Too much evolution for superintendent of schools

I commend Mr. Holliday for writing such a clear, lucid, statement explaining what science is. It is one worth reminding all the creotard lurkers dropping by here.

and Ricky either didn't read it, didn't learn it, or choose to willfully ignore the message in order to preach.

I'm guessing that the Kentucky Board of Education doesn't have the authority to replace the Superintendent for being constitutionally and Constitutionally unfit and incapable of performing his duties? I'm also guessing that Evolution is not taught at all in his district, and that nobody in Hart County is going to complain of the lack. Good for Mr. Holliday for sticking up for science. In Kentucky, yet. At least he's not another Don McLeroy.

Perhaps Mr. Line should be required to take an introductory course in evolution at the University of Louisville. It's only 90 minutes away. And their Biology Department has a Division of Evolution, Ecology and Behavioral Biology. Or perhaps Mr. Line would like some one-on-one counseling with the faculty there. I imagine that they would be absolutely delighted to provide some personal instruction to Mr. Line. This could be a wonderful learning experience.

Hello Matt. Do you have a reference for your lengthier quotes? The quotes in the article in the Lexington Herald-Leader don't seem to be as complete as yours. I wonder if a word to the Biology Department at U. of Louisville would be of any use, or if they could provide any useful instruction for Mr. Line? Professor Dugatkin appears to have recently written a new text book on Evolution, and appears to be an active public speaker.

Is there any precedent for colleges to "adopt" local school districts who might be in academic trouble, such as Hart County? I would probably not recommend the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also in Louisville. :-)

Ricky: "I never came from no monkey."

Terry: "Yeah, you did. Suck it up, princess."

Chris Comer was fired in Texas for forwarding a memo advising a seminar on the Theory of Evolution. Not a peep out of the creationist noise machine.

What's the chances this bozo will be fired for (a) indicating his unwillingness to supervise the teaching of the State science standards in public schools - that is, his unwillingness to do his job - and (b) indicating his readiness to violate the Constitution by allowing a religious doctrine to be taught in public schools, in terms which imply that he knows that teachers under his supervision are already doing just that?

Not high, I'll bet, but if it did happen, the screams of privileged entitlement would resound to the Throne of God, if He had one.

Of course he should be out of a job. Right now.

Dave Luckett said: Chris Comer was fired in Texas for forwarding a memo advising a seminar on the Theory of Evolution. Not a peep out of the creationist noise machine. What's the chances this bozo will be fired for (a) indicating his unwillingness to supervise the teaching of the State science standards in public schools - that is, his unwillingness to do his job - and (b) indicating his readiness to violate the Constitution by allowing a religious doctrine to be taught in public schools, in terms which imply that he knows that teachers under his supervision are already doing just that? Not high, I'll bet, but if it did happen, the screams of privileged entitlement would resound to the Throne of God, if He had one. Of course he should be out of a job. Right now.

Before I even read it, the title made a bell go off. The DI keeps whining that schools don't teach enough evolution. Of course they mean that they want evolution plus misrepresentation, but thay still conflicts with the demand to teach less evolution. This is a golden opportunity to force these scam artists to get their stories straight. IOW to demand that they lead, follow or get out of the way.

Frank J said: Of course they mean that (the Discovery Institute) want evolution plus misrepresentation, but thay still conflicts with the demand to teach less evolution.

Ricky wrote:

"The proposed standards and accompanying End-of-Course exam would require many science teachers to sacrifice their values merely so that students can pass the test and course .…"

Yes, that's exactly what it does. It requires that teachers put aside their own religious beliefs, their own prejudices, their own misunderstandings, their own needs and desires and teach the actual science in science class. That's the standard in the profession. That is what is demanded by the constitution.

Now of course Ricky brings his own beliefs into the discussion, as if he had the right to demand that the tax funded school be run according to his personal beliefs. He ignores the fact that others have differing beliefs. He wants those beliefs to be ignored so that his beliefs can have precedence. Hr doesn't even see the hypocricy in his position.

