Skeptical News for 24 July 2008Skeptical News for 24 July 2008Archive of previous NTS Skeptical News listings
THE THIRD ISSUE OF EVOLUTION: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The third issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach -- the new journal which aims to promote accurate understanding and comprehensive teaching of evolutionary theory for a wide audience -- is now available on-line. Featured are original scientific articles on such topics as co-option, evolutionary trends, and speciation and bursts of evolution; curriculum/education articles considering linguistic evolution and the importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution, reports on evolution education in Greece and Chile; Gordy Slack's discussion of Answers in Genesis's "museum" on the anniversary of its opening -- "Anyone hoping to understand the majority of Americans who reject evolution for a Biblical view should take a hard look at this place," he comments -- and reviews of a number of books, including Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.
Also included is the third installment of NCSE's regular column for Evolution Education and Outreach, Overcoming Obstacles to Evolution Education. In their contribution, "'Theory' in Theory and Practice," NCSE's Glenn Branch and Louise S. Mead write, "A central obstacle to accepting evolution, both among students and the general public, is the idea that evolution is 'just a theory,' where 'theory' is understood in a pejorative sense as something conjectural or speculative. Although scientists and textbooks constantly explain that the scientific use of 'theory' is quite different, the pejorative use continues to cause confusion, in part because of its deep roots in a popular, Baconian, understanding of science. A constructivist approach, whereby students are helped to examine the adequacy of their preconceptions about 'theory' for themselves and to revise or replace them appropriately, is recommended."
For Evolution: Education and Outreach, visit:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/120878/
For Branch and Mead's column, visit:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fr258627q2x3t378/fulltext.html
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DARWIN-WALLACE MEDALISTS
NCSE is pleased to congratulate, belatedly, the recipients of the Darwin-Wallace medals for 2008, who include one member and two Supporters of NCSE. In a press release dated May 27, 2008, the Council of the Linnean Society of London announced the award of thirteen medals for "major advances in evolutionary biology" since 1958 to Nick Barton, M. W. Chase, B. C. Clarke, Joseph Felsenstein (a member of NCSE), the late Stephen Jay Gould (a Supporter of NCSE), P. R. Grant, Rosemary Grant, J. L. B. Mallet, Lynn Margulis (a Supporter of NCSE), the late John Maynard Smith, Mohamed Noor, H. Allen Orr, and Linda Partridge. The awardees will receive their medals, which bear a profile of Darwin on the obverse and a full-face image of Wallace on the reverse, on the bicentennial of Darwin's birth, February 12, 2009.
The society first awarded the medals in 1908, to seven recipients (including Alfred Russel Wallace himself), and again in 1958, to twenty recipients (including Ernst Mayr, later a member of NCSE). "In recognition of the continuing importance of research on evolutionary biology," according to the press release, "the Society is pleased to announce that it will now award the medal annually from May 2009." The Linnean Society of London is the world's oldest active biological society. It was there, on July 1, 1858, that papers entitled "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection" were presented on behalf of Darwin and Wallace, thus announcing the theory of evolution by natural selection to the general scientific community.
For the Linnean Society's press release, visit:
http://linnean.org/index.php?id=401
Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site: http://www.ncseweb.org where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it.
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
by Andreas Moritz (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.
The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.
The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?
Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons.
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy... Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it." - Alan Levin, M.D.
An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]
The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.
In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr. Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugs ever done. Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy. He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals. It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data. Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August 10, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases. In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling." According to this report, there was no scientific evidence available in any existing study to show that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."
Abel points out that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it. The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, the pharmaceutical companies. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable.
The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable. If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.S. and the world, their best sponsors (the pharmaceutical companies) would have to withdraw their misleading advertisements from the television media, radio stations, magazines, and newspapers. But neither group wants to go bankrupt.
Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all. Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure." The doctors, of course, refer to the FDA's definition of an "effective" drug, one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life. Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life. In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy (or radiation).
Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer. By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer. Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease. The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance. And sometimes, this healing response continues even if a person is subjected to chemotherapy (and/or radiation). Unfortunately, as the previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs.
The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.
If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued.
One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist.
To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.
Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.
Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good. Available through (www.ener-chi.com) or (www.amazon.com) .
About the author
Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. For more information, visit the author's website (www.ener-chi.com). Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20080723-1532-cellphonewarning.html
By Jennifer C. Yates and Seth Borenstein
ASSOCIATED PRESS
3:32 p.m. July 23, 2008
PITTSBURGH – The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.
The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now – especially when it comes to children.
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.
No other major academic cancer research institutions have sounded such an alarm about cell phone use. But Herberman's advice is sure to raise concern among many cell phone users and especially parents.
In the memo he sent to about 3,000 faculty and staff Wednesday, he says children should use cell phones only for emergencies because their brains are still developing.
Adults should keep the phone away from the head and use the speakerphone or a wireless headset, he says. He even warns against using cell phones in public places like a bus because it exposes others to the phone's electromagnetic fields.
The issue that concerns some scientists – though nowhere near a consensus – is electromagnetic radiation, especially its possible effects on children. It is not a major topic in conferences of brain specialists.
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies – including some Herberman cites – with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
"If there is a risk from these products – and at this point we do not know that there is – it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
Of concern are the still unknown effects of more than a decade of cell phone use, with some studies raising alarms, said Davis, a former health adviser in the Clinton Administration.
She said 20 different groups have endorsed the advice the Pittsburgh cancer institute gave, and authorities in England, France and India have cautioned children's use of cell phones.
Herberman and Davis point to a massive ongoing research project known as Interphone, involving scientists in 13 nations, mostly in Europe. Results already published in peer-reviewed journals from this project aren't so alarming, but Herberman is citing work not yet published.
The published research focuses on more than 5,000 cases of brain tumors. The National Research Council in the U.S., which isn't participating in the Interphone project, reported in January that the brain tumor research had "selection bias." That means it relied on people with cancer to remember how often they used cell phones. It is not considered the most accurate research approach.
The largest published study, which appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006, tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users, including thousands that had used the phones for more than 10 years. It found no increased risk of cancer among those using cell phones.
A French study based on Interphone research and published in 2007 concluded that regular cell phone users had "no significant increased risk" for three major types of nervous system tumors. It did note, however, that there was "the possibility of an increased risk among the heaviest users" for one type of brain tumor, but that needs to be verified in future research.
Earlier research also has found no connection.
Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.
"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy, a type of radiation that is a form of electromagnetic radiation, according to the National Cancer Institute. Though studies are being done to see if there is a link between it and tumors of the brain and central nervous system, there is no definitive link between the two, the institute says on its Web site.
"By all means, if a person feels compelled that they should take precautions in reducing the amount of electromagnetic radio waves through their bodies, by all means they should do so," said Dan Catena, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society. "But at the same time, we have to remember there's no conclusive evidence that links cell phones to cancer, whether it's brain tumors or other forms of cancer."
Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.
"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.
Frank Barnes, who chaired the January report from the National Research Council, said Wednesday that "the jury is out" on how hazardous long-term cell phone use might be.
Speaking from his cell phone, the professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder said he takes no special precautions in his own phone use. And he offered no specific advice to people worried about the matter.
It's up to each individual to decide what if anything to do. If people use a cell phone instead of having a land line, "that may very well be reasonable for them," he said.
Susan Juffe, a 58-year-old Pittsburgh special education teacher, heard about Herberman's cell phone advice on the radio earlier in the day.
"Now, I'm worried. It's scary," she said.
She says she'll think twice about allowing her 10-year-old daughter Jayne to use the cell phone.
"I don't want to get it (brain cancer) and I certainly don't want you to get it," she explained to her daughter.
Sara Loughran, a 24-year-old doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh, sat in a bus stop Wednesday chatting on her cell phone with her mother. She also had heard the news earlier in the day, but was not as concerned.
"I think if they gave me specific numbers and specific information and it was scary enough, I would be concerned," Loughran said, planning to call her mother again in a matter of minutes. "Without specific numbers, it's too vague to get me worked up."
Jennifer Yates reported from Pittsburgh. Science Writer Seth Borenstein reported from Washington. Reporter Ramit Plushnick-Masti contributed from Pittsburgh and Science Writer Malcolm Ritter contributed from New York.
Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
by Rich Bowden - Jul 23 2008, 22:27
Photo: Allosaurus at the Canterbury Museum in Christchurch, New Zealand/Public Domain
An evolutionary family tree, known as a "supertree", has revealed that dinosaurs stopped evolving 50 million years before they became extinct. The evidence, gained through an international effort, contradicts previous scientific thought which said they continued to evolve during their later years of existence on Earth.
A new study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, has found that dinosaurs did not evolve during the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution, a time when modern ecosystems were established on land with an explosion of living things such as flowering plants, social insects, lizards, snakes, birds and mammals.
Graeme Lloyd from the University of Bristol, who led the study, explained that: "Supertrees are very large family trees made using sophisticated computer techniques that carefully stitch together several smaller trees which were previously produced by experts on the various subgroups."
"Our supertree summarises the efforts of two decades of research by hundreds of dinosaur workers from across the globe and allows us to look for unusual patterns across the whole of dinosaurs for the first time," he said.
"It is the most comprehensive picture ever produced of how dinosaurs evolved."
Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of some of the scientific weaknesses with neo-Darwinian evolution. In fact, a recent article in The Scientist suggests that, "public discontent with classical evolution as an inclusive theory stems parly from an intuitive appreciation of its limits." (Eric Smith, "Before Darwin," The Scientist, June 2008:32-38.) But in this highly nuanced debate, such Darwin-skeptics must avoid semantic land mines if they are to accurately, clearly, and effectively communicate their views. I have often seen that some people who oppose neo-Darwinian evolution are fond of calling evolution "only a theory" or "just a theory, but not a fact." After using such a phrase, they are immediately scolded by Darwinists, who tell them that "a theory" is a "well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and that evolution should be considered "both fact and theory." Ken Miller just wrote a book titled, "Only a theory," basically opposing people who use such an argument. Similarly, an opinion article recently condescended:
One of the greatest misconceptions about evolution is embedded in the misuse of the word 'theory' in its application to science. The common antecedents that result in this misuse of the word are manifested in either genuine ignorance, or disguised ignorance. People are either genuinely mistaken of the word's intent, or they are well aware of the word's scientific definition, but still use the nonscientific definition in an effort to spawn doubt. … Evolution, because it's a theory, is a higher form of knowledge than a fact.
Similarly, the NCSE's Glenn Branch recently co-wrote an article taking the condescending approach: it labeled those who use the "evolution is 'just a theory' line as being "pejorative" and favorably cited a Darwinist who scolded, "To claim that evolution is 'just a theory' is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science."
Upon receiving such a scolding, the Darwin-skeptic who said that evolution is "just a theory, but not a fact" may feel quite bad. She innocently had no intent to violate any rules of semantics or misuse any terms; she merely wanted to communicate her skepticism of neo-Darwinism. In this tangled web of ambiguously defined terms, the Darwin-skeptic is then confronted by a number of confusing questions of rhetoric and semantics:
1. Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"?
2. Under such a strong definition of "theory," does evolution qualify as a "theory"?
3. Is it correct to call evolution a "fact"?
4. Is it best for Darwin skeptics to call evolution "just a theory, not a fact"?
5. All I wanted to say is that I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. How can I convey such skepticism without stepping on a semantic land mine and getting scolded by Darwinists?"
These are all good questions. In a series of five posts, I will attempt to answer all five questions, exploring the argument that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact" and providing criticism of people on both sides of this debate, as well as some friendly communications advice for Darwin-skeptics. And from the outset, I should state that I have always opposed using the "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line to communicate one's skepticism regarding neo-Darwinian evolution.
Question 1: Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"?
According to the 1998 edition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses." In 2008, the NAS released a new edition, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, stating that a theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." Darwinists routinely invoke these and other similar definitions of "theory" when scolding Darwin-skeptics for calling evolution "just a theory, not a fact." Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" in this fashion? The answer to this question is both yes and no.
"Theory" can have multiple definitions. When I look up "theory" in my 1996 edition of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (WEUDEL), the word "theory" has 7 or 8 different entries:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Math. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
According to entry #2, "theory" can mean "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Similarly, entries #6 and #7 define "theory" as "contemplation or speculation" or "guess or conjecture." We'll say these comprise the soft definition of theory and represent the definitions that the average person has in mind when they say, "evolution is just a theory, not fact."
The upshot of the soft definition of theory is that Darwinists who imply that the term "theory" can never mean that "conjecture or guess" are in fact wrong, because "theory" can in fact mean conjecture or guess. On the other hand, if you're a Darwin-skeptic who thinks that "theory" necessarily means "conjecture" or a "guess" and can never mean a verified scientific explanation, then you are wrong: After listing these entries, my 1996 edition of WEUDEL elaborates on proper usage of the word "theory" within the scientific community:
1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are used in non-technical contexts to mean untested idea or opinion. The THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serve as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Within technical scientific discussions, the term "theory" typically is understood to mean "a more or less verified or established explanation." We'll call this the hard definition of theory. But is this hard definition of theory the only way that scientists use the word "theory"?
When a Darwin-skeptic says "evolution is a theory, not a fact," Darwinists often pounce and assert that the colloquial or "pejorative" (Glenn Branch's label) usage of "theory" can mean "conjecture" or "guess," but scientists never use the word "theory" to mean conjecture or guess. For example, Branch favorably quotes Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook Biology, as if there is a united front within the scientific community regarding proper usage of the word "theory": "In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations." Such Darwinist claims are also questionable.
While scientists do typically imply the "hard" definition when using the word "theory," they don't always use it in that sense. If scientists always meant the "hard" definition of "theory," then scientists would virtually never use the phrse "new theory" because an idea does not attain the status of a theory until it becomes well-established and verified, withstanding many tests until it is no longer "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural." Yet a quick search of PubMed for the phrase "new theory" reveals dozens and dozens of hits from the technical scientific literature where scientists offered "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" but called that explanation a theory.
Three recent examples of such usage of "new theory," where theory represented an unverified idea, will suffice.
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. The meaning implied by the term "theory" in this case was a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. As Charlton observes:
An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important – but we knew it all along. ... Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim.
(Bruce G. Charlton, "False, trivial, obvious: Why new and revolutionary theories are typically disrespected," Medical Hypotheses Vol. 71:1–3 (2008).)
Charlton goes on to say, "When a new theory is revolutionary, then it is perceived as an observation which is incompatible with the old theory. From this perspective either the new theory must be rejected, or else the old theory abandoned." Clearly Charlton uses the word "theory" as if it can, in some circumstances, mean a new idea that has not yet undergone widespread testing and verification, and may not have experienced widespread acceptance.
As a second example, a recent sociology paper from Archives of Suicide Research states, "Although the study has offered some support for the new theory, future research with more rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test the theory on a more comprehensive level." (J. Zhang, D. Lester, "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide," Archives of Suicide Research, VOl. 12(1):67-73 (2008).) Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.
Finally, even within the context of evolutionary biology, theory can mean a new idea that does not yet have widespread verification or universal acceptance. A recent article in Current Biology entitled "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts, "New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity." Yet the article goes on to describe a vigorous scientific debate between evolutionary biologists about whether kin selection is a genetically viable explanation to account for the evolutionary origin of altruism and cooperation. According to the article, a new study concludes that "there is relatively poor empirical support for this mechanism in nature" because "[a] new theoretical study of genetic kin recognition … reveals that, left to its own evolutionary devices, this mechanism will drive itself to ruin." But other leaders in that field disagree, implying that this theory is not "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
There are many other examples from the technical literature where theory is used in a similar sense, and it does not mean "a more or less verified or established explanation." It should be clear that scientists sometimes DO use the term "theory" to refer to a new idea that has not yet undergone extensive testing and is simply "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural."
Conclusion
In closing, we must return to the question, Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"? The answer is yes, but they are not entitled to claim that such a hard definition is the exclusively acceptable usage of theory both for scientists and non-scientists. Darwinists are wrong to imply that scientists always necessarily use the hard definition of theory, because even scientists occasionally use theory as if it means new idea, or a "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural."
The problem underlying debates over the proper usage of theory is that the term can have multiple definitions, even among scientists, ranging from "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions" to "a more or less verified or established explanation." But the upshot is this: Because the term "theory" can mean "a more or less verified or established explanation," it is inappropriate for a Darwin skeptic who is trying to communicate doubts about Darwin to use the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" line, because it ignores the truth that in many venues, theory does indeed mean, as WEUDEL explains, "a more or less verified or established explanation."
