Mark Oklahoma down as the first state to get caught up in the creationist "Academic Freedom" scam in the new year:
Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Gee, and what do all those topics have in common? Scientific problems? Nah. They inflame the religious sensibilities of those who believe humans were created special and ex nihilo by a supreme being for the purpose of inhabiting the planet and basically doing what we wish with it. This is why the resistance to the overwhelming scientific consensus on all of those issues is so markedly biased towards the religious, whatever sciency-looking trappings (ie, Intelligent Design) they may have attached to their views. Religion by any other name...
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The DI's Dover Historical Revisionism, and What it Means
Revisionist history is the stock in trade of cranks, and the Discovery Institute is no exception, as Casey Luskin's recent series on dover illustrates. In it, Luskin attempts to misrepresent the refutations of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument offered by Ken Miller, who offers his own counter point here. For a detailed summary, Nick Matzke provides Essentially, Luskin claims that Behe's IC argument with regard to the blood clotting cascade only referred to a subset of it, when, as the facts presented by Miller and Matzke plainly show, it applied to the entire thing, as well as each subset.
As always with ID, which is politics, not science, the real question here is motivation. Why would the DI be dredging up this highlight from a colossal loss and waving it in their fans faces? Simple. They need those about to be taken in by the scam to not see going to court with them as a sure loser. All the school districts in states like Louisiana who have versions of the phony "academic freedom" bills should take note. The next million dollar legal bill a la Dover is coming to a school near you.
As always with ID, which is politics, not science, the real question here is motivation. Why would the DI be dredging up this highlight from a colossal loss and waving it in their fans faces? Simple. They need those about to be taken in by the scam to not see going to court with them as a sure loser. All the school districts in states like Louisiana who have versions of the phony "academic freedom" bills should take note. The next million dollar legal bill a la Dover is coming to a school near you.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Texas Science Curriculum Final Proposal
It looks like we are headed to victory in the battle over Texas science standards. Gone are the old "strengths and weaknesses" stealth creationist nonsense.
...the new plan makes it clear that supernatural explanations like creationism and intelligent design have no place in public classrooms, said Dan Quinn with the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonprofit group that opposes religious influence on public education.
The third and final draft says students should be able to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations. There is also a new requirement that students should be able "to evaluate models according to their limitations in representing biological objects or events," but it would take a mind-boggling leap for anyone to interpret that as applying to evolution, Quinn said, particularly when viewed through the plan’s new definition of science.
The old definition — which included phrases like "a way of learning about nature" and "may not answer all questions" — has been replaced with a definition from the National Academy of Sciences. It states that science involves using evidence to form explanations and make predictions that can be measured and tested. It also warns that questions on subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science.
Let's hope there isn't some last minute shuffling as there has been in the past.
...the new plan makes it clear that supernatural explanations like creationism and intelligent design have no place in public classrooms, said Dan Quinn with the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonprofit group that opposes religious influence on public education.
The third and final draft says students should be able to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations. There is also a new requirement that students should be able "to evaluate models according to their limitations in representing biological objects or events," but it would take a mind-boggling leap for anyone to interpret that as applying to evolution, Quinn said, particularly when viewed through the plan’s new definition of science.
The old definition — which included phrases like "a way of learning about nature" and "may not answer all questions" — has been replaced with a definition from the National Academy of Sciences. It states that science involves using evidence to form explanations and make predictions that can be measured and tested. It also warns that questions on subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science.
Let's hope there isn't some last minute shuffling as there has been in the past.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Chess Gender Advantage Explained
We've all wondered about the male dominance in chess, and whether it was genetic or just due to greater interest in chess among men. Merim Bilalic from Oxford University decided to do a statistical analysis of the ELO ratings and find out:
"Every serious player has an objective rating - the Elo rating - that measures their skill based on their results against other players. Bilalic looked at a set of data encompassing all known German players - over 120,000 individuals, of whom 113,000 are men. He directly compared the top 100 players of either gender and used a mathematical model to work out the expected difference in their Elo ratings, given the size of the groups they belong to.
The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you'd see that difference close substantially.
Overall, the women actually performed slightly better than the model predicted and the top three in particular were playing well ahead of expectations. From positions 3 to 73, the men have a small but consistent advantage, wielding a competitive superiority that slightly exceed what statistics would predict. From the 80th pair onwards, the advantage shifts back to the fairer sex."
Now if only someone could do a similar study of poker players. I'm convinced women would actually be superior poker players to men were their interest in the game similar to ours.
