Posts Tagged ‘school board’

Lies, Damn Lies, and Creationism – Redux

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Book Review- Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes

Book review by L.Grey, with permission.

In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95

What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?

You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:

Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]

The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.

While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.

The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.

This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.

While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.

One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.

-Philadelphic

Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…)
(more…)

Waiter! There’s Dogma in My Primordial Soup!

Monday, November 17th, 2008

I Give Evolution Two Opposable Thumbs Up” reads the bright blue rear window decal on my car.    I have been given much positive feedback on it from strangers. Their feedback gives me a sense of hope that science is valued in Texas in spite of recent discussions by the Texas School Board regarding the watering-down of the science curricula regarding biological evolution1 .

Why do I need hope?  I need hope because our nation, once a place to grow one budding scientist after another is failing.  We don’t make scientists, we import them.   If it were not for overseas engineers and scientists, the US would be trailing behind other nations in the fields of technology and science2 .   What kind of future will the children of the U.S. have if the nation is poorly educated in science?  Without proper education in the sciences, how can we properly overcome economic, energy, and environmental crises?  The United States of America has a short but rich history of innovation and advancement.

What happened?  We can point fingers at the quality of our educational system or at the parents who are not involved in their child’s schoolwork.  Well, we can point fingers anywhere, really.

However,  today I would like to point my finger at the unpatriotic U.S. citizens who oppose a proper education in the sciences.   These folks want to teach science in a manner that will not conflict with a book that is a few thousand years old because of their faith.  Religious faith should not be mixed with  science.   Fear and competition led us to achieve scientific greatness when we conquered outer space.  It is now ignorance and religious dogma that has led us to our decline in scientific advancement.

We provide an ugly disservice to our nation’s heritage of innovation- one that has made us a great nation, when we place the obstacle of religious dogma in the way of scientific progress.

  1. http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/10/texas-scientists-support-teaching-evolution-002407 [<]
  2. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9347/index1.htm [<]

Massachusetts School Board OKs Contraceptive Distribution – To Parents

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

The Massachusetts school made famous for its “Pregnancy Pact” scandal (17 pregnancies last year) has taken the bold and progressive move of authorizing distribution of contraceptives to students through the school clinic. Bravo!

Bullshit.

The school is getting praise for being receptive to student needs, and for being an icon of rationality, but it’s not being progressive. It’s being tyrannical, old fashioned, and ineffective. Why? Students must have parental consent to receive the contraceptives. Think about it. The students that are having sex and having unwilling pregnancies are not the kids who will be asking their parents to contact the school to allow them to receive contraceptives, let alone the kids who would even admit to their parents that they’re actually having sex (or thinking about potentially having sex, and would like to be prepared, just in case).

What’s really going on is a scare tactic. This is an underhanded, covert support of the continuously failed faith-based abstinence program. It forces a child to get parental consent not to have an unwanted pregnancy. It creates a no-win choice for kids who don’t feel comfortable talking to their parents about their private lives: either have unprotected sex or abstain from sex. That’s not a good or realistic set of choices.

And what about children who are having sex, but whose parents refuse to give permission?

This is not progress.

Should We Boycott the Brainless?

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

Note: This is one of the places that I learned the lesson I am trying to share with other self-proclaimed skeptics today. So, if your kids are fearing sculptures of DNA, now’s your chance to learn well the lesson of Poe Read below for more details.
(Article Updated below!)

I’ve advocated boycotting stores that support evangelical right-wing fundamentalist entities,1 and I firmly believe in doing everything possible to remove the taint of religion from the decision-making process of government and its presence in our law, public schools, and courthouses. I’ve also asked the question, how far should we rational thinkers go in countering religion?2

Today, I ask, should we also figure out who the brainless are, and boycott them, even if they’re not politicians or evangelists or school board members?

