Politicized Science

RedState & Creationism: the Sorry State of Conservative “NetRoots”

Should you ever find yourself overly optimistic, suffering from a surfeit of faith in your fellow man, there’s one surefire cure: RedState, the far, far-right’s disastrous answer to successful web-based political grassroots ventures like “Daily Kos.” A wretched little confluence of bullying, immaturity, and blissful ignorance, it’s nonetheless the closest thing conservative Republicans have to an internet home, garnering even the implicit endorsement of Sean Hannity.

Unsurprisingly, it’s not doing moderate Republicanism (or conservatism, for that matter) any good. The site remains a poster-child for everything wrong the GOP: gay bashing, theocracy, unfortunately-named protests, a focus on P.R. over substance… and, now, through its surrogates,  creationism.

Yes, creationism has come to RedState, in the form of a lengthy tirade about the “bullying” by anti-science “liberals,” followed by a short guide about how to handle these elusive, typically mendacious “evolutionists.” Here’re their tips.

A few great questions [to ask] when faced with leftist bullying:

1. “What evidence do you have?” Ask them to get specific.
2. “Why should I accept your proposition, hypothesis, or evidence?” Why is your proposition or hypothesis better than mine?
3. “Who says?” Who supports your theory, and why are they credible? “Everyone” is not a logically acceptable answer to this question.

[. . .] Don’t employ the same tactics they use, don’t run from the debate, just don’t let them define the terms and conditions if they’re not acceptable.

Presumably the “terms” offensive to the average I.D. creationist are little things, like “science,” and “proof.” Sorry guys, but those are sticking points. But let’s see about their “questions”:

1. Evidence: the historical record, both fossil (human, reptile, fish, and much more – even creationists concede these) and genetic, and vestigial limbs, to name a few; compare with no “proof” of intelligent design, and the utter demolition of any negative ID critiques of natural selection.
2. Superiority: because it explains the evidence, and predicts results; alternately, ID only explains the evidence when it tracks evolutionary biology. Where it diverges, it explains nothing, predicts nothing, and in fact lacks any evidentiary basis. It’s a theory in search of an experiment, and that’s not the way the scientific method works.
3. Authority: it may not be “logically acceptable,” but “everyone” is the right answer. Getting specific, though, one can turn to the NCSE’s handy list of 1,000 scientists who “believe” in evolution, and are named “Steve”; or, provided you don’t attend Patrick Henry, Liberty, or (God help us) Lehigh, just canvass your university’s biology department.

With talking points and issues like these, the GOP is headed for its own evolutionary bottleneck.

James Corbett on Teaching Evolution, and Getting Sued Over It

You’ll remember James Corbett, the high school teacher whose student sued him (and won!), all because Corbett rightly criticized creationism as unsound, sham science. Well, he’s not taking his loss lying down. Thank you, James, for this defense of your and our position, found in the comments to our previous post on the subject. We wish you all the best, and offer this one suggestion: wit is a far better teaching tool than blunt mockery. Since you possess both, opt for the former whenever possible. Don’t let your detractors use the law to hold an important lesson hostage to their notions of propriety.

My Defense
Jim “Jesus Glasses” Corbett

Over two thousand years ago Socrates faced a court for refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, importing strange divinities and corrupting the young. The judges sent Socrates to his death. He accepted the sentence of the court and committed suicide by drinking a cup of hemlock.

The only virtue for Socrates was “knowledge.” He reached it by questioning the most deeply held beliefs of his students by which I mean all of Athens and ultimately all of us. What troubled the Athenians about Socrates, however, was not listed in the charges. His crime was that he prompted people to think.

His provocations exposed the Athenians’ shallowness of belief and mindless deference to myth. Socrates was judged because he was successful in provoking his students “examine their lives.” [his words] Those who guard the myths must try and strike down any who teach young people to think and question, because myths often shrink in the light of reason, draining power from those in authority who benefit from belief.

There are thousands of teachers who agree with Socrates that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Every teacher who makes a student think takes the risk that he will be attacked by parents and others who see themselves as guardians of cherished political and religious myth. The teachers willing to take that risk should be rewarded, not punished. After the verdict, the Athenian court asked Socrates what his punishment should be. He responded that he should get free meals at the Pyrataneum, a celebration hall for Olympian athletes. Socrates went on to explain that those who passed judgment were not harming him, but rather themselves. He said, by killing him they corrupted their own souls and revealed the weakness of their own belief. A true believer does not fear that a few questions can undo years of parental teaching. Those who would “protect” students from self examination have little faith and great fear.

Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was an average student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. If Chad’s lawyers, the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn’t they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farnans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farnans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:

Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either the Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news websites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the “lessons” of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views. [Boldface in the original]

I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one.

