 |
 As part of our efforts to support academic freedom on evolution, we are teaming up with the IDEA Center (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness) to help students in starting an IDEA chapter on their campus. Such campus clubs are a fun and educational way for students to examine all sides of the debate over evolution.
IDEA Clubs are student-initiated clubs that foster academic freedom as students learn about scientific evidence that supports intelligent design and also learn about modern evolutionary theory. IDEA Clubs are a growing network of student-led clubs on university and high school campuses around the United States with thirty new chapters formed to date.
Visit www.ideacenter.org or e-mail Brian Westad at brianw@ideacenter.org for information on how you can start an IDEA club in your area.
In Texas, the far-left activist organization Texas Freedom Network is working overtime to try to gut the state's science standards. This week the Texas State Board of Education holds their regularly scheduled meeting and it seems the TFN will try and whip up a mob to lobby the board when they discuss the proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science.
TFN is parading a push-poll survey of scientists they did recently. They emailed over 1,000 scientists and science professors at Texas universities and less than half replied. Still, TFN is trumpeting that of the replies they did get, nearly all were in complete lock step with the Darwin-only lobby.
As Casey Luskin pointed out in an interview with the Star-Telegram: "It’s a self-selecting survey," Luskin said. "There’s a well-documented culture of intimidation that makes scientists uncomfortable expressing their doubts about Darwinism. This just serves to reinforce that climate of intimidation." Of course, it really isn't safe in Texas to speak out against Darwin. Just ask Professor Bob Marks at Baylor, whose lab was shut down by Darwinists who didn't like what he was researching. Can you imagine any scientist who doubts Darwin responding honestly to a survey like this in such a climate?
I'm not saying that there are a majority of scientists who doubt Darwin in Texas. But the minority is a silent one for sure, thanks to left-wing advocacy groups like Texas Freedom Network.
The Waco Tribune has an opinion piece today from one of the scientists selected as an expert reviewer of Texas' science standards. Charles Garner, a chemist at Baylor, writes: As the Texas Education Agency reviews the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, a controversy has developed about language in the current TEKS, which states:
“The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem-solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”
This language promotes critical thinking skills. It has been in the TEKS for years. The TEKS guidelines are working fine and Texas students receive some of the best science education in the country.
Nonetheless, some activist groups are protesting the “strengths and weaknesses” language. You can read Garner's entire piece here.
The liberal Darwin lobby group Texas Freedom Network has just published a push-poll of scientists titled, "Survey of Texas Faculty: Overwhelming Opposition to Watering Down Evolution in School Science Curriculum." You might think this is good news, that there are a majority of scientists and professors who support the current TEKS which require students to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories.
Instead, TFN means exactly the opposite. Let me point out that THEY are the ones who want gut the state's science standards and water down the teaching of evolution. They want to remove the strengths and weaknesses language, language that has been in the TEKS for over a decade.
What is stunning is the TFN's jackbooted thuggery of threatening parents! Parents reading this should be enraged that liberal anti-science censors are now making veiled threats against any student that doesn't toe the Darwin party line. "Many of these science faculty members almost certainly help determine who gets into our state's colleges and universities," Eve said. "Their responses should send parents a clear message that those who want to play politics with science education are putting our kids at risk." Sounds ominous, doesn't it?
As for TFN's "findings," there’s nothing new here. As usual it's misleading, misrepresentative and misses the point.
The report highlights five key findings from the survey:
Continue reading "Liberal Darwin Activists Spin Push-Poll in Attempt to Water Down Science Standards" »
Three of the six reviewers of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are recommending that students apply less, rather than more, critical thinking when studying evolution. In Part 1 I discussed the recommendations of David Hills, and in Part 2, I discussed the recommendations of Ronald Wetherington. Like Wetherington and Hillis, TEKS reviewer Gerald Skoog wants the TEKS to include many more standards on evolution which dogmatically only present the evidence for evolution. Here are some of the new standards he wants the TEKS to include:
"EXPLAIN HOW NATURAL SELECTION AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES PROVIDE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THE FOSSIL RECORD OF ANCIENT LIFE FORMS, AS WELL AS FOR THE STRIKING MOLECULAR SIMILARITIES OBSERVED AMONG LIVING ORGANISMS."
and
"EXPLAIN HOW CERTAIN ANATOMICAL STRUCTURES ON FOSSILIZED VERTEBRATES AND COMPLETE OR NEARLY COMPLETE FOSSILS ARE USED AS EVIDENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF VERTEBRATES."
Continue reading "Darwinist Gerald Skoog Recommends Imposing Dogmatism in Expert Review of Texas Science Standards (Part 3)" »
In Part 1 I discussed how some Darwinist reviewers of the Texas Science Standards are opposing giving students the opportunity to use critical thinking skills when learning the modern Darwinian theory of evolution.
