Rhinocrisy

The Dover, Pa., evolution trial wrapped up last Friday. I must say I was rather disappointed by the whole thing, mostly because the prosecutor was long on invective and short on argument and came across as smarmy rather than informed.

We won’t know the verdict on the case until January of 2006, but for Dover the question is moot. Yesterday the citizens of Dover voted out eight of the nine school board members who were up for reelection and elected in their foul Darwinists from the Dover CARES group. But even though it won’t have any material effect, the federal court’s decision will set precedent. If it rules in favor of the (defunct) school board, it could produce ten, a hundred - nay, a thousand! - Dovers all over the country.

Meanwhile, those cranks in Kansas are apparently getting in on the game early. The Kansas State Board of Education yesterday released a new set of science standards which prompted a great hue and cry across the land (like this Bloomberg story, “Kansas State Board Votes to Teach Intelligent Design in Schools”). The National Academy of Sciences actually wrote them a nasty letter a few weeks back, stating that they are unhappy with their draft standards, which they feel is designed to undermine the theory of evolution. Therefore, they are refusing to allow their copyrighted “National Science Education Standards” to be used by Kansas.^* It might seem a bit extreme of them to be bringing the hammer down like that. They seem especially wroth that Kansas has changed the very definition of science. Here’s the new text:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or understanding is incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in understanding the world.

Chilling, isn’t it? It’s so… um… Yeah. What’s wrong with that, exactly? I’m not sure.

The bits on evolution, on the other hand, are unequivocal. From the Life Science standards for 8-12 graders, benchmark 3 (biological evolution):

The student… 3. understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms.
…
d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.

and later:

The student… 7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

This is pretty clearly cribbed from some Discovery Institute pamphlet and represents lunatic ignorance unworthy of a state science standard. And remember, kids: the more lunatic ignorance we have, the closer we get to the Kingdom of God.

---

^* Hedgehog points out this Wired article decrying the use of evil copyright schemes to enforce good sense. Although frankly I doubt the NAS actually had any principles on the subject to compromise; it’s only the sensibilities of their lefty fellow-travelers that are offended.

I liked number 3. BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS SKIN OFF CHILDREN. But numbers 1 and 2 are worth perusing as well.

Don’t know what I’m talking about? Hopefully you’re not American. Because if you are, I am talking about your tax dollars at work.

I want to know when this Global War on Terrorism is going to start, you know, reducing terrorism. Because this is getting ever less fun.

I am impressed by the growing use of “citizen journalists” on the BBC site. Now if some of those emotional testimonials — which are great — could also add to the news story with direct quotes, exact numbers of injured, number of emergency personnel on the scene, etc., that would be even better.