What Are Conservatives Gonna Do NOW??

From The Independent, some news about The Pope:

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

Up until those last half dozen words, I was completely cool with Il papa argentino.  But let's set them aside and talk about the faith-based scientifically illiterate folks here in the USA.  What are they to make of the fact that Pope Francis did not declare evolution "just a theory"?  What are they to make of the fact that the leader of the Roman Catholic Church did not appeal to the secular authorities to "teach the controversy" in order to nudge Intelligent Design into the public school curriculum?

My guess is that they'll call him a communist who doesn't understand The Bible like they do.

Which is probably what they'll do when they read this:

Pope Francis delivered an off-the-cuff, mini-encyclical on the rights of the poor, the injustices of unemployment, and the need for environmental protection Tuesday, saying he's not preaching communism but the Gospel.

Francis' remarks to the World Meeting of Popular Movements, delivered in his native Spanish, ran for more than six pages, single-spaced. It was one of the longest speeches of his pontificate and a clear sign that the issues are particularly close to his heart.

Francis said the poor need land, a roof over their head and work, and said he knew well that "If I talk about this, some will think that the pope is communist."

"They don't understand that love for the poor is at the center of the Gospel," he said. "Demanding this isn't unusual, it's the social doctrine of the church."

Truly a communist, see?

Wherever He Is, Rick Santorum's Probably Having A Bad Day

Of course, it's about the ban being declared unconstitutional:

Same-sex couples across Pennsylvania could begin tying the knot on Friday or Saturday under a landmark federal court decision in Harrisburg that had some people celebrating and others crying foul.

An order on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overturned the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, positioning Pennsylvania to become the 19th state in which same-sex couples can marry legally. Jones declared the 1996 act a discriminatory violation of the Constitution that belongs in “the ash heap of history.”

“We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,” Jones wrote in a 39-page opinion.

Daryl Metcalfe defined the problem a few paragraphs later:

“We're not going to stand by silently while an activist judge tries to strike down an institution that has been preserved throughout history,” said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. He introduced an earlier impeachment resolution against [Attorney General Kathleen] Kane, who refused to defend the marriage law.

Here's the decision if y'inz wanna read it.

And here's why Lil Ricky's probably having a bad day today: He endorsed Jones for the seat on the District court (h/t to slate).  Here's Santorum's statement by way of the way back machine where he said that Jones was:

...highly qualified to assume the important role of Judge and the duty of protecting the Constitution and ensuring the effective operation of our judicial system.

But Rick had more to say about Judge Jones (h/t to the Washington Blade).  Take a look:

Santorum said he was excited about Jones' federal judgeship because Jones "understands our values and traditions."

But did you see the date on the endorsement?  March 1, 2002.  That means that it was during George W. Bush's first administration.  He was also confirmed unanimously by the Senate.  That means that every Republican member of the United States Senate in 2002 voted for the guy.

Oh, and he was also the guy who struck down the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

So I'd say, yea, Rick Santorum's have a bad day today.

Poor Rick.

Oh, Good Lord!

From today's P-G we find this distressing assessment of our nation's educational system.

After framing the issue with a story of a young Duquesne student who received what she believed was an inadequate secondary school science education, David Templeton writes:

Her experience represents the ill-kept secret about public school biology classrooms nationwide -- that evolution often isn't taught robustly, if at all. Faith-based belief in creationism and intelligent design continues to be discussed and even openly taught in public school classrooms, despite state curriculum standards.

What follows is foul, odious and repulsive:

"Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth," said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. "I tell them that I don't think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.

We've dealt with radiocarbon dating before.  Here's what I wrote back then:

[Radiocarbon dating is] a method of dating the age of once living tissue based on the rate of decay for an isotope of carbon (namely carbon-14). Isotopes, by the way, are atoms of the same element (hydrogen, uranium, and so on) that differ in their atomic weights because they have a different number of neutrons in their respective nuclei. Carbon-13 has, for instance, 7 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus while carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus (7+6=13 and 8+6=14, get it?).

Science tells us that carbon-14 is very unstable and decays into an isotope of nitrogen at a known rate. It's formed constantly in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays interact with some of the nitrogen up there and filters down into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it enters the food chain (from CO2 to photosynthesis to animals). When something is alive the amount of carbon-14 in its system more or less matches the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. But once that thing dies, no more carbon-14 is added and the carbon-14 that remains begins its decay into nitrogen.

In a nutshell, by knowing the rate at which carbon-14 decays and knowing how much is left in the once living tissue, scientists can pretty accurately estimate when that thing died.

By the way for his work in first developing the science of radiocarbon dating, Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960.

Wow, a Nobel Prize.  That must mean that a lot of very smart people looked over the process for a long time and found it very solid and very important.  So given that, I think it's completely possible that some high school chemistry teacher from Altoona, Pennsylvania has enough sound science to overturn their 53 year old error.

But there's more from Mr Sohmer:

"Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that's one I don't shy away from," he said. "It doesn't in any way disrupt the educational process. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is."

