Red State Rabble

A granitic intrusion in the Vishnu Schist along Hermit Creek near the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The presence of rock from volcanic origins allows precise radiometric dating.

Third in a series on the age, formation and geology of the Grand Canyon.

We have dealt with the assertion by creationist John Turney in a commentary in the Cincinnati Enquirer that "evolutionists" assume that "the Grand Canyon's rock always had its current concrete-like consistency." (Scroll down to read our earlier posts.)

Today, RSR will take a look at Mr. Turney's second assertion: "[Evolutionists] were not present during the Grand Canyon's formation. Therefore they turn their assumptions into "fact." What they conveniently fail to mention is that geologically younger rocks are near the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while geologically older rocks are near the top. This is the reverse of what should be found if evolutionary theory were true."

True, no "evolutionist" or geologist was there during the Grand Canyon's formation, but, that doesn't mean we can't learn how it happened by studying the canyon as we now find it. One of the ways that geologists study the history of the earth or a geological feature such as the Grand Canyon is to observe the geological processes that are occurring today -- volcanism, deposition of sediments, erosion, plate tectonics -- to understand how geological features were created in the past.

This is something human beings do all the time. As the popular CBS television show "CSI" demonstrates -- in a somewhat over-dramatic fashion, the methods of science can be used to reconstruct events that happened in the past -- such as a murder -- that no outside observer has witnessed. That evidence is so convincing, it can be used in a court of law to convince a jury of the guilt of a murderer.

The evidence about the formation of the Grand Canyon is as convincing as any forensics testimony introduced into a court of law -- real or dramatized.

Now, let's get back to the canyon...

Below the Tonto Plateau as our group hiked down the last few miles to the Colorado River along Hermit Creek, the canyon narrowed. We were entering the inner gorge. The rock strata turned black. We were now hiking through the Vishnu Schist, an early Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rock first laid down as sediments of shale, sandstone, and limestone beginning about 2 billion years ago.

These sediments were metamorphosed by the enormous heat and pressure of volcanic action -- the result of plate tectonics.

As the sediments of the Vishnu Schist were being metamorphosed, molten magma intruded into seams in the rock forming the Zoroaster Granite. This is important to geologists, because rock from volcanic action, such as the Zoroaster Granite, can be quite accurately dated using radiometric methods.

All volcanic rocks and minerals contain minute amounts of radioactive material. These radioactive elements are unstable, over time they spontaneously decay into more stable atoms.

This decay occurs at a constant rate specific to each isotope -- isotopes are different forms of a single element that have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. The rate of decay is usually described in terms of a half-life. Uranium 238 is an example of chain decay. It has a half life of 4.5 billion years. It decays into a stable daughter product, lead 206. Uranium 235, with a half life of 708 million years, decays into lead 207.

By looking at the ratio of parent to daughter isotope, geologist can determine the age of the rock. By looking at the ratio between both Uranium 238 and Uranium 235 and their respective daughter isotopes, geologists get a check on the date of the rock they are testing.

Geologists can also observe simple decay, an example of which is the decay of the isotope Rubidium 87 into the stable daughter atom Strontium 87, or they can use branching decay, as when the isotope Potassium 40 decays into Argon 40 and Calcium 40. In the latter case, 12 percent of the resulting daughter atoms will be Argon 40 and 88 percent will be Calcium 40.

Thus, the most accurate time piece known to humankind -- the atomic clock -- can be used to date the rock of the Grand Canyon -- and to refine and confirm the other data we've looked at over the past few days that, taken together, make an irrefutable case for the ancient age of the Grand Canyon.

Tomorrow, we'll look at human habitation of the Grand Canyon and another dating technique: Carbon 14 that allows us to date objects of biological origin.

Part 1: Journey Through Time
Part 2: Dynamic Forces
Part 4: Human Habitation of the Canyon

Score another victory for sanity. A committee composed of students, district staff members, and parents has reviewed Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison, Boy’s Life by Robert McCammon and “Rape Fantasies,” a short story, by Margaret Atwood, and agreed to keep them in the curriculum despite complaints from a group of right-wing wannabe censors.

Yesterday, we posted an excerpt from a commentary in the Cincinnati Enquirer by a creationist, John Turney. Today, let’s just examine Turney’s first assertion, “all evolutionists, must make assumptions. For example, they assume the Grand Canyon's rock always had its current concrete-like consistency.”

Evolutionists are concerned with biological evolution. It is geologists who undertake the scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth, and it’s specific structural features, such as the Grand Canyon.

Do geologists “assume the Grand Canyon’s rock always had its current concrete-like consistency”? Don’t be silly. Geologists understand that a formation such as the Grand Canyon is the product of dynamic forces. Forces that are still at work today.

Erosion by ice, water, and wind are just some of the dynamic forces that helped carve the canyon. Volcanism, plate tectonics, and the sediments left behind by advancing and retreating ocean coast lines have all played a role in making the canyon one of the most remarkable geological features on earth.

By the way, creationists like Mr. Turney often focus on how rapidly the waters of Noah’s Flood might have carved out the canyon, but they rarely consider how long it took to form the strata there in the first place.

Here’s something else Mr. Turney might not have considered when he wrote his commentary. Many kinds of rock make up the canyon. On our ramble through the canyon, we examined sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock strata. Some of these rocks are much, much harder than concrete. Others are softer. The varying hardness of those rocks, and their resistance to erosion give the canyon its unique profile.

Let’s wander down through the strata now from the South Rim to the river – a journey of 5000 feet and 2 billion years – and take a look at a few of the rock formations, their characteristics and what we – as interested observers – can learn from them.

On the rim, at the Hermit trailhead where Red State Rabble started down into the inner canyon, we first descended through the Kaibab and Toroweap limestones. Both formations are sedimentary strata laid down during the Permian period from 250 to 255 million years ago.

Limestone is made primarily of the mineral calcite from the shells of marine organisms that settled to the bottom of an ancient ocean. These two limestone layers contain the fossils remains of brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms, and fish teeth.

Geologists – and other reasonable people – can draw a number of conclusions from these simple facts:

• First, that these strata have not always had their current concrete-like consistency. They started first as ooze or slime at the bottom of an ancient ocean that once covered the area where the canyon now sits in all its arid glory.
• Second, we get a rough idea of how long it must have taken for these deposits to form. The Kaibab layer is from 300 to 500 feet thick The Toroweap ranges between 250 and 450 feet thick. (We’ll take a look at how radiometric dating of igneous rocks found in the canyon helps us to know the age of the canyon’s various strata in a later post.)
• Third, we see evidence for evolution in the kinds of fossils found in these strata. For example, no whale fossils have ever been found in Kaibab and Toroweap layers. That’s because the whale did not evolve from its mammal ancestors until much later, in the Eocene epoch, about 40 million years ago.

Further down in our journey through time, Red State Rabble and crew passed through the Coconino Sandstone. The Coconino layer has been called a petrified sand dune. Like the layers above, it is sedimentary, but it was laid down during a period when the ocean had receded, about 265 million years ago. No fossils have been found in this layer, but there are many tracks of vertebrate land animals.

Although it was late September when RSR was there, the temperature in the inner canyon hit 106 degrees and we stopped for a while to rest here. Scroll down to see a photo of reptile tracks preserved on the surface of an ancient dune near where we took our first break in what turned out to be a 12-hour hike.

Below, the Coconino is the Hermit Shale. Mr. Turney doesn’t know this, but the Hermit Shale is very, very soft. Much softer than concrete. You can break small pieces off and crumble them in your hand. Erosion of the shale undercuts the harder layers above causing large blocks to break off and fall onto the Tonto Plateau below.

There are many more sedimentary layers to pass through on the way to the Colorado River. Tomorrow I want to skip ahead to look at the metamorphic and igneous rock formations that can be found in the canyon closer to the river, and what they can tell us about its history.

Part 1: Journey Through Time
Part 3: Rock of Ages
Part 4: Human Habitation of the Canyon

Reptile footprints preserved in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. Roughly 260 million years ago, a reptile clambered upthe side of what was then a sand dune. It may have been early in the morning when the sand was wet with dew, or perhaps later in the day following a cloudburst. Later, dry wind-blown sand filled the tracks, preserving them over the millenia as the pure quartz sand was transformed by the enormous pressure of strata forming above into sandstone. Erosion exposed the tracks, and one day will erase them, as well, perhaps exposing other hidden tracks below the present surface.

The leadership in the Dover, Penn. intelligent design case has been wrested away from the Discovery Institute by the Thomas More Law Center -- a law center moreover that is clearly identified with Christian right causes.

The carefully crafted hearings in Kansas have been overshadowed by the antics of Connie Morris and her Florida junket. She also produced a newsletter -- at taxpayer expense -- that makes her born-again motivations completely clear.

The Supreme Court yesterday reaffirmed the Lemon Test in ruling against some displays of the Ten Commandments.

So, it's not too soon to start thinking what might happen if there's a ruling against intelligent design in the courts.

Sure enough, William Dembski is thinking about it on his Uncommon Descent blog.

There are now a number of initiatives nationally in which evolution is being challenged and ID promoted. What would happen if the courts rule against ID, declaring it religion?

Not to worry though. ID is on the ascent, according to Dembski. What about all those thousands of evolution papers being written by real scientists in real scientific journals?

Don't be distracted by the "thousands" of articles being published in the research journals that purport to support evolutionary theory -- this is an artifact of overfunding an underachieving theory. Throw enough money at an inherently flawed idea, and people will writes (sic) thousands of articles about it showing that the flaws really don't exist.

Sounds whistling past the graveyard to us. Things must really be getting gloomy in Seattle right now.

Descending through rock strata, and time, on the Grand Canyon's Hermit Trail.

Not long ago, Red State Rabble ran a post titled "The Power of Self-Delusion" that included the following excerpt from a commentary in the Cincinnati Enquirer by John Turney:

"... all evolutionists, must make assumptions. For example, they assume the Grand Canyon's rock always had its current concrete-like consistency. Why the assumption? They were not present during the Grand Canyon's formation. Therefore they turn their assumptions into "fact." What they conveniently fail to mention is that geologically younger rocks are near the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while geologically older rocks are near the top. This is the reverse of what should be found if evolutionary theory were true."

Red State Rabble saw the post as a typical – and amusing – example of the power of religion and ideology to blind its followers to reality. We were surprised at the number of readers who were, to put it mildly, outraged by the willful ignorance Turney put on display.

Were it just Mr. Turney's contention that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a young earth, we would have ignored his ravings entirely but, as it happens, he is not alone.

Two years ago, a book titled "The Grand Canyon: A Different View" by Colorado River guide Tom Vail went on sale in National Park bookstores. The book asserts that the same Old Testament flood that carried Noah's Ark to Mt. Ararat formed the canyon.

According to this view, the canyon is less than 10,000 years old.

In August 2003, Joe Alston, the Grand Canyon National Park superintendent, ordered the book removed from the bookshelves there. But, superiors at National Park Service headquarters quickly overruled him. NPS promised a review of the book, but this was never carried out. Despite protests, by the presidents of seven scientific societies, the book remains on sale.

It happens that Red State Rabble, though ignorant of many things has a little first-hand knowledge about the canyon. In 2000, we backpacked and studied the geology of the inner canyon for six days with a group from the Grand Canyon Field Institute. Beginning on the South Rim, we descended the Hermit Trail to the Colorado River. We camped along Hermit Creek, Monument Creek, and Indian Gardens before ascending to the rim on the Bright Angel Trail.

Ken Walters, a former exploration geologist, who has logged over 9,000 miles and summited 141 buttes in the canyon, led our merry little band. Along with exercises in map and compass reading, Walters insisted that each of us learn the little mnemonic: "Know The Canyon's History, Study Rocks Made By Time" as an aid to orienting ourselves in the canyon's backcountry.

Know -- Kaibab Limestone (250 Million Years Old)
The -- Toroweap Formation (255 Million Years Old)
Canyon's -- Coconino Sandstone (260 Million Years Old)
History -- Hermit Shale (265 Million Years Old)
Study -- Supai Formation (285 Million Years Old)
Rocks -- Redwall Limestone (335 Million Years Old)
Made -- Muav Limestone (515 Million Years Old)
By -- Bright Angel Shale (530 Million Years Old)
Time -- Tapeats Sandstone (545 Million Years Old)

So, what have scientists learned about the formation of these rock strata and their age, and how can culturally literate non-scientists decide for themselve if what they say is true? That is the subject of a series of posts that will appear here, on Red State Rabble, over the next week. We'll approach the subject in a non-technical, but scientifically accurate way that we hope will be of interest to anyone who is not blinded by religious fervor or political ideology.

We’ll start – in tomorrow’s post -- by examining Turney's first assertion that "evolutionists assume the Grand Canyon's rock always had its current concrete-like consistency."

Links to the Journey Through Time series:

Part 2: Dynamic Forces
Part 3: Rock of Ages
Part 4: Human Habitation of the Canyon

As has been reported by RSR and Panda's Thumb, among others, Bryan Leonard's defense of his doctoral dissertation at Ohio State University's School of Teaching and Learning in the College ofEducation has been postponed.

Leonard's research for his dissertation asks, "[w]hen students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time? What empirical,cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs?"

Leonard testified here, in Kansas, in May as a witness called by intelligent design attorney John Calvert in the evolution show trial organized by a sub-committee of the Kansas State Board of Education composed of young earth creationists Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin.

While in Kansas on the taxpayer's dime, Leonard let on that he hadn't read the draft of the science curriculum written by the majority of the standards committee. He was also evasive about his own view of the age of the earth. He was less evasive about common descent. He doesn't believe in it.

Following the hearings, three professors at Ohio State University, Brian W. McEnnis, a mathematics professor; Jeffrey K. McKee, an anthropology professor; and Steve Rissing, an evolution, ecology and organismal biology professor; raised questions about Leonard's research and the composition of his thesis committee. It was stacked with supporters of intelligent design and had no evolutionary biologists or science educators as required by OSU rules.

Until now, we have not been able to see what professors McEnnis, McKee, and Rissing wrote in their letter. Now, Annie Hall (there's a name with a pedigree) has written an article In the OSU Lantern on the Leonard case, "OSU takes closer look at graduate student's dissertation" that gives us our first chance to see what is actually in the letter.

Here is an excerpt that concerns the ethics of what Leonard has been teaching to high school students that goes to the heart of what the intelligent design movement is trying to do to science education in this country:

"We note a fundamental flaw [in teaching scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution-- RSR]: There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice we regard as unethical."

The Boston Globe ran an editorial Sunday titled "False Science" that is raising temperatures in Seattle. The Globe editorial touches on Stephen Meyers article in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" and the Smithsonian showing of "The Privileged Planet."

Here's what has Discovery really steamed:

The article [in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington"] does not make much of a scientific argument. The ''Cambrian explosion," as it's called, lasted millions of years, plenty of time for evolution to work. Evolution has been a mainstay of the biological sciences since Charles Darwin first propounded the theory in 1859 because it has consistently provided convincing explanations of natural phenomena. Darwin's theory may not yet completely explain the Cambrian explosion, but that does not invalidate evolution -- it merely invites further research. Intelligent design, on the other hand, does not advance scientific inquiry.

The Globe gets Meyer's name wrong -- they have him as "Scott" Meyer. RSR suspects the name thing probably hurt Meyers more than any criticism of intelligent design as a false science. Evolution News and Views shows just how hurt by calling the editorial "inane." Who was it that said, pride goeth before the fall?

The Kansas City Star published the results of a poll on public attitudes toward teaching evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in the Sunday edition. Unsurprisingly, the data show that:

• Thirty-one percent said the Kansas State Board of Education should require that theories other than evolution be offered; 24 percent said criticism of evolution should be allowed; 25 percent said only evolution should be taught; and 20 percent were not sure.
• When asked which best described their view on the origin of life, 39 percent said creationism; 26 percent said evolution; 16 percent said intelligent design; and 19 percent said other.

As with other polls on this subject, respondents with more education view evolution more favorably than those with less education. RSR believes that scientists, educators, and culturally literate citizens are not doing enough to educate the public about science issues in general and biological evolution in particular.