Posted by Casey Luskin on July 18, 2008 8:12 AM | Permalink
In Part 1, I assessed the question of whether Darwinists are correct to define theory as a "well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (the hard definition of theory). I found that they are correct to use such a definition, but that Darwinists sometimes overly downplay the fact that theory can also legitimately mean merely "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural," "contemplation or speculation," or "guess or conjecture" (the soft definition of theory). As I observed, Darwinists are also wrong to imply that scientists never use the term "theory" to mean "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural."
Previously I quoted Bruce Charlton, editor-in-chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses, observing that "[a]n old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important – but we knew it all along." Charlton goes on to contend that those who propose new revolutionary theories face difficult battles:
The defining feature of a revolutionary theory is precisely that it seeks to replace the assumptions of an already-existing theory – so a new theory cannot be evaluated on the basis of the assumptions of the old theory. This is why a new and revolutionary theory will almost invariably strike people as false. … The path to fame as a theorist surely is long, winding and replete with pitfalls.
It seems clear that scientists can use the word "theory" to mean "conjecture," but it is also fair to say that typical circumstances, when scientists say "theory," they mean the hard usage of the term: "a more or less verified or established explanation."
This thus leads to the question, under such a strong definition of the term, does evolution qualify as a theory?
Assuming that we are using the hard definition of theory, different people will give different answers to that question. Under such an understanding of the term, if we define theory as "a more or less verified or established explanation," then theory is in the eye of the beholder. Darwin-skeptics will not agree that neo-Darwinian evolution is "a more or less verified or established explanation." But Darwinists will agree. So the question over whether neo-Darwinian evolution should be called a "theory" is not the core question of this debate. A better question would be: "Is neo-Darwinian evolution 'a more or less verified or established explanation'?"
Darwinists have the right to believe that neo-Darwinian is a verified and established explanation--i.e. that it meets the hard definition of theory. But they do not have the right to insist that Darwin-skeptics must call evolution a "theory," so defined. While Darwinists are correct that the technical definition of "theory" means a well-established and verified explanation, they should not insist that evolution can never be called "just a theory." When they do this, they are actually imposing onto the debate their conclusion that evolution must be considered by all to be a verified and established explanation. Were they to tolerantly allow Darwin-skeptics to dissent from the orthodox neo-Darwinian position, Darwinists would not insist that Darwin-skeptics entirely abandon the phrase "evolution is just a theory."
However, given that the technical, scientific, hard definition of theory does typically mean a well-established and verified explanation, then it is best if Darwin-skeptics take the high road and avoid calling neo-Darwinian evolution "just a theory." And as we shall see in the next installment of this series, the question "is evolution a 'more or less verified or established explanation'"? is also a complex question, for it can also depend on the definition of "evolution."
Posted by Casey Luskin on July 21, 2008 7:26 AM | Permalink
Darwinists claim that it is inappropriate to call "evolution a theory, not a fact" because a theory means "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world." In Part 1 and in Part 2, I discussed the fact that the word "theory" can have multiple meanings, ranging from a conjecture or guess (the soft definition) to "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" (the hard definition). In this installment, I will address the question, "Is it correct to call evolution a 'fact'?"
A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that "evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion. Scientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms." The leading 20th century evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr quite dogmatically (and wrongly) claimed that, "No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." Similarly, according to the ardently pro-Darwin U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), evolution is a "fact":
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact." (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. 11 (National Academy Press, 2008).)What these Darwinist authors miss is that the legitimacy of calling evolution a "fact" depends on the meaning of the word "evolution."
The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the discussion. Some people use evolution to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of birds' beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching. Used the first way, the term "evolution" isn't controversial at all; used the latter way, it's hotly debated. Used equivocally, evolution is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion. Darwin's theory is not a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments:***
Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see today are different than the life forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as "change over time" can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species — changes which take place over a short amount of time. We can observe this type of evolution going on in the present and even skeptics of Darwin's theory agree that this type of "change over time" takes place. Evolution in this sense is "fact." However, it is invariably the case that when Darwinists cite some present-day observations of change within a species, they will be small-scale changes that are not easily extrapolated to explain how complex biological features arose.
Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word "evolution" with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This claim became known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as one great branching tree. While this meaning of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with intelligent design, there are many scientific skeptics of evolution who are skeptical of Universal Common Descent.
Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term "evolution" to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for the branching pattern. Darwin argued that unguided natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Neo-Darwinian" evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that random mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts in a completely unguided fashion. It is this form of evolution that is the most controversial meaning of evolution.
So is evolution a fact? If by "evolution" one simply means "evolution #1," i.e. small-scale change over time within a species, then evolution is indeed a fact. No one disputes this kind of "evolution." Thus when Johnjoe McFadden states that "[s]cientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms" and therefore evolution "is as much a fact as gravity or erosion," he is stating the obvious because he is simply referring to evolution #1.
But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact.
A Final Look at the NAS' Mistake
Finally, consider how the NAS defines evolution as a fact:
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. 11 (National Academy Press, 2008).)
I won't dispute the NAS's definition of fact, but it's clear that unless by "evolution" they mean evolution #1, then there are many scientists who will disagree with their claim that evolution is a fact. However, the NAS DID define evolution as evolution #3, i.e. being driven by natural selection acting upon mutation-caused variation:
In the century and a half since Darwin, scientists have uncovered exquisite details about many of the mechanisms that underlie biological variation, inheritance, and natural selection, and they have shown how these mechanisms lead to biological change over time. Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. … The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. xiii, 12 (National Academy Press, 2008).)
The NAS is wrong. Since the NAS defines "evolution" as full-blown neo-Darwinian evolution, there are many scientists who will not agree that it is a fact.
***Some parts of this post were adapted from the textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism.
Posted by Casey Luskin on July 24, 2008 1:32 AM | Permalink
Just in case you thought this country had finally decided to teach science according to the precepts of science, here comes Louisiana with another stab at wedging creationism/intelligent design/teachers' own random thoughts into the mix.
According to Education Week, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed the misnamed Louisiana Science Education Act, which says that teachers must use the material from standard science textbooks — but should feel free, at the same time, to "supplement" those with self-chosen materials that examine scientific theories "in an objective manner," objective meaning something like, "Here's what's wrong with evolution." The law, by not mandating the instruction of creationism, might prove more difficult to challenge in court, at least until some teacher's idea of objective supplemental material clashes with a parent's demand for straight, unadulterated science instruction.
Considering Louisiana schools' low performance on national tests, which makes California look not so bad by comparison, you'd think legislators would be worrying about getting these kids ready for jobs and college instead of monkeying around with science instruction.
Posted by Karin Klein on July 24, 2008 in Schools | Permalink
We're all for open and objective discussions of scientific theories, right? Who wouldn't be? If your kids are taking physics in high school, you want them to read critiques of gravity, right? After all, shouldn't they know that there are some serious weaknesses in the theory of gravity? Right? For instance, the theory of gravity says that gravity makes things fall down. But planets don't fall into the sun. They go around it. So which is it–down or around? Clearly the theory of gravity is deficient. Right?
Wrong, of course. You don't teach critical thinking with patent nonsense.
A couple weeks ago Louisiana passed a new science education act that promotes "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Along with the regular textbook, the law states, teachers "may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." The law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
What the law does not make clear, however, is how schools will determine whether the extra instructional material is good science or nonsense. There is nothing in the law that would keep a teacher from introducing a bogus non-argument about gravity and the revolution of the planets.
I was reminded of this sad fact when I read a post published today by Casey Luskin, a staffer at the Discovery Institute, an outfit that promotes intelligent design. Luskin has been one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute's efforts to get so-called "academic freedom" bills passed in states around the country. He personally testified in Louisiana in favor of their new education bill. When he's not busy with politics, Luskin writes posts at the Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" site, where he "critiques" research on evolutionary biology, claiming to find major flaws. But his critique make as much sense as the falling-or-revolving challenge to gravity.
The subject of the post is a 375-million-year-old fossil that helps reveal the transition of our ancestors from the water to land, known as Tiktaalik. I've written about Tiktaalik here, and you can get more details from the book Your Inner Fish, written by Neil Shubin, one of Tiktaalik's discoverers. (Here's a review I wrote in Nature.)
