Larry Moran asks this question in this post, and this post.

Yet another way to make fun of the Creationists, the LOL Creashun Contest. This is hybrid of cat blogging and blasphemy. Continue reading Laugh at the Creationists →

Judgment Day, the PBS special on the Dover Trial, just finished airing. I have a few somewhat coherent (compared to my live blogging, see upstream) comments. Continue reading Judgment Day: Post Game →

Don’t forget to visit the PBS web site where they have all kinds of cool stuff for everybody, including and especially teachers. So, now the defense gets their shot…. Continue reading Judging Judgment Day. Spontaneous Generation (Live Blogging) IV →

Oooh, that lawyer for ID was played very smarmily … nice acting. And the guy they got to play Georg Bush was fantastic … looked exactly like him.Darwin’s great great great great grandson has a teleological view of evolution. Well, I guess understanding evolution is not genetic. Or at least, not selected for. Continue reading Judging Judgment Day. Spontaneous Generation (Live Blogging) III →

Hey, Samantha’s husband!Oh, no, John Scopes. Arrested…Oh, Colonel Potter! … Oh, no, never mind.Pay close attention to this textbook stuff Genie is talking about. The whole story is more insidious and horrific than they will ever cover in this show. Continue reading Judging Judgment Day. Spontaneous Generation (Live Blogging) II →

Spontaneous Generation (Live Blogging)I did not like the verbiage … the wording … of the pre-show intro at all. Listening to it by itself, ID and “Darwin’s Theory” sound like they are of similar import. It really is not necessary in this day and age to pretend that there is actually a debate. Especially on PBS, for crying out loud.I resent and object to the idea that an issue is not real unless you can show the cover of time with that issue depicted on it.In the reconstruction, the actors looked better than the originals for the most part.I wonder if people outside the Northeast realize that in the Northeast we generally consider Pennsylvania to be “southern.” Well, now you know.This whole story, Dover, is Exhibit A for abolishing the School Board System of managing education.

“Evolution is the central organizing principle of all biological science, yet teaching evolution has become controversial in many states. When the National Science Teachers Association recently surveyed its members, 30 percent said they experienced pressure to omit or downplay evolution and related topics in their science curriculum. What would you do if someone objected to the teaching of evolution in your school or district?”From the Briefing Packet for Educators.From the Judgement Day Website:In this program, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Productions, Inc.In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design–the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply. (For more on this, see Board vs. Teachers.) Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.”There was a blow-up like you couldn’t believe,” Bill Buckingham, head of the school board’s curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, “laced with Darwinism.”NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as “What is evolution?” and “Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?” Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature. (See Defining Science and arguments for and against evolution.)During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems–the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million. (Hear Judge Jones read excerpts from his historic decision.)”Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” says Paula Apsell, NOVA’s Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.” (Hear more from Paula Apsell on why NOVA took on this controversial subject.)For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom.

… I believe it even less than I did before, and I believed it not at all, of course.This is an actual reconstruction from the Creation Museum in Kentucky, courtesy of Right Wing Watch:[hat tip: Pharyngula]

JUDGMENT DAY PRAISED IN NATUREFrom the National Center for Science Education …

Judgement Day Praised in Nature

Reviewing Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial — the new documentary about Kitzmiller v. Dover — for the November 8, 2007, issue of Nature (450: 170), Adam Rutherford was impressed, not least with the way in which the filmmakers met the challenge of retelling the story. “The makers of Judgment Day inject tension with eyewitness accounts from the people of Dover,” he writes, “and home-video footage of raucous school board meetings shows how passionate and divided this small community became. It works: it is inspiring to hear parents and educators, such as Sunday school and physics teacher Bryan Rehm, recount how they refused to be steam-rollered into bringing religion into the science classroom.””Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is, by simply showing how the protagonists shot themselves in the foot,” Rutherford adds. Acknowledging that the “intelligent design” movement is still alive in the wake of the trial, he nevertheless concludes that “the Kitzmiller vs Dover verdict, matched this September with the outlawing of intelligent design in the UK national curriculum, marked the official neutering of this unpleasant, sneaky movement in much of the western world. Judgment Day is just the sort of thoughtful programming that celebrates how sensible people — faithful and otherwise — can use science and reason to combat fundamentalism.”Judgment Day airs on PBS stations nationwide at 8:00 p.m. on November 13, 2007. (Schedules for local affiliates can be checked on-line via the PBS website.) Be sure also to visit the generous website, featuring interviews with Kenneth R. Miller on evolution, Phillip Johnson on “intelligent design,” and Paula Apsell on NOVA’s decision to produce the documentary; audio clips of Judge John E. Jones III reading passages from his decision in the case and of various experts (including NCSE’s Eugenie C. Scott) discussing the nature of science; resources about the evidence for evolution and about the background to the Kitzmiller case; material especially for teachers, including a briefing packet for educators; and even a preview of the documentary.

