creationism « State of Protest

Posts Tagged ‘creationism’

James Corbett Speaks at The Legal Satyricon

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

The Legal Satyricon (one of my favorite and engaging legal blogs) was fortunate enough to host recently sued California teacher James Corbett’s compelling editorial regarding the lawsuit one of his students brought against him for Corbett’s in-class, out of context statement that “creation is superstitious nonsense.” The suit was based on the theory that Corbett violated the Establishment clause, but Corbett ominously suggests that victories in such frivolous lawsuits would lead to chilling of teacher speech:

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Read The Legal Satyricon’s synopsis of the case, and then read Mr. Corbett’s outstanding editorial, which I think I will print out and have framed.

Tags: Amendment, California, creationism, establishment, Law, lawsuit, legal, theory
Posted in Government, Law, Religion | No Comments »

Sean Tevis is Back

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.

Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.

So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.

Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.

Tags: Abortion, Activism, campaign, censor, censorship, conservative, creationism, Government, Kansas, Logic, moral, Morality, political, Review, school, sex, Tevis
Posted in Activism, Government | 1 Comment »

Sharing the Epiphany of Disbelief

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Steve-Doug is a guest writer at State of Protest.

As atheists, we feel compelled to share the epiphany of disbelief. Unfortunately, finding a mode to convey our rationality often undermines the powerful sensations which accompany the reduction of myth-based doctrine. Certain stereotypes of activism need to be addressed; there are, in fact, more opportunities for activism than the average heathen may be aware of. While operating prestigious science blogs, writing numerous best-selling diatribes on faith, and donating hefty sums to atheist networks and coalitions certainly advance the cause of godlessness significantly, these are not the standards of activism we as laypeople must set for ourselves; it is just not feasible for us all to utilize these vehicles of activism. Rather, we can observe openings in our daily interactions which can facilitate the dissemination of rationality and scientific literacy.

My own conversion to atheism occurred almost a year after I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a type of cancer which infects the body’s lymph nodes. Despite being only fifteen and very religious, I was still very unwilling to preserve this belief system when prayers went unanswered and skeptic inquiry into Christianity yielded no intelligent answers. Chemotherapy being just as debilitating as it is known to be, my social interactions were greatly limited and I depended on the internet to express and develop my deviations. The online game Star Wars: Jedi Outcast grew to be a virtual outlet for my social needs. The game catered to tight-knit virtual communities, and it wasn’t long before I had established very strong friendships with a group of players of varying religious stances. Of these players, I found myself steadily growing to regard the fundamentalists with much reproach, while the pantheist, agnostic, and atheist members encouraged my skepticism. Before long, my beliefs had no common ground with the fundamentalists.

While I was exploring the concepts of atheism, I became transfixed by the mechanics of evolution, a subject almost invariably linked to disbelief. The poetic antithesis of complexity and simplicity characteristic of natural selection occupied my mind at great intervals. Naturally I was very distraught when, after discussing evolution in general terms, my fundamentalist friends professed rejection of the theory. In their dismissals classifying the theory as luck-based, entropy-violating, and largely speculative, it also became clear that they had no understanding of the actual theory; rather, they had crafted an insincere amalgamation of absurd statements which could only be said to resemble extreme misinterpretations of evolution. Noting their inability to be swayed by well-structured argumentation, I decided that I must take it upon myself to illustrate the true mechanics of this process in terms that would register with them. I set out to design a modification for Jedi Outcast which showed how the theory worked in accurate terms.

The modification consisted primarily of a custom built level designed in an urban setting. Throughout the level, pop-up text informed players of key concepts they were observing. Pictured below is the “starting point” of the level.

Once inside, players witnessed robots with design codes. The robots were analogous to organisms, while the design codes represented the genotype. The codes, or genotypes, explained the physical attributes of the robots; i.e. shape, resistance to fire, ability to travel across water, etc. In the following rooms, robots with different codes attempted to traverse difficult landscapes. If the robot made it across, it was stated that its traits were suited to survival and would get to be continued in the next generation of robots. Consecutive rooms provided different challenges, establishing the theme that what is effective in one generation and environment is not always effective in another; thus variability is needed. Pictured, different robots traverse a harsh environment.

The final area of the level was constructed to resemble Richard Dawkins’ image of Mount Improbable: a large gap separated two ledges, at one a large and rather complex machine and at another a small and not-so-complex machine. Players were encouraged to attempt to jump from ledge to ledge, but this was impossible. Instead, a gradual slope ran along the mountain with “transition” machines spaced at intervals along the slope until the player had gradually arrived at the complex machine. This illustrated how organisms do not “jump” from species to species, but rather move in slow alterations. Players were greeted with two pop-up footnotes: the first denounced the phrase “transition organism” as purely for use of explanation, as all organisms (or in this case, machines) are transitory; the second stated that evolution is in no way a goal-oriented force. Evolution does not seek to craft complex machines, heat-resistant robots, or human brains. Evolution simply sees to it that designs which suit their environments succeed in replication. In this case, the environment has rewarded generator-like designs. Pictured is Mount Improbable, with the machines highlighted in the attempt of allowing them to be seen more clearly.

At the close of the level, players were told that the representations in the level were very much generalized and reduced for the sake of illustration, which is perhaps an understatement. Although my graphic representation was not as detailed or analytical as a published treatise on evolution, it provided an effective illustration as an introduction to evolution, especially for people who dismissed evolution based solely on handy catch-phrases developed and promoted by religious-based opposition.

