The gradual physical changes over time in evolution's determined and boringly predictable processes has nothing to do with mathematics
KINGSTON, R.I. ? There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island
His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is ?impeccable,? said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross?s dissertation adviser. ?He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.?
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a ?young earth creationist? ? he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one ?paradigm? for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, ?that I am separating the different paradigms.?
He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. ?People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,? he said. ?What?s that to anybody else??
But not everyone is happy with that approach. ?People go somewhat bananas when they hear about this,? said Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geosciences at Rhode Island.
In theory, scientists look to nature for answers to questions about nature, and test those answers with experiment and observation. For Biblical literalists, Scripture is the final authority. As a creationist raised in an evangelical household and a paleontologist who said he was ?just captivated? as a child by dinosaurs and fossils, Dr. Ross embodies conflicts between these two approaches. The conflicts arise often these days, particularly as people debate the teaching of evolution.
And, for some, his case raises thorny philosophical and practical questions. May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?
Those are ?darned near imponderable issues,? said John W. Geissman, who has considered them as a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico. For example, Dr. Geissman said, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a geophysicist on staff, John R. Baumgardner, who is an authority on the earth?s mantle ? and also a young earth creationist.
If researchers like Dr. Baumgardner do their work ?without any form of interjection of personal dogma,? Dr. Geissman said, ?I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ?O.K., you earned what you earned.? ?
Others say the crucial issue is not whether Dr. Ross deserved his degree but how he intends to use it.
In a telephone interview, Dr. Ross said his goal in studying at secular institutions ?was to acquire the training that would make me a good paleontologist, regardless of which paradigm I was using.?
Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.
?We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity,? he said. ?I don?t require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required.?
But he has also written and spoken on scientific subjects, and with a creationist bent. While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion, a rapid diversification of animal life that occurred about 500 million years ago.
Online information about the DVD identifies Dr. Ross as ?pursuing a Ph.D. in geosciences? at the University of Rhode Island. It is this use of a secular credential to support creationist views that worries many scientists.
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a private group on the front line of the battle for the teaching of evolution, said fundamentalists who capitalized on secular credentials ?to miseducate the public? were doing a disservice.
* 1
* 2
Next Page »
KINGSTON, R.I. ? There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island
His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is ?impeccable,? said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross?s dissertation adviser. ?He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.?
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a ?young earth creationist? ? he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one ?paradigm? for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, ?that I am separating the different paradigms.?
He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. ?People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,? he said. ?What?s that to anybody else??
But not everyone is happy with that approach. ?People go somewhat bananas when they hear about this,? said Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geosciences at Rhode Island.
In theory, scientists look to nature for answers to questions about nature, and test those answers with experiment and observation. For Biblical literalists, Scripture is the final authority. As a creationist raised in an evangelical household and a paleontologist who said he was ?just captivated? as a child by dinosaurs and fossils, Dr. Ross embodies conflicts between these two approaches. The conflicts arise often these days, particularly as people debate the teaching of evolution.
And, for some, his case raises thorny philosophical and practical questions. May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?
Those are ?darned near imponderable issues,? said John W. Geissman, who has considered them as a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico. For example, Dr. Geissman said, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a geophysicist on staff, John R. Baumgardner, who is an authority on the earth?s mantle ? and also a young earth creationist.
If researchers like Dr. Baumgardner do their work ?without any form of interjection of personal dogma,? Dr. Geissman said, ?I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ?O.K., you earned what you earned.? ?
Others say the crucial issue is not whether Dr. Ross deserved his degree but how he intends to use it.
In a telephone interview, Dr. Ross said his goal in studying at secular institutions ?was to acquire the training that would make me a good paleontologist, regardless of which paradigm I was using.?
Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.
?We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity,? he said. ?I don?t require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required.?
But he has also written and spoken on scientific subjects, and with a creationist bent. While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion, a rapid diversification of animal life that occurred about 500 million years ago.
Online information about the DVD identifies Dr. Ross as ?pursuing a Ph.D. in geosciences? at the University of Rhode Island. It is this use of a secular credential to support creationist views that worries many scientists.
