White House Petition to Ban Creationism

We learned about this from a website called Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their headline is White House Petition Calls for Ban of Creation Science, Intelligent Design From Schools.

What? A White House petition? We’ve heard of executive orders, but the White House doesn’t file petitions. What’s going on? Perhaps the article will explain it. Here we go, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A petition posted on a White House website has called for the ban of intelligent design and creation science from schools.

A petition posted on the White House website? We didn’t know there were such things, and for some inexplicable reason, the Christian Post doesn’t provide a link to what they’re talking about. We searched the White House website, but it’s clumsily designed and we couldn’t find anything, nor did it turn up in a Google search. Ah well, if we can’t trust the Christian Post then all is lost, so let’s proceed with their article:

Begun by a poster identified as “A.J.” of Vienna, Va., the petition demands that the Obama administration “ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.”

That’s crazy! US Presidents don’t have the authority to do such things — at least no one has ever attempted anything like that. Let’s read on:

Posted on Saturday and filed under the Education category, the petition has already received the support of over 7,000 signatories. To be guaranteed an official response from the Obama administration, it must garner at least 100,000 signatures by July 15.

Does anyone know anything about this procedure? Wait — using “Education” as a clue, we found it! Here’s a description of the petition process: We the People. It looks like a way to let people harmlessly blow off steam, sort of like Red China’s Democracy Wall.

Hey, we found a Wikipedia article on it: We the People (petitioning system). When they first started accepting petitions, in September of 2011, only 5,000 signatures were required, but that’s been raised a couple of times and now it’s 100,000 — see Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the People.

And here’s the petition they’re talking about: Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law. The petition is only two paragraphs long, after which it ends with this:

Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration [sic] to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.

Okay, now we can continue with the Christian Post article. They quote the reactions of two prominent experts — and their choices are interesting:

Ken Ham, founder and president of the recent Creationist organization Answers in Genesis, told The Christian Post that the petition will not have “any impact on how the teaching of origins is presented in public schools.”

“Presidents don’t issue executive orders to ban certain kinds of teachings in schools. The development of science curriculum is largely the domain of local school districts and state educators,” said Ham.

That’s true. And then he says this:

Ham also told CP that he considered the petition “frivolous” and “silly,” as well as showcasing an intolerance against Christians who want to teach biblical creation in a private setting.

“This anti-creationist petition is yet another example of the intolerance of evolutionist activists who do want to see any challenge to their deeply held secularist worldview,” said Ham.

It’s always good to know what ol’ Hambo is thinking. Here’s the second expert they consulted:

Dr. John G. West, vice president of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, told The Christian Post that he did not believe the petition would have any impact given that the Supreme Court already ruled in the 1980s that creation science could not be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.

“The real debate over evolution in public schools today is whether teachers should only present scientific evidence favoring the theory or should they also present the scientific evidence that raises problems for the theory,” said West.

But that’s not all Westie had to say. The Christian Post gives us more of his Discoveroid wisdom:

“Peer-reviewed science journals are filled with a growing number of significant problems for standard Darwinian theory. Students should be allowed to hear about these problems.” West also told CP that he took issue with the petition’s assumptions, calling the online effort “ill-informed, confused, and beside the point.”

“Contrary to the petition, growing numbers of scientists are expressing skepticism of the central claim of modern Darwinian theory that natural selection acting on random mutations is sufficient to account for biological complexity,” said West.

Having given us that Ark-load of expert opinion, the Christian Post doesn’t bother to present any other viewpoints. Presumably, their readers don’t need to know anything else.

So there you are. We haven’t learned anything new about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, but we have learned that the White House seems to let anyone post petitions about virtually anything. Go ahead, dear reader — put up a petition. Let them know who you are and what you’re thinking.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Klinghoffer: Meyer’s Book is a Symbol

This is the big launch day that we wrote about here: Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, Debuts Tomorrow. In the context of science, this is as memorable an event as the release of a new book on astrology. So what are the Discoveroids saying?

At their creationist blog, David Klinghoffer has just posted this: Forbidden Science: Stephen Meyer and Darwin’s Doubt in the Context of Academic Freedom. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

… Dr. Meyer first raised some (but far from all) of the scientific challenges that you’ll find in the new book in a 2004 technical article published in a peer-reviewed biology journal, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, edited by a Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist, Richard Sternberg, affiliated with the National Museum of Natural History.

Ah yes, he’s referring to Meyer’s paper that was approved by Richard von Sternberg, resulting in the infamous Sternberg peer review controversy. The journal retracted Meyer’s paper and issued this STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, which said, in part:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer [citation omitted], was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. … [T]he journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory ], which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

Why did Klinghoffer remind everyone of that disgraceful episode? Stick around. He continues:

… Sternberg, merely for editing the article by Steve Meyer, was ruthlessly punished by his colleagues and supervisors, who investigated his scientific, religious, and political views and basically tried to make his life as a researcher as difficult as possible. He was finally forced out of the Smithsonian but not before the federal Office of Special Counsel concluded that Sternberg had indeed been the victim of retaliation.