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Challenging myths is dangerous, but it is the essence of getting students to think for themselves. The Athenian judges, like some parents today, would have students accept myth without question, because myth is the foundation of their parental, political and/or religious authority. Ms. Farnan objected to my challenging the myth of the Puritans as a pious people who fled religious intolerance to found America. As Ms. Farnan sees them, the Puritans are quaint pious people with buckles on their hats and shoes as portrayed in the national mythology, but they may also be seen as intolerant, misogynistic and homophobic religious bigots who hanged Mary Dyer, a Quaker girl, for preaching something other than Puritan doctrine and several other women for the crime of “witchcraft.” Questioning may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not “bullying” to demand that students think. Ms. Farnan also objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the USA was founded as a “Christian” nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan’s faith: “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt his view would be called “Christian” by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers.

We respect the guardians and their myths at our peril because history (and science) changes and improves with knowledge, but the same force damages myth based on belief. That’s why the guardians fear the knowledge begat by questioning. For them, “knowledge” is gained in rote memory of approved truth. They chant in the school, temple, church or Mosque and fool themselves into thinking they’ve acquired knowledge.

All those teachers, and there are many of us, who understand the value of questioning sacred myths serve this nation as faithfully as other patriots. What is true will be strengthened. What is false will be destroyed, as it should be. Such teachers should be honored. There is no greater gift teachers can give to students than to teach them to think. Don’t sue them for it. Try taking them to the Pyrataneum for dinner, conversation and a cup of coffee, no hemlock.

Cloning: a Potential New Wedge Issue?

When they work, conservative culture war issues have a wedge-like quality to them (just ask the Discovery Institute). Take abortion. Arguing against abortion naturally tends towards a critique of feminism, women’s rights, and changing social norms generally; from there it’s a quick leap to the old “elitism” canard; and from there to an indictment of the role of the federal courts. By the end, all of the myriad talking points are in the field, following naturally from one particularly pointed issue.

That’s why cloning – which seems to be a non-issue – could become a dangerous issue, and a new rallying point for otherwise fatigued social conservatives. Bear with me.

Reproductive cloning is basically a valence issue. Nearly everyone agrees (90% in 2002) that it’s wrong, for one reason or another. For what it’s worth, even this author, the perenially pro-science type, agrees. I’ll stand steadfastly behind therapeutic cloning – basically a fancy way to get custom-grown stem cells – but the cloning of a full human being, especially to replace another (as some seem to envision it) is a bridge too far, especially for objective safety reasons.

On that point, any legislative attempt to ban human reproductive cloning would surely pass, overwhelmingly so, to the point of it being a non-issue, off the radar of any self-respecting congressperson. But news of near-successful reproductive cloning from Europe could raise the issue to the forefront, and bring a whole host of other issues, once more, into play.

The prospect of reproductive cloning implicates the same sticky moral quandaries exploited by the right for generations – the potential destruction of embryonic life, distrust of science, usurping the role of the divine – but frames them in an even more offensive light. Call this the tip of the “wedge.” From there, rhetorically, it’s easy to segue between a critique of reproductive cloning to questioning garden-variety stem cell research, through the old “slippery slope” fallacy. And legislatively, because of the way U.S. lawmaking works, a proposed ban on reproductive cloning could, as it nearly has in the past, pull through illegitimately anti-science provisions on its coattails, as amendments.

At this point, all this is basically a fanciful nightmare, born of speculation on how conservatie America could re-invent itself, to the detriment of all. But if the GOP is looking to re-rally the fundamentalist base, and establish a new beachhead in the culture wars, this issue could be it.

Teleprompters as Talking Points: Fallacy Somewhere, I Suppose…

…for all you Gilbert & Sullivan fans out there.

Among a whole laundry list of things the right has decided to just start caring about – like, say, executive power – is, unexpectedly, the President’s rhetorical image. When President Obama paused yesterday, mid-speech, to wait for the teleprompter to catch up, conservative message boards lit up with delight and a surprising degree of schadenfreude:

I’ll be the first to argue that a President’s speaking abilities ought to matter. In fact, while Obama remains one of the best speakers in recent memory when it comes to grandoise events of state (inauguration, nomination, etc.), his off-the-cuff, daily speaking style still leaves some to be desired. For those occasions, I’d give him .75 standard Bartlets, or (for those of you on the other side of the Pond) perhaps .63 metric Blairs.

That said, it goes without saying that he’s a far cry from his immediate predecessor, which makes the right’s selective mockery worse than hypocritical.

