This is great.

I can't stop laughing. Read!

Continue Reading...

What's the harm?

Here is a site keeping track of those harmed by pseudoscience and dangerous beliefs. Categories include Scientology, exorcisms, homeopathy, vaccine denial, acupuncture, UFOs and many others. I recommend taking a look.

Thanks to the Bad Astronomer for sharing.

Continue Reading...

Intelligent Design Predictions

Denyse O'Leary presents her predictions from Intelligent Design. This was in response to a question which asked for ID predictions that have already shown to be true. While O'Leary presents none which have been shown to be true already, she does give 10 (as of this posting) predictions which she believes will be true in the future. Let's look at these one at a time.

1. No good theory will be found for a random origin of the universe, either by the Large Hadron Collider or anything else. The universe will consistently behave more like a great idea than a great machine.

This is not testable as worded. Perhaps with a timetable, this would make some sense. Also, what would it mean for the universe to behave like a "great idea"? It seems like the universe works very much like a well-oiled machine based on our ability to make scientific (testable) predictions. Also, the universe could very well be a great idea and a great machine. There is no reason to believe those are mutually exclusive concepts. There is, however, no evidence (because there is no conceivable test) for the universe being an "idea".

2. No good theory will be found for a random origin of life, though there will be plenty of huffing and puffing in favour of bad ideas. All theories that exclude purpose and design fail because they leave out the key driver - the purpose that life should come into existence.

Again, I have a problem with the word "good". This leaves wiggle room for backing out of acceptance of a theory that may be scientifically acceptable but is not "good enough" for the ID proponent (This is also known as God of the Gaps.)

3. Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity.

Of course the complete series of transitional fossil will never be found. Animals do not easily fossilize, and we have surely destroyed millions of fossils stomping around the globe creating cities. We have, however found many transitional fossils. Tiktaalik is my favorite. Also, what does the phrase "discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity" mean regarding fossils. Are we to presume that ID will lead us to an understanding of some god's reasons behind design? The mechanism that drives "sudden bursts in creativity" is evolution.

4. The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet. Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins). Note: I have no time for environment destruction, and personally gave up keeping a car, as the simplest and most economical way to reduce my environment footprint. But I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! - I don't believe it will happen. There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it.

How is this related to Intelligent Design?

5. No account of human evolution will show a long slow emergence from unconsciousness to semi-consciousness to consciousness, let alone that consciousness is merely the random firing of neurons in the brain. However consciousness got started, it appeared rather suddenly and it permanently separates humans from our genetic kin, however you want to do the gene numbers and however much time researchers spend coaxing monkeys to stop relieving themselves on the keyboard and type something meaningful.

I do not understand the example about the monkeys, but I believe that neurologists are working very hard on this problem. If I were a neurologist, I am sure I could come up with some fascinating studies. (If anyone knows any good papers on this, leave them in the comments.) Anyway, this is a prediction that is not possible to test. Negatives cannot be proven. (I should not here that O'Leary has "Positive predictions" after each numbered prediction, but they make little to no sense as predictions. I believe she intends them to be positive outcomes from her "predictions.")

6. Claims that the human brain is full of "anachronistic junk" will be falsified, just as century old claims that there are hundreds of vestigial organs in the human body were falsified. The human body will be recognized as suitable for the purposes for which we exist. (Not in all cases perfect, to be sure, but in general suitable.)

I would guess we would needed to know the purpose of our existence to address this claim. However, the first part of this prediction is testable but not very meaningful. Scientific theories change all the time as new evidence is found to support this or that idea. It's just how science works. Chances are we'll improve on every scientific theory given enough time.

7. No useful theory of consciousness will demonstrate that consciousness is merely the outcome of the random firing of neurons in the brain. All useful theories will accept that the mind and the brain exist in a relationship. Research will focus on delineating the relationship more clearly. That will greatly benefit medical research, especially research on difficult mental disorders such as phobias, depression, etc.

This is very similar to prediction 5. I'm not sure many people believe that the neurons in the brain fire completely at random, even if only the ones that produce consciousness. I do agree, however, that learning more about the brain and consciousness is medically useful.