The issue is more complicated that simple education, of course, but surely that is where we must start.

Denyse "Buy My Book" O'Leary who publishes the Post-Darwinist blog reports that "Bill Dembski is threatening legal action against the Thomas More Law Center for refusing to pay him for over one hundred hours of time he clocked as an expert witness in the Dover intelligent design case."

RSR readers will recall that Discovery Institute's Dembski, Stephen Meyers, and John Campbell were fired by attorneys working for the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing the Dover School District in a suit brought by parents who object to the school board's mandate that intelligent design be taught to students there.

Amusingly, O'Leary suggests that Dembski was fired because he wants to be protected by his own legal counsel in order to protect the intellectual property represented by "Of People and Pandas" the widely discredited ID textbook edited by Dembski. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of the book, has asked to intervene in the suit.

In truth, deeper divisions over strategy appear to be the motive force that is driving the two organizations apart.

Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog has been silent on the firings, but they have posted a letter John West and Seth Cooper sent to the Pennsylvania State Legislature opposing a pro-ID bill under discussion there -- a bill that would have encouraged other districts to do just what the Dover district has done.

West also accused Utah Sen. Chris Buttars -- who has written legislation mandating divine design -- with "hijacking intelligent design" by conflating creationism with intelligent design.

Discovery's public position is that intelligent design is a new "science" -- in other words it's not a ready for prime time player -- and shouldn't be mandated. Discovery prefers, for now, to teach the so-called controversy over evolution.

As RSR has pointed out in the past, there is no real difference between teaching the controversy and teaching intelligent design, because there is no substance to ID beyond a few pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution -- all of which, when you trace them to the source are religiously motivated.

If O'Leary is correct that Dembski is threatening legal action -- and at this moment, RSR has no information beyond what she reports -- this would mark a significant widening of the rift between those who want to move now to inject creationism into the public school curriculum, and those who want to take a slower more measured approach to redefining science.

While the goals of each group are identical, they are deeply divided over tactic -- a division that might just cost them the game.

Whatever the result in Pennsylvania case turns out to be, the leadership of the antiscience movement in the U.S. appears to be slipping out of the control of the general staff in Seattle, and into the hands of right-wing activists on local school boards and in the state legislatures.

Even in Kansas, it is interesting to note, the board is not proposing adoption of the carefully crafted minority report -- a joint project by the Discovery Institute and John Calvert's ID Network. It will adopt instead some hastily scribbled revisions drafted by board president Steve Abrams, himself a young earth creationist.

John West of the Discovery Institute has issued a challenge:

Science magazine is running a bogus news item asserting that the Kansas Board of Education is considering whether to mandate intelligent design. I challenge Science magazine to produce proof of its claim. If it can do so, I am willing to donate $100 to Science's parent organization, the American Association for the Advacement of Science (AAAS), so that it can promote Darwinian evolution.

RSR would like to get in on the game. If we win the challenge, we'll donate West's $100 to the Kansas Department of Education to help defray the cost of the Connie Morris Florida junket. Here's our proof:

• Intelligent design is unwilling to offer even a hypothesis of its own on how species came into existence, whether or not human beings are a product of common descent, or when the earth was created, It is utterly silent on the who, what, or where of the designer.
• The sum total of the substance of intelligent design theory is a criticism of evolution.
• The Kansas board has cribbed some of the intelligent design "theorists" criticisms of evolution and pasted them into the curriculum standards as benchmarks. Benchmark 3, grades 8-12, for example, states that "the student will understand major concepts of the theory of biological evolution," such as "the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution."
• Therefore, the Kansas State Board of Education in its infinite wisdom has mandated the teaching of intelligent design.

John please send my $100 to the Kansas State Department of Education with a note that RSR wishes to help defray the cost of Connie's Florida hotel room -- although, come to think of it, that $100 wouldn't come close to covering the $339 a night cost.

The junket Connie Morris took to Florida isn't playing well in Kansas. Here's a commentary that appeared on the Garden City Telegram website:

"Morris, a conservative Republican, charged taxpayers for six nights in a $339-a-night room in Miami Beach's lavish Fontainebleau Resort. She failed to book a room for the hotel's convention rate of $167, or to take a room a couple of blocks away for $150 or less.

"So much for fiscal conservatism.

"Even more astonishing was her reason for taking a $339 room, more than some rural, western Kansans pay for a month's rent: She didn't want to walk to the meetings...

"Morris' insensitive views are nothing new. Add in her irresponsible spending, and it's clear she's ill suited to make sound decisions regarding education in Kansas."

The Coalition for Science issued a statement Friday calling for the Kansas Board of Education to reject the minority report submitted by intelligent design activists on the science curriculum writing committee.

The minority report is based on non-science, demonstrably false claims, and faulty reasoning. As such, it did not receive the recommendation of the standards writing committee, and is invalid as a viable document.

We often hear the argument from intelligent design proponents and creationists that they are victims of censorship because scientists, educators, and parents have resisted efforts to teach ID's criticisms of evolution or the biblical story of Genesis in public school science classes.

Recently, when the Smithsonian Institution withdrew its sponsorship from a showing of the ID film "The Privileged Planet" we heard more cries of censorship.

Joanne Mariner, a human rights attorney based in New York has taken a look at the issue of censorship and intelligent design creationism in the Index on Censorship, a magazine that covers free expression issues.

Here's what she has to say,

Supporters of intelligent design have mustered up their own First Amendment arguments, however. They claim that the classroom monopoly enjoyed by evolutionary theory violates students’ right to obtain information about intelligent design and other alternative explanations. By teaching only evolution, they assert, the public schools are improperly restricting the amount of information available to students.

There are unquestionably First Amendment interests on both sides of the equation. But a classroom is not a public forum analogous to a street corner where someone should be free to speak without constraint. It is a forum, instead, in which a teacher is given considerable authority over a captive and impressionable audience.

Because students are coercively subject to a teacher’s authority, and because a teacher’s pronouncements carry with them the additional power of the state, the classroom is no place for religious proselytising. Moreover, students are required to attend school for a specific reason: to learn. Teaching necessarily involves choices: the decision to spend time addressing one topic takes away time from another.

The Discovery Institute has sent a letter to the Pennsylvania State Legislature opposing a pro-ID bill under discussion there.

"In our judgment, attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. We therefore do not think it is appropriate to mandate the theory of intelligent design in public schools."

Do you suppose the cautious legal strategy reflected in the DI letter above could be the reason the Thomas More Law Center fired Discovery's William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell as expert witnesses in the suit brought by a parent's group -- that Thomas More is defending -- against the Dover school board for mandating intelligent design in biology classrooms?

Discovery's Evolution News and Views blog has yet to take note of this development.

RSR wonders if the leadership of the intelligent design movement is slipping from the grasp of the Discovery Institute and into the hands of those creationists on local school boards, in the state legislatures, and employed by law firms such as Thomas More, who have little patience with the ultra-cautious long-march legal strategy espoused in Seattle.

"We're in a battle for the soul of the country," said Rabbi Mark Levin at a panel discussion exploring "The Harmony of Faith and Science" sponsored by the Center for American Progress, in Kansas City Wednesday. "What's at risk is the country we've built."

About 150 people attended the event held at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church. The panel was moderated by Melody Barnes, a Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress.

Panelists responded to the growing belligerence of those on the religious right. They challenged the growing assertion by fundamentalist Christians that those who do not agree with their views on gay marriage, stem cell research, or creationism are irreligious or somehow not good Christians.

Among the panelists there was also general agreement that people of faith who believe in separation of church and state, and mutual respect between people of different faiths must become more vocal, active, and engaged.

"People of faith are not of one mind," on the cultural issues where science and faith intersect, said Rev. Dr. Myron McCoy, President, Saint Paul School of Theology, in welcoming remarks. "Science and theology are complementary," in Dr. McCoy's view, "not contradictory."

Rabbi Levin and Dr. McCoy were joined by panelists Myra Christopher, Executive Director of the Center for Practical Bioethics; Jack Krebs, Vice President of Kansas Citizens for Science; and John Tamilio III, senior minister at Colonial Church, in a discussion the role of science and religion in society.

The discussion ranged from the controversy over the teaching of evolution in Kansas public schools to stem cell research and the Terry Schiavo case.

"Science and religion are different disciplines," said Rev. Tamilio. "Science asks 'how' questions. Theology asks the 'why' questions."

"By labeling those who believe in evolution as atheists," said Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, "the intelligent design movement's attack on science is really an attack on the majority of Christians who believe in evolution."

"Good ethics start with good facts," said Myra Christopher, who described speaking with uninformed people who believe that babies are sacrificed for their stem cells, not knowing that the cells are actually derived from tiny clumps of cells called blastocysts.

The Center for American Progress which sponsored the panel discussion is a nonpartisan research and educational institute based in Washington, sponsored a panel discussion in Kansas City Wednesday on the Harmony of Faith and Science.

RSR reader BF sends this along from a 1984 article by Isaac Asimov. Seems like the only thing that's changed is that we call them intelligent design theorists now instead of "scientific" creationists.

It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions ofAmericans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.

Is intelligent design a purely scientific concept as the Discovery Institute and others would have us believe, or merely a crafty legal strategy to insert the leading edge of creationism's wedge into the public school science curriculum?

Here's how Pennsyvania State Rep. Paul Clymer, who is supporting legislation to allow local school boards in Pennsylvania to mandate the teaching of intelligent design sees it:

"A Baptist, Clymer said he tries to "stay strictly on the merits" on issues such as intelligent design, which he sees as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution," reports Alison Hawkes of the Intelligencer. "Clymer counts himself as a creationist, the biblically based belief that God created the universe, but said he realizes that allowing that account in public schools would be unconstitutional."

"'That's out of the question,' Clymer said. 'But the next thing is something I believe should be discussed. It's the hypothesis of intelligent design.'"

The Kansas City Star reports that a Blue Valley Northwest High School committee voted Tuesday to keep the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison in the curriculum.

Montana is scheduled to review its science standards this summer, leading to reports that a controversy over intelligent design could erupt there.

About a year ago, the Darby school district in rural southwest Montana voted to include creationism in science classes, but that decision was quickly reversed when one of the creationists on the board lost a bid for re-election.

Republican State Rep. Roger Koopman, of Bozeman, sponsored a bill to allow school districts to teach intelligent design earlier this year, but the bill did not come up for a vote.

Read more in an article by John Fitzgerald in the Billings Gazette

The Discovery Institute is apparently still smarting over being caught red-handed trying to buy the imprimatur of science with a $16,000 donation to the Smithsonian. In the peer-reviewed scientific journal Agape Press (Reliable News from a Christian Source), Jay Richards sniffs about the Smithsonian's snub of their intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet."

"The reality is that attempts at censorship and suppressing ideas that people are interested in -- it never works in the long run," the Discovery Institute spokesman notes. "It may work in the short run, but whenever someone tries to silence a public debate about intelligent design in one place, it seems to spring up in 20 other places."

Although the Smithsonian is no longer sponsoring "The Privileged Planet" documentary debut, Richards says the film will still be premiering at the museum's Baird Auditorium on Thursday.

So, let's see if RSR can get this straight. The film will be shown free of charge at the Smithsonian this Thursday, but SI is nevertheless guilty of censorship and suppression. Is this the same censorship and suppression that Discovery cries about at PBS and NPR?

Scroll down to the next post -- where they complain about being invited to take part in a PBS series on evolution, but turned down the offer because it was "a trick" -- and make up your own mind.

A special report by Cliff Kincaid on the right-wing Accuracy in Media website asserts that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and National Public Radio (NPR) are no longer needed in their present form. It is part of the effort by conservatives to control the news Americans hear by cutting funding for public broadcasting.

The report relies in part on complaints from the Discovery Institute about how PBS and NPR have reported on their effort to gut science education in public schools and replace it with the antiscience of intelligent design creationism.

Here's an excerpt from the report detailing Discovery's complaints:

On the December 17 NOW show, Moyers turned to another current topic—the ACLU's lawsuits against school districts that want to "teach an alternative to evolution." Anthony Romero of the ACLU told Moyers that "…teaching alternatives to evolution is about teaching religion in our public schools. And in a country as diverse as this one, and in a country where religious belief is such a core belief for so many Americans, you want to keep the government as far away as we can from involving itself in our most important and private institutions…"

Romero's statement was false. Teaching alternatives to evolution does not ecessarily imply the existence of God or the need for religion. Rather it recognizes the problems with a theory holding that random and natural processes cannot account for the origin and complexity of life.

The Discovery Institute, for example, focuses on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed in religious terms not only by the ACLU but by the media.

Those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery Institute provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially CPB-subsidized National Public Radio and PBS. (Emphasis added)

Back in 2001, when PBS aired the seven-part series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul G. Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last segment dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute rejected this ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific objections to evolution and that they should be included in the scientific episodes.

PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the Discovery Institute produced a 152-page viewers' guide, noting that the series distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics.

On April 18, Accuracy in Media sent a detailed three-page letter to NPR's ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, about a pattern of bias in coverage of the evolution controversy. We received in response a one and one-half page letter that essentially glossed over all of our substantial criticisms.

Les Lane, a professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, has set up a website with lots of background information on the battle raging in Kansas over evolution. It's a good place to get your Connie Morris fix for the day, find out more about Steve Abrams, or research the background of the intelligent design witnesses who came to Kansas for the hearings. Check it out.

Cornelia Dean has an article in the New York Times that looks at the issue of whether scientists and educators where right to boycott the Kanas science hearings in May. While Dean's article adds little that is new, there is a revealing quote from Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education that explains one reason why scientists have stopped debating creationists and intelligent design proponents:

"Dr. Scott said that until recently she believed scientists should seize opportunities to debate the opponents of evolution. "I was one of the holdouts, saying yes, appear with these guys, yes, tell them what is wrong with their ideas, go to their conferences, treat them like scholars," she said.

"Like other scientists, she said that if someone identified a flaw in evolutionary theory that could not be dealt with, science would have to modify the theory or even scrap it. But the criticisms raised have fallen in the face of scientific scrutiny, she and others say, yet opponents of evolution raise them again and again.

"So a few years ago, she said, 'even I threw in the towel.'"

In a report in the International Herald Tribune datelined Cambridge, England, Peter Watson writes, "For decades, 'big science' - indeed any kind of science - has been led by the United States. There are warning signs, however, that American science is losing its edge, and may even have peaked. One reason is that as religious and political fundamentalism tighten their grip, they are beginning to sap America's intellectual vitality."

Watson goes on to report:

As a result of fundamentalist opposition, America is already falling behind in cloning and stem cell research, now led by South Korean, Italian and British scientists. In February the New Scientist reported a survey in which fully half the scientists working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said they had been pushed to alter or ithdraw scientific findings for political reasons.

California State Rep. Jackie Goldberg, a Democrat from Los Angeles and chairwoman of the State Assembly's Education Committee, introduced a bill -- since tabled -- requiring school textbooks to be no more than 200 pages long, according to a report by Kenneth Todd Ruiz in the Daily Bulletin.

If only Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin, and Connie Morris had thought of this idea! They might have avoided all the controversy over their own plan to water down evolution and slip intelligent design into the curriculum.

If they were truly strategic thinkers, here's the plan they might have implemented:

• Step One: Insist that all the evolution content in biology textbooks be placed after page 201.
• Step Two: Limit science textbooks to 200 pages.

Back to California.

Why did she propose limiting textbooks to 200 pages?

"It's absolutely arbitrary," Goldberg said.

An editorial in the Detroit Jewish News looks at intelligent design and ends up defending the tradition of separation between church and state:

"In terms of provable science, though, [intelligent design] falls short. And insofar as intelligent design strongly implies a religion-based identity to the Designer, it also fails the test of keeping such instruction out of public schools.

"In the final analysis, it is simply the old creationist wine in new bottles. Those who believe in the separation of church and state should be extremely wary of allowing it to get a foothold in our schools."

Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe testified Monday in favor of a bill before the Pennsylvania House Subcommittee on Basic Education to allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design.