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a private group on the front line of the battle for the teaching of evolution, said fundamentalists who capitalized on secular credentials ?to miseducate the public? were doing a disservice.
* 1
* 2
Next Page »
PERA reintroduced in 110th Congress
(By Rees Lloyd, Banning Record Gazette, February 9, 2007)
The controversial Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) which almost passed in the 109th Congress with grassroots support including the 2.7-million member American Legion, largest wartime veterans organization in the world, has been reintroduced in the new 110th Congress.
PERA, formally known as the Veterans Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals And Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2005, has been introduced in the Senate as S. 415 by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and twelve co-sponsors; and in the House as HR 725 by Rep. Dan Burton and 43 co-sponsors.
PERA, S. 415, and HR 725, would amend federal laws to withdraw the authority of judges to award attorney fees at taxpayer-expense to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment Clause against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments or other symbols of America's history which have a religious aspect.
The House of Representatives passed PERA, H.R. 2679, sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) in the 109th Congress 244-173.
However, Sen. Brownback's identical PERA legislation, S. 3696, stalled in the Senate when Sen. Arlen Specter declined to call it up for a vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee before the election recess and time ran out before the end of the 109th Congress.
Sen. Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, held hearings on PERA, S.3696, last year, as did Rep. Hostettler in the House.
Evidence was introduced there that the ACLU has reaped millions in profits in Establishment Clause cases by court-ordered, taxpayer-paid attorney fees, although the ACLU in fact has no actual attorney fees as its cases are handled by staff attorneys or pro bono volunteer attorneys who are forbidden from accepting fees by the ACLU's own rules.
Brownback also elicited testimony from the ACLU's strongest backer in hearings on PERA, the American Jewish Congress, that it is in fact true, as alleged in the testimony of The American Legion, that the ACLU has used the threat of imposition of attorney fees by judges as "a club" to compel cities and other local bodies, including school boards, to surrender to ACLU's secular-cleansing demands.
"It is not fair for taxpayers to pay the legal bills for groups like the ACLU," said Brown Back in introducing PERA, S. 415. "Currently many small towns comply with the demands of the ACLU rather than risk going to trial and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the ACLU if they lose the case."
American Legion National Commander Paul Morin, in his recent visitations to American Legion Posts in California, emphasized that the American Legion's legislative priorities in defense of American values in the 110th Congress are "passage of the Flag Amendment, which lost by but one vote in the 109th, and passage of PERA."
(Editor's Note: Civil Rights Attorney Rees Lloyd is Commander of American Legion District 21 and was appointed by Past National Commander Thomas Bock to testify as the representative of The American Legion in support of PERA in House and Senate hearings in the 109th Congress.)
Then I assert that you know nothing about cladistics or trend series analyses, not to mention Taylor series or Lagrangian expansions, factor analyses, and Spectral analyses (a stat term , not chemistry).
In theory, scientists look to nature for answers to questions about nature, and test those answers with experiment and observation.
Science and Mathematics tell me that God must exist. But I don't believe it.
Salvadore Dali.
Some people can sleep soundly even while basing their entire careers on a con-job.
(American Legion Press Release, February 1, 2007)
The leader of the nation's largest wartime veterans' organization today applauded Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan) for reintroducing the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals and Other Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2007 (S. 415) in the U.S. Senate, a measure that would stop the award of taxpayer dollars in legal fees to groups filing lawsuits against veterans' memorials and public displays of religion.
"Legal attacks against veterans' memorials that display religious symbols must not be rewarded by judges reaching into taxpayer pockets to enlarge the coffers of organizations such as the ACLU to encourage more lawsuits against our traditions and memorials," said American Legion National Commander Paul A. Morin.
The Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals and Other Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2007 would amend U.S. statutes to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by state and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees. A similar measure passed overwhelmingly in the House last year but the Senate version was not brought up for a vote prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
Most Americans are unaware that activist groups, such as the ACLU, recover hundreds of thousands of dollars from state and local governments each year based on a provision of the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, which was intended to assist underprivileged plaintiffs in obtaining legal representation in civil rights cases.
