According to the Federation of American Sciences website, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding a meeting about the possibility of reinstating the OTA.

The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment provided rigorous, bipartisan, scientific and technological advice to Congress for nearly two decades before being eliminated in 1995. This session will focus on how to effectively place scientific and technical information into a policy context, analyze it, and communicate it to policy makers and the public.

It’s about damn time.

Do you want Congress to keep making decisions about evolution, climate change, stem cell research, alternate energy programs – or any other scientific area without a fair and impartial assessment of the scientific issues involved? If so, then you deserve whatever crap happens to you as a result of your majestic and profound idiocy.

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.

Here are some areas where Governor Jindal demonstrates his willful ignorance of the underlying issues:

When asked if he had doubts about the Theory of Evolution, Jindal replied:

I don’t think this is something that the Federal or State government should be imposing its view on local school districts. As a conservative I think that government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school districts should be in the position for deciding the curricula and deciding what students should be learning.

In this case that’s absolutely, positively wrong, Mr. Governor, and you should know it. You should be aware that Federal interests trumps State and Local interests whenever constitutional rights of American Citizens are infringed. In the case of Intelligent Design (or ID), federal courts have found that ID is nothing more than Christian Creationism with some scientific-sounding jargon. The teaching of this isn’t just bad science (or non-science) it also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As such – any local school board that attempts to sneak ID into public schools is actually indoctrinating students into a “state-preferred” religion, and the Federal government has an expressed interest in keeping that from occurring. That is, unless you all want to have your kids recite the Branch Dividian creed in Biology class. Thought not.

Jindal goes on to say:

I don’t think students learn from us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some want only to teach Evolution. I think both views are wrong … As a parent when my kids go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data.

He’s not being entirely honest there, is he? The best data in human sexuality clearly demonstrates that abstinence education doesn’t work, but conservative parents like Jindal want their kids exposed to it rather than comprehensive sex-education that could save their lives. The best data available also clearly demonstrates that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is scientific, while Intelligent Design is instead a religious-political position. And nobody in a state like Louisiana, that has a large population of conservative Christian voters, wants to dwell on that little truth nugget. No – for Jindal to be honest, he would have to say that he has a vested interest in keeping conservative Christian voters placated with his lukewarm support for a political position that has no chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day. In other words – teaching the controversy won’t ever really occur in US public schools, but politicians like Jindal will pretend to support it to curry conservative favor.

Interestingly, conservatives are ok with science as long as it doesn’t appear to step on their religious toes too much. For example, most parents are OK with teaching about viruses and bacteria in science classes – especially techniques for minimizing the spread of harmful ones like hand washing and food service sanitization. Unfortunately, you can’t have it both ways Mr. Govenor. If your more fundamentalist supporters have their way, ID would replace Evolution in science classes, and we’d also have to replace bacteriology with an “evil spirit” theory of disease. Interestingly, in some areas (not just beloved Louisiana) this is what passes for medical science, sometimes with disastrous results.

Of course, the scariest part of this whole episode is that, Bobby Jindal is reported to be on McCain’s VP short list, which would mean he has a great shot at becoming president himself since McCain is older than, well, everyone. Is it too much to ask that we get presidential and vice-presidential candidates that have more than a thimble full of scientific literacy?

So I ask how dumb dead matter and dumb dead light arrived at the system called vision without the input of intelligence.[sic] My answer (and the answer of most people) is: They didn’t. Darwinian evolutionists do not like that answer. But they cannot disprove it …” [emphasis added]

Another recent letter claimed that:

First of all, the last time I checked, evolution was still listed as a theory. Certain people in the scientific community seem to think that it has been proven as a fact.

Quotes like these from well-meaning (and likely reasonably well educated) people highlight the importance of improving science education. In every expressed opinion in favor of intelligent design, the authors demonstrate a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of science and what the words “Theory” and “Fact” mean within a scientific context.