Behe was asked by Rep. P. Michael Sturla, a Lancaster Democrat, when intelligent design occured.

"Questions like, 'When did the designing take place? ... all are good questions," Behe responded. "We'd love to have answers for them, but they are separate questions from the question, 'Was this designed in the first place?'"

Representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, legislative director Larry Frankel, said adding intelligent design to the curriculum would undermine Pennsylvania's the state's science standards.

As noted in RSR's earlier post (scroll down) on the split between the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover case -- See also Panda's Thumb --the carefully crafted legal strategy to separate intelligent design from religion may be coming apart at the seams.

Attorneys for Thomas More have essentially told intelligent design "theorists" William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and John Campbell to take a hike -- their services are no longer required.

How will the school board and Thomas More now get past previous court rulings that religion may not be taught under the guise of science in public schools?

RSR sees two big problems.

First, the school board of a taxpayer financed public school system is now being defended by a group that describes itself as, a "law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life."

Second, William Buckingham the Dover school board member and head of the curriculum committee who pushed for mandating the teaching of design describes himself as a born-again Christian -- what else? He believes, he has said, in creationism. Imagine that.

Touchingly, he says “This is not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else.”

Oh yeah, the York Dispatch also quotes Buckingham as saying, "Nearly 2,000 years ago, someone died on the cross for us. Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?"

Stephen Meyer and the boys in Seattle must be tearing their hair out. The Dover case, from which they have now been shut out, will undoubtedly be heard first and is therefore most likely to set a precedent on intelligent design in the public schools.

The revisions written into the Kansas science curriculum standards have attracted a lot of attention, but not much in depth analysis to date. In fact, the revisions inserted into Benchmark 3 for grades 8-12, by anti-science sub-committee members Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin, are particularly vulnerable to challenge on both scientific and legal grounds. (In the excerpts below, RSR has marked the intelligent design revisions added by the sub-committee in red.)

Benchmark 3 states "The student will understand major concepts of the theory of biological evolution." Here, of course, the young earth creationists who make up the sub-committee are riding that tired old "evolution is a theory, not a fact" nag that really should have been sent to the glue factory by now.

Here are some of the revisions to Benchmark 3 from page 78 under the heading of "Additional Specificity" that the biblical literalists feel students should understand:

c. Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. However in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution. (Those bad old gaps again -- RSR)

d. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration). There are observable similarities as well as observable discrepancies in the molecular evidence.

e. The frequency of heritable traits may change over a period of generations within a population of organisms, usually when resource availability and environmental conditions change as a consequence of extinctions, geologic events, and/or changes in climate. However, studies show that animals may follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development. (Notice, here, the particularly jarring shift caused by the shoehorning of embryology into a section relating to "change over a period of generations." -- RSR)

One of the most difficult problems of the debate with the intelligent design "theorists" has been pinning them down on what they actually believe. With the revisions to the Kansas science standards, we now have written evidence -- and obvious pseudoscience -- on the so-called gaps in the fossil record, on genetics (the molecular evidence), and embryology that can be easily dissected by science and challenged in court.

An additional vulnerability for the ID movement and their allies on the school board is the fact that the ID witnesses who testified at the Kansas hearings do not meet federal requirements on who may or may not be called as expert witnesses. They may not even be able to testify in a real court of law.

South Carolina State Sen. Mike Fair, a Republican from Greenville, has filed a bill in the legislature to teach students the “full range of scientific views" on evolution. His "teach the controversy" bill will be considered when the state legislature comes back into session in January.

Fair says he will put on a major push to have his bill adopted. Legislators rejected a similar proposal in the last session of the legislature.

The Associated Press reports in the Bismark Tribune (North Dakota) that,

A Fargo Public Schools committee has upheld a decision not to ban John Grisham's novel, "A Time to Kill," from an accelerated English course at a high school here...The parent who first asked that the book be removed appealed that decision to the district level.

"It's a continuing trend of very bad decision-making at the district level," Pamela Sund Herschlip said of the latest decision. "

Grisham's best-selling novel tells the story of a small-town Mississippi lawyer who defends a black man after he shoots two white men who raped his young daughter. The book describes a rape scene.

Red State Rabble has long been fascinated by the internal tensions between the uptown intelligent design "theorists" grouped around the Discovery Institute in Seattle, on the one hand, and their country cousins in the young earth creationist camp, on the other.

These tensions have been most evident in Dover, Penn. where the school board has mandated the teaching of intelligent design and in Utah where State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) is pushing legislation mandating the teaching of what he calls "divine design" in the public schools there. In each case, the Discovery Institute has opposed mandating the teaching of intelligent design in favor of their legal strategy of "teaching the controversy."

Discovery Institute is very sensitive to the legal strategy -- they fear an unfavorable court decision may upset their whole strategy. The longterm goals of both groups are the same, but Discovery wants to lay the goundwork carefully and play a waiting game until the courts have been pushed further to the right by appointments made by the Bush administration. The young earth creationists are full of fire following the last election and impatient with this long-term strategy. They want to push ahead immediately with a court challenge.

Discovery and the ID Network are running the show in Kansas, but Thomas More is in the driver's seat in Dover, and that case will most likely be decided first. As yet, the Kansas school board has not formally approved the "teach the controversy" approach. That won't come until August, and any lawsuit against the revisions will come after that.

It is interesting to note however, that the revisions made to the curriculum standards in Kansas also go beyond what Discovery and ID Network recommended and may make those revisions more vulnerable than ID proponents would like.

Now, Ed Brayton has a post up at Panda's Thumb reporting that "William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell - have all been withdrawn as expert witnesses" in the Dover case, which is being led by the Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself as the "sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square."

The York Daily Record reports that William Dembski says the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school board, basically fired him because he wanted to have his own attorney present during the depositions.

We now have a very interesting legal situation shaping up, with the more impatient young earth creationists pushing for immediate adoption of intelligent design. The Discovery Institute is waiting in the wings chewing their fingernails and hoping that their carefully planned "wedge strategy" isn't dealt a fatal blow by their more impulsive creationist followers jumping out in front of the general's strategy.

Bryan Leonard testifies May 6 about teaching 10th grade Ohio students the "scientific" evidence for and against macroevolution. John Calvert is in the background (figuratively as well). 

This is an excerpt from the testimony of Bryan Leonard, a high school biology teacher, intelliegent design proponent, and Phd. candidate at Ohio State University. He testified about his research and teaching methods at the Kansas science hearings in May. As has been reported in Panda's Thumb, EvolutionBlog, and Inside Higher Ed, Leonard's advisor has postponed the scheduled defense of his dissertation at OSU. Leonard's dissertation committee has been reorganized following the resignation of one member after complaints by three Ohio State University professors that the composition of Leonard's committee lacks required subject matter experts and is stacked with ID proponents in violation of OSU regulations.

An issue has also been raised about whether Leonard violated Human Subjects Review procedures and had parents and students fill out informed consent releases -- since by teaching them intelligent design pseudoscience -- he made them subjects (perhaps against their will) in an experiment he was conducting.

In this excerpt, Leonard testifies to the nature of his lesson plan and what he teaches students.

JOHN CALVERT: Bryan, thank you for being here. Would you please tell us a little bit about yourself, your background, where you're currently employed and-- and a bit about your work on the doctoral degree?

BRYAN LEONARD: Yes. Thank you. My name is Bryan Leonard. I received my Bachelor's of Science Degree in biology education. I received my Master's Degree in microbiology. I'm currently working on my Ph.D., actually a Ph.D. candidate at the Ohio State University studying science education.

JC: And are you also employed as a high school teacher?

BL: Yes, I am, with-- in a suburban area right outside Columbus, Ohio

JC: Is that a privatized school?

BL: Yes, it is.

JC: And how long have you been teaching high school?

BL: Teaching high school biology for nine years now.

JC: What is the work of your-- you're working on a doctorate degree. Right?

BL: Yes, sir.

JC: And could you tell us a bit about that?

BL: I'm working on basically my doctoral dissertation deals with the area of evolution education, and specifically I'm looking at basically students reactions how-- how students react, how students believe and so and so forth when they're taught the scientific information both in terms of supporting and challenging macroevolution.

JC: Have you been involved in applying that knowledge to lesson plans for a while?

BL: Yes. I was able to be a part of the science writing committee for the State of Ohio in which each of the members on the science writing committee, we had to write exemplar curriculum lessons plans that were in line with the Ohio State standards. And I serve on-- on that committee for those-- (reporter interruption). Writing science curriculum for our 10th graders.

JC: And in your high school you're teaching 10th grade biology?

BL: Yes, I am.

JC: Teaching it how?

BL: Well, the way in which I teach it is similar in a way in which basically we wrote the lesson plan that was-- that-- that serves as the curriculum mono lesson, entitled Critical Analysis of Evolution. So that particular lesson plan, I was the original drafter, however I had a number of people who were involved in generation, shaping and the molding of that particular lesson. Went through an extensive peer review process. And the way in which I teach evolution in my high school biology class is that I teach the scientific information, or in other words, the scientific interpretations both supporting and challenging macroevolution.

JC: How long have you been doing it?

BL: I've been doing it for about-- I think this is probably about my fifth year. About five or six years now.

Note: RSR has skipped ahead in the transcript at this point in order to stick with the subject of what Leonard actually teaches.

JC: You might touch on what were the goals of-- of this product, and does that lead into your power point?

BL: Yeah, it could. Basically the-- the-- the goal of this lesson simply was to help students' knowledge of macroevolution, so that was basically the main goal of our particular lesson. Again, what type of things can we as educators, what type of things we as drafters of this lesson, how can we actually and sincerely put our students in a better position to learn evolution. So as you see here-- I'm going to have to walk. I'm a school teacher, so standing right here pointing is kind of difficult. But as you see here, goal number one with the critical analysis of evolution lesson, as well as my goal as an educator is to increase the students' knowledge of macroevolution. And you'll see here I have the word "students" in red, and the reason why I have it in red is because what-- as you're looking at that you're focusing on that red word. So that's one thing, hey, we need to focus on our students. What type of things are students going to gain most of all as a result of implementing this lesson, so throughout the power point presentation you will see the word "students" in red to-- more so to try and-- a kind of constant reminder in our mind, hey, we want to focus on the students. You know, how we can put our students in the best position to learn macroevolution. So how-- how-- how can we actually increase students' knowledge of evolution. All right. Go back. Go back. Okay. Find out what students are most interested in and teach towards their interests. Teach towards their interests. Yes. I asked my students in my dissertation study here, question: Which of the following would be more interesting to you-- rather, for you to learn, number one, scientific interpretation supporting macroevolution only. Number two, scientific interpretation supporting and challenging macroevolution. So I posed this question actually before I got to the evolution unit, just curious. Again, we wanted to teach towards their interests.

Note: RSR is skipping ahead again -- we know, it's already too long...

BL: … So what is my job as an educator? My job as an educator is actually trying to shape and mold and put my students in the best position to perform well on a test. Okay. You know, we have a set of assessments and various assessments there, so basically a-- I just want them basically to do well on the tests, as well as, of course, a number of other things, which I'll talk about a little later. Next. Teaching contradicting evidence-- I'm sorry, information and multiple points of view suggests supporting and challenging, help students stimulate more complete understanding and critical thinking. In this particular book by Rophy (sp), it is talking about how you present students with information that contradicts other information, discuss, present contradicting information forces students to recognize that the issue is more complex than they thought and stimulates students to develop more complete understanding. So, again, as educators, we want to teach towards the interests there, but also what kind of things can we do as an educator to actually help our students to develop a more complete understanding. Okay. In teaching the-- the scientific information both supporting and challenging macroevolution (emphasis added) I believe should and will do just that. This book entitled "Understanding By Design," this is actually by these two authors there that we use that textbook often, basically in our professional development as educators back in Ohio, or at least particularly in my school…

In closing arguments at the anti-science hearings May 12, Pedro Irigonegary offered a glimpse of the legal strategy he might employ if the Kansas Board revises state science standards to include intelligent design criticisms of evolution. RSR has edited the remarks to remove line numbers and correct misspellings in order to make the excerpt more readable:

Counsel for the Minority has a formula. The formula is evolution equals atheism, atheism equals religion which equals State endorsement, therefore, because the State is endorsing religion we must be permitted to bring our theistic view into the school curriculum.

That argument is legally wrong, logically inaccurate, misleading and would not stand constitutional challenge, and here's why.

First of all, counsel makes the broad statement that atheism, is under the Constitution, considered a form of religion.

You are absolutely correct, but, but, and this is important, it is considered such in a limited scope.

For example, if we think of religion as taking a position on divinity then atheism is indeed a form of religion.

In cases, for example, involving the scope of employment discrimination an atheist is entitled to the same protection as a member of any organized religion.

Clearly certain protections are provided to individuals who assert that they're atheists, because freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion.

Courts have stated that a general-- a general working definition of religion for free exercise purposes is any set of beliefs addressing matters of ultimate concerns occupying place parallel to that filled by God in traditional persons.

Religion, therefore, does not have to be theistic in nature to benefit from constitutional protection, but what does that really mean as it relates to the issues here? It is important that we keep in mind that the right to a religious belief or opinion is very different from the way courts look science and science education.

The Constitution mandates that the government remain secular rather than to affiliate itself with religious beliefs or institutions precisely in order to avoid discriminated -- discriminating among citizens on the basis of their religious faith.

A secular state, you must remember, is not the same as an atheistic or anti-religious state.

A secular state establishes neither atheism nor religion as its official creed.

In County of Allegheny versus American Civil Liberties Union the Court stated that a secular state established neither atheism nor religion as its official creed to mean atheism meets religion.

Allegheny does not state religion includes and typically to religion.

The Circuit literally interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court in Wallace versus Jaffree, the Court places atheism in the correct context, adjacent to religion.

The Court states, just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complimentary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority.

At one time it was thought that this right merely prescribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist or inherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism, but when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation the court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

The First Amendment is broad enough to encompass both believers and non-believers as far as the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion.

The instruction of evolution, does it advance or inhibit any religion? It is one thing for the courts to recognize that an individual may not be discriminated because she or he does not carry any particular religious ideology, it is quite another for a jump to be made from preventing discrimination-- from preventing discrimination to a finding that evolution equates to atheism, and it is therefore the advancement of religion in violation of the Lemon test.

In McLean versus Arkansas Board of Education in which the defense argued that evolution was in effect a religion and that by teaching it school created an establishmentPage problem that could be redressed only by giving balance treatment to creation science.

The Court responded that if creation science was in fact science and not religion, it was difficult to see how teaching it could neutralize the religious nature of evolution.

Assuming that evolution was a religion or religious tenant, as the Minority would suggest, the remedy would be to stop teaching it, not to establish another religion in opposition to it, which is precisely the recommended that the Minority is suggesting the Board should apply. (emphasis added)

However, the MacLean court went on to say that it is established in the case law and perhaps also in common sense that evolution is not a religion and that teaching it does not violate the statement clause.

So the argument of the Minority is not only legally incorrect, it is illogical, for they suggest to you that mainstream science teaches through the process of methodological naturalism, atheistic view, i.e., atheism, and that the way to cure it is to bring their religious belief into the classroom.

That is simply wrong.

It is not supported by law.

And at the appropriate time I will provide both counsel for the Minority, as well as the Board, our formal brief with the citations.

But it should be made very clear evolution-- the teaching of evolution as it is taught in science curriculums all across this country has never been determined by the court to be theistic.

The science, the teaching of evolution is not an atheistic process.

It is merely a process of explanation of the natural world around us.

The jump that the Minority makes is to try to make that theistic, to argue that therefore in order to balance, their theistic view must be taught.

Clearly the court has stated the remedy, if, in fact, a theistic view is being taught, is not to bring additional religion, but to stop completely the teaching of theistic views in the science curriculum.

That is a very important distinction.

Associated Press reporter John Hanna says the action over at the Kansas Board of Education reminds him of a tired old Vaudeville act.

"With five board members facing election next year - four of them conservatives, including Morris - the current show will go on the road. Then, Kansans will decide whether they view it as melodrama, comedy or farce, and whether some of its leading actors remain employed."

