How the Texas Board of Ed. misrepresented a Nobel Prize winner

Fascinating article. Pity that no one at the meeting knew that her statements were bunk at the time.

Wouldn't it be rich if this Werner Arber were to actually show up at the hearing?

If that letter is read at the hearings, that would be one of the biggest "pwned"'s ever

akg41470,

Looking at the Texas Freedom Network blog, it sounds like that's exactly what Josh did! They're liveblogging the SBOE hearing, I have to read it later.

It should not be surprising that someone who thinks Obama is a Muslim can't understand basic biography and interpretation of persons. It's interesting how this intellectual flaw (more common in women, as confirmed here) permeates ones engagements.

Do you think that any of Cynthia's work is of value?

NS

notedscholar said: It's interesting how this intellectual flaw (more common in women, as confirmed here) permeates ones engagements. NS

Cynthia Dunbar thinks that public schools are unconstitutional and LITERALLY Satanic, that you shouldn't be a politician unless you're a Christian (of her stripe, implicitly), and compares Obama to Adolf Hitler in all seriousness. It's not surprising that she would misrepresent the work of others so drastically. It still feels like a kick in the gut to me, though, when these people get elected to positions of authority where they not only have severe conflicts of interest, but also demonstrate a frightening inability to think rationally, and that they get there by popular vote.

Audio files for all but the first hour of today's first 4+ hours of hearings are posted now at
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/tx-sboe-science-hearings/
I will add the first hour later, and files for the remaining session this afternoon.

Does anyone know whether Judge Jones' ruling at the end of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial was presented as evidence? I hope it was, since he does rule that evolution is indeed a valid scientific theory.

I swear; there’s a “disturbance in the Force.”

We recently got a letter to the editor of our local newspaper from a creationist who resides in Texas. It was full of the same crap and mischaracterizations of science that all ID/Creationists spew.

After a couple of good rebuttals, we now see another blast of the same misconceptions and mischaracterizations from another bunch of ID/creationists.

If the alarm and paranoia on some of our local religion TV channels are any indication, I would say that these fundamentalists are gearing up for war. They are terrified by the election of Obama (“the Muslim”) and the “liberals”, and by the anticipation that they are going to be subjected to persecution and being spied upon, and that their money is going to be taken away from them.

And the new emphasis on returning science to a place of respect and usefulness in government seems to have them in a state of screaming hysteria.

On the other hand, I would be pleased if we finally as a nation started going after these charlatans who have been exploiting fundamentalist religion and spreading all these lies about science, and about evolution especially. This ID/creationist crap has gone beyond any more need for patience and tolerance. These idiots have been messing with our kid’s education for almost a century; and it needs to stop.

Mike Elzinga said: If the alarm and paranoia on some of our local religion TV channels are any indication, I would say that these fundamentalists are gearing up for war.

The richest irony to me, however, is that this political movement is manifestly anti-religious freedom.

Dunbar's misrepresentation of Arber sounds more like incompetence than malice to me. She trusted a source that turned out to be horribly bad. OTOH Josh's point that she blatantly ignored advice from Texas' own Nobel laureates as well as multiple National and State teachers' and science organizations supports the malice hypothesis.

We'll probably get a real-life test of the competing 'incompetence vs. malice' hypotheses soon. If she's disabused of the notion thar Arber's research supports ID, and she stops misrepresenting him, we can conclude that it was probably incompetence. If she keeps misinterpreting his work after being told - by him - that ICR misinterpreted his work, we can conclude malice.

"...was that the genetic code, and genetic mutations are actually built in to a limitation that they can only go so far, which is contrary to the ultimate result of natural selection and all of that."

Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. There is no point being made here, it is just gibberish, technical sounding word salad. I doubt that this person could even define the term "genetic code" let alone "mutation".

As for "built in to a limitation" what does that even mean? Aren't these the same yahoos who are always claiming that the genetic code is perfect and so that proves that God created it? If it's so perfect, why does it have a built in limitation?

Of course everyone knows what "natural selection and all of that" means. It's code for "stuff I don't understand and don't want to believe".

If you want to misrepresent a nobel prize winner, you should at least know what the words mean. Maybe we should ask her if Obama is an American. That might be good for a laugh.

eric said: Dunbar's misrepresentation of Arber sounds more like incompetence than malice to me. She trusted a source that turned out to be horribly bad. OTOH Josh's point that she blatantly ignored advice from Texas' own Nobel laureates as well as multiple National and State teachers' and science organizations supports the malice hypothesis.