Some of these cases include lawsuits against veterans' memorials, the Boy Scouts of America, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious heritage. Last year in a testimony to the Senate, Rees Lloyd, former ACLU attorney and Department of California District 21 Commander, provided these examples of ACLU awards of taxpayer money: Approximately $950,000 in attorney's fees was awarded to the ACLU in a settlement with the City of San Diego in its lawsuit to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park.
In the Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments case, the ACLU received $500,000. In a recent "Intelligent Design" case against a school board, the ACLU received $2,000,000 in attorney's fees by order of a judge--although the law firm that represented the ACLU informed the court and public that it had acted pro bono and waived any attorney's fees; these fees were pure profit to the ACLU.
"If the ACLU feels it has to bring lawsuits that most Americans abhor, it should at least have the decency not to assess these to the taxpayers to make a profit," Morin said.
"It is not fair for taxpayers to pay the legal bills for groups like the ACLU," said Brownback. "Currently many towns comply with the demands of the ACLU rather than risk going to trial and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the ACLU if they lose the case.
Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.
"The American Legion will do everything in its power to educate the public about this abusive practice and why this law must be passed," Morin said.
"Legal attacks against veterans' memorials that display religious symbols must not be rewarded by judges reaching into taxpayer pockets to enlarge the coffers of organizations such as the ACLU to encourage more lawsuits against our traditions and memorials," said American Legion National Commander Paul A. Morin.
"Legal attacks against veterans' memorials that display religious symbols must not be rewarded by judges reaching into taxpayer pockets to enlarge the coffers of organizations such as the ACLU to encourage more lawsuits against our traditions and memorials," said American Legion National Commander Paul A. Morin.
Dover, Pennsylvania:
The Battle for Our Children
a book review by Tim Callahan
When I said I thought it would be kind of good to learn more about evolution, some other kids started calling me Monkey Girl. ?'Cause they said God made them, but that I must've come from chimps.
The quote above is from the 14-year-old daughter of Tammy Kitzmiller, one of the chief plaintiffs in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the court case that decisively stopped creationism from being taught as science in public schools in Pennsylvania ?- and, hopefully, the nation. It is particularly apt as the source of the title of this exceptional book, since some of the predominant character traits of fundamentalist creationists are a blatant and pervasive bullying nastiness, contempt for opposing views and those who express them, and general meanness of spirit. Perhaps we could pardon the ill-bred behavior of those claiming to be creatures of God in the quote above, since it is a trait not uncommon in teenagers. However, as Edward Humes reveals so powerfully in Monkey Girl, contemptuous bullying, name-calling, and character assassination were also the common tactics and behavior of the adult advocates of creationism in Dover, as well as those from around the nation who supported their ill-conceived assault on science.
The attack on evolution was headed by two board members ?- Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham ?- both of whom wanted creationism taught in the district's schools. Humes reveals that Buckingham is a retired crusading police officer who converted from Catholicism to evangelical Christianity at a time of personal crisis. He also attributes much of Buckingham's bullying behavior on the board to mood swings he suffered as a result of addiction to the pain-killer OxyContin. At one point Buckingham stated: "Separation of Church and State is a myth. There is no separation." And: "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such." As the board was beginning to formulate their creationist policy, Alan Bonsell told Bryan Rehm, a young science teacher at Dover High School, that the earth was less than 10,000 years old and that, "man didn't evolve from monkeys."
Further, Buckingham wanted the school district to buy 220 copies of the ID biology book Of Pandas and People. When Superintendent Richard Nilsen balked at purchasing the book, Buckingham revealed that he controlled enough board votes to block approval of the approved biology text and would not release them unless the board agreed to purchase Of Pandas and People. He told teachers and opposing board members, "If we don't get our book, you don't get yours."
