indeed come from “somewhere”.. and that “somewhere” just happens to be outside the natural universe, therefore by definition the universes’ origin is supernatual.
Whether you want to believe the God of the bible did it, Vishnu did it, Yog Sothoth did it, or other esoteric beliefs is entirely up to you.
I ran into this brick wall back when I figured these things out actually— that “a” supernatural force created everything we know to be in existence.
This led me into further dissection of supernatural origins.. in which you must look at the different “beliefs” of different religions, and see what they say..
Hindus believe that God is nature.. unfortunately this doesn’t explain the “origins” of something coming out of nothing from BEYOND nature at the beginning of space time..
Pantheists/pagans believe that Nature is God, again this doesn’t explain the “origins” question of something coming out of nothing before spacetime…
Monotheists believe that an outside force created space time, and created the first catalyst , and furthermore believe that all things were created and set into motion by this outside force they call God.
Monotheists can then be broken down into catagories of how they describe this creator being, and what this creator being expects of his creation.
And that the thing about religion, that it is usually made up of rituals designed by men in order to “try to reach God”… so religion or religious ceremony/rules have NOTHING to do with “origins” but rather how you should live your life.
The way I see it, once you figure out that a supernatural origin of the universe took place, then its up to you to use all your intellect to try to dig deeper into this mystery. Research the fulfilled prophecies, see who is accurate, who is not. You may never figure it all out, but at least you won’t live your life in denial that there may be something beyond nature out there.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
If I understand this correctly — and I’ll admit it’s something I have a hard time wrapping my liberal-arts major’s head around sometimes — MikeJ’s analogy is flawed. His “completely empty room (which symbolizes spacetime)” does not exist and is not there for the big bang to expand into. There is not even an empty building for the room to exist in. It is created as part of the big bang. Is this correct?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
So how do we test your alternative, MikeJ?
What predictions does it make, and why do they follow from your model (whatever that may be)?
You think there’s some force or other, so what is it?
What does it do?
How does it do it?
How can you find out?
Where can we see it in action?
Is there any content to your alternative or does it just bother you that science doesn’t give a damn about your philosophical/religious leanings?
If it makes you feel any better, science doesn’t give a damn about mine either, or anyone elses (shrug).
November 29th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I lived in Dallas for a year, and the plethora of Christian nutcases down there prompted me to move back to Boston…
Texan coworkers were shocked i didn’t spend my sundays at Church praying to an invisible man in the sky….
November 29th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
did you hear the latest… texas and oklahoma state test scores for reading and math are 60 points different than the national test given the same students. so they are sandbagging the state test so they can claim the students are passing. massachusetts has a difference of 1 point between state and national tests.
texas is nothing but trailer trash. if you live there and you disagree to what is going on there. MOVE.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
First of all, let’s get one thing straight that we can all agree on: None of us BELIEVES in evolution.
Got it?
Belief is not a function of science. Observation is a function of science.
Second: ‘Observation’ requires evidence derived from our senses, those, in some cases, extended by equipment such as microscopes, telescopes, etc. But observation can also be derived from evidence based on non-observational calculations. Many elements on the Periodic chart were discovered this way, as were Uranus and Neptune, the neutron, the structure of benzene, Cephid II variables; the list is quite long.
Humans have the extraordinary, god given (!), capacity to create abstractions of their experiences and to manipulate them into new ideas and discoveries that they can then pass on to others.
Most importantly, and this I BELIEVE (meaning it’s a personal, unalterable concept I hold only for myself), what science does best is to ask better questions.
We’ve mistaken the awareness of science we see today as actual science; what we’re really seeing is the result of APPLIED science; those efforts based on the foundation of pure research which rarely gets the public’s attention.
If one assumes a scientific inquiry starts with the attempt at accomplishing a thing or a specific goal…this is Applied science. Louis Pasteur is a good example of that, as was Edison, Graham Bell, Fleming, Von Braun.
We’ve all heard of most of them?
OK, name the last six Nobel prize winners in either Biology or Physics…..Nada, right? Real science is somewhat obscure and vaguely boring to our popular culture these days.
What those Nobel prize winners are doing is pure research, or SCIENCE, in the most literal sense. It often has no outcome that’s predictable, it often has no apparent correlation to our daily lives, it rarely has any direct application to profits, and yet it’s of prime importance in our endeavors as humans and as members of our societies. Many universities and institutions spend a great deal of money and time on just that, for a very good reason; it’s where original ideas come from: Teflon, super-cooling, memory metals, the acoustic cooling, black holes and neutron stars, fractal geometry, interferon.