Besides, the teleprompter kerfuffle isn’t about Obama’s specific speaking style, skill, or intellect, which emphatically do matter. Whether Obama can remember things, or follow a teleprompter, goes to his memory, and the time he has available for daily speech preparation. Frankly, I don’t care about either of those, and neither should you. In a time of crisis, we want the President’s mind engaged with solving real-world problems, not behind his desk poring over the index cards for his speech to this high school, or that agency. The American people elected President Obama for his decisionmaking abilities, not his similarities to a rewritable disk.

Let’s call the teleprompter jokes at the President’s expense what they are: emblems of another sophomoric stunt, meant to divert attention away from the opposition’s utter inability to generate substantive solutions. Conservatives can’t fault Obama for the substance of his speech – his promise to make science matter for the first time in eight years – and this is their sad, telling alternative. Anyone who reads that speech and sees a teleprompter joke instead of an important message about science in America is, for all they represent, everything that is wrong with our country.

Creationists Hire Bad Lawyers, File Complaint, Cite Bible, Lie, Get Sanctioned…?

The Institute for Creation Research, a cdesign proponentist organization dedicated to advancing theology under the guise of science, wants Texas’ blessing to grant master’s degrees in “flood geology,” “baraminology,” and other such nonsense. Thankfully, for all of its faults, Texas isn’t having any of it (although the legislature might). So — seemingly undaunted by a damning history of failures in federal court — they sued. This is where it gets funny.

Now, there are ways to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig that is creationism. A good lawyer can do wonders. ICR seems to have passed by them all, though, opting instead to file a complaint that reads like it was drafted by an enraged, hung-over first-year law student. It’s all there — the hodgepodge of fonts; the long, rambling argument on sovereign immunity (just cite Ex parte Young, write a paragraph, and be done with it!); the inappropriate CAPITALIZED UNDERLINED BOLDING; everything you could ask for and more. Yes sir, this pig is au naturel.

And the quote mining. Oh, the quote mining. FYI, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, when making arguments to a court, there’s not only an obligation to be truthful and candid; there’s an obligation to cite and explain authority that undermines your case. You can’t hide the ball from the federal bench, under penalty of sanctions (Fed R. Civ. P. 11). What, then, do you make of the following?

Around ¶ 127, the complaint takes a lengthy and unnecessary aside to argue that, even though it’s not what the case is about, “creation science” could totally be legally taught in public school (“It is wrong to say that the federal courts have dispositively defined ‘creation science’ as non-science”). To support this outlandish claim, it cites to the following language:

Nothing in our opinion today should be taken to reflect adversely upon creation-science either as a religious belief or a scientific theory. Aguillard v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 1251, 1257 (5th Cir. 1985), aff’d 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

While leaving out the immediate preceding language:

Indeed, the [Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction] Act continues the battle William Jennings Bryan carried to his grave. The Act’s intended effect is to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief. The statute therefore is a law respecting a particular religious belief. For these reasons, we hold that the Act fails to satisfy the first prong of the Lemon test and thus is unconstitutional. Id. at 1257.

And the immediately succeeding language:

Rather [in forbidding the teaching of "creation science" in public schools] we seek to give effect to the first amendment requirement that demands that no law be enacted favoring any particular religious belief or doctrine. Id. at 1257-58.

And relevant language from the Supreme Court’s treatment of the same case:

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592-93 (1987).

[B]ecause the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Id. at 594.

Further, the Supreme Court makes no distinction between “creation science” and “creationism,” see McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 862 (2005) (describing as being Aguillard about “creationism”), which the Court has previously characterized as wholly religious, and without any secular purpose. Creation science is creationism is religion is impermissible in public schools – period. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107-110 (1968).

In brief, then, at least ¶ 127 of the ICR’s complaint is an out-and-out lie, a misrepresentation of legal history made baldly and in a signed pleading. Like it or not, the state of federal law is that creation science, regardless of whether or not it’s “real science,” is religion, and as such cannot be permissibly taught in public schools. ICR can’t ignore that, and it certainly can’t lie about it to a federal judge. Don’t let them get away with it.

There’s much more legally wrong with the ICR complaint. But Timothy Sandefur nails it better than I could. Check it out there.

Enjoy your Sunday!

In Defense of Texas

As we analyze the fallout from this past week’s Texas State Board of Education hearings on evolution & creationism – some good, some bad, most uncertain until the new books are ordered in ’11 – I want to keep one thing straight. Creationists may represent a large portion of Texas. Maybe even something close to the majority. But they are by no means the only intellectual voices in Texas.

Texas (specifically Houston) contains some of the best cancer researchers in the country. Rice University’s Richard Smalley practically invented the growing field of nanotechnology. By operation of a generous state law scholarship program, talented Texas children can receive a first-rate education at UT Austin, almost for free. Similarly, UT Law holds some of the nation’s best constitutional lawyers and academics, names any law student nationwide would recognize (Levinson, etc.). Renewable energy research continues to power scientific growth state-wide. This past week’s partial embrace of creationism comes in spite of a vibrant Texas academic community, making a partial backward slide into ignorance all the more tragic.