The board's tactics became increasingly dictatorial from that point on. The new science curriculum was arbitrarily determined by the board with no input from the science faculty. When the possibility was raised at a public meeting that the science teachers might ask for legal representation from the district's regular solicitor, the firm of Stock and Leader, Heather Geesay, another of the creationists on the board, said, "If they requested Stock and Leader, they should be fired. They agreed to the book and changes in curriculum." This left teachers in a state of shock that a board member would dare suggest that teachers could be fired for seeking legal counsel. In addition, as Bertha Spahr, veteran biology teacher, reminded the board, Geesay was absolutely wrong: The teachers hadn't had any input on the curriculum and had agreed to nothing. In the wake of the rancorous meeting, Casey Brown and her husband Jeff resigned from the board along with Noel Wenrich. The three were the only dissenters opposing the creationist majority. The board then appointed four new creationist members to fill the vacancies. Any applicant who had experience in education or did not voice support for ID was summarily rejected by the Board. When science teacher Brian Rehm applied, Buckingham insultingly asked him in public if he had ever been accused of child abuse or molestation. With a complete slate of creationists, the board now had no need either to compromise or, it would seem, to even treat their opponents with a modicum of civility.
The political climate at the outset of Dover did not favor the furtherance of teaching evolution. In the wake of Bush's reelection at the end of 2004, a school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin imposed a policy to criticize evolution. South Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas introduced similar, statewide, legislation. In California, a coalition of Christian schools sued the University of California for violating the Constitutional rights of students by refusing to give credit for creationist biology classes. Florida introduced legislation making it possible for students to sue professors for offending their religious beliefs. In Missouri, conservative legislator Cynthia Davis introduced legislation requiring biology textbooks used in the state to include a chapter on alternatives to evolution.
Against this political background, the plaintiffs in Dover went forward with their case in the fall of 2005. They included Brian and Christy Rehm, both teachers; Deborah Fenimore and Joel Leib, who had a son in middle school; Cynthia Sneath, parent; Steven Stough, middle-school teacher whose daughter was in eighth grade, Julie Smith, parent; Aralene "Barrie" Callahan, former school board member, along with her husband Frederick, Beth Eveland, parent; and Tammy Kitzmiller, whose daughter had been taunted with the epithet "Monkey Girl."
In response to the lawsuit, the Dover board sought legal counsel from the Thomas More Law Center, whose mission statement reads:
Our ministry was inspired by the recognition that the issues of the cultural war being waged across America, issues such as abortion, pornography, school prayer, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings, are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts. These court decisions, largely insulated from the democratic process, have been inordinately influenced by legal advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which seek to systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation.
The Center is largely supported by Thomas Monaghan, the Domino Pizza magnate. Its lawyers helped draft legislation banning partial birth abortion in Michigan and all abortion in South Dakota, and advised Jeb Bush how to intervene in the Terri Schaivo case. It has also sued cash-strapped small cities for refusing to erect nativity scenes, and a Michigan school district for failing to allow an anti-homosexual speaker during "diversity week." The Center also defended an anti-abortion web site that had posted names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Richard Thompson, chief legal counsel from the Thomas More Law Center decided on a strategy to make Bill Buckingham the fall guy, a loose cannon pushing an agenda not necessarily supported by the entire board. That Thompson was willing to sacrifice one of the board members was a forecast of impending disunity among the creationists. The Discovery Institute was so unenthusiastic about fighting the suit that Thompson said of them, "As soon as there's a conflict, they will back away." Indeed, the day the lawsuit was filed a press release from Discovery Institute appeared on their web site criticizing the Dover policy for its incoherence and dubious constitutionality.
In Dover itself public support for the board began to wane following the filing of the suit. Noel Wenrich, who had left the board along with the Browns, quipped that an overwhelming percentage of residents liked the ID policy, as long as it cost them nothing. "But not if taxes go up. Then it's 30 percent."
The defendants themselves also appeared to be abandoning their former bullying, no-compromise support for putting God into the science curriculum: When deposed prior to the trial, Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins denied ever mentioning creationism at any meeting, which contradicted witnesses and press reports. Board members also insisted they didn't see ID as religion.
Further, the ID camp began to unravel. After the Discovery Institute pulled its support, chief ID defendant William Dembski refused to testify, as did his ID colleagues Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell, all of whom demanded to have their own personal attorneys to look after their interests in the trial. The Thomas More Law Center refused. As a result of the impasse, all three were out as expert witnesses for the defense. Eventually, Meyer and Campbell were reconciled and agreed to testify without having their own lawyers; but Dembski remained intractable and had to threaten to sue the Thomas More Center to be paid for more than 100 hours he had already spent on the case. At $200 an hour, this meant he was eventually paid more than $20,000 for not testifying.
