The ID Report

By Kevin Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Today marks the official publication of Dr. Caroline Crocker's book "Free to Think" (now available online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble). As we celebrate our national independence from the the tyrannical rule of King George over the American colonies so many years ago, it's fitting that we be reminded of our need to be free from other forms of injustice that are present with us today. Two of those injustices are, amazingly, freedom of speech and academic freedom. Both of these issues are addressed in Dr. Crocker's autobiographical account of her experience as a professor at George Mason University (GMU).

This long-awaited response to critics of Dr. Crocker puts to rest some of the often unscrupulous hype surrounding her departure from GMU in May 2005 (for example, see my earlier blog post on SKEPTIC Magazine's treatment of her back in October of 2008). Many of her critics have remarked that there was nothing at all unusual about Dr. Crocker's departure, since her contract simply ended and that was that - happens all the time. But Dr. Crocker reveals that the truth of the matter is anything but typical or usual.

Dr. Crocker, who appeared briefly in the 2008 movie Expelled, was an untenured adjunct professor at GMU and had signed a 3-year contract extension, which others also read. In her book, Crocker recounts how her good fortune was short lived, however, as she became the victim of a bait-and-switch scheme in which her original contract was changed to a one-year term shortly after being accused of teaching creationism in her classes - a charge she steadfastly denies. In fact recent evidence has come to light from one of her former students that a student who Dr. Crocker caught cheating retaliated against another student and made allegedly false accusations against Dr. Crocker, which eventually culminated in the loss of her job as a professer at GMU. The appeals process as told by Dr. Crocker was little more than a railroading and a denial of her academic freedom per GMU's own code - and readers are provided with her first-ever complete retelling of what happened in her own words as well as her response to the findings of her grievance committee (all documented in Appendix IV).

Many of Dr. Crocker's critics make the point that she SHOULD have been let go for teaching creationism. However, according to Dr. Crocker, all she did was challenge her students to think outside the box a bit and come to their own conclusions based on ALL of the available evidence, not just the usual consensus views of science. Crocker relates in her book exactly how and what she taught her students, including many in-class interactions. Readers will be left to decide whether they believe her approach was reasonable. I submit most readers will concur that she did nothing to warrant the treatment she received.

The broader question posed by Dr. Crocker (and hence the title of her book) is how far should we go in controlling the freedom we should give educators who desire to stimulate the thinking of their students? And likewise, how much leeway should be given to students who question consensus views of science? Dr. Crocker's story reveals a very disturbing lack of latitude among GMU officials. Unfortunately, the short-leash policy illustrated by GMU is all too common in many academic institutions across America.

But if that was not enough, even more alarming is what occurred afterward as she sought legal redress. According to both Crocker and her attorney Ed Sisson (who also wrote a compelling preface for this book), the law firm representing her interests in the GMU fiasco was being considered for hire by GMU on another unrelated matter with one stipulation - they must first agree to drop Crocker as a client before signing on the dotted line. And the travesty is, the law firm agreed to do so, and soon after dismissed Sisson from the firm after a 14-year career with them.

As Michael Behe, author of the book "Darwin's Black Box" writes in support of Dr. Crocker's account, this story is "guaranteed to make your blood boil."

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research) and is also the founder of Leafcutter Press.

He is the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents.

In addition, he is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's book "Free to Think," which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor from George Mason University.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links to this blog post are welcomed with attribution.

An Analysis of Common Threads in Obama's Speeches

by Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Watching Obama's speech yesterday about Guantanamo Bay Detainees was a fascinating exercise. After watching the soundbites on the news, I then watched both former VP Dick Cheney and President Obama deliver their dueling speeches on C-SPAN about their views of how the Gitmo detainee issue should be managed, as well as their clearly differing notions of the legality, morality, and use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I came away from that experience thinking that Obama had taken the high ground and was working to uphold our values and improve our legal framework, as he stated so forcefully in his speech. His oratory was stirring.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

...

The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as president of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as president. And if we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall. [1]

"Who in their right mind," I thought "could possibly argue with what Obama is saying here?" But then I was slapped back to reality after reading Hern Denenberg's reflections of Obama in the wake of his speech at the Univeristy of Notre Dame's Commencement a few days ago.