Not quite. Wikipedia discusses that and says:

He [von Sternberg] continues to cite a letter by the United States Office of Special Counsel as supporting his version of events, despite the fact that the Office of Special Counsel did not proceed beyond its initial investigation. … In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg’s religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution.

Okay, back to Klinghoffer. Next he discusses the current controversy at Ball State University, which doesn’t interest us, but it fits the Discoveroids’ fantasy of a vast global conspiracy that ceaselessly works to suppress their glorious scientific insights. Then he says:

I bring up the history regarding the Sternberg/Smithsonian story, and the current scandal at BSU, to remind you that the significance of Darwin’s Doubt extends beyond its immediate subject: the mainstream scientific search for a replacement theory for Darwinism and the evidence for intelligent design in a variety of relevant fields.

The “mainstream scientific search for a replacement theory for Darwinism”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

The importance of [Meyer's new] book is also not exhausted by the existential question that lies behind the evolution debate. If Darwin were ever shown to be right, then what psychologist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl called (in his famous book) Man’s Search for Meaning would automatically be rendered null and void. In a Darwinian universe, where life’s origin and evolution reflect no design or intention, there can be no ultimate meaning to our existence, as candid Darwinists admit.

Aaaargh!! Our existence has no meaning! That’s an old theme of Klinghoffer’s — see Knowledge is Emptiness. Meyer’s book will save us from that empty, cruel, scientific universe, so we can be happy believing that the magic designer — blessed be he! — is the answer to all questions. He continues:

However, apart from the scientific, philosophical and spiritual meanings, the context of the book in the debate about academic freedom must also not be forgotten.

Yeah, yeah — they want the “academic freedom” to teach their version of Oogity Boogity in science class. But somehow, despite the imaginary Darwinist police state in which Klinghoffer thinks we live, Meyer has managed to publish his book, and we’re not aware of anyone’s attempting to stop him. Then Klinghoffer mentions academic criticism of someone else, which he describes as “a Darwinian lynch mob,” after which he says:

This is how the scientific “consensus” on Darwinian evolution is maintained: by fear. By bullying. And I cannot tell you how much I despise bullies. Do you agree?

This is getting tedious, and we haven’t heard yet of any scientific breakthroughs described in Meyer’s book. Here’s more:

Arguably, no ID theorist has aroused more persecutory rage than Stephen Meyer. What can we do, though, we who believe in the freedom to think and publish and research, free of fear? I mean practically speaking. How can we make our voices and feelings heard, so that they count?

Oh tell us, David — what can we do? He gives us three suggestions:

We can support appropriate legislation … . We can let our elected representatives know that we are outraged … . More immediately, but also most easily and much more enjoyably, we can buy, read and distribute Darwin’s Doubt.

And here’s the thrilling conclusion:

This week is not just launch week for a book, but also an opportunity to send a message in favor of the freedom of scholars to write and teach, and our right as informed citizens to evaluate their ideas for ourselves.

So there you are. If you want meaning in your life, if you want to stop the Darwinist bullying, if you want creationism — or the intelligent design version thereof — taught in public schools, then buy the book. It doesn’t matter what’s in it. Just buy the thing and send them a message!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Hey Ken Ham: The Devil’s Gainin’ On Ya!

This looks like the beginning of a ton of fun. Look what we found at the website cincinnati.com, online home of an unnamed newspaper that is part of the Gannett chain — possibly the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky. The headline is: New Kentucky academic standards for science advance despite critics.

Northern Kentucky is home to the creationist empire run by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. As you know, ol’ Hambo is co-founder of the on-line ministry Answers in Genesis (AIG), which also operates the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Let’s see what the news story is all about. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The Kentucky Board of Education on Wednesday approved new academic standards for science education in public schools, including updates on evolution and climate change that have drawn the ire of some conservatives. The standards, approved 9-0, result from 2009 legislation to overhaul content in core academic areas and more closely align curriculum with entry-level college requirements

Evolution in Kentucky? Egad — what’s going on here? The story continues:

Officials worked with 25 other states during the past two years to develop the changes with input from teachers, college faculty, scientists and engineers. Proponents say the standards are key to improving science education, along with career readiness and Kentucky’s economy.

It sounds like they’re talking about The Next Generation Science Standards that we discussed here: Kansas Is Having a Lucid Moment. Can this really be happening in ol’ Hambo’s back yard? Well, there does seem to be some resistance. Let’s read on:

Senate Education Chairman Mike Wilson, a Republican from Bowling Green who manages a Christian radio station, has criticized the new standards for pointing to human activities as a factor in climate change and to evidence that evolution can result in new species.

