W00t! Great news from the Lone Star State: two seats on the State School Board were being challenged by creationists, and both creationists lost (free registration may be required to read that story).
Yeehaw!
As they say down there.
So the two incumbents, one a moderate Republican and the other a Democrat, retain their seats. Texans, you may breathe a momentary sigh of relief.
But only momentary. Feel that itch, that icy cold twitch right between your shoulder blades? That’s from the stare of creationists, who still have you in their crosshairs. Never forget that the forces of antiscience, of antireality, never rest. They may be stinging in their defeat, but you can bet your last head of cattle that the creationists will regroup and do what they can to undermine science.
But for now, rejoice. Congratulations to those of you who fought to keep the medievalists at bay. Good work.
Tip o’ the ten gallon hat top BABloggee Christian Burnham for the news.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Thanks for posting that. I appreciate it.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Well smack my butt and call me Darwin - that shore is a breath o’ fresh air, y’all!
March 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
The rationale given for the creationists’ fight, is that if any one part of the Bible isn’t accepted as literal truth, all of Christianity crumbles. (They seem to have no faith in the resilience of their own religion, it seems.)
Of course, the real reason is that by making it an issue (as they have with homosexuality and gun control), the “rabble rousers” can gain political power (by getting votes from easily-manipulated people.)
So I agree, they will be back, as long as the “big guns” see it as a viable political weapon. It’s not about religion, it’s about good-old-fashioned personal greed.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
From the comment policy: “Don’t go attacking people.” Attacking people groups = OK.
Got it.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Hippo, legitimate criticism based on evidence and argument is fully acceptable. Personal attacks are not. Phil is not personally attacking anyone, he is making a statement that is strongly supported by the history of the creationist movement in this country.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Two seats down, five (non-primary) spots to go. If only Texas didn’t command such a large share of the textbook market, we might not see this sort of thing happening. Gotta hand it to the ID/Creationist crowd, though…If they manage to convert TX, publishers are likely to change their material in order to stay in the market. The result is that even though science standards may not be changed in other states, and ID/Creationism struck down in some, those states will still have little alternative but to include textbooks that pander to the ID/Creationist hoardes.
That’s a worst-case scenario, but even a toned-down version of that is scary.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Hey, don’t malign medievalists (of whom I am one)! For one thing, we know the earth is round (regarding which, see one John Mandeville, author of Mandeville’s Travels).
March 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
If you have ever lived in (or even visited) West Texas, you will KNOW that the earth is flat. And goes on forever and ever to infinity.
If some of you round earth fanatics would just visit there to get (see?) the facts, you might stop making fun of my neighbor who thinks that the movie One Million BC is an historical drama.
Konan
March 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hi Phil,
Your blog keeps popping up on my Google Desktop alerts for some reason, which is how I found this post.
I just wanted to put my 2 cents in, even though the exchange rate here might not be in my favor… I’m what you might call a Christian (though I prefer the term “follower of Jesus,” which possibly carries just a little less baggage), and I just wanted to address some of the comments here. I want to try not to be presumptuous, but my feeling in reading this is that there seems to be some underlying negativity, resentment, or anger toward Bible-believing creationists. Anger that I completely understand - I deal with a lot of it myself. There are good reasons so many are angry with “the church,” “the right wing,” or “Christians” in general these days.
I just wanted to point out a distinction that is not often made when these types of debates occur. A distinction between creationism that, as Stuart suggests, is afraid of the potential damage that reality and science might do to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the type of Christian who happens to believe that God created what we see and observe today but is not threatened by sound scientific discovery and what it teaches us. I just wanted the opportunity to say that the right-wing creationists who vie for political power or the televangelists who play on people’s emotions for financial gain do not represent the entire Christian community. They don’t even represent the entire creationist community.
