Deep Subject

SBOE Mangling Texas Science TEKS -- Act Now

2009-03-17T09:01:00.004-05:00

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) revises it's science curriculum (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills -- or TEKS) once every ten years. That time is now and this year, new science TEKS (pdf) were written and recommended by science writing panels and experts appointed by the SBOE.

At their January meeting, Don McLeroy and members of his hard-right faction of the SBOE managed to make some unscientific amendments to the proposed recommended science TEKS. This SBOE revised document (pdf) was then approved as the first reading by the SBOE of the science TEKS and was filed with the Texas Register. On March 25, 26, and 27, the SBOE will meet again and could make these TEKS the final ones.

The National Center for Science Education has produced a detailed description and analysis of the January amendments and why they are scientifically unsound.

If you reside in Texas, you can help by writing, telephoning, or emailing your SBOE member (enter your zip code to look up). Check this page to see how your member voted on these amendments at the January meeting. If your member voted against these amendments, thank your member and encourage him or her to continue to support sound science at the March meeting. If your member voted for these amendments, encourage him or her to promote the best science education for Texas schoolchildren by voting to remove these unfortunate amendments and support the TEKS as drafted by the writing panels and experts. In either case, let your SBOE member know that you are their constituent and why you think the amendments that were passed in January should not become part of the new science TEKS.

Any member of the SBOE may be emailed via sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. Email pertaining to details of the TEKS should be sent to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. Comments on the first reading TEKS may also be made online.

The SBOE will hear public testimony on March 25 from noon to 6pm, with registration starting at 8am Friday, March 20th. (Registration form here (pdf).) Please attend and/or testify, if you can. The SBOE meets at 1701 Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78701 (see map).

See the SBOE web page for more information.

Texas SBOE creationists in denial

2009-02-17T22:20:00.005-06:00

The evidence for evolution goes way beyond the fossils, but this poster summarizes the fossil evidence quite well. One of the things creationists are always claiming is that there are “no transitional fossils!” Well you’re staring right at one!

There are seven creationists on the Texas State Board of Education. They are David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, and Don McLeroy, the Chairman.

These far-right hardliners want unscientific "weaknesses" to be taught in public school science classes order to try to undermine the teaching of biological evolution and to open the door for teaching the discredited Intelligent Design Theory of the Discovery Institute.

Unfortunately for them, the vote to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language around did not pass in January. The creationists Leo, Cargill, and McLeroy did, however, manage to pass other amendments which could weaken the science standards.

Mr. Mercer has pointed out that some of the Republicans on Board voted against the Texas Republican party platform which includes the teaching of ID, saying "I pray for my three friends, Pat Hardy of Ft. Worth , Bob Craig of Lubbock, and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller of Dallas." I say more power to Pat Hardy, Bob Craig, and Geraldine Miller for standing up for the children of Texas.

I sincerely hope that the Board can continue to muster enough votes to ensure that children attending the public schools of Texas will receive educations which will be among the best in the nation in the 21st century.

Don McLeroy, leading the SBOE and subverting science

2009-02-01T16:44:00.000-06:00

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) last month finally voted to get rid of the controversial "strengths and weaknesses" language which was a vestige of a bygone time from the new science curriculum standards. The creationists on the SBOE (a near majority) and elsewhere implied that the language had served Texas well for 20 years, when it had done no such thing. A common attack on the removal was to claim censorship or a reduction in academic freedom, in line with the current Wedge strategy being promulgated by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, Washington. The fact is that these words have nothing to do with the questions students can ask in the science classroom, and were being subverted into a trojan horse for the introduction of creationist arguments into science classes.

In a last-ditch attempt to corrupt the new 21st Century science standards, the creationist bloc on the board proposed a series of amendments and succeeded in getting some of them passed. The tactic used by Dr. McLeroy (pronounced mackle-roy), a dentist from College Station, Texas, and chairman of the SBOE, to advance one of his amendments was to claim that he had read up on evolution "as a hobby" and he then proceeded to read a lot of out of context quotations (he admitted he was quote mining) distorting the positions of scientists and creating confusion among the board members. See "The collapse of a quote mine" for an analysis of Dr. McLeroy's quote mining effort and the true source of his information.