What if you were fond of a certain actor’s work, and you read an interview where that actor was asked, “When was the earth created?”, and the actor responded, “about 4000 B.C., but possibly 10,000 years ago”? Would you seriously consider not watching movies in which that actor starred? Take, for example, Tom Cruise, who, at least publicly, asserts the belief in the existence of an alien being god-equivalent, and all the other nonsense with which Scientology brainwashes its victims.3 Certainly, he got some heckling and negative reaction to his odd behavior and beliefs, but that didn’t incredibly diminish his standing as a Hollywood A-Star. Where he truly got criticized, though, is when he tried to tell others how to live their lives — don’t take pharmaceuticals; don’t see psychiatrists, etc. That imposition on his part was the equivalent, to many, of an offense.

Something gave me a slight shock today. It was the same shock I endured when I read about Ben Stein (whom I actually enjoyed as the brainiac on Win Ben Stein’s Money) extolling the virtues of his pro-Creationist movie Expelled. I had thought to myself, “This must be a joke.” After I was convinced that it wasn’t, I told myself that I’d do my best to avoid ever sending that man a dime. Today’s shock was similar, and I’m curious as to whether there is or should be a distinction that would discourage me from employing the same reaction.

Q. When was the earth created?

A. Archbishop James Usher, working out a chronology from the Bible, calculated in 1654 that the earth was created on the night of October 23, 4004 B.C. Other timetables reach back as far as 10,000 years.

Who answered this way? A priest? An evangelist? Sarah Palin? It could have been any of those, and more. But what’s shocking is that it was uttered, as it were, by the Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic and screenwriter Roger Ebert.

“What about oil and coal…?”, he’s asked. “They are evidence of a Great Flood,” he replies. Apparently he firmly believes that a fossil claimed to be 200 million years old shows a shoe print, proving that all layers of sediment were laid down all at once, about 4,400 years ago.

Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man? “Created at the same time as man.”

And 600-year-old Noah had an Ark filled with pairs of 5,400 land-based mammal species, plus eight people (from whom we are all descended). Dinosaurs walked the earth with man, but drowned in the Flood. 4

At first, again, I thought this was a joke. This couldn’t be Roger Ebert’s own website! I opened a new browser window, typed in “rogerebert.com” and clicked my way back to the Commentary. Okay, it could be a hack attack, sure, but this time, there’s no Rickroll, and it coincided with Ebert’s Roman Catholicism. Fine. He’s a young-earther. The question, though, is whether I should ever listen to the man’s suggestions again. It’s not like I was previously an Ebert fan, but I did occasionally catch his show and I listened. Now he has books and other writings about movies.

Should my rejection of his beliefs as being brainless give me reason to reject everything about him? If yes, then is it my responsibility to determine the world view of anyone with whom I interact, in order to accept or reject that person? If no, then where do I draw the line, and why? I know that when I see a Televangelist, I reject that person by changing the channel (and usually by griping). Someone like Sarah Palin, who is oh so objectionable for many other reasons, I initially reject based on her biblical literalism. Even if she appeared experienced and wise in other matters, I probably wouldn’t want her visiting my home or serving as Vice President if she outwardly (and more frighteningly inwardly) believed in and advocated belief in Creationism.

So, is my line a finely drawn one, based exclusively on whether a person is using belief to infringe upon my way of life, or is it a broader, grayer line that also includes rejection based on affiliation as well as infringement? Is the latter sort of line an acceptable one for someone who purports to be a rational thinker? Perhaps I favor the latter because the mere existence of those who believe in such nonsense are a potential threat, whether direct or indirect (I mean, they make lots of babies, and they indoctrinate those babies in “the way,” so the threat of suffocation by superpopulation could warrant some reaction). I think I honestly could use a bit of guidance on this issue.

UPDATE:

Invisible Quotation Marks

This seems to be a Poe’s Law trend. I wonder why.

Apparently, on his online journal, Roger Ebert has written a scathing rebuttal to the criticism and misunderstood responses filling the web full of vitriol over his pro-Creationism FAQ, stating that his purpose in writing the apparently facetious FAQ was to “to discuss the gradual decay of our sense of irony and instinct for satire, and our growing credulity.”5

Bravo?

It seems Ebert was more than disappointed with evolutionists, who took him at his word (how dare we!), when he concluded, “The adventure with the Creationism article has been enlightening, and a little depressing. I expected better from evolutionists.”

