Public school students in Texas, for their part, are more even-keeled. One student at a Dallas High School was quoted as saying, “Whatever. You know what I’m sayin’?”

Um … no. We have no idea what people in Texas are saying.

The recent murders of an American doctor in his church, and of an American security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC stand out as two examples, although depending on who you listen to, they’re seen as examples of different things.

One camp says that these are tragic examples of crazed and depraved lone gunmen. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of violence that could not have been prevented since there’s no way to fathom the depths of the mind of someone bent on murder. In this view, the killings were isolated instances, each occurring because of the design of a single perpetrator, in the absence of any broader social or political context save for that which each of these murderers made up to justify their horrific acts.

The other camp claims that these are tragic examples of domestic terrorism. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of politically-motivated violence that could possibly have been prevented since the social forces that allow some fringe groups to justify murder are reasonably well understood. In this view, the killings are connected to a broader social context in which the election of the nations first African American president, and a broader acceptance of more socially liberal policies and norms is threatening to some of our American brothers and sisters – and with adequate provocation – some of them will act out in order to make a political statement.

I wonder if just one of these lines of argument is correct, or even if there are alternative ways to view these violent acts. More than that, I wonder if our description of them would be different if these were not examples of American on American violence, or if we didn’t have a double standard when it comes to blaming the victim. If James von Brunn, the white supremacist who is accused of murdering Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum had been a Saudi, Iranian, or Palestinian, headlines across the country would have been splashed with the word “Terrorism” in bold type and accompanying exclamation points. It doesn’t matter that Scott Roeder believed that his murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified because doctor Tiller performed abortions – because Roeder’s goal wasn’t just to kill Tiller – it was to send a message to all Americans that people like him will try to kill you if you have the misfortune to require or provide legal abortions – so you better stop.

Daniel D. Novotny said, “An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.”

I think we have to look very closely at ourselves in the mirror – because I suspect some of us will see terrorists staring back.

Some links from the youtube post are here for support:

Assault on free speech in the Netherlands

Islam can no longer be criticised at the UN Human Rights Council

Novelist could face hate crime charge for despising Islamism

You can download an audio version of this video at http://patcondell.libsyn.com/

Herein lies the critical flaw of science when studying the creation of our world. Science cannot observe and therefore cannot test the creation, nor can scientists examine any of the so-called “Big Bang” scenarios. These singular events are far beyond any application of the scientific method. Since they happen but once, they can never be reproduced or observed by any scientist.

Observation and reproduction of studies and experiments are essential to the scientific method. Therefore, because the creation and associated theories cannot be observed or tested, responsible scientists will avoid aggressive assaults upon that which they cannot test by present methodology.

[emphasis added]

Again, this writer is probably well-meaning, and most likely educated. But as in previous instances, this is another great example of why we absolutely must improve science education – not only in Alabama, but throughout the US.

In this instance, the writer’s argument suffers from two fatal errors. First, he conflates Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with cosmology, and in particular “Big Bang” theories in Physics. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever concerning the origin of the universe. Instead, it’s simply a coherent, tested, and testable biological theory about how species change and adapt over time. For nearly 150 years, it has been the unifying theory of biology, and while biology and physics are indeed both sciences, Evolution only has cosmological importance if it violates your religious comfort zone. Scientifically Evolution and Cosmology are apples and oranges.

The second fatal flaw in the writer’s argument is the misunderstanding of the notion of historical sciences. Different sciences can be placed on a continuum ranging from experimental sciences to historical sciences. Physics is largely an experimental science, as is chemistry and psychology, and these would sit near the “experimental end of the continuum. Toward the far end, we have sciences that are largely historical in nature, such as paleontology and astronomy. Within the philosophy of science, it’s well understood that many sciences have aspects that are experimental and those that are historical. In all these cases, however, the methods and rigor used by all scientists, even those who use mathematical models and known physical properties of the universe to describe the conditions at one ten-billionth of a second after the Big Bang, are valid scientific methods.