The amendment “makes no sense to me,” said David M. Hillis, a prominent professor of biology at the University of Texas, adding, “It’s a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn’t understand the science.” He also said, "This new proposed language is absurd. It shows very clearly why the board should not be rewriting the science standards, especially when they introduce new language that has not even been reviewed by a single science expert."

George W. Bush's scientific legacy

2009-02-01T16:27:00.002-06:00

Some may sneer at President Bush's actions, but at least one thing he did worked out well for science -- he appointed Judge John E. Jones III to the federal bench.

Thanks to Judge Jones, the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Theory was shown to be the sham that it is in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision in December, 2005

Texas State Board of Education Censorship

2009-01-18T09:10:00.003-06:00

Steven Schafersman's post to his blog at the Houston Chronicle regarding the new Earth and Space Science standards was deleted under pressure from some Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) members of the SBOE. Here is the first paragraph:

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Read the rest of the post on the Texas Citizens for Science website. Steven Schafersman is President of Texas Citizens for Science and contributed to the new ESS standards development effort.

Don Mcleroy - Liar?

2008-12-16T08:11:00.005-06:00

At the November meeting of the SBOE, Don Mcleroy stated

I don’t think you’ll find a single Board member that has ever advocated — in fact I don’t know of a single Board member that has ever advocated — teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom. (Audio here.)

The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) subsequently revealed that many of the board members had indeed advocated these positions via their responses to Free Market Foundation (FMF) questionnaires and voter guides. The FMF has clarified that the definitions shown on the voter guides accurately reflect the questions used in their candidate questionnaires.

When questioned about this, McLeroy said "... I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to." in this response to the blogger who pointed out the discrepancy to him.

So, in Dr. McLeroy's opinion, indicating that he "strongly favors it" to the FMF for publication in a voter guide is not a public statement. I wonder what a judge would say.

Don McLeroy is a Master of Deceit, if not outright liar.

Texas deserves better.

Opportunity to shake up Texas SBoE

2008-10-28T13:44:00.004-05:00

Seven of the seats on the Texas SBoE are on the ballot this November, but only three are interesting to those of us who would like to reduce the current number of far-right members on the board.

The three races of interest are:

District 7
David Bradley (incumbent, far-right R) vs Laura Ewing (D)
District 8
Barbara Cargill (incumbent, far-right R) vs Linda Ellis (write-in)
District 14
Gail Lowe (incumbent, far-right R) vs Edra Bogle (D)

To see if you can vote on one of these contests, enter your address at this website.

Help if you can.

McCain is choice of terrorists

2008-10-28T13:31:00.002-05:00

McCain has been endorsed by Al Qaeda, according to this article in the New York Times: The Endorsement From Hell.

“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for [Al Qaeda] recruiting,” said Professor Joseph Nye, [the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council,] adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

As if we needed another reason not to vote for him.

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

It's time to clean house.

Some FAQs about Separation of Church and State

2008-08-20T17:00:00.009-05:00

Q. Where is the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
A. The First Amendment's religion clauses state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.

Q. What is a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
A. The Supreme Court has used a variety of methods to decide if a government action amounts to religious establishment. Unconstitutional actions typically lack a secular purpose or have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Religiously motivated actions violate the basic idea that government should concern itself only with civil matters and leave religion to the individual's conscience. Expressive actions, such as prayer at government-sponsored events or religious symbols on government property, are invalid if they effectively endorse or disapprove of religion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor designed the "endorsement test" to thwart government actions that link one's religion to his or her standing in the political community. In her words, government endorsement of religion sends a "message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community," and the "accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Q. Doesn't the First Amendment only apply to the federal government?
A. Not anymore. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it was clearly intended to apply only to the federal government. However, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 set the course for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment reads in part "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." In 1940, in a case called Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses must be applied to the states. Since that time, all government action "respecting an establishment of religion," whether at the federal, state or local level, is subject to review under the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, see

Louisiana, Back to the Past

2008-06-29T17:39:00.004-05:00

Louisiana is on its way back to the days before the Enlightenment and probably to the Dark Ages. Louisiana's exorcist Governor, Bobby Jindal, signed into law the latest Discovery Institute derived bill on Academic Freedom, paving the way for creationist teachers to offer their brand of creation science as an alternative to real science and confuse the hell out of the students.