It doesn't make any difference to me whether it was malice or incompetence on Dunbar's part. Someone in her position has a responsibility to check the accuracy of her sources before citing them. In this circumstance, incompetence is as bad as, if not worse than, malice.

DS said: Maybe we should ask her if Obama is an American. That might be good for a laugh.

ndt said: It doesn't make any difference to me whether it was malice or incompetence on Dunbar's part. Someone in her position has a responsibility to check the accuracy of her sources before citing them. In this circumstance, incompetence is as bad as, if not worse than, malice.

NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design."[5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.

Everyone reading this needs to remember why the science standards in Texas are so important to everyone else in the US. The state of Texas buys it's textbooks in mass, meaning the history or English or science series decided on is bought for every school district in the state. Because publishers stand to gain VERY large orders, these textbook publishers try to write their books to please the Texas Board of Education. This is the main reason we have had watered down science textbooks in high schools for many years. So do not think this does not effect you, IT DOES!

Whose law is this, again?: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"?

*listening to 4th mp3 of the hearing*
Argh, dino soft tissue.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

ARGH ARGH ARGH.

David Hillis read the concluding paragraph of Arber's letter during his testimony at the hearing. The audio of Hillis is now posted at

http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/tx-sboe-science-hearings/

(I'm still working on some of the others.)

Speaking of misrepresenting: Check out Academic Freedom day.

They should be honest enough to tell their supporters that any "controvery" around evolution is manufactured, and is based on them lying in various forms.

Where was their stand for "academic freedom" during the original scopes trial?

Stupid me, I forgot this info:

C:\>whois academicfreedomday.com

Whois v1.01 - Domain information lookup utility
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
Copyright (C) 2005 Mark Russinovich

Connecting to COM.whois-servers.net...
Connecting to whois.dotster.com...

Discovery Institute
208 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 98104
US

Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: ACADEMICFREEDOMDAY.COM
Created on: 04-SEP-08
Expires on: 04-SEP-09
Last Updated on: 09-NOV-08

Administrative, Technical Contact:
Scholz, Matthew webmaster@discovery.org
Discovery Institute
208 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 98104
US
206-292-0401

Domain servers in listed order:
NS18.ZONEEDIT.COM
NS17.ZONEEDIT.COM

End of Whois Information

Reynold said: Speaking of misrepresenting: Check out Academic Freedom day. They should be honest enough to tell their supporters that any "controvery" around evolution is manufactured, and is based on them lying in various forms. Where was their stand for "academic freedom" during the original scopes trial?

Maybe they're afraid because they keep losing in court, but "Academic Freedom Day" does not go nearly far enough to combat the "tyranny" of "Darwinists." Academic Free-For-All Day" is much better. ;-)

Dave Luckett said: Whose law is this, again?: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"?

Frank J said: Did Dunbar innocently misinterpret Arber, or was it deliberate misrepresentation? If it's the former, we should expect a retraction soon. Instead of embarrassing herself with ICR she should have just consulted the Discovery Institute. Except:

NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design."[5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.

Wheels said: In the interest of teaching the controversy and demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of everything, why not disclose the Creation Science origins of ID

I occasionally wonder what it would be like if the DI, and the ID people, were being honest about pursuing a new science called ID. They've got to know that we have very, very good reasons for not trusting them, and I, myself, would have gone out of my way to recognise these reasons.

For example, I can't recall people ever explaining why Of Pandas and People can be, and was, turned from a creationist book to an Intelligent Design book, by simple word substitution. Instead, they tell you that ID doesn't mention a designer, therefore it's not religious, and expect you to forget the evidence above that it's a scam.

Or there's the wedge document which tells us that they're going to invent some kind of teleological science and force it into schools, but we're told this is just a fundraising document. And yet, they have invented a teleological science and tried to force it into schools.

Even IF the above was just paranoia, have you ever heard them try to reassure people about it, like a friendly scientist might?

Anyone know where to get the email address' for the Texas Board?
I would love to send them an email....

Living in the South as I do (a fairly recent move from the Northwest) and seeing what is going on in this part of the country, I can say unequivocally that Ms. Dunbar is absolutely certain of her stance, and feels absolutely justified in doing whatever she feels she has to do.  So characterizing it as either malace or incompetence is not very accurate. Although incompetent she appears to be. She feels that the word of God, as she and thousands if not millions of others have chosen to interpret it, is the only truth - so powerful that even in the midst of overwhelming worldly evidence (worldly being an important word here), that evolution and many other findings by science must be false.  Because they contradict what she knows to be absolutely true no matter what.  She is convinced that with time the fundamentalist views will be vindicated.  So she gloms onto items like the ICR article on Arber. It was sloppy sure, and she will hopefully be called on it. But that will not deter her and her ilk from continuing their mission to rid America of the secularist poison, and it will certainly not deter her from continuing to cherry pick their "evidence". I think many of us who think more rationally underestimate the strength of the fundamentalist's convictions and resolve.  As some have blogged repeatedly, there is no reasoning with this kind of person - ever.  After all - reasoning is a worldly thing, so much smaller than the true word. So very dangerous - accurately called the American Taliban.