Paul Nussbaum of Knight Ridder asks, can God and evolution coexist? Here's one answer he gets:

For David Wilcox, a biology professor at Eastern University, an evangelical college in St. Davids, the challenge is to teach students that it’s possible to embrace evolution “without intellectual schizophrenia.”

“Frequently, they’ve been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism, and they just shut it out,” said Wilcox, author of “God and Evolution: A Faith-Based
Understanding.” “They say, ‘Why do I have to learn this stuff — don’t you know
that God hates science?’”

“We have to make them wake up and smell the coffee. God doesn’t hate science — he invented it. We try to get them to see that evolution happened and it’s not so scary ... that evolution is the way God did it.”

Connie Makes A Splash in the Wichita Eagle in this editorial cartoon "Unintelligently Designed Junket" by Richard Crowson.
 

Denyse "buy my book" O'Leary of Post Darwinist fame is excited. The science behind intelligent design "theory" has gathered important new support -- from the Hare Krishnas. They stopped beating their tamborines and begging on the street long enough to put together an amicus curiae brief in favor of the Cobb County textbook stickers. You know, the scientifically sophisticated stickers that say evolution is only a theory.

The mission of the Hare Krishna movement, says its website, is to promote the well being of society by teaching the science of Krishna consciousness according to Bhagavad-gita and other ancient scriptures.

Well, the science of Krishna consiousness -- that certainly adds some much needed scientific credibility to the ID movement.

Pedro Irigonegaray's closing arguments have been posted on the Kansas State Department website. Red State Rabble will be looking at the legal arguments Irigonegaray makes against the minority draft. This excerpt (the first of several) has been edited to remove line numbers and correct obvious misspellings to make it more readable:

"The Minority position is a theological view of God that rejects science as atheistic, and, whereas, the Minority position also rejects commonly held theistic views, including those of many Christians-- mainstream Christians, and, therefore, by advancing the Minority position through these hearings and other actions the State Board is advancing a narrow sectarian theological view of science over many other faiths, and, therefore, the Board, through its actions, raise real and serious legal questions about violations of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution and abuses of Kansas statutory authority and discretionary power."

The third installment of Bernard-Henri Lévy's journey through America, "In the Footsteps of Tocqueville," has this to say about intelligent design:

"There are two theories, and you have a choice: that's the formula of an enlightened obscurantism; that's the principle of revisionism with a liberal and tolerant face; that's the act of faith of a dogmatism reconciled with freedom of speech and thought; that's the subtlest, most underhanded, most cunning, and at bottom most dangerous ideological maneuver of the American Right in years."

"Oh yes, there were attacks [on fellow board members]," Connie Morris says of the content of her now infamous newsletter, "but that's part of the game isn't it?"

So much for all that "the meek shall inherit the earth" nonsense.

Kansas Citizens for Science President Harry McDonald catches science hearing sub-committee members Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin in -- how shall we put it delicately -- yet another in a seemingly endless string of falsehoods. (Well, maybe there simply isn't a way to put it delicately.)

Each of the sub-committee members claim their editing of the science standards is based on the testimony of intelligent design witnesses at the hearings, but...

"Several members of the subcommittee admitted both before and during the hearings that they couldn't understand the technical arguments," says McDonald. "The final transcript of the hearings was not available when the committee recommendations were drafted, so it can't be claimed that an extensive review of the hearings influenced the recommendations."

RSR attended the board meeting where Abrams reported the revisions -- our impression was that they were hastily drafted and poorly written -- Kathy Martin, undoubtedly trying to make a case that she'd finally read the draft, offered a number of grammatical and typographic corrections, although she was often overruled by Connie Morris.

If you've read Connie's newsletter, you already know she doesn't know any more about writing and grammar than she does about science.

If you haven't read the newsletter yet, Josh Rosenau has posted it on his Thoughts From Kansas blog.

An editorial in the Lansing State Journal clarifies a statement that seemed to open the door to teaching intelligent design in science classes by Michael Flanagan, Michigan superintendent of schools.

Last Friday Flanagan was asked about the teaching of "intelligent design" in Michigan schools on WKAR's "Off the Record" program.

"We've got to at least teach the scientific theory," Flannagan was quoted as saying, "and I'm also comfortable with teachers exposing kids to a couple of different options."

With the controversy in Gull Lake fresh in everyone's mind, it was widely reported that Flanagan was okay with teaching of intelligent design.

According to the Lansing State Journal, Flanagan told them by phone that "[w]hat I meant was exposing kids in some other context... such as a current events class. That's what was in my mind."

"We believe in teaching scientific theory in science classes. ..." a spokeswoman for Mich. Gov. Jennifer Grantholm told the Journal. "We would see evolution as scientific theory."

Associated Press writer John Hanna reports that Legal Woes May Shut Down Kansas Schools:

"Some Republicans who control the Legislature want to defy the court, arguing it cannot tell them exactly what to spend on anything. Their tough talk has educators and others worried the court will order schools to remain closed until legislators comply.

"Such orders have been issued or threatened in other states, and a Kansas judge even told the state last year that it could not spend a penny on its schools until legislators fixed the funding system, a decision that would have kept classrooms closed — and 445,000 students at home — had the Supreme Court not put it on hold."

In other circumstances, state school board members might be expected to act as advocates for schools, but in Kansas right-wing zealots control the board. They are backing legislators who are taking a hard line stance against funding education, and, in any case they are too busy gutting science education to play any positive role in winning adequate funding for Kansas school children.

Darrin Youker of the Reading Eagle reports that The Buffalo Tree will be back in the classroom in Muhlenberg (near Reading, Penn.) English classes. The school board voted 6-2 Wednesday to reinstate the novel by Adam Rapp after removing it from the reading list last April following complaints by parent Tammy D. Hahn.

"A 12-year-old boy recounts his day-to-day battles in a juvenile detention center," says a The Publishers Weekly review of The Buffalo Tree. "Graphic images and a narrative heavily seasoned with slang and expletives make Sura's hellish story all the more real and immediate." It is recommended for ages 12 and up.

Teachers played a key role in turning back district censorship of the book and getting it back in the classroom.

The thing that hath been, is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done.

In the 22 odd centuries (see note below) since Ecclesiastes wrote those lines, we humans have often convinced ourselves of the absolute novelty of this or that hip new idea. But, the truth is, for each truly original thought, there are a thousand tiresome re-workings of the old.

The intelligent design film, “The Privileged Planet” is a case in point. The film comes clothed in the lab coat of modern physics and cosmology. Sporting the latest in computer-generated graphics, it is designed to subliminally assure viewers they are being let in on the very latest, state of the art science. And yet, its hypothesis – that we humans occupy the center of a god-created universe – is one of the very oldest known to man.

Despite its trendy surface shine, the film forcefully reminds us of the wisdom of Ecclesiastes’ words: There is nothing new under the sun.

Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery" says the premise of the Discovery Institute film is that the conditions that make Earth habitable show it was designed for humans. He said the book also goes a step further by arguing the universe was meant for discovery and that Earth is the optimal place from which to study the universe.

In Ecclesiastes' day, each tribe or nation thought of itself as God's chosen people. Each had its own sacred places that were thought to be close to god. Often these sites were marked by a memorial stone, a sacred pillar, or temple. Later, the great cathedrals of Europe would be built on such spots.

Isaac's son, Jacob, Chapter 28 of Genesis tells us, was on his way to Padanaram to pick out a cousin to be his wife when he stopped after sunset to rest at a place then called Luz.

The weary traveler used the stones of this ancient and already sacred place (said to be the spot where Abraham came to sacrifice Isaac) as a headrest, and dreamt of a stairway that rested on the good earth but reached up into the heavens. Messenger angels traveled up and down the stairway as the Lord stood above.

When he awakened Jacob cried out in awe, "This is nothing else but an abode of God, and that is the gateway to heaven."

Jacob set his stone pillow up on a pillar and re-named the spot Bethel, or the house of God. Later, it would be called Mount Moriah. In 825 BCE Solomon built the first temple there.

The Kabbalah claims that the foundation stone of the Temple Mount, where Jacob laid his head, is the place from which the earth was born at the time of creation. Those who believe the Kabbalah's teachings think of it as the place where the physical and spiritual worlds touch.

While touring York Minster, in the north of England, in the mid-90s, Red State Rabble's eyes were drawn to the famous astronomical clock located in the North Transept of that old cathedral built amidst the Roman ruins.

In the center of the ornate clock is an outline of York Minster. Around it swirl the sun, the moon and the planets.

York Minster is more than 1,000 years old, but the astronomical clock is of more recent origin, having been donated by the Royal Greenwich Observatory to commemorate the 18,000 Allied airmen who lost their lives in World War II.

The outline of York Minster at the center of the solar system on the astronomical clock can be interpreted prosaically as a simple guide to orient the observer to the night sky above, or more spiritually, as a metaphor for the centrality of the cathedral's place in the heavens -- something the builders of York Minster took for granted.

Seen in this light, "The Privileged Planet" offers nothing new, just the self-conscious repackaging of ancient myth for a world downsized by cheap air travel, cell phones, the Hubble telescope, and the Internet.

If Ecclesiastes had seen the Discovery Institute's film, he might have advised of them futility of their effort. "Vanity," he might have said, "all is vanity."

Reader note: An earlier version of this post incorrectly read "220 centuries" an alert reader spotted my innumerate lapse. Thanks Dan.

Rep. Kathe Decker, R-Clay Center, chairwoman of the Kansas House Education Committee admitted Tuesday she was passing along rumors she'd heard -- but hadn't bothered to verify -- in a column written for local newspapers accusing a number of school districts of frivolous spending.

In response to the Kansas Supreme Court ruling forcing legislators to boost school funding, Decker wrote that the Lakin school district spent $250,000 on an activities bus; that the Salina district installed artificial turf on a sports field; and that the Dodge City district was rumored to have purchased a $20,000 desk for its superintendent.

All of Decker's allegations have since been proven false. She issued a statement Tuesday grudgingly apologizing "to the school superintendents who feel they were maligned by my article."

According to a report by KMBC-TV, the State Board of Education's discussion Wednesday about science standards for Kansas' public schools didn't evolve much past personal attacks.

The board made no decisions on the standards, and likely won't until August.

Red State Rabble had heard about Tom DeLay's European vacations. We'd even read something about a couple of little golf outings in Scotland financed by the gambling lobbyist Jack Abramoff. We were dimly aware that such perks are routine for bigshot senators and congressmen, but Kansas school board members, who knew?

It seems that Connie Morris, the conscience of the board, took part in a little magnet school junket to Miami Beach last April. Now, it's true there are no magnet schools in Morris' mainly rural district, but that didn't stop her from submitting a travel voucher billing Kansas taxpayers $339 a night for her shabby little room at the Fountainebleau Hilton Resort, or $150 for meals -- hey, they don't give it away down there. Oh yeah, $147 for two taxi rides. And no, RSR isn't going there.

Oh, did we mention that Morris is billing the taxpayers for her now infamous newsletter in which Connie says she is a Christian who believes in the literal truth of the biblical story of Genesis, says that evolution is "poor science" insists it has all the answers, and is filled "with anti-God contempt and arrogance."

By the way, following the Kansas Supreme Court ruling that the legislature must approve additional funding for the state's schools, Morris said state schools didn't need any funding above the $142 million that Republicans originally approved.

Well, as long as she gets hers.

Where does denial of global warming meet intelligent design? On William Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog of course.

What are the parallels between the ID debate and the environmentalism debate, according to Dembski? We suspect it is this from a commentary in the Daily Telegraph by Bjørn Lomborg titled, "Forget global warming. Let's make a real difference."

"This is perhaps the strongest indication that well-meaning scientists have gone beyond their area of expertise and are conducting unsubstantiated politicking ahead of next month's meeting of the G8."

An intelligent design theorist thinks scientists are going beyond their area of expertise? Isn't that what psychologists call projection?

"Darwin’s theory of evolution is biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. ‘wildly’ and ‘utterly impossible.’”

From an editorial in the Anchorage Daily News:

... "teach the controversy" is the reasonable-sounding appeal of creationist or "intelligent design" thinkers who want their distinctly minority view to be smuggled into science classes with some kind of parity against the theory of evolution. They have a point, but they're applying the idea to the wrong classes.

Schools should teach the controversy over evolution and intelligent design in classes on history. Or social studies. Or philosophy. Or mythology, in the best sense of that term. They should teach about religion, society and education. They should examine creation stories from many religions and cultures. They should study the moral and literary merit of religious texts, especially but not exclusively the Bible.

Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, spoke at a community forum in the Napa Valley June 13 where she was introduced by Napa Mayor Jill Techel. From an article, "Keep religon out of the classroom..." in the Napa News by Pat Stanley.

While a majority of Americans call themselves Christian, [Scott] said the opposition to teaching evolution comes from a small percentage calling themselves "Born Again Christians."

Many of them, she said, want teachings to include the possibility that the world was created by "Divine Design," but they don't say what the designer was."There are efforts to get various kinds of Creationism in our schools," she said.

"And there's an effort to get evolution out of curriculum. Some teachers feel inhibited about teaching evolution, so they don't."

“They [the board] are going to do exactly what they were going to do all along,” says Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science. “The only difference now is, 30-some thousand dollars of Kansas taxpayers’ money has been spent.”

The Discovery Institute and the ID Network have a public relations strategy in which they say they want only to "teach the controversy" over evolution, but what actually happens when that stategy is implemented, as it was in Ohio? An article by Diane Carrol in the Kansas City Star tells the story.

The debate in Ohio drew so much attention that the state board was inundated with 40,000 e-mails, letters and petitions, said Owens-Fink, the board member who promoted the intelligent design view. That kind of pressure, many agreed, helped push the board in October 2002 to insert language into the standards that said: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolution.”

When the Discovery Institute immediately claimed victory, Wise said, she negotiated additional language that said the October clause did not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design. The board included that language when it approved the standards unanimously in December 2002.

But the controversy did not end there.A committee then began working on suggested lesson plans for teachers who wanted help implementing the standards. By late 2003, rumors began circulating of lesson plans that contained intelligent design concepts. The board ended up approving one of the plans that called for critical analysis of evolution.

If you taught intelligent design, what would you teach? The so-called "theory" has no substance. Its proponents won't even entertain a hypothesis about when or how life developed or evolved on the planet. The truth is that all there is of intelligent design is a half-baked critique of evolution. If there were no theory of evolution, there could, by definition, be no intelligent design theory.

In essence, "teaching the controversy" is teaching intelligent design -- there is nothing else.

"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution," Morris wrote.

Phil Plait over at the Bad Astronomy blog is mad as hell and he's not going to take it any more -- the creationist and intelligent design attacks on physics and cosmology, that is. (Actually, Phil has been commenting regularly on the evolution controversy for some time now. He coined the term "anti-science" for the intelligent design "theorists" that RSR has been shamelessly using lately.)

Here at RSR we suspect that it was "The Privileged Planet" dust up that pushed Phil over the edge. Here's what he says:

"Over the course of time, you’ll be seeing more rebuttals — no, debunking — of creationist claims here. I’ve had enough, and this threat is real. They want to turn our classrooms in a theocratically-controlled anti-science breeding ground, and I’m not going to sit by and watch it happen."

Wander over and take a look. By the way, P.S. Meyers at Pharyngula has a nice post up about Phil's throwing down of the gauntlet. Let's hope more and more scientists follow Phil's example.

The barnstorming brotherhood of bible college biologists -- last sighted in Topeka -- have presented a bill to Kansas taxpayers for $4,987.73 for travel, lodging, meals and parking.

On June 10, National Science Teachers Association with National Association of Biology Teachers has joined other coalitions of proscience organizations in filing separate amicus briefs in support of a recent U.S. District Court decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District, that ruled that evolution "warning labels" in public school textbooks in Cobb County, GA, were unconstitutional. The "friend of the court briefs" were filed in the eleventh circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in response to an appeal seeking to overturn the Selman decision.

Signatories included national and local organizations representing scientists, science educators, civil libertarians, and concerned proscience citizens, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Jewish Congress, among others. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) signed the science teacher brief, joined by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).