8. No useful theory of free will (human volition) will demonstrate that it does not really exist. Free will (which includes using the mind to help heal bodily injuries) will become an important tool of medicine, especially for helping aging people toward a better quality of life. For example, the fact that a drug only need perform 5% better than a placebo to be licensed for use will encourage the development of mind-based treatments for people who would otherwise be forced to take antagonistic drugs.

I don't know how free will is related to psychic healing, but I am quite sure psychic healing does not exist. In fact, prayer has little to no effect on healing other people. Personal meditation does often helps due to its calming nature.

9. No useful theory of human psychology will be founded on claims about what happened in the caves of our ancestors (= evolutionary psychology). That is because there are no genes that simply "cause" behaviour in a clinically normal human being. The mind is real and humans create their social environment by mental effort. Information is passed on from mind to mind, not through genes or physiology.

This is just wrong. Almost every sentence. Evolutionary psychology is a new field. As it grows, I am sure we will see many new ideas emerge. However, saying that all behavior is caused mental effort (I'm pretty sure she implies this.) is crazy. There are chemicals in the brain which have been proven to produce all kinds of emotions and behaviors. There are even chemicals that produce a profound religious feeling.

10. I have decided to add a tenth prediction (but I am not changing the hedder for tech reasons). The ID guys will win because they are more interesting. I just got done rejecting a whack of comments by people I take to be boring young fogies with plenty of time on their hands (a problem I certainly don't have).

I guess there are no need to include this one except out of a need for completeness. Its ridiculousness is palpable.

As you can see, these predictions are absolutely meaningless and none of them prove anything about ID one way or the other. It's almost as if O'Leary asked an astrologer for ID predictions. They are that vague and untestable. Also, I find it interesting that as a Roman Catholic, O'Leary does no side with the Vatican which have an official stance in support of evolution. That was on of the things I appreciated, being raised Roman Catholic and going to a Catholic grade school. I was still taught science and not fundamentalist fairy tales.

I would also like to quote a comment from the blog. I think it speaks for itself but I will provide some context as a way of being fair. O'Leary is responding mostly to this paragraph of the comment by someone named Corn:

When a med student is learning a procedure (for example, a second trimester D&E) they don't learn about religious objections to the practice, they learn how to perform the practice safely (relative to the mother of course), to minimize risk (to the mother's life), and to look out for the various (medical) complications that may ensue. It is in their philosophy class that they learn about Medical Ethics and what controversies, both religious and non-religious, surround the procedure (at my school ME was a required course, I suspect the same at other schools). It is in their psychology classes that they learn about the psychological trauma that may be experienced by those who've undergone the procedure.

Here is her response.

Corn, your choice of D and E abortions (as "science?") speaks volumes, actually. "Science" is about killing kids and "philosophy" is about the oddd views of people who are upset by the fact that one does it?

As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.

Then why post about it and accept comments?

Thanks to Blake Stacey and Jason Rosenhouse for leading me to this bit of nonsense.

Continue Reading...

This Book is Everywhere

A new book is out about evolution and creationism. Published by the National Academy of Sciences, it aims to explain to the general public why evolution is science and creationism isn't.

It seems I can't turn around without seeing this story. Evolving Thoughts talked about it and linked to a press release. I get the New York Times Science section on my Google homepage, and they've got a story about it. Also on my homepage are updates from ScienceNOW, and what should I see but another mention of this book.

So, with all this sciencey-bloggy-media blitz, I figured I'd check it out. They've got it online for free, you know. A mere few pages in, what should I see but that one of the authors is in the biology department of a certain local university. Perhaps we have someone to contact about a lecture for an upcoming meeting.

I'll have a review soon.

Continue Reading...

Self Contradictions from Sal Cordova

After a nice vacation, creationist Sal Cordova has posted a few new articles on his blog Young Cosmos. He takes ad hominem potshots at PZ Myers and writes meaningless arguments from authority (here and here). There is a little fun, though, when he waxes philosophical on a young vs. old universe and makes claims about what would prove ID true.

Sal says that in his recent modern physics class he "went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics." That's good; that's what a physics class should teach a student. He also says

My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth.

Hmm, I don't really think he learned that in his modern physics class. I think it's much more likely that the class made zero mention of Darwin or evolution and Sal's confirmation bias twisted that actual class discussion into support of his evolution denial.