"Every serious player has an objective rating - the Elo rating - that measures their skill based on their results against other players. Bilalic looked at a set of data encompassing all known German players - over 120,000 individuals, of whom 113,000 are men. He directly compared the top 100 players of either gender and used a mathematical model to work out the expected difference in their Elo ratings, given the size of the groups they belong to.
The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you'd see that difference close substantially.
Overall, the women actually performed slightly better than the model predicted and the top three in particular were playing well ahead of expectations. From positions 3 to 73, the men have a small but consistent advantage, wielding a competitive superiority that slightly exceed what statistics would predict. From the 80th pair onwards, the advantage shifts back to the fairer sex."
Now if only someone could do a similar study of poker players. I'm convinced women would actually be superior poker players to men were their interest in the game similar to ours.
Monday, December 29, 2008
More Evidence Abstinence Pledges Don't Work
A new study of almost 1,000 high school students published in the journal Pediatrics concludes:
"Virginity pledgers and similar non-pledgers don't differ in the rates of vaginal, oral or anal sex or any other sexual behavior...pledgers are less likely than similar non-pledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control."
Even more disturbing, the study found that students didn't exactly see the pledge as binding:
"The study also found that, five years after taking a virginity pledge, more than 80 percent of pledgers denied ever making such a promise."
It goes on to say that religious teens tend to delay having sex, but it is unrelated to any pledges they may take. Prior studies that concluded the effectiveness of abstinence programs failed to take this into account, which led to an overconfidence in the value of the pledges. In other words, abstinence programs are self-selecting: they get teens who weren't going to have sex anyway to take the pledge, and then they give the pledge the credit. It is like the witch doctor who thinks it takes both arsenic and a magic spell to kill someone.
"Virginity pledgers and similar non-pledgers don't differ in the rates of vaginal, oral or anal sex or any other sexual behavior...pledgers are less likely than similar non-pledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control."
Even more disturbing, the study found that students didn't exactly see the pledge as binding:
"The study also found that, five years after taking a virginity pledge, more than 80 percent of pledgers denied ever making such a promise."
It goes on to say that religious teens tend to delay having sex, but it is unrelated to any pledges they may take. Prior studies that concluded the effectiveness of abstinence programs failed to take this into account, which led to an overconfidence in the value of the pledges. In other words, abstinence programs are self-selecting: they get teens who weren't going to have sex anyway to take the pledge, and then they give the pledge the credit. It is like the witch doctor who thinks it takes both arsenic and a magic spell to kill someone.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Anti-Atheist Christmas Hysteria
Christmas brings much with regularity, presents, lots of job opportunities for fat old guys with full beards and a taste for red clothes, and of course, hypersensitive Christian theocrats distorting history and playing the victim card when other points of view wish to stand on the same stage they so arrogantly claim as solely their own. Typical is this column from Mary Graber, which in the spirit of Ann Coulter's science chapter in Godless could be described as wall to wall error, containing every flawed argument the theocrats have.
"Tis the season. . . for atheist Grinches to display their hatred of Christmas by trying to stomp out one of the most visible displays of Christianity in a country founded, and still operating on, Judeo-Christian principles."
Such wonderful fiction, and such an illustration of a lack of perspective. Atheists do not hate Christmas. Most of us celebrate family, friends and the gift-giving tradition the same as most Americans. The issue atheists and other defenders of the separation of church and state have with Christmas, and which Graber is determined to dodge, is the appearance of state-sanctioned religion in the form of Christian displays on government property to the exclusion of other views. There have been no atheist objections to manger scenes on church lawns, or private property of citizens, no atheist-led manger burnings or Santa muggings.
It is telling that Graber and others use such histrionic descriptions of the situation. They are the equivalent of the spoiled child who is so used to getting their way all the time, so that being forced to share the stage, or worse yet give it up, seems like a horrible imposition to them.
It doesn't help their lack of perspective any to keep chanting the revisionist history that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, a claim so patently, absurdly false it is remarkable that it needs fisking. Throughout the Constitution, one will find not a single reference to Christianity, Jesus, God, or the Ten Commandments. In fact, far from being the basis of our laws, were the Ten Commandments made the law of a state, they would be struck down as unconstitutional. Under the principles on which America was founded, we may worship as many, or no, gods as we wish, be as unholy as we like on the sabbath, use any word we wish in vain, disrespect our parents (though hopefully with good cause), and covet our neighbors' goods and wives. Only the commandments against theft and murder are represented in our law, as they are in every other religion and society on earth. It is Christian arrogance to claim them solely as their own.
