a simple prop

Oh look! A second anti-evolution bill in Tennessee. They’re taking a belt and braces approach to this apparently. This one (SB 893 PDF) would require authorities to “assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies” such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” It would permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” Haven’t we seen this before?

Over at PT, Dave Thomas is reporting that New Mexico HB 302 was tabled on a 5-to-4 vote in the House Education committee. The tabling was despite – or maybe because of – vocal support (and a full page ad [pdf]) by a local creationist group, IDNet-NM.

The Foundation for Thought & Ethics – publishers of the creationist cdesign proponentsist textbook Of Pandas and People – recently decided not to seek state approval from the Texas Board of Education for supplemental materials which they were developing. Which is just as well. As the Texas Freedom Network reports, the materials would have been little more than standard creationist talking points:

“FTE’s product will be electronic written material satisfying the new and expanded Biology 1 TEKS [curriculum standards] for Texas schools, with components for both teachers and students. It will include irenic yet candid discussions of what an educated person in the 21st century must know in regard to neo-Darwinian theory of life’s diversity and origin of life studies. Discussions will cover fair and accurate portrayals of the major explanations, as well as analysis and critiques of each, as advanced in scientific literature. The goal will be to equip students to see beyond the uncritical acceptance of majority viewpoints when warranted by scientific data, as well as to consider possible alternatives. Such alternatives will include intelligent design perspectives but not creationism or creation science. The major components are: (1) review of evolutionary theory; (2) critique of conventional evolutionary theory; (3) examination of origin-of-life studies and enumeration of problems with chemical scenarios for life’s origin; (4) presentation of intelligent design alternative.”

NSCE has announced that Tennessee has joined the four states that are considering anti-evolution legislation. HB 368 [PDF] aims to permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” The “controversial” theories are the usual suspects – “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood, the work that resurrected the corpse that was Young Earth Creationism. The publication begat the Creation Research Society (1963), which begat the Institute for Creation Research (1972).

Over at the ICR, there are a series of celebratory articles in their newsletter, Acts & Facts [1, 2, 3, 4].

I’ll add other notices here as I find them.

New Mexico added its name to the current slate of states with anti-evolution legislation being considered. The year started with Kentucky, then Missouri, then Oklahoma and now New Mexico. Weirdly, it is spreading west and we here in Arizona are the next state over. Given the lunacy in our current legislature, I wouldn’t be surprised if a bill appeared.

The New Mexico bill (HB 302) would require teachers to be allowed to inform students “about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” pertaining to “controversial” scientific topics. NCSE has more.

Apparently a 20th anniversary edition of Phil Johnson‘s Darwin on Trial has appeared. No need to rush out and buy it though – it’s merely a coprolite with the added sheen of a foreword by Mike Behe. I encountered DoT first in 1997 when I was putting together my Origins, Evolution & Creation course for the first time and quickly saw it to be mutton dressed as lamb – old-school creationism given the semi-respectable face of a lawyer’s brief. As Genie Scott noted back in 1992:

It would take a very long essay to criticize all or even most of Johnson’s scientific errors. Many are recycled from earlier, long since refuted critiques of evolution presented by “scientific” creationists. As in creationist literature, we find the familiar “gaps in the fossil record”, “natural selection is a tautology”, “there are no transitional fossils”, “mutations are harmful”, “natural selection is not creative”, “microevolution does not explain macroevolution”, “natural selection only produces variation within the ‘kind’”, and “proof” of special creation by demonstrations of structural complexity such as the vertebrate eye and strands of DNA, as well as many other old saws.

What is it with the Discovery Institute and anniversaries anyway? We had a tenth anniversary edition of Darwin’s Black Box in 2006 (termed a “second edition” but the book had hardly changed) and now we are getting celebrations of the tenth anniversary of Icons of Evolution. Bill Dembski must be somewhat annoyed that the anniversary of his The Design Inference (1998) has passed un-noticed.

While we’re at it, here are a few other ID related anniversaries we will be celebrating this year:

• The sixth anniversary of a promised peer-reviewed article by Paul Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (April).
• The seventh anniversary of Nelson’s theory of “ontogenetic depth” (March)
• The twelfth anniversary of Nelson’s monograph on common descent (currently MIA since at least 1999).

There may be some movement on the last item. I met with Paul Nelson last year and he indicated a manuscript was forthcoming.

Hot on the heels of SB 554, the fine legislators in Oklahoma now give us HB 1551 – the “”Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act” [rtf] and differs only slightly from SB 320, which died in committee in February 2009 (coincidentally on the day I was leaving Norman after delivering a Darwin Day talk!). NCSE has more details.

NCSE has announced that Missouri has become the second state to announce anti-evolution legislation (HB 195). As NCSE notes:

HB 195 is virtually identical to HB 1651, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 13, 2010. … When the Missouri legislative session ended on May 14, 2010, HB 1651 died without ever having been assigned to a committee.

Last year it was Mississippi that birthed the first anti-evolution bill of the year. This year the honor goes to the Bluegrass state which has resurrected the “Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act” that failed last year. HB 169 aims to:

encourage local school district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories; allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories; clarify that provisions do not promote religious doctrine or discrimination

NCSE has more.

As has become traditional, I’d like to take some time at the end of the year to look back on some of the triumphs of the ID movement.

As usual, anti-evolution legislation died. This year it was South Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky & Mississippi that walked up to the plate and struck out. Interestingly – and perhaps reflecting the more important concerns of the nation – this crop, especially considering the SC bills actually dated from 2009, was notably thinner than in previous years. In related news, Louisiana decided to stick to biology in their biology textbooks.

