Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 12

I've been gaining a lot of respect for the Austin American-Statesman for its continued and very good coverage of Texas education, starting with its uncovering of the Chris Comer story. Today, it has a new article on the Institute for Creation Research's application to grant Master's degrees in higher education, and an interesting postscript.

I can't help but snicker at this somewhat reserved statement:

Paredes has asked an informal panel of scientists and science educators to comment on the institute's curriculum, which is flavored with a Christian worldview.

Saying the institute is "flavored" with a Christian worldview is a little like biting into a mouthful of habanero peppers and saying it's "a little spicy."

But I'm also reminded of something Kevin Padian said at the SICB meeting in San Antonio. He really objects when students say they don't accept evolution "because I'm a Christian." He points out that many Christians have no problem with evolution, so if you're going to let religion be a sticking point, be honest enough to admit that you're rejecting evolution because you're a fundamentalist. Similarly, I think ICR should be tagged as a fundamentalist Christian institution, because the qualifier really is important in distinguishing their particular point of view. Their views are not supported by all -- probably not even most -- branches of Christianity.

For instance:

(T)he institute's bylaws, tenets and other records show that students and faculty members are required to believe that humans did not evolve from animals but were created in fully human form from the start, that God created all physical and living things in the universe in six days, and that anyone who rejects Jesus Christ will be consigned to "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Not exactly an institution that's big on the idea of academic freedom, really. I'm sure they allow people lots of freedom within that framework, but it's a very narrow framework indeed.

The associated postscript notes that Paredes is being extraordinarily careful over this situation, as ICR has shown a tendency to sue when things don't go their way.

Great balls of fire!

What Doctor Who character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as The Third Doctor. A man of science, a gadget king, you can put up a good fight. You are just what the doctor ordered. 3rd Doctor 92% 9th Doctor 75% 4th Doctor 67% 10th Doctor 67% 8th Doctor 50% 7th Doctor 42% 1st Doctor 42% A Dalek 33% 6th Doctor 25% 2nd Doctor 25% Davros 17% 5th Doctor 8%

The Zen of Presentations, Part 15: Take a bow

It’s kind of fun to search blogs for comments on things that you yourself went to. Since I’ve been writing about the SICB meeting, I looked for that and found this post, which had good presentation advice. So I thought I would elaborate on it.

I was reading a book on magic once, and the author said it was important when you finished an illusion to bow. Now, he immediately elaborated that he didn't literally mean “bend at the waist.” He meant that you should do something to indicate clearly that the trick was done. It was also important not to immediately start the next one, but to create a space for the audience to show their appreciation – to applaud.

Because people’s attention may drift, it’s also helpful to cue them that the talk is coming to a close. Say something like, “In conclusion...” or “To sum up...” or “The take home message is...”.

Several bad ways to end a presentation include:

• Just not talking. Definitely the worst way to go, as people are really unsure of whether they should listen or clap.
• Ending with a perfunctory, “That’s it,“ or “That’s all.” This is usually thrown in as a desperate sign to the audience after the above method (just not talking) fails.
• Anything mentioning questions (as in the linked blog post), as people don’t know if they should stick up their hands or clap.

My typical way to end is to put up an acknowledgments slide, which I do not read, but leave it up during questions. Then, I say, “I thank these people for help with my science, and I thank you for your attention.”

By thanking the audience, you create a chance for them to say, “You”re welcome,” with their applause.

Workin' at SICB

Got a lot of comments about the T-shirt. Geek to the end!

Turning up the heat

At the SICB meeting I had a chance to see Flock of Dodos and sit in on some discussions with filmmaker and former scientist Randy Olson. He revealed that he has another movie coming out, a comedic documentary about global warming called Sizzle.

The film isn't listed on IMDB's database yet, so just consider this your insider entertainment scoop for the day.

In it, Olson describes how he tried to subvert the normal science documentary process, which is to take cameras to campuses and film a bunch of scientists talking. Interviews start out that way, but then a "skeptical" cameraman starts throwing in questions about climate change. Olson said it was really interesting to watch the dynamic change at that point...

Olson also said that he thought that people who saw both films would find the similarities. The data and the issues are different, but the kinds of people who argue against the scientific consensus and the kinds of arguments they use are almost identical. Olson mentioned that the skeptics / deniers in both the intelligent design issue and the climate change issue are very fond of conspiracy theories, for instance.

I'm really looking forward to it.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 24

Lauri Lebo (pictured at left), the local reporter who covered the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and author of the upcoming book Devil in Dover, has an article in the Washington Spectator that discusses Chris Comer's situation in some detail and has a few new comments from some of the people involved, such as Don McLeroy.

Leaving the constitutional legal matter of such a maneuver aside, what aspects of evolution does McLeroy consider controversial? He cites the principle of common descent, in particular the idea that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, as one debatable issue. Yet in the science community, there is no controversy over the idea that all living organisms are descended from a shared ancestor. The mapping of the genetic code in recent years has only confirmed anew scientific support for life's universal connection.

Still, McLeroy says he isn't interested in pushing creationism. "I resent the notion that I'm speaking in code," he said. But in Texas, just as in Dover and in other earlier battles in Kansas and Ohio, the scientific arguments of evolution's critics are intertwined with their religious views.

And the article ends with a description of what Comer has been facing since her forced resignation. I've added the emphasis, because I do think it needs to be emphasized that Chris Comer has been harmed.

As both sides wait to see how this will play out, Christine Comer is adjusting to caring for her disabled father and paying her bills on a pension that provides less than the salary she lost. "But I feel like this is my contribution," she said. "This is my time to draw my line in the sand for science."

She had watched what took place in Dover and remembers being outraged at the time. "But I guess I wasn't outraged enough," she said. Because she never did anything about it.

Now, teachers she knows in small towns across Texas have come to her to say they've been forced to teach creationism in science class for years. She asked them why they didn't do anything about it. "Come on," they told her. "What can I do? It's Texas."

I had the good fortune to talk to Eugenie Scott at the SICB meeting about the Comer and ICR stories, which I've been blogging so much about. I asked her why the ICR story has been so much quieter than the Comer story, and she said it was partly the writer's strike, and partly because Comer was a martyr, so to speak. I certainly have been avoiding that term, because it is emotional and easy to overuse. But during her presentation, Dr. Scott mentioned that Chris Comer is struggling financially right now. She indicated that anyone who was interested in finding out what they could do to help support Ms. Comer could email Eugenie Scott at the NCSE.