We also see that, while Sal may be a good student of science history and facts, he hasn't absorbed the methods of science

An assumption of Einstein’s relativity is that the speed of light is constant. If we accept Einstein’s theory as is, or even Maxwell’s equations as is, then the cosmos must be old and not young. Accepting an old cosmos was not a problem for me in class, because the assumption of an old cosmos is reasonable (unlike Darwin’s ridiculous idea that Darwinian processes can evolve a fish into a bird, and a cow into a whale).

I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…..

In effect, he says he'll accept scientific facts until he can get a degree, then cherry-pick evidence to support his discredited pet hypothesis. Sal presents himself as being open to whatever comes out of his "exploration," but typically people do not name their blogs after ideas that they're ambivalent towards [hint, it's named Young Cosmos].

There is more evidence of ideological bias and a blatant false dichotomy in the final paragraph.

I can, as a Christian, accept an old cosmos if that’s the way it really is. However, if the universe is young, and if a VSL cosmology succeeds, it will not only prove ID, but also special creation. It will also strongly suggest the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. It will affirm the geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. I pray that if the Cosmos is Young, God will help the search for evidence along those lines.

Sorry, Sal. Even if there is evidence that the speed of light can change, that says zip zero zilch about ID. Any theory must stand or fall on its own merits and evidence, and ID has nothing behind it. It cannot just ride the coattails of a possible but improbable idea in an unrelated field. And under what tortured logic could a variable speed of light support the existence of a particular god? What does that have to do with the family tree of one organism out of trillions on one planet around one star out of millions in one galaxy out of billions? I think Sal has delusions of grandeur about his delusions.

Continue Reading...

Another Post re: Sal Cordova

I really wasn't going to write about Sal Cordova's latest misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Even though it's a long article, there didn't seem to be enough there to give me anything of substance to write about. But thanks to Blake Stacey's comment on my last post on Sal Cordova showing me that Tyler DiPietro had written a bit about the new post, I had enough to go on.

Remember this equation from before? It was never explained what any of this means. In Sal's recent article, we get something almost a little like mathematical information about the equation.

Sal writes,

That conceptual merging of all quantum systems is represented by the quantum system of the universe, or (for lack of a better term), the Universal Wave Function. Taking the Schrodinger equation and generalizing it for the entire universe, we have the universal wave function as derived by Barrow and Tipler: [picture] where the indexed Psi’s are the individual quantum systems, and the O’s are the “observations."

There is zero probability that Sal didn't just copy that out of a book. Why else would he capitalize "Universal Wave Function"? Does he know what a wave function is? Does he know what "observation" means? I sure don't, not in this context anyway.

Let's analyze this equation for a bit. Why would you multiply a wave function with this "observation"? Why sum them up? In fact, every time we see an index i we see a k, yet i and k are summed separately. Why? The product is over n, yet n only appears in the "observation." Why? What are these indices supposed to mean? What does any of this mean? Perhaps Sal should understand that math doesn't just pop out of nowhere like a child's birthday magic show: it needs to be derived. And preferably explained.

Sal then cites a respectable, peer-reviewed geocities page when he says, "Jenny Nielsen explains this beautifully in A Report on 'The Delayed Choice Experiment'.” Wait, did I say "cites"? I meant "reproduces the entire article."

For physically actualized systems, it appears then a measurement is essential for the system to be actualized.

I can only infer from this that Sal thinks before humans were around measuring everything, nothing in the universe is "actualized." When we're not looking, everything ceases to be.

For example, we see measurements defining the boundary conditions of a quantum system such as illustrated by the Nobel Prize winning experiment known as Stern Gerlach.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment has nothing to do with measurement, and everything to do with demonstrating spin. Well, I guess it does trivially have to do with measurement, as one needs to measure something to get any information from the experiment. However, I can assure you, the Stern-Gerlach experiment would run the same way whether someone was watching or not. The point of the experiment is that there is an intrinsic angular momentum to the electron and that it is quantized.

[John Barrow and Frank Tipler's book Anthropic Cosmological Principle] was hailed by the prestigious scientific journal Nature. However, in 1996, when Tipler came forward and said the “Ultimate Observer” was to be identified with the Judeo-Christian God, Tipler’s ideas were immediately ridiculed and his pay was cut.