We need this taught in our schools, but it’s an overwhelming task in some regards. The first thing one has to do is teach the basic ‘language’ of science, and that requires some memorization, quite a bit of orientation, some pretty good basic math skills and a great deal of simplification so that the essential concepts can be taught.
I’ve read here the criticism that theories should not be taught as facts, and to some extent I agree, but I also believe what one sees there is the inevitable compression and brevity of curriculum brought on by decreasing budgets and the dominance of test scores when assessing our educational results. It’s simply expeditious to summarize theories as facts in order to meet a scholastic requirement, and not necessarily the way that the teacher want’s to teach. I understand a great many teachers are more than a little frustrated over this.
But facts themselves will quickly give way to evidence to the contrary, and this is another hallmark of good science.
Many scientists are wrong, in varying degrees, all their lives. Linus Pauling was wrong about the structure of DNA but he still received TWO Nobel prizes; one each in Biology and Chemistry because no one doubted that his results were based on anything but the most accurate data he could
observe at the time.
There was no doubt because many good scientists tested his data and found a very high correlation; high enough to put his results above dispute. Again, that he was incorrect about the structure of DNA didn’t diminish his stature as a great scientist, and never engendered any mistrust among his colleagues.
This is the underlying ethical structure of behavior among scientists that is the hallmark of good science.
So when children begin learning science their first steps towards understanding concepts are naturally explained as facts, and they get turned over (or refined) as their skill at understanding more complex concepts grows.
We’re taught the visual analogy of electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom like tiny planets as a fact, not because it is but because the actual concept can only be expressed as a series of equations and not in any pictorial way at all. But it helps to count and understand basic atomic relationships, and that analogy gives way to more sophisticated ideas, like quantum mechanics, as our kids learn to handle those concepts.
As for evolution, this is something we ‘observe’, but not in the time sense of our everyday world, rather, it’s seen in the thin film electrophoresis smears of mitochondrial DNA of bacteria, in the phenotype of drysophila exposed to radiation, in the carbon-dated layers of fossil Archeotherium (pigs!). Like many of us even these ideas are beyond understanding, and some of us probably reject them outright for many reasons, and that leads me to the last important part of understanding good science.
Not knowing.
.
This is something that doesn’t bother scientists very much. The fact is, there’s mystery and concepts and things we observe that are beyond our comprehension, and for many it’s a call forward to explore, to others its a call to retreat, and to some it’s just…..there to be enjoyed.
We call those in the third group Buddists
Seriously, I think of people as falling into one of those two categories, and good scientists usually fall into the former. Existentially, for them, having a universe filled with the unknown is not an uncomfortable thing, and the curiosity that comes from that lack of fear is often a driving force in the best science we see today.
Those of us who prefer a more secure, insular world are welcome to do so; there’s no harm in seeing the world one way or another, but consider this:
In science there is room for all religions because there is no conflict, but in some religions there’s no room for science. Which do you think fits America the best?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
[...] beliefs being force taught in the public schools as scientific fact. Read more here. BG” Article Bad Astronomy Blog » Texas: so, so doomed Pharyngula: Fear of Barbara Forrest Americans United: Intelligent Design __________________ [...]
November 30th, 2007 at 1:45 am
I am a molecular biologist, born and raised in Texas. I do not appreciate the ridiculous statements made on this blog. If you believe that you can judge the greater population of a state by what one man writes (in error) in a blog then it is the scope of your own mind you should be concerned with.
I admitt there is a large population of individuals in my great and loved state who may not value education to the extent i do, but that is no reason to triffle their moralities.
And concerning those Texans like myself, whom you have severely wronged by your uninformed slander under stand this, there are great centers of scientific research in texas, most notably the medical center here in houston, were many of the best hospitals in the country are located and a little place called NASA! While there may be a strong heritage of hard working, country living, and christian philosophy this state is also filled with intelligent, enlightened individuals.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:07 am
—“You see, I used to be a so-called atheist. Until I looked into the “origins†of the big bang– I had to ask myself as a believer in facts only, how science could say that something came from nothing BEFORE the beginning of space-time.”
Science does not say that. Up until fairly recently, the Big Bang model made no claims at all about the conditions leading up to it. You see, science waits until it has some hard facts before constructing models.
Now with the advent of superstring theory and other recent developments, science *is* projecting the models to what can before the Bang.