SICB, Day 5

And for the final talks today: pot luck! I went to talks with no rhyme or reason. During each talk, I looked through the list to see which was the one coming up that looked the most interesting.

An easy and uneventful drive home. Now is the time to set wheels in motion for some of the plans hatched during the conference...

SICB, Day 4

Today was definitely crustacean day for me. I pretty much saw decapod crustacean talks all day. It was kind of nice, because I don't get to interact with that crowd very much and met a lot of people whose names I had previously only known from reading their papers.

Then my Master's student Sandra and I both gave our posters. I generally had only one person at a time, but there was pretty much always someone in front of my poster talking to me, asking the right questions and agreeing with what I thought the data were showing me. Sandra was also busy at her poster.

Then -- socials! Crustacean social, then neurobiology social, then the general student appreciation social (Hi Candace! Hi Mike! Hi Turkesha!). The poor hotel staff was spending a long time trying to get the clueless scientists out of the social room. Turn lights up -- turn lights down. Turn them up -- turn them down.

One half of one day to go!

SICB, day 3

Argh! Why does wi-fi work on Thursday but not Friday?

Lots of stuff going on today. Today was tough for me personally, because there were talks on evolution and neurobiology and crustaceans -- which is kind of my trifecta. I gave up on neurobiology, and just flitted back and forth between the other two.

Barbara Forest gave one of my favourite talks today -- wonderfully energetic, forceful, direct, concise. She dedicated her talk to Chris Comer, about which I have written much recently, as it was an announcement of Forest's talk that precipitated Comer's forced resignation. The dedication received some applause throughout the audience. Not a huge number, as I think not everyone was aware of the story. But more know now. Forest's talk was, "Still creationism after all these years," showing that intelligent design is creationism, end of story. A lot of other fine talks on teaching evolution, too, talking about the inadequacies of lecturing, and how creationist ideas can be talked about in a class in an effective way.

Another highlight was seeing an IMAX film called "Volcanoes of the Deep." I love movies, I like the IMAX format a lot, and this one has some brilliant undersea footage from deep sea hydrothermal vents. Carrying on with a theme, this film was not allowed to play in some cities because some people objected to some of the evolutionary content. And it had lots of crustaceans in it, which I also liked.

I was also pleased to talk to several people about Marmorkrebs, which generated uniformly high interest. That I also liked, and does help convince me I might have something useful for people. (That website again: http://marmorkrebs.org!)

Tomorrow: two posters to give!

SICB, day 2

High light of the day has been seeing a screening of Flock of Dodos, a film about intelligent design. I really enjoyed it and found it much funnier than most of the rest of the audience, judging by the amount of laughter. My laughter, that is.

The screening was followed by a discussion and Q&A with filmmaker / former biologist Randy Olson. He's given a lot of thought to how scientists communicate. His assessment: he'd rather play poker with the intelligent design crowd.

Sheila Patek's talk was a close second. Search the blog; I've linked to a TED talk of hers you should be able to find. I think this was the first time I'd seen film taken at 100,000 frames per second. Wow.

A thought experiment

Imagine you had a friend who was smart, funny, and charming. There was just one thing.

Every time you asked that friend where he was, he invariably said, "I am in my home in Moscow, Russia."

This friend has never been to Russia. No matter where he goes, the answer is always the same. He could be in the middle of the Arizona desert and insist he was at home in Moscow. When asked where his house was, he might say, "I have a really big backyard."

On every other matter under the sun, you would have a perfectly reasonable conversation. Just as long as you didn't ask him where he was. It's just on this one quirky issue that this person has an unshakable -- but obviously false -- belief.

(There are cases of people with particular brain damage who do, in fact, have these sorts of convictions. So this is not purely a hypothetical case.)

What would you say if that person ran for Mayor of your town? Would you recommend him?

SICB, Day 2

Hooray to SICB for providing free wi-fi at their meeting!

Already have seen four cool talks- 2 on crayfish fighting, dinosaur singing, bird bill shape...

Fun stuff!

SICB Day 1

Will this day never end?!

This day has had a series of gaffes and mistakes and confusions. Student running behind, the big one- me forgetting my own posters!- and a veritable comedy of errors trying to get the rooms for the REU students straightened away.

Some days can only be improved by how fast you can hit unconsciousness.

Rethinking granting, part 2

Research grants in the U.S. (and many other countries) are so competitive that many, many good ideas go unfunded. When funding success is at 10%, many researchers think applying for a grant is just rolling the dice. Obviously, there are certain things that can improve the likelihood of getting a grant, but there seems to be a large component of luck in the process now.

Why not just admit it and award some grants through a lottery system?

They do it for green cards in the United States.

Obviously, there would have to be some criteria to insure that grants do not go to poorly written proposals. Make them small -- micro grants, even. Make them just as accountable as large grants.

It could help ensure greater diversity of ideas (just like the green card lottery helps promote diversity). It would provide insurance that “old boys networks” and coalitions of researchers don't have complete control over the review process.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 11

Texas Citizens for Science is reporting this morning that Raymund Paredes (pictured) has asked for a second site visit and report on the Institute for Creation Research. This would be consistent with several earlier hints of Paredes not being satisfied with the first report, which recommended approval to give Master's degrees in science ed.

Who owns ideas?

I'm working at the lab today, mostly to write a grant proposal. Now, many people would think I could do that easily from the comfort of home. It's a holiday, there is nobody but nobody else in the building (as far as I can tell), so why not just work at home?

Turns out it's very difficult to do any serious scientific writing (a grant proposal or manuscript) at home, because I constantly need to look up references. When I write something serious, I'm always being forced to track down papers I haven't read before. Or I have to find papers where I've read the abstract, but not the main text.

And I can't get to most of those papers from home.

I can from my lab, because it's a university. And the university has paid various publishers for the right to have electronic access to many of the journals I need to refer to when I do serious scientific writing.

That's a direct consequence of copyright and intellectual property issues, and the business models of scientific publishers, most of which are run by for-profit companies.

This week's Science Show has a really wonderful, thought-provoking set of talks about intellectual property issues. Highly recommended.

