Creationists at it again in Texas (shocking, I know)

[Durandal]

Intelligent design battle resurfaces in court, school boards
By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Published: December 08, 2007 - 08:30AM CT

The attempts by creationists to have their beliefs accepted as legitimate science is a topic we've touched on more than a few times at Ars Technica. The past couple of weeks have seen several more acts played out, both in relation to the science that children are taught in schools and the standards to which researchers in academia are held.

Trouble with the Texas School Board
The first of these events happened last week in Texas, where the Texas Education Agency's Director of Science has been forced out of her job for allegedly not "remaining neutral" over the teaching of evolution in schools. Christine Comer, a former science teacher, had her nine-year stint as Director of Science ended as a result of an e-mail she sent to colleagues, notifying them of an upcoming talk being given by Barbara Forrest. Forrest is the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse, a book that details the movement to have ID taught as science in America's Schools.

The movement suffered what ought to have been a fatal blow following the Kitzmiller v. Dover legal case, but creationists are readying themselves for another confrontation in the coming year, when Texas reviews its scientific curriculum. Although the state has taught evolution as fact for the past decade, the new chair of the State Board of Education is a self-proclaimed proponent of ID and it is widely believed that this will be reflected in the upcoming curriculum.

There are ramifications of this happening in a state as large as Texas, due to the large numbers of textbooks purchased. Textbook suppliers will often design books just for the three largest markets in the US (Texas, Florida, and California) and then sell them to all the other states in the country. If Texas insists on ID being included, the effect will be felt far outside the state's borders.

The decision to remove Comer was made by Lizzette Reynolds, a former staffer for George W. Bush during his days as governor of Texas. "This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said in an e-mail to Comer's supervisors. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities... This is something that the State Board, the Governor's Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports."

Can a Creationist work as an evolutionary biologist?
As if that weren't enough, this week saw a lawsuit filed in Boston by a former postdoc at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution over his dismissal. Nathaniel Abraham was fired from his position in 2004 after he informed his Principal Investigator (PI) that he was a creationist. Dr. Abraham was hired to work on an NIH grant concerning how "how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining... mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."

After Abraham brought up his creationist beliefs, his PI, Mark Hahn, wrote to him to say that he would only be paid for the 7-10 percent of the work on the project that did not involve evolution. This did not prove satisfactory for either party, and a month later Abraham was asked to resign:

"...You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work... This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

Abraham now works at Liberty University, the Virginia university founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

This isn't the first case of a creationist with credentials. Last year, Marcus Ross submitted his PhD dissertation to the University of Rhode Island for examination. Although Ross's field is geosciences and the dissertation was about marine reptiles that died out 65 million years ago, he is also an avowed young earth creationist who personally believes the world to be no more than 6,000 years old. The granting of his doctorate has raised questions in the academic community regarding his intentions. Ross has appeared in creationist and ID propaganda materials, and has been accused of using his PhD from a secular university as a springboard to further a religious agenda.

Whether these cases highlight a certain duplicity or hypocrisy on behalf of the scientists working within frameworks they refuse to recognize or instead represent their ability to compartmentalize their beliefs is not for us to say, but it does suggest a new approach by the creationist movement in its fight against science.

Both cases also raise questions about the neutrality of scientific organizations when it comes to the nature of science itself. Do institutions have a duty to remain impartial or a responsibility to defend central tenets?

See the bolded section for the best part of this story. I have absolutely no problem with outspoken creationist biologists being denied doctorates, frankly. It doesn't matter if the work they did is legitimate. A doctorate is awarded because the candidate has made a significant contribution to his field. If a candidate's only purpose in getting that doctorate is so he can turn around and start damaging the field with his newfound authority, then fuck him.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's not even the most important issue. The important issue and clear justification for denial is open intellectual dishonesty. The applicant submitting their dissertation has rejected its validity and discarded their sincerity and intellectual credibility in writing it. If you don't believe in science, don't expect to be certified as a scientist. Scientists are expected to uphold standards of intellectual credibility.

No one would award MD's to people who denied the validity of germ theory.

[FSTargetDrone]

This isn't the first case of a creationist with credentials. Last year, Marcus Ross submitted his PhD dissertation to the University of Rhode Island for examination. Although Ross's field is geosciences and the dissertation was about marine reptiles that died out 65 million years ago, he is also an avowed young earth creationist who personally believes the world to be no more than 6,000 years old. The granting of his doctorate has raised questions in the academic community regarding his intentions. Ross has appeared in creationist and ID propaganda materials, and has been accused of using his PhD from a secular university as a springboard to further a religious agenda.

Devious little fucker.

Perhaps U of RI can go ahead and strip him of his PhD like the Olympic Committee strips medal winners of their medals if it's found they cheated.

[Lonestar]

I certainly love seeing my home state in the news in such a way. For every "Mandate HPV vaccine as a public health measure" there's 3 ""let's see what stupid shit we can push through the education system".