No state in the Union is entirely free of the scourge of anti-intellectualism. Drive halfway from Manhattan to Rochester if you don’t believe me. We all have our demons. The trick is not letting them define our perceptions of each other.

And to Don McLeroy, the architect of last week’s anti-science movement – don’t mess with Texas scientists.

Ambiguous Amendment on Evolution & Sciences Passes in Texas

After the Texas Board Members defeated an amendment requiring teachers to discuss the “strengths & [non-existent] weaknesses” of evolution (suck it, Discovery Institute!!), creationists rallied today to introduce an amendment requiring discussion of evidence both “supportive” and “non-supportive” of all scientific theories. If passed, this amendment would’ve been worse than the “strengths & weaknesses” amendment – by not focusing on evolution alone, it might’ve theoretically avoided legal challenge, all the while inviting teachers to undermine fields beyond evolutionary biology with scurrilous religious objections. Thankfully, it failed. In an effort to placate both sides, Republican Bob Craig, a kind of “swing vote” on the board responsible for introducing a few compromise proposals, introduced this amendment in its place:

In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

The amendment passed 13-2. Its broad phrasing, and cross-aisle support, suggests that this language might be “everything to everyone.” It’s a mixed blessing. On the one hand, because the operational language requires “critique” to come only from objectively verifiable evidence (bolded statements), it’s a ringing refutation of religion in the classroom. On the other, creationists have never had a problem with warping, twisting, and mischaracterizing science to shoehorn Jesus into science. Remember the tired old argument that thermodynamics and the principle of entropy disprove evolution? Yeah: some people still believe that.

In short, the adopted amendment is a firm statement that naked religion won’t be allowed into the classroom (bold text). But by including the word “critique” (red text), it still gives creationists something to hang their hats on when pulling out Discovery Institute pamphlets. We may be looking down the line at as-applied legal challenges.

BREAKING: VICTORY IN TEXAS! Strengths & Weaknesses Down for Day 2!

Texas Freedom Network reports that the Texas State Board of Education rejected a motion to add to the Texas educational standards language that would’ve required teachers to teach the “strenghts & weaknesses” of evolutionary biology, well-understood as code words for creationism.

TFN’s final vote count:

Yes: Bradley, Cargill, Dunbar, Lowe, McLeroy, Mercer, Leo
No: Agosto, Allen, Craig, Hardy, Knight, Miller, Nunez

Because the total was 7-7, this vote just prevents the amendment from succeeding today. It could be reconsidered tomorrow and, of course, creationists always have a few crazy, disingenuous, dishonest tricks up their sleeves: that’s how they roll. The good news about tomorrow, though, is that Board Member Berlanga (a Democrat, expected to be pro-science) was absent today; she’ll be videoconferenced in tomorrow for a final vote.

This momentary victory comes on the heels of an amendment proposed by SB member Craig to allow teachers to discuss “what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” This language is likely a nod to the theory of non-overlapping magisteria (the idea that religion and science like evolution can coexist happily), a way of allowing teachers to discuss what evolution does not discuss (i.e., the purpose, value, or meaning of life), and discuss religion if students want to discuss it. No doubt this amendment was also meant to assuage creationist fears that evolution is an openly atheistic position, bent on affirmatively suppressing religion, by allowing a small, limited venue for discussion of religion. It failed too, 6-8.

You’d think creationists, then, to have been in favor of Craig’s amendment. You’d be wrong. Most spoke out against it, perhaps proving (as if there was any doubt) that their fears of religious “suppression” were mere theatrics.

Stay tuned at TFN for more.

Wherein Eugenie Scott is Aware of My Existence

I posted on her Facebook wall last night to congratulate her on a job well done before the Texas State Board of Education (see audio file soon):

You did a great job! You were the charismatic speaker the pro-science side needed in that hearing. I’m sorry that they didn’t let you speak at the end when that one board member thought she had a “gotcha” moment. Ugh. Anyways, well done!

And she replied!

Ames — I saw in the other post that you were listening. I assumed I ws so far down the line I wouldn’t be called to testify. Then way at the end, each SB member could call one person to testify, sort of as a point of personal privilege. A SB member asked a teacher who advises him, she suggested me, and in 5 minutes, I was on the stand! I hadn’t prepared anything, to my chagrin. But I decided just to hit the talking points, so to speak, though I was sorely tempted to try to respond to some of the awful science you were complaining about.

OMG!!!

If science loses out in Texas, it will not be for lack of good advocates. As Dr. Scott said, “It’s not about the science. It’s about the numbers.”