“The Cobb County stickers send a misguided message to students that evolution lacks scientific status,” said Mike Padilla, NSTA President. “This is damaging to students and their understanding about the scientific process, and it jeopardizes the professional responsibility of science teaches to teach good science. NSTA is pleased the stickers were ordered removed and we strongly urge the court to uphold this decision.”

To read more about the amicus briefs, visit the National Center for Science Education. Read more about the National Academies new website on evolution, here or go to their website.

The right-wing in Kansas is up in arms over the Supreme Court ruling on school funding. The court unanimously ordered funding for the coming school year to be increased no later than July 1 from approximately $142 million appropriated by the 2005 Legislature to $285 million above the past school year's level of funding.

The figure is one-third of the $853 million amount recommended by a consulting firm retained by the 2001 Legislature to determine the cost of educating students in Kansas.

Right-wingers in the legislature have been heard muttering that the Court doesn't have the authority to make that decision and are openly speculating whether they are going to adhere to its ruling.

The fact is, Kansas schools need adequate funding, and the legislature has failed dismally to meet its constitutional obligation to the state's children.

Johnson County Democrats are organizing a response to put public pressure on legislators to do their duty.

"We are currently trying to build some grassroots pressure to get a different message out there," says County Chairman William R. Roy, "a message that refocuses on what is truly important -- Kansas schools and Kansas children receiving the education they deserve."

Roy is asking people to send letters to editors so that three letters to the editor appear each day in Kansas City and Johnson County newspapers.

You can learn more about the issue, here.

You can send a letter to the editor of the Kansas City Star at letters@kcstar.com

You can send a letter to the editor of the Sun publications at 7373 W. 107th Street, Overland Park, KS 66212

Kansas City Star columnist Mike Hendricks is calling for a little civil disobedience after the Kansas State Board of Education writes pseudoscience into the standards:

"... what would happen if science teachers stood up to the anti-intellectual politicians on the state board? What if local school administrators and school boards instructed teachers to ignore the central authority in Topeka?

"I mean, to flat out blow them off.

"Answer: They’d likely get away with it."

Hey, why are you hanging around here when you could be checking out the reDiscovery Institute website?

The reDiscovery Institute is non-profit, non-partisan, public-policy think-tank located in Tacoma, Washington, with branches in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas. The reDiscovery Institute fosters integration of science education with traditional Judeo-Christian principles of free market, limited government, morality, faith, property, obedience and anti-intellectualism.

Our primary focus is to extend and promote Design Theories, which have been so successful in Biology, to the fields of Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Atmospheric Science, Oceanography, Material Science, Acoustics, Condensed Matter Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Nuclear Physics, Anthropology, Physiology, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, and Meteorology.

Our goals are to Teach the Controversies, all of them, each and every one. The reDiscovery Institute promotes better education of children, and re-education of adults; those on our current Enemies List. The
reDiscovery Institute supports Fellows, who relentlessly write letters to
editors and post 'articles' on the web. Highly-paid journalists present our
Fellows to the public as bonafide scientists.

While you're there, don't forget to check out the New Periodic Table of the Elements.

What, you're still here? Get going...

Red State Rabble has been spending a lot of time pouring over the transcripts from the May science hearings over the past few days. The transcripts – though not yet complete – just became available for the first time late last week.

Since Friday, we've also been taking a hard look at the revisions to the science standards made by the board of education sub-committee last Thursday.

Those changes will be presented to the full board for approval this Wednesday. Connie Morris, who feels strongly that the revisions authored by board president Steve Abrams do not challenge evolution strongly enough, may add more criticisms based on testimony contained in the transcripts, then. All the revisions are expected to be approved by the six member conservative majority.

Although supporters of science education may well be disappointed in the board, there is a silver lining to this dark cloud.

As those who have read and laughed along with RSR Transcript Follies know, our intelligent design "theorists" are loathe to put forward any hypotheses of their own. Getting them to answer simple questions about their theory, such as their working hypothesis of the age of the earth, is like pulling teeth.

Until now, they have been completely content simply to kibitz from the sidelines. The transcripts and the revisions, however, put them on record, for example, as not supporting common descent. They deny the increasing weight of genetic evidence.

This gives scientists and educators an opportunity to take them on in ways that we couldn't before. It will also give the courts a rich record to review when the inevitable case that the revised science standards are motivated by the religious beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and for that reason theyviolate the establishment clause of the Constitution is brought.

More Kansas Science Hearings Transcipt Follies:

Below you'll find an excerpt from the official transcript of the cross-examination of Roger DeHart, a high school biology teacher, by Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney representing the majority draft of the Kansas science standards, from May 6.

The Seattle Weekly published a report in its May 16, 2002 edition by Roger Downey that gives some insight into DeHart's background and suitability as an intelligent design "expert" witness:

"DeHart's troubles began in 1998, when evolution-minded parents became aware that for 12 years, DeHart had been omitting certain chapters in the assigned biology text and substituting materials of his own for student consideration. After a series of increasingly fractious public meetings and extensive editorializing in the local media, DeHart resigned his post…"

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. DeHart, I have, excuse me, a few questions for the record that I would like to ask you first.
MR. DEHART: Yes, sir.
PI: And I'm going to ask you first how old, in your opinion, is the world?
RD: I'm going to answer like Dr. Sanford earlier, I would say between probably a lot younger than most people think.
PI: That doesn't say anything to me. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth?
RD: I'm fine with 5,000 to 100,000.
PI: You're fine with 5,000 to 100,000?
RD: Correct.
PI: Do you accept the principle-- the general principle of common descent that all of life was biologically related back to the beginning of life?
RD: Not if you interpret common descent, and realize that I'm taking liberty here, not if you interpret common descent as being that that is natural selection acting on random mutations, I do not.
PI: Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
RD: No.
PI: What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
RD: Design.
PI: When did that design occur?
RD: I don't know.
PI: Who was the designer?
RD: Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching my class I do not answer that.

More transcript follies:

In this post, you'll find an excerpt from the official transcript of the cross-examination of intelligent design proponent Dr. Daniel Ely, a professor of biology at the University of Akron in Ohio, by Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney representing the majority draft of the Kansas science standards, from May 6.


PI: Welcome to Kansas. I have a few questions for the record for you. First I have a group of yes or no questions that I would like for you to answer, please. What is your opinion as to the age of the earth?
DE: In light of time I would say most of the evidence that I see, I read and I understand points to an old age of the earth.
PI: And how old is that age?
DE: I don't know. I just know what I read with regards to data. It looks like it's four billion years.
PI: And is that your personal opinion?
DE: No. My personal opinion is I really don't know. I'm struggling.
PI: You're struggling with what the age of the earth is?
DE: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure. There's a lot of ways to measure the age. Meteorites is one way. There's a lot of elements used. There's a lot of assumptions can be used and those assumptions can be challenged so I don't really know.
PI: What is the range that you are instructing?
DE: I think the range we heard today, somewhere between 5,000 and four billion.
PI: You-- you-- you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old. Is that correct?
DE: Well, we're learning that there's such a thing as junc --
PI: Sir, answer --
DE: -- really has a function.
PI: Just please answer my question, sir.
DE: We're learning a lot about micro --
PI: Sir?
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: I think --
Mr. Irigonegaray: The question was-- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old?
DE: It could be.
PI: Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
DE: No.

The National Academy of U.S. science has set up a Web site to battle intelligent design and creationism. Check it out.

It's called LUCA - shorthand for the "last universal common ancestor" - and they think it inhabited the Earth 3 billion to 4 billion years ago. Some scientists are using new advances in the science of genetics to track it down and think they are getting close. Other scientists think there may be other explanations.

Funny, none of the "experts" who testified at the Kansas science hearings in May mentioned LUCA. In fact, as RSR recalls, each of the "experts" at the hearings told attorney Pedro Irigonegaray that they doubt common ancestry alltogether -- heck, they don't even think humans descended from prehominids.

More than 1,000 scientists and students are meeting at the University of Alaska Fairbanks for the Evolution 2005 conference this weekend. Now tell us again, how many "scientists" signed the Discovery Institute statement doubting evolution?

Evolution 2005 is jointly sponsored conference of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society of Systematic Biologists and the American Society of Naturalists. It is being hosted by the Institute of Arctic Biology at UAF and the University of Alaska Museum of the North.

Read more in an article by Margaret Friedenauer in the Fairbanks News-Miner.

While Kansas, and some other states, are moving to weaken science education, our friends in the frozen tundra of Alaska apparently have moved to strengthen it there. In an early draft of the science standards, the word "evolution" was deleted, despite complaints from teachers. The latest draft restores the E-word. The newly restored standards still need to be reviewed by the law department and signed by Lt. Gov. Loren Leman.

Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune has written an wide-ranging overview of where the intelligent design movement now stands in the U.S. from the perspective of Utah, where Sen. Chris Buttars has come out for teaching what he calls Divine Design in the public schools.

Buttars claims he's getting calls from parents who complain that their children are being taught that human have descended from apes. Stack quotes John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute, as saying that they're not thrilled about Buttar's proposal to teach Devine Design. Apparently Buttars didn't get the strategy memo about "teaching the controversy," or maybe he just didn't read it.

Below is an excerpt from the cross-examination of Stephen C. Meyer, director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, at the Kansas science hearings in May. Meyer was questioned via teleconference from Seattle. Although Meyer had no problem anwering the questions or hearing John Calvert, the intelligent design attorney, things changed dramatically during Irigonegary's 20 minute cross-examination as Meyer affected not to hear and gave non-responsive answers.

MR. CALVERT: Dr. Meyer, thank you so much for your testimony. Our time is up. And so now it's the turn of Mr. Irigonegaray to ask you some questions for about twenty minutes.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: The Chair will decide that.
DR. MEYER: I met Pedro before. Pedro, you were the moderator of the debate at Washburn University in that I participated in. I don't know if you remember that.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Oh, of course I do. I'm here in a little bit of a different role.
DR. MEYER: Well, actually it was-- you were a moderator—
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Steve, hang on a second. Whoa, you're taking up my time. Hang on a second.
DR. MEYER: It's not that different of a role for you.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, please proceed.
DR. MEYER: I can't hear you very well. I don't know if you—
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, can you hear me?
DR. MEYER: I can hear you, but it's very muffled.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, would you move down to the chair, please? And you have twenty minutes. John, he can't hear us very well, so will you tell him that Mr. Irigonegaray is moving down to the chair?
MR. CALVERT: Dr. Meyer, Mr. Irigonegaray is moving down to my chair, so he'll be-- so you guys can talk a little bit better and hear each other better.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY:
PI: Can you hear me now?
SM: I can indeed.
PI: I have a few questions for you first that I want to establish for the record. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth?
SM: Do you want my personal-- why are you asking me about my personal--
PI: You're here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
SM: I understood I was being called as an expert witness.
PI: What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
SM: I'm unclear. I understand--
PI: The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth?
SM: Well, I'm just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal--
PI: That's not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal--
SM: I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about—
PI: Mr. Chairman, if he's not going to answer my questions, I'd ask that his testimony be stricken from the record.
SM: I'm happy to answer your question. I'd like to know why you're asking about--
PI: The "why" is not for you to determine.
MR. SISSON [Calvert’s co-counsel]: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Meyer's request to reflect some confusion about the ground rules, and it is quite appropriate for him to ask that the chair of the committee, namely yourself, speak to him concerning the appropriate ground rules. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, can you hear me now?
SM: Yes, sir.

This is the official transcipt of the cross-examination of Bryan Leonard, a high school biology teacher at Hilliard Davidson High School in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio and intelligent design "expert witness," by Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney who represented mainstream science at the Kansas science hearings in May.

Leonard is a doctoral candidate in science education at Ohio State University. His dissertation research is on the academic merits of an ID-based “critical analysis” approach to teaching evolution in public schools. In essence, the critical analysis amounts to "teaching the controversy." His testimony was based on this research.

When you read in the transcript Leonard's evasive statement that "I teach them actually what I believe is the best science," his answer should be read in the context of "teaching the controversy."

As has been reported on Panda's Thumb, Leonard's dissertation defense has been postponed following charges that his thesis committee was stacked with intelligent design supporters, rather than experts in the field -- as required by the rules of Ohio State University's School of Teaching and Learning in the College of Education.

Red State Rabble wonders if this testimony was a the sort epiphany that gave Leonard a glimpse of what his dissertation defense might look like if his committee were composed of experts rather than intelligent design "theorists."

Pedro Irigonegary: All right. I have a few questions that I want to ask you for the record. First, what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is?
Bryan Leonard: I really don't have an opinion.
PI: You have no opinion as to what the age of the world is?
BL: Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students.
PI: I'm asking what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is?
BL: 'Um, I was asked to come out here to talk about my experiences as a high school biology teacher.
PI: I'm asking you, sir --
BL: I was not under the impression that I was asked to come out here --
PI: I'm asking you --
BL: -- talking about --
PI: -- sir, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
BL: Four-- four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir.
PI: That's not my question. My question is, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
BL: Again, I was under the impression to come out here and talk about my professional experience --
PI: Is there a difference?
BL: -- more of --
PI: Is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach students the age of1the world is?
BL: Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir.
PI: Is-- my question is, is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach your students?
BL: Again, you're putting a spin on the question is-- you know, now I'll spin any answer, sir, to say that my opinion is irrelevant. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students.
PI: The record will reflect your answer. Do you--do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
BL: No.
PI: Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to pre-hominid ancestors? Yes or no?
BL: No.
PI: What is your alternative explanation as to how human species came into existence?
BL: During my power point presentation I discussed nothing about offering an alternative, I just simply stated that here's the supporting and here is the information challenging --
PI: My question is, sir, if you do not accept, if you don't-- do not accept that there is a common descent to human existence, what is your alternative? I'm not asking you about your power point. I'm asking you what is your hypothesis for how we came to be?
BL: Again, as I stated, that professionally that's something that-- that is a different question I guess in terms of my professional, in terms of my personal opinion, that's different. Again, I was asked to come out here and give my professional assessment, sir.
PI: Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you attempt to teach your students what is the best of science?
BL: As I said, I teach my students the four point --
PI: That's not my question. Listen carefully.
BL: All right.
PI: Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you teach them what you believe is the best science?
BL: I teach them actually what I believe is the best science, hence the scientific interpretation both supporting and scientific interpretation both challenging macroevolution. Science Hearing And that information has been generated by scientists, some of these scientists are here today.

The excerpt below, is from official transcript of the May 7 cross-examination of Angus Menuge, by Pedro Irigonegaray at the Kansas Science Hearings. Menuge was called as an "expert witness" by John Calvert, the attorney representing the intelligent design minority draft of the science standards curriculum.

Irigonegary represents the majority draft of the standards which is supported by The Kansas Academy of Science, Kansas Citizens For Science, Kansas Families United for Public Education, and The Mainstream Coalition. A boycott of the hearings was supported by the National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. No mainstream scientists participated in the hearings.

Angus Menuge is a professor of philosophy and computer science at Concordia University in Wisconsin. The biographical note on his website states in part: "... I became an adult confirmand of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. This helped to heal the wounds of my heart... My interests now are in promoting Christian teaching and scholarship... "

PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: Sir, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask you for the record, please. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
ANGUS MENUGE: I don't know. And that's my final answer.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: Do you have an opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
ANGUS MENUGE: I'm not giving an opinion.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: I didn't hear you.
ANGUS MENUGE: I am not giving an opinion.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: You don't have any personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
ANGUS MENUGE: I have no opinion.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: Do you find that to be rather an oddity since you consider yourself an expert on all of these areas?
ANGUS MENUGE: Absolutely not, because my understanding of historical sciences has led me to -- studying them from the perspective of philosophy of science has led me to believe that inference to the best explanation is much less certain than other areas of science. And so the conclusions are much more tentative and there are other competing explanations that can be provided.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
ANGUS MENUGE: Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to pre-hominid ancestors?
ANGUS MENUGE: I doubt it.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: What is the alternative explanation?
ANGUS MENUGE: Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
PEDRO IRIGONEGARY: And your opinion as to when that design occurred?
ANGUS MENUGE: I don't know.