We have our share of creationist types in Texas as well, and I fully expect that they will try to pass a similar law here when the legislature reconvenes next January. Hopefully there will be time for the opposition to rally its forces and save Texas the trouble (there surely will be legal battles if it passes and a teacher tries teaching the creationist pseudo-science "alternative viewpoints") of having this on the books.

Maybe Louisiana wants to become the magnet state for creationism. If so, they might try offering an incentive to the Institute for Creation Research to relocate there and get them out of our hair. Perhaps they'll also pass a law forbidding climate change while they're at it.

Don McLeroy, Master of Deceit

2008-05-25T00:19:00.003-05:00

This is incredible breaking news.

First, on Wednesday, May 21st, Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) member Mary Helen Berlanga called on Gov. Perry to replace Don McLeroy as Chairman of the SBoE, saying that he has "created havoc" and calling him the "Master of Deceit."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4571200

And then, on Friday, May 23rd, McLeroy pulled this stunt.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D90RHOOG0.html

What outrageous insolence. If he can pull this off for the English standards, there's no telling what he will do to the science standards which are in the works. McLeroy is a well-known ID proponent.

Get the word out. Don McLeroy is out of control.

Texas residents should write/call/email the governor and their representatives. They should express their outrage and demand that McLeroy be replaced as Chairman (Governor Rick Perry appointed McLeroy last year). Governor Perry's page is here: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ and Texas residents can find their representative's contact info here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

For more on the Religious Right's influence on the SBoE, see the Texas Freedom Network's report "The State Board of Education: Dragging Texas Schools into the Culture Wars."

Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers discuss their experience with "Expelled"

2008-03-22T11:02:00.004-05:00

Professors Dawkins and Myers discuss their experiences in seeing (or trying to see) the preview of "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed."

You can access other video options here.

"Expelled the Movie" expells noted atheist

2008-03-21T09:59:00.003-05:00

You really have to read this to believe it. There is also a follow-up here.

Epic fail.

The AiG Museum from a Christian Perspective

2008-03-03T20:36:00.006-06:00

Jason Byassee of the Christian Century has toured the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and found it lacking.

Reconciling Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors is an important and daunting task, one that mainline theology has still not satisfactorily accomplished. AiG can hardly be faulted for attempting the task, though its effort is a spectacular failure.

See his report, "Dinosaurs in the Garden, A visit to the Creation Museum," here.

Hat tip to Jason Rosenhouse

Alternative Science?

2008-02-17T04:10:00.004-06:00

It would appear that one of the tactics being employed by the Discovery Institute (DI) and others interested in keeping evolutionary science from being taught in public schools these days is to claim that there are alternative scientific explanations for science. Huh?

Read what Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, writes in "What Critiques of Darwin?".

Maybe they figure if it works for quackery (CAM) it will work for creationism.

Joseph Chikelue Obi: It's the Society of Homoepathic Thuggery all over again, or more abusive legal threats against a skeptical blogger

2008-01-23T12:25:00.000-06:00

Dr. Joseph Chikelue Obi (who bills himself as the "world's top expert in nutritional immunomudulation") has threatened Le Canard Noir's webhost with a lawsuit, demanding a £1 million a day penalty unless pages about him and his highly dubious activities are removed from their server. Once again, given the U.K.'s exceedingly plaintiff-friendly libel laws, Le Canard Noir had little choice but to capitulate, as his ISP demanded that he take down the offending pages.

It's time for every blogger who supports freedom of speech and skepticism to repost the article, and I call on you to do just that. Here are my copies of the offending articles:

Right Royal College of Pompous Quackery - Dublin, Thursday, September 28, 2006

I had to share this with you. Following on from my recent Quack Word 'Doctor' blog, I came across the Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) , a Dublin based - well, I'm not sure quite what it is...

What caught my eye was just the shameless aggrandisement of the site. It is quite hilarious, if not a little repetitive at times. Calling yourself 'Doctor' is somewhat pompous when all you have done is paid for some international postage. However, the man behind RCAM has absolutely no shame and titles himself as the:

Distinguished Provost of RCAM (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK)

Wow! Probably, just Joe to his mates. Naturally, when you Google the qualification FRCAM(Dublin), there is only person who appears to revel in this achievement. I'll leave the rest as an excercise for the reader.