Which does nothing but remind me of something Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

We should remember that just because ignorance is Bible-based, doesn't mean it isn't ignorance.  In order to reject (as Joe Sohmer does) the science of radiocarbon dating one has to also reject such large tracts of physics (for example the science of radioactive decay) that there's little left of the science.  No matter how much he wants to believe it, the evidence overwhelmingly supports radiocarbon dating.  It's right, he's wrong and he's mistreating his students by leading them to doubt it.  That the Altoona school district is, in Mr. Sohmer's words, "comfortable with his [teaching] methods" is an indictment of their own tolerance of Bible-based anti-intellectualism.

Templeton points out the danger of that:

The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have ruled time and again that teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which often is referred to as separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those cases include Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in York County, which involved the district's decision to include intelligent design in the curriculum as an alternative theory to evolution. The 2005 federal court ruling said intelligent design -- the argument that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause -- and creationism were one and the same religious principle that couldn't be taught in public schools.

The school district's legal fees topped $1 million.

Regardless of the court decisions, creationism continues to find an audience in public schools, limiting students' education in one of biology's fundamental principles.

If you're curious to read it, please check out Kitmiller v Dover here.  Judge Jones conclusion starts this way:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Templeton's piece is a good read. The only problem I have is found in this sentence:

Similar debate is occurring over the Big Bang theory, climate change and other controversial ideas of science.

And with it, unfortunately, he's giving rhetorical cover to the anti-intellectual anti-science folks everywhere.  The Big Bang and climate change are "controversial" only because those whose think their ignorance is just as good as someone else's knowledge have been shouting it from their pulpits sacred and secular for years.

With any honest assessment of the evidence, such "controversies" evaporate all too quickly.

Teaching anything but science in a public school science class is not only unconstitutional but it's damaging to our childten and the society in general.  I'll give Bill Nye the last word:

Happy Darwin Day, Everybody!

Today, had he been blessed with Terah's longevity, Charles Darwin would have been 203 years old today.

But alas, he passed in 1882 - though given 3 more years than what's promised in Psalm 90:10.

In his honor, I'd like to turn your attention to a piece of legislation now sitting with the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee in the great state of Missouri.

The bill (HB 291), called the "Missouri Standard Science Act" and it:

...requires the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.

Yea, it's 2013 and we're still talking about this.

From Mother Jones:

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion—it's all in the name of science.

See that?  All in the name of science!

Here's what Republican Representative Rick is proposing.  First he defines evolution:

a theory of the origin of life and its ascent by naturalistic means. The first simple life was developed from basic elements and simple molecules through the mechanisms of random combinations, naturally occurring molecular structures, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. From the first simple life, all subsequent species developed through the mechanisms of random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. The theory is illustrated by the evolutionary phylogenic tree. Theory philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life

And then intelligent design:

a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence. Since the inception of each original species, genetic material has been lost, inherited, exchanged, mutated, and recombined to result in limited variation. Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules or making sufficient new genetic material to cause ascent from microscopic organisms to large life forms. The hypothesis does not address the time or sequence of life's appearance on earth, time or formation of the fossil record, and time or method of species extinction. The hypothesis does not require the identity of intelligence responsible for earth's biology but requires any proposed identity of that intelligence to be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation.

He then sets the educational criteria:

Notwithstanding any other law, any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education in this state, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics, shall be standard science.

So what's "standard science"? Brattin gives us his definition:

...knowledge disclosed in a truthful and objective manner and the physical universe without any preconceived philosophical demands concerning origin or destiny. Knowledge is based upon verified empirical data obtained through observation and experimentation and serves as the factual basis for formulae, events, processes, principles, and laws and may be a component of theory, hypothesis, conjecture and extrapolation. Knowledge growth as a result of human endeavor serves as the foundation for the continuous reevaluation of theory, hypothesis, conjecture, and extrapolation to determine their correctness based on supporting or conflicting verified empirical data.

He then breaks down "Scientific law", "Scientific Theory" and "Hypothesis."

• Law: a statement describing specific phenomena about the physical universe which has been verified by observation or experimentation and has no exceptions of verified empirical data. The statement may be described by formula
• Theory: an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model
• Hypothesis: a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. One person may develop and propose a hypothesis

The problem with these criteria is that nothing can be expected to ever have "no exceptions of verified data."  Everything is "incompletely understood" because all empirical data is, by definition, limited.

So everything is a theory and thus:

If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught.

Because, you know, all "theories" are equally incomplete and so equally valid.

Feel free to peruse Kitzmiller v. Dover School District to understand why Intelligent Design is nothing but creationism - and therefore an unconstitutional intrusion of state-mandated religion into science.

Of course Rick Brattin is a Republican.  And of course most Republicans are creationists.

If we're a nation in decline, this has to be one of the reasons: the stubborn, faith-based resistance from reason that's taken hold of too many Americans.

Happy Darwin Day, everybody!

More On Texas - Evolution vs Intelligent Design Update

Yesterday, I wrote that the science vs creationism debate was flaring up yet again in the great state of Texas..