Luskin claims that Neil Shubin calls Tiktaalik a fish with a wrist, but "from what I can tell, Tiktaalik doesn't have one." The bulk of the post is taken up by Luskin's fruitless search for a diagram or some other helpful information, either in Shubin's book or the original papers. He is frustrated not to find a picture showing a wrist on Tiktaalik compared to the wrist of a tetrapod (a land vertebrate). This sort of "evidence" leads Luskin to conclude that Shubin has something to hide. "In the end, it's no wonder Shubin chose not to provide a diagram comparing Tiktaalik's fin-bones to the bones of a real tetrapod limb," he writes.
Instead, Luskin is forced to read a scientific paper. He writes:
So we are left to decipher his jargon-filled written comparison in the following sentence by sentence analysis:
1. Shubin et al.: "The intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik have homologues to eponymous wrist bones of tetrapods with which they share similar positions and articular relations." (Note: I have labeled the intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik in the diagram below.)
Translation: OK, then exactly which "wrist bones of tetrapods" are Tiktaalik's bones homologous to? Shubin doesn't say. This is a technical scientific paper, so a few corresponding "wrist bone"-names from tetrapods would seem appropriate. But Shubin never gives any.
Um…Shubin did give them. They are called the intermedium and ulnare. (I just double-checked, for example, in Vertebrates by Ken Kardong, on p.332.) Shubin and his colleagues found two bones in the limb of Tiktaalik that bear a number of similarities to the intermedium and ulnare in the tetrapod wrist–in terms of their arrangement with other limb bones, for example. That's why Shubin and company refer to the bones in Tiktaalik's limb by the same two names. They are homologous–in other words, their similarities are due to a common ancestry.
So Luskin wants to know what bones in the tetrapod limb are homologous to Tiktaalik's intermedium and ulnare. The answer is…the intermedium and ulnare. He has unwittingly answered his own question. Now, perhaps Luskin got tripped up in Shubin's "jargon-filled" writing. But that doesn't change the facts–merely Luskin's understanding of them.
Luskin's entire post is based on a mistaken notion of homology–the similarity of traits due to common ancestry. The bones of a bird's wing do not look just like a human arm. Many of the wrist bones in our arm are not present in a bird's wing, for example, and instead of five fingers the bird has a rod-like bone at the end. But they still bear an overall resemblance in their arrangement. And when evolutionary biologists arrange birds and mammals in an evolutionary tree, they can see some of the steps by which an ancestral tetrapod limb evolved into our arm in one lineage, and into the bird wing in another.
Shubin and his colleagues offer a detailed analysis in their paper of how the intermedium and ulnare in Tiktaalik are homologous to the bones of the same name in tetrapod wrists. Not only do the bones have similar arrangements, but they also allow the limb to bend in a similar way to how the tetrapod wrist bends the hand. They also present evidence for the homology of other bones in Tiktaalik's limb to the tetrapod limb. Some bones in the tetrapod limb don't exist in Tiktaalik's, and some of the bones that are there are different in some respects–size, and shape, and so on. But the relationship of the bones to each other makes sense if they're the result of a shared ancestry with tetrapods.
To say that Tiktaalik lacks a wrist because it doesn't have all of the bones in a tetrapod limb is to misunderstand how evolution works.
Luskin suggests instead it would be easier to make Tiktaalik a forerunner of lungfish. (Lungfish are among the closest living relatives of tetrapods, but our last common ancestor with them lived over 400 million years ago.) "Without trying to force-fit the fin of Tiktaalik into a pre-conceived evolutionary story," he declares, "the living species that Tiktaalik's fin seems to bear a much closer relationship to is the lungfish."
Note the word seems.
If Luskin were offering a real scientific hypothesis, he could do an anlysis of lungfish, Tiktaalik, tetrapods, and other vertebrates–comparing not just their limbs but their heads, spines, and so on to figure out their evolutionary relationships. That's exactly what Shubin and his colleagues did in their original paper on Tiktaalik. They compared 114 traits on species from nine different lineages of tetrapods and their aquatic relatives, including the lineage that produced today's lungfish. And that analysis shows that Tiktaalik is more closely related to us than to lungfish.
Luskin apparently doesn't need to do this sort of science. He can just announce what seems right to him personally.
If this is the sort of stuff that's used to promote "critical thinking" in Louisiana classrooms, don't be surprised to hear about the great gravity hoax.
Update: PZ Myers has more.
July 14th, 2008 by Carl Zimmer in Evolution
About The Loom
Carl Zimmer writes about science regularly for the New York Times and magazines such as Discover, where he is a contributing editor and columnist.
He is the author of six books, the most recent of which is Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life. His website is carlzimmer.com and his address is [ blog at carlzimmer dot com ].
By WILL SENTELL Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Jul 15, 2008 - Page: 10A - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
Two Baton Rouge lawyers disagreed Monday on whether Louisiana's new law to revamp the way evolution is taught in public schools will be struck down in the courts.
Michael Wolf, a Baton Rouge lawyer, predicted the measure will be declared unconstitutional.
"It is an attempt to prove things by scriptural authority rather than scientific evidence," Wolf said.
But Darrell White, co-founder of a group that helped push the law through the Legislature, said he could not even predict whether the new rules will face a legal challenge.
"Can I say without doubt that this or any other piece of legislation will not be challenged? Who knows?" White asked.
White and Wolf traded views before the Press Club of Baton Rouge.
White is co-founder of the Louisiana Family Forum and a former city court judge.
The forum was a key advocate of the bill. The group touts itself as promoting traditional family values.
Wolf said he has consulted on the issue with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which calls itself a national watchdog organization to prevent government-backed religious teaching.
The issue they discussed is a new law called the Louisiana Science Education Act. Officials on both sides of the debate have said Louisiana is the only state in the nation with such a sweeping measure.
The law, which breezed through the Legislature, will allow science teachers to use DVDs and other supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, on volatile issues such as evolution.
Backers contend the new rules will allow for wide-open classroom debates.
"Science itself is still an evolving discipline," White said.
Opponents have charged that the law is designed to inject religious views into public schools.
Officials of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana are considered likely players in any lawsuit.
White said the law echoes just the sort of science exploration advocated by Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution.
"Should students not have the facts and be able to draw the implications themselves?" he asked.
Wolf said he thinks any lawsuit to challenge the law will stem from how it is applied in public school classrooms.
"I am confident it will be held unconstitutional," he said.
"What the Family Forum is trying to do is put religion in the classroom," Wolf said.
The law says any supplemental materials have to meet guidelines spelled out by local school boards.
The state's top school board will have the authority to toss out materials that it considers improper for public school classrooms.
At a contentious public meeting in Mount Vernon, Ohio, on July 7, 2008, the district school board scheduled a hearing for teacher John Freshwater to contest his planned firing. Freshwater has been accused of teaching "intelligent design" creationism in his biology classes, and of using a piece of lab equipment to brand a cross on a student's arm.
The Columbus Dispatch reports (July 7, 2008), "The Mount Vernon eighth-grade science teacher who has been under scrutiny for focusing on creationism and intelligent design in his classes will contest his planned firing at an Aug. 26 hearing. The date was announced tonight during a school board meeting in which several supporters for John Freshwater publicly chastised the school board for its plans to fire him. Darcy Miller, whose son was taught by Freshwater, derided school administrators for singling out Freshwater when she said other teachers freely offer their opinions in the classroom. 'They [the administration] dug up any dirt they could that would put John Freshwater in the light of being a zealot shoving Christianity down the throats of his students,' Miller said."
Freshwater told the Associated Press (July 9, 2008) that he was disappointed with the way in which the investigation that resulted in the school board deciding to fire him was conducted, saying, "They used half-truths. They didn't interview people who had been in my classroom ... Science teachers at the high school: Why would you interview them?" But the Dispatch explains: "An investigator for the district found that Freshwater's teachings undermined science education in the public school district and that his students had to be re-taught science principles when they got into higher grades. The family of one of Freshwater's former students who had a cross burned onto his arm by the teacher sued the school district and Freshwater last month. The suit says the boy's civil rights were violated."
July 15, 2008
Posted on: July 12, 2008 8:38 PM, by Greg Laden
Senate Bill 733, signed by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on June 25, continues to draw criticism from scientists and political observers across the political spectrum.
In the New Scientist, Amanda Gefter reports (July 9, 2008), "The new legislation is the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms." Since the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where intelligent design creationism was found to be nonscience and unconstitutional to present in science classes, Gefter explains that "The strategy being employed in Louisiana by proponents of ID -- including the Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- is more subtle and potentially more difficult to challenge. Instead of trying to prove that ID is science, they have sought to bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of 'academic freedom.'"