The distinguished provost looks like he is just another pseudoscientific nutritionist, his spin being "Nutritional Immunomodulation". This is obviously a lot more clever than Patrick Holfords mere 'Optimum Nutrition', but having only one 'omnipill' is probably a poorer commercial decision that Patrick's vast range of supplements.

Obviously, Professor Obi has had a few problems with what probably amount to bewildering comments about his site as the legal threats and press releases concerning his 'ethical' responses to criticisms cover more space than anything else. 'Ethical' is a favourite word on the site.

The most recent press release states,

7th September 2006 : The Distinguished RCAM Provost, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK) has formally accepted appointment as Chief Professorial Examiner for the Doctor of Science (DSc) programme in Evidence Based, Alternative Medicine (EBAM) of a highly respected International University in one of the British Commonwealth Protectorates.

This new qualification is primarily aimed at Medical Graduates, Physicians, Surgeons, Pharmacists, Dentists, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Opticians, Wellness Consultants, Herbalists, Acupuncturists, Naturopaths , Healers, Podiatrists , Chiropodists , Scientists , Healers ,Therapists, Homeopaths, Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Nurses wishing to ethically upgrade their current Qualifications in Alternative Medicine over an exceedingly intensive 12 - 36 month period of study.

British Commonwealth Protectorates? Could that be Dublin?

I really have no idea what this organisation is all about. But it looks like it could be getting quite big soon...

RCAM currently has International Vacancies for One Million (1,000,000) 'Foundation Fellows' ('Movers and Shakers') ; who will independently play a highly pivotal role in diligently mentoring (and regulating) it's future Global Membership.

So if you really think that you seriously have what it takes to become a 'Leader' in Alternative Medicine , then (perhaps) RCAM may definitely be exactly what the Doctor ordered for you.

One million. That's a lot of quacks! And they are just to mentor (and regulate) the wider quack membership! This man has ambition.

The Big J really hates real doctors. This is his most recent press release...

RCAM would like to warmly commend the various Chieftans of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom for ethically and appropriately ignoring utterly misguided calls (from a rather amusing Group of thirteen Clinical Yestermen) to compel Hard-Working (and Tax-Paying) British Citizens to additionally pay for Life Enhancing Alternative Medicine Interventions out of their very own pockets - rather than get such treatments free via the NHS. RCAM would like to also categorically state that such exceedingly flawed 'G-13? demands that the National Health Service of the United Kingdom expediently abandon Alternative Medicine altogether (in total favour of Conventional Medicine) be diplomatically treated with the very utmost contempt which such unguarded verbal flippance duly deserves ; as none of these 13 'Eminent UK Scientists' behind such calls has professionally attained Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications in Alternative Medicine and as such cannot be deemed competent enough to make such sweeping 'Shilly-Shally' statements about the noble independent specialty of Alternative Medicine.

RCAM therefore publicly advises the General Public to lawfully go about their normal Wellness-Seeking Behaviour as usual - without any unwarranted prejudice or fear resulting from such highly self-serving, morally unethical , abjectly crude , totally unprofessional, utterly unstatesmanly, morbidly barbaric, wantonly uncivilized, profanely undemocratic and unspeakably sacrilegious perpetual affronts on the therapeutically formidable institution of Alternative Medicine.

Now, I do not have 'Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications' in Santa Clause Studies to know he does not exist. But hey. I must be a morbidly barbaric and profanely undemocratic, unethical duck.

So, struggling around the acres of pomposity I find one place where Prof Joe might be making some money. You can call him to seek his wisdom, after pre-booking an hour's slot (and handing over your credit card) for a mere 300 Euros. Alternatively, you can pay by the minute on the contact line for a trifling $10 per minute.

Its going to cost you $20 just for Joe to say Hello and to read out his numerous titles, qualifications and names. Not bad 'ethical' work.

Ethical Quackery, the Monarchy and Kate Moss - Thursday, October 12, 2006

No, this is not about our Defender of Quackery, our Quack-in-Chief His Royal Quackiness, Prince Charles, but about the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi. And yes, it is just a rather lame story written solely to get a picture of Kate on my blog.

I've written a rather lazy blog on the distinguished professor before that was just a bit of a gawp at his quacktastic website and what looks like a health phone-line scam.

Well, I've done a little more digging with Google and it has revealed a few quack gems. It has been pretty hard work, since Google returns some 6,000 pages, the vast majority just appears to be Prof Obi's self-promotion. However, if you persist in digging a few interesting facts turn up.

