A new recruit

I've always wondered why the IDiotists and creationists did not go after other scientific fields. Took them long enough.

Bizarre as this seems to us in the UK, in the states, the teaching of one of science's most robust and well-tested theories is a highly controversial matter.

Let's not forget Archeologists they should be targeted as well.

7000 year old buildings which makes them older than creation ...right?

A: As many as they can build! Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin's holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn't doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution.

It is beautiful seeing the DI trying to make the slow wake-up of science to the threat of the IDiots into a bad thing.

Gee, I thought that evolution was controversial in the science community, and that growing numbers of scientists were joining the ID movement. I guess not, rather it seems that science is appalled at anything so idiotic as the DI peddles.

Methinks the IDists have just kicked their wedge out from under the door and are trying to stuff it back in the wrong way round.

Is it through arrogance or sheer stupidity that they are launching a broadside against the whole scientific establishment? Both, probably.

And of course we all know that public acceptance of a particular set of ideas is what makes them true . . .

Not that I likely have to mention it, but a perusal of

http://theocracywatch.org

might be in order. It is much more than just science.

I don't know what this is about, but I'm assuming the facts of the case have been distorted:

For Immediate Release June 13, 2005
Press Contact: Rob Crowther

(206) 292-0401 x107

rob@discovery.org

Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom

SEATTLE -- An effort by three professors at Ohio State University
(OSU) to publicly damage the academic future of a graduate student, Bryan
Leonard, because of his support for teaching about the controversy over
evolution is "an attack on academic freedom and a violation of
professional ethics," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman.

"Bryan Leonard has not even had a chance to defend his dissertation
through the university process and they have gone to the press to try
to discredit him in public," said Chapman.

"It seems to me that the graduate student's real crime in this
group's eyes is that he represents the science teaching policy recently
adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education," added Chapman. "Having
failed to win their way with the state board, they are taking it out on
an unusually promising graduate student who was consulted by the board
in its deliberations. The professors apparently have not even read the
dissertation they are denouncing."

According to an article in the June 9, Columbus Dispatch, OSU
professors Steve Rissing, Brian McEnnis, and Jeffrey McKee are seeking to
discredit the dissertation research of Mr. Leonard, an OSU graduate student
(and current high school biology teacher). Mr. Leonard's dissertation
analyzes how teaching students "the scientific data both supporting and
challenging macroevolution" impacts student beliefs about evolution.

"Last year Prof. Rissing tried unsuccessfully to kill the lesson plan
that Mr. Leonard helped to draft, but he was rebuffed by the Ohio Board
of Education," said Chapman. "Now it appears he and his colleagues are
trying to strangle Mr. Leonard's academic future."

According to the Dispatch, the professors admit that they haven't read
Leonard's dissertation. But that hasn't stopped them from asserting
that Leonard's research is flawed because it "may have involved unethical
human-subject experimentation." But the supposed unethical problem
with human subjects is nothing more than teaching high school students the
scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory along with the evidence
favoring the theory. That kind of teaching is an approach endorsed by
Ohio's official science standards and also the conference report appended
to the federal No Child Left Behind Act."

"The complaining professors are simply defining as 'unethical' any
research that disagrees with their dogmatic view of how to teach
evolution," said Chapman.

"Ohio State University has a number of science professors who publicly
dissent from a Darwin-only policy," added Chapman. "I hope they and
university and state officials will stand up against the power tactics
employed by the ideologues in this case. Otherwise, OSU could become a
national example of tyrannous viewpoint discrimination in higher
education."

In 2002 Science Excellence for All Ohioans released a list of 52 Ohio
scientists publicly supporting academic freedom to teach the scientific
arguments for and against Darwin's theory of evolution. The Ohio
scientists represented a wide range of scientific disciplines, from
entomology (insect zoology) to toxicology, from nuclear chemistry to
engineering, from biochemistry to medicine and surgery. Some of the scientists
are employed in business, industry, and research, but most teach at state
and private universities. A third of the scientists on the list were at
The Ohio State University in Columbus at that time. For more
information visit: http://www.sciohio.org/scientist.htm

###

Saving souls from the corrosive effects of knowledge is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. God insists.

At least our friend David Heddle is helping the Astronomy crowd see the light :)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=67

"Jesus Christ, Heddle spams his unfunny, moronic brand of 'humor' *here*, too? Is there no sanctuary from his crap anywhere?"

Quote courtesy of "Andrew".