NCSE's Josh Rosenau explained to Gefter why that is a misuse of the term: "Academic freedom is a great thing," he explained. "But if you look at the American Association of University Professors' definition of academic freedom, it refers to the ability to do research and publish." Gefter continues: "Rosenau distinguished this from the situation the bill addresses by pointing out that 'In high school, you're teaching mainstream science so students can go on to college or medical school, where you need that freedom to explore cutting-edge ideas. To apply 'academic freedom' to high school is a misuse of the term.'"
"It's very slick," NCSE board member Barbara Forrest told Gefter. "The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left... They know that phrase appeals to people."
Gefter explains that "Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of 'supplemental' classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The L[ouisiana] F[amily] F[orum] is now promoting the use of online 'add-ons' that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution. ... Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term 'intelligent design'."
The Louisiana Family Forum's mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence," and the bill's sponsor credits LFF with drafting the bill. (The "add-ons" they promote include references to young earth creationist Jonathan Woodmorappe's flood geology, as well as attacks on the hominid fossil record by geocentrist Malcolm Bowden.) Gefter asked Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum "whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda." Mills answered: "Certainly it's an extension of it."
The Discovery Institute's John West, in an opinion piece at the National Review (July 8, 2008), insisted that there's nothing to fear from such religious agendas. "Whether the issue is sex education, embryonic stem-cell research, or evolution, groups claiming to speak for 'science' assert that it violates the Constitution for religious citizens to speak out on science-related issues. ... America is a deeply religious country, and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So what? Many opponents of slavery were motivated by their religious beliefs, and many leaders of the civil-rights movement were members of the clergy. Regardless of their motivations, religious citizens have just as much a right to raise their voices in public debates as their secular compatriots, including in debates about science. To suggest otherwise plainly offends the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
West adds "Fearful of being branded 'anti-science,' some conservatives are skittish about such efforts to allow challenges to the consensus view of science."
Conservative columnist John Derbyshire, a staff writer at the National Review, replied the next day (July 9, 2008) at The Corner, the National Review's blog. Derbyshire explains his objections to the bill by pointing out that "Whether or not the law as signed is unconstitutional per se, I do not know. I do know, though -- as the creationist Discovery Institute that helped promote the Act also surely knows -- that the Act will encourage Louisiana local school boards to unconstitutional behavior. That's what it's meant to do. Some local school board will take the Act as a permit to bring religious instruction into their science classes. That will irk some parents. Those parents will sue. There will be a noisy and expensive federal lawsuit, possibly followed by further noisy and expensive appeals. The school board will inevitably lose. The property owners of that school district will take the financial hit. Where will the Discovery Institute be when these legal expenses come due? Just where they were in the Dover case -- nowhere!"
Fossils found by geologist who inspired Darwin recognized by UN
Marian Scott, Times Colonist
Published: Sunday, July 13, 2008
MONTREAL - In his gilt frame, 19th-century McGill University principal Sir John William Dawson gazes down benignly from a wood-panelled wall in the Arts Building. If you had watched the portrait closely this week, you might have caught a smile pass over the great man's lips.
At long last, the world has recognized the importance of the fossils Dawson discovered a century and a half ago as a young geologist walking along a beach at Joggins, N.S.
His finds would inspire Charles Darwin, document the emergence of the world's first reptiles, and supply evidence that reptiles, mammals and birds share common ancestry.
On Monday, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization designated a 15-kilometre stretch of Nova Scotia coastline as a world heritage site.
The UN agency hailed the soaring Joggins cliffs as a unique record of the Carboniferous period, from 360 to 300 million years ago. The period takes its name from coal deposits formed millions of years ago from the lush vegetation that then covered the Earth.
"It's not just little old Joggins anymore," said Jenna Boon, director of the Joggins Fossil Institute, an interpretation centre that opened April 21 in the village of 400, located 225 kilometres northwest of Halifax. A committee of local residents has lobbied for 12 years for recognition for the site.
"This is an acknowledgment from the international community that this is an important place," she said.
For McGill University paleontologist Robert Carroll, the heritage designation is a long overdue confirmation of Dawson's contribution to science. "The UN designation brings a lot of focus on Dawson and on McGill," said the professor emeritus and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Redpath Museum, which houses Dawson's fossil collection, including specimens from Joggins.
In the 1850s, Dawson discovered fossils at Joggins that include the earliest reptiles ever found.
Charles Darwin cited the fossil record at Joggins as evidence for his theory of evolution.
But Dawson rejected Darwinism. He believed science would eventually confirm the truths of religion - a position that would increasingly isolate him from other earth scientists after 1859, when Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
McGill's longest-serving principal, Dawson was a relentless workaholic. From 1855 to 1893, he turned a backwoods college surrounded by cow pastures into an internationally renowned university. He taught chemistry, agriculture and natural history, published 350 scientific books and articles, and founded Canada's first purpose-built museum, the Redpath.
But despite Dawson's prodigious achievements, said Carroll, recognition for his research on the dawn of life eluded him.
"Dawson was a man so far ahead of his time that much of the research he did was not appreciated in his lifetime," he said.
Born in 1820 in Pictou, N.S., the teenaged Dawson spent his spare time roaming the countryside in search of minerals and shells.
His rambles took him as far as Joggins, nearly 200 kilometres west, where sandstone bluffs tower over the world's highest tides in the Bay of Fundy.
Dawson marvelled at the petrified forest embedded in the rock, chockablock with traces of ancient life.
In his memoirs, Dawson would recall his amazement at "the grand succession of stratified beds exposed as plainly as in a picture section," and "the numerous fossil plants exposed in the beds."
When the famed Scottish geologist, Charles Lyell, visited Nova Scotia in 1842, Dawson served as his guide.
Lyell, considered the father of modern geology, believed the Earth had evolved gradually over millions of years. This was a departure from the account of creation in the Bible, which related that God made the world in six days. Lyell believed that natural, observable processes such as erosion and earthquakes explained land forms.
Darwin read Lyell's Principles of Geology on his five-year sea voyage on the Beagle, and drew heavily on it to develop his theory of evolution.
"I really think my books come half out of Lyell's brain," said Darwin. "I see through his eyes."
Lyell was reluctant to accept Darwin's idea that humans descended from "the brutes," but in later life was won over by some aspects of evolution.
The elder geologist was impressed by Dawson, who became his lifelong protege and friend.
When Lyell returned to Nova Scotia in 1852, he and Dawson discovered fossils at Joggins that would rock the scientific world.
"The two are walking along the beach when they find a stump," recounted Carroll. In the trunk of a primitive tree, they discovered the skeletal remains of a small, four-legged amphibian dating to 312 million years ago. They also found a prehistoric snail - a discovery Darwin later described in On the Origin of Species.
"They are the first people to discover that these animals had been preserved in the trees at Joggins," said Carroll.
Dawson later found a small reptile, about the length of a pencil, and named it Hylonomus lyelli, in Lyell's honour. Hylonomus means "forest wanderer."
The emerging fossil record was making it clear that the Earth was much older than some 6,000 years, as a literal reading of the Bible suggests. But Dawson never doubted that faith could be reconciled with science. Perhaps, he speculated, days in the Bible's story of creation really meant geological periods.
But as Darwin's ideas gained currency, Dawson's reputation as a researcher waned.
Blunders also hurt his credibility.
For instance, Dawson refused to accept growing evidence that glaciers had covered much of the Earth during the last Ice Age.
And he mistakenly identified a rock from the Canadian Shield as an extremely ancient fossil of microscopic plants - a claim later disproved.
Meanwhile, researchers were uncovering fossils in other parts of the world that seemed to discredit Dawson's finds at Joggins.
The discovery of ancient amphibians similar to the Joggins fossils suggested that Dawson might have been mistaken in claiming some of the Joggins fossils were primitive reptiles.
The earliest life forms emerged from the sea 570 million years ago. Reptiles appeared more than 300 million years ago, some 50 million years later than amphibians.
Three hundred million years ago, present-day Nova Scotia was a tropical rainforest located near the equator.
Gradually, Dawson's fossil discoveries were all but forgotten. Research at Joggins was more or less abandoned, said Carroll.
Then, in 1962, the paleontologist, Alfred Romer, urged Caroll to check out the fossils Dawson had collected more than a century earlier.
