More On Texas - Evolution vs Intelligent Design Update

Yesterday, I wrote that the science vs creationism debate was flaring up yet again in the great state of Texas..

There's an update from the AP:

An expected fight over teaching evolution in Texas classrooms fizzled Thursday when the state's Board of Education gave preliminary approval to supplemental science materials for the coming school year and beyond with only minor changes.

A large part of the debate revolved around some new online instructional materials. This was the place where "intelligent design" was to be found. Only now:

One that didn't make the recommended list was an electronic textbook that includes lessons on intelligent design, which is the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided with the help of an intelligent higher power.

"There's no bad science going into classrooms" in the approved materials, said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, a group that sides with mainstream scientists on teaching evolution.

And while science is not subject to a vote, it's still good to see this:

One conservative group, Texans for a Better Science Education, had put out a call to pack Thursday's public hearing with testimony urging board members to adopt materials that question evolution. But they were outnumbered by witnesses urging the board to adopt the materials with few changes.

"I don't want my children's public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom," said the Rev. Kelly Allen of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. "True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science."

Amen, Reverend Allen. Amen.

A Creationism Update

I've said it before. If we are a society in decline, this is one of the reasons - a willful, stubborn, arrogant, religiously-supported scientific ignorance.

From the NYTimes:

Teaching creationism in public schools has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts, but according to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, it continues to flourish in the nation’s classrooms.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise.

So less than three in ten do it right. One in eight get it completely wrong and the remaining "cautious middle" do their students a grave disservice by compromising.And:

The survey, published in the Jan. 28 issue of Science, found that some avoid intellectual commitment by explaining that they teach evolution only because state examinations require it, and that students do not need to “believe” in it. Others treat evolution as if it applied only on a molecular level, avoiding any discussion of the evolution of species. And a large number claim that students are free to choose evolution or creationism based on their own beliefs.

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said on Real Time recently, the beauty of science is that it's still true, even if you don't believe it.

There should be no compromise with science.

More On GOP Anti-Intellectualism

From Bill Maher this weekend:


That's a member of the US House of Representatives (and thus a lawmaker) denying one of the foundations of mondern science. Really.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

"I believe I came from God, not from a monkey so the answer is no," he said, laughing, when asked if he subscribes to the theory. Later in the segment he added, "I don't believe that a creature crawled out of the sea and became a human being one day."

As I wrote a month or so ago if we are a superpower in decline this is the reason. Simple and arrogant American scientific ignorance.

American Ignorance

Hard to believe, but it's true. From a recent Gallup poll:

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

Only about one out of six got it completely right? Now that's just sad.

This was the question that generated the above percentages:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

There's a lot about of interesting stuff in the Gallup numbers (the more Republican you are the more likely you'll get the science wrong, the more educated you are the more likely you'll get the science right and so on) but I don't want to spend my time there.

I wanna talk science and logic and belief.

If, as 40% of Americans believe, human beings were created in their present form no more than 10,000 years ago, then what are we to make, say, of the Chauvet Cave in southern France?

Science tells us that human beings lived there some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago but the creationists tell us humans are no older than 10,000 years old. Both can't be right. Both can be wrong, of course, but both can't be right. One way to resolve the impasse is to look at the foundations for each belief. For the science, one main piece of the foundation is radiocarbon dating.

What is that, exactly? It's a method of dating the age of once living tissue based on the rate of decay for an isotope of carbon (namely carbon-14). Isotopes, by the way, are atoms of the same element (hydrogen, uranium, and so on) that differ in their atomic weights because they have a different number of neutrons in their respective nuclei. Carbon-13 has, for instance, 7 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus while carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus (7+6=13 and 8+6=14, get it?).

Science tells us that carbon-14 is very unstable and decays into an isotope of nitrogen at a known rate. It's formed constantly in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays interact with some of the nitrogen up there and filters down into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it enters the food chain (from CO2 to photosynthesis to animals). When something is alive the amount of carbon-14 in its system more or less matches the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. But once that thing dies, no more carbon-14 is added and the carbon-14 that remains begins its decay into nitrogen.

In a nutshell, by knowing the rate at which carbon-14 decays and knowing how much is left in the once living tissue, scientists can pretty accurately estimate when that thing died.

And science has dated the presence of human beings in the cave at least twice the age that creationists allow.

So if the creationists are correct, then all of the physics used in radiocarbon dating must be wrong, for instance, carbon-14 mustn't be decaying the way physicists say it does. But if that's wrong, then so much else of physics is also wrong because it's all an interconnected web.

On the other hand, we have the strength of belief among creationists.

If they're right about the age of the human beings then a whole lot of science is wrong. How's your TV working these days? The nuclear plants powering the USS Ronald Reagan? Both built on nuclear physics. The science of each connected to carbon dating in one way or another. If carbon dating is wrong, they shouldn't work.

But yet they do.

American ignorance - if we are a superpower in decline, this is the reason.

(H/T to Huffingtonpost)

Tax Funded Scientific Ignorance (In Creationist Kentucky)

From the Louisville Courier-Journal:

Gov. Steve Beshear said Wednesday that a creationism theme park, expected to open in Northern Kentucky in 2014, would have a $250 million annual impact on the state’s economy.

Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark containing live animals such as juvenile giraffes, is projected to cost $150 million and create 900 jobs, Beshear announced at a Capitol press conference.

“Make no mistake about it, this is a huge deal,” he said.

And:

The project is a collaboration between Ark Encounters LLC, a for-profit company in Springfield, Mo., and Answers in Genesis, a non-profit organization that runs the Creation Museum in Boone County.

Ark Encounters plans to build the park and Answers and Genesis plans to operate it.

Beyond whatever Chuch-State issues are present when an obviously religious project like this could be reimbursed $37 million in tax incentives, I want to take a look at what they're teaching in this "museum."

Ben Armbruster at Thinkprogress is reporting that the ark in question will, of course, have dinosaurs in it.

What's Answers In Genesis?

From their website:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

And:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Young Earth Creationism.

It's that last part that's the most anti-scientific. Whereas real science collects data and then attempts to explain that data with various (and at times competing) hypotheses. The hypothesis that best explains all of the data is the one regarded as being closest to the truth.

Fake science like Young Earth Creationism has stated up front that anything that contradicts The Bible is simply factually incorrect.

It's not science, it's intellectual rubbish.

It's also intellectually damaging. From the Courier-Journal:

The National Center for Science Education asserts that “students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level.”

Ignorance begets ignorance.

Welcome to America, a Christian Nation.