To his credit, however, he did admit not being aware of that little nugget of emoticonology that would have made the distinction between what’s commonly accepted as blind faith and extremely subtle satire, described by Poe’s Law. Ebert wrote, “A postscript and confession. As I said, everyone has blind spots. Many of my supporters cited Poe’s Law, which I was completely unfamiliar with.”

So, the scoreboard for Roger Ebert looks a bit confusing. +10 for decent movie reviews, -10 for wacky Creationist rhetoric (without even a hint of invisible quotation marks visible to anyone but six of his loyal readers?), -10 for insulting the rest of us for not “getting it”, +10 for admitting that maybe we had a pretty good reason for not “getting it” (via our dutiful nod to Poe’s Law), and perhaps +5 for taking the time to explain his reasoning in a lengthy and descriptive journal entry. So, Mr. Ebert, I leave you with +5. And I probably won’t boycott you, since I think your intentions were ultimately good.

One thumb up, one thumb kinda sideways, unsure of where to point.

What’s even more enlightening is the variety of responses to Ebert’s journal entry, ranging from “Oh, I knew what you were doing,” to “I honestly thought you might be telling the truth.” I’ll quote a few excerpts (all from the same page):

As you mention in your article, I did see the quotation marks in your article. But it was based on a ridiculously thorough reading of your previous writings (I haven’t taken the time to search your reviews for the term ‘Creationism’ but I am positive you’ve slighted the concept previously). I knew enough to think “This is so inherently ridiculous that Roger does not need to add any text stating so.” But I will confess that if I stumbled upon the article without a diploma in Ebertology, I’d have been duped. The old adage “Consider the source” made me look smart.

Oh, and in later the same thread, I bemoaned your use of an emoticon as the fall of the last bastion of grammatical holdout. Now I see that it may have been a concession to the above. -Mike S.

Mr. Ebert:

Point taken.

You actually had me going for a while.

However, the problem as I see it is that your satire was indistinguishable from the real thing. Creationists actually believe this nonsense, and they repeat it constantly.

As such, there was reason to believe that you actually believed what you wrote. Especially for someone like me, who had no idea about your actual position on the matter.

You could of course counter with “why didn’t you research it, then?”, to which I reply: Because, again, what you wrote was what a creationist would have written. -Wapper

The problem with the article is that it mimics claims made by Creationists perfectly. That’s not satire. Satire contains an element of the absurd; Creationism is already absurd, recited with a straight face.

By your own standards, we should regard Ben Stein’s EXPELLED as satire. After all, we have a preconceived notion of Stein from his Comedy Central game show. Shouldn’t we expect him to be reasonable? I did. I think my preconceived notion of Stein was valid, which explained the almost universal surprise when his movie came out. Nobody expected Stein to take up such an insane stance. My reaction to your own article was the same: I can’t believe it, but I’ve seen smart people say the same dumb things before. -John W.

I’ll admit, Mr. Ebert, I was so busy worrying about the thought that one of my favorite intellectuals had gone over to the academic dark side that I missed the quotation-marks. I think Poe’s Law is a very apt observation (second in importance to all-wise Godwin’s Law). When such an emotionally charged issue as fundamentalism vs. empiricism arises we tend find ourselves blinded by our gut reaction, forgetting there’s probably a “wink wink, nudge nudge” in there somewhere. In retrospect, I can look over the article and crack a grin at the absurdity of believing that you had jumped the fence. Comments like Noah’s age, and your “steadfast” belief in the story of the Ark, combined with your assertion that man and dinosaur had roamed the Earth at the same time should have slapped me into awareness given your past articles. -Gene D.