[Obama] started implementing his radical pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda the minute he became president. Almost immediately he brought the U.S. taxpayer back into the racket of funding overseas abortion. He authorized the destruction of human embryos at home. He loaded his administration with the most pro-abortion appointees he could find. This was his radical pro-abortion reflex at work. There was no reaching out. There was no attempt to touch hearts and minds. There was no attempt to achieve some sort of bipartisanship consensus or dialogue. He rammed those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground and none of the other rhetorical flowers. He didn't even try to fake bipartisanship. He talks it, but never makes the most minor moves in the direction of bipartisanship. The gap between talk and reality is so extreme it defies rational explanation. [2]

Regardless of where you fall on the issue of abortion, and even though I disagree with Denenberg that Obama "never" seeks bipartisanship, I have to agree with Denenberg's characterization of Obama's performance thus far: he often says one thing and does another.

Obama's swift action on the closure of Guantanamo Bay shortly after taking office (without first having worked with congress to gain support for a plan on what to do with the Gitmo detainees) reveals a disturbing eagerness to place taking action well in front of checking in with that ever elusive (and some say non-existant) governmental agency known as the Department of Common Sense.

There is a more far-reaching and legitimate question that pops into my mind as I consider Obama's approach: will he consistently defend the rights of Americans who are currently being subjected to different forms of abuse that I'm beginning to think might qualify as terrorism? I hear lots of talk these days about the rights we should afford to illegal aliens who break our laws, and the rights of terrorists who have the ultimate ambition of killing us all, but what I don't hear much about is how the rights of our legitimate citizens are being better protected. Especially at risk are the rights of dissidents within our citizen ranks. How are we protecting these ordinary citizens when their freedoms come under attack? More on that in a minute...

But, back to Obama's sobering speech yesterday on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. In that speech he made it crystal clear that he is seeking to establish a new respect for the rule of law where his role as President is concerned. He made the point that he sees himself as subject to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution (ie, via the courts and congress) over his actions -- and promised to be more diligent in making sure that his approach will promote transparency and reestablish the credibility of his office so sorely lacking in his predecessor.

Ironically enough, even as Obama was delivering his speech, Congress voted to deny him the funds he requested to close Guantanamo Bay unless and until he first proposes an acceptable plan for what to do with the detainees currently being held there. And further, I have no doubt such a plan must also meet with bipartisan approval of congress before the President gets to have his way with shutting down the facility.

So I am assuming that Mr. Obama, if he really meant what he said in his speech yesterday, will respect the action of congress in this matter and will not dispute their nearly unanimous vote or say anything ill of it, since after all, they were exercising the very checks and balances he had taken great pains to point out are a necessary part of our Democratic rule. That said, I also think the congressional opposition in this matter reflects a strong example of failure on the part of Team Obama to first establish common ground with congress and spare themselves the embarrassment of acting in haste to (as Denenberg stated) "[ram] those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground..."

So what, you might ask, does all this have to do with other types of domestic terrorism?

Well, there currently exists under Obama's watch perhaps one of the most onerous abuses of our freedoms and Civil Rights that one could imagine. I'm speaking about Americans, not Islamic terrorists. Many of the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans are currently and have been under attack, but these actions are usually referred to as discrimination. I'm beginning to wonder if these actions shouldn't be classified as a form of terrorism. Who is under attack? The dissidents in our culture. These are the folks who challenge the conventional views held within our scientific, philosophical, and academic communities. But they are often made to pay a huge price for speaking their mind. Many freedoms have been stripped from dissident educators, students, and scientists who disagree with conventional wisdom on issues considered settled by many experts. They are often dismissed as kooks, pseudoscientists, and charlatans who we should either ignore or consider as serious threats to the survival of our society -- depending on who you talk to. The problem is, these dissidents often turn out to have their finger on some aspect of reality that conventional wisdom overlooks.

Many dissidents not only lose their jobs, but their careers are often ruined. The impact of such actions often results in the failure of marriages and families, and financial losses that are at times unrecoverable, and plunge victims into many years or even a lifetime of debt.

Darwin skeptics are but one group of dissidents who have suffered incredible losses for their views. The clear practice of religious and viewpoint discrimination against them, which has played out in the background of our culture for decades, has only recently surfaced as a barely noticeable issue in 2008 with the release of the movie "Expelled" and the publication of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents. Both the movie and the book expose a type of discrimination that deprives these US citizens of many of their most basic Civil Rights, and is a serious affront to the Rule of Law. I've notices that little, if anything, is currently being done to remedy the situation.