In the end, this endeavor proved to be bittersweet. On the one hand, my fundamentalist friends were greatly informed by the representation. Several openly professed that they had a complete non-understanding of the theory beforehand, and now had some understanding, simplified as this understanding may be. However, none were able to accept the theory. Holding an understanding of how evolution works, they could no longer assault the theory under false pretenses. They were thus resigned to utilize only unclear pseudo-philosophic arguments stating that faith was absolute and what we observe could be satanic trickery. It is my belief, though, that their confinement to such ridiculous arguments devoid of empirical backing emphasizes the denialism of creationism to such an extent that rejecting its pseudoscience becomes substantially easier to the layman who might believe that there might be some legitimacy in creationism. I have come to believe that even if our non-scientific opponents fail to find themselves swayed by the scientific method, removing any doubt of rationality from their arguments is the only effective way to control their propagation. Even though we may not always hold the burden of proof and evolution has certainly secured itself beyond significant scrutiny, I should gladly take the opportunity to explain the rationality of science to the ignorant in the effort to reduce any perceived eloquence of pseudoscience.

As I hope my example has showed, there are extraordinarily varied options for spreading the cause of rationality. It is up to the individual to identify and take advantage of opportunities for such activism. It must be remembered that rational inquiry seldom sways those utilizing the reality-limiting perspective of faith, and we must try not to be discouraged. The frustration accompanying an opponent’s refusal to acknowledge scientific principles can make debates almost unbearable. The practice of “keeping quiet” instead is on par with aiding the spread of pseudoscience, and as such, I will gladly explain the principles of reality to the staunchest of fundamentalists in lieu of silence; I know I’m not the only one.

Tags: Activism, agnostic, answers, Atheism, atheist, ban, belief, Christ, Christianity, creationism, Dawkins, doctrine, election, Evolution, faith, fundamental, god, heathen, human, photo, prayer, proof, rational, Satan, Science, skeptic, theist, theory, war
Posted in Activism, Atheism | 2 Comments »

46% of Oklahoman Education Committee Members are Idiots

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Good news: The Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has defeated legislation that would have allowed classroom discussion of alternative theories of evolution. Like Creationism. And Creationism. And, of course, we can’t forget Creationism. Even if in the guise of “Intelligent Design.”

Bad news: The vote was 7-6 against.

The bill: Senator Randy Brogdon’s Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.

The crime: Assuming there should be freedom to fuck up the minds of schoolchildren with bullshit that is completely rejected by the academic community.

Check out a petition in favor of a similar bill from 2007 that I found, and the accompanying sample bill, apparently promoted by Discovery.org, which is the website of the Discovery Institute. According to Wikipedia, “In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”, and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”:

Do you want to defend the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the relevant scientific information relating to evolution?

In many states teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms pertaining to evolution. This assault on academic freedom is antithetical to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science itself, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry. It is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to freely discuss the scientific debates over evolution in an appropriate manner.

Here is a sample academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.

If you have questions please e-mail Casey Luskin, cluskin@discovery.org, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.

MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]

SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

This appears to be the actual bill presented:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

SENATE BILL 320 By: Brogdon

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to schools; creating the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act; providing short title; stating Legislative findings; directing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators to create certain environment within schools; permitting teachers to help students understand certain information about scientific theories; disallowing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators from prohibiting teachers from helping students understand certain information about scientific theories; providing for evaluation of students based on understanding of course materials; prohibiting penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific theories; prohibiting certain construction; directing State Department of Education to provide certain notification; directing superintendents to disseminate certain information; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 27-101 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act”.

B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

C. The State Board of Education, district boards of education, district superintendents and administrators, and public school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

D. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any district board of education, district superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

E. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

F. This act only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this act shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. On the contrary, the intent is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

G. By no later than the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the State Department Education shall notify all district superintendents of the provisions of this act. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within the district a copy of the provisions of this act.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 2009.

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

Let’s celebrate the success of reason, but mourn the fact that it came so close, and you know someone will try to pass another of these laws every year in this and other states.

UPDATE via TUIBGuy:

State Representative Thomsen has introduced this bill:…

A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution…..

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma;…

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

TUIBGuy’s responds, in part,

What the legislator fails to understand that a fair discussion of the alternative theories of evolution would be something he doesn’t like at all. I hope that he is proud, though, in his quixotic quest to keep the likes of Dawkins out of Oklahoma, to show how much he values Academic Freedom.

Head on over there for the full text of the bill and the rest of the response.

State of Unintelligent Design

Tags: bullshit, children, creationism, Evolution, freedom, fuck, Oklahoma, school, Senator, vote
Posted in Government, Logic, Religion, Science | 4 Comments »

Rachel Maddow Gives Props to FSM on Darwin Day

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Rachel Maddow celebrated Darwin Day tonight by calling the FSM movement a “perfectly brilliant challenge” to the popular idea that the Christian god created everything (i.e., the assertion that religion needs to be taught alongside science). She noted that when creationism (or “intelligent design“) was being proposed as something that needed to be taught in schools, the “inventor” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, challenged the Kansas State Board of Education. Henderson stated that if creationism were to be taught, then the scriptural basis for creation showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything ought to be taught, as well, and that it would be offensive if the teaching weren’t done in proper Church of the FSM garb — full pirate regalia.

Maddow also cited the 39% of Americans believing in evolution Gallup poll (25% not believing in evolution) before interviewing Edward Larson, Pepperdine University (affiliated with the Churches of Christ) Law Professor, who stated, “If people are given the choice between God and Darwin, most of them will choose God.”

Rachel, you rock.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tags: America, birth, birthday, Christ, church, creationism, Darwin, Evolution, god, Interview, Kansas, Law, Maddow, monster, MSNBC, NBC, school, war
Posted in Atheism, Religion, Science | No Comments »