HT to Les at StupidEvilBastard.com

One thing I find interesting is that creationists would resort to an ineffectual tactic like this in the first place. To illustrate what I mean, I’ll first present the failed bill, and then I’ll point out why it’s both unnecessary, and couldn’t possibly help creationists get what they want, which is more talk about religion and less talk about evolution in science classes.

First, you can read the contents of the bill here.

Now, the critique:

1. In section 2, there is a claim that “existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.” This is false. In fact, the ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard states:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Which means – if you have a scientific critique of a theory, you can teach it if doing so enhances the effectiveness of scientific instruction. Simple and effective – teachers are allowed to teach science in Alabama schools.

2. In section 3 the bill states that every teacher in the State of Alabama, “shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.”

This is actually unnecessary since every teacher in the State of Alabama already enjoys this right. In fact, this right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Regardless, there’s no harm in providing special rights for teachers, right?

3. Section 5 is the kicker. It states, “Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.”

This would be a get out of jail free card for every student for anything they want. If a student held a view that the earth was flat you would be breaking the law if you lowered his geography grade below an A+. If a student firmly believed that earth didn’t exist until they were born, you couldn’t attach a grade to that opinion if it came up on a test. In our educational system there is no metric for understanding that doesn’t require demonstration of that understanding. If you claim that dogs and cats are the same species, you’re wrong and clearly haven’t demonstrated your understanding of mammalian speciation. It’s a teacher’s duty to require demonstrations of understanding from their students, and if they have penalties for errors and mistakes in thinking, that’s part of the process.

4. Section 7 is also interesting, it says, “the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.”

Since there is no empirical science or observation of the natural world that supports any metaphysical or religious claim, this section alone makes it impossible for intelligent design proponents and other creationists to increase the exposure of their views in Alabama classrooms. In other words, if you hold a view that has metaphysical or religious implications, you’re out of luck – because science can’t help you support your view.

That last part made me think a bit. Why would creationists push for an education bill that would ultimately forbid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design? Here’s why: Most people, including the bill’s sponsor Rusty Glover, don’t understand science enough to use it effectively.

More on that later.

In the movie Expelled, Ben Stein gives a compelling argument for Intelligent Design.

Having not seen the film yet, I can’t really comment on how compelling his argument actually was, but I suspect that it wasn’t a compelling scientific argument. If you follow the Intelligent Design controversy at all, then you’re probably well aware that ID lacks all the hallmark features of a true scientific theory. The two most critical components that ID lacks are the requirement that the theory be potentially falsifiable (ID is not), and that it leads to testable hypotheses (ID doesn’t make any).

Interestingly, I see many who mistakenly claim (as I’ve heard Stein claim in the Expelled trailers) that the “scientific community” (interestingly, not individuals, but the community as a whole) have an almost religious belief in Evolution, which is absurd for anyone wanting to call themselves a real scientist. Indeed, this would be equivalent to saying that the religious community has faith because of the results of careful experimentation.

No, as I’ve written before, scientists don’t believe in Evolution – they accept it provisionally as good theory. If Evolution were really such bad science, maybe as some in the ID community would like it to be, then it would not withstand the internal pressure of real scientists who really test it. So far, the testable hypotheses that Evolution has made have supported it. One of the implications of Evolution, unknown even in Darwin’s time, was that the Earth has to be much older than Darwin originally believed. We now have confirmation from multiple independent sources that point to a very old earth, unless you would prefer to reject several distinct branches of science. Evolution also predicts the relative orderliness in the fossil record – and the discovery of just one counter example would completely destroy the theory. Interestingly, Evolution also predicts the genetic differences found between humans and other major primates. The recent discovery that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two distinct chromosomes found in the great ape species not only accounts for the the observation that humans have 23 chromosome pairs and the apes have 24, but also supports the notion of a common ancestor. If the genetics worked out any other way – then it would be reason enough to toss the theory in the bin.