The Evolution News and Views of the "Discovery" Institute has a rather hypocritical article at the following URL: http://www.evolutionnews.org/i­ndex.php?title=q_how_many_darw­in_sites_... http://tinyurl.com/d7lyq Here is how it starts: Q: How many Darwin sites does it take to stem the tide of intelligent design? A: As many as they can build! Gee the antievolutionists have a far greater number of websites that the pro-science people do defending science against their attacks. The "New" National Academies site is really nothing more than an index to pre-existing resources some of which are years old.

It is beautiful seeing the DI trying to make the slow wake-up of science to the threat of the IDiots into a bad thing. Gee, I thought that evolution was controversial in the science community, and that growing numbers of scientists were joining the ID movement. I guess not, rather it seems that science is appalled at anything so idiotic as the DI peddles.

I think it's great that more scientists in disciplines other than biology are waking up to ID's far-reaching anti-scientific goals, but they should be aware that these guys are not all YEC's, and those who are are not last generation's Bible-waving YEC's. From all the bloody noses Creationism has gotten in the past decades, they have learned how to make their arguments less obviously cranky, especially to the general public, and harder to argue against.

I am more than happy that Phil Plait wants "to go into battle" (although, frankly, I don't care for the language - it feeds the IDists' "culture war" mythology), but he better learn to know his enemy, or he's in for a surprise.

Ixpata, that situation was discussed here a few days ago:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001127.html#more

It isn't nearly as simple as his being discriminated against for the views he holds. The problem has to do with the makeup of his dissertation committee than with the topic of his thesis.

This may just be their response to the criticism that ID promoters only seem to want to defame evolution theory and not all those other, equally-well supported theories. We asked for it, now we've got it. But then, we know people like that won't settle for 19th-century thinking...they would like to take us back to the 10th century. Theistic science knows no boundaries!

LOL, these are the same asshats that "take no position" on the age of the Earth / Universe.

They do not deserve to be taken seriously, may they get the ridicule they so richly deserve.

Back to the 10th century? More Darwinist exaggeration!
Roger Bacon's On Experimental Science was published in 1268.

The Discovery Institute is doing a fine job of raising the visibility of creationism

B(ig)A(ss)P(ickup)T(ruck)ist (many thanks to SBStory:-)

I think it's great that more scientists in disciplines other than biology are waking up to ID's far-reaching anti-scientific goals, but they should be aware that these guys are not all YEC's, and those who are are not last generation's Bible-waving YEC's.

Not that I likely have to mention it, but a perusal of http://theocracywatch.org . . . might be in order. It is much more than just science.

Pennsylvania, you're next . . . . .

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

R.D.L.Flank: They should also be aware that ID is not a scientific movement, and will not be beaten by scientific arguments. ID is a theocratic political movement, and it must be ebaten in the same way that every OTHER political movement is beaten. And science, sad to say, has very little to do with that. If scientists want to beat the IDers, they will have to get their hands dirty with real grassrooots political work. ... This is a POLITICAL fight, not a scientific one.

You ain't seen nothing in terms of blatant lies, invented "facts", denial of other perspectives, coercion, trickery, and hordes of well-meaning, highly motivated & utterly deluded citizens until you've survived your baptism by fire in the abortion-rights ("pro-choice") arena. Activists in the gay communities can tell much the same story, though references to science and to "science" are fewer than in either the evolution or abortion battles. Appeals to raw emotionalism are more the order of the day, which provides little to attract scientists but illustrates the mechanisms of anti-science crusaders very tellingly.

Dude, you should try being a union organizer in Florida.  ;>

My apologies to all concerned if this cheery chatter in his Official Welcoming Thread sends Phil Plait, like Hal Jordan, back to the stars for ever...

So far there hasn't been a single US scientist's bloody body found dangling on barbed wire, nor even one laboratory firebombed.

Their weak point is all the lies they tell.

Has anyone tried citing some of those lies and then citing John 8:32?  Perhaps with a sly comparison of the most blatant liars to the Prince of Lies?  If we can find a way to convince the faithful that the truth-twisters are closer to heretical than holy, the battle is won.

How 'bout it, science people: who's ready to "get their hands dirty with real grassroots political work" in joint projects with abortion-rights & gay-rights campaigners?

Welcome the new recruits! The Discovery Institute succeeded in being discovered by astronomist, physicists and cosmologists!

Meteorologists - be ready!

We engineers, it seems to me, shall be exempted from this battle. The Bible has nothing against the Stokes equation nor our most famous engineers, like Mr Montgomery "Beam me up, Scotty" Scott, can be compared to Ch. Darwin.

