Celebrating anniversaries
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.
Oklahoma strikes again
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.
And in the third slot we have … Oklahoma!
NCSE announces the birth of Oklahoma SB 554 [rtf] and thus the third anti-evolution bill of the year. Today was the first day of my Origins, Evolution & Creation class and I was able to show this year’s Missouri and Kentucky bills.
The preamble of the OK legislation appears innocuous enough:
An Act relating to school curriculum; stating legislative intent; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt certain curricular standards; providing that schools shall not prohibit teachers from providing certain information to students; protecting teachers from retaliation for providing certain information; allowing students to be held accountable for information taught in a course; defining term; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
But if you read on you see
The State Department of Education, or any school district or school district administrator, shall not prohibit any teacher from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences, when being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula. Controversial topics in sciences include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution
Read the NCSE announcement for more information.
Missouri
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.
Kentucky wins this year’s prize …
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.
The Year in ID (2010)
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.
I’m back …
Apparently all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. I’ve decided to wander back here occasionally to blog. History and philosophy of science material will, however, remain over at Whewell’s Ghost while this site will largely be a brain-dump of shiny things that interest me.
(As an aside, while I was gone for the past four months, the blog received nearly 300,000 hits, mostly for the post that refuses to die.)
This blog will self-destruct in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 …
I have been blogging since January 2004 but of late my heart hasn’t been in it. So I’m taking the opportunity of a new school year to hang up my shield and move on. I may return someday, either here or elsewhere, but for the foreseeable future, you can consider me a non-blogger. Best wishes and good luck to all the readers and bloggers I have met over the years.
Onward!
David Hull (1935 – 2010)
John Wilkins is reporting that the noted philosopher of biology, David Hull, has passed away. I first read Hull’s Science as a Process (1988) as a break from writing up my zoology PhD in 1993 and it opened me up to the world of history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it left me cursing the fact that I wasn’t able to study HPS (in hindsight, I think it would have been my career choice for various reasons). Years later, I met David at an ISHPSSB meeting and I coyly introduced myself. David was delighted to hear that a biologist had read and enjoyed his work. He was a gentleman and will be missed.
Update (8/12): I forgot to mention that ASU houses the David L. Hull Collection (actually the collection sat in my office for a few months). And via Wilkins – obits from the Chicago Sun-Times and Northwestern.
Reviewing “A Meaningful World” and “The Darwin Myth”
I have just finished reviewing A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (IVP , 2006) by DI fellows, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, for Reports of the National Center for Science Education. I’m not going to post the full review until it appears in print, but here is the final paragraph. It more or less clues you in to what I thought of the work.
A Meaningful World is certainly a work that would not have survived review by a mainstream press. In fact, I would say that it would not have survived as an undergraduate thesis. The very fact that it has appeared in print is symptomatic of the ID movement’s ability to find sympathetic pulpits from which to preach to the choir. No one without pre-conceived sympathy is going to be convinced by the arguments presented by Wiker & Witt and, like much ID literature, it serves as a justification of belief rather than a scientific or philosophical investigation. It is notable that the publishers choose not to classify the work as science but as discussing religious aspects of nature and meaning.
Frankly, it took me over three years to review the book. Every time I started writing about it, I got annoyed and had to stop.
I also recently reviewed Wiker’s The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin (Regnery, 2009) for the Journal of the History of Biology. Here’s the final paragraph of that one:
This is poor history and, frankly, it is also poor polemic. Wiker does not present Darwin fairly but distorts him into a dark figure bent on destroying everything that Wiker apparently holds dear. As such, the book has nothing to recommend it beyond offering a snapshot of how certain groups in America have been unable to deal with scientific ideas.
Full reviews will appear here after they have appeared in print or online. I probably won’t be getting any Christmas cards from Ben Wiker.
(Aside: My wife got offered a position at Franciscan University in Stubbenville, Ohio, ten years ago, when Wiker was apparently the only person teaching history and philosophy of science there. We tried to get a partner hire for me but I was rejected. Probably just as well … I couldn’t see myself fitting in there.)
Have they learned nothing?
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.
Why #SbFAIL has been good and a status update
Frankly, one of the up-sides of #SbFAIL is that a number of the people I care about are now blogging here on WordPress and it has actually become easier to track what they are posting and the comments I’ve made on their blogs. So that’s an up-side. As a reminder, here are the Sciblings who are now here. Hopefully, others will follow (I’m looking at you Mark Chu-Carroll and Mike Dunford!).
- Afarensis.
- Evolving Thoughts.
- Living the Scientific Life.
- A Blog Around The Clock
- Terra Sigillata
- Myrmecos
If you’ve never encountered these great bloggers before – perhaps because Scienceblogs overwhelmed you – wander over, read a little, and say “Hi”. These folks are good friends and the salt of the earth.
That said, I myself will probably go back to being quiet for awhile. I’ve four weeks before the start of the semester and have to put three papers (two science, one history) and at least one book review out the door.
semper scibling!
Nyctereutes lockwoodi
Back in December, I noted the announcement of a new species of raccoon dog (Nyctereutes lockwoodi). The paper is now online and, as we suspected, the species is “[n]amed after the late Charles Lockwood, for his contribution to our knowledge of the genus Australopithecus in South and East Africa as well as his role in the exploration of the morphological temporal trends of A. afarensis in the Hadar Formation.” As it happens, Bill Kimbel and I are currently putting the finishing touches to our final manuscript with Charlie. More of that later, no doubt.
Ref: Gerrads et al., (2010) “Nyctereutes lockwoodi, n. sp., a New Canid (Carnivora: Mammalia) from the Middle Pliocene of Dikika, Lower Awash, Ethiopia.” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(3):981-987. doi: 10.1080/02724631003758326
Recent Comments