SCIENCE: Texas Board of Education voted to remove the age of the universe from the Texas’s educational standards

evolution-cartoonscientific-advancementNo doubt, this decision by the Christianists within the Texas Board of Education is an attempt to manipulate public school education standards to impose a blatantly wrong agenda—and how un-Christian of them.

The Board of Education’s decision is seen as a “backdoor entrance for creationists and fans of intelligent design” to circumvent basic science standards. From io9:

How old is the universe? Scientists agree that the answer is somewhere around 14 billion years (give or take a few million)… unless you happen to be a student in the state of Texas.

.       .       .

The decision was only one of many made on Friday, and sadly, only one of many that suggested an anti-science agenda (Other decisions included specific language requiring scientific explanations on evolution to be “evaluated” by students and teachers, ominously enough). Chair of the Board Don McLeroy testified to the reason why that may be the case at the meeting:

I disagree with these experts. Someone has got to stand up to experts.

That’s right! Standing up to experts and facts is exactly what the chair of an educational board’s job is supposed to be! Well, at least there’s always the internet to fill in gaps in these kids’ education…

More from the Wall Street Journal:

Critics of evolution said they were thrilled with Friday’s move. “Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,” said Dr. John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that argues an intelligent designer created life.

Kathy Miller, president of the pro-evolution Texas Freedom Network, said, “The board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks.”

.       .       .

Several years ago, the board expressed concern that a description of the Ice Age occurring “millions of years ago” conflicted with biblical timelines. The publisher changed it to “in the distant past.” Another publisher sought to satisfy the board by inserting a heading about “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” in a biology text, drawing condemnation from science organizations.

.       .       .

For instance, [social conservatives on the board] want textbooks to suggest the theory of evolution is undercut by fossils that show some organisms — such as ferns — haven’t changed much over millions of years. They also want texts to discuss the explosion of life forms during the Cambrian Era as inconsistent with the incremental march of evolution.

Scientists respond that the fossil record clearly traces the roots of Cambrian Era creatures back as far as 100 million years.

It isn’t just evolution at issue: The board also approved an earth-science curriculum that challenges the widely accepted Big Bang Theory. Students are expected to learn that there are “differing theories” on the “origin and history of the universe.”

Board members also deleted a reference to the scientific consensus that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. The board’s chairman has said he believes God created the universe fewer than 10,000 years ago.

And from Christopher Hitchens:

In many ways, this battle can be seen as the last stand of the Protestant evangelicals with whom I was mingling and debating. It’s been a rather dismal time for them lately. In the last election they barely had a candidate after Mike Huckabee dropped out and, some would say, not much of one before that. Many Republicans now see them as more of a liability than an asset. As a proportion of the population they are shrinking, and in ethical terms they find themselves more and more in the wilderness of what some of them morosely called, in conversation with me, a “post-Christian society.” Perhaps more than any one thing, the resounding courtroom defeat that they suffered in December 2005 in the conservative district of Dover, Pa., where the “intelligent design” plaintiffs were all but accused of fraud by a Republican judge, has placed them on the defensive. Thus, even if the Texas board had defiantly voted to declare evolution to be questionable and debatable, its decision could still have spelled the end of a movement rather than the revival of one.

Image Found Here
Image Found Here

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

CREATIONISM defeated in Texas

locomotivescreationism1From the New Scientist:

In meetings to revise science standards in Texan schools, the 15 members of the Texas State Board of Education elected to get rid of wording which has allowed the standing of evolution to be attacked for 20 years in Texan science lessons.

The offending wording invites teachers and students to debate “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. In practice, this was used as a pretext to attack evolution in lessons and textbooks.

Regarding the locomotive image, the author of the image notes:

This was at the train museum in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Apparently attributable to a School Board in Lancaster, Ohio (page 151 in Freeman Hubbard’s, Encyclopedia of North American Railroading (as cited by M. C. Hallberg.) My stepfather is pretty sure this quote was made up, at the time, as some sort of spoof. Making fun of school board motivations is a timeless joy, I guess.


Photo source for attribution here and here. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

EVOLUTION shouldn’t be controversial, but it is

intelligent-designUniversity of Vermont professor Nicholas Gotelli responds to an invitation to debate David Klinghoffer of the the Discovery Institute—“a conservative public policy U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.” From ScienceBlogs:

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

In response, Klinghoffer whines:

I’ve been corresponding with Nicolas Gotelli, a University of Vermont biologist. When I received his response to my initial email, I thought it was so ridiculous and hypocritical that I said to myself, Wouldn’t it be amusing to publish this on ENV? Then I reflected disappointedly, No, it’s a private correspondence, that would be unethical! I can’t do it without his permission and, since he’d have to be pretty thoughtless to allow someone to reprint his hysterically bristling letter, it’s not worth asking.

Luckily, Professor Gotelli has solved my problem for me. He promptly and without seeking permission sent our emails off to PZ Myers, who immediately published them on Pharyngula. You can read the correspondence there. Thank you, gentlemen.