It was a quiet year for ID overall. Behe wrote a review paper (see here) that hasn’t amounted to much. ID proponents have formed their own journal (Bio-complexity) and seeded the editorial board with dissenters from Darwin. The DI continues to spread dis-information.

As usual, there are things we didn’t see in 2010. For those, see 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Somethings in life never change with the passage of time.

File this under “This Will End Predictably”. Livingston Parish (Louisiana) is looking to teach creationism in public school science classes. Problem is that they keep explicitly mentioning creationism thus clearly falling foul of Supreme Court rulings.

Jan Benton (director of curriculum) stated that the Louisiana Science Education Act allows for the teaching of “critical thinking and creationism“.

David Tate (board member): “Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

Clint Mitchell (board member): “Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”

The Board then voted to appoint a committee to study the possibility of introducing creationism into the classroom. They obviously never heard of Edwards v. Aguillard which, ironically, was a decision against a Louisiana statute.

(source)

HT to Jim Lippard’s twitter stream.

Update (7/28): Barbara Forrest (Louisiana Coalition for Science) has posted her thoughts. Final paragraph reads:

The Discovery Institute is heavily invested in Louisiana — up to their eyeballs. Whether the Livingston Parish School Board or some other Louisiana school board implements the LSEA — in the way that we all know is intended — won’t matter. This Livingston Parish development — and any other initiative anywhere in Louisiana — will be the Discovery Institute’s baby (or, rather, its tarbaby). As we say way down south, “You cain’t disown this youngun. It’s the spittin’ image of its daddy!” The Livingston Parish CREATIONISM initiative — in whatever form it takes  — will be the Discovery Institute’s offspring. Discovery Institute owns this.

NCSE has just reported that the last two of the 2010 anti-evolution bills has died in committee. These were the two holdouts in South Carolina from 2009. The antievolutionists batted 0 for 4 this year.

I was browsing Answers Research Journal today and noticed the following contribution by Rod J. Martin – “A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming.” The abstract – somewhat predictably – reads:

Media coverage of global warming has been increasing for over twenty years. Major proponents include the United Nations, politicians, environmentalists, and celebrities. Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem. This paper will identify the major goals of global warming advocates, propose a biblical (young-earth creationist) framework for evaluating the issue, and highlight basic scientific data related to the alleged claims. It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science. The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO²[sic]).

As an insight to the standards of ARJ, I’ll just note that that CO² typo occurs throughout the article, as is O², though in fairness, the PDF of the article has the correct subscripts.

Here’s the end of the paper:

Why there is no reason for alarm

• O² and CO² in the atmosphere were created, they did not evolve.
• Today’s atmosphere likely contains significantly less CO² than before the Flood.
• CO² is necessary for life, and was created prior to plants and animals.
• CO² is not a pollutant.
• Increasing levels of CO² are beneficial for plants.
• Decreasing levels of CO² could be a serious problem.
• Burning fossil fuels simply returns CO² to the air, from which it originated, in the pre-Flood atmosphere. Increasing CO² in the atmosphere does not reverse a billion year old evolutionary trend and upset the delicate balance of nature.
• The present levels of oxygen in the air are adequate without any unusual efforts to plant trees or to further limit the forestry industry.
• Plants were created as food for humans and animals. They are not necessary for storing carbon or for generating O².
• Glaciers have been retreating for thousands of years since the Flood. Most of the glacial melt occurred before man began burning fossil fuels.
• Ice age glaciers melted due to cooling seas, not warming seas.
• Climates have been constantly changing since the Flood. Consider all the major climate changes since the Flood and initiated by the Flood.
• Plants, animals and mankind have been adapting to climate for thousands of years.
• Recent global temperature histories are insufficient for developing reliable conclusions about trends or impending catastrophes.
• Increasing the concentration of CO² in the atmosphere will continue to improve crop production around the world, benefiting mankind.
• Neither melting glaciers, increasing CO², changing climates, nor earth’s surface temperature history are proof of global warming.
• God is in control of history and the earth’s climates, not man.

I haven’t encountered Martin (an “independent researcher” in Santa Clarita CA) before and the googles are doing nothing. Any reader know anything about him?

[Over eight years ago, I edited a series of facsimile editions of works written by scriptural geologists. The set was titled "Creationism and Scriptural Geology, 1814-1857" and was published by Thoemmes Press at a price that put it out of range for all except libraries. What follows below is the introduction from the series. I have added some hyperlinks and done some light editing.]

“Follies of the present day”: Scriptural Geology from 1817 to 1857

“There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist, which I am anxious to remove. It has been said that they nurture infidel propensities. It has been alleged that geology, by referring the origin of the globe to a higher antiquity than is assigned to it by the writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration of the Bible, and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it unfolds. This is a false alarm. The writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the globe.” [1]

So spoke the Scottish theologian, Thomas Chalmers in 1804. During the winter of 1803-’04, Chalmers presented a series of lectures at St. Andrews during which he outlined a reconciliation of the apparent incompatibility between the Genesis account of creation and the findings of the developing science of geology. He argued that the language of scripture allowed for an indefinite gap between the first and second verses of chapter I. This in turn allowed for a time in which geological formation could occur before the traditional six-day creation which, in this view, represented a restoration of the whole Earth after aeons of activity and eventual devastation. Chalmers’ ideas – on geology, natural theology and revelation – would eventually be expanded into The Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation [2], and his “Gap theory”, as it became known, aimed to show that Genesis and geology could live side-by-side, once one was willing to interpret the scriptures to allow for the apparent age of the Earth. Thus Chalmers could argue that geology does not lead to “infidel propensities” for the very reason that the text of Genesis never explicitly set the time of creation, unlike specific chronologies from such individuals as Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh.

Read more…