Indeed, to harken back to the last post, one of the things I think I've changed my mind about is about intellectual property. I used to be much more supportive of copyright protection overall. Now, I see more and more benefits of a more relaxed attitude towards accessing information, thanks to programs like the one above, Creative Commons (particular Lawrence Lessig's advocacy), the push towards Open Access, and more.

(And in addition to all the stuff about copyright, there's a bonus revelation about just how much power internet computing is using up. I never considered how much juice Google HQ must suck back.)

Changing your mind

Given that much of what I've been writing about recently concerns people who have consistently failed to revise their hypotheses in light of contrary evidence (much of what I've been writing about ICR, for instance; a lot of posts on skepticism), I absolutely love this page:

What have you changed your mind about?

And, paradoxically, one of the first ones I come across is one that I like a lot, but I don't think is easily digestible to non-scientists, and indeed, runs counter to much of what I've been writing. Irene Pepperberg talks about the the importance of doing more than hypothesis testing.

As to her first point, my favourite version of that is from Niko Tinbergen, who, in one of his most famous papers, wrote:

Contempt for simple observation is a lethal trait in any science(.)

As for Pepperberg's third point: strong inference, baby.

I'm going to be reading this page a lot, methinks. Fantastic.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 10

Henry Morris III, the ICR director, has a letter in the Dallas News this morning objecting to their recent editorial. Time for a fisking.

It came as a surprise to both faculty and administration when the editorial stated that the Institute for Creation Research "rejects so many fundamental principles of science."

That shouldn't be a surprise, since people have been pointing out that creationism isn't science for years now. There have been court cases about it. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education in 1982 (summarized here -- # 3) was a prominent one. And ICR, then under Henry Morris's grandfather, Henry Morris, Sr., featured rather prominently in that case (search the linked text for ICR).

Odd that Henry Morris III wouldn't know about that court case.

Funny that it would come as a surprise to Mr. Morris that people don't think his institute is doing science.

ICR would like to know which "principles of science" are supposedly rejected by our school.

Methodological naturalism and willingness to revise hypotheses in light of contrary evidence.

Surely not Newton's gravitational theory.

Not a principle of science. That's a particular body of information generated by the principles of science, but it is not the principle itself.

Nor Mendel's laws of heredity.

Not a principle of science.

Nor do we deny natural selection, suggested by Edward Blyth 24 years before Charles Darwin's writings.

Yes, natural selection was recognized before Charles Darwin. Nevertheless, Darwin's contribution was huge. Darwin was the first to recognize natural selection as a creative force with the ability to create new forms of life. Stephen Jay Gould writes about this quite a bit in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

All were creationists.

Irrelevant. They probably all had two legs, too. Nobody disputes that many scientists have been and are Christians. This is about evidence, not authority.

Also, it's a total shell game to say, "Newton and Mendel were creationists" because there really were any strong competing theories at the time! If you were able to go back, bring Newton or Mendel or any of those people to the present day, show them the evidence that we have now... would they still hold to the doctrine that the earth is a few thousand years old and that species were specially created? There's no way to say. Mendel, for example, was an Augustinian monk -- a Roman Catholic. And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. Indeed, one of my colleagues learned evolution from a nun.

If Mendel were alive today, he would probably not be a creationist.

What ICR scientists openly question is Darwin's "descent with modification" or macroevolution. Even renowned evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that "evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory."

Oooh, a quote mine! No context, no date, no source. Let's see if I can find this in Talk Origins... and yes, here it is. It's from 1971 or 1972. And we've learned a few things since then.

Despite what The News implies, ICR is a science-oriented institution, employing experts since 1970 whose credentials meet or exceed the qualifications of numerous secular universities and who conduct research across various disciplines. Many researchers bring extensive experience from such recognized facilities as Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, Cornell, UCLA and Texas A&M.

Do they make predictions, conduct experiments, analyze data, and publish results in peer-reviewed journals? They probably have in the past, but what's their output recently?

The graduate programs of ICR, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect: ICR bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God, as opposed to the naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions of evolution.

And here comes the wedge: A real Christian can't support evolution. Only atheists support evolution. Choose!

What a tremendous disservice -- actually, an insult -- to the many, many Christians and other believers who see no incompatibility between their faith and scientific evidence.

And it also shows the the ICR does not abide by one of the working assumptions of scientific inquiry: no miracles allowed.

Perhaps before suggesting that men and women of faith have no place in teaching science, The News should verify the credentials and scientific contributions of those it impugns who are both committed Christians and recognized, productive scientists.

Interesting how the letter ends without mentioning how many peer-reviewed papers come out of the ICR. How many externally funded grants ICR personnel currently hold. I'm willing to guess that the number is low.

Not surprising to see familiar and not very substantive arguments here.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 9

The Waco Tribune-Herald is the latest in the slow roll of editorials waking up to the ICR's application to offer Master's degrees in science education in Texas.

Unfortunately, people with religious agendas continue in their efforts to gain leadership positions in state education while other people continue their efforts to get schools to teach their religious beliefs in Texas public schools.

Unfortunately, this is a very slim editorial, which does little but restate the facts of the application and the Comer case.

A personal review of 2007

"Practiced long enough, war begins to seem normal."
- Ree Soesbee, flavour text from War-Stained Fields, Legend of the Five Rings card

That quote has been on my mind a lot lately. 2006 was not a good year. And this one hasn't been much better. High points were being awarded the REU grant, maybe my talk at the J.B. Johnston Club, which I was pretty happy about in the end. Getting the Marmorkrebs was a very promising thing. And I've had the busiest blogging year by a long shot, and I'm pretty happy with some of the blog posts.

But I had no new research papers out. One commentary was it. Grant administration is all it's cracked up to be -- fairly hellish. And it didn't help I was ending the year writing about two highly worrying stories concerning creationism and Texas education: Chris Comer's forced resignation and the ICR proposal for grad degrees in science education.

So yet again, I can't wait to see the back end of this year. Roll on 2008.

An elf?

I'm an elf? Dagnabbit, I don't like elves...

I am a: True Neutral Elf Wizard (5th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength-12
Dexterity-13
Constitution-13
Intelligence-16
Wisdom-10
Charisma-14

Alignment:
True Neutral A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 8

The editorials have been slow coming, but coming they are, on the ICR application to grant Amster's in science education. Today's is in the Houston Chronicle. The subtitle says a lot: "State recognition of a creationist institute's degree would undermine science teacher credentials."

Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes expressed discomfort with the recommendation to sanction the institute's graduate degrees but wants a thorough review. He told the Houston Chronicle that "because this controversy is so potentially hot, we owe it to both sides to be absolutely fair in evaluating it."

His caution is admirable, but the creationist battle has already been fought in other states in which science has been the decisive victor. Paredes makes the sensible observation that a degree issued by the institute should be labeled creation studies rather than science education.

Again, it's notable that Ray Paredes is quoted as expressing reservations over the whole thing. Also, many of the editorials so far have expressed a view along the lines of, "Feel free to teach this -- just don't pretend it's science."

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 7

The Dallas Morning News has an editorial today that is partly about the ICR's application to offer Master's degrees in science education.

We hate to second-guess the three academic investigators – including Gloria White, managing director of the University of Texas at Austin's Dana Research Center for Mathematics and Science Education – but, still, the coordinating board had better give this case a long, hard look.

The board's job is to certify institutions as competent to teach science in Texas schools. Despite the institute including mainstream science in its programs, it's hard to see how a school that rejects so many fundamental principles of science can be trusted to produce teachers who faithfully teach the state's curriculum.

Emphasis added.

One thing I do find a little weird about some comments -- like the one above -- is the assumption that people who get Master's degree would (a) only be from Texas and (b) only teach in Texas. I've seen this idea in a couple of places. It overlooks that the ICR is proposing to offer online degrees (indeed, it apparently has exactly one classroom), and basically, within the U.S., accreditation is accreditation. There would probably be people from many places interested in getting an accredited Master's that legitimizes creationist beliefs as science. Likewise, I have no doubt that many people would be happy to take use an accredited degree to try to get teaching jobs in public schools outside Texas, even though teaching creationism is illegal in K-12 public schools across the U.S.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 6

The Austin American-Statesman, which did such a fine job breaking the Chris Comer story, has an editorial today that reaches big. It says the fight brewing over evolution does nothing less than "threaten Texas." I have to admit that I find "threaten Texas" to be a little overblown. Texas will continue to exist regardless of the outcomes of these processes. It may be intellectually and economically poorer, may have less prestige, may have fewer scientists willing to live here -- but the state, as a whole, is not threatened.

The editorial also calls for the Governor (pictured) to get involved.

Now is the time for Gov. Rick Perry to step up and halt the bloodletting before it does serious harm to the state’s reputation, economy and future. ...

Perry should not sit idly by while this potentially devastating issue unfolds in national headlines. He appointed Scott and McLeroy, and he should derail any efforts to downgrade evolution in Texas schools.

The editorial gives more encouraging signs concerning Raymund Paredes's take on the ICR's application:

Raymund Paredes, Texas’ higher education commissioner, said he is evaluating the report from the team that recommended approving the science course. He’s not happy with it and is actively gathering more information ahead of next month’s board meeting.

Emphasis added.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 5

Raymund Paredes (pictured) of the THECB has written a letter to the New York Times outlining the process of how the Institute for Creation Research's application to give Master's in science education will be handled.

I am reviewing the report and seeking more information and advice from scientists to evaluate the program and make recommendations to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on Jan. 24.

I sincerely hope this is the case. And I sincerely hope those some of those scientists are biologists. Geologists and astronomers would be good, too.

The primary goal in reviewing the application is to consider whether the program will contribute to helping high-school students be successful in rigorous college science courses. In evaluating it, we will make certain Texas remains hospitable to high-quality science education and scientific research.

This, frankly, sounds encouraging. I hope that come late January, he won't have those words haunting him over and over.

Meanwhile, Dave McNeely for the Midland Reporter-Telegram has a very short note about ICR at the end of a longer piece on Texas governor Rick Perry. He quips:

Maybe education officials will say science teachers should be like the editorial writer, asked if he thinks the earth is round or square.

"I can," the editorialist replied, "write it either way."

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 23

You may recall that professors wrote an open letter to Robert Scott, which I commented upon here.

Scott replied to that letter (PDF file). The letter is vague and says very little substantive. The only thing he says that is remotely encouraging is:

The science TEKS will be reviewed and updated by the SBOE in 2008 but at this point, I am not aware of any plans to change these particular curriculum standards.

Very non-committal.

Earlier this week, Daniel Bolnick (pictured), the lead author on the original letter, has written to Scott again (scroll down; PDF here). It is a very good letter, and I recommend reading it in full.

You (Scott) write "that anything said will be scrutinized and may be interpreted as representing a position of the agency or State Board of Education." The Board's position on science education should be to provide the best and most accurate science possible, regardless of the political consequences. There are times when public bodies need to lead, and this is one of them.

Bolnick extends out a hand and says, "Hey, we're here to help you put in the best possible science in the curriculum." He also points out how "critical thinking skills" are only pulled out where evolution is concerned, and not for any other branch of science.

(Y)ou probably recall that in 2003, during the textbook adoption hearings, the evolution-related standards were the only standards to which 3A directly was applied (emphasis added - ZF), in an effort to weaken the coverage of evolution in the books. An attempt to force textbook publishers to rewrite their textbooks to include non-existent "weaknesses" almost succeeded. This would have resulted in students in Texas and nationally being miseducated about evolution. Upon entry to university science classes, they would have to unlearn the spurious "weaknesses" they had been taught in high school, which is profoundly unfair to them.

Nice to have some historical information in there. Good job all round.

The Zen of Presentations, Part 14: The Ehrlich Method

The Australian radio show In Conversation recently played two excerpts from a presentation by Paul Ehrlich (pictured). Presenter and interviewer Robyn Williams, who I imagine has seen more than his fair share of incredible talks by some of the world’s best thinkers (interviewing them is his job, after all), was impressed.

He described Ehrlich’s talk in the first part thus:

Here is an internationally renowned biologist and environmental stirrer, at the Perth Convention Centre, strolling on stage with his hands in his pockets or gesticulating for effect, and just chatting. No notes in sight; just that Paul Robeson, rich baritone and a few incendiary remarks(.)

In part two, Williams elaborates:

I was going to call him the ecological answer to Jerry Seinfeld, but the difference is edge. Among the jokes and segues Paul Ehrlich really means some of those barbs.

Williams refers to Erlich as having a “conversation” with his audience and is impressed enough to ask specifically about how he does it.