So, what has the little black duck found out about the "most Controversial Retired Physician and 'A-List' Medical Celebrity, Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi"?

Here we go...

1. The Irish Independent reports that his college does not exist at the Dublin address given on the web site. There's a surprise! It's just a front.

2. The Independent goes on. "In January 2003, he was suspended by for serious professional misconduct at South Tyneside District Hospital. Among the allegations made were that he failed to attend to patients, wrote strange notes about colleagues and at one point gave a dating agency phone number to a psychiatric patient."

3. He was being investigated by the police for taking thousands of pounds of a 58 year old woman to in order to cure a long standing illness.

4. The GMC strike Dr Obi off their register for "serious professional misconduct". So much for him being retired.

5. On another tack, Dr Obi has been involved in a little cyber-squatting. This looks as if it took place while he was a doctor - always after a few quid!

6. Since then, now self-titled Prof Obi, a few new avenues have been opened, including trying to entice Kate Moss away to one of his 'safe-houses' in Ireland. Hat's off!

He is quoted as saying:

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Miss Moss still has fundamental rights, just like anyone else out there, and as far as I am concerned, she is not guilty of anything until an Ethical Jury says so.

(I mentioned before that 'ethical' was one of his favourite words.)

7. Prof Obi has been developing a Penis Enlarger (watch out Kate) that his own Royal College has now endorsed.

8. At least one person (out of the targeted million) has paid Prof Obi the fees for his college to accredit them. Dr Michael Keet (8 Canards) of the Central London College of Reflexology handed over 'hundreds'. Do we feel sorry for out-quacked quacks? I guess we ought to.

9. For those of you wanting to see behind the grand titles and see the real human being, Joseph lists his interests as Comedy in London, Whole Food Nutrition and Christian Music. On this 'Meetup' site, he describes himself as "Just a very ordinary guy . . .". That's nice.

10. His name appears very often on the blog Abolish The General Medical Council (GMC), often reporting something he has got up to. The blog describes itself as:

An ethical blog for those who publicly feel that the General Medical Council (GMC) should be Statutorily Abolished in favour of a Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) to solely register and revalidate Doctors who practise Conventional Medicine in the UK. The Blog also recommends that the GMC/MLC hands all disciplinary functions over to an Independent Clinical Tribunal (ICT) in keeping with the EU Convention on Human Rights ; to avoid (both) Institutional Bias and Multiple Jeopardy.

Oooh. There is that word 'ethical' again. And 'European Human Rights'. No name is given for the blog author but the avatar is a portrait of the queen. Another apparent obsession of Prof Obi - royalty. Could the author be none other than the Professor himself, a little agrieved for his ticking off? I hope you all click through to the blog. Maybe we will show up in his stats and whoever the writer is can get in contact and confirm one way or another.

I rather hope it is, as the final thing I turned up would just be fantastic...

11. Is the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Obi now selling ethical ring-tones? I do hope so.

Watch out Crazy Frog! Here comes the Crazy Provost...

ADDENDUM:

If you want to see the whole letter threatening Le Canard Noir (and you really should read the whole thing; it's hilarious), it's here. One amusing aspect of the letter is that "Professor Dr." Obi hired an essay writer in the name of Tanja Suessenbach rather than a solicitor to write up the threat. What's not so funny is how fast Le Canard Noir's ISP caved in response to this.

Hat tip to Respectful Insolence.

Where is the new evidence for evolution?

2008-01-01T12:17:00.000-06:00

As explained in the new issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach, it hasn't been necessary to claim "new evidence" for more than a century.

Over the past 150 years, [Darwin's] initial list [of evidence] has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.

Read the article "Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path" by T. Ryan Gregory (pdf).

Santa Claus is just one part of the fairy tale.

2007-12-15T08:39:00.000-06:00

Just like Santa Claus, the Christmas story is fiction.

See The Christmas story didn't happen, an editorial by James Dee in the December 15th edition of the Austin American Statesman.

An Open Letter to the Texas Education Agency

2007-12-12T19:40:00.000-06:00

The Society for the Study of Evolution has weighed in on the topics of science education and the termination of Chris Comer by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

The Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) was founded in March, 1946. The objectives of the Society for the Study of Evolution are the promotion of the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The Society publishes the scientific journal Evolution and holds annual meetings in which scientific findings on evolutionary biology are presented and discussed.