"While the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) aims its legal and propaganda guns at Christianity, some like CNN’s Mike Galanos call their attacks as directed on “people of faith.” On their website, FFRF titled this CNN segment “FFRF vs. Christian Crybabies.” Although a menorah had been placed next to the Christmas display, it is Christians who are called “Crybabies.”"
If the shoe fits Mary. Christians are the overwhelming majority in the United States, dominating our culture and government. For you to pitch such a fit over tiny atheist displays and exercises of their first amendment rights reveals quite a spoiled, childish perspective. That many of these displays speak of "religion" and not "Christianity" reveals your arrogance in assuming they must be talking about you, and not say, Muslims, even where such a reference is as obvious as it was in the 9/11 NY Times ads:
"FFRF likes to use other occasions for their attacks. For the seventh anniversary of 9/11, FFRF placed an ad in the New York Times with the Twin Towers skyline, headlined “Imagine a World Free From Religion.” They warned, “American liberty is menaced not only by religious terrorism from abroad. Consider the growing threat of religious fanaticism here at home: The relentless war against secular values, gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research and the teaching of evolution in public schools.” No mention was made of “the growing threat” of Islam, like separate Islamic public schools and various efforts to teach Islam in schools. Instead, the group goes after Christians who object to the teaching of an atheistic Darwinian doctrine to the exclusion of other scientific theories like intelligent design. "
Earth to Mary. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Muslims doing Allah's work and looking forward to their 72 virgins in heaven. There can be no mistake: religion, the Muslim religion, caused 9/11. However, as a general threat to the freedom of religion in America, Islam pales in comparison to theocratic Christians, again for the simple reason that there are so many more Christians here. It is Christians like Graber, not Muslims, who are pushing the phony "Academic Freedom" bills pushing the pseudoscience of intelligent design, and attempting to suppress the sound science of evolutionary theory (which is neither atheistic, nor doctrinaire). Graber's own rhetoric, particularly her revisionist history of the Christianity of the Nazis, gives her away as a propagandist.
Her final comment exposes this further:
"One needs to ask then why a group that claims to advocate “Freedom From Religion” selectively attacks the Christian religion. If they’re so proud of eliminating commencement prayers, why haven’t they questioned calls to prayer during Ramadan and footbaths for Muslims on campuses? Or what about prayer rooms in one our nation’s airports? What about this Stealth Jihad?"
Uh, because Muslims are a pimple on a flea compared to Christians when it comes to entanglement of church and state in this country. As for calls to prayer and other private expressions of religion, that's part of the freedom of religion we share in this country. Graber really needs a first amendment refresher. As with most Christian theocrats, she thinks only her religion should get special treatment, and to hell with anyone else's rights.
"Tis the season. . . for atheist Grinches to display their hatred of Christmas by trying to stomp out one of the most visible displays of Christianity in a country founded, and still operating on, Judeo-Christian principles."
Such wonderful fiction, and such an illustration of a lack of perspective. Atheists do not hate Christmas. Most of us celebrate family, friends and the gift-giving tradition the same as most Americans. The issue atheists and other defenders of the separation of church and state have with Christmas, and which Graber is determined to dodge, is the appearance of state-sanctioned religion in the form of Christian displays on government property to the exclusion of other views. There have been no atheist objections to manger scenes on church lawns, or private property of citizens, no atheist-led manger burnings or Santa muggings.
It is telling that Graber and others use such histrionic descriptions of the situation. They are the equivalent of the spoiled child who is so used to getting their way all the time, so that being forced to share the stage, or worse yet give it up, seems like a horrible imposition to them.
It doesn't help their lack of perspective any to keep chanting the revisionist history that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, a claim so patently, absurdly false it is remarkable that it needs fisking. Throughout the Constitution, one will find not a single reference to Christianity, Jesus, God, or the Ten Commandments. In fact, far from being the basis of our laws, were the Ten Commandments made the law of a state, they would be struck down as unconstitutional. Under the principles on which America was founded, we may worship as many, or no, gods as we wish, be as unholy as we like on the sabbath, use any word we wish in vain, disrespect our parents (though hopefully with good cause), and covet our neighbors' goods and wives. Only the commandments against theft and murder are represented in our law, as they are in every other religion and society on earth. It is Christian arrogance to claim them solely as their own.