It just took time. We had to send devices into space with some of the most sensitive instruments ever created just to make the required measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap
13.6 billion years is a long time to wait to reconstruct an event.
Here’s one model that states what came before our universe. It was (drumroll)… another universe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
It might have also been a Penrose-Hawking singularity, or chaotic inflation arising in a random quantum foam. Or maybe it was something completely alien to anything we see now.
— I’ve read HUNDREDS of books, articles, commentary, and papers on “originsâ€.
I’ve read maybe a dozen books on it, yet I seem to know more than you.
Maybe you’re not reading the right books?
—“Then inside this empty space, I imagined something “coming out of nothing†as science textbooks say it happened…”
That’s is incorrect. At the point of the Bang, there was no space. Read that again. THERE WAS *NO* SPACE. There was no pre-existing vacuum for matter/energy to suddenly explode into.
—science is constantly proved wrong
No, science is constantly shown to be *imprecise*. New information *rarely* tosses out old idea wholesale. What usually happens is that new data refines existing models. The WMAP probe data is an excellent example of that.
Mythology led to geocentrism. Geocentrism (with its epicycles) was refined to heliocentrism. Heliocentrisim was clarified by Newton. The truth behind Newtonian mechanics was explained by Einstein. Quantum theory also came along, and now things like string theory are attempting to reconcile the two. You savvy?
—The conclusion I came to, logically,
You cannot have a logical conclusion when your basic premises are wrong.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:37 am
It would be nice if you could cover a serious issue (those who want to teach mythology as science) without resorting to stupid and uninformed statements about about a state with more 20 million people that’s home to some of the nation’s great universities, medical centers, the headquarters of our space program, major science-oriented industries, and so much more.
I’m a New England native who’s lived in Boston and Washington DC and now calls Houston home. Yes, there are some disturbing political elements in Texas. But when I see your commenters telling me that I like in a place that’s just like Iran, I get more concerned about the ignorance of the rest of the US, not Texas.
The state has suffered because one party with a big debt to the religious right has managed to take the wheel of state government in a big way. People who actually bother to pay attention to what’s actually happening in Texas know that this is unraveling, and that some of the religious right is quite powerful in that “purple area around Austin.”
When the same thing happens in Virginia a stone’s throw from the capital, nobody talks about how Virginia is doomed. When it happens in Pennsylvania or Ohio, nobody talks about how those states are doomed. But Texas looms large in the national imagination, so we get this kind of ignorant stuff.
Did you know that Houston, the state’s largest city, has a Democratic mayor? Did you know that Dallas is a majority Democrat city? No, didn’t think so.
Please, stick to science; when you get into cultural analysis you’re out of your element, and the results are a bit embarrassing.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Yog Sothoth did it
Ah… an appeal to my tentacly nature
Ia ia Cthulhu fhtagn!
The way I see it, once you figure out that a supernatural origin of the universe took place, then its up to you to use all your intellect to try to dig deeper into this mystery. Research the fulfilled prophecies, see who is accurate, who is not. You may never figure it all out, but at least you won’t live your life in denial that there may be something beyond nature out there.
Unfortunately if you assume a supernatural origin of the universe, then logic leads you to the paradox where you must now ponder the origin of the supernatural power. Eventually, you can only conclude that the supernatural power already existed. But, if you can conclude that, it is equally reasonable to conclude that the the basic building blocks of the universe always existed, and no supernatural powers are required.
AFAIK, no prophecies have been fulfilled that were not fulfillable by human means and were clearly stated prior to their being fulfilled.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:10 am
As the late Patrick Moynahan once wisely said:
“You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.”
The godbots seem incapable of understanding that accepting the facts of evidence and the fact of evolution does not mean they have to give up their fairy tales. Unfortunately, it takes an enlightened mind to understand this, so it makes the godbots rail against it even more.
And when I say godbot, I mean the feverish and fervent zealots who want holy wars and the legalized murder of unbelievers, not the “yeah, I think there’s a god” types.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:31 am
We Texans should not be shocked by the prejudice; our reputation is well earned. These are the actions of people we chose to represent us. Too many Americans vote as suggested from a pulpit — many without understanding the origin of the suggestions. In spite of our constitution, we have God stamped on our currency, and we will see repeated government efforts to stamp God’s likeness in our science textbooks. Our politicians understand they must appear to be God fearing, social Darwinists who are hard on criminals to get pulpit endorsements, and Texas will be one of the last states to marginalize that influence.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Actually John contrary to your claim that :
“When the same thing happens in Virginia a stone’s throw from the capital, nobody talks about how Virginia is doomed. When it happens in Pennsylvania or Ohio, nobody talks about how those states are doomed. But Texas looms large in the national imagination, so we get this kind of ignorant stuff.”