In fact, I've found the review in question. But my university's online subscription to Nature only goes back to 01-01-87, and this article was published on 08-14-86. So close. I'll have to go to the library and track it down later.

In a comment on Tyler's article, Blake Stacey writes about a different review of Tipler.

Actually, a review of Tipler's Physics of Immortality, published in Nature, called that book "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline". It's funny Cordova doesn't mention that review, isn't it?

So, another day, another butchering of quantum mechanics. Expect another soon enough.

Continue Reading...

Creationist Stabs Scientist in Argument over Evolution

On January 27, 2007, a man in New South Wales, Australia was arrest for the stabbing death of a man over an argument about evolution. On December 17, 2007 the man was sentenced to 5 years in prison. See The Australian for the full story.

The two men, Alexander York and Rudi Boa met while on vacation and ended up in a pub in a heated discussion about evolution. Boa and his girlfriend took the scientific viewpoint (they were both biomedical engineers after all) while York's view was more in line with fundamentalist Christians. After a heated discussion at the bar, the three returned to the campsite where they all happened to be staying. As more they become more inebriated, the argument started again. This time, York ended up attacking Rudi Boa with a kitchen knife resulting in Boa's death. York claims self defense. The judge sentenced York to five years in prison, a light sentence.

Justice Adams said he had given York a sentence at the lower end of the scale, partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

"I do not believe that he took aim but rather thrust out," Justice Adams said.

"I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.

"The offender is a person of good character and the offence is a complete aberration."

It seems that some in the blog community have used this case as a means to paint creationist as vile evil creatures (see Pharyngula). I would argue that this drunk man did not represent anyone except his drunk self. This case does, however, illustrate how passionate people are about their faith. I think it is important not to demonize creationists because of this incident. It should remind us of the complexity of the evolution/creationism argument. There is no winning one side or another over with facts. There is faith involved. I believe people will be more passionate in protecting their faith than a scientific view, but that still should not end in violence. In the words of an A Perfect Circle version of a Depeche Mode song, "People are people so why should it be you and I shouldn't get along?"

Though Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has a great defense of Creationism...

Continue Reading...

Lizzette Reynolds + Commenter

The Austin American-Statesman has an interview with Lizzette Reynolds, the Texas education official with the itchy keyboard finger involved in the Christine Comer case.

She still thinks Comer expressed an opinion in her email. The only sentence in the email expressing an opinion is the first one; it says, "I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking..." Everything else is completely factual.

Lizzette Reynolds' email expressed plenty of opinions, including the opinion that Comer's email was "an offense that calls for termination." Well, Lizzette, I have to quote your own words from your interview when I say, "I realize that people have their opinions. If you want to do that, Yahoo is free. Get a Yahoo account."

After the jump, I look at an anti-evolution commenter on the Reynolds article.

This is completely unrelated to Lizzette Reynolds, but I found it on the same page. One of the comments on the Reynolds interview is full of standard creationist babble, so I had to reproduce it here for evisceration. It comes from commenter David, who says,

What are you evolutionist-types afraid of? Is your “theory” so flimsy that you must censor all other talk or discussion about origins?

How did it all begin?

The Theory of Evolution cannot account for that - it can only account for an evolution of the species. True enough. The biology and zoology seem to point to that.

But what about beginnings? What if one wanted to start an intellectual discussion on beginnings. Or purpose? Or telos? Where would they go?

Science or philosophy?

If Philosophy, then it is clear that the Theory of Evolution is not robust enough to handle the question of origins.

Pro-evolutionists: Stop the censorship. Let the discussion being. (sic)

In a modern pluralistic state, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Shame, shame, shame.

Let all sides talk and then let the intelligent minds think for themselves.

I'll take care of the easy one first. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Absolutely not a single thing. Evolution presupposes replicators with differential abilities to survive or replicate based on their characteristics; once those things exist, evolution predicts the general pattern one would see. It has zero to do with how those replicators came to be in the first place. Zero.

That takes care of about half the nonsense in this comment. Before taking down the other part, I have to switch off my irony-detector before my head explodes.

Chris Comer was fired because of a phantom opinion she expressed about an evolution supporter.