This is what you can expect to see if you actually start requiring science to be taught in science class as the constitution requires. Teachers and administrators everywhere are going to demand that their own religious beliefs be respected. What they have to realize is that that is not the way a government funded institution can be run in this country. If they are only teaching to promote their own religious beliefs, perhaps they should consider another profession. At least they have Freshwater as an example of what not to do.

Scott F said: Hello Matt. Do you have a reference for your lengthier quotes? The quotes in the article in the Lexington Herald-Leader don't seem to be as complete as yours. I wonder if a word to the Biology Department at U. of Louisville would be of any use, or if they could provide any useful instruction for Mr. Line? Professor Dugatkin appears to have recently written a new text book on Evolution, and appears to be an active public speaker. Is there any precedent for colleges to "adopt" local school districts who might be in academic trouble, such as Hart County? I would probably not recommend the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also in Louisville. :-)

Do you have a reference for your lengthier quotes?

It strikes me as odd that the superintendant would release such a letter publicly...unless he's gearing up for a run for some higher elected office??? This certainly has a lot of the marks of a publicity stunt.

Good for the Comissioner. About the only quibble I can make with his response is that it would've been nice for him to mention that there's both the theory of evolution and facts of it.

The Discovery Institute only wants the misrepresentations...

— apokryltaros

I take no issue with the teaching of microevolution,...

— The superintendent who rote-memorized catchy sound bites instead of thinking for himself

...while totally omitting the creation story by a God who is bigger than all of us. I do not believe in macroevolution, and I do believe in creation by our God.

They have to teach some facts in order to spin them as being “weak,”

Just wanted to point out that - whether Line knows it or not - this part of his letter essentially ended any chance he had of sneaking design into the standards by claiming its not religious. Thank you, Mr. Line.

Opposition to evolution is very general in the population and its absurd not to teach what somes ignorants ones thinks is wrong but impossible to suffer only what is wrong being allowed to be taught.
Its absurd in a free nation in institutions dedicated to teaching the intelligent conclusions on subjects that real science should not be taught.
One feels in ones gut the schools are banning the truth and the persuit of truth if they are teaching unscientific nonsense such as creationism.
so every now and then someone says somthing, so whats?
Here we go again.

Here we go again.

Robert Byers said: Opposition to evolution is very general in the population and its absurd to teach what ones thinks is wrong but impossible to suffer only what is wrong being allowed to be taught. Its absurd in a free nation in institutions dedicated to teaching the intelligent conclusions on subjects. One feels in ones gut the schools are banning the truth and the persuit of truth. so every now and then someone says somthing. Here we go again.

Matt Young said:

Here we go again.

Please do not respond to the Byers troll.

Byers, I was going to leave a long reply but it looks like you have been moved to the bathroom wall.

However one point in particular should be made (again) regardless.

A teacher is paid to teach the course outline. The teachers personal views are irrelevant. If I believe the sky is pink and that unicorns disprove the big bang, that is fine as long as I teach what I am paid to teach. It is called professionalism.

Inserting ones own beliefs into a course outline is not appropriate unless one is getting paid to do just that.

The course outline should be determined by the state of the art of that we are trying to teach. In Biology, science says evolution is probably correct and it says evolution is very well established and solid. So that is what we should teach.

If we had a class where the multiverse was appropriate subject matter to teach, then since the multiverse is considered not so well established it should be taught the for and against. Keep in mind that would be the scientific for and against not creationist bovine scatology for and against. It is a science class, not a creationist bovine scatology class.

DS said: Opposition to evolution is very general in the population and its absurd not to teach what somes ignorants ones thinks is wrong but impossible to suffer only what is wrong being allowed to be taught. Its absurd in a free nation in institutions dedicated to teaching the intelligent conclusions on subjects that real science should not be taught. One feels in ones gut the schools are banning the truth and the persuit of truth if they are teaching unscientific nonsense such as creationism. so every now and then someone says somthing, so whats? Here we go again.