"Romer said, 'I think Dawson was right. Carroll, you go to McGill and find out whether there were reptiles at Joggins.' "
Carroll complied, and confirmed in a 1964 study that Dawson had not been mistaken about Hylonomus lyelli.
To this day, the small creature Dawson identified at Joggins is still the world's earliest known reptile.
"Nothing older than Joggins has ever been found anywhere in the world. Nothing," said Carroll.
"This is the primary reason we're talking of a UNESCO heritage site."
Joggins provides a unique window into the common ancestry of all land-based animals (reptiles, birds and mammals), known as amniotes for the amniotic sac that distinguishes their reproduction from that of fish and amphibians.
"Amniotes led to mammals. Amniotes led to reptiles. The very beginning of this is revealed at Joggins," Carroll said.
Dawson was the only academic of his era to grasp the significance of the Joggins discoveries, he added. "He was a superb scientist."
The Joggins site continues to be a magnet for researchers, said the Joggins Fossil Institute's Boon.
With the cliffs subject to constant erosion, Carroll said it is important to preserve the fossil record.
"The tide comesin and the tide goes out and it could remove more fossils, rocks and beach," he said.
"Unlike most fossil locations it is self-destructing, so it should be a responsibility of this institute to extract and carry out research on the trees as they weather out of the cliffs," he added.
"There's still a lot to be learned."
A Guide to Detecting Shams, Lies, and Delusions
Michael Philips
£ 9.99
Details: Paperback | 296 pages | ISBN 978-1-85168-581-3 | Jun 2008
What caused the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986? Why were thousands of parents wrongly accused of child sex abuse in the 1990s? Why do law courts throughout the world rely on a process that is next to useless? And why do people entrust millions of dollars each year to hedge-funds that economists agree use flawed financial models?
The answer is failure. Not just any failure; but failure of knowledge. In this gripping and controversial book, Michael Phillips outlines all the reasons we don't know what we think we do, and the devastating consequences this can have. From false memories to fraudulent experts, Phillips treads in the footsteps of Descartes to reveal why we must be more careful in what we believe and how we think. Spanning psychology, philosophy, science, and sociology, this unique exploration of why we get things wrong, and how to guard against it, is an essential read for anyone seeking to make sense of the chaotic world in which we live.
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - July 12, 2008 7:57 AM
Opponents to the legislation say this puts church back into schools
On May 21, 2008, Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southern Louisiana University, testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the State's Science Education Act.
According to Forrest, the Act allows teachers and school boards across the state to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution including ideas related to Intelligent Design (ID). Forrest says the bill is a backhanded way to get creationism back into schools.
She states the wording of the Act names evolution along with global warming, the origins of human life and human cloning as worthy of "open and objective discussion" -- suggesting that evolution is scientifically controversial topic.
A U.S. Supreme Court case in 1987 barred creationism from being taught in U.S. public schools. The justices ruled state aid to religious teachings violated the Establishment Clause of First Amendment. Since then, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute has successfully lobbied that intelligent design is not only scientifically sound, but also that it differs from creationism barred from schools.
Despite Forrest's testimony, the bill passed easily in Louisiana with a majority House vote of 94 to 3, followed unanimously in the State Senate. Louisiana's conservative Christian governor Piyush Jindal signed the bill, making it law on June 28.
Supporters of evolution say that the new legislation is nothing more than a new maneuver in the war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution. Forrest was also a figure in a 2005 trial in Dover, where she presented leaked Discovery Institute documents that demonstrated intelligent design school books were in fact creationist schoolbooks with the names replaced.
Immediately following Forrest's comments to New Scientist, the Discovery Institute wrote a blog on its Evolution News website, claiming Forrest and the publication needed "a reality check."
"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," said Discovery Institute fellow John West in a recent Reuters interview.
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 11, 2008 9:43 AM, by PZ Myers
One of the best things about following the antics of creationists is that it gives you a better appreciation of the creative power of the human mind…which isn't anywhere near as powerful as reality. Here's another example of creationist rationalization that doesn't hold up well under even casual inspection.
With the notable exception of the American Bison most mammals have two separate pleural or lung cavities. As we all know, one side of our chest can be penetrated collapsing that lung, but the other side remains intact and the remaining lung can support life. The bison has what is called an incomplete mediastinum, that is there is but one pleural cavity containing both lungs. Thus the problem for the Native bow hunter with or without a horse is solved. An arrow must only penetrate the chest at any point and both lungs collapse. The fatally wounded animal would only continue a few yards providing unlimited food, clothing and tools. Before the availability of horses bison could be shot by stealth from a blind or other hiding place. One problem is solved yet another serious comes to mind...a problem seldom mentioned, yet demanding an answer.
The problem is for the evolutionist. Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum? From an evolutionary sense this makes absolutely no sense. Indeed conventional wisdom would argue for its elimination from the gene pool. Yet it did remain and fed a continent of Native American for centuries. It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain an evolutionist. I am glad I know the Creator of Bison and Native Americans. You can know Him too.
So, wait…God hates bison? Doesn't this create a logical problem for the creationist, in that God has made the primary large game animal targeted by the Native Americans exceptionally fragile?
And let's question that assumption: bison aren't particularly weak, and there's no reason to assume that selection would work to promote the evolution of dual compartments in the chest cavity — that's almost certainly an embryological accident in the first place. How many wild animals are running around with only one lung? Not many. If you're attacked in such a way that your chest cavity is perforated, the only difference between a separated and unseparated mediastinum is whether your death will be slow or quick.
And of course, I thought the Hebrews were the chosen people. How come God didn't give the Middle East a population of big game animals they could knock over with a good sharp poke?
Canadian Cynic has a nice sharp rebuttal: "…if God had really cared about native Americans, he might have given them immunity to smallpox."
July 11, 2008
In 1514, Copernicus hypothesized that the universe does not orbit around Earth. Over a century later, in 1633, Galileo Galilei was convicted by the Catholic Church of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scripture."
In 1992, the Church officially admitted that Galileo was right.
Doesn't it seem ridiculous that it took over four centuries for science and religion to reach agreement?
This winter will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species, and yet the scientific theory of evolution is still being challenged by the Religious Right. Misguided sectarian lobbies are still trying to push creationism and its latest variant, "intelligent design," into our public school system in an unconstitutional attempt to save our children from becoming "heretics."
Last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 733. The legislation allows teachers to bring "supplemental materials" into the classroom to enhance their discussion of evolution and other "controversial" scientific topics.
Seeing the bill as what it truly is, the news media at home and abroad continue to focus on Jindal and the Louisiana legislature for their irresponsible conduct.
The weekly international publication New Scientist defined SB 733 as "the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms."
Domestically, conservative pundit John Derbyshire of the National Review featured a piece on the bill arguing that it will bring about "a noisy and expensive federal lawsuit, possibly followed by further noisy and expensive appeals. The school board will inevitably lose." He blasted the Discovery Institute, which helped push the Louisiana measure, as a "gang of sleazy confidence tricksters."
Theological debates about the nature of God and the origins of man will likely continue in houses of worship across the world until the end of time. The public school classroom, however, is not the place for that discussion. Rather, it's the place where our children, of many different faiths (and none), learn about science.
Our public schools are no place for debates about heresy. Let's hope this battle over religion and science doesn't take four centuries to resolve.
By Ilana Stern
Regular Evolution Education Update author Glenn Branch is sorting through copious boxes right now. This Update was written by Josh Rosenau, who eagerly awaits Glenn's return.
LOUISIANA'S ANTIEVOLUTION BILL DRAWS SCRUTINY
Senate Bill 733, signed by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on June 25, continues to draw criticism from scientists and political observers across the political spectrum.
In the New Scientist, Amanda Gefter reports (July 9, 2008), "The new legislation is the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms." Since the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where intelligent design creationism was found to be nonscience and unconstitutional to present in science classes, Gefter explains that "The strategy being employed in Louisiana by proponents of ID -- including the Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- is more subtle and potentially more difficult to challenge. Instead of trying to prove that ID is science, they have sought to bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of 'academic freedom.'"
NCSE's Josh Rosenau explained to Gefter why that is a misuse of the term: "Academic freedom is a great thing," he explained. "But if you look at the American Association of University Professors' definition of academic freedom, it refers to the ability to do research and publish." Gefter continues: "Rosenau distinguished this from the situation the bill addresses by pointing out that 'In high school, you're teaching mainstream science so students can go on to college or medical school, where you need that freedom to explore cutting-edge ideas. To apply 'academic freedom' to high school is a misuse of the term.'"