The following is the text of the SSE letter.

An Open Letter to the Texas Education Agency regarding science education and the termination of Chris Comer

As representatives of various scientific societies, we write to express our deep concern about the recent termination of Chris Comer from her job as Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (TEA). According to press reports, Ms. Comer was forced to resign for political reasons, directly after she forwarded an email announcement about a lecture critical of Intelligent Design (ID). These reports are deeply troubling. Not only has Ms. Comer suffered an apparently grave injustice, but it appears that members of the TEA administration are willing to sacrifice standards of science education in the state of Texas to partisan political ideology. This is just the kind of purging employed by Trofim Lysenko and other ideologues within the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, when rejection of well-established principles of Mendelian genetics set Soviet biology back by 50 years. We fear that the stage is now being set for a similar erosion of science education for a current generation of Texas students.

The Austin America-Statesman (Nov. 20, 2007) reported that the call to fire Ms. Comer came from TEA’s senior adviser on statewide initiatives, Lizzette Reynolds. We are shocked by Ms. Reynold’s statement that the email in question is “highly inappropriate” in assuming that evolution “is a subject that the agency supports.” We are further shocked by the purported rationale for termination in the published memorandum from Monica Martinez: that Ms. Comer's email “implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," and that this "creat[es] the perception that TEA has a biased position." And we are dumbfounded by TEA spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe’s implication, reported in the New York Times (Dec. 2, 2007), that evolutionary science is a matter of “personal opinions and beliefs.”

Such statements betray an astonishing lack of understanding about not only about basic biology, for which evolution is fundamental, but also about the nature of science generally. It is not a matter of “personal opinions and belief” to include well-established scientific findings, such as Mendelian genetics or evolution, in science classes. It is not “biased” to exclude unfounded pseudo-scientific ideology such as Lysenkoism or “Intelligent Design” from science curricula. Indeed, for a science educator or agency to “remain neutral” about such critical matters — which go to the very heart of science education — would be the height of professional irresponsibility.

In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Since that 1987 ruling, the creationist movement has “evolved” into “Intelligent Design” in a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the issue of separation of church and state. Intelligent Design has been exhaustively discussed in the academy and its claims to scientific status have been carefully examined and thoroughly dismissed. Its specious arguments against evolution have been considered and soundly refuted. The recent Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Federal Court case only confirmed what scientists and philosophers of science had long before concluded — “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory but a narrow religious view that aims to establish itself above other, mainstream, religious faiths. It has no place in the science classroom, neither explicitly nor disguised under the false pretence of teaching “controversy” in science. Any responsible educational agency should exercise careful oversight to ensure that such religious ideology is not included in the science curriculum.

Indeed, scientists and science educators should be even more pro-active. As part of its 6 November 2002 Board Resolution on Intelligent Design, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) expressed the general conclusion of the scientific community that “Intelligent Design” creationism was not science. Moreover, it explicitly called upon its over 260 affiliated scientific societies “to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of 'intelligent design theory' as subject matter for science education."

SSE concurs with the AAAS Board’s conclusions and its recommendation. Professional ethics demands that one not “remain neutral” when science is deliberately misrepresented by creationists. Chris Comer thus acted responsibly and professionally in forwarding the announcement about an educational lecture regarding “Intelligent Design” creationism.

In contrast, the administrators who called for her termination and who forced her resignation acted irresponsibly and in direct opposition to the professional standards expected of those who oversee science education. Their comments, quoted above, make it clear that they have sacrificed not only a dedicated public servant but also the facts and the very nature of science to partisan political ideology. It is a sad day for Texas when TEA administrators resort to Stalinist-style purging to suppress the truth about the bankruptcy of “Intelligent Design” arguments.

The TEA loses considerable stature and credibility in making Ms. Comer a martyr to political interference in the teaching of science. We urge the TEA to instead immediately reinstate Ms Comer in her position as TEA’s Director of Science Curriculum. We also applaud Ms. Comer for her distinguished career in science education and her dedication to defending sound education for the children of Texas.

Robert T. Pennock, Chair, Education Committee
Johanna Schmitt, president-Elect
Donald Waller, President
All, Society for the Study of Evolution
Rick Amasino, Past-President, American Society of Plant Biologists

The SSE letter is available as a pdf file here.