I don't like the warlike metaphor of "recruits". This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be. I think "battle" metaphors have done a lot of damage to western civilization, in the legal system, in philosophy and even in science.

Oops, sorry Steve,
I could only remember that a Raleighite had used that prhase and you were the only Raleigh dweller I could remember. Michael Rathburn said it here.
Paul

jaimito - I'm not so sure we'll be exempted. Remember, part of the ID argument is that methodological naturalism implies naturalism in all things.

That means that if you build a bridge assuming it will stand or fall as the result of natural forces (say, the resistance of concrete to compression), and not by the will of God, you're one of those dirty stinking naturalists!

This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be.

With the leadership (sick) of the Creationists and their ID fronts there really is no way to negotiate and/or compromise. You cannot work with people who openly and knowingly lie about , well, everything and anything in order to control and milk their flocks.
We can be patient and determined, on this and every other issue, and seek out any reasonable person somehow caught on the wrong side for honest and negotiable reasons. True conservatives are by no means the enemy of democracy or science, in the best sense of those words, though they have to learn to see the self-serving nature of (most of) their arguments (as liberals like myself have to recognise the basic suspicions most people have of anything new and unfamiliar).
The key test is: can someone admit they don't have all the answers, and can recognise merit in the arguments of any truth-based opposition. Fanatis cannot, and Fundamentalists almost by definition move towards fanaticism unless checked by reality, or by a determined opposition that saps their numbers.

Yeah, I'm afraid the "civilized academic debate" was settled about a century ago. Scientists have been engaging in that ideal, non-militaristic fashion for quite some time, and still are -- those discussions go on in the pages of the journals. Unfortunately, while we have been doing everything in the proper civilized way, the forces of ignorance have not; they have lied their way into considerable power.

Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids' high school is a creationist. Last year, the education commissioner in my state tried to subvert the recommendations for the state science standards by packing a hand-picked 'minority report' committee to push for required instruction in intelligent design creationism in our schools. All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.

This is insane.

Please don't try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough.

Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids' high school is a creationist. Last year, the education commissioner in my state tried to subvert the recommendations for the state science standards by packing a hand-picked 'minority report' committee to push for required instruction in intelligent design creationism in our schools. All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.

— PZ Meyers

Darkling: I'm just speculating here, but perhaps there are signs that this kind of mindlessness is abating (slowly).  No scientist has been burned at the stake in a long time.  There is genuine progress being made, maybe not necassarily in the US but elsewhere.

PRB: ...who's ready to "get their hands dirty with real grassroots political work" in joint projects with abortion-rights & gay-rights campaigners? Alex: I suspect such an approach would be counter-productive, at least from a science-advocacy position...

But I am hoping that all of us will recognize that we're confronting different heads of the same monster, and offer mutual support whenever possible.

For the newbies to this fight, who may not understand the political realities behind it, I offer:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html

This fight has virtually nothing to do with science, and it will not be won by science.

I don't like the warlike metaphor of "recruits". This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be. I think "battle" metaphors have done a lot of damage to western civilization, in the legal system, in philosophy and even in science.

— Timothy Scriven

For the newbies to this fight, who may not understand the political realities behind it, I offer: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm . . . http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html . . . http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html . . .

— Lenny

Thanks, Lenny, for the obvious effort that you put in to this. I hadn't come across your site yet. Plenty of interesting reading.

I am struck by the irony of 'Rev Dr' Lenny Frank using the poem by Niemöller as an implied criticism of IDs. Thus far, the only people I am aware of who might actually have been persecuted for their beliefs in this whole matter are the IDs themselves. There do appear to be some cases in which ID advocates who otherwise would be accepted as good scientists, have been singled out by their institutions for their views on this issue. Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State is a clear example; the petition against him was organized (was it not?) by a faculty member who serves as faculty advisor to the campus atheist organization--an affiliation he has every right to have, but which also speaks loudly in my view of his attempt to discredit Dr Gonzalez. Just in the past few days, a biologist at the Univ of Idaho had his academic freedom denied by the president, who forbids his *science* faculty from discussing ID in classes, although faculty in other depts may do so if they wish. I regard that as a clear infringement of this scientist's academic freedom.

I am no advocate of ID, as anyone can easily determine. I am however an advocate of academic freedom. If I were given a similar directive, I'd sue the university--and it would be interesting to see whether the ACLU would then do the right thing and take the case.