One glaring difference between the reviews submitted by those opposing critical thinking on evolution and the reviews of those supporting it is the lengths of the respective sets of reviews. The TEKS reviews submitted by Stephen Meyer, Ralph Seelke, and Charles Garner in support of students applying critical thinking skills to evolution were each over 25 pages in length. In contrast, two of the three Darwinist reviewers submitted reviews that were 8 pages or less. It seems that some of the Darwinist reviewers didn't take much time to give comprehensive evaluations of Texas science education for the Texas State Board of Education and rather had one primary concern and agenda: to ensure that evolution is taught dogmatically in Texas.
In his short 8-page review, TEKS reviewer Ronald Wetherington predictably uses the same approach. He states that the "strengths and weaknesses" language should be removed from the TEKS entirely: "The 'strengths and weaknesses' phrase was common to the earlier standards and has been changed in the pre-high school grades except for this one. It should also be eliminated here." So according to Wetherington, if some grades and subjects don't implement a strong critical thinking standard, then none should. Is that a logical way to strive for excellence in science education?
Continue reading "Darwinist Ronald Wetherington Recommends Imposing Dogmatism in Expert Review of Texas Science Standards (Part 2)" »
In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin famously wrote, ''A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.'' One might think that modern proponents of Darwin’s ideas would endorse his approach to scientific thinking within evolution education, but it’s not so. The Texas State Board of Education recently received reviews of the proposed Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) from six science reviewers.
Three of those reviewers—who are scientific skeptics of Darwinian evolution—support TEKS that would give students a strong grounding in critical thinking skills by asking them to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
Three other reviewers, however, are Darwinists who oppose giving students that opportunity to use such critical thinking skills when learning about Darwin’s theory and other scientific theories. One immediately apparent difference between the two sets of reviewers is that the reviews that supported critical thinking skills were each over 25 pages long, but two of the three Darwinist reviewers submitted reviews that were under ten pages.
It seems that these reviewers have one main concern and one main agenda: to ensure that evolution is taught dogmatically in Texas.
Continue reading "Darwinist David Hillis Recommends Imposing Dogmatism in Expert Review of Texas Science Standards (Part 1)" »
Anyone who was awed when they watched Jurassic Park and saw realistic-looking dinosaurs walking around on the big screen for the first time should take a moment to remember Michael Crichton. Crichton, a famous science-fiction author, wrote the books that became the Jurassic Park movie series, as well as many other popular novels. He also had an appreciation for the importance of dissenting views within the scientific community and was a keen observer of how some in the scientific community use rhetoric to quash minority scientific viewpoints. Crichton passed away earlier this month after losing a battle with cancer, so in remembrance of Michael Crichton, I’d like to re-post this quote from a speech he gave that was recently reprinted in the Wall Street Journal:
Continue reading "Is There a “Consensus” in Science? Remembering the Late Michael Crichton" »
One Grand Prize Winner will take home $500
Discovery Institute is sponsoring a student video and essay contest to commemorate Academic Freedom Day, February 12, 2009, on Charles Darwin’s bicentennial.
Darwin once wrote, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” That famous quote will be the touchstone for students to communicate support for academic freedom to explore the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
“The next generation values open dialogue in a way that is aptly expressed in their creativity and imagination,” Discovery Institute Director of Communications Robert Crowther said. “This is a fun way to honor that expression and encourage critical thinking on the issue.”
The video and essay contest is open to high school and college students and will be judged based on creativity, accuracy, and persuasiveness. One grand prize winner will be announced and have his or her entry officially unveiled at academicfreedomday.com on Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12th 2009.
The grand prize winner will be awarded $500 and selected by an illustrious panel of leaders in the ID movement. Entrants in the video category will be able to share their videos online and at social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube.
Click here for more on the video and essay contest.
For more information on Academic Freedom Day, visit www.academicfreedomday.com.
This is the sixth installment of a blog series responding to John Timmer's online review of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution (EE). The first part is here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth here, the sixth here.
7. Timmer’s Mis-Aimed Critique of Inquiry Based Learning
Timmer calls Explore Evolution’s use of Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) a "sham" because he asserts the textbook "abdicates the responsibility for reasoning entirely." But his criticism is bogus. EE contains multiple sections that encourage students to weigh the evidence and consider open-ended questions about the evidence like, "Which picture best illustrates the history of life?," "Do all living things, past and present, share a common ancestor?," "Can natural selection produce fundamentally new organisms from pre-existing ones?," and "Are there other similarities that point to common ancestry?"
A comparison to other textbooks quickly shows EE’s use of IBL is vastly superior to most mainstream biology textbook treatments of evolution, which tend to force rote memorization of Darwinism, and offer little meaningful IBL on evolution.
Continue reading "The Catechism Versus the Data (Part 7): Timmer’s Mis-Aimed Critique of Inquiry Based Learning" »
Next  year is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. As you can imagine, Darwinists have a full year of celebrations planned, and February 12th, Darwin’s birthday, is likely to be the high water mark for most of those celebrations. Every year Darwin Day celebrations get more and more elaborate and outrageous. Celebrants decorate evolution trees, sign Darwin carols and odes to natural selection, and eat from the tree of life.
