9 Responses to “From Deep in the Heart of Texas”

1. The Pixie Again Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 8:41 am

   For balance, see also here

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 26, 2009 @ 8:41 am

2. The Pixie Again Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 9:11 am

   With regards to McLeroy's piece…

   The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom.

   Actually, that decree was made by a right-wing, Christian judge in Dover.

   The elite fear that "unscientific" weaknesses of evolution will be inserted into the textbooks, leaving students without a good science education and unprepared for the future, compelling businesses to shun "illiterate" Texas.

   I guess by "elite" here, McLeroy means those people who actually understand the science. It sounds so much better in a culture war to relabel your more knowledgeable opponents as "elite", I guess. But yes, those whose agenda is promoting good science do indeed fear that students will get a bad science eduction. Just as those those agenda is the promotion of fundamentalist Christian fear that children will get a good science education.

   The editorial writers incessantly argue that evolution skeptics are motivated by religion, that they are anti-science and fundamentally dishonest.

   Wiki says of McLeroy: "McLeroy volunteers with the Boy Scouts of America and Gideons International. He is a Sunday school teacher and listed as a Academic Reformers at Grace Bible Church in College Station, where he teaches creationism.[1][5] He believes Christians who accept evolution " lack of consistency."[1]" I wonder why those nasty "editorial writers" think he is motivated by religion?

   If you want evidence of his dishonesty go here.

   An editorial about him and his creationism can be read here.
   http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/08/0308mcleroy.html

   Using new wording from the National Academy of Sciences, Texas' standards define science as "the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process."

   I would be interested to know what testable explanations there are in ID and/or creationism, but perhaps that is off-topic.

   McLeroy goes on to consider evolution with regards to this definition. Of course, he just cherry picks what he wants. The fact is that Darwin's theory was accepted as good science exactly because it makes " testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon". McLeroy ignores that. Evolution does not have a good explanation (he claims) for what he demands, therefore he says it is not science. See here:

   A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.

   Common ancestry does not explain how they appear, or why they remain the same. But it does explain the relationship between those groups, and that explanation is testable. Common ancestry is science, however much McLeroy's religious beliefs say otherwise.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 26, 2009 @ 9:11 am

3. Bradford Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am

   Pixie:

   Actually, that decree was made by a right-wing, Christian judge in Dover.

   A cautionary note Pixie. I often see Judge Jones described as a right winger or a Republican. The latter is true as far as I know but being a Republican does not convey one's ideological bent. It is true that Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats more liberal but there are many in both parties who are more accurately described as centrists. Until I see a detailed description of JJ's beliefs about a broad spectrum of issues I would be careful about labeling him.

Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 9:49 am

4. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am

   I would be interested to know what testable explanations there are in ID and/or creationism

   As far as creationism, that would be Sanford's Genetic Entropy hypotheis.

   A very specific test would be the ovservable increase in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the supposed deeply conservered regions of non-coding, quasi-functioning DNA. I'm quite confident (based on early lab results of related experiments) that one side is not going to be happy with the discoveries.

   This exploration can become feasible with cheaper sequencing and bioinformatic technolgies like Solexa and Illumina. By the way SLXA (solexa's ticker) is no longer listed on the Nasdaq. Did they go defunct? Illumina seems to still be in existence.

   In any case, the question is what should be taught in the Texas schools, not some future yet-to-be-decided experimental result.

   Well…..I tend to avoid the public school issue.

   Perhaps we shouldn't teach the controversy, we should teach the non-controversy of how evoutionary theories have resolved the most important questions about life and the emergence of biodiversity. Teach that.

   Don't avoid evolution, EXPLORE EVOLUTION!

   PS
   Here is info on Illumina, Illumina DNA Sequencing via Solexa Technology. NASDAQ ticker symbol: ILMN. Their stock price has gone up 1,000.00% in the last 5 years. Hmmmm……

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 26, 2009 @ 11:15 am

5. The Pixie Again Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

   Salvador, I replied to the first part of your post (genetic entropy) on the open thread and the issue ios not really on-topic here.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 26, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

6. hblavatsky Says:
   March 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

   I can see the McLeroy article used as evidence that many in the ID movement have a political rather than a scientific agenda.

Comment by hblavatsky — March 26, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

7. The Pixie Again Says:
   March 27th, 2009 at 8:12 am

   More antics from Texan creationists:

   http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bill_in_Texas_would_allow_creationists_0321.html

   Texas State Representative Leo Berman has proposed House Bill 2800, which would exempt any private non-profit institution that requires students to complete “substantive course work” from having to acquire a certificate of authority from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(THECB).
   …
   Berman admits that his 'inspiration' for the bill was the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, a Young Earth Creationism institution that has been trying to achieve certification in Texas for two years. Young Earth Creationism, much more popular than the recent Intelligent Design Creationism, is essentially Biblical literalism – Earth is 10,000 years old, Noah's Flood occurred, Adam and Eve were real people. ICRGS insists that they teach more than just “Biblical Creationism," which is based only on the word of the Bible; they also have incorporated tenets of “Scientific Creationism” into their bylaws. Most of these relate to origins of Earth and the evolution of species. Originally the creationist research branch of Christian Heritage College in San Diego, the ICRGS was forced to split from that college when California regulators threatened to take away its certification. Now, the ICRGS operates mostly online, and its Masters of Science Degree is recognized by California and federal law. According to its website, however, Texas residents cannot receive a degree.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 27, 2009 @ 8:12 am

8. The Pixie Again Says:
   March 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am

   There is a commentary on the debate by the Texas State Board of Education about the "Strengths and eaknesses" issue here:
   http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/live-blogging-the-science-debate/

   I found this bit interesting:

   10:20 – Member Bob Craig of Lubbock offers a substitute amendment. “I am fully cognizant to the difference between faith and science. But I believe they can co-exist.” He argues that what the writing teams suggested in December still allows students to freely discuss all aspects of science. Mr. Craig proposes to keep the work group language (without “strengths and weaknesses”) but adds “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

   What this guy proposes is that students are allowed to discuss issues aboutr evolution, but that the specific weaknesses are not part of the curriculum. This would certainly allow academic freedom, but would prevent creationists from recycling the old Piltdown man thing again and again (which came up in the debate 5 minutes before). Of course, that is not what the creationists want. They want to be able to teach anti-evolutionism in the classroom, and "academic freedom" and "critical thinking" are merely tools they are employing to that end. The creationists vote down the amendment.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 27, 2009 @ 9:14 am

9. neddy Says:
   March 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

   Since evolution is a sure scientific theory like the law of gravity, it will undoubedly stand this hill-billies disgraceful move for "critical thinking" in Texas science classes.

Comment by neddy — March 27, 2009 @ 6:05 pm