Were it not for the fact that Texas' (and therefore much of the US's) science textbooks are at stake, this would not hold too much interest for me. But since it is, I am very grateful that she is being watched so closely. I only hope that her sleazy tactics are shown for what they are to a large enough audience, such that reason will prevail during this continuing process.

I wonder, if all else fails, if a lawsuit can be filed at this juncture rather than later. Or will it be too late and the textbooks ultimately get published.

"a concept only ever applied to evolution, and without any clear explanation of what it means."

You want to know what it means? Read the current issue of Newsweek Magazine Jan. 26,2009, Page 18, and then go look up the research studies cited there.

I'll give you a hint: This is how the article concludes: "But evidence for the new Lamarckism is strong enough to say the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written."

Silver Fox said: "a concept only ever applied to evolution, and without any clear explanation of what it means." You want to know what it means? Read the current issue of Newsweek Magazine...

Silver Fox said: "a concept only ever applied to evolution, and without any clear explanation of what it means." You want to know what it means? Read the current issue of Newsweek Magazine Jan. 26,2009, Page 18, and then go look up the research studies cited there. I'll give you a hint: This is how the article concludes: "But evidence for the new Lamarckism is strong enough to say the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written."

Almost forgot:

5. Silver Fox knows all of the above and is grasping at straws to justify the idiocy of the TBOE.

Frank J said: Maybe they're afraid because they keep losing in court, but "Academic Freedom Day" does not go nearly far enough to combat the "tyranny" of "Darwinists." Academic Free-For-All Day" is much better. ;-)

Some of these studies will not hold up, as is typical with revolutionary new science. And resistance to what is being dubbed "the renaissance of heresy" is firm; one scientist called a paper on this stuff "a misguided attempt at scientific humor." But evidence for the new Lamarckism is strong enough to say the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written.

Jay Wheaton said: She [Ms. Dunbar] is convinced that with time the fundamentalist views will be vindicated.  So she gloms onto items like the ICR article on Arber.

Just quote the Dover court transcripts where Behe and Minnich both testify under oath that no scientific paper that they know of supports the intelligent design “science” including their own papers. My bet is that they were among the authors that did not respond so you can take several more publications off the list.

— Ron Okimoto

The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution.

Jay Wheaton said: P.S. the post from "email" was me. I must've had a mental burp. Apologies for the inadvertant sockpuppeting.

Hmm...how does Bobby do this? Oh yes, I remember. Never hit reply; remove all quoting, and; respond with a smarmy and irrelevant one-liner.

> BAN HIM!!!! ;P

>Thought I'd be Bobby to the punch.

Up your nose with a rubber hose. :)

Silver Fox said: "a concept only ever applied to evolution, and without any clear explanation of what it means." You want to know what it means? Read the current issue of Newsweek Magazine Jan. 26,2009, Page 18, and then go look up the research studies cited there. I'll give you a hint: This is how the article concludes: "But evidence for the new Lamarckism is strong enough to say the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written."

Silver Fox said: [Newsweek magazine] concludes: "the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written."

I love the "I'll give you a hint" snark, combined with the citation of "Newsweek" as a source. It's a perfect double whammy: SF is both clueless enough to think that "Newsweek" is an authority on interpreting research, and arrogant enough to think that actual researchers in the field would need his help to understand its (commonplace) pronouncements.

But it gets even better. SF compounds his ignorance and arrogance by projecting it on to scientists, as if any researcher in any field of science would ever think that "the last word" has been written on any of it.

But even that isn't the full extent of SF's terrible self-exposure. The full epic idiocy of it lies in the blind assumption that it were some sort of indictment of any field of human knowledge to say that "the last word has not been written" on it. It's as if there were something on which the last word has been written, and the speaker thinks he knows that word.

As my Welsh grandfather would have said, "My, there's stupid for you."

Luckett:

"The full epic idiocy of it lies in the blind assumption that it were some sort of indictment of any field of human knowledge to say that “the last word has not been written”

Actually, If you read Sharon Begley's first commentary on science in the Newsweek edition of Jan. 12,2009 on Page 17 she states clearly that scientists do act as if the last word has been written. Here's a quote: "Scientists are suppose to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on."