Now here's one to watch. The History Channel tonight is airing a show called "Proving God."

They describe it as "For centuries, science and faith have been polarized on some of the most fundamental questions in the universe, sometimes with deadly consequences. But as mankind seeks to answer the ultimate question – whether God exists – religion and science have joined in an unlikely alliance. Can new scientific discoveries and digital age technology reveal tangible proof of God? From the far reaches of the cosmos to the inner working of the human mind, scientists and believers around the world are using science to open new frontiers in this ultimate quest."

It's airing on the west coast at 9-11 PST. You might check your local listings to see if it's airing elsewhere.

At first I thought it was a Dishonesty Institute special, and likely they might have had some input. Anyway, for what it's worth, which I suspect it will amount to nothing.

Holliday insisted Monday that Kentucky will not be teaching evolution as fact. Currently, teachers can discuss theories of creation other than evolution but they are not required to teach them. In an earlier response to Line, Holliday wrote that end-of-course tests are intended to reflect college and career readiness and "promote more rigor and depth in traditional courses."

Leszek said: A teacher is paid to teach the course outline. The teachers personal views are irrelevant. If I believe the sky is pink and that unicorns disprove the big bang, that is fine as long as I teach what I am paid to teach. It is called professionalism.

eric said:

Leszek said: A teacher is paid to teach the course outline. The teachers personal views are irrelevant. If I believe the sky is pink and that unicorns disprove the big bang, that is fine as long as I teach what I am paid to teach. It is called professionalism.

This cannot be emphasized enough with the trolls. You CAN teach bible study. You CAN teach the history of design arguments. Real U.S. classes exist that do this. But they do it as an elective - they do not try and hijack the biology curriculum. Because, as Leszek points out, design arguments are not part of mainstream science or mainstream science curriculum.

What the trolls need to ask themselves is why they don't think this is good enough. Why the insistence on pushing it into the biology curriculum when people who want to take it can do so as an elective?

Could it be because the whole purpose is to force people who don't want to listen to Christian theology to listen to it? Is it 'physics envy,' - i.e., an attempt to illegitimately co-opt some of the reputation and authority of the physical sciences? Or is it both?

The world's newest logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Plutonium.

Matt G said: The world's newest logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Plutonium.

phhht said:

Matt Young said:

Here we go again.

Please do not respond to the Byers troll.

Sorry.

IBelieveInScientificIlliteracy said: Are you admitting that the majority don't believe in evolution?

Matt Young will probably say: Please do not respond to the other troll either.

IBIG - I think Mr. Line's creationist beliefs may be representative of many of the good people of Hart county, yes.

Which is why I am very glad Mr. Holliday to the time and effort to provide such a comprehensive answer. We should hope that everyone who read Mr. Line's letter and initially tended to agree with it, would then have read Mr. Holliday's letter and learned something they hadn't known before about the distinction between fact and theory.

As for the Pluto thing...I hope you will agree that that was a terribly ignorant analogy for Line to try and use, and shows an abysmal misunderstanding of the difference between an argument over nomenclature vs. an argument over the best explanation for empirically observed facts.

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said: It strikes me as odd that the superintendant would release such a letter publicly...unless he's gearing up for a run for some higher elected office??? This certainly has a lot of the marks of a publicity stunt.

But why would it help him if the majority of the general public believe in evolution? Are you admitting that the majority don't believe in evolution?

They have to teach some facts in order to spin them as being “weak,”

But why would it help him if the majority of the general public believe in evolution? Are you admitting that the majority don’t believe in evolution?

raven said: 2. Strengths of the Theory of Evolution, Hmmmm, well there aren't any. It's all goddidit and every biologist in the world has been wrong for 150 years.

Matt Young will probably say: Please do not respond to the other troll either.

When I first ran into the fundies, one thing really jumped out at me.

They set their children up to fail.

