Creationist Wisdom — Example 46

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from two — yes, two! — letters-to-the-editor appearing in the New York Post. Both letters are about the excessively hyped but still fascinating discovery, Darwinius masillae.

The Post‘s letters column is titled: A DEBATE AS OLD AS TIME. We’ll copy today’s letters almost in their entirety, omitting from each the writer’s name and city, and we’ll add our Curmudgeonly commentary between the excerpted paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis.

Here comes the first letter:

The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public (“Meet Your Dear Old Aunti ‘Ida,’ ” May 20).

An “assault.” Wow! Let’s read on:

One fossil does not represent a transitional species, any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They’re simply abortions of nature.

You’d need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you’d need many transitional aberrations that couldn’t survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

We love it! A strikingly impressive transitional fossil is produced, and the creationist response is: (1) it’s just a freak; (2) one isn’t enough; and (3) a real transitional would be something that couldn’t survive.

While you’re grappling with those concepts, we’ll continue with the end of the letter:

Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.

Okay, that settles the matter. Now here’s the second letter:

I am a loyal fan of The Post, but the creation/evolution debate is one issue you clearly do not understand. Your coverage of the latest “missing link,” Ida, the lovely little lemur, is dramatic evidence of this charge. Everything in your articles about Ida took the opinions of the scientists promoting her to be sacrosanct.

Where should the Post have gone for opinions? Perhaps they should have interviewed some wino living under a bridge. Let’s move along:

The authors of these articles accept these opinions as facts, but they’re just the opinions of devout evolutionists, and one day they will be proven to be completely worthless.

Maybe so. We’ll report it when it happens. Here’s the final excerpt:

Don’t let yourselves be spoon-fed the endless lies of evolutionists. The objections to evolutionary theory are very real and very powerful.

Right. Real and powerful. Very powerful. And we thank the writer for his views.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Texas Creationist Don McLeroy: Decision Day!

THE saga of Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist whom Texas Governor Rick Perry has appointed to continue as chairman of the Texas Board of Education (BOE), is reaching a climax. The Texas senate’s confirmation vote on his nomination should be Tuesday, 26 May. (The legislature adjourns on 01 June.)

The Houston Chronicle reports: McLeroy opposed as board of ed leader. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Senate Democrats say they have more than enough votes to remove Don McLeroy as chairman of the State Board of Education Tuesday when McLeroy’s confirmation reaches the Senate floor.

Sounds good, but we shall see. Let’s read on:

“This particular State Board of Education under the leadership of Dr. McLeroy has been divisive. It’s been dysfunctional, and it has been embarrassing to the point of having commentary on this in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal,” said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. McLeroy’s leadership, she said, had made Texas “the laughing stock of the nation.”

McLeroy and the other creationists on the BOE don’t care about that. They’ve got The Truth™. We continue:

It takes 11 votes to block a gubernatorial nomination. Van de Putte said all 12 Senate Democrats plan to vote against McLeroy

No Republicans? It’s insane that science has become a partisan issue. Here’s more:

At a confirmation hearing last month, McLeroy said he had no regrets about his leadership and emphasized he has not pushed his religious viewpoints into public education policies.

Somehow, that reminds us of a certain President who said: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Moving along:

There is speculation in the Capitol and within the Texas Education Agency that Gov. Rick Perry might elevate Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, to lead the board. Like McLeroy, Dunbar also holds strong Christian beliefs and recently authored a book that advocates more religion in the public square.

This may be difficult to believe, but Dunbar might be worse than McLeroy. See: Meet Cynthia Dunbar. One last excerpt:

“We believe that Texans deserve better than divisive, destructive, extreme leadership,” Shapleigh said. [Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, has been a strong critic of McLeroy.] “If the governor chooses to appoint someone more extreme and more divisive, we’ll have to deal with that at the appropriate time.”

That’s the latest. Texas may reject McLeroy and end up with Dunbar as chairman of the BOE. And McLeroy would remain a member of the board.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Brawl Brewing in Texas?

MOST of you know that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has sued the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. They want the Board to be ordered to give the ICR graduate school a Certificate of Authority to grant Master of Science degrees in Science Education. We’ve written about this a few times, most recently here: ICR v. Paredes: Second Impressions.

In an earlier post we predicted — accurately so far — that the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) will remain aloof from ICR’s problems:

There are two specific reasons why the Discoveroids probably won’t be siding with ICR in the current litigation. First, ICR is a young-earth creationist outfit, and declares openly that their “science” is scripture-based. The Discoveroids need to pretend that they’re not about religion, in the hope of bypassing the First Amendment. Second, from even a casual reading of the ICR complaint, it’s almost certain that their case will be a loser. Therefore the Discoveroids will keep their distance.

In our most recent post we noted that the Discoveroids’ blog hadn’t said a word about ICR’s suit. We added:

Imagine the Discoveroids’ anguish. Just when they were on the verge of convincing everyone that Intelligent Design is science, those primitive young-earth-creationists burst out of their trailer parks waving their bibles around. They’re going to ruin everything! This is sooooo embarrassing!