A Pew Research Center poll illustrates acceptance of evolution amongst some major religions and certain religious groups:

evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution.) These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline.) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life — a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution.) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin’s ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive (“survival of the fittest”) has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution’s broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life’s origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation’s culture wars, manifest most recently in the 2008 presidential campaign, particularly in the attention paid to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s statements in favor of public schools teaching creation science or intelligent design along with evolution. And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.

evolution-acceptance-amongst-major-religious-groups

Image Found Here

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

EVOLUTION requires thought

Adam Rutherford makes an observation regarding evolution dissenters:

The world would be a better place if everyone saw evolution as a fact, but it’s not going to happen. Some people think Shakespeare is boring. Many more think Coldplay are good.

Creationism is attractive because it’s easy: it requires no thought and blind obedience. Thus, it has no value. But it is easy. My guess is that most of the people who don’t think evolution is true don’t really spend a lot of time thinking about evolution at all.

Why should you? Evolution matters. It matters intellectually because it is the sole satisfactory explanation for life on earth. It matters because it inextricably links humankind to every creature on the planet. It matters because its principles underlie modern medicine. It should matter to anyone who ever held a plastic Apatosaurus and thought “that is awesome”. I can’t write this often enough, because it’s perfect: nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That’s why 2009 is so important. Darwin’s bicentennial is the ideal opportunity to get people smart about evolution.

The title of the Theos report is “Rescuing Darwin”, from both “aggressive” atheists and creationists. They claim that the specific reason for this national stupidity is because of a negative association between evolution and atheism.

.       .       .

Theos also say that it is possible to be a Christian and accept evolution as fact. Empirically, of course this is true: there are outstanding scientists who are religious. If one takes a deist view, that there is a non-interventionist supreme absentee landlord who set up universal rules, and let them play out forever, then evolution is perfectly cromulent to Christianity. God hasn’t actually done anything for 13bn years. I’ve got no real beef with this, though it seems pointless, a metaphysical mumbling excuse for why there is something rather than nothing.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

EVOLUTION: Interesting graphs illustrate the acceptance of evolution (updated)

public-acceptance-of-evolutionIMAGE: The chart illustrates public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries in 2005.  The chart is courtesy of Jon D. Miller, et al. in Science

A study, investigating the belief of evolution in various countries, asked adults to respond “true” or “false” to the following statement: “‘Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,’ [and] the percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.”

According to the study, the acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in countries such as Japan, France, or Poland.  In fact, the United States ranks just above Turkey—a secular Muslim-majority country.

Certainly, in the United States, the Republican war on science or the politicization of science by certain Christianist groups, pundits, and politicians seems to have left the public divided. In fact, in the United States, this misinformation machine, and the use of patsies to distribute misinformation, has been immensely successful at thwarting everything from healthcare reform to energy reform and even legislation to tackle climate change.

Personally, I don’t understand what the hullabaloo is all about, because evolution is certainly observable, and theories are merely used to explain observations. Why would a religious person (i.e., a Christian or a Muslim) need creation science (which is a malicious falsehood, because it’s clearly manufactured), the slightly modified intelligent design, or any fabrication to make them feel comfortable about their existence when there is objective science to help explain our existence?

Furthermore, surely species must adapt and evolve over time in order for life to survive, so if you’re a Christian who believes in evolution, then you’ve rationalized Christianity and evolution as being compatible, because it makes sense that a Creator God (or any creator deity) would use evolution as a mechanism to allow the continuation of life under a myriad of circumstances. More from Jon D. Miller, et al./Science via RichardDawkins.net:

The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views. Catholics and mainstream Protestants generally accept variations of a theological view known as theistic evolution, which views evolution as the means by which God brought about humans, as well as other organisms. Evolution is nonetheless problematic to some of these nonliteralist Christians, because it implies a more distant or less personal God (1—3). Efforts to insert “intelligent design” into school science curricula seek to retain the divine design of humans while remaining agnostic on earlier creationist beliefs in a young Earth and the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs (2, 4).

Beginning in 1985, national samples of U.S. adults have been asked whether the statement, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” is true or false, or whether the respondent is not sure or does not know. We compared the results of these surveys with survey data from nine European countries in 2002, surveys in 32 European countries in 2005, and a national survey in Japan in 2001 (5). Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005. After 20 years of public debate, the public appears to be divided evenly in terms of accepting or rejecting evolution, with about one in five adults still undecided or unaware of the issue. This pattern is consistent with a number of sporadic national newspaper surveys reported in recent years (6—10).

A dichotomous true-false question format tends to exaggerate the strength of both positions. In 1993 and 2003, national samples of American adults were asked about the same statement but were offered the choice of saying that the statement was “definitely true, probably true, probably false, definitely false,” or that they did not know or were uncertain. About a third of American adults firmly rejected evolution, and only 14% of adults thought that evolution is “definitely true.” Treating the “probably” and “not sure” categories as varying degrees of uncertainty, ~55% of American adults have held a tentative view about evolution for the last decade.

acceptance-of-evolutionIMAGE: The graph illustrates the acceptance of evolution in six Muslim countries. According to Salman Hameed, “The data were gathered from 1996 and 2003, as part of a study of religious patterns in Muslim countries,” and “the number of participants for each country is given in parentheses.”