Hearing about new scientific discoveries always amazes me. The vastness of the universe, the way it all works on a microscopic level, theories of dimensions and evolution and life in other worlds all fascinates me. I’m a big enough person to admit that there are people so much smarter than me who have devoted their lives to understanding, well, life. And I am glad to accept reality when science flies in the face of presuppositions and inherited ideas. And I don’t think that my belief in God requires a literal interpretation of the Bible, or that I should feel insecure about my choice to believe in God when there is such a compelling case for evolution. And I hate how many Christians have waged culture wars over this issue and other issues that miss the point of what Jesus was really about. Jesus’ greatest commandments were to love God, love others. The only thing he ever fought against was hypocrisy. And he was an advocate for social justice - widows and orphans.
So I understand the resentment toward creationists, and on a larger scale, toward Christians in general. It is true that the church has, in many ways, failed at carrying out Jesus’ mission. But it is also true that there are many of us within the church who hope for change, who work for change, and who want to make right what has been misunderstood or distorted by power, greed, and hypocrisy. There is a counter-culture Christianity happening as we speak. It’s not splashed across the headlines because the Christians with the loudest voice often are those who alienate and divide with their “God said it, I believe it, That settles it” bumper sticker mentality. But we are here, and we want to be a church that isn’t built on a white-knuckled grip on “being right.” We want to encourage people. Even (gasp!) to encourage scientists. To stand back and applaud new discoveries, to be amazed at the profound and complicated universe, to be excited when someone presents a new way of looking into our origins. It has now become an outdated statement to say that all Christians, all creationists are anti-science. A creationist doesn’t necessarily believe the Biblical account of the world’s origins happened exactly as written (it could be…wait for it…metaphorical!). She doesn’t necessarily believe that evolution is a load of crock (research has clearly show it isn’t). And she doesn’t necessarily want to wage war on all things science and liberal and atheist.
Thanks for hearing me out. I plan to keep reading… I like the stories you bring to my attention. Would it be too much to say “God bless you” right now?
Whatever.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Yahoo! (not the web company)
Yippee!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
@Matthew
Thanks for your post. It’s refreshing to see comments like yours that represent the more moderate views that, probably, a majority of Christians hold.
In forums like this one, we tend to use “Creationist” to refer to those hard-liners that believe the world is only 6,000 years old and that people coexisted with dinosaurs. We understand that this is probably a minority viewpoint, but it is also the camp that is the loudest, gets the most press coverage, and has the greater impact on public policy.
So, hopefully you won’t take offense at posts like these, understanding what is meant and from whence the occasional vitriol stems.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Konon,
You obviously never been to Big Bend, Palo Duro Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains, Davis Mountains, etc.
John
March 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Sure I have, jrkeller.
But I have learned (from creationists, of course) not to include any facts that might disturb my conclusions. A great tool, that - leaving out inconvenient facts. If the scientific community would adopt it, think how much easier theorizing would become.
Konan
March 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
@Matthew:
I had written this long bit about how some people on this board still would consider you and I to be crocks, but I decided not to post it. Truth of the matter is that most people who hang out around here are pretty much okay [hmm, Windows thinks that okay is misspelled] with people like you and I. But the “Creationist”, as it is used by Todd above, have pretty much become a voice for all of us Christian whether we like it or not. People like you and I need to be more vocal, and to let these Creationist know that we don’t want them to speak on our behalf.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
@ Aerimus & Todd
Thanks y’all. I definitely haven’t hung out here long enough to know what is meant by the different terms, so I was making a few assumptions… Thanks for being cool & I’m looking forward to dialoguing here!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I agree, it is refreshing to hear from Christians who are able to accept science.
I should point out that, although it may be a minority viewpoint, in the U.S. young-earth creationism is still the largest group in the country (about 45% of Americans). See here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx
I know they don’t speak for all Christians, but they are for from just a loud, small group. They are the largest group in the country.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
@TheBlackCat
“I know they don’t speak for all Christians, but they are for from just a loud, small group. They are the largest group in the country.”