Robyn Williams: So what enables him at the age of 75, to pace around a stage at the Convention Centre in Perth with no notes, speaking like a Gatling Gun to an audience of 600?

Paul Ehrlich: What I do is I engrave my notes on the inside of my eyelids so all I have to do is blink to be able to read them.

RW: laughs... It’s quite extraordinary. There are two ways of taking this way of having a conversation. You have a conversation with an audience. Either you always say the same thing - or - you've extremely well organised. Which is it?

PE: I always say the same thing... laughs... no... It’s not a matter of organisation, in fact it's a very simple thing. You know a number of things you want to say; you organise them into routines, so you can leave them in or add another one, and depending on the audience you have a basic idea of what you’re going to talk about, so it’s not all that complicated.

There’s a useful idea in there. What Ehrlich calls “routines,” I think of as making a talk modular.

This is particularly a way I structure a series of lectures. Over time, I develop a set of lectures. In any given semester, I put in some but take out others. Once you get each individual piece ready, it’s easy to slot them in, take some in, leave others out, and mix it up.

But what if you have just one presentation you’re working on?

If you’re using slides, you have a natural Ehrlich "routine" right there. Make each one a little self-contained story.

Organize your “routines” so that you have the most important stuff first. When I wrote for newspapers, well before digital publishing allowed very clear calculations of how much space you had, articles would often have to be longer or shorter. So the trick was to break the story down. Put all the important stuff up front. Anything that was interesting, but tangential or dispensible, you put in the last paragraphs. That way, if the story had to be cut due to space limitations, the main thrust of the story was intact and undamaged.

It’s like a set list for a band. A band gives a different concert each night, and each can be totally different. They can do this because they don’t do their entire repertoire of songs. They pick a subset. Before every performance, the band writes out what songs they're going to do.

Can you guess what artist’s set list this is before clicking the link? (Hint: How many songs do you know with “science” in the title?)

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 22

Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas State Board of Education, dentist, and avowed creationist, has a letter in the Dallas News yesterday.

Mr. McLeroy does not get it.

I would like to clarify any impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows;" no subject should be "untouchable" as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.

What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper.

It's a sly, clever letter that uses broad and vague generalities to its advantage.

No scientist is going to argue against holding an "irrefutable preconception." But McLeroy implies that's what biologists have: a bunch of irrefutable preconceptions that we won't allow to be challenged. He doesn't come out and say it, leaving himself plenty of wiggle room for people to read between the lines and give himself the "No, I didn't mean that at all, I didn't say that" plausible denial. But given the context, is there anyone who seriously doubts the implication is "evolutionary biologists are closed minded"? (That's a genuine question, by the way, not rhetorical.)

McLeroy is mixing up two very different things: original scientific research and science education.

When you're conducting original scientific research, the rules of engagement to tackle "irrefutable preconceptions" are very clear. You make predictions. You do experiments. You gather data. You analyze results. You submit those findings to the critical review of your peers who have some expertise in the field. You publish them.

That's the way that a lot of controversial ideas in science eventually found support. Continental drift, just off the top of my head. Yes, it's a long, hard slog, and yes, there will be arguments against the idea. But if you've got the evidence, you'll usually win out.

And the creationists aren't doing that. I just do not see a large number of specific, testable predictions out there, never mind interest in doing actual experiments. And really, in the digital age, they can't claim that they're unable to communicate they're findings in peer reviewed journals. If they want to communicate their results in non peer reviewed sources, I say, "Go for it." Subject it to public scrutiny. If the predictions have power, if the experiments are well designed, the analysis is careful, and there is actual supporting evidence that can be replicated by others -- researchers will be all over it.

Now, what about science education? Do we expect students to carry out original scientific research at the level that goes on in universities? In general, no. Students don't have that kind of expertise. Schools don't have those kinds of resources. Do we introduce students to absolutely very point of view and let them "make up their own minds"? No. In fact, it is generally considered unethical to do so. It's an abandonment of adult responsibility.

In history class, we don't teach that there is controversy about whether the Holocaust occurred under the Nazis in World War II. Even though there are some people who insist that the Holocaust is never happened. Because there is overwhelming historical evidence (though disputed by a small number of people), and there is a consensus that those advocating the "minority" position are motivated by bigotry, not an interest in historical fact. People who argue that students should be allowed to hear both sides and make up their own mind about the Holocaust are usually arrested for hate crimes.

Instead of presenting every point of view as equally legitimate, we present those things that have strong consensus of evidence. When there is real disagreement, we teach that, too. We show past controversies -- like continental drift -- as examples of how evidence matters.

While McLeroy wants to been seen as a friend to critical thinking, I think what he's really trying to sell is doubt. When two sides are presented in brief as opposing views, people will just think, "Oh, there's disagreement, so I don't have to change what I personally do, because maybe the other side is wrong." This is how the cigarette industry countered reports that smoking was harmful. This is how others countered the scientific evidence that global warming was a serious problem caused by humans.

Meanwhile, newspaper columns keep coming. This next one is from Tim Holt, but before I get to his column, let me quote from an earlier blog entry in Intended Consequences:

I know Chris. She has nothing but the best interest of the kids in mind. I met her when I was president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas in 2002.

I know, I know. How dare she, The head of SCIENCE EDUCATION in Texas forwarding something about SCIENCE! ... Next she will take a stand that is “pro gravity.” We have to stop her!

Damn her for forwarding a message about a topic that the state of Texas TEACHES!

He's gone on to write a more recent article in El Paso's curiously named Newspaper Tree:

(T)here seems to be no other science-related subjects that the agency does not “support.” “Gravity? Go for it. Forces and Motion? Have fun!” “Change over time? Whoa there partner, them is fighting words! Ya’ll can say anything you want ‘bout them other science terms, but ya better just hush-up when yer talking that devil Darwin” ...

What should concern everyone with any interest at all in Texas education is how the agency appears to be stifling debate and discussion, even within itself and within broader science education, the very place where debate and discussion should take place. A science director for a state education agency should be the one that fosters discussion. Comer should not have been fired, she should have been praised. Politics has no place at the TEA curriculum table, especially when it comes to proven scientific truth. (And don’t kid yourselves, there is not a scientist alive today worth his or her salt that does not view as a given that systems change over a period of time.)