Don't Mess with Texas Education

2007-12-05T17:09:00.001-06:00

As recent developments have shown, evolution denialist elements of the Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) are about to try and screw over the Texas science education standards which are due their 10-year review in 2008. This report makes it clear that there is an effort underway by some Texas Education Agency (TEA) administrators and some members of the SBoE to distort and diminish evolution instruction in Texas public schools by requiring that the "weaknesses" and "controversies" of evolutionary biology be presented. These are strategies which the Discovery Institute advocates and they dovetail with their Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy as part of their objective to subvert science education in public schools.

We are at a critical juncture in this process since there is currently a conservative majority on the SBoE and half of the SBoE seats are up for (re)election. At least seven members of the fifteen-member SBoE support the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" and teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution strategy. I urge anyone willing to defend science education in Texas and eligible to run for election to the SBoE in their district to unseat some of these folks and help bring sanity to science education in Texas. Please help us avoid the inanity of another Dover-like federal trial over the teaching of religious pseudo-science.

The districts up for (re)election in 2008 are:


SBOE       Name                         City
District
2          Mary Helen Berlanga (D)      Corpus Christi
6          Terri Leo (R)                Spring
7          David Bradley (R)            Beaumont
8          Barbara Cargill (R)          The Woodlands
11         Patricia Hardy (R)           Weatherford
13         Mavis B. Knight (D)          Dallas
14         Gail Lowe (R)                Lampasas

To enter the election you must file an application for a place on the ballot with your respective party by Jan. 2, 2008. The filing fee is $300. The primary election will be on March 4, 2008, the general election will be in November, 2008.

Republican Party (512)477-9821
Democratic Party (512) 478-9800

For more details on the election process, go here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml

For more on the Chris Comer story, go here: http://www.wikio.com/news/Chris+Comer.

Barbara Forrest on the Chris Comer affair: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ForrestComer.pdf.

Read Judge Jones's opinon on the Dover trial here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Homeopathy is Worthless -- Mostly

2007-11-25T18:07:00.000-06:00

Ben Goldacre, a UK medical doctor who is also employed by the media as a commentator on pseudoscience and the sociology of medicine, has an article in the Lancet discussing the efficacy of Homeopathy (free registration).

Ben says that even though five large meta-analyses of major homeopathy trials have shown that homeopathy produces no statistically significant benefit over a placebo, homeopathy may have a clinically useful role and that banning it would be an over-reaction.

Food for thought.

(The article is also available on his blog here.)

The Pseudo-Science called Intelligent Design

2007-11-25T10:04:00.000-06:00

According to Mike Elzinga, it doesn't take a judge to tell the difference between pseudo-science and real science -- anyone can tell the difference by simply comparing the activities of those who work on them.

As an example, he provides a comparison of ID to real science over here.

Answering Creationist Challenges to Evolution

2007-10-28T09:38:00.000-05:00

Science, and in particular evolutionary theory, is under attack by creationists (mostly Young Earth Creationists). Even though there is no doubt about the fact of evolution within the scientific community, the number and diversity of the objections to evolution raised by creationists can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. Over at the Scientific American blog, John Rennie has compiled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense which can be a useful resource for those encountering such people.

Here is a list of the challenges Rennie addresses:

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Head on over and check it out.

Goobernor Rick Perry

2007-10-22T20:56:00.000-05:00

Let's see,

What else?

Texas deserves better.

Dembski Debunked

2007-10-15T21:29:00.000-05:00

Mark Perakh has an article at Talk Reason, Errors not corrected for three years point to incompetence, discussing how the ID advocate and pseudo-mathematician William A. Dembski has misled the public. He says, among other things:

This, in turn, allows one to assert that to all intents and purposes Professor Shallit was right in defining Dembski as a pseudo-mathematician and therefore that all the alleged "Mathematical foundation of Intelligent design" so vigorously and triumphantly trumpeted by Dembski and his acolytes, is pseudo-mathematics. It can't serve as a foundation of any reasonable conceptual set.

Far from being the "Isaac Newton of Mathematics," as some have claimed, one has to wonder how Dembski could have gotten a PhD and become a supposed expert in this particular field of mathematics without being familiar with the work of the prominent mathematician Alfréd Rényi who has been widely published and heavily referenced for over forty years, as stated in the article.