Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

intelligent design

Mike Pence says Republicans are not Anti-Science

May 6th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

ScienceRepresentative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) spoke to Chris Matthews in defense of Republicans, saying that his party is not anti-science and that this whole “anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”

That, in and of itself, would not be particularly noteworthy. However, in the same interview, Pence goes on to show that he, himself, is quite anti-science… which seems, to me, to somewhat negate his credibility in defending the Republicans on science issues.

When asked if he believed in evolution, Pence replied…

I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them…the means that he used to do that, I can’t say.

He also expressed skepticism about the science surrounding global warming.

From an article on Politico…

On global warming, Pence said that Republicans are “more than willing to stand for clean air,” but added that “in the mainstream media there is a denial about the growing skepticism about global warming.”

I find the claim of a “growing skepticism” to be interesting. If the skepticism is growing, it’s definitely not among scientists with knowledge in relevant fields of study.

Then Pence drops this bit of joy.

“What is science but an exploration?” Pence asked. “Science is an explanation of demonstrable facts, isn’t it?”

I suppose, as a very simple summary, that’s true. However, it’s not particularly accurate. For instance, creationism (and ID), despite providing an “explanation of demonstrable facts” is not science. Science depends on a method, a series of steps, without which you have no science. If you bypass the steps, as does creationism, you can’t claim to be scientific. Pence, in that one quote alone, shows that he really doesn’t get science.

Here’s the video of the full interview (or at least a large part). It’s kind of painful to watch. Matthews keeps pushing the question about evolution, but Pence refuses to give any answer other than his “God created the heavens and earth” answer. Pence also makes the claim that Democrats put ideology over science regarding stem cell policy (?!?). It’s a lot of dancing around the questions on Pence’s part.

He also intimates that schools should be teaching creationism alongside evolution, but doesn’t say it outright.

So on one hand, Pence says the Republican party is not anti-science, but then on the other, his answers show him to be unequivocally anti-science.

Is that irony or hypocrisy?

Creationism = Intelligent Design = Not Science

Apr 24th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

Man and DinosaurI’ve done a lot of reading recently about Evolution and Intelligent Design (Creationism) and really, the arguments for Intelligent Design, whether they’re being put forth by unqualified supporters in Texas or by biologists like Michael Behe, are all non-starters. ID supporters have yet to come up with any evidence to support their theory. Their arguments consist solely of attempts to cast doubt upon the scientifically supported theory of evolution, attempts which always fail, but sadly seem to take hold of those who really have no knowledge of evolutionary theory or the evidence that supports it.

I was delighted to find this article at Evaluating Christianity about the nonsense put forth by Young Earth Creationists. It’s witty and insightful and definitely worth taking the time to read.

Here are some highlights. I’ll quote this bit for starters.

If creationists are correct, then not only do we need to scrap all of biology, but we need to throw out everything we think we know about archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology (no plate tectonics!), chemistry and physics (since radiometric dating is supposedly unreliable), and probably a few dozen other scientific disciplines. Think about that for a minute. If young-earth creationism is correct, then every single scientist in any of these fields of study is either an idiot or a fraud.

If you find that hard to swallow, you’re not alone.

I find it interesting that, of the Young Earth Creationists that I know (only a few), none of them reject science out of hand. I don’t think any of them deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that the Earth has shifting plates that cause earthquakes when they change position or many other science’y ideas. They seem to, out of necessity to support their views, only deny the science that contradicts their bibles. It’s “pick and choose” science… somewhat like “pick and choose” biblical religion, it would seem.

Anyway… here’s my favorite part because it really hits the nail on the head with regard to arguments about evolution and science.

This is why I don’t take creationism seriously. Not because I “reject the Bible” or “have differing views of the evidence,” or whatever. I don’t take it seriously because the people who are qualified to weigh in on these claims — people of varying backgrounds, races, religious and political beliefs — have done so and reject your claims.

I imagine that some (like longtime EC commenter Nathaniel) may try to draw the same analogy to Biblical historians versus Jesus-mythers. But here’s the main difference: by their own admission, 30% of Biblical historians concede that there was no empty tomb. If 30% of biologists denied common ancestry, or 30% of astronomers thought that the stars were 6,000 years old, then we would indeed have a real controversy and those ideas should be engaged on their merits.