Oh, I'm sure there are some scientists worth their salt who don't view things changing over time. But they're not publishing evidence-based science testing predictions based on those views.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 4

I'm really amazed at how little press the Institute for Creation Research is getting for its application to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master's degrees in science education.

Maybe all the reporters are busy Christmas shopping.

One of Nature's blogs, The Great Beyond, has taken notice.

On the one hand this is a totally stupid move: creationism is not a science and anyone attempting to teach science from a creationist view point is going to – at best – produce ignorant and misinformed students. On the other hand, does it really matter what name you give a degree? In the UK ‘science’ masters degrees are sometimes awarded for history courses and ‘Master of Arts’ degrees for physics.

It's not just about whether it's a Master of Science or a Master of Arts, although it certainly is gallingthat they would have the chutzpah to try for a Master of Science.

I would be just as upset if this proposal was for a Master of Arts degree in science education. It's the content, not the title, that makes this an application that should be rejected. A graduate degree in science education that revolves around creationism is a total contradiction in terms. It would undermine the credibility of every other education graduate program in Texas that teaches actual science.

Creationists are already teaching science in schools and that is the problem, not the creation (groan) of unwarranted degree titles.

Not legally in the U.S. K-12 public school system, however.

The Great Beyond author also puzzled over how quiet this story has been.

I hope this story gathers steam in the New Year, as the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is slated to discuss this proposal on 24 January 2008.

The Coordinating Board's approval may be more important than I originally thought. According to a report from Texas Citizens for Science, approval from THECB would give the Institute permission to offer degrees for two years while it applies for SACS accreditation. It would also allow them to offer degrees through distance learning, according to another report.

Since the newswire is quiet, let's see what some other bloggers have to say...

Michael White at Adaptive Complexity writes:

Is it acceptable to accredit a science education program that teaches science students that they can build perpetual motion machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics? That matter is not made up of atoms, and that diseases are caused by 'humours' and not germs? Of course not, and by the same token, it is wrong to give state approval to a Master's program that teaches future science educators that the earth suddenly appeared less than 10,000 years ago, and that today's living species did not descend from a common set of ancestors.

The author of the Petunias blog tries to see humor in the situation, but fails:

Go look at the ‘Institute’s’ web site. It would actually be funny if they weren’t serious.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 21

Back as an undergraduate, I remember one of my psychology professors talking about the most complimentary and most destructive things you could say about a person. The best compliment to be paid was to say someone was "honest." The worst thing you could say about someone was to call them a "liar."

So I have real strong misgivings over various blogs that have called Lizzette Reynolds (the woman who initially called for Comer to be fired or reassigned) a liar (e.g., Panda's Thumb, to name just one prominent one). A lot of blog responses contained variations on, "How do you know when a creationist / Bushie / fundy lies? Her lips move." And some were nastier.

But did she say anything that contradicted the known facts?

Several people pointed out that at one point, Ms. Reynolds said:

What I didn’t think about was evolution in terms of a political struggle.

when earlier, she mentioned the whole reason she forwarded the email to Comer's bosses was:

I looked at it and said, “This could be political.”

Juxtaposed like that in a convenient quote mine, it does look like a contradiction. But does it represent a lie? Personally, I'm willing to give Ms. Reynolds the benefit of the doubt at least here. I think it's possible to recognize that something has political implications, but not recognize how big those implications are. And we often say slightly contradictory things, particularly about something abstract like "politics."

Others also found it improbable that she was not aware of Ms. Comer's resignation. Working in a bureaucratic administration myself, I find this all to easy to imagine happening. You start something and people forget to follow-up and tell you something's gone on. Unless someone else can verify that Ms. Reynolds was informed before that, that isn't grounds to call her a liar, either.

I am not trying to let Ms. Reynolds off the hook here. Her initial actions look incredibly thin-skinned and hyper-reactionary. Ms. Reynolds email about Comer's "FYI" said:

"This is something that the State Board, the Governor's Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports."

But virtually nobody has agreed that "FYI" implies endorsement or support.

Of all the players involved, Ms. Reynolds has came closer than anyone else in the TEA administration to saying what should be said: "We made a mistake."

Annoyances of meetings

I spent almost all day today trying to print off two posters for the upcoming SICB meeting in San Antonio. And a good thing, too, as one more day would have screwed me over.

I love the SICB meeting. But that it's in the middle of winter can pose logistic problems. To wit:

The entire university becomes a flipping ghost town just at the time you're trying to work on your poster!

We have in our building a large poster printer capable of massive, 42 inch wide jobs. And it does gorgeous work. But the lab closed last week, and won't open again until after the SICB conference is over. I managed to get into the lab, being faculty (rank has its privileges), the main computer was on, and I got one poster printed. But I was having problems with the second poster, and at one point ended up accidentally restarting the computer. That did me in, because I didn't have a password to get back into the computer.

I go to the Dean's office, which used to have an oversided printer. But no longer.

Finally, I go to the library, get told the person who can help me is at lunch, come back, and learn their poster is 36", not 42". That's okay, we work around it, and with a bit of fiddling, get the second poster. But this costs me. Whereas I get to use the printer in the Science building for free, I have to pay out of pocket to get this poster printed by the library.

I shall complain no more, however, because I shudder to think what taking it to a local print shop would have cost. And if I'd tried to do them tomorrow, there would have been nobody in the library to help.

But the posters are done -- hooray! -- and I'm looking forward to showing them off in the first Saturday of the new year.

For those of you who will be flying to San Antonio, I have bad news: All the annoying extra steps we go through in airport security don't appear to have made airports more secure. The article contains this bon mot:

"Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?"

I can, however, think of things I could hide in my underwear but not in my shoes.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 20

And columns speaking out against the Texas Education Agency still keep coming... The latest is by one Rod Rose in Indiana:

If Texas tells a publisher it wants creationism in a biology textbook, it will probably get books that espouse creationism as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution — because publishing is a for-profit business.

Proto-whale

Given how much I've been writing about evolution of late, it only seems right to point out that new fossils have been found further linking whales to land animals. It's in the new issue of Nature, and a summary is here.

Pretty pictures 2007

This slideshow of science photos from Nature is well worth a quick run through.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 19

Glenn Branch is the author of the email that Chris Comer forwarded, which in turn precipitated her forced resignation. He comments on the situation. To nobody's surprise, he is not impressed.