Rather than valuing education and knowledge, they fear and hate it. They fear science, the basis of our modern 21st century civilization and responsible for US leadership in the world. The basis of our economic successes.

Some of them homeschool so they can keep their children as ignorant as they are. (Not knocking homeschooling per se, it can be done well or poorly).

Some of them openly discourage and prevent their kids from going to real colleges and universities.

The result is known, fundies score low in education and IQ, low in socioeconomic status.

Rick Line, the superintendent of schools of Hart country, probably doesn't have a problem with setting the kids up to fail in the name of their Sky Monster god.

eric said:

Leszek said: A teacher is paid to teach the course outline. The teachers personal views are irrelevant. If I believe the sky is pink and that unicorns disprove the big bang, that is fine as long as I teach what I am paid to teach. It is called professionalism.

This cannot be emphasized enough with the trolls. You CAN teach bible study. You CAN teach the history of design arguments. Real U.S. classes exist that do this. But they do it as an elective - they do not try and hijack the biology curriculum. Because, as Leszek points out, design arguments are not part of mainstream science or mainstream science curriculum. What the trolls need to ask themselves is why they don't think this is good enough. Why the insistence on pushing it into the biology curriculum when people who want to take it can do so as an elective? Could it be because the whole purpose is to force people who don't want to listen to Christian theology to listen to it? Is it 'physics envy,' - i.e., an attempt to illegitimately co-opt some of the reputation and authority of the physical sciences? Or is it both?

Dave Luckett said: What's the chances this bozo will be fired for (a) indicating his unwillingness to supervise the teaching of the State science standards in public schools - that is, his unwillingness to do his job - and (b) indicating his readiness to violate the Constitution by allowing a religious doctrine to be taught in public schools, in terms which imply that he knows that teachers under his supervision are already doing just that?

Time for another dump to the bathroom wall.

Atheistoclast said: I have no problem with Darwinian evolutionism being taught in philosophy class but not as a science. If schools want to teach about peppered moths and antibiotic bacteria, I am fine with that. But claiming the origin of major phyla, order and genera is the result of modifications in the genome is an outright lie which must be suppressed at all costs.

Dave Lovell said:

Atheistoclast said: I have no problem with Darwinian evolutionism being taught in philosophy class but not as a science. If schools want to teach about peppered moths and antibiotic bacteria, I am fine with that. But claiming the origin of major phyla, order and genera is the result of modifications in the genome is an outright lie which must be suppressed at all costs.

I would contend that lies need to be exposed for what they are. Only the truth needs to be suppressed.

He went on to explain why science is not a system of belief

I don’t think life on earth began as a one-celled organism.

I don’t think that all of us came from a common ancestor

I don’t think the Big Bang theory describes the explanation of the origin of the universe.

treeowl said: I'm a strong supporter of science, but I firmly believe that it is a system of belief, based primarily upon the notion that experiments are meaningful—this is the same basic notion that underlies inferential statistics.

I don’t think life on earth began as a one-celled organism.

I don’t think that all of us came from a common ancestor.

Michael Behe thinks so. Have you challenged him directly?

Lovely. So Superintendent Line got a crappy science education, and now he intends to pass on the favor.

Ignorance, the gift that keeps on giving.

Sadly, just like Isaac Newton could stand on the shoulders of giants to see a bit farther, and in his turn add his own 6 feet to the stack, idiots like this are happy to dig us deeper into a hole, and do their best to pass on the shovel to the next generation.

treeowl said:

He went on to explain why science is not a system of belief

I'm a strong supporter of science, but I firmly believe that it is a system of belief, based primarily upon the notion that experiments are meaningful—this is the same basic notion that underlies inferential statistics. I'd be very interested in reading his argument to the contrary.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

treeowl said: I'm a strong supporter of science, but I firmly believe that it is a system of belief, based primarily upon the notion that experiments are meaningful—this is the same basic notion that underlies inferential statistics.