And they want to bring this half-baked non-hypothesisis into the schools and teach it to our kids. The taxpayers of Kansas actually paid money to bring this man to our state to testify.

Here is the addition to the science standards made by Steve Abrams and appoved by the sub-committee on June 9 that mirrors language from the Cobb County stickers. The antievolution stickers were ordered affixed to biology textbooks there by the school board. A federal judge has ruled they must be removed:

Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory.
All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

By writing that "All scientific theories should be... " the board is trying to get around the federal court ruling in the Cobb County case which declared the stickers unconstitutional because they singled out evolution.

But, that may not be enough to get the Kansas Science standards past a judge. Here's a section of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper:

"Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life."

There can be no doubt that the standards as now proposed by the sub-committee have the effect of undermining evolution education in the state of Kansas. Despite the rhetorical tip of the hat to "all scientific theories" the proposed standards clearly single out evolution. Likewise, there can be no doubt at all about the religious motivation of the board.

The science standards, after all the hoopla of the hearings, constitute a clear violation of the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state.

For those who want to read the proposed standards -- and see the revisions made by the board -- the Kansas Department of Education has put the working document online in pdf format.

The following passage is taken from a revision to the Kansas science standards, written by young earth creationist board president Steve Abrams, and adopted in a 3-0 vote by the science standards sub-committee of the board on Thursday. The revisions will be presented to the full board for formal adoption on June 15 and are expected to be approved.

"Science has led to significant improvements in physical health and economic growth, however, modern science can sometimes be abused by scientists and policymakers, leading to significant negative consequences for society and violations of human dignity (e.g., the eugenics movement in American and Germany, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and scientific justifications of eugenics and racism.)"

A right-wing antiscience subcommittee of the Kansas Board of Education voted yesterday 3-0 to interject intelligent design and creationist concepts into the standards that guide the teaching of science in the state.

The most revealing addition to the standards is the insertion of a section on origins in Benchmark 3, Indicator 7 for grades 8-12 (p. 80): "The student explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticism of those explanations."

"Some of the criticisms include:

• "Empirical evidence for a "primordial soup" or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere is unknown.
• "Natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells is unknown.
• "The apparent sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms that the Earth first become habitable."

The interesting thing about the insertion of origins into the Kansas science curriculum is that it has been put there, not by the scientists and educators on the standards committee, but by the intelligent design movement represented by John Calvert and William Harris of the ID Network, the Discovery Institute, and the conservatives on the board.

The draft written by the majority of the science standards committee doesn't include origins because the science in that area is not yet settled. There are a number of different hypotheses about origins that will be proven or disproven by further research in the area. Unlike creationism or intelligent design, science doesn't claim to have all the answers, it does however, have a proven track record, as a method for learning about the natural world.

That fact didn't stop intelligent design witnesses at the Kansas science hearings from urging that the board teach students about the so-called controversy over origins while they're receiving their first introduction to evolution.

Why?

First, since there is no scientific consensus about origins now, it can be used as a straw man to attack evolution as a whole. Second, as board president Steve Abrams wrote into the standards ("Rationale... " p. iv) "... the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions..."

If that is so, why teach origins in an introductory biology class?

Because, the intelligent design and creationist movements, and their supporters on the Kansas board, want to turn science education in this country into a battle zone in the culture wars, and they want to enlist students as child soldiers in their struggle to turn back the clock.

This is utterly cynical on their part. They have not won the battle in the adult world of science so they inject dozens of criticisms of evolution into the science standards to make children suspicious of science before they have a chance to learn what it is.

A Kansas Board of Education sub-committee, composed of Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin, and Connie Morris, meeting in Topeka last night, voted 3-0 to change the definition of science proposed by the majority of the science curriculum writing committee. Red State Rabble was there and offers this eyewitness report.

Abrams, Martin, and Morris also voted to approve dozens of changes intended to weaken the teaching of evolution and to take the antiscience criticisms of the religious right into science classrooms around the state. They plan to present the revised standards at the next full board meeting scheduled for June 14-15.

As part of the revisions, the three conservative board members adopted a page-long addition to the standards, written by Abrams, that replaces the curriculum committee's definition of science completely with a new section titled "Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards." It states in part:

Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution , the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.

During the meeting, Abrams proposed that the language similar to that found on the stickers placed on textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia be added to this section of the standards, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." There was no objection from any of the other board members.

A federal judge has ordered the removal of those stickers. School District officials began removing the stickers from textbooks there in the past few weeks to comply with the order.

Each of the changes in the curriculum is designed to raise questions about the theory of evolution in student's minds, but that was not enough for board member Connie Morris who argued for the addition of many more specific criticisms.

"I've been holding my reins back so much in all this," said Morris in urging more criticism of evolution be added to the standards. "To have [the criticisms] be condensed down to this is disheartening."

I've been getting letters from people, college professors, who believe Darwinian evolution can't be refuted," Morris added.

Stay tuned for more posts -- including the exact language of the revisions, reaction from John Calvert of the ID Network, Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, and Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney who is representing the pro-science side in the curriculum battle.

Following the Kansas Board of Education sub-committee meeting in Topeka last night that adopted a wide range of intelligent design inspired changes to the Kansas public school science curriculum, Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney who represented the majority science standards draft at the hearings last month, reacted sharply.

"This is a sad day for Kansas school children," said Irigonegary. "Children should be taught science as science, not a religious view of science. This effort to mirror the minority report should not be happening in 2005."

Implementation of the standards, Irigonegary indicated, could lead to a court challenge. "We are ready," he said, "if the board opens the door to the non-scientific and supernatural, that would be a violation of Kansas law and the Establishment Clause to the U.S. Constitution."

Red State Rabble is old, but we are, apparently, still somewhat naive. That's why we were astonished when we initially heard the charge from those on the religious right, who are the mainstay of the intelligent design and creationist movement, that Darwin and evolution are somehow connected to Hitler and the Nazis.

RSR has had a long-running exchange with Dr. Richard Weikart, a History professor at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Weikart contends that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

The charge that Darwin and evolution are linked to everything bad in the world is part of the "Wedge Strategy" developed at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, where Dr. Weikart is a fellow. This imagined link is straight out of the right's political playbook which recommends demonizing political opponents rather than debating their ideas honestly.

Now, a real link between those on the religious right, including those who support the teaching of intelligent design, and the notorious racist David Duke has been reported on Daily KOS and AmericalBlog.

It seems that the Family Research Council, headed by Tony Perkins, paid the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, David Duke, $82,000 in 1996 for a "who's-who-of-racist-America mailing list."

Is there any real link between the Family Research Council and intelligent design or creationism? While the Family Research Council is probably best known for its anti-gay, anti-abortion positions, in its list of core principles FRC has this to say:

"God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image."

And, in the section of the FRC website that lays out the group's education policy on creationism versus evolution, you'll find this: a report on last month's Kansas science hearings. Here's what they say:

"Although intelligent design proponents are the ones accused of injecting religion into science, it now appears that it is the evolutionists who treat their theory as unquestionable dogma, and their critics who are persecuted as heretics."

Right out of the old playbook, wouldn't you say?

Here's RSR's question. Will the Discovery Institute -- and Dr. Weikart -- who have been so assiduous in promoting the utterly false myth of a link between Darwin and Hitler -- now dissociate themselves from the racists in their own ranks?

Only time will tell.

Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin, the three conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education, will review testimony and documents tonight from the science hearings held last month to prepare a report for the full board when it meets on Wednesday on the science curriculum.

William Dembski has a post up on his Uncommon Descent blog about the stakes in the Dover case. He's just been to Dover to help depose Barbara Forrest, and he's worried about the potential for a setback there that might derail the ID movement's carefully laid plans.

Here's what Dembski says,

"I expect I’ll be reporting more on this case at some point. Though seemingly insignificant (a tiny community’s school board enacts a seemingly trivial concession to ID), this case could well blow up with huge implications for ID in high school biology curricula."

The Discovery Institute's longterm legal and political strategy, best exemplfied by the hearings held in Kansas this Spring, is to wait for more right-wing judicial appointments -- including a possible Supreme Court appointment that might come as early as this summer -- to make the courts more ID and creationist friendly. Until then, their public stance is that they only want to "teach the controversy." It is in that sense that the Discovery Institute fears that the Dover school board has gone too far, too fast by writing ID into the public school curriculum before the necessary rightward shift in the political composition of the courts has come to fruition.

Dover, RSR readers will remember, is the first school district in the nation to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design,” which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

The district mandated that the following statement be read to all students in ninth grade biology classes:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

On December 14, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.

The school board is being represented in the suit by the Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself as dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, the sanctity of human life, and the sword and shield for people of faith,

Jill Hoffman of the Roanoke Times reports that, "[t]he title of the homemade textbook alone, 'Creation Battles Evolution,' should have raised eyebrows." A school official recently instructed the biology teacher to stop using the book.

But no one complained in the 15-plus years that teacher Larry Booher distributed the 500-page text, which counters the theory of evolution and says that God created the universe. School officials say they had no idea about the book in the Biology 2 class at John S. Battle High School in Washington County.

Last month, a man identifying himself as a freelance writer from Charlottesville called Washington County Public Schools Superintendent Alan Lee to report that a teacher at John S. Battle High School was presenting a Christian view of the origin of life in class. The writer had obtained a copy of the teacher's source book from a former student.

Here's a backgrounder on the Tulsa Zoo controversy courtesy of a 1996 article by Lenny Flank that details an earlier attempt by Dan Hicks to get an evolution display removed from the zoo. Flank's article also details false claims made by the Institute for Creation Research about the controversy.

From a museum list-serve that is making the rounds:

The Tulsa Zoo has been ordered by its board to install an exhibit on creationism. The zoo has an exhibit on evolution, but what really got folks riled was a Hindu statue of an elephant (Ganesha), and a piece of art that says "the earth is our mother." The pro-creationism folks say the door was opened by the Zoo when they put the info and icons on other religions in the Zoo.

The June 11 issue of New Scientist says, "[t]here is egg on management faces at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC over the screening of a creationist film in one of its museums."

RSR agrees that the original screeners of the intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet" were asleep at the switch -- these screeners undoubtedly function more on the fundraising side of things at the National Museum of Natural History, than on the science side -- but we have nothing but admiration for the integrity with which the museum faced the situation they found themselves in once the controversy broke. Their decision to return the money, keep their promise to screen the film, and clearly dissociate themselves from its antiscience content was the best that could be made under the circumstances.

If you haven't seen it yet, go to Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins and spend a couple of very pleasurable hours taking a journey through four million years of human evolution. This first class documentary film uses motion picture and still photography, interviews to produce an extremely attractive and informative interactive experience.

This is a lovely example of the sort of entertaining and educational experience that defenders of science need to develop and promote.

"When Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, Utah stood up this week and simultaneously proclaimed that intelligent design theory “doesn't preach religion,” but also that, “the only people who will be upset about this are atheists,” he nicely demonstrated what everyone already knows: Intelligent design theory is a pretty new package for old-fashioned creationism," writes David W. Goldsmith an assistant professor of geology and paleontology at Westminster College in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Intelligent design proponents insist that teaching evolution in public schools is an endorsement of atheism. That notion is challenged by the Rev. Kenneth L. Chumbly, rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Springfield, Missouri. In a very sensible Op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader he says:

How God created the universe, I told the man at the coffeehouse, was a mystery to me, just as it was surely a mystery to the writers of the Genesis creation stories.

Their accounts, I said, are poetry, not science; truth, but not fact. I believe that God created (and goes on creating) in a slow, steady way, which does not threaten my faith in the Creator. In fact, it only adds to my sense of wonder at the love and power of God.

"I see this as a big victory," says Dan Hicks, who convinced the Tulsa Zoo board to exhibit a display featuring the Biblical creation story from Genesis on a wall in the Time Gallery inside the zoo's Arctic building.

"It's a matter of fairness," says Hicks. "To not include the creationist view would be discrimination."

Looking ahead to what might be done to protect Kansas students from being stigmatized when they apply to college after the Kansas State Board of Education votes, as expected later this summer, to devalue science education in the state, Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law has a modest proposal in an Op-ed in the Lawrence Journal-World.

"Our universities and their faculty can establish a voluntary association for Kansas high schools who wish to continue to teach evolution as good science. University faculty could serve on accrediting panels and study high school curricula and visit high school classes to ensure that good science is being taught.

"When they find that this is so, they could then give these high schools a 'sign of approval' that high schools could advertise and place on student transcripts so that all institutions of higher learning to which their graduates might apply would know that these graduates had adequate scientific training in high school. No high school would have to join this association and no high school would have to seek accreditation. It would be entirely voluntary. But those who chose to do so, could. And in so doing could protect their reputations and their students."

The Center for American Progress is holding a free public discussion on religion and politics, in Kansas City that will focus on evolution, intelligent design, and stem cell research on June 22.

Panelists at the event will be Myra Christopher, Executive Director, Center for Practical Bioethics, Jack Krebs, Vice President, Kansas Citizens for Science, and John Tamilio III, Senior Minister at Colonial Church.

The discussion will be moderated by Melody Barnes, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

It will be held Wednesday, June 22, from 6:30 - 8:00 pm at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, 4501 Walnut St., Kansas City.

Please RSVP by calling 202-741-6246 and leave a message with your full name, organization, and email address, or by sending an e-mail to religion@americanprogress.org

Joe McFaul over at the Law Evolution Science Junk Science blog says the Pope accepts evolution and observes that -- at least, according to the intelligent design "theorists" and their creationist poor relations -- that means he must be an atheist. We're jealous Joe, we wish we'd thought of it first.

Iowa State Daily correspondent Brian Oltman reports on assistant astronomy and physics professor Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery." Oltman's article makes clear the intelligent design connections in the book that the Discovery Institute film -- to be screened at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, but no longer co-sponsored -- is based on.

"Gonzalez said the basic thesis of "Privileged Planet" is that the rare conditions which make Earth habitable show it was designed for humans. He said the book also goes a step further by arguing the universe was meant for discovery and that Earth's rare conditions make it the optimal place from which to study the universe.

"Gonzalez said he became a proponent of Intelligent Design in 1995 after viewing a total eclipse in India and believing it was not a coincidence that he could see it from Earth as a result of the Earth's conditions."

Oltman's article also recounts the controversy surrounding the Smithsonian screening of the film and quotes retired professor John Patterson, who calls Intelligent Design "scientifically bankrupt." Patterson describes his thoughts on "The Privileged Planet" in a review of the book,

"And should bewildering mysteries remain, it is always better to address them with the time-honored methods of modern science, than to posit things like Intelligent Designers, Supernatural Creators and such, that serve only to increase the levels of confusion and mystery around us, rather than clear it away."

Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State compares the screening of the film at the Smithsonian to a group renting a room at the Memorial Union at Iowa State. "However, I fear that ID people will try to represent such a screening as legitimizing their pseudo-science," he said.

Following a vote by the Tulsa, Okla. Parks Board yesterday, the Tulsa Zoo will install an exhibit chronicling the biblical account of creation. Red State Rabble is trying to get additional information on this story -- it may be that other creation accounts will go up, as well. The vote came at a packed meeting following a spirited debate.

Now, James Dobson's Focus on the Family is getting involved in the dispute over the Smithsonian screening of the intelligent design film, "The Privileged Planet."

An article in "Family News in Focus" by Josh Montez reports on the controversy. Rob Crowther, the director of communications at the Discovery Institute, tells Montez that he believes "pressure from evolutionists that convinced the Smithsonian to withdraw support." Then -- and this will surprise no one -- Crowther plays a little fast and loose with the truth:

"The 'Privileged Planet' deals with cosmology, physics, astronomy—sort of the fine-tuning of the universe," he said. "It does not deal in any way with Darwinian evolution or biological evolution."

The film doesn't deal with evolution, but that's not what the objections were about. It's an intelligent design film that attempts to inject pseudoscience into a new arena -- physics and cosmology -- where it doesn't belong any more than it does in a high school biology classroom.

