Creationism

The Seattle Weekly has published a story on the Discovery Institute, including original scans of the “Wedge Strategy” and the story of how it was leaked to the Internet by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes. More at Pharyngula, including the Wedge in PDF. I found this paragraph interesting, considering how much the Discovery Institute spends on PR: Seattle Weekly began making inquiries for this story in mid-2005, but neither Chapman nor any Discovery Institute fellow has been willing to be interviewed. A last attempt to elicit comment, e-mailed to spokesperson Rob Crowther on Jan. 4, elicited the following: “With the start of the new year all of the Fellows and staff are quite busy and their schedules are completely full. I think you’ll find more than enough information on our website that you are welcome to quote from. If you want to submit questions in writing, I’d be happy to pass those along and see if anyone has time to respond, but I can’t make any guarantees.” A number of questions were submitted; none was answered. ...

The Discovery Institute has lately taken the position (argued by law student Michael Francisco) that Judge Jones was wrong to even consider ruling on the question of whether Intelligent Design is science. This position has been refuted in detail by Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, by John Pieret at Thoughts in a Haystack, and by Mike Dunford at The Questionable Authority. I have one critique of Dunford’s argument–I believe he is conflating two positions in order to create a contradiction on the part of the Discovery Institute when he points out that they argued that he should rule on the constitutionality of Intelligent Design, but should not have ruled on whether Intelligent Design is science. These are distinguishable issues and one could hold both simultaneously without contradiction (though not necessarily without error). Where the Discovery Institute contradicted the recent argument from Michael Francisco is that its expert witnesses and its amicus brief did argue for the scientific status of ID, as Brayton and Pieret point out.

The two major skeptical organizations in the U.S.–Michael Shermer’s Skeptics Society and Paul Kurtz’s Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) (or, actually, its parent organization, the Center for Inquiry)–have both decided to use combatting the threat of Intelligent Design as a major platform of their most recent fundraising campaigns. The Skeptics Society sent out a card-sized folded mailing with a photo of Darwin on the front with the caption “Help us keep religion out of the science classroom!” The inside reported on recent events, such as Cardinal Schonborn’s New York Times piece that the Discovery Institute and their PR agency, Creative Response Concepts, helped arrange. It continues with facts about the amount of funding the Discovery Institute receives, quotes from Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, Harris and Pew poll results showing the general public’s ignorance on evolution. So how will collected funds be used to combat Intelligent Design? Apparently Shermer has a new book coming out this year titled Why Darwin Matters: Evolution, Design, and the Battle for Science and Religion (Henry Holt/Times Books), copies of which will be sent “to every Congressman, Senator, and Governor in America, along with the relevant state boards of education, and state legislative bodies contemplating passing pro-creationist legislation.” That doesn’t strike me as a particularly productive way to combat ID–I suspect most of the recipients will not read the book. There are other bullet items listed–publication of “a special volume of essays on evolution and Intelligent Design creationism collected from the pages of Skeptic magazine, to be published by the Skeptics Society and widely distributed to science teachers throughout America to give them the intellectual tools they need to deal with ID and creationism.” Another is to “distribute free copies to teachers” of the existing booklet How to Debate a Creationist. That sounds much more worthwhile, though I think that it would be more productive to give teachers tools like Eugenie Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction and Mark Isaak’s Counter-Creationism Handbook (the online version of which is here–some of the best teacher and student resources are already free and online). The bonuses for contributors include a free book from a selection of six for $100 “Supporters” (In Darwin’s Shadow by Tim Callahan is the only one that appears directly relevant to the topic). $500 “sponsors” get a free 3-year subscription to Skeptic; $1000 “benefactors” get two free tickets to the 2006 Skeptics Society conference on “The Environmental Wars”; and $5000 “patrons” get dinner with Shermer and “a world-renowned scientist (to be announced)” and a private tour of Mt. Wilson’s 100-inch telescope and use of the 60-inch telescope, along with the gifts the other levels get. The Center for Inquiry sent out a more elaborate package, including a DVD presentation promoting the “New Future Fund,” a campaign to raise $26.6 million, “the largest sum ever raised in the name of humanism, skepticism, and scientific naturalism.” The four major goals for the use of the money are “Legal Activism,” “Opposing Creationism/Intelligent Design,” “Transnational Development,” and “Outreach and Education.” The second item, “Opposing Creationism/Intelligent Design,” discusses Intelligent Design, and says that “CSICOP is fighting back, mobilizing grassroots outreach and expert scientists when ID proposals threaten. We’re especially aggressive online, publishing a stable of online columnists and a dynamic new website, Creation & Intelligent Design Watch.” The website has a pretty substantial amount of content, with the November/December Skeptical Inquirer (a special issue on “Evolution and the ID Wars”) as the centerpiece (along with other CSICOP-related articles, including many of Chris Mooney’s Doubt and About articles), links to items appropriate for classroom use on the left side, and links to current news stories on the right side. Now, I’m all in favor of a diversity of approaches to promote critical thinking and combat Intelligent Design’s political actions, but everyone should keep in mind that the two organizations actually doing the most in this arena are the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which is the only organization devoted entirely to fighting creationism and promoting accurate teaching about evolution, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has provided the legal support for every major creation/evolution courtroom battle. By all means support the Skeptics Society and Center for Inquiry’s programs, but if Intelligent Design is a concern, please be sure to support the NCSE and ACLU.