I think that in the original post that I was writing up I was thinking something like that. I didn’t have the numbers, but from my experience here in GA, the Creationist crowd doesn’t seem to be small by any stretch.
Heck, my mom’s one of those “The earth is only 6,000 years old and people and dinosaurs existed together.” Thing is, she was the one who got my first and last telescope (and my astronomy binoculars, which I use every time leave Atlanta for her wonderful dark skies in rural SWGA), bought me all kinds of science, astronomy and paleontology books and toys when I was a kid, and stood behind me when I was thinking about majoring in Astrophysics. She has done more to support my scientific curiosity than anyone else. I guess she supported it, despite her personal beliefs because I loved it.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Again @TheBlackCat:
Doh! I just opened the link that you provided and had to hang my head. As a Cobb County resident, this is not the kind of thing that I like to be reminded of. Well, we’re planning on home schooling our daughter anyway - I just don’t know how much I trust the public schools anymore, especially since they are used more as a political battlefield than an place of learning nowadays.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I’d like to thank all the Txns who took the trouble to vote.
It would be nice if we could get some actual scientists elected to the board in the future. As far as I’m aware, none of the board members have any experience in science. Scary.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Just a strange note, but why the qualifier for the Republican who kept his seat, “moderate” Republican, while the Democrat is just that, “Democrat”?
Is he “moderate” “liberal” “far left” “socialist” “progressive” ect? Theres lots of qualifiers for democrats as well ya know.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
@Christian
I don’t know if I’d necessarily want scientist on the board. I mean, the board is supposed to be doing things like budget, standards and administration. Now, if there’s a scientist that is both good at science and those things, then yeah, he’s a good choice. Otherwise, I’d be happy just to have competent administrators who are committed to listening to qualified and reputable scientist when it comes to the science curriculum (and historians or history, etc).
March 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Well smack my butt and call me Darwin
(*smack*)
You’re Darwin.
Now go mop my floor.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Aerimus: Heck, my mom’s one of those “The earth is only 6,000 years old and people and dinosaurs existed together.”
My mom (before she retired) designed modules for communication satellites, and taught me to play blackjack and count cards when I was 12. She also thinks organized religion is a cancer upon this Earth. The copy of “God Is Not Great” by Chris Hitchens that I read was borrowed from her.
Sorry, I just like to show off about my mom.
Matthew: ’m what you might call a Christian (though I prefer the term “follower of Jesus,”
Better follow fast. Jesus done got him a raptor.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg
Seriously, I would *totally* join a sect of Christianitydom that had stuff like that in their version of the Bible.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Well smack my butt and call me Darwin - that shore is a breath o’ fresh air, y’all!”
C’mon now. The most annoying accent was displayed in Ken Burns’ film “The War”. That lady from Mobile, Alabama had the worst accent I’ve heard in my life. Nobody from Texas has an accent that bad.
IT WAS HAHD TO FINDA MINT JULIP DURIN THE WAH
WE JUST NEVUH KNEW WHEN ONE OF AH BOZE WAS GONNA BE KILLT IN THE WAH
March 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
@Todd
About the textbook issue, would a good response be to make sure the California textbooks *require* evolution and *ban* any mention of controversy? They must make Texas’s share to the textbook market look rather small. Given that choice, I’m sure the textbook publishers would at least have to make 2 versions and if they only wanted 1, it would be the California version.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
@ TheBlackCat
Actually, the largest group of people in that survey are the ones believing humankind evolved from “lower” life-forms over millions of years, and that proves Darwin’s theory of evolution do attract a bit more people than a strict biblical interpretation. Yeah, I know that Gallup poll divided these people between those we think God played a role or not into that long evolution, but from my perspective, this is irrelevant.