From this point on the case went steadily downhill for the defense. Jon Buell, publisher of Pandas, tried to intervene in the case on the side of the defense. When cross-examined by plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild, Buell stated that he wanted to make sure that Pandas wasn't represented as a creationist text. Rothschild confounded him by producing a letter Buell had written that stated: "Our commitment is to see the monopoly of naturalistic curriculum in the schools broken. Presently school curriculum reflects deep hostility to traditional Christian views and values, and indoctrinates students to this mind-set through subtle, but persuasive arguments." The letter also said how important it was to stop schools from denying the notion that man was created in God's image. Rothschild asked Buell how he could write such a letter in regards to the book and not have any idea that Pandas would be viewed as a creationist text. Buell didn't answer, and the judge rejected his intervention.
Following that, the presentation of witnesses for the plaintiffs proved devastating and was followed by even more ruinous cross-examination of the defense witnesses, both the ID experts and the Dover school board members. Ken Miller, biologist and coauthor of the standard biology text known aas the Dragonfly Book, pointed out that exclusion of the supernatural from science was unavoidable and correct. Miller also pointed out that pseudogenes ?- random bits of DNA that don't code for viable protein amino acid sequences and act merely as genetic place holders ?- are an effective proof of shared ancestry. Since pseudogenes are not subject to natural selection, they don't change greatly. Hence, humans and chimpanzees share common pseudogenes. This is a test of evolution. Were chimps and humans independently designed, they would not likely share the same pseudogenes (or even have pseudogenes, for that matter); and if humans and chimps did not share the same pseudogenes, then evolution would be falsified.
Perhaps most harmful to the ID case was the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a professor from Louisiana who had been attacked in very personal and insulting terms by the Discovery Institute, and whom the Thomas More Law Center had fought to keep off the witness list.. Forrest demonstrated convincingly that Of Pandas and People was originally a creationist text. In the 1986 draft Pandas said that creation means that life forms appear abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator. In the 1993 draft, the words "creation" and "creator" were replaced respectively by "intelligent design" and "designer." Forrest also dredged up quotes by Discovery Institute leading lights Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, illuminating the "wedge strategy" and showing the aim of Discovery was to teach creationism as a tool for spreading the Christian faith. Dembski, for example, was quoted as saying: "Intelligent Design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."
The cross examination of Michael Behe proved to be devastating to the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design. For example, Behe had said that a population of one billion bacteria would take 100 million generations to produce a novel protein feature through Darwinian evolution. At first, this seems so astronomical as to be an insurmountable barrier. However, Rothschild got Behe to admit that growing 10,000 generations of bacteria in a lab would take two years. Therefore, 100 million generations would take about 20,000 years, an eyeblink in geological time. Finally, Behe was forced to concede that there are about 10 quadrillion bacteria in one ton of soil ?- about 10 million times as many bacteria as Behe said would require 100 million generations to produce a novel protein.
Behe had also claimed that his theory of irreducible complexity was testable in a laboratory. Simply take a species of bacteria lacking a flagellum, place it in an environment that would favor mobile organisms, grow it for 10,000 generations ?- again, a mere two years ?- and see if a flagellum began to evolve. However, Behe had never done this. Rothschild asked him why he hadn't performed this make or break experiment, one that could falsify either evolution or ID. Behe responded: "It would not be fruitful."
So devastating was the trial to the defendants' cause that four days after it ended, before Judge Jones had even handed down his verdict, the voters in Dover went to the polls and voted the entire board out of office. With predictable petulance, Pat Robertson said on the 700 Club in response: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city, and don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin."
On December 20, 2005 Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. He found that the board's ID policy was unconstitutional, that the board had sought to inject religion into the classroom, while undermining the teaching of science, and that intelligent design was a religious proposition, not science. He further characterized the Board's policy as "breathtaking inanity." For carrying out his duty of enforcing the law of the land, Judge Jones was subsequently vilified by the Discovery Institute, conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, the latter of whom wrote: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything on a silver platter."
