Articles in The New Yorker

There is a great article in this week’s The New Yorker (Dec. 5, ’05), that gives a great overview of what lead up to and what happened at the recent ‘Intelligent Design’ trial in Dover, PA - Darwin in the Dock: Intelligent design goes to school, by Margaret Talbot, (not available online).

But there is an interview Q&A of the article's author, Margaret Talbot, available online. One of the questions I think has direct relevance for us here in Utah:

Intelligent-design proponents also tout another approach to the issue, which is the “teach the controversy” movement. Can you talk about that a bit?

The Discovery Institute has been a big proponent of that language, which is subtler and perhaps constitutionally safer. The idea is not to say anything as blunt as, “Intelligent design is a good alternative,” but, rather, to emphasize criticisms of evolutionary theory. It’s funny, because a lot of people associate “teaching the controversy” with the left-wing academy, but now it’s rhetoric associated mainly with trying to introduce doubts about evolution. It sounds kind of appealing—the free marketplace of ideas, let a thousand schools of thought bloom, that sort of thing. But most scientists don’t like it, because they say there is no real debate over the fundamental validity of evolutionary theory, though there are certainly unanswered questions and debate about the relative importance of various mechanisms of evolution. As Steven Gey, a law professor who has written about the intelligent-design movement, said to me, “It’s like saying we want to be able to teach that the earth is round, but also that it’s flat, that it revolves around the sun, but also that the sun revolves around the earth. Science doesn’t work that way. We know these things are wrong.”

Intelligent-design advocates often present themselves as revolutionary thinkers who are going up against the scientific establishment, and they like to point out that a lot of people thought the big bang was a crazy idea, too. But as evolutionary scientists counter, Well, maybe you do have a revolutionary idea, but, if so, then do the experimental work to prove it, and publish that work in peer-reviewed journals, which the intelligent-design people have not done. Don’t try to get it taught in high schools—even as part of a “teach the conflicts” approach—before you’ve done the science. “The interesting question is not whether revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science” is how Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown, put it at a forum recently. “The interesting question is, How do revolutionary ideas win out? And the big bang won out because of scientific research, because Arno Penzias [and Robert Wilson] found the background radiation to the big bang. They completed the theory. They stitched it together. It is a predictive theory that said you ought to go out and find this in nature. Now, the curious thing is that the advocates of that theory did not try to get this injected into the curriculum. They did not produce pamphlets on how you could get the big bang taught in your school and avoid the constitutional questions. They did research. They won the scientific battle.”

It’s this “teach the controversy” approach that we here in Utah will no doubt have to deal with.

A couple of useful updates

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has posted an article about our ‘Antievolution legislation’ in which they add,

Utahns concerned about the threatened legislation are encouraged to get in touch with Duane Jeffrey, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University and a member of NCSE's board of directors, at duane_jeffery@byu.edu.

Duane Jeffery is also quoted in a recent BYU NewsNet article:

Duane Jeffery, BYU professor of integrative biology, said it is unfair to use intelligent design as an alternative to evolution because it is not a theory in the scientific sense.

“Intelligent design claims to be an alternate theory to evolution,” Jeffery said. “It cannot qualify as a theory.”

A scientific theory, Jeffery said, is a broad summation that pulls together massive amounts of data and gives direction for future testing. The problem with intelligent design is it cannot be tested for validation, he said.

“You can’t test anything with intelligent design,” he said. “There’s no way you can do science with it. Nobody has been able to.”

Jeffery said it is essential to continue to distinguish between hard science and speculation so students become competitive on the international level.

”There’s no question that science is the radical force in society,” he said. “It’s the only thing we have for conserving our natural resources; it’s the only thing that pushes progress. If we teach young students that science is inimical to their religious beliefs then we will fall behind, and we already have.”

Sen. Chris Buttars, who is pushing the ‘Antievolution legislation’ here in Utah, says that teaching evolution without Intelligent Design is just censorship.

Also, the University of Kansas has decided to teach Intelligent Design in a class titled Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism. Paul Mirecki, the course professor, had said regarding the class’ creation,

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki…

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

But it sounds like he has since apologized for those remarks. In an article on KU website they mention, “The course description, reading list and syllabus will be released publicly before classes start Jan. 20, 2006.” But what really caught my eye was their plan to make the course lectures available through the Internet. That should be interesting.

Here is the class catalog description for anyone wanting to take the class :^)

REL 602 Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism
This course will introduce students to the variety of approaches to myth in the academic study of religion, with special attention to accounts of creation and cosmogony. The focal point will be creationism as a distinctly American phenomenon and its place at the intersection of politics, religion and education
7:00-9:30 pm T 100 Smith Class # 70162UG/70163G Paul Mirecki

Program on KCPW

Open Source on KCPW aired a program on Intelligent Design last night - Intelligent Design in Dover and Kansas. The program can be downloaded so you can still listen to it.

Sad News – ‘Darwin’ exhibition opens without a corporate sponsor

Now I know this isn’t in Utah, but it does have relevance for here. In an article concerning the new Darwin exhibition that opened the other day in New York,

An exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin, which is slated for the National Museum of Australia later this decade, has failed to find a corporate sponsor in the United States because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution.

The entire $US3 million ($1.7 million) cost of Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York at the weekend, is instead being borne by wealthy individuals and private donations.

The failure of American companies to back the exhibition reflects the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians, who are among President George Bush's most vocal supporters, in all walks of life in the US.

While the Darwin exhibition, which features a live Galapagos tortoise, has been unable to find a business backer, the Creationist Museum near Cincinnati, Ohio, which takes literally the Bible's account of creation, has recently raised $7 million in donations.