And notice how Crowther finesses intelligent design into a sort of "fine-tuning" of the universe.

The Focus on the Family article concludes with a none to subtle threat from Jason Lisle, who is described in the article as an astrophysicist who works at Answers in Genesis."

"Institutions like this are going to respond to the complaints of people,"
he said. "Therefore I think we Christians need to make a case that we would like
to see films that challenge atheistic ideas."

Red State Rabble has absolutely no problem with born-again Christians (or anybody else, for that matter) watching any film they want, in fact, we will defend their right to do so, as long as they do it in their own church. We don't see why taxpayer dollars should support the peculiar religious views of a few at the expense of many. And, we don't see why biblical literalists demand a stamp of approval from science -- we thought that was the reason they're called "believers."

Red State Rabble was raised as a Catholic. Having grown up in that great conveyor belt to skepticism, we are depressingly familiar with guilt, but know little about the Bible or the born again Evangelicals who believe so ferverently -- and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that every word in the good book is literally true.

That is why we were so facinated by Jeff Sharlet's article in Harper's Magazine, "Soldiers of Christ I: Inside America's most powerful megachurch" about the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and its founder, Pastor Ted Haggard.

This is a long article that will repay close reading. One of the details that caught our eye -- and made us self-consiously aware of our ignorance in these matters -- was the organizational structure of the Evangelicals -- apparently adapted from the Koreans:

"The true architectural wonder of New Life, however, is the pyramid of authority into which it orders its 11,000 members. At the base are 1,300 cell groups, whose leaders answer to section leaders, who answer to zone, who answer to district, who answer to Pastor Ted... "

Then, there's the revelation that Evangelical ministers have developed a conscious business plan to market Christianity to the masses:

New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, “like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.” They like the stimulation of a new brand. “Have you ever switched your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?” Pastor Ted asks. Admit it, he insists. All the way home, you felt a “secret little thrill,” as excited questions ran through your mind: “Will it make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?” This is the sensation Ted wants pastors to bring to the Christian experience.

There's too much packed into this piece to do more than just whet your appetite but, if you invest your time in Sharlet's eloquent profile of Evangelism you will also learn that cities are dangerous places because, "[y]ou could walk by sin—a murder, a homosexual act—and a demon will leap onto your bones."

"The descent of Kansas" by John W. Nelson on the Enter Stage Right website takes an erudite look at the Kansas Science hearings that not only manages to draw a comparison between our incomparable Kathy Martin and Antoine Arnauld, a 17th-century Sorbonne priest, but to explain lucidly why scientists and educators were right to boycott the hearings.

Why shore up the feeble defenses of pseudoscience by indirectly lending the patina of intellectual credibility to its practitioners?

Such considerations were no doubt behind the decision of scientists to boycott the Kansas Board of Education hearings convened last month to reevaluate the state's science standards and decide how the theory of evolution should be taught in public schools. In a farcical tribute to the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial, a subcommittee of the board listened to proponents of ID provide scripted answers to questions posed by John Calvert, a retired lawyer and operator of the Intelligent Design Network, who presented the creationists' objections to evolution.

Jason, at Evolutionblog, has a post suggesting that church attendance may not be everything we've been led to believe. Citing a post on the theology blog Between Two Worlds that suggests that real church attendance may really only be around 20 percent, Jason writes:

Assuming that's correct, perhaps the recent resurgence of fundamentalism is really an indication of Christianity's current weakness. Maybe the reason some people are moving towards more extreme forms of Christianity is that they see more liberal churches secularizing themselves out of existence.

Although RSR would like to see more research in this area, the reasoning is nevertheless quite persuasive. We need to learn far more about the social, cultural, and historical factors that lead to periods of religous revival, and the elements that in turn usher in its decline.

Johnathan Witt, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute writes on the Intelligent Design the Future blog that the right-wing Christian WorldNetDaily website has the best informed article yet on the Smithsonian's erractic behavior toward The Privileged Planet."

WorldNetDaily writes, "A campaign to convince the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History to renege on its agreement to premier "The Privileged Planet," a film produced by the Discovery Institute, a major "intelligent design" think tank, may have backfired."

Oh, it backfired all right. That's why Discovery, O'Leary, and WorldNetDaily are in full damage control mode and pro-science people are slapping each other on the back.

Witt is a University of Kansas product by the way. His bio on Discovery's CSC website says, "After years of studying and teaching students about logical fallacies and the structure of sound arguments, Witt began to notice just how fallacious and unsound the arguments of the leading Darwinists were."

Hmmm. Looks like he's gone over to the dark side -- from teaching students how to recognize logical fallacies to constructing them himself.

Here are two headlines that were up on WorldNetDaily this morning:

• "Islam on march south of border: Mexico agrees to monitor foreign groups as Muslim recruitment rate skyrockets" [RSR notes that immigration is a big, big worry for the folks at WND]
• "Christianity really taking over planet? Reduced price on book that makes case it's fastest growing faith on Earth"

Fallacious? Contradictory? You decide.

Check this out from the BBC: In June 1855, Darwin began a study of the local plants, which supported his theories on evolution and was mentioned in his book On the Origin of Species.
Now, three generations of the Darwin family - aged from 21 months to 78 years - have begun a repeat survey. It should show how flowering plants have changed over the past 150 years.

"It wasn't until creationism was ousted from public schools that intelligent design was brought in," said Mark Jennings, a Gull Lake Community Schools parent and pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Richland. "I've always thought the school should leave teaching about God to the church and we'll leave science to the schools."

Quoted in "Theory isn't science teachers group says" by Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki in the Detroit Free Press.

Denyse "Buy My Book" O'Leary, who publishes the apologist ID blog Post-Darwinist is much taken with the "good music, glorious graphics, and narration by John Rhys-Davies, who played Gimli in The Lord of the Rings," to be found in the pseudoscience film "The Privileged Planet."

"Rhys-Davies is an excellent narrator," gushes O'Leary, "principally in my view because he knows when to just not say anything... "

RSR wonders if Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, wishes our friend Denyse had that same talent.

Julie Berry's "God, Science, and intelligent design" (scroll down for more) notes that even the leaders of the intelligent design movement are ignorant of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory:

Dr. William Harris, who co-directs the Intelligent Design Network, is the closest these groups have to a biologist. His current work at the University of Missouri at Kansas City is in metabolism, vascular biology, and lipoprotein research. Dr. Robert Hagen, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Kansas, once appeared on a radio talk show with Harris, and was astonished to find that Harris didn't understand the basic concepts of natural selection. Yet he is the spokesperson for a movement gaining in momentum that wants to suppress public understanding of evolution.

Intelligent design activists insist there's a controversy among scientists over the theory of evolution. That argument is essentially demolished by Julie Berry's "God, science, and intelligent design" article in MetroWest Daily. Scroll down for an earlier post on this important article.

"They (Intelligent Design proponents) don't even understand evolution,'' says BYU's Keith Crandall. "The scientists they find are not biology researchers. They're not in the right field so they simply don't know the realities. They need to understand the arguments.''

Indeed, of the major organizations advocating for Intelligent Design, there is no practicing research geneticist to be found. Reasons to Believe is led by a physicist; the Intelligent Design Network is led a nutritional biochemist and a lawyer; and The
Discovery Institute has an executive team of public policy and philosophy specialists.

Julie Berry, writing in the Framingham, Mass. MetroWest Daily, has produced an important, wide-ranging article, "God, science, and intelligent design" on the battle between ID and evolution that's sure to shake the debate up. Red State Rabble will be breaking up the posts on Berry's article into several bite-size chunks to make it easier to digest.

Noting that "the majority of contemporary scholars, from evangelical theologians and Old Testament scholars, do not see their understanding of scripture and orthodox doctrine to be in conflict with evolutionary theory," Berry writes that many church members may nevertheless assume their church's doctrine opposes evolution when, in fact, it simply is not the case.

Berry provides examples of this disconnect from Evangelical Christian Keith Miller, a paleontologist and research assistant professor in the geology department at Kansas State University, Gary Belovsky, a biology professor at the University of Notre Dame, and a practicing Catholic, and David McClellan, a biology professor at Brigham Young University and a practicing Mormon.

Although the Mormon Church officially adopted a policy of no position on evolution in 1925, McClellan tells Berry that, "I still get a few people telling me it's 'Evil-Lution.'"

Don't forget to contact your local PBS affiliate to express your concern about the intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet." The film is the next step by the Discovery Institute to hammer the wedge of intelligent design deeper. Until now, the ID has focused primarily on biology and evolution. The film is designed to extend antiscience into the realm of physics and cosmology.

This is how the film is described in a promotion by Illlustra Media, the film's distributor:

Is Earth merely a speck of dust lost without significance in the universe? Or, is our planet the product of intelligent design? Today, scientific evidence indicates that the many factors that make Earth suitable for complex life also provide the best conditions for astronomical discovery. The Privileged Planet explores this intriguing correlation and its implications on our understanding of the origin and purpose of the cosmos.

You can find your local PBS station’s address at PBS.org. Let them know you don't want religion presented in a pseudoscientific guise.

John Hanna of the Associated Press writes, "People aren't literally smelling burnt toast around the Statehouse, but Republican legislative leaders and Attorney General Phill Kline were scorched nonetheless by the Kansas Supreme Court's decision on education funding."

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people.

Our colleague at the other end of the I-70 corridor, Afarensis, has a very readable scientific analysis of what's wrong with Jonathan Wells Rivista Di Biologia article on centrioles. It's well illustrated and clearly written. Even a simple-minded liberal arts type like RSR could grasp the ideas. Take a look...

The Eastern Pennsylvania Regional Office of the Anti-Defamation League, based in Philidelphia, has written a letter to the Northwest Area school board in Wilkes-Barre, Penn. opposing a move to consider adding intelligent design to the school curriculum there.

School board member Randy Tomasacci says he wants the board to explore including intelligent design in the science curriculum.

Barry Morrison, the regional director of the Eastern Pennsylvania Anti-Defamation League says the civil rights group currently has no plans to sue the school district, but that may change if the board votes to include it in the curriculum and parents object.

The mission of the Anti-Defamation League is to stop the defamation of Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike.

Read more in this article by Nichole Dobo in the Citizen's Voice.

From a commentary in the York Daily Record, "No conflict between Bible and evolution" by Rev. Steven E. Thomas, pastor of St. Luke Lutheran Church, New Bridgeville.

"... First off, the Bible is a book of faith. It tells us about God and our relationship with God. For this knowledge and understanding there is no better source. However, the Bible is not a science book. There is no need for conflict between science and religion — because science is merely attempting to explain what God has made. Science merely tries to figure out how the universe that God made works. There is no conflict.

"Whether God chooses to use billions of years and create the laws of physics to guide this universe into being, so be it. That doesn’t invalidate the Bible."

"... if you’re uncomfortable believing that humanity evolved from an ancestor of the apes — that is OK. Some truths are hard to face. Certainly humanity can act like animals at any given time. Or worse. We can systematically slaughter millions of our own kind out of the simple desire for power. Even the apes do not do that."

Denyse O'Leary defends the world against the invasion of the Darwinbots, who are,

"... profoundly self-deceived. It is difficult to be further from classical liberalism than they are. Yesterday, I was glad that T.H. Huxley had not lived to see what has become of Darwinism. Today, I can be glad that John Stuart Mill did not live to see what has become of liberalism."

An editorial in the Virginian Pilot in Hampton Roads debunks the myths about evolution and says it deserves to be taught confidently:

No reputable scientist seriously doubts the theory of evolution. It is — along with the law of gravity, say, or germ theory — as close to truth as scientific theory gets. Still, polls show that a substantial portion of Americans believe evolution isn’t supported by evidence, and that many scientists doubt it. Neither of those things is true.

John Turney of Springdale, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, writes in a commentary for the Cincinnati Enquirer:

"... all evolutionists, must make assumptions. For example, they assume the Grand Canyon's rock always had its current concrete-like consistency. Why the assumption? They were not present during the Grand Canyon's formation. Therefore they turn their assumptions into "fact." What they conveniently fail to mention is that geologically younger rocks are near the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while geologically older rocks are near the top. This is the reverse of what should be found if evolutionary theory were true."

Today's Washington Post "Voices" feature asks readers to respond to the question, "what should students be told about the origins of life?"

The answers range from, "I have no problem with both curricula being taught in public schools -- science and philosophy. But keep them separate. Or if they are taught together, promote evolution as science and promote beliefs without scientific proof as philosophy."

To, "[t]he issue with evolution is that its supporting definition of "science" rejects all but the most strictly naturalistic derivations of "truth." This "science" has evolved into a virulent and intolerant "religion" which demands that everyone must deny the existence of anything except nature itself."

Red State Rabble missed this when it first came around, better late than never, here are the juicy bits from a May 22 New York Times Magazine interview with U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings:

What do you make of the current controversy in Kansas over whether creationism should be taught along with evolution?

I can tell you that in Texas we did go through this issue, when Bush was governor and I was working for him. We ended up – the curriculum says basically that both points of view are taught from a factual basis.

How can creationism be taught from a factual basis? Are you implying that events in the Bible should be taught in the public schools as literal history?

I’m not implying anything. I’m just saying that my recollection from my Texas days
is that both points of view were presented.

Red State Rabble is a big fan of Mike Everhart's Oceans of Kansas website. Now, Roy Wenzl of the Wichita Eagle has written a lyrical profile of Everhart, "Wonder in the Fossils:"

[O]ut in Ellis County or south of Castle Rock, where the dry chalk stretches to the horizon under the blue bowl of heaven, Mike Everhart found himself staring thoughtfully at the ground.

He worked on fossils.

By coincidence, his new book, "Oceans of Kansas: A Natural History of the Western Interior Sea," arrives in stores just as conservative members of the state board of education consider revisions to the teaching of evolution in schools.

A rare, great read about the power of science to inspire awe.

Holland's Science and Education Minister, Maria van der Hoeven, started an uproar when she announced plans to stimulate an academic debate about intelligent design. According to a report in Science:

Van der Hoeven's plan came to light in March, after she had what she called a "fascinating conversation" with Cees Dekker, a renowned nanophysicist at Delft University of Technology who believes that the idea of design in nature is "almost inescapable." ID could be a tool to promote dialogue between the religions, Van der Hoeven wrote in her Web log that week: "What unites Muslims, Jews, and Christians is the notion that there is a creator. ... If we succeed in connecting scientists from different religions, it might even be applied in schools and lessons. A few of my civil servants will talk further with Dekker about how to shape this debate."

Perhaps the unkindest cut of all was delivered during hostile questioning in the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament -- Van der Hoeven was compared to Kansas school board members who want to introduce ID in the classroom.

"Does she want to go back to the Dark Ages?" the Science article quotes the usually sober daily NRC Handelsblad as having lamented in an editorial.

The National Center for Science Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geological Institute, among other science groups are preparing an Amicus Brief in the Cobb County textbook sticker appeal. Stickers warning that evolution is a theory in biology textbooks were declared unconstitutional and the Cobb County school board was told to remove the stickers from the textbooks. Cobb County has appealed this decision and the appeal will be held in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in June.

Source: American Geological Institute’s monthly government affairs report.

John Milburn of the Associated Press reports that the Kansas Supreme Court has "ordered the Legislature to double the amount of new dollars the state spends on public schools by July 1, a decision that will force legislators into a special session.The ruling means legislators will have to provide an additional $143 million on top of the $142 million they provided earlier this year. Th etotal in new dollars would be $285 million - a 10 percent increase."

The Smithsonian has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of the intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet." They will return the $16,000 payment made by the Discovery Institute, but allow the film to be show there June 23.

This has been reported widely, and Red State Rabble is on record not only supporting the action taken by the Smithsonian, but as being highly amused by the reaction from Bruce Chapman at the Discovery Institute and ID blogger Denyse O'Leary.

An article in the New York Times that hasn't received much attention adds a little detail to the reasoning at the Smithsonian:

"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman. "It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."

Sandra Lilly of MSNBC News has written an important addition to the reporting on the effects of the war over science education from one of the key battlegrounds -- Cobb County. Lilly writes that students may be the real victims of the evolution wars because the controversy is turning them away from science.