[Fire Fly]

Frankly, the idea of giving a PhD to a young earth creationists is revolting; its the same thing as giving a PhD to an astronomer who touts geocentricism instead of heliocentricism. PhDs are awarded for novel contributions to science and this also includes being intellectually honest. When a person has rejected one of the fundamental principals of their respective field, they've demonstrated that they honestly don't know anything about what they are claiming to be an expert in.

[wolveraptor]

It's also terribly misleading for possible employers - people will think that these are genuine accredited scientists and will appoint them to important positions which they will procede to fuck up nicely.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well hopefully their stupidity will catch up with them?

[Darth Raptor]

I'm not jaded enough yet, apparently, because that first case pisses me off to no end. Some Bush lackey shitcans the Texas State Director of Science over "impartiality" (lol) and twirls right around to install a sufficiently doctrinaire and self-avowed cretinist. Disgusting.

The second one's not so bad. Paying him for being 7-10% of a biologist is a pretty funny idea, actually. Liberty University deserves that guy.

[Guardsman Bass]

If they really go through with this, then take the fuckers to court again; I personally wouldn't mind seeing a "Dover v. Kitzmiller" II take place, this time in Texas. I think, though, that they might exercise restraint. While the Dover case didn't kill Intelligent Design, I know it scared off a ton of school boards from bringing up the topic for fear of having to be bitch-slapped in court (including my own state, Utah - when one of the local idiots in the state legislature started making noise about ID, it was decisively put down).

[The Yosemite Bear]

What is it, do american fundies just want everyone to have a crippled education, and thus destroy all science and productivity?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Does it not make you wonder how amazingly powerful their faith is to not only do work that earns them credentials in science regarding prehistory, but then outright deny it in favour of a story book by ignorant nomads?

That, my friends, is the kind of devotion only the most successful virulent memes can get you. If you could engineer that thinking into people for your own cause...

[SAMAS]

What is it, do american fundies just want everyone to have a crippled education, and thus destroy all science and productivity?

It's more important to them that everyone thinks they're right, than it is to actually be[/b] right.

It's like I said in the shipping thread. They don't care about the facts or the truth, they just want to win the argument.

Does it not make you wonder how amazingly powerful their faith is to not only do work that earns them credentials in science regarding prehistory, but then outright deny it in favour of a story book by ignorant nomads?

That, my friends, is the kind of devotion only the most successful virulent memes can get you. If you could engineer that thinking into people for your own cause...

...You'd be a Neocon, at the moment.

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly with the number of quotes that are publicly available from the Head of the School Board that he is motivated by religion the case is essentially a slam dunk in the perspective of Dover vs Kitzmiller. Any reasonable observer would conclude that the only reason to change the eexisting curiculum was a religous motivation and that right there ends the argument. We don't even need to get back in to proving that ID is creationism, the tests mentioned in the Dover case point out that all it takes is for a reasonable (and therefore informed) observer to see that the purpose of the policy was to promote a religous viewpoint and it becomes illegal.

[FSTargetDrone]

Does it not make you wonder how amazingly powerful their faith is to not only do work that earns them credentials in science regarding prehistory, but then outright deny it in favour of a story book by ignorant nomads?

That, my friends, is the kind of devotion only the most successful virulent memes can get you. If you could engineer that thinking into people for your own cause...

I was thinking this too. One might wonder if, during the course of the years of studies, after exposure to so much rational thinking, the person attempting this might not question his own motives? He sees what everyone else around him is doing, what they naturally believe and accept as scientific rationality. Yet he casts it all aside for his delusion. That's what it must be. Faith taken to delusional levels.

[Pu-239]

I certainly love seeing my home state in the news in such a way. For every "Mandate HPV vaccine as a public health measure" there's 3 ""let's see what stupid shit we can push through the education system".

Wait, what stupid shit? I'm living in VA and haven't really heard of any successful measures, then again, I'm living in a cave. Can you elaborate?

[Guardsman Bass]

Honestly with the number of quotes that are publicly available from the Head of the School Board that he is motivated by religion the case is essentially a slam dunk in the perspective of Dover vs Kitzmiller. Any reasonable observer would conclude that the only reason to change the eexisting curiculum was a religous motivation and that right there ends the argument. We don't even need to get back in to proving that ID is creationism, the tests mentioned in the Dover case point out that all it takes is for a reasonable (and therefore informed) observer to see that the purpose of the policy was to promote a religous viewpoint and it becomes illegal.

That's what I'm hoping for, should the Texas Board be idiotic enough to actually try to implement Intelligent Design. That way, the instant it gets into court, any reasonable judge would probably pull up the Kitzmiller decision, say "hmm", then immediately rule in favor of the plaintiffs, destroying said hypothetical Intelligent Design program.

It's more than they deserve, but the above would actually probably let creationist chairman there keep his job. What the Dover and Kansas controversies did, when they hit national news and were drawn out, was make the local populations embarassed, with the result that next to all of the creationist board members were ditched in elections even before the Kitzmiller case was settled.