(posted above here)
I’m sure I recall the BA using the whoel Doomed thing with the same cat-&-mouse image for a number of other states and places.
Presiking Dubya was a Texan resident and was voted in by its populace so while it _is_ a generalisation and perhaps oversimplification there is a case for considering Bush the Lesser as being Texan and Texan’s as being .. well dumb and doomed. Not all of them maybe but then … a lot are .. more than than in northern states. And, yes, there are similarities in terms of theocratic political over-riding as well as executions and generall nonseense regardingTexas , and Iran and for that matter Saudi Arabia.
(BTW Phil heard about the “Teddy bear Mohammed = Blasphemy & jail with lashes case?)
Mind you, with “teaching” creationism I don’t think having a few classes that most kids will ignore, teaching them stuff that’ll go in one in ear and out the other ..if we’re lucky … will really end the world (or even Texas) necessarily either. The smart ones will know better, the dumb ones … well, frankly, wouldn’t have got the brains for science anyway. Not knocking ‘em though, they might have the brawn and passion to make other less intellectual contributions to society ..
Yet while the BA’s doomed might be hyperbole; ID / Creationism has in my view has utterly NO merit in it at all and doesn’t deserve teaching in science class beyond maybe a quick :
“this is what isn’t science, kids – class, point out three or more reasons why its not” type exercise.
Its poor science – & it does religion NO favours either.
One quick thought to tackle such humbug? :
Insist on teaching evolutionary biology from the pulpit of every church in every district that preaches ID in science classes ..
November 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am
While I’m in pedant mode :
Quiet Desperation said :
“—The conclusion I [someone else] came to, logically,
You cannot have a logical conclusion when your basic premises are wrong.”
is NOT actually correct. Logic, like maths and for that matter science, is simply a methodology.
Wrong premises can logically lead to self-consistent logically valid if inacurate results.
You can arrive at all sorts of things logically – soem maybe factually right others not so.
Equally, illogical methgods can lead tocorrect answers.
Eg. You can be guessing a number (”I’m thinking of a number between 1 & 15…”) and have a logical technique (say, eliminating numbers basedon questioning and then guessing based on probabilitities) fail where pure luck or sentiment (eg. “my Mum’s birthday’s the 9th”) or superstition (”13 is lucky for us!”) works at arriving at the correct answer.
(Probably a bad example but anyways y’get my drift I hope ..)
Also many things are subjective and value-laden and doen’t depend on -or usefully avail themsleves to – empirical or logical techniques.
Logic, science, religion – all can and sometimes are irelevant, inaccurate or just not the best perspective to view things from depending on context.
Logic may not tell you when a women loves you.
Science may not apply to the ethics of how its used eg. nuclear bombs or whether to experiment or not on children & dolphins or how to find happiness.
rerligion may not work as ascientific textbook or in erms ofexplaining our natural history or how an electronmicroscope works ..
All have their place and their uses.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:57 am
# Mike Jon 29 Nov 2007 at 7:23 pm
Creationism is nonsense. – BA
———————–
If that’s what you believe, fine!
> I however, don’t believe in the unproved, unseen, never been replicated in the lab “primordeal soup†that you all “believe†in.
>So I say, evolution is nonsense.
Please try to get your head around this, you “believe†in “the soupâ€.. believe is a crucial word, because it has never been seen, or tested… just like God.
You believe this “soup†was “created†over millions of years of rocks raining down on the earth, cooling, mixing with water and becoming electrified OR heated (LOL!) (Holt 2001)
Phil, have you ever seen or observed the aforementioned phenomenon? If not, then what you are espousing is called a BELIEF in unseen things.
Sure you have “evidence†that you point to which is subjective of course.. but none of it has been observed or tested. Just like the creationist can point to pre-big bang and say “SEE, because we are even here at all, this is proof that a beyond natural force is at workâ€.
Your theory is an idea, a cough-cough hypothesis among other equally subjective ideas.
You just think your idea makes more sense because you don’t believe in a creator.
Ironically this is very unscientific to preclude certain ideas from consideration in order to fit your worldview, as opposed to letting the facts determine your beliefs.