It’s absurd, of course, to regard Comer’s forwarding of my announcement of Forrest’s talk as endorsing Forrest’s view (ask a linguist). But that absurdity pales in comparison to the absurdity of the Texas Education Agency trying to adopt a position of “neutrality” on evolution, when (as the National Academy of Sciences observes) “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”

The future of seafood

When I saw Long John Silver's ads for Langostino lobster on television, I had a flash of recognition. Because they showed a picture of the Langostino lobster tail, and I thought, "Those are squat lobsters."

I recognized them because I published a paper on squat lobster motor neurons (Faulkes & Paul, 1997. A map of the distal leg motor neurons in the thoracic ganglia of four decapod crustacean species. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 49(3): 162-178).

I was surprised, because squat lobsters get their name from the fact that their tails are small, and they sit with them normally tucked underneath the rest of their body. They are crunchy little animals with a small tail, slender (though often long) claws -- and there's just not much meat on them. When I was working with them, we would sometimes go out trawling for animals and we'd throw some prawns on the boil for lunch, but nobody ever considered throwing a squat lobster into the pot.

Yet there they were, being advertised and sold on the mass market.

I was reminded of a study of seafood menus that showed how clawed lobster used to be considered trash food rather than a delicacy. Lobster meat moved up in prestige as the preferred fish stocks were depleted.

Now, lobster is too expensive for mass consumption, so squat lobsters are being fished and sold. I don't like the trend. We're just going down and down the food chain as one fishery is depleted after another. What's next? Krill?

"Eat like a whale at Long John Silver's! If krill can feed the largest animals on earth, it can feed you!"

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 3

The New York Times has an article on the THECB's panel's recommendation to allow the Institute for Creation Research to grant Master's degrees in science education in Texas.

Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, "I don't know. I'm not a scientist."

You could ask some scientists, you know, We're nice. We'd help.

The article clarifies how the Institute for Creation Research has been accredited, and it's partly through legal muscle:

In California, the only other state where Mr. Morris said the institute was offering degrees, it won recognition from the state superintendent of public instruction in 1981 but was denied license renewal in 1988. The institute sued and in 1992 won a $225,000 settlement that allowed it to continue offering degrees; it now operates under the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Dr. Morris said his program was accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which is not recognized by Texas.

Texas Citizens for Science, however, claims that the Institute no longer has TRACS accreditation.

The Houston Chronicle also has a news article on this, as does the Austin American-Statesman, here. Patricia Nason is quoted as saying:

"The bottom line is we're teaching science and we're teaching teachers how to teach science(.)"

You're not teaching science when you require students to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which is ICR's avowed mandate.

I'm expecting now that this story has made it into a national newspaper, we're probably going to start seeing editorials around the country about this. Bringing Texas into more disrepute.

This is way, way more worrying than what happened to Chris Comer, frankly.

New article: E4D Commentary

A short commentary on the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by my colleague Anita and myself has just been published. Yes, the cover date on the journal says August, but the article was published online on 17 December (yesterday). Probably lots of libraries won't see print copies until early 2008.

The doi is 10.1017/S0140525X07002270. Accept no substitutes.

Faulkes Z, Davelos Baines A. 2007. Evolutionary string theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30(4): 369-370.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1475888

Here's the abstract:

Evolution in Four Dimensions claims that epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic inheritance systems should be considered equal partners to genetics in evolutionary biology. The evidence for, and applicable scope of, these additional inheritance systems is limited, particularly with regard to areas involving learning. It is unclear how including these extra dimensions in mainstream evolutionary thinking translates into testable hypotheses for a productive research program.

You can check out other responses to the book in this issue here.

The Zen of Presentations, Part 13: The worst mistake

Never go over your alloted time when you're giving a talk.

This is particularly an issue for people giving presentations at conferences, where your talk is just one small part of a much larger parade of presentations. If you go too long, you make everyone else late for the rest of the day.

If there are multiple tracks of presentations, the imperative to stay on time gets even greater. People will often move from one room to another, popping in to see one talk and then leaving to see another talk. If the schedule goes out of whack, you do a great disservice to the audience.

My general rule of thumb is aim for your talk to be about 80% of alloted time. Given a 15 minute talk? Aim for 12. Got a 50 minute talk? Aim for 40. That way, if you are delayed a little, you can still finish on time.

And how do you know how long your talk is? Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

Nobody ever criticizes a talk for being too short. But having a talk that goes on too long -- not knowing when to shut up -- is really the height of rudeness.

Then as now

One of my students asked me today what high school was like for me. I said, "Nothing's changed."

"You were a geek?"

Yup.

Frighteningly, there's not much difference between my Grade 12 high school yearbook entry and my Facebook page.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 2

An advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has, to my shock, actually recommended the Institute for Creation Research be allowed to award Master's degrees in science education in Texas.

My surprise was slightly mitigated by this information:

(T)he Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be taking up the issue in the wake of an August ruling by the Texas Supreme Court questioning the grounds on which the board had evaluated seminaries and warning the board not to impose secular values on seminaries.

But the surprise factor went back up when I read this familiar sounding quote:

“A lot of people believe creationism is a legitimate point of view. I respect them,” (Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas) said. “I’m an advocate of the principle that when there is a controversy and there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the conflict, my pedagogical principle is ‘teach the conflict.’ Maybe that’s a possibility here.”

Ah, yes. "Teach the conflict." I refer you back to the letter to the Texas Education Agency signed by many biology professors in the state, which surveyed journals to find 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution in 12 journals to 0 on intelligent design. I expect "creation science" would yield a similar total.

From a scientific point of view, that's not a conflict. That's a massacre.

In some sense, however, although surprising, the advisory report is almost meaningless, since the major accrediting agency is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (universally known in the area as SACS). I can't imagine SACS would accredit them, since the Institute for Creation Research has never had mainstream accreditation, by all accounts. They had accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), but apparently have no longer, according to Texas Citizens for Science. Texas Citizens for Science is turning out to be a very active ad interesting source of information on this matter.

Silver lining

That my computer has been taken away from my desk and is not likely to return from being repaired until well into the new year has an unexpected up side. Moving to a new computer, I was forced to look at how I was going to handle email and such, and in so doing, I figured out several good things about working with Thunderbird so that I wasn't continually forced to use webmail. I upgraded some Bluetooth software and found it works much better than the old stuff I was using.