The principle issue I have with ID is that, since it isn’t really science, members of the ID community have attempted to get it into our public school science classes through the tactic of redefining science itself. I think scientists take issue with that, and rightly so. Again, the equally absurd tactic would be to force churches to teach Evolution in sunday school classes by successfully redefining what the tenants of christianity are.

Nope – the Expelled hype aside, it all comes down to this: Evolution isn’t “special” in a scientific sense. It makes predictions that can be tested, and if those tests fail, then the theory will be discarded for something better. I can guarantee, however, that ID isn’t a viable alternative, since, well, it isn’t really a theory in the scientific sense of the word. And THAT’S what matters to scientists.

In the second piece, Ed Brayton examines the film’s “central claim of persecution, that of Richard Sternberg” – who Shermer earlier says is, “portrayed in the film as a martyr for free speech”. Apparently, Sternberg was involved in the publication of a somewhat embarrassing paper while he worked as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian’s Natural History Museum. Brayton goes into great detail about how Sternberg impropriety brought him distrust of his fellow scientists, and criticism and condemnation of his actions. Hardly the martyr, the record regarding Sternberg isn’t quite worthy of a feature film:

Here’s the bottom line: Richard Sternberg went to great lengths to sneak a substandard and inappropriate paper through the peer review procedures of the journal he was editing. His actions, unsurprisingly, caused a great deal of embarrassment to his colleagues and some of them were quite angry about it and wanted him fired. But despite a few harsh words contained in emails that he never saw prior to filing his OSC complaint, ultimately nothing discriminatory or retaliatory ever happened to Sternberg. To this day, he retains the same access to the collections at the NMNH that he had prior to this incident. The worst thing that happened to Sternberg was that his clearly unethical actions were met with the disapproval and criticism of his colleagues, which is a far cry from violating his civil liberties.

And the paper Sternberg snuck through peer-review? It’s the most famous pro-ID paper ever published because it’s the only one to ever appear in a peer-reviewed journal: The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which apparently has a circulation around 300 people. Maybe IDiots like Stein and Sternberg should do better science so they don’t have to use stealth to vanity publish in 2nd and 3rd tier journals.

Nobody should be required to take a neutral stance on stupidity. Indeed – here at SmugBaldy, we’re vehemently anti-stupid, so this is the sort of thing that really irks me. I had previously written a short piece about how creationists were trying to worm their way into the hall of power in Texas, and expand the role of the Judeo-Christian creation story in science classes. Here’s a bit more about how politically charged things are becoming for science education in Texas.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is considering an application by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to grant online master’s degrees in science education. And an advisory panel to the board has recommended that Texas should accept the application.

The ICR accepts the Bible as literal truth on all topics. According to its website, the palaeoclimatology class covers “climates before and after the Genesis Flood”. Anatomy lab includes “limited discussion of embryology and accompanying histology, specifically in regards to evolutionary theory and its alternative — the creation of fully functional major groups of animals”.

The ICR has been around since 1972, and is very firmly in the biblical literalist camp – meaning that members believe not only in the literal interpretation of the bible, but that it is without error. After failing to have online masters degree courses accredited by the State of California, the group has apparently moved to what it considers greener pastures in Dallas, Texas.

I suspect there’s a reason that these courses were not accredited by California, and I’d be willing to wager that this had something to do with these facts:

• Science courses taught from a biblical perspective are actually a form of religious indoctrination
• Biblical inerrancy is a myth, so anyone claiming it on their course accreditation petition likely has motives outside the realm of education
• The high quality and impeccable reputation of other online masters degree programs would be tarnished by the inclusion of the ICR offerings
• Creationist researchers don’t actually do research.

Moreover, it could be argued that any authentic bible school ought to have a sacrificial lamb as their football mascot. If that prospect was a too limp-wristed for latte-drinking, same-sex-marrying California, what does it say for burley, rock ‘em sock ‘em Texas?

So the real question is whether Texans are dumber than Californians as the ICR is betting. Texas may well be in the Bible Belt – but one would hope that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board gives the ICR an old fashioned Texas ass-kicking.