Just like certain Christianist groups in the United States, Islamists reject evolution as well. From Salman Hameed in Science (PDF):

[A]lthough the last couple of decades have seen an increasing confrontation over the teaching of evolution in the United States, the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world (i.e., predominantly Islamic countries, as well as in countries where there are large Muslim populations). Relatively poor education standards, in combination with frequent misinformation about evolutionary ideas, make the Muslim world a fertile ground for rejection of the theory. In addition, there already exists a growing and highly influential Islamic creationist movement (1).

Biological evolution is still a relatively new concept for a majority of Muslims, and a serious debate over its religious compatibility has not yet taken place. It is likely that public opinion on this issue will be shaped in the next decade or so because of rising education levels in the Muslim world and the increasing importance of biological sciences.

.       .       .

Opposition to evolution is often not centered on any particular verse from the Koran, but rather on the social and cultural threat that the theory poses for Muslims. Adnan Oktar borrows his “science” heavily from the Institute for Creation Research and, more recently, from the Intelligent Design movement in the United States (2). His organization, based in Turkey, has produced antievolution documentaries, hundreds of pamphlets, and books and has made them available for download, free of cost, from his Web site (harunyahya.com). Because the idea of an ancient Earth is not controversial among Muslims, he is comfortable presenting biological creationism in a universe billions of years old. Instead, the focus of his opposition is on the social and cultural threat posed by evolution in the form of materialism and atheism.

According to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll, “Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals.” Furthermore, political affiliation is an important factor that illustrates whether or not—and how—an individual believes in evolution. From The Texas Tribune:

Democrats (28 percent) are less likely than Republicans (47 percent) to think that humans have always existed in their present form and more likely (21 percent to 7 percent) to think humans have developed over millions of years without God’s guidance. About the same percentages of Democrats and Republicans (40 and 36 percent, respectively) believe that evolution took place over time with God’s guidance. Democrat Bill White‘s voters were the most likely to believe in evolution without a divine hand (33 percent); on the Republican side, by comparison, only 6 percent of Rick Perry‘s supporters were in that category.

Has life on earth always existed in its present form? Republicans are more likely to agree (29 percent) than Democrats (16 percent). They’re less likely to believe that life evolved over time with no guidance from God (8 percent to 24 percent). Democrats are slightly less inclined to believe in evolution with a “guiding hand from God” (50 percent to 55 percent).

Republicans are less likely to believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals; 26 percent agree, while 60 percent disagree. Among Democrats in the survey, 46 percent agree that humans evolved from earlier species; 42 percent disagree. Perry’s voters were most hostile to this premise — 67 percent disagree.

About the same numbers of Democrats and Republicans — 43 percent — disagree with the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived on the planet at the same time. Republicans were slightly more likely to agree with the idea (31 percent to 27 percent). Perry had more voters in each group on the GOP side, but Kay Bailey Hutchison had the largest share of voters who believe in that coexistence.

Prindle says the results recall a line from comedian Lewis Black. “He did a standup routine a few years back in which he said that a significant proportion of the American people think that the ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary,” Prindle says. “Turns out he was right. Thirty percent of Texans agree that humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time.”

More from The Guardian:

No matter how often they come up, the figures for creationism in the USA still boggle the mind. The latest poll noticed by the National Centre for Science Education, shows that among registered voters in Texas, 51% disagree that humans have evolved from earlier species of animal. Among Republicans, the figure rises to 60%. Low hanging fruit indeed.

The nearest comparable poll is a Gallup one, from 2008. This shows actually higher rates of creationism in the USA as a whole than in Texas, where the religious right is particularly powerful. But it is possible that the prominence of a “Don’t know” question in the Texas poll explains the discrepancy. I suspect myself that all these questions ought also to have a “Don’t care” axis and this suspicion is only confirmed by close study of the Gallup poll.

Two things jump out from that. The first is that creationists are less of a political force than their opponents. This at least was true in 2007, when Gallup asked whether a political candidate would attract more or less votes if they announced that they did not believe in evolution. The differences here between registered voters and all adults were trivial. I both case, more than half didn’t care; at least it would make no difference to their voting intentions (and in a follow-up question, 70% thought a candidate’s views on evolution quite irrelevant). But among those who did care, creationists were outnumbered two to one by evolutionists: 15% of the voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who espoused creationism, and 29% less likely.

On the Net:

  1. Fish Caught Evolving into Three Different Species
  2. Darwin’s Finches are Evolving Again
  3. “Instant” Evolution Seen in Darwin’s Finches, Study Says
  4. Americans less likely to accept evolution than Europeans
  5. Via Data360, Belief in Evolution By Country