Now, if I can just get my computer back before the start of classes next year, I'll be happy.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 1

The Institute for Creation Research is asking the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for permission to offer graduate degrees in science education.

The article describes the institute's contentious history of offering degrees in California. Apparently, they did offer accredited degrees, lost that right in 1988, sued and won money but didn't get the right to offer accredited Master's degrees back.

Opinion: Avowed creationist institutes should not offer Master's degrees with science in the title.

And I thought the Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer situation was giving me lots to write about.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 18

The Austin American-Statesman continues to do a fine job of investigating the forced resignation of Chris Comer. Now, they have an interview with key player Lizzette Reynolds. She was the one who first responded to Comer's forwarded email.

Knowing what you know now, what would you do differently?

I would have alerted the proper people that something was being sent on the state e-mail. I would have said, “Let’s discuss this,” instead of giving my opinion in the e-mail. … Should I have used the words “termination” or “reassignment”? I don’t know.

Interestingly, although she was the first to send a very strong opinion to Comer's supervisors, she said she did not know Comer was forced to resign.

Were you aware of the significance of evolution?

I didn’t recognize the importance of the subject in terms of it being tagged “evolution.” I know now that it has very real importance in modern science and research. I know that it is in our TEKS, and I’ve no reason to believe it won’t continue that way. What I didn’t think about was evolution in terms of a political struggle. That took me by surprise because the science is being utilized in all our schools.

I have to say that I'm not surprised that an administrator wouldn't really appreciate the science. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

All told, I think Ms. Reynolds comes across as someone who's honestly given thought about what's happened to Chris Comer. She sure does not give anywhere near the same vibe as statements from Robert Scott or Don McLeroy, who really give the impression that they have an agenda to push.

Meanwhile, William Lutz, writing in the East Texas Review takes an unabashedly conservative point of view and spells out why conservatives have to take political note of evolution.

Even discussing the pros and cons of evolution can cause political problems. Many Americans view it either as a government imposition of religion or political tampering with science or both.

Could it be because it, you know, actually is? That, in fact, the repeated defeats for creationism and such in multiple court challenges are because it truly does violate the first amendment of the American constitution by showing favouritism to one particular religious point of view?

It's unfortunate that this is seen purely as political positioning, instead of empirical fact.

Even people who make well-thought-out critiques of Darwin are accused of trying to cram their religious views down others’ throats.

What "well-thought-out critiques"? That is a sincere question, not rhetoric. Where are they? Because I keep looking, and I keep seeing the same arguments and no actual new data.

I say again: Make predictions. Do experiments. Analyze data. Do real science. There are lots of armchair critics capable of composing "well-thought-out critiques" that don't stand up to serious experimentation.

Lower molars

In a recent post, I quoted one Mark Ramsey, who wants "weaknesses" in evolution taught in K-12 public schools, who asked, "What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

I said those were fighting words. It's a taunt. And it's an effective taunt, too, judging how bloody irritated I got upon reading it.

The implication is that biologists don't want a "fair hearing" because it will reveal that evolution is somehow lacking. In fact, it has much more to do with the futility of engaging in intellectual debate with people who will never, ever change their minds.

Normally, I would try to express my frustration over the pattern of discussion, but someone beat me to it, albeit in a totally different context. The following are excerpts from a post made by Joe Straczynski, writer of many things including Babylon 5, to the usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated back in 19 May 1998. It perfectly expresses the tremendous frustration that arises when dealing with a small number of unreasonable people.

Let’s play a game for a moment. Let’s say there are 30 people out there who don’t like you. For whatever reason. They don’t like your work, your face, whatever. 30 people out of a much larger universe of people.

Now, those 30 people go online, where you hang out, and they leave dozens -- literally dozens -- of messages attacking you, every day. They put out absolute and downright lies, total fabrications... they cite contracts that don’t exist, they put out the word that you’ve had a heart attack just so the switchboards at your office get flooded and people get upset, they send you trojan horses and viruses, and impugn your ability, your credibility, your honesty, your relationships with your co-workers.

And they do this day after day, week after week, month after month... for six years. Unflaggingly, untiringly, just one nonstop series of attacks. Yeah, it’s 30 people out of a much larger universe, but over time, even a whole human being can be eaten by ants. They have an impact substantially greater than their numbers or real influence would warrant.

And you cannot hit them, you cannot strike back (it’s okay for THEM to say whatever they want about you, but if you do it back somehow that’s wrong), so your hands are tied unless you want to spend several hundred thousand dollars suing them (which mind you, you’re not entirely ruling out), all you can do is take it, and take it, and take it.

And then one of these jokers will come up with “Well, if you can’t stand the heat...” and you vow you will make them eat their lower molars. It’s not heat, it’s pathology.

...

If you were standing in the street, and someone walked up to you discheveled, with madness in his eyes, clearly deranged, and began shouting at you two inches from your face, would you stand there and say, “No, it’s okay, it’s his free speech.” No, you would walk away, or help someone who was being assaulted verbally by this person. (And before somebody says “it’s just words,” the Supreme Court and every court in the land has found that words have power to hurt, to defame, to abuse, and to incite.)

...

Sure, I could keep on going toe-to-toe with them for the *next* five years, day in and day out... but to what end? For what purpose? To explain myself to them? They have no interest in explanations. If you counterattack, you just feed them; if you ignore them, they take it as permission to continue doing so, and others take it as implicit endorsement of what they said.

Joe became a much less public figure after completing Babylon 5.
Ultimately, those people who didn't like Joe's work on Babylon 5 and elsewhere didn't really have much in the way in the ability to impact his ability to write.

Biologists don't have that luxury of withdrawing. A small, dedicated group of people can have huge impacts on science education.

So biologists keep working.

We do research. We keep trying to increase our knowledge of the natural world. We teach classes to students to try to give them the best possible education. We write articles for our peers, we write books and blogs for the public. We say again that yes, there are transitional fossils. We provide detailed answers to claims against evolution that go on for pages and pages. And for all that effort, we are usually rewarded with the same one-line dismissals ("Only a theory!" "Gaps in the fossil record!" "Nobody was there!") over and over and over again.

And then one of these jokers will come up with “What are the Darwinists afraid of?” and you almost wish you could vow you will make them eat their lower molars.

Almost. But that's not the scientific way. So you don't.