For example: a small minority of paleontologists, led by Jack Horner, contend that T.rex was a scavenger rather than an apex predator. This is a highly contested hypothesis and is subscribed to by only a tiny minority of palentologists — but it is, nevertheless, a respectable scientific dispute.

It’s a simple and clear explanation of why some disputes are valid and others are really not (check out the rest of the article for context and additional arguments).

If you’re going to make attempts to refute scientific theories, then you’d better have a scientific argument. Creationists don’t have one, and never will, because the basis of their entire position is thoroughly unscientific. You can’t propose “it was magic” as your explanation and expect to be taken seriously.

Not even by magicians.

A Dubious Win in Texas

Mar 31st, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

DNS StrandThe Texas Board of Education managed to squeak a vote through that shot down the addition of anti-evolution language into their education standards which would have specified the standard nonsense about evaluating the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. However, in a series of equally nonsensical ammendments, the anti-science creationists and IDers added all kinds of detrimental (and somewhat incoherent) language to try to bolster their untenable position.

Don McLeroy didn’t win his big desired change (the “strengths and weaknesses” language), but he was probably reveling in the little jabs that were inflicted by all the amendments. McLeroy displayed a gross misunderstanding of both science and evolution in the now infamous Youtube video. In the ars technica article linked above, John Timmer says…

[In the Youtube video] McLeroy urges the board to join a crusade against the scientific community. “Somebody has to stand up to these experts,” he said, while expressing incredulity about their opposition, stating, “I don’t know why they’re doing it.” Elsewhere, he argued that evolution isn’t science, saying, “it’s an ideology” and “evolution goes back to someone who came up with a philosophical speculation.”

I’m almost speechless… but not quite. How do people like this gain a position that has influence over the education of our children? On one hand, he admits that he’s not an expert, yet he then continues to essentially say that the experts are wrong and that he knows better. I’m not sure where he gets his definition of “expert” but it’s seemingly not from anywhere in this reality.

Timmer also comments:

So, instead of “strengths and weaknesses,” the new standards call for students to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations” based in part on “examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments.” Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting “all sides” of an argument.

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.” Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data “reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.” Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

The creationists seem to be attacking science on all fronts now, but we seem to be missing the evolution-specific attacks that are so common from them.

Oh, wait… here they are.

Students are expected to consider the “sudden appearance” of lineages in the fossil record, which the creationist literature argues is an indication that these lineages were instantaneously created.

[…]

[The Board] added a new standard, directing students to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

[…]

Teachers now have to ensure that students can “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”

Wow. So much for science in Texas. Fortunately, high school science teachers tend to ignore this type of language and teach evolution the best they can in the tiny amount of time granted for the topic… sometimes as little as three days, from what I’ve read (can’t find the link anymore. Sorry).

Even so, the addition of language of this nature does nothing to enhance science education… or education in general. Creationists spend so much effort coming up with twisted, devious ways to push their mythical ideas into the agendas of otherwise rational education standards that one would have to begin to question their premise.

If their ideas were so scientific and plausible, why have to be so obscure about their intentions? Furthermore, where is the evidence to support their ideas? Where is the grounded thinking and scientific explanation for even a single one of their postulates?

Nowhere.

They’ve got nothing to go on. I’ve said it before. The only thing they have to work with is an infantile attempt to attack the scientifically supported theory of evolution. They prey upon the uneducated with blatantly false propaganda, knowing that anyone who doesn’t understand real science or the actual theory of evolution might, perhaps, think that their position is tenable. Then they’ll get the “Why not teach both sides?” reactions from people and their battle is halfway done.

The solution is education. Real education… based on real facts and real evidence and real logical thinking. The more our educational system descends into this anti-intellecual, anti-science, irrational way of thinking, the more this country will fall behind in this world, not only intellectually, but influentially. Texas seems to be leading the way into the pit.

Way to go, McLeroy.

Clueless in Texas

Mar 27th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
6 comments

TiktaalikWith the Texas Board of Education narrowly voting yesterday to keep the creationists from adding bogus language to their education standards, the religious conservative frenzy is at a peak. Not only were outrageous (and blatantly untrue) statements made during the school board’s meeting, but creationism-supporting commentators were out in force… and they just keep coming, each one showing just how well they can ignore evidence and misunderstand issues.

