16 Responses to “The Mysterious 15 States”

1. Thought Provoker Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 2:24 pm

   Hi Mike.

   Here is my guess at the "at least 15 states" the "National Center for Science Education" could be talking about. I even threw in 5 more states as a bonus…

   Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina , Texas, Utah, Wisconsin

   Gee, how could I possibly have solved this "mystery" so fast?
   http://www.ncseweb.org/pressro...

   Mike, can't you see this is getting ridiculous?

Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

2. Rock Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 3:50 pm

   LOL From the "good old days" we've managed to reduce it from 40 to 15. Eventually those detested creationists are gonna end up sharing caves with the Taliban and only the state of Waziristan will remain on the list.

   On the basis of the thesis that creationism is bad for everything, I predict federal budgets deficits will evaporate, the ice caps will refreeze, crop yields will increase, such a scientific-cultural efflorescence will occur that American kindergartners will win Nobel Prizes in medicine and literature, every nation on Earth will live in peace and harmony, a vaccine for cancer will be discovered, and Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency for life.

   And since justice will prevail, the Taliban and creationists will live in debt, sweat like race horses, starve, never even win $2 on a $1 scratch ticket, fight amongst themselves, have prostates the size of grapefruit, and vote for the "other guy."

Comment by Rock — October 7, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

3. Fred Haster Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

   Gee, how could I possibly have solved this "mystery" so fast?

   Why the sarcasm? You haven't shown how these states made efforts to incorporate creationist language or to undermine evolution in science. All you did was supply a link with more links that corresponded to a particular state (as well as the nation in general).

Comment by Fred Haster — October 7, 2006 @ 3:54 pm

4. Thought Provoker Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

   Fred Haster asked…

   Why the sarcasm?

   Because Mike titled the thread "The Mysterious 15 States".

   What was so mysterious about them?

   I generally try to avoid using sarcasm. I shouldn't have done it. Even in this ridiculous situation.

Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

5. Fred Haster Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pm

   Because Mike titled the thread "The Mysterious 15 States".

   What was so mysterious about them?

   I generally try to avoid using sarcasm. I shouldn't have done it. Even in this ridiculous situation.

   TP, but the title was used against the backdrop of this comment from MikeGene:

   I remember the old days when the complaint had 40 states doing something like this.

   I interpreted it as the target keeps moving yet the call to alarm maintains.
   Paul Hanle's quote makes it out to seem as if these states are actively trying to undermine evolutionary science while brining in religious concepts through the back door. A pretty bold claim on Hanle's part. Saying, "efforts to incorporate creationist language", is a scare tactic and unwarranted. What constitutes as 'creationist language'?

Comment by Fred Haster — October 7, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

6. Nick Matzke Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

   LOL, before Fred Haster and Mike Gene embarass themselves further:

   1. Fred, if you *click* on the "link with more links that corresponded to a particular state" that you yourself described, you will — amazingly enough — *see* descriptions of the incidents in the various states. Therefore the "15 states" are not mysterious. Paul Hanle probably did this himself (or he might have called NCSE). Not everything that happens is on the NCSE news page, but the major news events are.

   MG really should have found this page before making a fuss on his blog.

   2. For both Fred and Mike and their implicit allegations of NCSE wickedness: the key phrase in Hanle's article is "Over the past year alone", i.e. incidents recorded in 2006. The 40+ states number which is sometimes reported, on the other hand, is the cumulative number of states back to 2001 that have experienced 1 or more incidents (= legislation, lawsuit, stickers, "critical analysis" policies, etc.). Sometimes things get garbled in the press, particularly in second-hand reporting, but that's the data we give them if they call us.

   3. So yes, despite Mike Gene's assertion that we live in the glorious "Post-Wedge World", we still have widespread attempts to pass antievolution policies every year in a large number of states.

Comment by Nick Matzke — October 7, 2006 @ 4:58 pm

7. MikeGene Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm

   Nick:
   

   MG really should have found this page before making a fuss on his blog.