There's an update from the AP:

An expected fight over teaching evolution in Texas classrooms fizzled Thursday when the state's Board of Education gave preliminary approval to supplemental science materials for the coming school year and beyond with only minor changes.

A large part of the debate revolved around some new online instructional materials. This was the place where "intelligent design" was to be found. Only now:

One that didn't make the recommended list was an electronic textbook that includes lessons on intelligent design, which is the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided with the help of an intelligent higher power.

"There's no bad science going into classrooms" in the approved materials, said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, a group that sides with mainstream scientists on teaching evolution.

And while science is not subject to a vote, it's still good to see this:

One conservative group, Texans for a Better Science Education, had put out a call to pack Thursday's public hearing with testimony urging board members to adopt materials that question evolution. But they were outnumbered by witnesses urging the board to adopt the materials with few changes.

"I don't want my children's public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom," said the Rev. Kelly Allen of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. "True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science."

Amen, Reverend Allen. Amen.

Oh, God. Not AGAIN

From the AP:

The debate over teaching evolution in public schools is resurfacing at the Texas State Board of Education.

The board is meeting to consider supplemental science materials for the upcoming school year and beyond. The Republican-dominated board drew national attention in 2009 when it adopted science standards encouraging schools to scrutinize “all sides” of scientific theory.

A public hearing on the new science materials is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

The board is under the new leadership of Chairwoman Barbara Cargill, a former biology teacher who disputes the theory of evolution. She is considered to be one of the panel’s more conservative members.

Cargill was appointed earlier this month by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

The same Rick Perry that asked Texans to pray for the end of the drought.

But what are these "supplemental science materials" they mention? The AP from yesterday:

An intense fight over evolution and intelligent design theory in science curriculum put a national spotlight on the 15-member elected board in 2009 when it adopted standards that encourage public schools to scrutinize "all sides" of scientific theory.
The board is now considering supplemental online instructional materials that fit under those standards and could be used as early as August when classes resume. The new materials are necessary because the state could not afford to buy new textbooks this year, leaving students to use some that are several years old.

And:

The supplement materials submitted for consideration include a high school biology e-book that promotes intelligent design despite federal court rulings against teaching the theory that life on Earth is so complex that it must have come from an intelligent higher power.

So we're talking "intelligent design" as opposed to "young earth" creationism.

Whew. That's such a relief.

Still isn't science, of course. And here's why. In his Summa Totius Logicae, medieval philosopher William of Occam wrote:

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora

Which translates into English as:

It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.

Basically it means "don't try to explain mysteries by imposing other mysteries." Philosophically, it's what's known as "lex parsimoniae" but that's not important.

What is important that once you impose the "intelligent designer" onto the science, you've effectively left the world of science.

Can't explain what eyebrows do? It's what the designer intended. How about what earthquakes are for? The comparative weight of neutrons to protons to electrons? Why the earth is in exactly the proper orbit for us pesky hu-mans to live? Designer, designer, and...designer. But wait:

• Who is this designer?
• Where is this designer?
• Why did this designer chose one design path over another?
• When did this designer design?
• How do we resolve any of these questions?

See what just happened? Now we've got a whole new set of questions that can't be answered by empirical science because the concept of "the designer" is, by definition, metaphysical (ie it is "beyond" physics).

As Judge Jones (a sane Republican, by the way)pointed out in his decision Kitzmiller v Dover, the religious nature of Intelligent design is obvious and that:

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

I know Rick Perry's flirted with secession a few months ago but Texas is still a part of the Union, right? The Constitution is still the Law of the Land in Texas, right? They still have to abide by the 1st Amendment, right?

You wouldn't know it by this ID argument.

Those who are seeking to impose Intelligent Design in the public school curriculum are attempting nothing more than to inject religion into the curriculum. In doing so they are undermining the education of the very students they're supposed to be supporting.

I've said it before. If we are a nation in decline, one of the reasons is this willfull stubborn religiously inspired anti-intellectual retreat from science.

Science, Constitution and Pastafarianism Triumph in Polk County, FL

From davidkc at Daily Kos:

Efforts were afoot recently on the Polk County School Board (in the Tampa, FL area) to begin teaching the "concept" of intelligent design in science classes as an alternative to evolution, at a time when new state standards mentioning evolution by name for the first time are under consideration. It appeared that this bonehead move had the support of a majority of the school board, but that was before the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster arrived and shamed the school board into backing down.

[snip]

If you aren't familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it asserts that an omnipotent, airborne clump of spaghetti intelligently designed all life with the touch of its "noodly appendage," and that He appears in "full pirate regalia." The Pastafarians, as the Church's believers call themselves, first came to national attention in 2005, when the Church's leader, twentysomething Bobby Henderson, wrote an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education when the evolution flap was going on there, insisting that students also be taught about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (You can read more about the Church in this recent Wired Magazine article).

The Pastafarians appear to have grown in numbers quite a bit since 2005, and soon after the Ledger story appeared, Polk school board members were deluged with e-mails demanding that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism's version of intelligent design be taught in the classrooms alongside evolution and the "alternative" ID theory.

Full story here.


.