"It's very slick," NCSE board member Barbara Forrest told Gefter. "The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left... They know that phrase appeals to people."
Gefter explains that "Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of 'supplemental' classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The L[ouisiana] F[amily] F[orum] is now promoting the use of online 'add-ons' that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution. ... Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term 'intelligent design'."
The Louisiana Family Forum's mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence," and the bill's sponsor credits LFF with drafting the bill. (The "add-ons" they promote include references to young earth creationist Jonathan Woodmorappe's flood geology, as well as attacks on the hominid fossil record by geocentrist Malcolm Bowden.) Gefter asked Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum "whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda." Mills answered: "Certainly it's an extension of it."
The Discovery Institute's John West, in an opinion piece at the National Review (July 8, 2008), insisted that there's nothing to fear from such religious agendas. "Whether the issue is sex education, embryonic stem-cell research, or evolution, groups claiming to speak for 'science' assert that it violates the Constitution for religious citizens to speak out on science-related issues. ... America is a deeply religious country, and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So what? Many opponents of slavery were motivated by their religious beliefs, and many leaders of the civil-rights movement were members of the clergy. Regardless of their motivations, religious citizens have just as much a right to raise their voices in public debates as their secular compatriots, including in debates about science. To suggest otherwise plainly offends the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
West adds "Fearful of being branded 'anti-science,' some conservatives are skittish about such efforts to allow challenges to the consensus view of science."
Conservative columnist John Derbyshire, a staff writer at the National Review, replied the next day (July 9, 2008) at The Corner, the National Review's blog. Derbyshire explains his objections to the bill by pointing out that "Whether or not the law as signed is unconstitutional per se, I do not know. I do know, though -- as the creationist Discovery Institute that helped promote the Act also surely knows -- that the Act will encourage Louisiana local school boards to unconstitutional behavior. That's what it's meant to do. Some local school board will take the Act as a permit to bring religious instruction into their science classes. That will irk some parents. Those parents will sue. There will be a noisy and expensive federal lawsuit, possibly followed by further noisy and expensive appeals. The school board will inevitably lose. The property owners of that school district will take the financial hit. Where will the Discovery Institute be when these legal expenses come due? Just where they were in the Dover case -- nowhere!"
For the text of the legislation, visit:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did-482728
For the New Scientist article, visit:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926643.300
For John West's article in the National Review, visit:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjNjYTNjMTVkNmVhMmYxN2JkMWZhMzYzMGNjNzY4ZDE=
For John Derbyshire's column at National Review Online, visit:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGI0ZmZlMDVlMDM0MzVhNTcwNzA3MmYwYjY2NGM0Y2Q=
And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Louisiana, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=LA
HEARING SCHEDULED IN OHIO BRANDING CASE
At a contentious public meeting in Mount Vernon, Ohio, the district school board scheduled a hearing on whether to fire teacher John Freshwater. Freshwater has been accused of teaching intelligent design in his biology classes, and of using a piece of lab equipment to brand a cross on a student's arm.
The Columbus Dispatch reports (July 7, 2008) "The Mount Vernon eighth-grade science teacher who has been under scrutiny for focusing on creationism and intelligent design in his classes will contest his planned firing at an Aug. 26 hearing. The date was announced tonight during a school board meeting in which several supporters for John Freshwater publicly chastised the school board for its plans to fire him. Darcy Miller, whose son was taught by Freshwater, derided school administrators for singling out Freshwater when she said other teachers freely offer their opinions in the classroom. 'They (the administration) dug up any dirt they could that would put John Freshwater in the light of being a zealot shoving Christianity down the throats of his students,' Miller said."
The Associated Press finds (July 9, 2008) that "Mr. Freshwater, who has filed an appeal with the school board over his firing, said Monday he is disappointed with the way the investigation [which resulted in his firing] was conducted. ... 'They used half-truths. They didn't interview people who had been in my classroom," he said. "Science teachers at the high school: Why would you interview them?'"
The Dispatch explains: "An investigator for the district found that Freshwater's teachings undermined science education in the public school district and that his students had to be re-taught science principles when they got into higher grades. The family of one of Freshwater's former students who had a cross burned onto his arm by the teacher sued the school district and Freshwater last month. The suit says the boy's civil rights were violated."
For the story in the Columbus Dispatch, visit:
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/07/freshwater.html?sid=101
For the Associated Press story (via the Washington Times), visit:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/residents-divided-on-teachers-firing/
And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Ohio, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=OH
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY'S "NEUTRALITY" ON TRIAL
As reported in last week's Evolution Education Update, Chris Comer, the Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) who was forced to resign over a dispute involving intelligent design, filed suit in federal court, seeking an injunction against TEA's "policy of neutrality with respect to the teaching of creationism in the Texas public schools."
According to the Dallas Morning News (July 3, 2008), Comer's suit alleges "that she was terminated for contravening an 'unconstitutional' policy at the agency. The policy required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism -- the biblical interpretation of the origin of humans, she said. The policy was in force, according to the suit, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal."
The Associated Press explains (July 3, 2008) that Comer's suit "alleg[es] she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a speaker who was critical of teaching a controversial alternative to evolution. ... The e-mail, which was intercepted by a state education leader, was about a speaker coming to Austin who had critical views of creationism and the teaching of intelligent design. The federal courts have ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal under the U.S. Constitution's provision preventing government establishment or endorsement of religious beliefs. 'The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause,' the lawsuit said."
WorldNetDaily, a conservative news site, adds (July 8, 2008) that "Comer's lawsuit also quotes an open letter to the commissioner of the TEA from 121 doctorate-level professors of biology at Texas universities, protesting her termination and supporting the assertion that state curriculum officials cannot remain neutral, but must actively oppose intelligent design theory."
Comer's suit also revives concerns about the management of the TEA. The Austin American-Statesman reminds readers that "In an interview with the Statesman last year, Comer said the actions of science curriculum employees at the agency had been subject to increasing scrutiny in 2007 as the State Board of Education prepared to consider revisions to the science curriculum for all Texas public school students. The board was originally slated to consider the science curriculum earlier this year but has postponed that discussion until November. The board plans to hold a first vote on the curriculum in January and a final vote in March."
For a copy of Comer's lawsuit, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pdf/ComerComplaint.pdf
For the Dallas Morning News story, visit:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/070408dntexscience.184e885c.html
For the Associated Press story (via The USA Today), visit:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-07-03-texas-creationism_N.htm
For the post at WorldNetDaily, visit:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69074
And for NCSE's ongoing coverage of these and other events in Texas, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=TX
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
Laura Day's clients include Jennifer Aniston, Demi Moore
Day also works with corporations; they pay her $10,000 a month
Day prefers "intuitionist" over "psychic"; we all have the power, she says
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The difference between a psychotic and a psychic, says Laura Day, is that a psychic's information is right. And companies pay Day $10,000 a month to be correct.
Laura Day doesn't work with crystal balls or tarot cards, and prefers not to tie scarves around her head.
But please don't call her "psychic." She prefers "intuitionist."
"The word psychic can mean so many strange things in our lexicon, and I like 'intuition' because it is a sense. It's an ability to gather information that you haven't been exposed to before," she said one afternoon at her cozy three-bedroom apartment in New York's Tribeca district. "Once you add 'psychic,' it's like I drink wheat grass, I talk to dead people."
She doesn't do either of the above, but she does consult with companies looking for a boost or a much needed competitive edge. She's helped talent agencies choose new clients, tech companies revamp their marketing teams, and lawyers have used her to help select juries.
Her celebrity clients include Jennifer Aniston, Nicole Kidman and Demi Moore, who considers Day a close friend.
Her five-figure fee guarantees 24-hour access to her, and she works with no more than five companies at a time. She claims to have made more than $10 million over the course of her 15-year career, and business is booming, she adds. She even has a waiting list.
All this was achieved solely through referrals. Watch Day at work »
Why a company would turn to someone who knows next to nothing about business is a mystery to many, but not to those who have worked with Day. Karen Page, a Harvard Business School alumna and author, invited the intuitionist to speak to a group of businesspeople shortly after 9/11. Day was a huge hit, and years later, Page is still singing her praises.