If a fact comes along that blows evolution out of the water, as a scientist, you should be all for it.. rather I see you clinging on to evolution, and futhermore, you advocate the silencing of other theories.
It’s what the “scientists†of the enlightenment did to Galileo and Kepler… it was wrong then, and its wrong now.
You’re arguement that creationism is unscientific is laughable, theories are to be debated not silenced… if the theory is wrong it will be proved wrong via debate.. so to say the debate is closed, when your side hasn’t provided the answer to the “origins†question… i.e. big bang, first RNA/DNA, Cells etc… You have no proof, only guesses.
Once you realize that your guess is no better or worse than other peoples guesses, only proved, observed, tested SCIENCE should be considered FACT, then you’re on the road to true intellectual freedom.
Until, keep goose-stepping with your cronies, i’m sure (from what I can remember from my days of being an agnostic-evolutionist atheist) that is very soothing to the ego.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
# Mike Jon 29 Nov 2007 at 7:23 pm
Creationism is nonsense. – BA
———————–
If that’s what you believe, fine!
> I however, don’t believe in the unproved, unseen, never been replicated in the lab “primordeal soup†that you all “believe†in.
>So I say, evolution is nonsense.
you confabulate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are different. After life starts no matter how it starts, it will evolve. Let us look at the claims separately:
Soup has been created in the lab and found in the outer solar system. search for tholin:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey-Miller_experiment
We do not know how to get from soup to life yet, but that does not have anything to do about evolution.
Firstly, evolution is both a theory and a fact:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Secondly, evolution has been observed in both the lab and the wild:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
November 30th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Just a couple of comments after reading the other comments.
Texans — You guys have a big job ahead of you to restore the good name of your state by electing public officials with some sense. Fighting to keep the fundies from pushing their religious agenda into the public sphere is not easy since they are well-funded and organized. Plus they have the sheep (flock?) as a controlled voting block. Good luck!
Creationism supporters (Al, Mike this means you) — Did you know that the first schools were religious schools? They were started to teach children how to read the bible. Public schools were formed for a different reason…to teach children how to become good citizens. My point, if you want your children to learn what Christians call knowledge send them to Christian schools. If you want your children to learn what the rest of us call knowledge, send them to public schools.
Trying to force Christian beliefs into public schools is every bit as bad as the government coming into your churches and telling them what they can teach.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
It appears to me that the people of The Texas Freedom Network must monitor this very closely and when the creationists want to bring in Discovery Institute speakers or their ilk they should ‘remind’ the creationists that if Barbara Forrest isn’t allowed to speak to matters involving the science standards, then nobody other ‘outside’ input should be allowed.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:51 am
One additional thought, this is really just more of the same approach used by all of the Bushies – Suppress anyone who has a different perstpective and doesn’t agree with your personal superstitions.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:12 am
> You’re arguement that creationism is unscientific is laughable, theories are to be debated not silenced…
Right. Let’s play a game called “Ghostless Universe.” The rules are simple: describe the universe to as great a detail as possible using whatever logical constructs you want except ghosts. Ghosts are outside the ken of the rules and anything having to do with ghosts are right out.
You’re basically saying that, while playing that game, ghosts should be allowed.
Scientific methodology, by definition being based in naturalistic materialism, is by that same definition utterly and completely precluded from calling upon any sort of non-naturalistic, supernatural, metaphysical, extra-universal, or otherwise larger-than-reality power. Of any sort. Whether or not the result is actually The Truth is irrelevant; science as a methodology is ideally inherently pragmatic; more useful theories are better than less useful ones.
You can construct a model of the universe in such a way that all the equations of motions center around the centroid of the Earth. The problem is complex, but solvable. Geocentrism can be, in this instance, ‘correct.’ It could very well be correct, in terms of The Truth. However, in terms of science, the math simplifies dramatically when you don’t assume a special place for the Earth or the Sun and therefore, scientifically, there’s no reason to expect the Earth or the Sun to inhabit any special position in the cosmos. Additionally, analyzing observational evidence is simplified when the special position of Earth is dropped as an assumption.
Think about it this way: when you walk around on your daily routine, are you moving around the Earth or is the Earth and everything on it moving about whilst you are standing more or less still? Which concept is easier to conceptualize, and which one shows more utility in trying to determine what will happen next?