This is not a trivial matter, either, though many might suggest it is behind the backdrop of the crisis-laden issues we are facing today. This matter is significant for several reasons, but this one stands out: if one class of people can be denied their constitutionally protected freedoms, then so can any other group. It is in this sense that all Americans of differing views are bound together under a common bond: freedom of speech belongs to ALL Americans, not just some. This issue is also important because in the end, the result of this brand of discrimination breeds a form of intellectual terrorism that has stripped the academic and scientific communities of dissenters who might otherwise offer an important and much-needed perspective to their students and colleagues. Many dissenters who remain in those communities stay in the closet and are in fear of losing their careers if they even offer a hint of disagreement over evolution. Even worse, such discrimination causes irreparable harm to the fabric of our freedoms the longer it is allowed to continue. And when it is allowed to persist, those who practice discrimination feel emboldened to continue doing so, since no one is effectively challenging them and requiring them to cease from their actions.

The law is clear: it demands that all of us be allowed to speak freely, and to offer dissenting views without any threat of coercion or loss of career, either actual or prospective.

If the President and other government agencies can become so distraught over the ill-treatment of foreign terrorists who would seek to destroy us, how can they in good conscience ignore the actions of home-grown intellectual terrorists bent on denying freedoms to our own citizens?

The Supreme Court in at least one instance left no doubt about where government intrusion on free speech is egregious.

It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys....Other principles follow from this precept. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another...Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional...These rules informed our determination that the government offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression...When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant...Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction...Vital First Amendment speech principles are at stake here. The first danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to examine publications to determine whether or not they are based on some ultimate idea and, if so, for the State to classify them. The second, and corollary, danger is to speech from the chilling of individual thought and expression. That danger is especially real in the University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition. [3]

Most Americans think discrimination or suppression of free speech is a minor issue in our society, and that our government doesn't tolerate it. After all, we do have laws designed to protect us from those who violate our rights. Sadly, the enforcement of the law on behalf of Darwin skeptics is typically sidestepped. The history of abuse by intellectual terrorists and Darwin fascists has just begun to be documented and is irrefutable. And, it presents Obama and Co. with a clear example of violations he says he will not tolerate. Terrorism of any kind that threatens the freedoms of any Americans should neither be excused or ignored. "Keeping faith," as Obama puts it, with our founding documents, starts at home with how we treat our own citizens.

If Obama really is all about "Change we can believe in," then I expect to see him respond to this and other similar issues by coming to the defense of victims of discrimination. I eagerly await his response when he is confronted with such atrocities. Will he take action to ensure that the rights of all Americans are upheld? His words say yes, but his actions leave me wondering.

DEFINITION OF TERRORISM: No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. Indeed, the singular defining quality of terrorism may be that it invites argument. The term terrorism is often thought of in the context of violence, however, this is not necessarily a requirement for a terrorist act. Sending anthrax via the mail, for example, is not a violent action, yet it is certainly considered an act of terrorism.

The FBI defines terrorism as: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Given this definition, I would say that forcing someone out of their career against their will, intimidating them to fall in line with a philosophical position (macroevolution, HIV causes AIDS, etc.) or suffer the loss of their career, contracts, and etc. qualifies as a terrorist act.

[1] Los Angeles Times - Text of Obama's speech on National Security from 05/21/09http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-obama-text,1,121227.story?page=4

[2] Obama Says The Right Things, But Does The Wrong Things," by Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin [Philadelphia], May 22, 2009.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/22/herb_denenberg/doc4a15fb1ba6f9c986973954.txt

[3] Rosenberger v. Rectors & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828-835, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2516-2520 (1995).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=515&page=819

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

by Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

HYPE ALERT New York, NY [ARN]

In a stellar example of putting on the evolutionary Ritz, yesterday saw the unveiling in New York's Museum of Natural History of the latest and greatest "transitional" fossil (aren't they all?) said to be linked to humans. "IDA," an alleged 47 million year old primate fossil found in Germany, is being hailed as the most important link in human evolution ever discovered.

We'll have to check back in a few years to see if she draws more attention than LUCY did on her recent lackluster tour to Seattle (yawn). The King Tut exhibit, which opened last October in the Dallas Museum of Art did much better, profit-wise. [1]

Media and evolutionary experts the world over reportedly made monkeys of themselves (Guardian headline...) as they literally tripped all over one another with gushing expletives to convey the significance of this fossil find. Here are just a few:

ROSETTA STONE "It's really a kind of Rosetta Stone," commented study co-author Professor Philip Gingerich, of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan. [2]

WORLD HERITAGE FOSSIL "This is the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage," world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr Jorn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum.[2] Media reports relate that Horum continued to tick off the incomperables...