William Dembski stopped blogging at “Uncommon Descent,” but then turned the keys over to Dave Scot and a few others. A recent post there, quickly deleted, gave a quote from Dr. Raj Baldev criticizing evolution. It was no doubt deleted once the poster became aware that Baldev is an Indian astrologer and swami who endorses palmistry, numerology, and “occult reading,” and who gave private consultations to Saddam Hussein when he was in power. Ed Brayton commented on this posting before it disappeared, and now “crandaddy” at Uncommon Descent has the nerve to criticize Ed for being “bigoted” in pointing this out. As a commenter on Ed’s blog has pointed out, Michael Behe did say in the Dover case that astrology would count as science under the definition of science that admits intelligent design.

The “Secular Freethought Society” at Arizona State University (also known as the “Secular Devils”) has an event calendar for 2006 on the web. Gerda de Klerk, the group’s president, sent me an email inviting me to attend any of them, and asking me to pass it on to anyone else interested. The Eugenie Scott talk I’ve already mentioned is on the list, along with some Darwin Week events for February 13-17, a film screening of “Bob Smith USA” followed by “Normal Bob Smith and his Unholy Army of Catholic School Girls invade downtown Tempe” on March 3, a talk by John Lynch of the stranger fruit blog on the development of creationism into the intelligent design movement on March 28, among others.

Casey Luskin offered a commentary (on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News & Views” blog) on Kenneth Miller’s testimony in the Dover case in which he expounded on chromosomal fusion and evidence for common ancestry between apes and humans. Mike Dunford and P. Z. Myers responded, pointing out numerous errors and misunderstandings in Luskin’s argument. Luskin’s commentary has been enshrined as a paper at the IDEA Center website called “And the Miller Told His Tale." If Luskin or the Discovery Institute were serious about “teaching the controversy,” they’d at least acknowledge the existence of these responses. But even the trackbacks for the blog entry remains empty…

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, will be giving the Robert S. Dietz memorial lecture at 7 p.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2006, at ASU’s main campus (Physical Sciences building, room F 166). Genie will be speaking on “Creationism and Evolution: Historical, Scientific, Political, Legal and Educational Perspectives.” I plan to be there. Bob Dietz was an early advocate of plate tectonics and one of the primary developers of the concept of seafloor spreading, a major factor in its scientific acceptance. He was the faculty advisor for the Phoenix Skeptics, which I originally started as an ASU student group with Mike Norton and Jamie Busch. Dietz was also on the board of the Phoenix Skeptics after it became a non-campus group, and gave a few talks to the group. He had a great sense of humor, which showed in his book, co-authored with illustrator John C. Holden, Creation/Evolution Satiricon: Creationism Bashed (1987), which included some quotations from a pamphlet I wrote a year earlier, Fundamentalism is Nonsense. He died in 1995. UPDATE: I described Genie Scott’s ASU talk here.

The latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education includes an article (“The Taboo Standard”) by Marni Landry of Paradise Valley High School, who reports that she proposed a study to survey life science teachers in the Phoenix Union High School District on the subject of evolution. The survey, intended to support her M.A. thesis work at the University of Phoenix, asked the recipients whether they agreed or disagreed slightly or completely with the following statements: I have helped to write the district or state science standards. I would like to contribute in the writing of the district or state science standards. I know specifically what the district standards are concerning the theory of evolution. I have avoided details about the origin of life in order to avoid conflict in my classroom. The theory of evolution goes against my religious beliefs. If I were to get into a confrontation with a student or parent concerning the theory of evolution, I feel that [the] administration would support my actions. I feel that creationism (creation science) should be taught parallel to evolution in the classroom. I am concerned over the fact that many states have removed evolution from their science standards. Students must understand the theory of evolution in order to understand the study of biology. I have experienced conflict with a student, parent, or administrator concerning my teaching of evolution.This survey and edited versions were rejected by school district administrators as “too controversial.” The irony of being unable to conduct a survey of science teachers about a subject that they are required by state science standards to teach is explicitly noted. The author was able to complete a pilot study, and her article reports the percentages for the above statements (16.5% say that evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs and that creationism should be taught). The same issue of Reports has stories from Texas and Arkansas about high school teachers being unable to teach about evolution or (in Arkansas) even mention the ages of rocks in millions of years. This, to me, is far more frightening than attempts to force the teaching of intelligent design or creation science–that teaching about evolution has already been removed from or watered down in many of the classrooms of the United States. It’s no wonder that the average American is completely ignorant on the subject. ...

Ed Brayton gives a rebuttal to what is perhaps the most egregiously dishonest critique of the Dover decision so far, by Phyllis Schlafly. John West of the Discovery Institute links to the Schlafly piece with approval. Two examples which support the heading I’ve chosen: Schlafly writes of Judge Jones: He smeared “fundamentalists,” impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.Judge Jones’ accusations of lying were directed at two individuals who testified in the trial, Dover board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, not at “fundamentalists” or “those who disagree with him.” And he made the accusations because those two board members were lying, as I’ve previously described (about Bonsell here, about Buckingham here, and there’s more in the decision here) and may end up facing perjury charges. Schlafly further expands upon her misrepresentation of Jones’ criticism of these two dishonest board members: He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they “staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."Jones never mentions his religious views, and does not denigrate these board members for expressing religious views different from his own, but for lying. Here is the passage from Jones’ decision that Schlafly is dishonestly commenting on: It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. (p. 137 of the decision)Ed addresses more of Schlafly’s dishonesty at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Jeff Shallit has an interesting comparison of Stephen Wolfram and William Dembski, and their shared apparent unwillingness to admit mistakes. Over at Recursivity.