"While the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) aims its legal and propaganda guns at Christianity, some like CNN’s Mike Galanos call their attacks as directed on “people of faith.” On their website, FFRF titled this CNN segment “FFRF vs. Christian Crybabies.” Although a menorah had been placed next to the Christmas display, it is Christians who are called “Crybabies.”"
If the shoe fits Mary. Christians are the overwhelming majority in the United States, dominating our culture and government. For you to pitch such a fit over tiny atheist displays and exercises of their first amendment rights reveals quite a spoiled, childish perspective. That many of these displays speak of "religion" and not "Christianity" reveals your arrogance in assuming they must be talking about you, and not say, Muslims, even where such a reference is as obvious as it was in the 9/11 NY Times ads:
"FFRF likes to use other occasions for their attacks. For the seventh anniversary of 9/11, FFRF placed an ad in the New York Times with the Twin Towers skyline, headlined “Imagine a World Free From Religion.” They warned, “American liberty is menaced not only by religious terrorism from abroad. Consider the growing threat of religious fanaticism here at home: The relentless war against secular values, gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research and the teaching of evolution in public schools.” No mention was made of “the growing threat” of Islam, like separate Islamic public schools and various efforts to teach Islam in schools. Instead, the group goes after Christians who object to the teaching of an atheistic Darwinian doctrine to the exclusion of other scientific theories like intelligent design. "
Earth to Mary. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Muslims doing Allah's work and looking forward to their 72 virgins in heaven. There can be no mistake: religion, the Muslim religion, caused 9/11. However, as a general threat to the freedom of religion in America, Islam pales in comparison to theocratic Christians, again for the simple reason that there are so many more Christians here. It is Christians like Graber, not Muslims, who are pushing the phony "Academic Freedom" bills pushing the pseudoscience of intelligent design, and attempting to suppress the sound science of evolutionary theory (which is neither atheistic, nor doctrinaire). Graber's own rhetoric, particularly her revisionist history of the Christianity of the Nazis, gives her away as a propagandist.
Her final comment exposes this further:
"One needs to ask then why a group that claims to advocate “Freedom From Religion” selectively attacks the Christian religion. If they’re so proud of eliminating commencement prayers, why haven’t they questioned calls to prayer during Ramadan and footbaths for Muslims on campuses? Or what about prayer rooms in one our nation’s airports? What about this Stealth Jihad?"
Uh, because Muslims are a pimple on a flea compared to Christians when it comes to entanglement of church and state in this country. As for calls to prayer and other private expressions of religion, that's part of the freedom of religion we share in this country. Graber really needs a first amendment refresher. As with most Christian theocrats, she thinks only her religion should get special treatment, and to hell with anyone else's rights.
Friday, December 26, 2008
MacNeil Documents the Death of IDEA Clubs
Allan MacNeil has done the legwork for us to show that the IDEA movement is essentially dead. For those of you who blinked and missed it, the IDEA clubs were the wave of the future for ID, so infamously noted by William Dembski in his rationalization of the Dover defeat:
"Even if ID is stifled among high school students (and with the Internet this is impossible), ID is of growing interest to college and graduate students. Three years ago, there was one Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center at the University of California-San Diego. Now there are thirty such centers at American colleges and universities, including UC Berkeley and Cornell. These centers are fiercely pro-ID."
Since them as MacNeil documents, these clubs are all but dead:
1) there are 39 IDEA Clubs listed, not 35 (as stated at the IDEA Club main website);
2) of the 39 listed IDEA Clubs, eight (21%) are located at high schools or community colleges;
3) four (17%) are located at religious institutions;
4) nine (23%) simply do not exist (i.e. have 404: File Not Found at their link); and
5) 18 (46%) have links that simply redirect to either a national IDEA Center press release or main website homepage.
These are the "intelligent design research centers" about which Dr. Dembski spoke so glowingly in his analysis of the effects of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision.
What can one conclude from this analysis? I conclude five things:
1) that the national IDEA Club website is essentially what is known online as a "shell site" (that is, a place-holder with no real content);
2) that the "movement" represented by the IDEA Club organization peaked in late 2005 or early 2006 (around the time of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial);
3) since then (i.e. since Judge Jones issued his now-famous decision) it has died almost everywhere;
4) the majority of the output of the "intelligent design movement" consisted of press releases (and produced no empirical science of any kind); and
5) my conclusion in my critical review of Dr. Dembski's analysis of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision was essentially correct: he was (and probably still is) either delusional or a bald-faced liar.