It must be galling to ICR that their cause is being shunned by the Discoveroids, who have a faith-based network of accomplices — card-carrying creationists, fellow travelers, and useful idiots — occupying posts in various school boards and legislatures around the country. As we pointed out here, back in 2003 the Discoveroids were able to line up a group of creationist professors who signed a letter presented to the Texas Board of Education about the alleged legitimacy of teaching intelligent design as a scientific topic. This “scholarly” testimony was announced in a Discoveroid press release: Texas Professors Urge State Board to Fully and Completely Teach Evolution.

And that’s not all. The Discoveroids have contacts all over the state of Texas who are positioned to offer assistance to ICR. They have operatives in the legislature, and they have sympathetic creationists who dominate the Texas Board of Education Even the governor, Rick Perry, appointed Don McLeroy, a creationist dentist, to be chairman of the Texas Board of Education.

But with all these resources, the Discoveroids haven’t even mentioned the ICR litigation. Their disdain is almost tangible. Will there be any repercussions for the Discoveroids’ haughtiness?

Remember, in The Godfather, all the troubles that ensued after Don Vito Corleone refused to help his fellow gangsters when they wanted his assistance. Eventually, after considerable turmoil, their problems were resolved in a meeting of reconciliation where this dialog took place:

BARZINI: Don Corleone is too modest. He had the judges and politicians in his pocket and he refused to share them. His refusal is not the act of a friend. He takes the bread out of the mouths of our families. Times have changed, it’s not like the old days where everyone can go his own way. If Don Corleone had all the judges and politicians in New York, then he must share them or let others use them. Certainly he can present a bill for such services, we’re not Communists, after all. But he has to let us draw water from the well. It’s that simple.

Of course, Barzini was complaining about Don Vito’s refusal to cooperate in protecting the drug trade, while the Discoveroids aren’t declining to help with anything remotely like that — they’re merely avoiding any association with scriptural creationism, in order to maintain the fiction that they’re promoting science, not religion. Make the necessary substitutions as you read Don Corleone’s concession speech:

DON CORLEONE: My friends, I didn’t refuse out of malice. You all know me. When have I ever refused an accommodation? But why, this time? Because I think this drug business will destroy us in the years to come. It’s not like whiskey or gambling or even women which most people want and is forbidden them by the pezzonovante of the Church and the Government. But drugs? No. Even policemen, who help us in gambling and other things would refuse to help us in drugs. But … I am willing to do whatever all of you think is necessary.

Will there be some kind of bitter, sectarian clash that erupts among the creationists over the Discoveroids’ refusal to help their creationist colleagues? Perhaps not, but all the elements are present in Texas. It would certainly be fun to watch.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute: Education Fairness Doctrine?

OUR readers already know about the so-called Academic Freedom Act which has been promoted in various state legislatures by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

For a bit of background, see: Lauri Lebo: “Academic Freedom” is Creationism 3.0, and also: Ben Stein’s “Expelled” — A Canadian Conspiracy.

As you also know, although versions of “academic freedom” bills have been introduced into several state legislatures over the past two years, originally timed to coincide with the release of Ben Stein’s Expelled, only Louisiana has enacted one. Bills that failed in 2008 were in Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma (that one passed, but was vetoed by Governor Brad Henry), and South Carolina. Louisiana was the Discoveroids’ only success in 2008; but with that and all the publicity they generated from Ben Stein’s film, there was no momentum for the following year.

In 2009, such bills were filed in Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Mississippi briefly considered a textbook sticker law. All of those bills failed — except for the Texas bill which is currently in its death throes. It’s HB 4224, still languishing in committee, with no companion bill in the state Senate. There’s only a week left in the Texas legislative session, so it seems destined to join the others in legislative oblivion.

With so many failures, and only the relatively unimportant state of Louisiana in their pocket, what will be the Discoveroids’ next move? Because they’re so fond of using left-wing tactics (stealth operatives, campus activism, etc.), we suspect that their next campaign will be to advocate — at the state level — an academic version of the Fairness Doctrine. As Wikipedia informs us, that is:

… a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The same concept could be imposed by the states on their school systems, to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

Why do we suspect that this will be the Discoveroids’ next move? Consider this article at a Discoveroid blog, written two years ago when Expelled and the academic freedom campaign were being developed. It’s by Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute: We Need a Fairness Doctrine For Media.

Chapman starts out sounding like a proper conservative, opposing the doctrine with respect to talk radio. But then he takes a sudden turn. He says, with bold font added by us:

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new “Fairness Doctrine,” perhaps conservatives should embrace it — providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some “progressives” throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let’s start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. …

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. …

In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks.

Chapman toys with this idea a bit more:

It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let’s just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural “fairness” still further — to Hollywood.

It seems to us — and perhaps you get the same impression — that Chapman is really enthusiastic about wielding his imaginary powers. But then he appears to get back to reality with his final line:

Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.

Yes, it was just a joke. Ha ha. But was it? Chapman clearly likes the idea. True, it won’t fly as he suggested, because that pesky freedom of speech thing gets in the way — but consider this: If Chapman’s extended Fairness Doctrine were applied at the state level to public schools, there’s no issue of press freedom involved.

If we can see the logic of the argument, so can Chapman — and he’s been thinking about it for the last two years.

So when the Discoveroids finally abandon their academic freedom campaign, watch for their Education Fairness Doctrine. That just might be their next move.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article