...and we are censoring them?

You have the audacity to suggest that the supporters of evolution will not allow a discussion to take place on the very same website where an interview is being conducted about a woman who was fired for allegedly supporting evolution. What nerve you have. What nerve and absolute ignorance. Aside from the fact that your argument is crap, you post it on a page about a series of events that would turn your ideas over and give them a good spanking if you would only take the time to read and understand them. The mere suggestion that Chris Comer might be breaking the delicate and sacred neutrality between solid science and the logic of a four-year-old is enough cause for her to lose her job, even though she didn't do any such thing. But we are stifling debate. We aren't allowing both sides to be heard.

Well, sir, I've let both sides be heard. I have reproduced your words in my arena. I can only hope that you follow your own advice. "Let all sides talk and then let the intelligent minds think for themselves." Please do think for yourself.

Continue Reading...

In Which I Take on a Long Commitment

Once again I come late to the party, and if you want to be well versed in this subject you might have to read all the backstory. And, to paraphrase Colin Meloy, as I tell this sorry tale / in harrowing detail / its hollowness will haunt you. Sorry about that.

Here we go. First, a little history, courtesy of Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math. Sal Cordova used to blog over at the ID mecca Uncommon Descent.

Not too long after that, Sal made a fairly big deal about the fact that he was returning to grad school, and had to stop blogging at UD because the dastardly darwinists would damage his academic prospects if he continued. He played the standard creationist-martyr role, poor guy, persecuted by all the horrible non-believers. Naturally, it didn't last long. He's got his own blog now, called "Young Cosmos", where he writes his usually pathetic quote-mining, plus what he calls "Advanced creation science".

Enough history. Sal wrote a post entitled "Fundamental Theorems of Intelligent Design". He proceeds to not tell the reader what these theorems are. What a letdown. He does post a few equations, however. ...or, he sort of does. I'll show you.

This is the first equation. Looks really pretty, doesn't it? Do you want to know what it means? Me too! Sal doesn't tell us diddly about what this equation means, save that it was "derived by the renowned physicists John Barrow a (sic) Frank Tipler from Schrodinger’s equation of quantum mechanics." Wow. That's sexy.

We have less information about the second equation. Sal provides a reference, saying it's on page 25 of a PDF he links. Well, there are several not-numbered equations on page 25 of that PDF with very little explanation.

The reader is left wondering what this means. Sal won't leave you hanging, though! He says, "The exploration of these fundamental theorems will take a year’s worth of blogging. They make feasible the theory of ID, and a theory of ID leads to the possiblity of theories of special creation, which make possible theories of a young cosmos."

Sal posted a second article, "Fourier Transform and Schrodinger’s Equation part I", which starts with

Various theories of Intelligent Design and Advanced Creation Science depend heavily on Schrodinger’s equation of Quantum Mechanics [as I pointed out in Fundamental Theorems of ID].

Thus it makes sense to cover a little bit about Schrodinger’s equation over several threads and hopefully after some lenghty derivations, I can connect basic physics to theories of ID and Advanced Creation Science.. To my surprise, I discovered there is a relationship of Schrodinger’s equation in physics to the Fourier Transform of math and Electrical Engineering.

I hope Sal isn't reading anything of significance into this. A lot of fields study waves, which are governed by second-order differential equations. If the solutions to these equations are periodic, Fourier series (and their associated transforms) are a great way to go. They simplify a second-order differential equation into a simple quadratic equation. So most kinds of wave motion can be made simpler by Fourier series. There is certainly nothing of cosmic significance to this, it just means Fourier came up with a great tool that a lot of people use.

A few bloggers picked up on this story, including Blake Stacey of Science After Sunclipse, Tyler DiPietro, and the aforementioned Mark Chu-Carroll. Then PZ Myers at Pharyngula passed on the links, which is where I found it all. Like I said, late to the party.

Sal's put up one more post since then, "Schrodinger vs. Darwin". As pathetic as the other two articles have been, this one takes the cake. The thesis is, in a nutshell, "Schrodinger is a real scientist and Darwin isn't because Schrodinger could do math and Darwin couldn't!" I'm not kidding.

Several ad hominems and non sequiturs follow.