Naturally, we don't want you to miss out on the fun. On Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (Feb. 12, 2009), we want students everywhere to speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution and turn “Darwin Day” into Academic Freedom Day.
We have plans for celebrations of our own, celebrations that will help to promote academic freedom in line with the words of Darwin himself: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and argument on both sides of the each question.”
Our plan is to get student groups and clubs, as well as individual students, to organize Academic Freedom Day events, on or about Feb. 12th. These events can be as simple as having a table on campus where people can sign the Academic Freedom Petition and find out more about academic freedom on evolution. Or the events can be more elaborate, including screening Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, or Icons of Evolution on campus.
Visit the new Academic Freedom Day website, or e-mail us at academicfreedom@discovery.org for more information.
 MSNBC recently had an article titled "Fine-feathered dino sported bizarre bird tail," reporting on the find of Epidexipteryx hui, a "pigeon-sized dinosaur that lived more than 100 million years ago [that] sported four ribbon-like tail feathers." (See right for an artist’s imaginative interpretation of the fossil.) One of the original paper's authors states, "Although this dinosaur cannot be the direct ancestor for birds, it is one of the dinosaurs that have the closest phylogenetic relationship to birds." The article also contains other quotes with typical Darwinist rhetoric like, “[t]his find confirms the link between dinosaurs and birds.” But are other interpretations possible? Unreported in the media is the fact that the paper contains language directly hinting that Epidexipteryx hui could also be "interpreted as secondarily flightless." In other words, Epidexipteryx hui may not have been a "feathered dinosaur" at all, but instead was a bird that lost its ability to fly while retaining feathers. There are many well-known modern-day examples of secondarily flightless birds, e.g. the well-known ostrich. In fact, what the media never tells us is that similar interpretations have already been made for other alleged "feathered dinos."
Continue reading "Is the Latest "Feathered Dinosaur" Actually a Secondarily Flightless Bird?" »
Discovery senior fellow Wesley J. Smith has returned to podcasting with What It Means to Be Human, a podcast about the many policies and proposals in bioethics, bioscience, and animal liberation that threaten the idea of human exceptionalism and undermine universal human rights:
 Click here to listen.
On this episode of What It Means to Be Human, Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at Discovery Institute, explains why human exceptionalism is so important for universal human rights.
There is a war being waged against unique human worth on many fronts, from personhood theory and the animal liberation movement to radical environmentalism and philosophical materialism. Very powerful forces have dedicated themselves to convincing us that we really aren't all that important. Smith explains these attacks and shows why human exceptionalism must be defended for the sake of human rights everywhere.
Mr. Smith has written extensively on human exceptionalism and bioethics, garnering him the Human Life Foundation’s 2008 Great Defender of Human Life Award in October. He posts regularly at Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human.
CSC Fellow Forrest Mims has been honored by Discover Magazine, which has placed him on their list of "50 best brains in science." Not bad company he's keeping, with Steven Hawking, Bill Gates and others. Post-Darwinist has a nice write up congratulating Mims on the honor and recounting some of what he's gone through to get this far as a scientist: Congratulations to Forrest Mims, a voice for real science in the midst of a mass of taxpayer-funded propaganda for unbelievable beliefs that happen to be held by scientists.
Mims is an instrument designer, science writer and independent science consultant. He has made regular observations of the ozone layer, solar ultraviolet radiation, photosynthetic radiation, column water vapor and aerosol optical thickness since 1989 at his Geronimo Creek Observatory in Texas. He cofounded MITS Inc., the company that introduced the first microcomputer, and Science Probe magazine, which he edited.
Mims is the recipient of several prestigious awards, including the Rolex Award for Enterprise (1987) alternate and 1993 (laureate). He received the Industrial Research IR-100 Award for inventing a miniature eyeglass-mounted travel aid for the blind. He is currently expanding his regular atmospheric measurements to include studies of airborne bacteria, mosquito visual response and tannin distribution in annual growth rings of Taxodium distichum (baldcypress). His scientific pursuits, science data and publications can be viewed online at www.forrestmims.org.
This is the sixth installment of a blog series responding to John Timmer's online review of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution (EE). The first part is here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth here.
6. Timmer’s Double Standard on Textbook Treatments of Evolution
Timmer repeatedly attacks EE for allegedly trying to "divide and conquer" evolution because it discusses the different lines of scientific evidence (i.e. fossil, anatomical, molecular) regarding common descent in separate sections. Timmer’s criticism reveals either his gross ignorance of how contemporary biology texts cover evolution, or that he's using a blatant double standard. EE was written to complement the coverage of evolution in standard biology textbooks, and so it follows the approach used by most biology textbooks, which divide the evidence for common descent into separate sections dealing with fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, embryology, and biogeography. (See for example, Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell, 2003, pp. 260-263; Mader, 2007, pp. 224-227; Raven & Johnson, 2005, pp. 460-466.)
Continue reading "The Catechism Versus the Data (Part 6): Timmer’s Double Standard on Textbook Treatments of Evolution" »
|
 |
Expelled