The example I ran across today is from Don McDonald, a guest columnist at the Waco Tribune-Herald. His editorial, titled Evolution crowd is censoring science, claims that by disallowing the proposed “strengths and weaknesses” language, the school board is squelching academic freedom and censoring science.

It is heartening to see that in January, the State Board of Education upheld academic freedom when learning evolution by crafting science standards that require students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for evolution, and asking students to consider “the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Two things come immediately to mind here. First, as Kenneth Miller enthusiastically and eloquently points out, everything in science should be critically examined. That’s what science is all about. Scientific theories change, live, and die by the examination of new evidence. It’s one of the things that makes the scientific method so wonderfully effective at explaining the natural world.

Second, given that all science should be critically examined, why was the proposed language focusing only on evolution? What about astronomy? What about chemistry? What about geology? The reason, of course, is that the language is specifically focused on evolution because it’s being used as a creationist weapon. There is no reason, other than religious zealotry, to use that kind of language focused solely on evolution.

By supporting these amendments, the board supported developing critical thinking skills among students. Anything less than analysis, evaluation, and free discussion of arguments for and against any theory amounts to censorship, and censorship never serves the advancement of science.

The first sentence is bogus for the reasons I already mentioned. The second sentence is almost perfect. The phrase “free discussion of arguments” is far too open to be of any use. Perhaps the “free discussion of evidence” might be better? McDonald is trying to make the point that any alternative ideas to evolution should be given discussion time, regardless of their scientific merit (ie… creationism). However, allowing discussion time for any alternative ideas will only serve to confuse students as to what real science is, and would completely waste valueable and preciously-limited time for real science education.

Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments say nothing of creationism or intelligent design. They are about exploring and discovering science.

The amendments really don’t say anything specifically about creationism or intelligent design. However, what other purpose could there be to focusing solely on evolution? Given the history of the creationism and intelligent design “movement,” it’s blatantly evident that the goal of the language is to target evolution and attempt to cast doubt on a theory that has been tested and challenged for more than 150 years… yet has held up under such intense scrutiny without scarcely a blemish. Details about evolution have changed over the years due to additional evidence and study, but the basic premise has remained intact since its inception.

The creationist attempts to throw doubt on evolution and to introduce supernatural explanations for life’s progression are becoming more and more transparent and pathetic… yet they continue, nonetheless. The phrases “teach the controversy” and “only a theory” have become dogmatic mantras of the unscientific and uneducated. The same long-since-debunked issues come up repeatedly (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting proteins, etc) as “proof” that evolution is not valid. The same tired rhetoric is used over and over, ad nauseum, in an attempt to disguise the religious intent of creationism and ID supporters.

Yet, with all the effort put forth by these anti-intellectual snake-oil salesmen, one thing is glaringly missing.

Evidence.

They have none. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. There is no evidence to support creationism. Not a single piece of evidence exists. Their sole strategy is to attempt to discredit evolution so that they can claim “God did it” as the “obvious” alternative. That’s all they have and that’s all they will ever have. It’s called the “God of the gaps” argument… if we can’t explain it, it must be God.

If they want to believe that, they are free to do so. They can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together. They can believe in talking snakes and virgin births and resurrections as devoutly as they want. They can believe that life was created by an “intelligent designer” and raise their hands to the heavens in tribute.

But do not try to pass it off as science.

Creationism in School… the PZ Myers Way

Mar 10th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers posted about how creationism should be taught in the classroom. I assumed that he didn’t mean it in the same way that creationists mean it, but his version was even better than I anticipated (Sorry, PZ. I won’t make that mistake again!). Here’s my favorite paragraph from his article.

A lesson plan that includes creationism should plainly show that experiment and observation have irrefutably demonstrated that it is now a splintered pile of cack-minded gobshite, wrecked by a century and a half of discovery, and that its supporters now are reduced to pathetically feeble rationalizations that rely almost entirely on people’s emotional dependence on the legitimacy of their religious beliefs. A science class isn’t the place to rip into airy-fairy religiosity — we have other venues for that — but it should uncompromisingly demolish every attempt to link natural, material events to pious metaphysics. If a student comes out of such a class believing that maybe there is still something to the Genesis explanation of the origins of life, then the instructor has not done her job. Her job was to explain with science how the world works, and if anyone wants to smuggle in the seven days and the magic fruit tree and the talking snake, it should be so the teacher can show the students that that is not how it works.