THE HOLY GRAIL and the LOST ARK Dr Jorn Hurum, the scientist at the heart of the project, made the most exotic parallels. He screened photographs of the Mona Lisa and the Rosetta Stone, without elucidation, though the implication was clear. He variously described the fossil as the Holy Grail of paleontology and the lost ark of archeology. [4]

THE FIRST LINK IN HUMAN EVOLUTION and OUR MONA LISA "This is the first link in human evolution. A find like this is something for all humankind. It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far... This is our Mona Lisa and it will be ... for the next 100 years." - Paleontologist Jorn Hurum [5]

"THE" MISSING LINK (and how many times have we heard this one?) "This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals. "The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing." Renowned broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough.[2]

THIS FOSSIL CHANGES EVERYTHING Nancy Dubuc of the History Channel said Ida "promised to change everything that we thought we understood about the origins of human life". The most sublime image was of Michael Bloomberg standing beside Ida's glass box, his arm around the shoulders of a school girl who was wearing a T-shirt with the TV tie-in logo: "The Link. This changes everything". The main thing Bloomberg was presumably hoping this would change was his prospects of winning an unprecedented third term as New York mayor in upcoming elections. [4]

Tora Aasland, minister for higher education in the Norwegian government... appeared to think Ida was a wonder of Norwegian science as opposed to a wonder of pre-historic evolution. [4]

And of course, there is also the obligatory (and very speculative) story of how IDA died and came to be preserved so we could see and examine her 47 million years later:

"The scientists believe she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas whilst from drinking from the Messel lake: the still waters of the lake were often covered by a low lying blanket of the gas as a result of the volcanic forces that formed the lake and which were still active. Hampered by her broken wrist, Ida slipped into unconsciousness, was washed into the lake, and sunk to the bottom, where the unique conditions preserved her for 47 million years." [2]

In the end, does IDA really live up to all the hype? Historically, the answer is a resounding "No." For all the hoopla and gushing over IDA, one very key fact remains elusive and unknown -- which would make IDA a truly spectacular evolutioanry find.

No known precursors or ancestors. As is true of most fossil finds, there are no known direct evolutionary precursors or ancestors for IDA. What critters led up to her species? We have no clue, just speculation. What kind of species did she evolve into? Again, the experts are silent - because we have no fossil evidence. However, it seems that her mere existence is sufficient to qualify as a "missing link" without any clear understanding of what critters she links from or to. This is one of the most consistently beguiling aspects of fossil evidence used to promote evolution. Every fossil is considered to be a missing piece of the evolutionary puzzle, drawing us ever more closer to a better understanding of our alleged evolutionary heritage, but never quite getting us there. But SOMEDAY we will finally start filling the holes, or so the experts tell us.

Meanwhile, and until then, IDA is just another example of a critter without a heritage, despite the media hype about her significance.

To qualify as a "transitional" fossil, there needs to be much more than one cousin species set beside another cousin. There needs to be a clear evolutionary connection demonstrating what IDA evolved from. But the evolutionary (ie, homologous) distance between Ida and her alleged "kin" is so great that you could put a number of examples before and after her and claim they're related. That's not compelling scientific "evidence" - it's just speculation and conjecture. An article in SLATE acknowledges this:

Most media reports use missing link more generically. Sometimes the phrase implies that a fossil is the direct ancestor of two or more extant species. Such discoveries are rarely made, however. Most fossils represent species that are morphologically similar to a predicted ancestor but not connected in a straight line to any modern species. Even if a fossil were a direct ancestor, a paleontologist couldn't be sure; all she could say is that it would be consistent with direct ancestry. (When a fossil record surrounding a species is unusually dense, as it is for humans, scientists can sometimes find predecessors with certainty.)

A missing link may also describe an intermediate anatomical form that suggests how modern organisms might have developed certain capabilities. For example, an ancient fish with proto-wrists, elbows, and shoulders might be called a missing link between sea creatures and land animals. In this sense, though, every fossil is a missing link. There's no single intermediate point between, say, opposable and nonopposable thumbs. Rather, a wide variety of fossils seem to resemble both hand structures. No one can say which version is directly related to the two. It is entirely possible that all, or none, of the fossils are steps along the way. [6]

It's time that evolutionists start owning up to just how much they really DON'T know instead of peddling critters like IDA as another great example of evolution. She isn't anything of the sort.