And at a time when the National Science Foundation projects that the number of scientists and engineers reaching retirement age is expected to triple in the next 10 years, [Wes] McCoy [a PhD, who teaches Genetics, Biology and Astronomy at North Cobb High School in Kennessaw, Ga] and others argue that the “evolution wars” are taking time away from their life’s work — making these children excited and prepared — to become the next Jonas Salk or Bill Gates.

Utah Sen. Chris Buttars is apparently not familiar with the Nickelodean catdog cartoon show. 

Utah Republican Sen. Chris Buttars has a somewhat unevolved view of Darwin's theory of evolution. He believes God is the creator, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, but His creations have evolved within their own species, whatever that means.

"We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a 'dat,' '' Buttars reasons.

Sen. Chris Buttars, a Republican from West Jordan, "backed by a powerful conservative lobby, wants Utah public schools to teach 'divine design' side by side with evolution, allowing students to decide which theory is more valid," reports Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune.

Buttars "plans to lead the fight for instruction of divine design in Utah public schools. He wants to defuse some of the expected controversy by avoiding the term 'creationism' altogether. Instead, he favors 'divine design,' sometimes called 'intelligent design,' which 'doesn't preach religion,' he said. 'The only people who will be upset about this are atheists.'"

It will be interesting to see how the Discovery Institute reacts to Buttars initiative. As most RSR readers already know, the public stance of DI is that they don't want to teach intelligent design in the public schools, they only want to "teach the controversy" over evolution.

RSR believes that the intelligent design general staff in Seattle is waiting until after the next Supreme Court justice is appointed -- and that may come sometime this summer -- to see if the court is ready to overturn past rulings that currently stand in the way of including ID in the science curriculum.

One problem that Discovery must finesse for the time being is the impatience of their creationist foot soldiers to move too precipitously -- as they may conclude Buttars is now doing -- to bring the "science" of Genesis into science classrooms.

No word yet on whether Buttars also wants to teach comprehensive sex education side by side with abstinence only sex education and allow students to decide which is more valid.

From a Discovery Institute press release:

"Darwinian evolution, despite the claims of its defenders, has been remarkably unsuccessful in guiding practical research in biology and medicine," says Jonathan Wells. "Although ID is still controversial in the scientific community, some of us are now using it to formulate testable hypotheses...

"The interesting thing here is that scientists are applying intelligent design theory to cancer research," said Discovery Institute President, Bruce Chapman. "Who knows what new avenues of research and experimentation this could open up. I think you will see more and more scientists applying intelligent design theory to their research in coming years."

A 1998 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, included in an online article on Quackwatch, "Be Wary of 'Alternative' Health Methods" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is well-worth reading in this context:

"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking."

Barrett goes on to say:

"Under the rules of science, people who make the claims bear the burden of proof. It is their responsibility to conduct suitable studies and report them in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and confirmation by others. Instead of subjecting their work to scientific standards, promoters of questionable "alternatives" would like to change the rules by which they are judged and regulated. "Alternative" promoters may give lip service to these standards. However, they regard personal experience, subjective judgment, and emotional satisfaction as preferable to objectivity and hard evidence. Instead of conducting scientific studies, they use anecdotes and testimonials to promote their practices and political maneuvering to keep regulatory agencies at bay."

Just as there is no effective alternative medicine, there is no productive alternative science. It is fascinating to Red State Rabble how the overblown claims of medical quacks who prey on those who are desperate to cure their physical ailments have now come to mirror so closely the predatory claims of the intelligent design "theorists" who appeal primarily to the psychically needy among us.

"We're disappointed," Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute told Washington Post staff writer Tommy Nguyen. "We met all their conditions --screening the film for them, agreeing [to list the Smithsonian] director's name on the invitation and so forth -- and then some mention of this in the media, and now they want to backtrack to some degree, and we don't get it." [emphasis added]

In its statement reported yesterday in the Washington Post, the Smithsonian said it will honor theagreement to screen the film June 23, but that it does not endorse the film and will not accept the agreed-upon fee offered for the auditorium

Jill Sederstrom reports a significant defeat for pro-censorship groups in the Kansas City Star:

"In a unanimous decision Wednesday, two Blue Valley West High School committees voted to keep two novels in the curriculum despite concerns from district residents.
The school formed the committees to examine two challenges, one to the novel Bless Me Ultima by Rudolfo Anaya and another to Lords of Discipline by Pat Conroy."

Stephanie Simon, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times (registration required) profiles women who have undergone late-term abortions at the Kansas clinic run by Dr. George R. Tiller that is being investigated by Attorney General Phill Kline, an opponent of abortion rights for women.

From Simon's article:

"Kline, who opposes all abortions, maintains that the mental health concerns some omen cite as their main reason for terminating — including depression or anxiety about raising a disabled child — do not justify late-term abortions under Kansas law. he has demanded access to the medical records of dozens of patients. The clinic has appealed to the state Supreme Court; a decision is expected within weeks.

"Tiller's patients await the ruling with mounting anger. They say no outsider could ever understand the complex tangle of emotions that brought them to Women's Health Care Services — the psychological and physical strains that made continuing their pregnancies unbearable."

An editorial in the Albuquerque Tribune, says that "every time you turn around these days, there is an assault on science in America... "

"The latest attack is right here in Albuquerque, where the Southwest Region director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Dale Hall] has arbitrarily decided to limit the use of genetics in making official decisions on protecting endangered animals and plants...

"In essence, he announced that advances in conservation biology and scientific understanding and classification of species and sub-species should be ignored, in favor of only what was known at the time a species was listed as endangered or threatened."

The editorial notes that Hall's policy fits in neatly with the Bush policy of rejecting sound science policy when it conflicts with the administrations right-wing ideology. Hall, for that reason, is unlikely to be overuled by his bosses in Washington.

Matthew tells us that Jesus fed 5,000 people in the desert with just five loaves of bread and two fishes. That may be all that's left when Bush gets done with the country.

From the The Dork Report: When religion becomes delusion by Alaric DeArment in the Ball State Daily News:

"My colleague and a few others were having a conversation at a bar when the subject of dinosaurs suddenly came up. A man sitting at the table said, 'If the scientists can't put the space shuttle back together, then I don't see how they can convince me that the dinosaurs are more than 5,000 years old!'"

Peter Byrne, in RSR's view, has a particulary important article on the insidious effects of the president's No Child Left Behind law in Metroactive, a Bay Area arts and entertainment service, that is well worth reading. Here's a sample:

"Mornings before the first bell, English teacher Daniel Alderson stands under the flagpole at Sonoma Valley High School reading out loud from Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451, which is about a government that burns books. Along with other political classics, such as George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 may soon be iced out of the curriculum at Sonoma Valley High, at least for remedial readers and Spanish-speaking students.

"The soft-spoken Alderson is organizing a series of read-ins to protest this consequence of George W. Bush's ironically labeled No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). According to Alderson, NCLB is proving to be a windfall for test and textbook manufacturers and consultants even as it dumbs down the nation's educational system, striking particularly hard at immigrant children who do not always pick the right bubble to shade on multiple-choice tests."

“I think men should take better care of their women," O’Connor says, "but I think women should be more willing to accept masculine care.”

John Hanna of the Associated Press reports:

"A state senator who once said women’s voting was a sign that American society didn’t value families enough now wants to be Kansas’ top elections official. Kay O’Connor announced Wednesday that she is seeking the Republican nomination for secretary of state next year. O’Connor, 63, from Olathe, has served in the Legislature since 1993 and is a member of the Senate committee that considers election issues."

Even for those of us who take daily irony supplements, this is a difficult pill to swallow.

An opinion piece in the Topeka Capitol-Journal reports:

"Kansas lawmakers have spent thousands of hours debating how to fund education, a travesty considering other important issues that need to be addressed -- health care, for example. Now comes the news that the exercise has not only been time-consuming, but also expensive. The battle in the courts over whether the Legislature has provided enough money for education, and whether the money was distributed fairly among the 300 unified school districts, has been going on for six years. The running tab for all these legal battles is approaching $3 million."

The Associated Press is reporting that briefs filed with the Kansas State Board of Education last week, intelligent design proponent John Calvert argues that changes proposed by the minority of the science standards committee should be adopted by default, because mainstream scientists who oppose them refused to testify.

"The boycott of the hearings had the effect of coercing silence, subverting the search for good solutions to a problem that plagues public education," Calvert wrote.

[Pedro] Irigonegaray, {[the attorney who represented the majority draft standards at the hearings] meanwhile, submitted 15 court decisions related to the teaching of evolution and the establishment of religion. And in an introductory letter with his filing, Irigonegaray said the claim that evolution is the same as atheism is flawed.

"There appear to be no cases in which the judiciary has stated that evolution is the equivalent of atheism," Irigonegaray said. "Moreover, many scientists who do embrace evolution are not atheists. Categorically defining evolution as a dogma of
atheism is incorrect."

Red State Rabble finds Calvert's reasoning flawed. After all, mainstream scientists and educators participated in -- and led -- the normal curriculum development process and won the vote there by a two-thirds majority. Just because the board changed the rules in the middle of the game does not invalidate that work.

Moreover, mainstream scientists participated in the four public hearings held in Kansas in February. It was the failure of the intelligent design proponents -- and their largely creationist foot soldiers -- to offer convincing public arguments in favor of the minority proposal that ultimately led the Discovery Institute, the Calvert's ID Network, and their clients, the conservative majority on the board, to abandon the established process and hold the star chamber hearings.

IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORISTS DID EXPERIMENTS: Intelligent design theorist William Dembski tests a top secret prototype helmet-mounted DD-1A "Designer Detector" built in the laboratories of the Discovery Institute near Puget Sound. The technology behind the DD-1A is based on the tricorder carried by Dr. "Bones" McCoy on the original Star Trek series. DD-1A inventor Jonathan Wells says that future models will be minaturized hand-held devices. "My invention," says Wells, "will finally force all those dogmatic Neo-Darwinists to admit that real science backs up the theory of intelligent design."

Denyse O'Leary, the intelligent design apologist who publishes the Post-Darwinist blog, is very, very unhappy about the statement issued by the director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History saying that "The Privileged Planet" is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research and neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the Discovery Institute or the film.

Before Red State Rabble tells you just how unhappy O'Leary is, we first have to take note of an absolutely fascinating -- and utterly revealing -- detail from her post. After quoting the Smithsonian statement above, she informs her readers that she can't provide a link because, "[t]he above item was brown bagged to me, so I do not yet have a link for it. But will post one as soon as I do." (emphasis added)

Now RSR is old, and not totally up on the new technology. In the old days, when we were young, things sometimes came in over the transom, but there are no transoms, now. We can imagine something being e-mailed, IMed, possibly text messaged over a cell phone. It might even have been mailed the old-fashioned way, but "brown bagged?" How is this done?

Now, perhaps RSR is being a little unfair, but we sometimes think that the intelligent design crowd is -- how shall we put it delicately? -- truth challenged. Could it be that our friend O'Leary did a little copy and paste over at Panda's Thumb (that's how RSR did it) and just doesn't want to credit her source?

We'll let our readers decide for themselves. Now back to the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

There are many examples in her post, but we'll cite just this one complaining about all the protest letters that were sent to the Smithsonian:

"If you definitely know that you are a Darwinbot, you should not get or read anything at all except the newsletters and blogs of people who reassure you that a 19th century upper-class Brit proved that there is no real purpose or meaning in the universe or the design of life. That's good enough for YOU, 'bot!"

You Darwinbots -- you know who your are -- will want to go to O'Leary's blog to revel in the misery of the ID bunch at having failed to secure the imprimatur of science with a measly $16,000 dollar bribe. You 'bots, you.

We won a small moral victory yesterday with the statement from the Smithsonian dissassociating itself from the Discovery Institute and its intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet."

Now we learn from the tireless Burt Humburg via Panda's Thumb that PBS affiliates have been offered the opportunity to broadcast "Privileged Planet" starting June 1st and lasting for three years. Individual PBS affiliate stations have great discretion in setting programming schedules and it is to them that you should direct your inquiries on this matter. You may find your local PBS station’s address at PBS.org.

Alright all you Darwinbots out there. You know what to do.

From Ken Kusmer of the Associated Press: "An Indiana judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood must turn over to the state the medical records of its patients under 14. The case was being watched by Kansas' attorney general, whose office is embroiled in a similar legal dispute with two abortion clinics before the state's highest court."

Philip Walzer reports in the Virginian-Pilot that "[i]n 1997 , the Chesapeake School Board rejected a parent’s request to teach alternatives to evolution. But state and local school officials say they’re hearing virtually no complaints these days. At least three local cities – Chesapeake, Norfolk and Virginia Beach – have “opt-out” plans for parents who want children exempted from the study of evolution. Science coordinators say they aren’t being used."

"I am very pleased that it is going to be shown at such an important locale," says Iowa State University assistant professor of astronomy and physics Guillermo Gonzalez co-author of the book that "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" is based on. The film will premiere at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on June 23.

Panda's Thumb is reporting a statement issued by the Director, National Museum of Natural History:

"The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History recently approved a request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film “The Privileged Planet.” Upon further review we have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the Discovery Institute or the film “The Privileged Planet.” However, since Smithsonian policy states that all events held at any museum be “co-sponsored” by the director and the outside organization, and we have signed an agreement with this organization, we will honor the commitment made to provide space for the event."

This statement, apparently, has not yet been issued officially by the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. According to a post on Panda's Thumb, it was leaked by a staffer to Burt Humburg. If it becomes official, Red State Rabble believes the statement represents an enormous victory for supporters of science and science education. It disassociates the Smithsonian from the intelligent design film -- thereby denying Discovery Institute the scientific legitimacy they thought they'd purchased -- while not giving them a chance to say they've been censored. Thanks to all the RSR readers who sent protest letters. Your voices have been heard.

When the Discovery Institute's intelligent design roadshow rolled into Kansas, they brought with them the message that evolution makes atheists of all who embrace it. Only attorney Pedro Irigonegaray spoiled the show by pointing out the fact that that's a minority view.

An article by Paul Nussbaum in the Philidelphia Enquirer gives voice to a different -- more mainstream -- view:

For David Wilcox, a biology professor at Eastern University, an evangelical college in St. Davids, the challenge is to teach students that it's possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."

"Frequently, they've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism, and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding. "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "

"We have to make them wake up and smell the coffee. God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see that evolution happened and it's not so scary... that evolution is the way God did it."

"It's about keeping an open mind," Cobb County school board member Curt Johnston tells
Jon Gillooly of the Marietta Daily Journal. "That's the definition of critical thinking — keeping an open mind."

"In no way was the sticker meant as a way of teaching religion," adds fellow board member Johnny Johnson.

Asked what the sticker was intended for, Johnson said he was not going to revisit the issue because it was "over." Moreover, he added, "the average person could care less."

The ID movement has a new blog Called Intelligent Design The Future according to Kyle Alspach of Science and Theology News.

"Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts. Reed Cartwright, a contributor to the evolution blog called The Panda’s Thumb, said preventing readers from adding their comments to the online discussion about intelligent design, also known as ID, shows that those who created it are not interested in running an actual blog.

“'If ID is the future, as the title of the blog advertises, can’t it withstand criticism?' said Cartwright, a doctoral candidate in genetics at the University of Georgia. 'I think that it is ironic that a movement, which claims to want ‘more discussion’ about biology in schools, does not allow discussion [on their blog].'”

Maybe the blog should be called Intelligent Design Back to the Future.

"A self-interested New Englander might hope that the Kansas Board of Education comes out decisively against teaching evolution. That would put at least one state at a disadvantage as it competes for biotech business."

From a Boston Globe editorial.

Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog says the May 28 New York Times article by John Schwartz, Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution "starts off with a big blooper in the headline and first sentence. In fact," writes John West, "Privileged Planet is not about biological evolution. It makes the case for intelligent design in the universe based on astronomy and cosmology."

No word yet on what they think about this headline in the right-wing Washington Times (owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church): Smithsonian to Screen Anti-evolution Film.