So, why did I illustrate this post with a picture of a dodo? Because, like the "intelligent design" movement, the dodo was notorious for its stupidity and that fact that it is extinct.
This is exactly what would be expected for a movement that pretends to be scientific when it is just a political ploy to sneak religious materials into high school science classes. When students sincerely attempt to pursue the ideas in an intellectually robust way, they find there is nothing there.
Be sure to read the comments, especially Casey Luskin's predictable apologetics, as well as MacNeil's response, which closes with this home run:
As to your assertion that there is no empirical research in ID, there is only one institution doing ID research: the Biologic Institute in Remond and Seattle, WA. As I pointed out in another comment, there have been about a dozen research reports from the Biologic Institute on original empirical research since the institute's founding. That's approximately 1/100th of the output of the various departments and research institutes for ecology and evolution during the month of November, 2008. Furthermore, none of the research papers from the Biologic Institute support the conclusion that "intelligent design" is entailed by the research findings. They are only consistent with an assumption of design, but as many evolutionary biologists from Ernst Mayr on down have pointed out, design is clearly an emergent property of evolution by natural selection. Until an unambiguous example of an empirical finding of design that couldn't be the result of purely natural processes is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, asserting that "intelligent design" is a legitimate explanation for natural processes is merely that: an assertion, without supporting evidence. Ergo, it is not science, it is politics, pure and simple.
Sadly, the creationists are well practiced at changing costumes, and now ID has become 'academic freedom'.
"Even if ID is stifled among high school students (and with the Internet this is impossible), ID is of growing interest to college and graduate students. Three years ago, there was one Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center at the University of California-San Diego. Now there are thirty such centers at American colleges and universities, including UC Berkeley and Cornell. These centers are fiercely pro-ID."
Since them as MacNeil documents, these clubs are all but dead:
1) there are 39 IDEA Clubs listed, not 35 (as stated at the IDEA Club main website);
2) of the 39 listed IDEA Clubs, eight (21%) are located at high schools or community colleges;
3) four (17%) are located at religious institutions;
4) nine (23%) simply do not exist (i.e. have 404: File Not Found at their link); and
5) 18 (46%) have links that simply redirect to either a national IDEA Center press release or main website homepage.
These are the "intelligent design research centers" about which Dr. Dembski spoke so glowingly in his analysis of the effects of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision.
What can one conclude from this analysis? I conclude five things:
1) that the national IDEA Club website is essentially what is known online as a "shell site" (that is, a place-holder with no real content);
2) that the "movement" represented by the IDEA Club organization peaked in late 2005 or early 2006 (around the time of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial);
3) since then (i.e. since Judge Jones issued his now-famous decision) it has died almost everywhere;
4) the majority of the output of the "intelligent design movement" consisted of press releases (and produced no empirical science of any kind); and
5) my conclusion in my critical review of Dr. Dembski's analysis of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision was essentially correct: he was (and probably still is) either delusional or a bald-faced liar.
So, why did I illustrate this post with a picture of a dodo? Because, like the "intelligent design" movement, the dodo was notorious for its stupidity and that fact that it is extinct.
This is exactly what would be expected for a movement that pretends to be scientific when it is just a political ploy to sneak religious materials into high school science classes. When students sincerely attempt to pursue the ideas in an intellectually robust way, they find there is nothing there.
Be sure to read the comments, especially Casey Luskin's predictable apologetics, as well as MacNeil's response, which closes with this home run:
As to your assertion that there is no empirical research in ID, there is only one institution doing ID research: the Biologic Institute in Remond and Seattle, WA. As I pointed out in another comment, there have been about a dozen research reports from the Biologic Institute on original empirical research since the institute's founding. That's approximately 1/100th of the output of the various departments and research institutes for ecology and evolution during the month of November, 2008. Furthermore, none of the research papers from the Biologic Institute support the conclusion that "intelligent design" is entailed by the research findings. They are only consistent with an assumption of design, but as many evolutionary biologists from Ernst Mayr on down have pointed out, design is clearly an emergent property of evolution by natural selection. Until an unambiguous example of an empirical finding of design that couldn't be the result of purely natural processes is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, asserting that "intelligent design" is a legitimate explanation for natural processes is merely that: an assertion, without supporting evidence. Ergo, it is not science, it is politics, pure and simple.
Sadly, the creationists are well practiced at changing costumes, and now ID has become 'academic freedom'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