There isn't any theory of "meaning" in science mechanisms any more than there is "purpose" in nature. Science is useful. Or we would not put comments on the web, since science was used to elucidate and improve the workings of the transistors that makes up web infrastructure. Hence you can ask a transistor if it is useful. But if you try to ask a transistor if it is "meaningful" you won't get an answer. "0" and "1" only code meaning within a specific code system. (Say, sentences.) Transistors are not post-modern, they are simply modern. And science is obviously not belief anyway. Belief systems are in the business to replace facts with belief, while science is in the business to replace belief with facts. They are conflicting ideas.

treeowl said: Certainly the principle of faith that science depends on is a far simpler one than any religion I've ever heard of, but nevertheless faith is needed.

From the NCSE FB page, I found this link to Ricky Line's letter, and assuming that this is indeed the text, not only is it replete in its acute breathtaking inanity, but I think Line has given others some sound reasons as to why he should either resign or be fired from his position:

http://www.pageonekentucky.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/rickyletter.pdf

(NOTE: This was posted by someone else, not by NCSE staff. Wonder Matt if you can confirm whether this is indeed the entire text of Line's letter.)

treeowl said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

treeowl said: I'm a strong supporter of science, but I firmly believe that it is a system of belief, based primarily upon the notion that experiments are meaningful—this is the same basic notion that underlies inferential statistics.

There isn't any theory of "meaning" in science mechanisms any more than there is "purpose" in nature. Science is useful. Or we would not put comments on the web, since science was used to elucidate and improve the workings of the transistors that makes up web infrastructure. Hence you can ask a transistor if it is useful. But if you try to ask a transistor if it is "meaningful" you won't get an answer. "0" and "1" only code meaning within a specific code system. (Say, sentences.) Transistors are not post-modern, they are simply modern. And science is obviously not belief anyway. Belief systems are in the business to replace facts with belief, while science is in the business to replace belief with facts. They are conflicting ideas.

Let me be more concrete: I believe that if I run a randomized, controlled, (if relevant double-blind) experiment with a large pool of subjects/many repetitions to test a hypothesis, and my results, analyzed appropriately, indicate 99.8% confidence in the hypothesis (meaning literally that the probability of getting those results if the hypothesis is false is 0.2%), then I can infer that the hypothesis is most likely true. The validity of that sort of analysis is a matter of faith in an irreducible principle. Someone who believes that the universe does not behave according to fixed laws (whether for religious reasons or other ones) cannot honestly claim to believe this. Certainly the principle of faith that science depends on is a far simpler one than any religion I've ever heard of, but nevertheless faith is needed. An additional issue, of a slightly different variety, is that science uses the language and tools of mathematics, and mathematical systems rich enough to serve the needs of science cannot be proven consistent. Their consistency is a matter of conditional faith, in the sense that science will happily abandon any system shown to be inconsistent, but in the mean time operates as though there were no doubt in that regard.

Wonder Matt if you can confirm whether this is indeed the entire text of Line’s letter.

My impression is that Mr. treeowl is merely stating the problem of induction. Why is everyone so bent out of shape?

Matt Young said: My impression is that Mr. treeowl is merely stating the problem of induction. Why is everyone so bent out of shape?

An alert reader (actually the same one who sent me the two letters) has just directed me to a blog that claims to be "in defense of the obvious." All I can say is, be very, very careful when you think something is obvious; much that seems obvious is dead wrong.

At any rate, the author of the blog ran a post that defends Mr. Line and demonstrates just enough erudition to hide the anti-scientific tenor of the post. If you haven't enough time or patience, I suggest you scroll directly down to the comment by Scott Goodman, who really hits the nail on the head.

Sorry, it's late (for me, anyway), and I forgot to add that my informant says that the author "is the Discovery Institute's point man in Kentucky. He often submits these rants as op eds to state newspapers."

Matt Young said: Sorry, it's late (for me, anyway), and I forgot to add that my informant says that the author "is the Discovery Institute's point man in Kentucky. He often submits these rants as op eds to state newspapers."