Rutherford’s review in Nature (subscription required), Rutherford’s review in Nature (subscription required)For information about Judgment DayFor the previewFor PBS schedules across the country

Kentuckians can be less embarrassed starting soon. This from the NCSE … it’s a bit old, but it had slipped past in a flurry of other emails, and I think it is really interesting.

FLETCHER LOSES KENTUCKY GOVERNORSHIPKentucky’s incumbent governor Ernie Fletcher (R) was soundly defeated in the November 6, 2007, election, by Steve Beshear (D), a former lieutenant governor of the state, who took 59% of the vote. A Baptist minister, Fletcher was perhaps the most outspoken supporter of creationism to serve as a governor anywhere in the country in recent years. He expressed disappointment about the verdict in Kitzmiller v. Dover, for example, saying that local school districts ought to be able to teach “intelligent design” if they wish (Cincinnati Enquirer, December 25, 2005).Subsequently, in his State of the Commonwealth address in January 2006, Fletcher contended that under Kentucky law, teachers already have the freedom to teach “intelligent design” in the public schools. He was apparently referring to a portion (KRS 158.177) of Kentucky’s Education Code authorizing teachers to teach “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” and to “read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation.” The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that according to a November 2005 survey of the state’s 176 school districts, none were teaching or discussing “intelligent design.”Reaction to Fletcher’s comments on the part of the state’s newspapers was negative. For example, a Kentucky Post (January 11, 2006) editorial responded, “His plug for teaching intelligent design in public schools is manifestly unwelcome, if what he meant was that science teachers ought to incorporate it into their curriculum. If schools offer comparative religion classes as electives and teachers wish to address intelligent design in such classes, that’s another matter. But this is instruction that most families can take care of just fine in their own homes or churches.”The topic of “intelligent design” arose again during a televised debate between the gubernatorial candidates at Northern Kentucky University on October 3, 2007. According to WKYT (October 3, 2007) in Lexington, Kentucky, Fletcher commented, “I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching that, in fact, I think to teach that is part of our founding heritage and I think it’s very important,” while Beshear retorted, “I believe that science ought to be taught in schools and religion ought to be taught at home and in the churches and in the synagogues.” Beshear takes office on December 11, 2007.

By the way, I utterly disagree with the often made, often off the cuff remark that “if they/you want to teach intelligent design/creationism in social studies/comparative religion classes then fine…” No, it is not fine. It is exactly as unconstitutional as teaching it in science classes, and this is where the next battleground may well be.We’ll talk about that some other time..For more information, NCSE provides these links:Section 158.177 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes (PDF)WKYT’s coverage of the debateNCSE’s coverage of previous events in Kentucky

From the National Center for Science Education:

UPDATE ON EVOLUTION IN THE FLORIDA STATE SCIENCE STANDARDSSupport for the inclusion of evolution in Florida’s draft science standards continues to amass. Writing in the Orlando Sentinel (October 25, 2007), Mike Thomas quipped, “We are moving toward intelligently designed science curriculum in public schools. And by that I mean we are leaving intelligent design out of classrooms. By golly, Florida is evolving.” The standards are presently open for public comment for sixty days; Thomas reported, “Of 1,400 respondents to date, more than 80 percent support evolution.” A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told Thomas that the draft standards are based on “[w]hat research says should be in the standards” and that nothing would be deleted from the standards in the absence of a research-based argument for the deletion.Following previous editorials in Florida Today, the Tallahassee Democrat, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel (October 27, 2007) opined, “It’s taken seven years, but Florida is on its way to developing a science curriculum for the new millennium — one that requires teachers openly and vigorously to teach about evolution,” adding, “it’s important that the state Board of Education and Gov. Charlie Crist fully endorse these changes to ensure Florida’s children can compete in the increasingly technology-driven global marketplace.” Noting that evolution is one of the so-called Big Ideas of the science standards, the editorial concluded by proposing, “Let’s add one more big idea. In Florida, science should win out over politics when it comes to educating children.” …visit NCSE for the entire report.

… and …

THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ADDS ITS VOICE FOR EVOLUTIONThe Association for Science Education — a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members — recently issued a statement on science education, “intelligent design,” and creationism, reading in part:***

it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific “theory”. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all.Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

***The statement also cautions against presenting “intelligent design” as a case study of a controversy in science, commenting, “Intelligent Design …cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science,” and recommends that “it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory” if it is presented in religious education classes.