Do you really believe that any of what you have written is outlandish enough to pass as satire in an age when 67% of Americans believe in the existence of angels and you have a woman running for vice president who’s a member of a cult that speaks in tongues ?
I say you are entirely out of touch with the reality of relgious thinking in this country. -Issitoq

One need only look at the reaction to the recent New Yorker cover featuring the painting of the Obamas to see that we’re living in a world where irony, sarcasm, and satire are no longer appreciated. As an Obama supporter, I thought it was a brilliant counterattack against the types of people who believe and perpetuate the crazy rumors about the Obamas, and I was sure the readers of the New Yorker would feel the same. But, I quickly realized that many didn’t get the joke, and many of those who did were still incensed because they felt that the Obama detractors wouldn’t—and would just use the cover to further their own cause. I just sighed with disappointment as I wrote this. -Jason

so basically you were trolling. How “clever” of you. And yes, i meant you to see the quotation marks there. -Ian Rennie

Roger, I’ve been a devoted and regular reader of your site since I was 13 years old. I know full well what you think of creationism and your love of all things Darwin since you’ve mentioned it many times- and your article confused and shocked ME!

You really had me worried for a few minutes and I knew what you thought of evolution vs. creationism and figured it *had* to be satire- so you can’t blame other readers.

Now, I knew that you must have been being ironic since I knew you couldn’t possibly be serious but I didn’t see the joke, try as I could. It sounded like you were being serious.

Except for the moose line, that is.

It’s not a good joke if even people who know you have to be kidding don’t understand it. -Agatha

StOP

  1. Don’t Buy Their BS, and Don’t Buy Their Stuff, http://www.stateofprotest.com/2007/12/07/dont-buy-their-bs-and-dont-buy-their-stuff/ [<]
  2. How Much is Too Much? http://www.stateofprotest.com/2008/08/15/how-much-is-too-much/ [<]
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise#Scientology [<]
  4. Roger Ebert quotes from RogerEbert.com, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COMMENTARY/809219997 [<]
  5. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html?swift [<]

Photography Laws, Photographer Rights

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.1 I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise.

Today, I’m going to offer up some links to resources that you might find beneficial if you ever decide to take a photograph outside your own residence. Considering that so many cell phones have their own cameras, and that cameras are becoming more and more portable, it’s likely that anyone reading this has a camera, and can probably benefit from a bit of knowledge about what freedoms and restrictions exist in the realm of photography.2

The Photographer’s Right: A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Photography Bay — Photography Laws

Photo Attorney (look for the “Photography Not Allowed” posts for more examples of harassment)

Legal Andrew: Photo Law – Your Right to Take Pictures in Public

PhotoPermit.org

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

PhotoSecrets: The Law For Photographers — A free, online guide to the rules of taking and selling photos.
PhotoSecrets Links page

Covington & Burling memo to the National Press Photographers Association regarding Rights of Journalists on Public Streets, August 15, 2005

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad
prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law,
including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the
basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may
constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

The basic rule of thumb is that if the general public has access to a public forum
and may operate cameras within it, the press may do so as well.

Photo Junkie: Photographers Rights

Photos & The Law: The Legality of Urban Exploration Photography

Andrew Kantor: Legal Rights of Photographers
Kantor’s USATODAY photography rights article

Student Media of North Carolina State University: Photographers’ Manual

U.K. Photographers Rights

Canadian Photography Laws

Feel free to include suggestions of your own in the comments.

  1. Why, you ask, is a blog devoted to rational activism posting articles regarding a photographer’s right to take pictures in public? Quite simply, State of Protest is dedicated to the elimination of all aspects of irrational, fear-based oppression, whether it be from religious organizations, political factions, neighborhood lynch party groups, or school boards. The photography issue has escalated since 9/11, and we’re all harmed by the misconception that restricting photography somehow ensures national security. While we, as a nation, criticize countries like China for restricting blogger, journalist, and photographer ability to capture and disseminate media critical of the government, we simultaneously create a false requirement of the same restrictions on the basis of national security. All the while, the government continues to increase its ability (and legal right) to invade our privacy with wiretapping, cctv, and other methods of information acquisition.

    “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

    – James Madison. Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788. [<]

  2. Note that I am not affiliated with any of the individuals or organizations behind these links. I’ve derived the links from my own searches. I’m not being paid to provide any of these links. I am not providing any legal advice, and I am not suggesting that any of the links provide legal, proper, or correct advice. I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, consult an licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. [<]