Believing that somehow, some entity or force called God helped that evolution process along so that intelligent beings finally appeared is not incompatible with Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory is mute on that point anyway. Darwin and science in general made obvious that the Bible timeline for human existence of just a couple of thousands years is blatantly wrong, since there is solid evidence that millions of years were involved, but science just doesn’t know whether God did influence or guide this process or not. Science has no conclusive evidence God exists, but it has no conclusive evidence it does not exist either. In fact, when you look at the incredible combination of factors and conditions that needed to happen to produce the beings we are, from a basic unicellular organism to a full-fledged thinking human being able to reflect on the Universe and its destiny, you kind of wonder was really all that just a freak accident that happened at random…or was there something that helped along the way ?
So my point is that I would not put in the same bag the people who do adhere to Darwin’s evolution theory (even if some think God was still involved in the process of evolution) with those who are strict Creationists who believe in stuff that definitely flies in the face of rock-solid scientific evidence.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Oh, and thanks also to BA, PZ, Greg Laden and others on teh Blogonets for helping raise awareness about this vote.
What they all say is true. This is one small victory in a nationwide struggle. The creationists haven’t gone away. They’re well funded and rely on our ignorance and apathy to sneak these nuts onto the school boards.
The above bloggers do us all a service by keeping their extra smart readership aware of the issues, thus nullifying one major component of the creationist’s arsenal.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
@Ed T
“About the textbook issue, would a good response be to make sure the California textbooks *require* evolution and *ban* any mention of controversy?”
That was kind of my thinking. For those of us not in TX, our best defense is to (1) show support for those backing science agendas in TX and (2) ensure that our states don’t adopt textbooks that would be altered if Texas did lose reality.
I’ll personally do my best here in GA, but, as I think I’ve mentioned before, I’m planning on homeschooling my kid. So even if I did get a hold of a pro-”Teach-the-Controversy” textbook, it would be supplemented by my copy of Demon Hunted World and Why People Believe Weird Things (and yes, you hear me right several messages ago when I said I was Christian).
On a related note, she would also be taught for her own copy of Bad Astronomy that I had the BA sign back at Dragon Con in ‘06. How many 20-month-olds can say that. well, she can’t technically say it either, but you get my point.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
@Matthew and Aerimus
I just wanted to second, third, etc., what Black Cat and lot of others have said. If religion is a major grounding force in your life, as a non-believer I will gladly defend your right to worship. Unfortunately, the squeakiest (and in the case of the IDers/creationists, most dogmatic) wheel seems to get the proverbial grease, where grease equals press coverage.
My frustration is that if there is this giant majority of Christians/people of faith/whatever that do accept science, WHY DON’T THEY SPEAK UP? Why continue to let these zealots run rampant?
I realize this is easier said than done, but in many ways we are at a crossroads of sorts. I honestly feel there is a real danger of this country sliding backwards scientifically and economically if people, believers or not, can’t or won’t stand up to these kind of fundamentalists.
Okay, who’s got the soapbox next?
Matt
March 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
@Ed T
IIRC, California and Texas are both relatively close in terms of textbook market share. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry website may have more on this. I know they have a CreationWatch/IDWatch section of their site.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Tzar:
Believing that God ‘helped things along’ is absolutely incompatible with evolutionary theory in the same way that believing leprechauns determine the outcome of a small fraction of nuclear decay events is incompatible with quantum theory.
It’s saying in effect that evolution as a process isn’t strong enough by itself to account for life, and humans in particular.
I don’t accept the view that natural processes can only account for 97% of the world, and the remaining 3% comes from God. Of course, it’s better than the creationist view, but it would be even better if you eliminated that last 3%.
Of course, I can’t prove that God didn’t shuffle a few genes along the way, but the onus is on the person making the claims. Also, it’s only by *assuming* that the bits we don’t understand have underlying naturalistic explanations (until proven otherwise) that we can make any headway in science.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Did you see a post on My Yahoo stating that Moses was high on
a hallucingen(sic)? This is from an Israeli researcher.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
@Christian X Burnham:
“Believing that God ‘helped things along’ is absolutely incompatible with evolutionary theory in the same way that believing leprechauns determine the outcome of a small fraction of nuclear decay events is incompatible with quantum theory.”