Creationism is exceedingly unscientific, as any sort of non-materialistic “creative force” acting in reality whilst existing uninterrogably outside it is unscientific by definition. Therefore there is no debate, in the same way that arguments between quantum chromodynamics and string theory have absolutely nothing to do with the widely accepted mathematical fact that, say, 5 + 7 = 12. The definition of the meaning of mathematics precludes arguments from physics, because physics are outside of the definition of mathematics qua mathematics. Thus, creationism and its derivatives, being by definition unscientific, are also by equivalency inappropriate for science classrooms.
The. End.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Teach science in science class and religion (like creationism) in the church. Period. Creationism is no more science than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I grew up in Houston, TX. The first teacher who mentioned evolution to me preceded it with a nervous disclaimer that went something like… “This might upset your parents, but we have to test you on this subject. I don’t really believe in this, and neither should you, but the theory of evolution…” After a brief description that I found lucid, the principal left the room, and the teacher never returned to the subject. In high school, my biology teacher taught evolution with more confidence.
Richard Grabman: Be more specific about your location, or don’t be so modest. Isn’t the current governor from the “rolling plains of West Texas”? Wasn’t the current President Bush raised in Midland, TX? For a place with such a small population, West Texas sure can churn out evangelical politicians. What other areas must we Gerrymander out of your statement?
luq: Scratch the history books in a non-Catholic public library, and you will see that the Catholic church does not always spare scientists or their ideas from interpretations of Holy Scripture.
StevoR: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Texas citizens may have put Dubya into the governor’s mansion, but all USA citizens put him into the White House.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Evolution can’t account for the origins of life, any more than organic chemistry can account for the origins of carbon atoms. Shall we teach the controversy in organic chemistry too? Point out how weak a theory it is, since it cannot account for where its basic constituents came from?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
> Shall we teach the controversy in organic chemistry too? Point out how weak a theory it is, since it cannot account for where its basic constituents came from?
The weakness in organic chemistry is that it’s mostly empirical and thus really, really, really hard as there aren’t much in the way of laws and first principles that are both universally applicable and easily solved. I have to hear about it constantly from my friends.
Luckily, I’m an aerospace engineer, so all of my equations were solved by bored Europeans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I did meet good people in Texas- even the occasional intellectual-but for every intelligent Texan who is not a Jesus freak, you’ll find 50 Texans who were pure trash who equate science with satanism.
i’d never raise my kids in such a backwards place..
November 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
If you want to study the heavens, you need only turn to the Bible.
‘Big Bang’ and ‘Evolution’ were anti christian theories devised by Jweish Europens, who were guided by comminism and satan.
Left wingers seem so blinded by their athiest they don’t see that science is a guise for Satans,
November 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
— StevoR said: While I’m in pedant mode… is NOT actually correct. Logic, like maths and for that matter science, is simply a methodology.
I totally agree… that you were being pedantic.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I’ve met plenty of intelligent Texans. I even have a few relatives down there. And almost none of them act in the stereotypical anti-science ways that too elected and appointed officials do.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Much like Johnny Cash, I’ve been eveywhere man – well, lived a lot of places. Georgia (Bulldogs still have a BCS shot..), Connecticut, North Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, California, Virginia. I’ve either been in school or had children in school in all of these states. All of them have some very good schools & many very intelligents people, and all of them have some very bad schools and very un-intelligent people.
Let’s just agree that the are geniuses and idiots in every state, along with ignorant zealots & the open-minded.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
# Laurie Mannon 30 Nov 2007 at 11:57 am
“I’ve met plenty of intelligent Texans. I even have a few relatives down there. ”
Please don’t tell us that. Maybe THAT’S why we’re going down the tubes, in your opinion. You know, for such an old woman, you sure have alot of juvenile thoughts.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
# Charles Averyon 29 Nov 2007 at 11:51 pm
I lived in Dallas for a year, and the plethora of Christian nutcases down there prompted me to move back to Boston…
I lived in Boston once. Couldn’t wait to get out of that hell hole you call a state. You people are stranger than Californians, except you seem to proud of something. I still can’t figure out what that is. Anyway, glad you left. It smells better already.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Walabio wrote:
“you confabulate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are different. After life starts no matter how it starts, it will evolve.”
I cannot believe it took this long for someone to point this out. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang =/= Evolution (and, while we’re on the subject of popular misconceptions, just because something is labeled a “theory” doesn’t mean it hasn’t been proven. A theory has been tested and retested and has been found to hold up to scrutiny. It is not the same thing as a hypothesis. Please stop treating it as such). Evolution presupposes life. And it happens. We’ve seen it happen. It’s empirically verifiable. Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?