Ironically the Darwinists are whining that the US is falling behind in math and engineering education and that if we don’t teach more Darwinism, the country will fail. Acually, it is apparent from Darwin’s own writings we should not follow in Darwin’s footsteps if we wish the USA to excell (sic) in math and engineering.

The nation will advance in science and engineering if more students understand the Schrodinger’s work than that of the math-challenged puppy beater, Charles Darwin…..

Wow. I'm pretty sure no one wants kids to learn evolution to be better at math. I was thinking maybe it would be about biology. Biology, as a science, doesn't always involve math. It doesn't necessarily have to. Living things are incredibly complex, so simple math can't always fit their behavior. A science doesn't have to be as mathematical as physics to make testable predictions that hold up under evidence. Biology does, ID doesn't. The end.

And as to the puppy-beating, PZ has something to say about that.

I plan to stick with this sideshow series Sal is posting. Someone has to. Hopefully he'll eventually write something that needs a physicist to take apart, rather than the collections of fallacies and quote-mines we've seen so far. And, to be completely fair, he may actually say something of scientific worth. I'll present you the evidence as it comes.

---

UPDATE: More ad hominems from Sal's new post. He can't get over the fact that Darwin once said he was bad at algebra.

Also, Blake Stacey has another example from last June of Sal attributing evidence for ID to his misunderstanding of physics.

Continue Reading...

Comer on Science Friday

Earlier I mentioned that Chris Comer, former Texas science education administrator and current victim of creationist bigotry, would be featured on Science Friday. Well, she was, but it was disappointingly short. Only 12 minutes long, in fact. She wasn't even able to tell half the story she wanted to before the timer ran out. Sad.

Anyway, there were a few thoughts I had.

• Comer sent out her email about the Barbara Forrest talk at 9:49. It somehow made its way to the local Bush appointee and self-appointed thought police, Lizzette Reynolds, who sent an email to Comer's boss demanding she be fired. Comer's boss talked to her at 11:21. It took only about an hour and a half for this to go down.


• Previous reports had used the word "resigned." From Comer's story, she was fired. Completely blindsided, in fact. Her boss called her in for a meeting, and when she showed up that morning her computer password didn't work.


• Prior to this incident, Comer had felt she was going to be a target. She could see the rising tide of creationism and knew her bosses would want to get rid of her.


• The last time there was a biology book adoption in Texas, the director of education and flaming creationist, Don McLeroy, invited both the entire board of the Discovery Institute and also Euginie Scott of the NCSE to speak. That's awfully noble of him; he was actually following the "Teach the Controversy" mantra the DI pushes. Oh, but he let every single DI board member speak first, so that Eugenie Scott didn't speak until 2 am. Doesn't really sound like he wanted her side to be heard at all, only his own.

That seems to be all. Not a lot of new info, but some more detail.

Continue Reading...

Chris Comer in Her Own Words, and Also the Words of Barbara Forrest

Anyone reading the site lately will know I've been following the Chris Comer case (1, 2, 3). In short: Comer, the director of science education in Texas, forwarded an email to her officemates about a talk given by intelligent design investigator and critic Barbara Forrest. Comer runs afoul of Texas' new policy of friendliness towards religious pseudoscience and she is forced to resign.

Well, Barbara Forrest being the powerhouse who not only wrote Creationism's Trojan Horse, the book about the intelligent design wedge strategy (high on my Christmas list), but also provided the Of Pandas and People evidence in Kitzmiller v. Dover, she could not sit idly by while Chris Comer was taking hits on her behalf. Forrest released a statement (PDF) through the NCSE in which she points out that the creationists seem to be making the points in her book for her.

The incident now involving Ms. Comer exemplifies perfectly the reason my co-author Paul R. Gross and I felt that our book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, had to be written. (www.creationismstrojanhorse.com) By forcing Ms. Comer to resign, the [Texas Education Agency] seems to have confirmed our contention that the ID creationist movement—a religious movement with absolutely no standing in the scientific world—is being advanced by means of power politics.

She also isn't shy about letting Texas know exactly what's coming their way.