And thus we get into a problem that I have with polls. Someone should define `helped things along’. To some people, that would mean that God had a direct hand in pushing evolution through its various stages. To others, they would say that it means that God created the mechanisms need for evolution to work and to guide it path, but then stepped back and left his creation work when he finished (I really feel that I haven’t explained that very well. It’s much clearer in my head). In either event, both would probably answer yes to that, even though the two have different ideas behind the precept. For one, God only needed to get things started, creating a “seed” if you will, while for the other, God had to help the process along. Of course, for some people, one idea is just as oddball as the other.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
@Quiet Desperation:
I’m not sure how I skipped over your comment.
Awesome link.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Re Aerimus
The development of intelligent human life on earth turns out to be highly contingent on the asteroid that finished off the dinosaurs. Had the collision been a little larger, all life might have been wiped out and we wouldn’t be here. On the other hand, if the collision been a little smaller, the smaller dinosaurs, like the troodons might have survived and we wouldn’t be here. Thus, a theist might legitimately propose that maybe god arranged the asteroid collision in such a way that all the dinosaurs were eliminated but that the little furry mammals were able to survive (the parameters of the collision are rather narrow). This seems like a more likely scenario then god causing genes to mutate.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I’m with Elf Eye. We medievalists are much smarter than that - and so were many of the people we study! (Okay, I’m only a medievalist in training, but that still counts.)
March 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Whoo.
That was a close call.
You have no idea how much of a relief this is to us rationalists in the Lone Star State (what few of us there are =P).
But we aren’t out of the woods yet.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“Darwin and science in general made obvious that the Bible timeline for human existence of just a couple of thousands years is blatantly wrong”
More accurately, it’s a biblically-related timeline, as the Hebrew bible doesn’t specifically give an age for the Earth. The YEC view of biblical verse is a relatively new, purposeful re-interpretation. It’s quite extra-biblical, as usual.
Google:
George McCready Price
Henry Morris
————
“Did you see a post on My Yahoo stating that Moses was high on
a hallucingen(sic)? ”
Funny. Though, just a relative to suggest the FSM was/is, since there’s a presumption that Moses actaully existed in the first place.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Aerimus:
The abstract process of evolution is a mathematical property of replicating systems. It has a Platonic existence like PI or a dodecahedron or complex numbers. All of these things didn’t need to be invented- they’re already ‘out there’ in ‘mathematical space’.
If life exists elsewhere in the universe, we can be reasonably sure that it too must have arisen through an incremental evolutionary process acting on a different biological substrate.
Evolution is what ‘naturally’ happens whenever replicating objects compete for resources. In fact, it can’t not happen in such circumstances.
There’s as much need to invoke a God to ‘invent’ evolution as there is to use Him to explain the decimal expansion of PI being equal to 3.1419265…
—————————————–
Of course, I don’t need to disprove your idea that God kick-started evolution. The onus is on you, as the one making the claim, to come up with the evidence. It’s easy to claim that God did ‘this’ or ‘that’, but unless you have any evidence, there’s no reason why anyone who doesn’t share your ‘faith’ should believe your views.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“My frustration is that if there is this giant majority of Christians/people of faith/whatever that do accept science, WHY DON’T THEY SPEAK UP? Why continue to let these zealots run rampant?”
They do, you just can’t hear them over the creationist’s shouting. (And you probably didn’t realise they were Christians anyway)
Just to clarify even further, there are two types of Creationists, YEC’s (Young Earth) and OEC’s (Old Earth). Both are generally anti-scientific who have a problem mainly with evolution. Christians who accept science are generally referred to as normal people. Who are also Christian.
