Yet More Evidence Creationism Isn't Science

Last Saturday, the AP carried an article highlighting the limited teaching materials secular parents encounter when homeschooling their children. Because the vast majority of parents who prefer homeschooling are evangelical Christians, they're who the market caters towards. The article focused on the fact that the two bestselling biology textbooks explicitly reject evolution in favor of creationism.

While that certainly makes it tough for secular homeschoolers, I'd rather focus on a passage from the "History of Life" Chapter from one the bestsellers, "Biology: Third Edition" by Bob Jones University Press:

Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is.

Two things really get to me about this passage. First, in a book supposedly about about science, the book immediately closes itself off to any sort of science. You can't declare your view the only valid one, and wave off the rest. If that were the case, then we'd still believe the Earth is flat and witches caused cancer. I know the creationists would respond that naturalists do the same for those who don't accept evolution, but they'd be wrong. If a viable alternative to evolution arose, it would receive plenty of consideration. Creationism had its shot, and it's still found severely lacking any sort of merit. That's why it's completely dismissed by actual scientists today. Furthermore, you won't see a legitimate science textbook claiming naturalism is the only correct worldview. It will say that science can only deal with the natural. If you can't test it and observe it, then you can't do any science on it. End of story.

Second, this is a biology book geared towards middle schoolers that features threats of hell. Right there, the author gave up rational argument in favor of fearmongering. Kind of clever really. They're basically saying, "You have to believe what's in this book or you'll be tortured forever." Way to succeed on the merit of your arguments.

When the AP asked about that passage, university spokesman Brian Scoles said the sentence made it into the book because of an editing error and will be removed from future editions.

Yeah, right...editing error. Because that's not at all what you meant or what you believe. Right here is just another piece of evidence that creationism is not science. Even the university realizes the need to cover up an honest disclosure.

Tetrapods Evolved Earlier Than Previously Thought...Cue the Creationists!

Paleontologists recently described a fossilized trackway discovered in Poland that dates to 395 million years ago.

Illustration and photograph by Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki, courtesy of National Geographic

What's cool about it is that paleontologists previously believed tetrapods evolved around 370 million years ago based on finds such as the Tiktaalik rosa which seemed to be a transitional form between fish and amphibians.  However, this new find reveals that tiktaalik was in fact an evolutionary holdover from a transition that occurred at least 20 million years earlier.  Unfortunately, we need more fossil evidence to properly pin down when the transition took place, but at least this find gives us a better idea of where to look in the rocks. Clearly, 395 million years old is too young!

Of course, the usual suspects are tripping over themselves to show that this invalidates tiktaalik's place as a transitional fossil and disproves evolution.  PZ Myers does a nice job explaining why that's simply not the case.  In short, evolution isn't a ladder, but a branching tree.  Creatures that were once transitional forms can continue to survive for millions of years as long as they can continue to reproduce (look at the coelacanth).  In this instance, tiktaalik is the descendant from a population of creatures that were the transition between fish and tetrapods.  Some of that ancestor population continued to survive in their transitional form, eventually becoming the tiktaalik, while others continued changing into tetrapods, including the ones that left their footprints behind in prehistoric Poland.  None of the scientists involved ever claimed tiktaalik was a definite ancestor of all tetrapods.  It was just a prime example of what the direct ancestor might have looked like.

It might be easier to explain using human evolution.  Imagine alien paleontologists are studying the Earth 350 million years in the future, and they have only a rough understanding of human evolution and few fossils to go on.  Then they find a fossilized chimpanzee skeleton followed a couple of years later by a more ancient set of Homo erectus footprints.  Would the alien paleontologists have to rule out evolution entirely because the more human-like footprints come before the apparent transitional form in the geologic record?  Of course not.  As we know, the chimpanzee is little changed from the transitional form between humans and all other primates.  However, we also know it is not our direct ancestor, just a good example of what the common ancestor between apes and us might have looked like.  On the other hand, Homo erectus obviously lived before modern chimpanzees, but was well on its way to becoming human while still living at the same time as the chimp's ancestors.

Applied to the recent discoveries of tetrapod evolution, the tiktaalik is like the chimpanzee.  It's an approximate representation of a common ancestor, which continued to coexist among the ever-changing tetrapods.  When those early amphibians walked across an ancient beach in Poland, somewhere in the shallow waters of the world were the ancestors of the tiktaalik.  They had changed little from the common ancestor to both and would remain virtually unchanged for several million more years.

Anyway, this showcases part of what I love about science.  It's always changing in response to new evidence, bringing us closer to an accurate understanding of the world around us.  Isn't reality awesome?

Now I'm Not Sure I Want to Live Here

I'm currently moving to my new place of residence in El Paso, Texas. It seemed all nice and good until I stumbled across the disturbing news that the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, Chris Comer, has been forced to resign because she forwarded an email annoucing a speech by Barbara Forrest, who is a philosopher of science and traces ID's connections to creationism.

Why was it so terrible to announce a speech by a reknowned scientist? Because a Baby Jesus lover who is offended by reality is the Chair of the State Board of Education. Dr. Don McLeroy is a well known advocate of Creationism and ID, and in September he put in place a policy where the TEA must remain neutral on evolution and ID. Obviously part of the new effort to quietly diminish evolution since creationists have been unable to force it out overtly.

Now, what was the offending email that cost Comer her job? Here's a copy of it (from The Austringer):

***

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Attached:

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking
on “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her
talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in
the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost
is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony
in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the
history of the “intelligent design” movement. Forrest is a Professor of
Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at
Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE’s board of
directors.

For further details, visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/
Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc

Eugenie C. Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc

NCSE’s work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp

***

Hmm...I don't know if that warrants a firing. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I wonder if Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, will talk about his. After all, this woman actually lost her job, unlike the Creationist hacks featured in the movie who simply couldn't get their papers published because they didn't have anything scientific in them. But I doubt it. Ben Stein is blinded by religion too, and the fact that supporters of evolution are having it worse wouldn't work to well in Stein's tale of Intelligent Design persecution.

What's worse is the TEA's proposed facilitator. (Sounds almost like a comic book villian, doesn't it...The Facilitator)

The State Board of Education (SBOE) has a proposal before it to hire a "facilitator" or "standards writing consultant" to write the standards document after workgroup members consisting of master teachers and university professors have initially written the initial standards document and after additional university professor experts review that standards document. One wonders why the initial writing and review are necessary when the facilitator will have complete freedom to write whatever he or she wants at the conclusion of the process.

One does wonder. Perhaps it's a way to put something in place that none of those experts would approve of? What's the point of even having all those experts? You might as well fire all of them too and just have a Bible to consult instead. After all, it has all the knowledge one really needs, right?

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but I certainly plan of living far from here before I have any kids.

For more information, read this report on the firing and information on the facilitator, both from the Texas Citizens for Science.