Aside from looking great in our kids' science books, frankly, there isn't any evidence that compels us to believe in her evolutionary lineage. As one of my colleagues has commented "Ida isn't the first fossil to be oversold, and it certainly won't be the last." In my view, this is just another opportunistic show of media publicity to give yet another fossil an undeserved pillar in the evolutionary pantheon of so-called "evolutionary transitional links." I predict we won't find Ida's closest ancestors or her evolutionary survivors. After all the hype dies down, she will remain just one more dotted branch in the conjectural evolutionary bush for the primates.

But hey, Warren Beatty looks a little bit like me. Since we're building evolutionary relationships based on looks, think he could pass as my long-lost cousin? Maybe if we held a press conference to showcase our resemblance we might get some good publicity...

[1] NY Times, March 13, 2009 - "They Didn't Love Lucy" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/artsspecial/19bust.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[2] Science Daily, May 19, 2009 - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519104643.htm

[4] The Guardian [UK] "To get a glimpse of the Ida fossil, the media make monkeys of themselves" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-primate-media-us

[5] The Hindu, May 20, 2009 - "Backgrounder to Ida Fossil" http://www.hindu.com/holnus/008200905201041.htm

[6] SLATE, May 21, 2009 - How Many Times Will Paleontologists Find the "Missing Link"?
http://www.slate.com/id/2218838/?from=rss

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Earlier this past week, news commentator Chris Matthews and Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence went at it on "Hardball" (video). Pence, by the way, is in a leadership position as the Chairman of the House Republican Caucus.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to take some heat among many of my colleagues for what I'm about to say, but I feel strongly compelled to say it anyway: Mike Pence gave what I consider to be an absolutely embarrassing performance in this segment. In fact, if Pence represents the best that the GOP can muster for this kind of media opportunity, then they haven't earned the right to win the hearts and minds of anyone. Why? Because Pence was obviously not prepared. Folks, we're in the middle of a culture war, and Pence came to the table with the intellectual equivalent of a pea-shooter when he could have and should have come with a howitzer. Like I said, it was downright embarrassing.

Here's how the segment started out:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in evolution?

PENCE: Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them, and --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Right, but you believe in evolution from the beginning.

PENCE: The means, Chris, that He used to do that, I can't say, but I do believe --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) You can't what?

PENCE: -- in that fundamental truth.

MATTHEWS: Well -- well did you take biology? Did you take biology in school? Did you take science, which is all based on evolutionary belief and assumption?

PENCE: Well, I've always wanted to --

MATTHEWS: If your party is to be credible on science, you've gotta accept science. Do you?

PENCE: Yeah, I want to --

MATTHEWS: Accept science?

PENCE: I always wanted to play in Inherit the Wind, but on the global warming issue --

MATTHEWS: (laughing)

PENCE: -- I know that in the mainstream media...

MATTHEWS: See how you're hedging?

PENCE: In the mainstream media --

MATTHEWS: This is why people don't trust Republicans!

PENCE WAS EVASIVE

In reviewing this segment in it's entirety, it's very clear that Matthews was intent on getting Pence to answer one question in particular: "Do you believe in evolution?" This was not a trick question for someone who is prepared. Matthews asked Pence this question at the beginning and also well past midway in the interview (at 3:30), and Pence never did offer up a direct response.

Regardless of how Matthews then goes on in this interview, the point is this: Pence parsed his words, waffled and dithered and danced around this and other questions and offered up a pretty lame response by going off on a tangent. This did not look good at all.

Matthews seemed to be a bit exasperated at first over the way Pence responded initially. Quite frankly, I would have also been a little exasperated if I had received the same evasive and ridiculous response from someone I was interviewing. I think Matthews has a legitimate beef with Pence when he then says: "See how you're hedging?"

Matthews is right - Pence WAS hedging. Pence abruptly changed the subject from evolution and went off on a totally different talking point: global warming. He clearly DID sidestep the discussion Matthews was trying to nail him on.

DID MATTHEWS PROMOTE FALSEHOODS?