   I think you are being quite over-sensitive, Nick, as I made no "fuss" here. I simply a) quote Hanle, b) pointed out that such editorials used to use a much larger number, c) calmly asked people to provide the states and their activity. Then, to get some attention, I add a playful title. I was hoping to dissect Henle's piece next weekend and was fishing for some info. You really think that was a "fuss???"

   For both Fred and Mike and their implicit allegations of NCSE wickedness: the key phrase in Hanle's article is "Over the past year alone", i.e. incidents recorded in 2006.

   Now you act as if you have a guilty conscience. Nowhere in my blog do I imply any wickedness on the part of the NCSE. You simply injected it. Were you genuinely mistaken or did you intentionally misrepresent me?

   Look, Henle writes a propaganda piece that was designed to scare people. As part of the fear-mongering, he cites the "15 states" and asserts they are out to "incorporate creationist language or undermine evolution in science classrooms." All of this is part of the "we're doomed" message that Henle peddles and it is the context by which we will explore the claim.

   So we have 15 (or is it 20) "states." So what are they up to? Check out how the sky is falling in New Mexico:

   On April 10, 2006 the school board in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, voted 4-1 to amend their Science Policy 401. According to an article in the April 11 issue of the Albuquerque Journal the policy, adopted in August, 2005 by a 3-2 vote, had been strongly opposed by district science teachers and others because of wording which seemed to promote teaching intelligent design. A board member who has opposed the policy told the Journal that it was "… a backdoor policy for intelligent design… a backdoor for religion." The article also observes that "Opponents of the policy, many of them teachers at the high school, have claimed the policy is a guise to force instructors to teach intelligent design."

   One of the board members who proposed Policy 401 told the Journal that it "encourages critical thinking", and that they did not intend to introduce religion into classes. Two board members apologized to the district's science teachers for having introduced and passed the policy without consulting with them first.

   In amending Policy 401, the board removed this sentence from its last paragraph: "When appropriate and consistent with the New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards, discussions about issues that are of interest to both science and individual religious and philosophical beliefs will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree about the meaning and interpretation of data." This was replaced by a sentence taken directly from New Mexico's state science standards: "Students shall understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on earth, the cause of the big bang, the future of the earth)."

   I'm sorry, but that doesn't support the level of fear-mongering that Henle is peddling. What's more, why is Henle extrapolating what happens in Rio Rancho (pop 75,000) to the entire state of New Mexico? Is it because "state" has the better ring of threatiness than "town?"

Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

8. Fred Haster Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pm

   and their implicit allegations of NCSE wickedness

   Please tell me you are not being serious.

   Fred, if you *click* on the "link with more links that corresponded to a particular state" that you yourself described, you will "” amazingly enough "” *see* descriptions of the incidents in the various states.

   I did read the links (many of them)… and I still have not read one that matches with this qualifier "Paul Hanle's quote makes it out to seem as if these states are actively trying to undermine evolutionary science while bringing in religious concepts through the back door."

   If you want to then please, show me where I'm wrong. I'll listen. But don't make these comments with the intention of undermining my sincerity regarding these topics.

Comment by Fred Haster — October 7, 2006 @ 5:35 pm

9. MikeGene Says:
   October 7th, 2006 at 6:21 pm

   Nick:
   

   So yes, despite Mike Gene's assertion that we live in the glorious "Post-Wedge World", we still have widespread attempts to pass antievolution policies every year in a large number of states.

   I think Nick is playing with some crucial, ill-defined words. First, the Wedge was all about getting ID taught in the schools. According to people like Nick, ID was concocted purely as a cover for creationism - ID was supposed to be the Wedge. Yet since a Federal Judge has strongly ruled against ID, it seems highly unlikely that ID will be taught in any public school. Ergo "“ the Post-Wedge world.