Before the trial, Judge Jones, a Bush-appointed moderate Republican who once led an unsuccessful attempt to privatize Pennsylvania's state-owned liquor stores, was characterized by the Discovery Institute as one of their own. On William Dembski's web site, after listing Jones' conservative credentials, a pretrial posting confidently stated: "Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn't going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course, the ACLU will appeal. This won't be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too." It would appear that, in direct contradiction to what Coulter said of the trial, it was the religious right that expected a friendly court to hand them victory on a silver platter. Once Jones' ruling went against them, Discovery Institute labeled him a typically liberal "activist" judge.
While the trial in Dover will not bring about the demise of either creationism or ID, it may have set enough of a precedent to keep ID out of the public schools, at least for awhile. Monkey Girl is a fascinatingly detailed record of the creationist war on science, one that links national movements to their impacts on the lives of individuals and the education of our children.
A look at how Kansas' science standards would change
(Associated Press, February 13, 2007)
A look at some of the changes proposed for Kansas' science standards:
INTRODUCTION
_ 2005 Standards: "Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence of key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. ... We also emphasize that these science curriculum standards do not include intelligent design ..."
_ New Standards: This language is deleted.
_ Reasoning: The statements do not reflect mainstream science. The "credible evidence" was testimony from the leaders of the intelligent design movement, viewed as flawed by the scientists and educators proposing changes. They view the last statement as false, arguing that language in the text of the existing standards does in fact promote intelligent design, if not explicitly.
SCIENCE DEFINED
_ 2005: "Science is the systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to a more adequate explanation of natural phenomena."
_ New: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
_ Reasoning: The 2005 definition does not specifically limit science to the search for natural explanations - potentially allowing for supernatural explanations that can't be tested, according to those seeking changes.
ORIGIN OF SPECIES
Standard 3, Benchmark 2, life science for grades 8-12, the "additional specificity" meant to flesh out a requirement that a student understands evolution.
_ 2005: "Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary changes generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence."
_ New: The language is deleted.
_ Reasoning: The 2005 statements don't reflect mainstream science. Also, the idea that some systems are irreducibly complex is a key intelligent design argument.
ORIGIN OF LIFE
Standard 3, Benchmark 2, grades 8-12, the requirement that a student be able to explain both theories on the origin of life and criticisms of them.
_ 2005: "Some of the scientific criticisms including: a. the lack of empirical evidence for a 'primordial soup' or chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere. b. the lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems and the formation of proto-cells. c. the sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time the Earth first became habitable."
_ New: This language is deleted.
_ Reasoning: Many scientists view the 2005 language as a restatement of long-standing creationist arguments against evolution and contend they misstate the questions at the heart of the debate over the origins of life.
HISTORY OF SCIENCE
Standard 7, Benchmark 3, grades 8-12, the additional specificity meant to flesh out a requirement that a student understand the history of science.
_ 2005: "Modern science has been a successful enterprise that contributes to dramatic improvements in the human condition. Science has led to significant improvements in physical health and economic growth; however, modern science can sometimes be abused by scientists and policy makers, leading to significant negative consequences (e.g., the eugenics movements in America and Germany; the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and the scientific justifications of eugenics and racism."
_ New: The second, long sentence is deleted.
_ Reasoning: Those seeking the deletion argue that the second sentence singles out evolution because equally valid observations about how other scientific theories have been misused weren't included.
_ New: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
They are serious people and if you don't know what they are fighting for they surely do and it means a lot to them in lots of ways. It's the same for your side but you have no higher ideal as they have. All the ideals on your side can be traced back to something self-serving. And could that have made America great.
You're about as far from science there wande as it is possible to get short of a rain dance.
Just cause they have "religion" doesnt mean that theyact ethically and posses a moral "guide-on".
What you dont know about what made America great, would fill your mythical ark.
I know damn well what theyre fighting for, cause they once had it, CONTROL
Coming from spendi, Id consider that a "pat on the back" since spendi has no idea in hell what constitutes science or good writing. (might I mention art? without his throwing another tantrum?)