"From a rational standpoint, she may not know anything about a particular field that she's doing consulting in, but she's able to give valuable insight," Page says. "And that is something I've seen with her time and time again. ...
"And she has delivered insights that have been very surprising. When Laura Day says something, I listen."
Still, some of her clients refuse to go on the record with their praise of Day, for fear of looking foolish or naive. After all, psychics -- or those who profess to be psychic -- are a mainstay of cheesy late-night infomercials and bachelorette parties.
Day doesn't work with crystal balls or tarot cards; she prefers to keep her scarves tied around her neck and not her head. She could easily pass for an editor at a fashion magazine -- the day I met with her, she was sporting a chic black dress and matching Prada pumps -- and has the cheery disposition of a woman who is used to being referred to as the "cool mom" (she has a 16-year-old son).
She refuses to think of herself as special. We all have the power of intuition, she says, some of us just know how to use it better.
"An ER nurse in a bad neighborhood in an understaffed hospital, unbelievably intuitive," she says. "Someone on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, unbelievably intuitive. Our soldiers. Bless 'em, they're intuitive. They have to have eyes and ears everywhere. Anybody who needs to make a quick, correct move or decision based on little or no information is intuitive."
Lola Ogunnaike is the entertainment correspondent for CNN's "American Morning."
09 July 2008
Amanda Gefter
BARBARA FORREST knew the odds were stacked against her. "They had 50 or 60 people in the room," she says. Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. "They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles." Those on Forrest's side numbered less than a dozen, including two professors from Louisiana State University, representatives from the Louisiana Association of Educators and campaigners for the continued separation of church and state.
That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state's proposed Science Education Act. She had spent weeks trying to muster opposition to the bill on the grounds that it would allow teachers and school boards across the state to present non-scientific alternatives to evolution, including ideas related to intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated to have arisen without the help of a supernatural agent.
The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door", says Forrest, who is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert in the history of creationism. She adds that the bill's language, which names evolution along with global warming, the origins of life and human cloning as worthy of "open and objective discussion", is an attempt to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial.
Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature - by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.
Born in 1971 to parents recently arrived from India, Jindal is a convert to Roman Catholicism and a Rhodes scholar - hardly the profile of a typical Bible-belt politician. Yet in a recent national television appearance he voiced approval for the teaching of ID alongside evolution. He also enjoys a close relationship with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a lobbying group for the religious right whose mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence". It was the LFF which set the bill in motion earlier this year.
"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: "Certainly it's an extension of it."
The new legislation is the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms. Forrest played a pivotal role in the previous battle. It came to a head at a trial in 2005 when US district judge John E. Jones ruled against the Dover area school board in Pennsylvania, whose members had voted that students in high-school biology classes should be encouraged to explore alternatives to evolution and directed to textbooks on ID.
The Dover trial, during which Forrest presented evidence that ID was old-fashioned creationism by another name (New Scientist, 29 October 2005, p 6), revolved around the question of whether ID was science or religion. Jones determined it was the latter, and ruled in favour of the parents who challenged the Dover board on the basis of the provision for separation of church and state in the US constitution.
The strategy being employed in Louisiana by proponents of ID - including the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - is more subtle and potentially more difficult to challenge. Instead of trying to prove that ID is science, they have sought to bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of "academic freedom".
"Academic freedom is a great thing," says Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. "But if you look at the American Association of University Professors' definition of academic freedom, it refers to the ability to do research and publish." This, he points out, is different to the job high-school teachers are supposed to do. "In high school, you're teaching mainstream science so students can go on to college or medical school, where you need that freedom to explore cutting-edge ideas. To apply 'academic freedom' to high school is a misuse of the term."
"It's very slick," says Forrest. "The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left... They know that phrase appeals to people."
"It's very slick...The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left"The new usage began to permeate public consciousness earlier this year with the release of the documentary film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Starring actor, game-show host and former Nixon speech-writer Ben Stein, the film argues that academic freedom is under attack in the US from atheist "Darwinists". The film's promoters teamed up with the Discovery Institute to set up the Academic Freedom Petition. Their website provides a "model academic freedom statute on evolution" to serve as a template for sympathetic legislators.
So far, representatives from six states have taken up the idea. In Florida, Missouri, South Carolina and Alabama, bills were introduced but failed. An academic freedom bill now in committee in Michigan is expected to stall there.
Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.
In 2006, the year following the Dover ruling, the Ouachita parish school board in northern Louisiana quietly initiated a new tactic, unanimously approving a science curriculum policy that stated: "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The idea that evolution has weaknesses, and is therefore not a solid scientific theory, is a recurring theme in ID-related literature. Not long afterwards, the assistant superintendent of the Ouachita parish school system, Frank Hoffman, was elected to the state House of Representatives and joined the House education committee. "I knew then that something was going to happen," says Forrest.
When Jindal was elected governor last year, the stage was set. The LFF approached Ben Nevers, a state senator, who agreed to introduce the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act on their behalf. "They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory," Nevers told the Hammond Daily Star in April. The bill was later amended and renamed the Louisiana Science Education Act. Its final version includes a statement that the law should not be taken as promoting religion.
That way, those who wish to challenge Darwinian evolution have "plausible deniability" that this is intended to teach something unconstitutional, says Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represented the parents at the Dover trial. "They are better camouflaged now."
Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of "supplemental" classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The LFF is now promoting the use of online "add-ons" that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution (see "The evolution of creationist literature"). Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term "intelligent design".
Because the law allows individual boards and teachers to make additions to the science curriculum without clearance from a state authority, the responsibility will lie with parents to mount a legal challenge to anything that appears to be an infringement of the separation of church and state. "In Dover, there were parents and teachers willing to step forward and say, this is not OK," says Rosenau. "But here we're seeing that people are either fine with it or they don't want to say anything because they don't want to be ostracised in their community."
Even if a trial ensues, a victory by the plaintiffs will only mean that some specific supplementary material is ruled unconstitutional - not the law itself. Separate lawsuits will be needed to address each piece of suspicious supplementary material. "This encourages a lot of local brush fires that you have to deal with individually and that makes it very difficult," says Forrest. "This is done intentionally, to get this down to the local level. It's going to be very difficult to even know what's going on."
Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends.
In the meantime, Forrest is working to inform teachers about the supplementary materials being made available. "The pressing need for the coming school year is to get the word out for what teachers need to be on alert for," she says.
As to a future Dover-style trial, this time on Forrest's home turf, "I'll be right there," she says, though it's not a prospect she relishes. "I'd like to think I won't have to do this for the rest of my life. Because believe me, I don't do it for fun. It's a duty."
Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.
Focus on America - Delve into the science and technology questions facing the USA in our special report.
From issue 2664 of New Scientist magazine, 09 July 2008, page 8-10
The Louisiana Science Education Act
WHAT THE LAW SAYS:
The state... shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (Section 1B)
WHAT OPPONENTS FEAR:
Any Louisiana school official is now free to present evolution and other targeted topics as matters of debate rather than broadly accepted science. Books and other materials that support this view can be used in class alongside standard science texts. The onus will be on parents to spot violations of the rules on separation of church and state.
The evolution of creationist literature
One potential consequence of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act could be the appearance - possibly later this year - of anti-evolution textbooks such as "Explore Evolution: The arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism" in schools around the state.
Textbooks lie at the centre of efforts by some religiously motivated groups to discredit evolution in US classrooms. Because of the constitutional principle providing for separation of church and state, evolution cannot be banned from state-funded schools on religious grounds. So the anti-evolution movement has sought to have its favoured alternative, "creation science", taught alongside evolution.
Over the years this approach has given rise to books that superficially resemble standard biology texts but with a creationist message. At first, they freely included the terms "creator" and "creationist" but after the US Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's Balanced Treatment Act in 1987 this was no longer legally acceptable. The result was a new terminology and a new book, Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989, which avoided all mention of creationism in favour of the newly coined "intelligent design". Some officials in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania (see main story) tried unsuccessfully to make a later edition of the book available to high-school biology students.
Explore Evolution, published last year, represents the latest chapter in the story. It makes no mention of intelligent design but presents the same general argument - namely, that some features of life are too complex and too tailored to their environment to have arisen by natural selection - and presents evolution as an unresolved debate with credible alternatives.
One excerpt from the book's introductory chapter reads: "Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. Making the comparison is your job. We're asking you to be part scientist, part detective, and part juror."