   Nick seems to be a victim of his own success. For it appears the Wedge is now defined in some vague, slippery way (yet another instance of painting targets around arrows?). Now it becomes "antievolution policies." But what is an "antievolution policy?" It's whatever you want it to be. From the NSCE article about New Mexico: "had been strongly opposed by district science teachers and others because of wording which seemed to promote teaching intelligent design."

   And what about the definition of "large." If 15 is a large number of "states," what was 40+? Super-duper large?

   Anyway, I wonder if Nick and the NCSE are ever going to comment on Richard Dawkins message about using science to disprove the existence of God? Y'know, Dawkins is out there undercutting the ruling of Judge Jones. Aren't the Chamberlainites going to defend themselves and the Judge?

Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 6:21 pm

10. Douglas Says:
    October 7th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Mike Gene,

    Anyway, I wonder if Nick and the NCSE are ever going to comment on Richard Dawkins message about using science to disprove the existence of God? Y'know, Dawkins is out there undercutting the ruling of Judge Jones. Aren't the Chamberlainites going to defend themselves and the Judge?

    I was just going to post something to this effect, pointing out the double-standards Evolutionists and Anti-Creationists use, then happened to skim the above comment a second before I prepared to post. I see my work here is almost done.

Comment by Douglas — October 7, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

11. Nick Matzke Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 12:20 am

    I think you are being quite over-sensitive, Nick, as I made no "fuss" here. I simply a) quote Hanle, b) pointed out that such editorials used to use a much larger number, c) calmly asked people to provide the states and their activity. Then, to get some attention, I add a playful title.

    Playful schmayful. This Fred Haster fellow certainly didn't read it that way.

    What any normal person would have done was 5 seconds of googling and found the NCSE news page. Instead, we have the fuss.

Comment by Nick Matzke — October 8, 2006 @ 12:20 am

12. MikeGene Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 12:36 am

    Sure, and when I did this, I clicked on the first entry. Page down.

    Sorry Nick, but you have a history of misrepresenting me. The "fuss" was all in your own mind.

Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 12:36 am

13. Nick Matzke Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 1:00 am

    Oops. Well, there are amazing things called "Google cache" and "archive.org" for when this sort of thing happens. Or one could just wait a bit for the site to come back. (By the way, all tremble before the mighty NCSE and its awe-inspiring web hosting service.)

    If one still had a burning desire to know instantly for some reason, any normal person would have said, "I tried to look this up on NCSE's website, but it appears to be down, so could anyone tell me…" — instead we got "Hmmm" and "mysterious" and no evidence that you actually lifted a finger to figure this out before casting aspersions.

    And it couldn't be all that hard to find this spiffy map from the Time Magazine cover story last year:
    http://www.time.com/time/cover...

Comment by Nick Matzke — October 8, 2006 @ 1:00 am

14. MikeGene Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Oops. Well, there are amazing things called "Google cache" and "archive.org" for when this sort of thing happens. Or one could just wait a bit for the site to come back. (By the way, all tremble before the mighty NCSE and its awe-inspiring web hosting service.)

    Obviously, my method worked better. If you pay attention, it took less than an hour and I didn't even have to lift a finger.

    If one still had a burning desire to know instantly for some reason, any normal person would have said, "I tried to look this up on NCSE's website, but it appears to be down, so could anyone tell me"¦" "” instead we got "Hmmm" and "mysterious" and no evidence that you actually lifted a finger to figure this out before casting aspersions.

    Nothing like the "any normal person" routine in order to rationalize misrepresenting someone else. Who ever said I was a "normal person?"

    In the end, you still have this history of misrepresenting me that often converges with your fondness for melodramatic effect. After all, according to you, I was also alleging the NCSE was guilty of wickedness in my three sentence "fuss." LOL

Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2006 @ 1:12 am

15. macht Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 1:21 am

    If a normal person read this post and the comments, I wonder who they would say was raising the "fuss?"

Comment by macht — October 8, 2006 @ 1:21 am

16. ragesoss Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    If a normal person read this…

    I guess we'll never know.

Comment by ragesoss — October 8, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.