…

Creationism is increasingly widely backed in America. A CBS News poll last month found 51 per cent of Americans reject the theory of evolution, believing instead that God created humans in their present form. Another poll in August found 38 per cent of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools, instead of evolution.

I am reminded of what Dr. John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, told the congregation of Calvary Chapel this last weekend, “We’re winning, guys! We’re winning.” Even though Intelligent Design/Creationism totally loses in science circles, it is gaining ground in popular opinion.

Evolution Amber Ale

Ya-know, the best thing that will come out of this coming debate over ID vs. evolution will probably be Wasatch Beers newly renamed Evolution Amber Ale. I love the new label, and the beer is pretty good too.



Unfortunately, not everyone can see the humor. From a recent article in the Deseret News, Sen. Chris Buttars, who’s initiating the legislation that sparked the beer label’s name change, appears to be a little grumpy over it.

"I guess some people are going to get a chuckle out of it. I don't see anything funny about it," Buttars said. "Anytime someone (tries to) sarcastically exploit issues of morality in those kinds of ways is very unappealing. But it doesn't bother me, whatever they put on there."

Oh-well, you can’t make everyone happy. But I can’t help but wonder when all is said and done if this is what Sen. Chris Buttars will best be remembered for, that he helped bring a great new beer label to Utah.

Cheers to Jesus, the original brewer! Amen.

A few things to mention

In an article in Weber State University’s newspaper, The Signpost, Nicole Okazaki, a WSU zoology professor, gives her take on Intelligent Design being taught in science classes,

“Intelligent design is not scientific, it’s not supported, it shouldn’t be taught, it should not be there. Period,” Okazaki said. “There’s no scientific reason to put it there, there’s no legal reason to put it there.”

Ya-know, I get the impression that she doesn’t think ID is good for science classes. I agree.

The article also mentions that she concedes it “could fit in a philosophy or literature or religion course” (literature course – what?). My recommendation is to have ID taught in a political science course – you could use it as a case study on how to manipulate public opinion. (See the article “Academic Cross-Dressing: How Intelligent Design gets its arguments from the left” in Harper’s Magazine, December 2005, it’s available in newsstands now, but not online.)

Also, this past weekend here, I went to a couple of events put on by SLC’s local Calvary Chapel and creationist jugernaught, the Institute for Creation Research. Tatoos, bald-headed tough guy bikers, part of Bikers for Christ (same organization as my first commenter on the following post) were there in force. It was interesting. I felt like Custer at the Little Bighorn. So I didn’t mention to anyone that I was an evolutionist while I was there; I don’t mind talking about things in person or online, but I am not interested in martyrdom :^)

Finally, I would like to give a big beehive out to The Daily Herald for awarding to Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, a Buffalo Chip for being sneaky about his creationism bill. We can only hope he steps in it.

A date is set

Well folks, it’s time to mark your calendars. On January 14th Utah will enter the Dark Ages :^) From an article in the Deseret News, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, is preparing a bill to “challenge the State Board of Education's position on teaching evolution”. At the moment he is keeping the wording of the bill under raps, but it doesn’t take a Sherlock to figure out that he is waiting on the outcome to the recent trial in Dover, PA. He plans to reveal the bill to the public at the conservative Utah Eagle Forum convention in January, a few days before the legislature opens.

Please post a comment on Utah’s Senate blog and let Sen. Buttars know what you think of his bill.

I noticed Duane Jeffery, professor of zoology at BYU, in The Daily Herald attempt to alert us to the coming plague:

Events of the past few days suggest that we should take a break from our discussion of DNA and human migrations, and turn instead to matters of science education.

The just-concluded trial involving Dover, Pa., ran from Sept. 26 through Nov. 4 -- a full six weeks of testimony and legal maneuvering considering whether "Intelligent Design" is a scientific theory qualified and fit to be included in public school curricula. For a trial with stakes so high, the case has received shockingly little attention by Utah media.

But because at least one local TV channel has now announced that Utah faces legislation in January similar to actions deployed in Pennsylvania, it clearly behooves us all to pay close attention.

Jeffery briefly summarizes the case in Dover, PA, then mentions,

Witnesses for ID could not establish any scientific contribution that their "theory" has made and could provide no example of how it could be applied to advance scientific research. Genuinely scientific ideas must meet those challenges.

ID is clearly vacuous and sterile. And therein lies the reason that every scientific organization that has addressed the issue has concluded that ID has no legitimacy and is undeserving of a place in the science classroom.

Think about it folks. If those folks out in Dover couldn’t show how ‘Intelligent design’ had made any contribution to science what makes us think we could do any better? Why would we want this taught in a science class? Do you really want ‘Intelligent Design’ taught in our schools?

Why I created this blog

With the Intelligent (“divine”) Design/Creationist vs. Evolution debate getting ready to really kick off here in Utah I thought it would be interesting to create this blog for several reasons:

1. This issue is ridiculous! Yes, we are going to spend our hard earned tax dollars on discussing if we should teach the pseudoscience of ‘intelligent design’ in our schools. I want to encourage you to call or write your state senator, congressman and the governor and let them know that you want to keep evolution right where it is in our schools. Don’t let creationism gain a foothold! (If evolutionists don’t get up and do something creationists just might gain a foothold.)

2. To let folks know that not all Christians are 'creationists'. I am a Christian and I am an evolutionist. That’s not a contradiction. They are compatible. It’s true.

3. It’s a learning experience. To evolve myself, learn something new. Despite the fact I think this is a ridiculous debate I still find it interesting.

4. For fun and personal amusement, of course. I hope you folks find it useful and enjoy it as well.