Furthermore, why is it THIS country (NOT just Texas) that seems to have the most trouble with this? It’s mindboggling.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Joe, at least I have the courage of my convictions to post under my full name.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
First off again, stop insulting texans, seriously it is ridiculous what you people are saying!! There are backwards people in texas just like there are backwards people in EVERY other place on the planet…
Boston ….. ever seen the fools at a pats/sox game? Would you like to be compared to those people? Would you like me to compare all new yorkers to the brash, rude, insolent characters that the sterotypes display? Should i assume all Californians are pot head, hippie children? NO NO NO…..so becuase one man tells you in a blog that texas is doomed, you shouldn’t feel the need to insult an entire state!
Secondly, concerning this blog and the arguement of creationism versus the big bang…..how do any of us know what happened, maybe they BOTH happened… Maybe there is physical evidence of a big bang, and that evolution is responsible for our bieng here (both of these claims have been thouroughly supported with tangible evidence). but here is the kicker, maybe that is how creationism occured?
Any body who thinks that they are intelligent are have the vision needed to say that either claim is false is a liar…… accept that evolution/big bang are facts, and evolve your way of thinking to believe that they may be the mechanisms with which god (whichever one(s) you pray to) actually brought about existence!!
November 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
# Laurie Mannon 30 Nov 2007 at 1:36 pm
“Joe, at least I have the courage of my convictions to post under my full name.”
Witness protection program…sorry.
I accidently killed a guy who insulted a Texan.
Hope you find a friend who’s as nasty as you someday.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
The Flying Spaghetti Monster Created the Universe and all that we see. End of Story. http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
“Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.”
Of course, the hard cases need to be referred to:
http://www.landoverbaptist.com/
or
http://www.bettybowers.com/
“Bitter the jest when satire comes too near truth and leaves a sharp sting behind it†— Publius Cornelius Tacitus
December 1st, 2007 at 7:02 am
I’m just wondering,since we stole Texas from Mexico in a war,is there anyway we can make them take it back.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
If those were the sorts of people elected to lead their respective states, I would be very concerned for the state as a whole. It is not a matter of stereotype. Who the people of the state choose to represent them tell you a great deal about the demographics of the state. That does not mean all people in that state are that way, it does not mean there is not good science being done there. But it does mean at least a plurality of people support the leader that has those ideas, and that leader is now implementing them.
If you look at the U.S., somewhere around 40-50% of the people in the U.S. are young-Earth creationists (probably closer to the low-40%). I am not, none of my friends are. We elected an intelligent-design proponent to be president, and re-elected him. I did not elect him, but the country did. There is a lot of great science done in the U.S. But, even being an American, I will be the first to tell you that those demographics and that election say very bad things about the country I was born and raised in. They do not say bad things about me or any other random person picked off the street (that would be the genetic fallacy). But it does say bad things about the country as a whole. When people here comment about how bad that makes the U.S. look, I can only say that it isn’t just appearances. There are serious problems that need solutions. I do not consider it an insult to me or any of my friend, it is a statement about the demographics of my country.
These events tell you something about the demographics of Texas. They don’t mean that Texas does not have great research Universities. It does not tell me any given person from Texas is a creationist. But it does carry information about Texas as a whole. It is a problem that needs solutions, just as similar problems with the U.S. as a whole need solutions.
That is not what these people are promoting. In fact they are vocally opposed to that idea (called “theistic evolution”). These people are literalists when it comes to the first chapter of Genesis (although not the second, predictably), or at least supporters of the idea that creatures sprang out of nothingness in roughly their present form. We are discussing a very specific form of creationism that is being promoted, one that is completely and totally at odds with everything we know about the universe.
And your idea does not belong in science classes. As near as I can tell, it makes identical predictions to the scientific theories on their own yet involves adding on a whole lot of theological baggage that is not supported by the evidence. That is not science and does not belong in science classrooms. If it makes testable predictions different than other scientific theories and those predictions are supported by new evidence, then we can talk. But what you described has no place in science or science classrooms until that time.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:36 am
njaMoJo said:
> Secondly, concerning this blog and the arguement of creationism versus the big bang…..how do any of us know what happened, maybe they BOTH happened… Maybe there is physical evidence of a big bang, and that evolution is responsible for our bieng here (both of these claims have been thouroughly supported with tangible evidence). but here is the kicker, maybe that is how creationism occured?
