Recently in Creationism Category

It's a deal-breaker for me too. If a candidate cannot accept Darwinian evolution, then I simply lose all respect for him or her. I do not trust their empirical judgment, which means I don't believe their political decisions will be affected by, er, reason.

No, that wasn't written by some wacko, leftist atheist. That was the author of The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan.

John Logsdon points out that Wired Science also has a good article on why a candidates views on evolution matter.

Huckabee, we are actually not asking you if there is a creator behind the cosmos. We are clear that you think there is. We are asking if you would weigh rational scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and is reproducible in your most critical decisions about medical research, terrorist weapons threats, the environment, and education. My concern is that your answer to Bill Maher, “We just don't know [the age of the earth]” is an indication that you don't include science on your reference shelf. If you did, you would know that we do know the age of the earth. It's 4.5 billion years old.

I have a link to the debate video here.

Lew Rockwell posts a message from a reader complaining about the video showing Ron Paul denying evolution. The reader links to an unedited version on YouTube and seems to think that we should find it reassuring. Here's the new video:

I'm sorry. I'm not reassured.

I criticized Mike Huckabee for his creationist views on the 6th of December. In fairness to the other Republican candidates in the field, I have to point out that Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback share the same view. Sam Brownback is no longer in the race, and Tom Tancredo has so little support in Iowa and New Hampshire that he doesn't even show up on the charts at Pollster.com.

But there's another Republican in the race who does show up (6% in Iowa), who's raised a lot of money ($4.5 million in one day on the Internet), who thinks asking presidential candidates about evolution is inappropriate, and who doesn't accept the theory of evolution – Ron Paul.

After 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the Texas Education Agency's director of science, Christine Castillo Comer said she did not think she had to remain “neutral” about teaching the theory of evolution.

“It's not just a good idea; it's the law,” said Ms. Comer, citing the state's science curriculum.

But now Ms. Comer, 56, of Austin, is out of a job, after forwarding an e-mail message on a talk about evolution and creationism – “a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” according to a dismissal letter last month that accused her of various instances of “misconduct and insubordination” and of siding against creationism and the doctrine that life is the product of “intelligent design.” (Official Leaves Post as Texas Prepares to Debate Science Education Standards, by Ralph Blumenthal, The New York Times, 2 December 2007)

Why do I bring this up now, almost three weeks after the fact? Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub¹ points out that Don McLeroy, Chair of the Texas State Board of Education, has a letter in Friday's Dallas Morning News clarifying his stance on the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

In August he said “Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes,”² while suggesting that textbooks should cover weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Now he writes:

My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and “sacred cows;” no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.

Fair enough – if McLeroy means it. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence depends on and supports evolutionary theory, including virtually all of 20^th and 21^st century biology and all of geology and geophysics. No one has produced evidence inconsistent with the idea that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor. That's what “a well-trained, scientifically literate student” will learn. That's what a “focus on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence” will provide.

If McLeroy means what he says, the Texas Board of Education will adopt standards that require Texas students to develop a deep understanding of the empirical evidence for evolution. Pardon me if I share Ed Darrell's skepticism that that's what McLeroy means.

¹Link via Pharyngula.

²State board members oppose teaching intelligent design in schools, by Associated Press, Dallas Morning News, 24 August 2007

I felt cheated and duped. What appeared at first glance to be an innocent science exhibit turned out to be a cunning assault on logic, science and the life of the great Charles Darwin. It was manipulative. It was brainwash. It was approved by the Istanbul Municipality, which happens to be run by AK party. Worst of all, I thought, the thousands of people exposed to these factoids and blatant lies, presented albeit with a scientific veneer, will so easily fall for it. I tried to find a silver lining, but could think of none. I decided to simply go to bed. ( Posted by Ralph Hubbell at 5:10 PM; 20 December 2007)

The Christian Science Monitor reported on the “Atlas of Creation” museum last August. It is only “one of many traveling shows put on by the Foundation for Scientific Research.” Fortunately, the “Atlas” seems to be having very little impact in this country. if you Google “Atlas of Creation” (without the quotes), the entry I made in June. The third link is to Nicolien den Boer's report last February. The most prominent links about the “Atlas” point out what drivel it is.

I guess that's why the esteemed Mr. Yahya, author of the “Atlas,” got Wordpress banned in Turkey. He can't tolerate critics who point out how stupid his book is.

Take a look at this (old) video from the third CNN debate on June 5, 2007. Mike Huckabee says he doesn't know whether God created the world in six literal days or in six days that represent periods of time.

I don't know. I wasn't there...But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.

Huckabee wants to avoid the issue, because “I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” He seems to think that it's irrelevant that his personal beliefs contradict an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And don't think he can escape by arguing that he's a theistic evolutionist, a la Mitt Romney. He clearly doesn't accept the idea of common descent. He clearly doesn't understand that he shares a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas (and fruit flies and fungus and sunflowers, for that matter). It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States.

Here's how Daniel Finkelstein put it in the Times of London on Tuesday.