Yay Texas! Still a bit iffy in Florida though…
March 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Christian X Burnham posts:
“There’s as much need to invoke a God to ‘invent’ evolution as there is to use Him to explain the decimal expansion of PI being equal to 3.1419265…”
It would actually make more sense to say that Satan is responsible for the decimal expansion of Pi:
“A curiosity relating pi to the beast number 666 involves adding the first three sextads of pi. First, note that
141592 + 653589 + 793238 = 1588419.
Now, skip ahead 15 decimal places and note that the sum is repeated as
3.141592 653589 793238 [15 digits] 88419 7169399375″
!nataS teews ym ot s’ereH
March 6th, 2008 at 5:33 am
@Christian X:
“Of course, I don’t need to disprove your idea that God kick-started evolution. The onus is on you, as the one making the claim, to come up with the evidence. It’s easy to claim that God did ‘this’ or ‘that’, but unless you have any evidence, there’s no reason why anyone who doesn’t share your ‘faith’ should believe your views.”
And this is exactly why I don’t agree with teaching ID of creationism in science classrooms, and why I don’t debate people on God’s existence of try to coerce people into believing my religion. What I do attempt to do in these discussions on the board is to stand up and ask that people keep in mind that there are some of us Christians who feel that we should lead by example and bring Christ into people’s lives through our love for humanity - that not all of us are trying to ram our beliefs down everyone’s throat.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Christian X Burnhamon: I don’t accept the view that natural processes can only account for 97% of the world, and the remaining 3% comes from God. Of course, it’s better than the creationist view, but it would be even better if you eliminated that last 3%.
From my point of view (as a relatively moderate Christian who believes that science should be accepted because it can teach us things rather than fought against lest it threaten our favorite beliefs), it’s a mistake to make it an either/or proposition (either genes did what they would do naturally or Goddidit, but not both). Such a view of God’s involvement in the Universe limits Him, and makes Him more limited all the time as we learn more.
To put it another way: with mathematical models like VSOP89, I can predict where the planets will be five years hence with decent accuracy. When they show up there, does that mean that I think God had nothing to do with it? Of course not.
If you’re going to believe that God is involved in the universe, it seems to me that you have to (1) accept it as axiomatic and (2) admit perpetual ignorance as to the exact mechanism He uses. Using God’s involvement in the universe as a means to explain what you don’t yet understand is cheating — kind of like getting the exam answers ahead of time without bothering to understand the material that would have been useful for you to learn (and finding out later that the answer sheet you stole was for a different exam entirely).
Romans 1:20 tells us that there are attributes of God visible in creation. If you honestly believe that’s true, it would behoove you to try to study the universe the way it really is, not the way you wish it were. We must try to find out who God is based on the information we can gather and understand, and worship God as He is as much as we can. Worshipping a God of your own invented and preferred characteristics in spite of what He has tried to clearly communicate about Himself is idolatry.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:04 am
@Darth Robo:
Yeah, I know everyone involved, anti-evolution or not, is a human being. I’m also aware of the religions involved. It doesn’t make it any less frustrating.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Aerimus:
As a secularist, I think you’re bang on! It’s great that you appreciate that our personal opinions shouldn’t be taught in schools unless we have strong evidence to back them up.
As an atheist and as a skeptic, I have to wonder why you would believe that God has helped evolution along since there’s no evidence to support your beliefs. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
MF: I don’t understand your position, but as long as you don’t support bringing God into the science class, I’m pretty much OK.
Yes, you can make anything into an axiomatic belief, but the only reason for doing so is if your framework allows for the generation of interesting results. It seems to me that your axiom that God is somehow distantly involved in physics doesn’t fall into this class. It’s a completely unnecessary axiom which is clearly not needed to do science.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
At least Elfeye and Seamyst noticed this too, Medievalists study the Middle Ages, so kindly don’t align us with the uneducated creationists. I spent a long time at universities to be able to be called a Medievalist and don’t appreciate the misuse of the term.
For your benefit, Medievalists study Medieval history like Astronomers study the universe. You make a big deal out of getting your facts straight, so please do.