Wilson’s right! Those new standards are definitely pro-evolution. And it looks like this isn’t a done deal — not yet. We’re told:

The new standards cover all areas of science education from kindergarten through high school. Before becoming final, they are subject to the state’s regulatory process, which involves public hearings and a review by the House and Senate committees on education, where critics may seek changes.

Yes, we expect that critics will be seeking changes. Here’s the final paragraph of the story:

Education Commissioner Terry Holliday said officials carried out the due diligence requested by Wilson. The new standards will reflect the latest research but change little else about how evolution and climate change are taught in the classroom, he said. “Certainly people can make their own judgments,” he said. “We are not asking people to change their beliefs. We are just asking people to understand the science so they can be successful in entry-level college science courses.”

Up until now, ol’ Hambo has been surprisingly non-political — except when it comes to getting tax breaks for his own operation. But we have no doubt that we’ll be hearing quite a bit from him on this issue. This should be interesting.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, Debuts Tomorrow

As the Discoveroids have been telling us in numerous posts at their creationist blog, the greatest, most anticipated, most cutting-edge creationist publication of all time is going to be released tomorrow. In their most recent reminder, today, David Klinghoffer tells us:

Ah, now the fun begins. We’ve arrived at the publication week for Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. We’ve been calling it “forthcoming” but as of tomorrow, June 18, it will be here.

Golly. Jeepers. Tomorrow’s the big day! Here’s a link to the book’s listing at Amazon. We haven’t read it and we don’t plan to, so we’re not going to review it. However, we have learned a thing or two about the book, and we’ll share that information with you.

First, we found a press release that was probably written by the publisher: In New Book, Author Stephen Meyer Examines the Scientific Phenomenon that Darwin Could Not Explain. Whenever a creationist’s book is trumpeted in a press release, we immediately consider it to be a candidate for our series on Self-Published Geniuses. That’s where we write about creationists and others who pay for press releases to promote vanity-published books about their imaginary discoveries and pseudo-science ravings.

But Meyer’s book doesn’t qualify for that list. It certainly would have if it had been published by the Discoveroids’ in-house publisher, the Discovery Institute Press, but Meyer has found an independent publisher. The imprint is HarperOne; owned by HarperCollins, a large and legitimate publisher — albeit not known as a publisher of science books. Their own website describes their HarperOne imprint like this:

For 30 years we [HarperOne] have published the books that have changed people’s lives, influenced culture, built bridges between faiths, and withstood the test of time. … The most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth, adding to the wealth of the world’s wisdom by stirring the waters of reflection on the primary questions of life while respecting all traditions.

If the publisher regards Meyer’s book as appropriate for their religion and spirituality imprint, we will accept their judgment. But what’s the book all about? Let’s see what the press release says, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Building upon the provocative argument about the origin of life presented in his previous book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, Meyer now tackles what is arguably one of the most controversial aspects of the theory of evolution: the “Cambrian Explosion,” or the rapid appearance of animal life 530 million years ago.

The “Cambrian Explosion”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re previously written about that — see The Mystery of the Cambrian “Explosion”. Unless Meyer has found evidence in some Cambrian stratum of the designer’s footprints or his genetic engineering tools, we see no reason to revisit the issue. But let’s keep an open mind. The press release for Meyer’s spirituality blockbuster also says:

In DARWIN’S DOUBT, Meyer takes readers through the history of life itself, revealing what scientists have learned since Darwin’s time. He also explains how the Cambrian period is remarkable not only for the appearance of new biological forms, but for the appearance of new biological information.

Ooooooooh — information! Let’s read on:

And he poses an important question: could the information necessary to build the Cambrian animal forms have arisen from an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected natural process?

Indeed, that’s an “important question.” Was it nature, or was it Oogity Boogity? Inquiring minds want to know. And it’s certainly worth a book-length discussion. Here’s the rest of the press release:

This highly debated issue is at the heart of some of the most controversial conversations today. And as the debate rages over the validity of Creationism vs. Darwinism, Meyer argues that an alternate theory — Intelligent Design (ID), which holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection — is ultimately the best explanation for the origin of the Cambrian animals, along with the libraries of information needed to produce them.

Okay, dear reader. We’ve given you the most authoritative information we can find about this soon-to-be-released book. It sounds to us as if it’s nothing more than a very long post at the Discoveroids’ blog — but we haven’t read it, so we can’t say for sure. We suspect, however, that if Meyer had something new, in the form of solid, verifiable evidence, we’d have already heard about it. Absent that, it’s the same old song.

But your Curmudgeon is always humble, and we admit that we could be wrong. Go ahead and buy the book if you’re curious. And if you find something new that we haven’t seen repeated a thousand times before at the Discoveroids’ blog, please let us know.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article