Here's another one: "But really we shouldn't be surprised, proponents of a particular viewpoint, especially if their reputation is based on the accuracy of that viewpoint, cling to it like a shipwrecked man to flotsam. Studies that undermine their position, they say, are fatally flawed."

Begley, SF, "states" no such thing. She makes an unfounded assertion, as anyone who understands what a "source" is, and what "research" means, would know. Her assertion is, in my opinion, a gross canard against science and scientists. Were it made of any person in particular, it would certainly be libellous.

I make the opposite assertion. Of all the people I have ever known, research scientists are the most likely to change their opinions when confronted with new and contrary evidence, and religious people are the least. That assertion has the exact same status as Begley's: none. It isn't evidence. The EVIDENCE is the evidence.

The hilarious, and tragic, aspect of all this is that you really don't know, and don't care to know, what evidence is, or what the evidence is in this case. That's the very definition of invincible ignorance.

So, Silver Fox, please tell us why you speak as though Newsweek has the last word on inheritance and evolution?

It isn't even a scientific journal, so, why do you insist we care about what they say, even though we've already pointed out to you that what Ms Begley says is either oversensationalized to the point of wrong or is old news?

Silver Fox, you've provided us with a perfect example here of why so many of us simply don't trust those on the ID creationism side. What are we to think when the only information that you highlight is either a pack of lies, or as is the case here, completely mangles and misrepresents what scientists actually believe?

You give yourselves away far too easily, because you never highlight anything that is supportive of M.E.T. So don't come over all, "I was only showing you an article", because it was plainly obvious from your first post on pharyngula that you were attempting to be clever, as usual.

Luckily, there are real scientists who have dedicated their lives to this kind of thing, and while all research is exciting, far too often science journalists (or their employers, more likely) feel that they need hype the research beyond all recognition.

In the end, I would like to thank you for providing us with this chance to set the record straight. It's just a shame that you aren't intellectually honest enough to own up to your original intentions, and then modify your behavior accordingly. Prove me wrong.

Silver Fox, you’ve provided us with a perfect example here of why so many of us simply don’t trust those on the ID creationism side. What are we to think when the only information that you highlight is either a pack of lies, or as is the case here, completely mangles and misrepresents what scientists actually believe?

— Damian

So, Silver Fox, please tell us why you speak as though Newsweek has the last word on inheritance and evolution? It isn’t even a scientific journal, so, why do you insist we care about what they say, even though we’ve already pointed out to you that what Ms Begley says is either oversensationalized to the point of wrong or is old news?

— Stanton

“Scientists are suppose to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on.”

A few typos there:

"Creationists are supposed to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on.”

“But really we shouldn’t be surprised, proponents of a particular viewpoint such as creationism, especially if their reputation is based on the accuracy of that viewpoint, cling to it like a shipwrecked man to flotsam. Studies that undermine their position, they say, are fatally flawed.”

There, all fixed.

Seriously, here we have a case where a real scientist did real research and got real evidence. Then some creationist nut job comes along and mangles the results to fit their own misconceptions. Who exactly is the one who is not following the evidence? It's not the scientist, it's the cherry picker with no knowlwdge, no research and no clue what they are even talking about.

Very telling that slimy fox also ignores all of that evidence trying to make a case against it.

Silver Fox said: Luckett: "The full epic idiocy of it lies in the blind assumption that it were some sort of indictment of any field of human knowledge to say that “the last word has not been written” Actually, If you read Sharon Begley's first commentary on science in the Newsweek edition of Jan. 12,2009 on Page 17 she states clearly that scientists do act as if the last word has been written. Here's a quote: "Scientists are suppose to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on." Here's another one: "But really we shouldn't be surprised, proponents of a particular viewpoint, especially if their reputation is based on the accuracy of that viewpoint, cling to it like a shipwrecked man to flotsam. Studies that undermine their position, they say, are fatally flawed."

“Scientists are suppose to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on.”

PS
Very well said eric.

Dear eric,

I'm not impressed with Ms. Begley's proclaimation that "Neo-Lamarckism" is back. Her article is a somewhat mild version of the sensationalist inanity that I've read from Suzan Mazur with respect to last year's "Altenberg 16" conference. I think it behooves Begley and Mazur to start writing more responsibly, emulating the likes of Carl Zimmer, Cornelia Dean, Chris Mooney and Natalie Angier, among others. If Carl Zimmer - who graduated with a B. A. degree in English from Yale - can demonstrate that he can write convincingly about evolutionary biology - indeed all of biology, from paleoanthropology to microbes - without earning science degrees, then what is their excuse?