Terminology. Creationism does NOT mean “God did it.” Creationism is a doctrine of how God did it, or at least how he didn’t do it. Creationism says independent origins of organism types (species, “kinds”, etc). Creationism says organisms were “poofed” into existence, instanenous appearance. Whether it took years or days, it is a rejection of the notion of common ancestry (all living organisms descended from one starting point) and a rejection of broad structural and functional change (”macroevolution”).
December 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
The Black Cat
Have you ever even been to Texas?
And I wasn’t implying that science classes should teach ANYTHING about god, I am not even religious (and i am a molecular biologist so of course i believe in evolution). I was only offering an idea for consideration to those who wish to retard scientific progress because of a conflict with their own moral/ethical obligations. Maybe a way for them to accept the scientific facts without comprimising their own systems of belief.
And to Henry Bemis….
Texas revolted from Mexico and freed itself….then we acquiesce and joined this lovely union.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Science vs. Anti-science…
first in your quest for truth you have to evaluate that…
Is creationism anti-science…
Not anymore than evolution is…
neither is empirical… sorry… you can’t repeat creation… it happened a long time ago.
And if you want me to believe that life spontaneously began when the conditions were right… well that’s a fairy tale if I ever heard one…
The complexity of the simplest cell is far greater than that of this stupid computer I’m using to communicate with…
The information in the simplest life forms DNA (biologic OS) is far more intelligent than than Windows, OSX, Linux or any other OS out there… it actually has the capacity to error correct… instead of error create!!!
And you want me to believe that these things just form…
I’d sooner find the next 20 generations of processors fully assembled with 50 in plasma monitors laying about… in terms of chance groupings of molecules that is far more statistically probable… look at all the silicon in the world..
“I’m a molecular biologist” well then you should know how intelligent life is… for the most part… I mean the actual intelligence visible in the biologic machines… not the opinions of the finished product…
Blahzeblah blah bla… It’s just a question of what you want to believe… people get all irate over this debate defending what they want to believe… If you truly had an open mind, you would realize that neither is anymore “scientific” than the other… personally I believe in God
The Government at all levels should remain totally neutral on the subject…
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Okay, I’ll wade into this….
I’m an elementary school science teacher in Texas. (Just opened myself up to all kinds of flames with that statement, didn’t I?)
After looking into the background of our Director of the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, an avowed creationist, it became clear to me that what these people really want (and by “these people” I mean those who are seeking to include language in the textbooks that questions evolution) is a new definition of science, one that includes supernatural possibilities.
I wonder what would happen if we proposed to leave science alone (it’s proven to be quite fruitful as it is, thanks) but allow an optional, elective course on “Current Controversies in Science and Religion”? Do you suppose that would keep everybody happy, or would it make things worse? I dunno. It’d be pretty damn difficult to monitor the teaching of a course like that and keep it “neutral”, which is what the TEA says they want.
It does sadden me that we’re still having these fights, but rather than flee the state (as my wife and I have considered for years) we figure we’d better serve our fellow beings by remaining where we are and doing our best to serve as an example of what it looks like to keep thinking.
Wish me luck. (I’m pausing for a moment before I hit the SUBMIT COMMENT button….)
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
The opening post said,
“It’s very clear that at most she might have deserved to be reprimanded for sending out the email, even if the TEA policy about neutrality is really stupid.”
She also insulted her boss by saying that her agency lacked “real leadership” while he was acting commissioner, so I think that he was not inclined to just give her a slap on the wrist.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I might add that he might have felt that he was showing “real leadership” by getting rid of her.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Then he will be getting a lump of coal this Xmas. What about you Larry, have you been a good little boy this year?
:-p
December 6th, 2007 at 5:11 am
[...] The Bad Astronomer put an intriguing blog post on Texas: so, so doomed [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
But science and mythology ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!!!! Evolution is based on scientific observation, and creationism is based soley on myth. ID is based on myth with politics thrown in.
A blogger made a great Venn diagram about ID:
http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/1541863.html
December 19th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. Its a lot like islam; its full of holes. I for one don’t want my kids to be influenced by a concept as stupid as evolution. I have seen far too many things that would lead me to believe that evolution is the only thing out there.
Also, I don’t believe that our education system works. It hasn’t in many years. Oh sure, kids will still graduate from high school (thanks to the great “no child left behind” cluster F).
And finally, if Texas is so, so doomed, get the hell out of my state.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am
[...] Chris Comer’s case is a bit older, so to refresh your memory: in November 2007 she worked (note the tense) for the Texas Education Agency (TEA). She received an [...]