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.

I saw this comment on a religious blog, and thought I’d give it some more room here. This was made in response to a favorable review of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

ID isn’t really scientific and its detractors are correct to say so. However, evolution is completely neutered by LOGIC, which needs no bunsen burner or laboratory. I’ve been told that complex enzymes existed on comets and that’s where life came from. The proponents of this never seem to be concerned that a ‘complex enzyme’ has to have an origin, too. The mental gymnastics needed for faith in evolution pump up the pride of the ’scientists’ who espouse it. The wisdom of the world is indeed foolish.

Such hand-waving assertion that LOGIC (in all caps, no less) neuters evolution or that scientists have “faith” in evolution are great examples of why we need to have intelligent conversation about what science is and how it operates. Unfortunately, movies like Expelled do more to cloud the issue and polarize people with its dishonest caricature of science, scientists, and even ID.

That evolution occurred and continues to occur is indisputable fact. To deny this is to deny converging evidence from not only the the fossil record , but also from observations of chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, from the geographic distribution similar species, from documented genetic changes in organisms over many generations, and from specific predictions the theory makes which have been observed.

That Darwin’s theory of evolution, since its inception, has withstood intense scientific and popular criticism, and yet remains the current best explanation for the diversity of life on earth is also indisputable fact. Science has a way of dealing with bad theories if they fail to measure up: they are replaced by better theories.

One might ask, then, “What characteristics would a replacement for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution have to possess?”

Here are some must have’s:

• Falsifiability: Any potential replacement for Evolutionary theory would itself have to be able to be proven false. Evolution is indeed falsifiable: It requires an old Earth , it operates at the level of genetic material to transform species over time (sometimes, geological time scales), and it predicts that certain species that exist now did not exist earlier. As Haldane said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” would pretty much toss Evolution into the bin.
• Explanatory Power: Any replacement for Evolution would have to explain everything that evolution does, and it would have to simultaneously explain observations that Evolution could not explain. So, if we were to find rabbit fossils in Precambrian strata, then the new Theory would have to account for that as well.
• Simplicity: Evolution has essentially one mechanism to account for the diversity of life: Natural Selection. Any theory that has a hope of replacing evolutionary theory would similarly have to rest upon the operation of a natural (as opposed to supernatural)
  process.

Note that Intelligent Design possesses none of these qualities. It is not falsifiable, and in invoking a supernatural agent as it’s underlying causal agent, its explanatory power approaches zero since any irreducibly complex designer can do anything it wants by waving it’s irreducibly complex hands about.

And hand-waving is something we want in only small quantities, especially in science.

Guess we’re not rejecting evolution today. Ain’t science grand?

Again, I ask, when did it get to be a good and acceptable thing in this country to be so fucking stupid?

My response:

You know, to me it’s tempting to fall into the trap of calling evolution deniers stupid. But it’ a trap, after all. I think there’s more to it than that – maybe something about finding comfort and safety in religion within a world that offers mostly violence and confusion. Certainly, the notion that magical gods and demons share our reality is nothing new. What I’m constantly in awe of is how seemingly rational people could take these ideas seriously in the 21st century. But that’s another trap, I believe. As a scientist, I reject the idea that the world is populated with magic. To a religious person, accepting this is usually an entrance requirement.

As an aside, I heard an interesting discussion this AM about the newest tactic in the “anti-evolution” crusade: Challenging the theory of Evolution on its scientific merits.

Boy, that made me laugh. The whole point of ANY real scientific theory is that it could be falsified - given the right evidence. Good theories generate testable hypotheses that, if actually tested, could lead to the rejection of the entire theory. Evolution is no different, so I find it interesting that the anti-evolution camp would consider stooping to using the scientific method to discredit a scientific theory.

Of course, rejecting a theory like evolution wouldn’t be easy – since it’s not enough to point out where the predictions it makes are wrong. You have to have to provide a viable, scientifically testable theory to replace it. And just as the case in which Quantum Theory replaced classical mechanics, whatever you come up with as the replacement for Evolution needs to account for all the predictions that can be made under evolution as well as account for it shortcomings. To my knowledge, there’s no viable replacement from the anti-evolution camp. Let’s take “Intelligent Design” for a little walk, shall we:

Scientist Q: Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

ID Proponent A: Yes.

Scientist Q: What testable predictions or hypotheses does it make?

ID Proponent A: Umm … none. But it explains everything. [Hands begin to wave]

Scientist Q: How’ that?

ID Proponent A: Right here in the process model, in the little box labelled “Insert flashy miracle here”. [Hand waving is blindingly fast]

Scientist Q: What evidence could disprove ID?

ID Proponent A: Well, if God were an idiot, I guess that would do it. But he’s obviously not an idiot.

Scientist Q: What makes you so sure?

ID Proponent A: Ooh – look at this snowflake. How could an idiot come up with something so pretty?

Scientist Q: You want us all to drink that purple cool aid, don’t you.

ID Proponent A: Only uppity know-it-alls like you.