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.

Andrew Sulliivan pointed out the Finkelstein piece.

UPDATE (27 December 2007): I just realized that I didn't include a link to the Times of London piece. It's there now.

P.Z. Myers points out that the Discovery Institute has its predictable “rebuttal” of Judgment Day. Their eight-point rebuttal is, as he says, picking nits. But I think he's wrong about it missing the point of the program entirely.

Basically, the Discovery Institute's Center [for Science and Culture] was in the business of marketing--not research. It had a product to sell - intelligent design -- and was focused on doing whatever it could to sell that idea. (Conservatism's Unintelligent Design, Greg Anrig, Jr.)

The Discovery Institute's “rebuttal” isn't intended to rebut the arguments against intelligent design.¹ It's intended to rebut arguments that they aren't very good at marketing. They aren't in the business of doing science. They're in the business of marketing, and they're trying to protect their business – ineffectively.

¹If you want to see the Discovery Institute's response, P.Z. has a link.

Here's how to understand the Creation Museum:

First, imagine, if you will, a load of horseshit. And we're not talking just your average load of horseshit; no, we're talking colossal load of horsehit. An epic load of horseshit. The kind of load of horseshit that has accreted over decades and has developed its own sort of ecosystem, from the flyblown chunks at the perimeter, down into the heated and decomposing center, generating explosive levels of methane as bacteria feast merrily on vintage, liquified crap. This is a Herculean load of horseshit, friends, the likes of which has not been seen since the days of Augeas.(Your Creation Museum Report, John Scalzi)

The horseshit of which John Scalzi speaks is, of course, creationism. Read the whole report. It's very well done. I'll point out only one more thing:

To be clear, the "horseshit" I've been speaking of is not Christianity, it's creationism, which to my mind is a teleological quirk substantially unrelated to the grace one can achieve through Jesus Christ.

Scalzi is explicitly not attacking Christianity or religious belief. He's attacking a “museum” devoted to to the preposterous belief that the world is only 6,000 years old.

I can't resist pulling one more paragraph, but you really should read the whole thing:

It is what it is: An attractive and diverting repository for a massive load of horseshit. And, well, let's be realists: That load of horseshit's not going away anytime soon. Might as put it somewhere that it's out of everyone else's way. The Creation Museum manages that well enough.

Pharyngula pointed out the report. You can find a link to an earlier one here..

Conflict between religion and science has rarely been of more concern. Whereas the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others has little measurable effect, the outcome of a juryless trial in a two-bit Pennsylvania town in 2005 had a profound impact on how science is taught throughout the United States, and beyond. The parents of 11 pupils at the only high school in Dover launched a legal challenge to prevent the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by natural selection. There followed thefts, fires, death threats, a media sensation and a robust verdict. (Adam Rutherford, Nature 450:170; 2007).

Judgment day tells the story of the Dover trial. It airs tonight at 8:00pm on most PBS stations.¹ Once again, Cornelia Dean getis it just right:

Though prominent intelligent design theorists and their allies speak on camera, and their testimony, like that of the scientists, is re-enacted (no cameras were allowed in court), the program as a whole recognizes that there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. (“Battlefield Report From the Evolution War,” New York Times, 11 November 2007)

Let me put that last phrase in bold. It's worth repeating and re-emphasizing: “there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.”

Right on schedule the Discorvery Institute has launched intelligentdesign.org.² They're good at putting up websites, but they don't do science. Don't believe me? Here's what Philip “Father of Intelligent Design” Johnson has to say:

I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world. (from an interview with the Bereley Sceince Review, quoted at Panda's Thumb).

There you have it, from the father of intelligent design creationism himself: there is no credible alternative to the theory of evolution.

¹If you're in Connecticut, CPTV is airing it at 9:00pm. The NOVA at 8:00pm is about a family that walks on all fours. WGBH is airing it at 8:00pm.
²I'm not going to contribute to raising the Google ranks of those sites by linking to them.

From the Congressional Record for 17 October 2007, page [Page: S12980]:

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a project I sponsored in the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health, Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The project, which would develop a plan to promote better science-based education in Ouachita Parish by the Louisiana Family Forum, has raised concerns among some that its intention was to mandate and push creationism within the public schools. That is clearly not and never was the intent of the project, nor would it have been its effect. However, to avoid more hysterics, I would like to move the $100,000 recommended for this project by the subcommittee when the bill goes to conference committee to another Louisiana priority project funded in this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate the sentiments by the Senator from Louisiana and accept this proposal to move the funding for this project to other priority projects for the State of Louisiana in the bill when it goes to conference committee.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with my colleague and will agree to move these funds in conference committee.

The “hysterics” Senator Vitter refers to probably refers to the efforts of many organizations to have the earmark removed. Read more about those efforts here.. Be sure to read the PDF of the letter that was sent to Senators. I'd hardly call it hysterical, but I'm delighted it got the earmark removed.

UPDATE: More information is available at the NCSE webiste.