There have also been a number of recent “pro-science” letters and opinion pieces. While well-meaning, these too have missed the mark with respect to the key misconceptions about science that lay people clearly demonstrate in their “pro intelligent design” tirades. Recently, the most cogent discussion to appear locally concerning some of the problems with the intelligent design movement appear in Dr. Albert Gapud’s piece (Don’t be distracted by intelligent design, May 25). To his credit, Dr. Gapud recounted the famous Dover trial (Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District et al.), but I don’t think he went quite far enough.

In the Kitzmiller opinion, the court concluded that it was unconstitutional to require teaching intelligent design in the public schools, saying:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID [Intelligent Design] Policy violates the Establishment Clause [of the US Constitution]. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

While this court decision makes it equally difficult for fundamentalist Christians as well as radical Moslems to impose their religious ideals upon our children within public schools, citing it doesn’t do anything to educate the many ID supporters who mistakenly contend that scientists “believe” in evolution, or that ID stands as a viable scientific alternative to Evolution, or that science is or should be democratic. Let’s examine each of these misconceptions.

First, scientists don’t believe in evolution, certainly not the way that religious people have faith in God. This gets back to those words I mentioned earlier, “Fact” and “Theory”, and what they mean in a scientific context. To the lay person, facts are irrefutable truths that can be proven. The situation in science is similar, with the exception that in science, facts are simply data. They are the pieces of information that are collected through careful observation and measurement. For example, it is a fact the half-life of Carbon-14 isotope is 5,730 (plus or minus 40) years. It’s also a fact that many species that existed in earlier times are now extinct. Given enough facts (or data), scientists will attempt to organize them into a conceptual framework that describes them, and explains how they came about. These conceptual frameworks are known as theories.

Theories in science are as good as science gets. Interestingly, theories are also incapable of being “proven” in any way (google : falsifiability for the roots of this). What sets a scientific theory apart from a non-scientific explanation of things (like ID) is that real scientific theories (like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) are capable of being proven wrong.

Since Evolution makes testable predictions, and is capable of being proven wrong, you would think this is something that should cause creationists and other “evolution deniers” to rejoice. Science provides this very elegant mechanism to get rid of bad scientific theories. Instead, however, we only hear wailing and gnashing of teeth, since creationists don’t use the only vehicle by which Evolution could be properly rejected: amass a body of independently verifiable facts that refute evolution and provide a compelling, falsifiable alternative theory. Rather than searching for a scientific alternative for Evolution fundamentalist Christians (as well as fundamentalist Muslims) use political and religious arguments and stunts that waste your taxes in their attempts to refute the Theory of Evolution.

This brings us to the second point, that ID is not a viable alternative to Evolution. There are several reasons for this, but I’ll mention just two. First, as we have seen, ID isn’t really a scientific theory since it makes no testable predictions and is therefore not capable of being proven wrong. The second main reason that ID can’t possibly replace Evolution is that it simply has no explanatory power. This is due to the fact that the central claim of ID is that we cannot know how the diversity of life came about, because the development of species on Earth was the result of an intelligent designer (but not God, someone else) that worked in some mysterious ways (but not God’s way) to bring it all about.

Theory construction in science requires that your alternative to an existing theory must account for all (or at least a large proportion of) the data that supports the theory it’s intended to replace. The classic example in Physics occurred when Quantum Mechanics replaced Classical Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics explains everything that Isaac Newton did, but it also explains phenomena that Newton could never have considered, like what happens to matter at subatomic scales. ID doesn’t even come close to explaining anything that Evolution explains without the need to appeal to supernatural intervention. Indeed, where ID absolutely needs to provide an alternative to the mechanism of natural selection, it instead offers an empty box labelled “a miracle happened here.” It’s your prerogative to believe in miracles. Just don’t teach your special brand of miracles as science in biology classes on the Federal dime.