Texans should now prepare themselves for an attempt by the [cdesign proponentists] (and/or newly recruited supporters) to influence the upcoming review of state science standards. In order to be ready, the good citizens of Texas who value their public schools and the U.S. Constitution must familiarize themselves with the ID code terms they are likely to hear, all of which signal the ID movement’s attack on the teaching of evolution. ID supporters will declare that they certainly do not favor eliminating evolution or teaching intelligent design, but rather that they simply want children to hear “both sides” of the “controversy” and to learn to “critically analyze” evolutionary theory, so that they can understand the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, and all of this will be for the sake of “fairness” and “academic freedom.”

For further reading, she provides a document explaining those code terms (PDF). I recommend them both, along with anything else written by Forrest.

And, as I teased in the title, we have Chris Comer herself weighing in on the subject...

Tomorrow! Oh, snap! Anyway, she's going to be on Science Friday tomorrow. So even though I don't listen to the show regularly because their podcasts download strangely, I'll be all over this segment like a fat kid on cake.

Continue Reading...

No New Info on Chris Comer, but Publicity is Good

The New York Times ran an editorial today about the Chris Comer case. It's nothing we haven't heard (or blogged about) before, but hopefully this case stays in the public eye. Vigilance might keep the Texas board of education from doing something that would ultimately hurt the education of their children.

The article has no info on the author, by the way. I'll pick up a copy of today's paper and report back if there's anything there that isn't online.

---

UPDATE: Editorials are produced by the editorial board. I am a moron for not having realized that before.

Continue Reading...

Downward Spiral

The New York Times has run a story on the Chris Comer Texas ID issue. From the article:

Ms. Comer said state education officials seemed uneasy lately over the required evolution curriculum. It had always been part of her job to answer letter-writers inquiring about evolution instruction, she said, and she always replied that the State Board of Education supported the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

But several months ago, in response to an inquiry letter, Ms. Comer said she was instructed to strike her usual statement about the board’s support for teaching evolution...

Pitiful.

The article also says that her resignation-under-pressure "is a prelude to an expected battle early next year over rewriting the state’s science education standards, which include the teaching of evolution."

What do you think? Is Texas going to go the way of Kansas and Dover? Will there be another trial shooting down the Constitutionality of teaching creationism in public school science classes, as in Edwards v Aguillard? When will all this evolution denial end?

-via Pharyngula

Continue Reading...

Sometimes Bad Arguments are Funny

From Saint Gasoline.

Continue Reading...

Texas Education Ebbs Towards Creationism

Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, has resigned due to pressure over an email she wrote. The email promoted a talk to be given by Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy of science professor Barbera Forrest, whom some of you may remember from the Dover intelligent design trial. Barbera was the key to demonstrating the evolution of creationism, so to speak, by finding the missing link: the cdesign proponentsists.

This email, it seems, violated a policy of the TEA, namely remaining neutral between evolution and creationism. Excuse me? The director of science education must remain neutral between science and not science? Sending an email announcing a talk by a supporter of good science education sounds like something well within the purview of a director of science in an educational agency. The content of the email itself must have been far more offensive than we know, right?

...Fortunately we can test that. Via Pharyngula we have the content of the very email right here.

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.

For further details, visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/

Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509

Wow. Powerful stuff. I can see why that's a firing offense.

For further reading, see a comprehensive article by the Texas Citizens for Science, the first article on the subject I read from Pharyngula, and also Steve Novella wrote a bit about this.

I'll be sure to keep my eye on this case; I have a feeling that it's far from over.

---

On a slightly related note, here's a fun poll.

Continue Reading...

Creation Science Research Grants

I was looking though some blogs and was linked to the ever-funny Something Awful forums where I saw this gem. Enjoy!

Continue Reading...

DI and plagarism

Well, the folks at the intelligent design think tank The Discovery Institute apparently do know how to recognize good design when they see it. At least when it comes to slickly produced videos showing computer-generated cellular processes.

The story is that several members of the Discovery Institute, such as Bill Dembski, have been showing a video produced for Harvard by company XVIVO called "The Inner Life of the Cell" (short version here and long version here). In fact, some of you may remember it as the video Brandeis showed during his research seminar talk.

The problem is that the DI fellows strip off the credits and attribution from the end. Also they edit their own "narration" over it. Oh, also, when I say "story," I mean there's video evidence. SA Smith has the story at ERV.

Continue Reading...