That’s just golden.

There are some great comments following his article as well. I usually try to read most of them, as they are frequently insightful and/or entertaining. Here’s a great one from Steve Jeffers.

As the British comedian Chris Addison says, teaching creationism in science classes is like teaching Narnia in geography. If you’re learning Spanish, you don’t learn a load of words that aren’t Spanish but sound like they might be.

I just finished reading 40 Days and 40 Nights by Matthew Chapman (a great read, by the way), which is a book about the Dover, PA trial in 2005. At the end of the book, Chapman says that, after attending the trial, he supports teaching Intelligent Design in Biology class… for essentially the same reasons that PZ Myers does.

If science is taught well, it is taught critically. Any critical examination of  Creationism and Intelligent Design will point a scorchingly white hot spotlight on the complete vapidness of their claims. Perhaps that should be the new direction that biology teachers should take. It could end up being a waste of time, but it also might illuminate the path of critical thinking, the scientific method, and rationality for students. Teaching students how to weed out bad science or pseudo-science from real science would do wonders to improve the anti-intellectualism that has thrived in this country for years now.

I don’t know if using Creationism and Intelligent Design as fodder in Biology classes is the way to do that or not, but it’s an interesting idea.

I wonder what Bill Buckingham would think?

(Bill Buckingham was the school board member in Dover who spearheaded the ID curriculum proposal)

Neil deGrasse Tyson on ID and Fine Tuning

Feb 25th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I just came across this today. Neil deGrasse Tyson is speaking about intelligent design, including the “fine tuning” argument for the existence of God. He’s not so much debunking it as he is making fun of it. It’s been debunked by most rational people and the court system, so that would just be a rehash. Tyson joyfully ridicules the absurdity of both ID and the fine-tuning argument with examples that highlight the ridiculousness of each. It’s about five minutes long and very entertaining.

A little bit of humor

Feb 13th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I was talking to a friend a couple days ago about some new books I’d just received from Amazon. I got Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller and Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. He doesn’t really follow all the “Intelligent Design” shenanigans, so when I told him that one of the books was a sort of thrashing of ID.

He said, “Man… isn’t that horse deader than SeaBiscuit?”

I replied that sadly, it was not.

He said, “Maybe it got resurrected. It died, lay in a cave for three days, and then came back out.”

Laughter ensued.

Bunk

Jan 14th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I’ve been following the John Freshwater trial, mostly via the write-ups by Richard B. Hoppe over at The Panda’s Thumb, but also through following some other articles on the case. For those of you unfamiliar, John Freshwater is a 8th grade science teacher in Mount Vernon who is accused of teaching Creationism and burning crosses on students using a Tesla Coil. I’m a bit skeptical about the crosses after seeing pictures and reading about the trial, but the “teaching Creationism” accusation seems to be spot on based on the evidence so far. The trial isn’t over, though, so no jumping to conclusions.

What I found blog-worthy tonight was a writeup by Lee Duigon on The Chalcedon Foundation’s website. Mr. Duigon focuses mostly on the branding issue, which is fair since that is one of the accusations levied against Freshwater. He starts by showing some early reactions from a number of sources about the branding issue and they (as one would expect, sadly) over-react in a grand fashion based on little evidence. Assuming Mr. Duigon is disgusted by this type of “string him up” reaction, I share his disgust.

I don’t have all the facts of the case. Nobody does at this point and the case is still ongoing. However, based on Freshwater’s reputation, my guess would be that he’s a good guy and probably a good teacher and there isn’t really any kind of underhanded conspiracy that he’s heading up to delude students. I don’t agree with teaching creationism (or intelligent design… same thing) in a science class, but I doubt Freshwater is any kind of monster.

However, there is some side commentary in Mr. Duigon’s article that shows a lack of understanding about science and the scientific process.

(more…)

Newer Posts →