Finally, there’s this mistaken notion that we should teach ID because it offers a counterpoint to Evolution, as if these were two great political parties engaged in some sort democratic contest for truth. Central to this mistake is the idea that it’s somehow unfair to present only one side of a story. In this case, the side of scientists who provisionally accept Evolution is presented without any sort of rebuttal by the other side. There are a couple of problems with this way of thinking about science. First of all, it is common to present competing theories in the classroom, but with respect to Evolution, there simply isn’t any scientific competition, and there hasn’t been any for almost 150 years. There are some details that scientists argue over, but there aren’t any viable alternatives waiting in the wings. Also, this argument is also typically raised by Evolution deniers who have political rather than scientific motives, and who foist the false dichotomy of Evolution versus ID upon us in an attempt to get more fundamentalist Christianity in our public schools. Science progresses by replacing old theories that fail to account for the facts with newer ones that do. In this sense, science itself uses a sort of Natural Selection to weed out bad theories to make room for better ones.

Someday, a scientist or team of scientists may come up with an alternative to Evolution. That alternative, however, won’t be any form of ID, no matter what you call the God-Designer. It will instead be some other similarly naturalistic framework that will also cause much consternation among those who want to teach about Allah, or Yahweh, or Jesus in our public science classes. Until that alternative shows up, however, we should be teaching Evolution in publicly funded science classes, and leave religious instruction to our children’s parents and clergy.

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.

Teaching Evolution shouldn’t be controversial, because of the vast scientific consensus that Evolution indeed occurred, and is still occurring. Idolatrous biblical lieralists, however, are keen to point out that they don’t believe the facts of Evolution, but have instead engaged in some nifty mental gymnastics to shoehorn the geological, biological, and paleontological data into the narrow confines of their Holy Writ.

So given the controversy manufactured by evangelicals, as well as the admission last May by three of the GOP candidates that they didn’t believe in Evolution, I wondered where the remaining candidates stood regarding Evolution. It turns out that I wasn’t alone, and since the Physics Today Blog started looking at the candidate’s positions on Evolution and other science-related issues, I thought I could summarize here.

On the Democratic side, there are just two candidates that fall into the “no quibbling” category. Those are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. There’s no definitive statement from Dennis Kucinich. And John Edwards is something of a quibbler – wanting to believe that evolution is real, but that it’s perfectly consistent with his Southern Baptist version of Christianity.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist Minister who raised his hand in last May’s debate to deny Evolution, later refined his denial, saying, “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that….I believe there was a creative process.” Here, Huckabee mistakenly equates Evolution with misplaced faith, as if an evolutionary biologist’s acceptance of the results of her studies were akin to testifying at Sunday service or speaking in tongues.

Interestingly, Ron Paul, the more libertarian GOP candidate has a somewhat convoluted anti-evolution position:

“Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

Also on the GOP side we have Giuliani taking a reasonably pro-evolution stand, while John McCain and Mitt Romney are apparently in John Edwards’ “quibbler” camp.

McCain said:

“I believe in evolution,” Sen. John McCain said. “But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.”

While Slick Mitt has a bit of a loopy view of the relationship between science and religion:

“True science and true religion are on exactly the same page,” he said. “they may come from different angles, but they reach the same conclusion. I’ve never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work.”

You may wonder whether it makes any difference what the various candidates position is on the Teaching of Evolution. I think it does for the simple reason that we live in a world that is driven by science and technology, and any President that is not a knowledgeable consumer of scientific information or cannot adequately evaluate scientific information when making policy decision is guaranteed to be a bad one. Indeed, MSNBC’s Alan Boyle quotes Science’s editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy, who said:

“We need to know the candidates’ qualifications for understanding and judging science, and for speaking intelligently about science and technology to the leaders of other nations in planning our collective global future. I don’t need them to describe their faith; that’s their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership.”

I completely agree. I don’t really care if a candidate believes in Noah’s sons riding flying dinosaurs, but I don’t want him or her driving the bus if they can’t speak intelligently and accurately about scientific matters without quibbling.