Appreciatively yours,

John

Frank J,

Admittedly this is a bit off topic, but I must recommend to you, Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It's quite probably the best, most succinct, summary of the evidence for evolution that's been published lately:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Regards,

John

John Kwok said: I'm not impressed with Ms. Begley's proclaimation that "Neo-Lamarckism" is back...If Carl Zimmer...can demonstrate that he can write convincingly about evolutionary biology...without earning science degrees, then what is their excuse?

A scientist who could prove the existence of God by some scientific study such a biological proof of ID would be up there with Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein. Possibly above them!

— chuck

Thanks, John,

I was just thinking of Coyne, whom I hope to see at Penn on Feb. 12, when I read Chuck's statement "A scientist who could prove the existence of God by some scientific study such a biological proof of ID would be up there with Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein." It was Coyne, who, over a decade ago, made me realize that those who proclaim themselves to rank with the legends are never the ones who earn that reputation. Yet they are the ones who are inclined to quote mine instead of conducting original research to support their extraordinary claims.

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

Frank J said: Sure, and so would a scientist who finds a better explanation than Darwinian evolution without invoking God, design, etc. Even a return to Lamarckian evolution would do the trick.

Frank - I think many creationists reject your line of reasoning because they think scientists are mirror images of themselves. I.e. more concerned with promoting an ideology than exploring nature. There is no motivation for scientists acting like scientists to suppress ID, but if you start with the (wrong) assumption that scientists are an opposing group of religious extremists merely with a different religion, it makes perfect sense.

Gary - that is sad to see. I guess I will have to daydream about Texas Bio teachers using this amendment to teach their classes how common descent is fully and completely sufficient to describe the appearance of life, legally protected from the complaints of creationist students and parents alike.

Oops, I said Frank where I meant to say Chuck. Sorry about the misattribution. And Chuck, your point was not poorly expressed at all.

Gary Hurd said: Well, it turns out that the creationists pulled of a last minute win yesterday with the following amendment to the curricula:

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

It was introduced by creato-dentist McLeroy, and passed. Read more at Tony Whitson’s blog

It was introduced by creato-dentist McLeroy, and passed. Read more at Tony Whitson’s blog.

— Gary Hurd

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

How could you do both? Do you just get to choose whether it is sufficient or not? Do the experts claim that it is sufficient? How are grade school teachers supposed to decide? Can they base their decision on their religious views?

By the way, common descent doesn't really explain the rate of evolution, so the question is nonsensical in the first place. And sudden appearance of what, the fossil record? This is like saying, explain how gravity can be different on two different planets. Just because it isn't the same everywhere at all times doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Common descent does explain the "sequential" nature of the fossil record and students should be taught why.

It's almost as if the person who wrote this doesn't understand even the first thing about evolution and just wanted to try to give teachers the freedom to display the same ignorance. Of course we all know what will happen if they try to do that. Can you say Dover II?

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

I would like to see a sample paragraph clarifying what was going on in their minds when they wrote this.

— Richard Simons

I slightly disagree with Dave Luckett on this. Yeah, Ms. Begley's opinion is merely her opinion. But the opinion that individual scientists have a hard time letting go of their pet beliefs is an old one, and not particularly unusual. Sometimes its true, sometimes it isn't. Where Silver Fox completely misses the boat is in taking a comment about scientists and thinking it applies to science. That individual scientists have typical human foibles does not indict science as a discipline. Individual scientists may be stubborn, petty, self-centered, whatever. Its still true that science as a discipline is constantly embracing new ideas and revising old ones. Silver Fox, even a cursory, simpleton's review of the last couple of hundred years of scientific advancement shows this. How could you miss it?

As far as the reference to the fossil record and common descent, I believe the problem is that the anti-evolutionists believe that the fossil record is the only evidence that there is for anything relating to evolution.

As far as the reference to the fossil record and common descent, I believe the problem is that the anti-evolutionists believe that the fossil record is the only evidence that there is for anything relating to evolution.

— TomS

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

2:47 - Cargill wants what she calls “some qualifying language” in the ESS standards: - She wants students to learn “differing theories” about “the structure, scale, composition, origin and history of the universe.” This is a stealth effort to allow “intelligent design” into classrooms. Craig, Miller and others don’t seem to be buying into it. 3:06 - Cargill’s amendment passes 8-7, with Hardy voting in favor. [From http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/ ESS is Earth and Space Science, I think.]