Did Matthew promote any Falsehoods? Well, first of all, my take on it is that Matthews actually believes the baloney he pumped out in this segment. He thinks he's representing the way things really are when he says Republicans hate science and evolution in particular. Like it or not, many folks on the Left think exactly the way Matthews does - and they don't see this view as false at all. I can find people in Matthews' corner who don't put much stock in science either, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can then legitimately extrapolate a broad brushstroke perspective of how their party views science in general. But the point is, Matthews and others in his corner often make the same worn-out claims all the time - making their arguments and questions predictable. He presented a predictable opportunity for Pence to run away with, but instead, he flubbed it royally. Fielding basic questions like the ones Matthews posed (ie, "Do you believe in evolution") should not be a surprise, and anyone from the Right who goes up on CNN or MSNBC ought to have a much better response. Some of my colleagues suggest that Matthews tried to "trap" Pence, but I don't buy that. You can't "trap" someone with a predictable question they should be prepared to give a good answer for.

WAS MATTHEWS OUT FOR BLOOD?

Perhaps. Was he conducting an inquisition? Well... I think that's a bit of a stretch. Taking the entire interview in context, I think it's safer to say that he was honestly seeking to pin Pence down for some answers to a few questions. He wanted Pence to give an account for what he believes about evolution and science - which is legitimate - regardless of how distorted Matthews' assumptions might be. They were honest questions (as Matthews said later in the interview "That's what I really think.").

Matthews also clearly positioned his comments as not an attack against Pence, but as an opportunity for Pence to respond to what Matthews maintains are commonly held beliefs of "many Republicans." I don't have a problem with him asking those questions. I think we should welcome the opportunity to receive such queries, and offer up good responses, regardless of how distorted the basis for those questions might be. In fact, situations like this present a great opportunity for the prepared person to CORRECT such distortions. Pence had an opportunity to address Matthews' distortions, but he didn't even come close to doing that.

THE ONE THING

Here's the One Thing (as Glenn Beck likes to say...): Regardless of whatever the interviewer (Matthews)thinks, Pence had an opportunity to win the audience. Matthews does come at Pence with some obviously baited remarks(ie, "Many Republicans don't like science" and "Many Republicans don't believe in evolution"). I'm not sure anyone could ever sway Chris Matthews away from his presumptions in seven minutes, but they COULD sure give him (and his audience) some substance to chew on. This interview was an opportunity to provide a rational and well reasoned response to a national audience, which Pence did not do throughout most of the segment. Showing up on camera to perform a waffle-fest doesn't cut it with viewers. And Matthews understandably took him to task for it. Matthews was playing to his audience, and Pence, unfortunately, clearly wasn't.

The backside of this "One Thing" is, in an interview with a national audience watching, you need to capture the respect of your viewers up front with your initial remarks. Instead of doing that, Pence actually LOST his audience with his initial remarks, and so found himself in the position of digging himself out of a hole from the get-go. And while I thought Pence did come back with some good points on stem cell research, it was too bad he didn't establish himself well from the start.

Then, later in the interview Matthews makes other claims about the views of some in the Republican party...

MATTHEWS: There are people who really are against science in your party who really do question not just the science behind climate change but the science behind evolutionary fact that you and I were taught in our biology books. They don't accept the scientific method, they believe in belief itself... people say "I don't think your party really believes in human progress..."

Matthews then goes on to say that he doesn't think the Republican party is passionately committed to science and that this is what he really thinks.

Another great opportunity to challenge Matthews' assumptions. And how does Pence mangle it?

PENCE: I'm in the pary of Teddy Roosevelt, the party that has a long and storied history in conservation... I've supported extensive increases to the National Institute of Health... This anti-science thing is a little bit weak."

More evasion. Actually, I thought it was Pence who was weak. Spoken like a true politician, in my view.

OTHER COMMENTARY ON THIS SEGMENT

Others who have blogged or commented on this segment include the following:

Rush Limbaugh - May 6, 2009

Red Sounding - May 7, 2009

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

In a decision that sent shockwaves throughout American High Schools this week, the associtated press reported[1] US District Court Judge James Selna handed down a ruling[2] last Friday upholding student Chad Farnan's claim that his civil rights were violated when his teacher James Corbett commented during a history class that creationism was just "religious, superstitous nonsense." The ruling puts all teachers who engage in similar inappropriate anti-religious commentary on notice that such comments will likely not be tolerated.

The case, which has been been underway for 16 months, also noted several other reportedly anti-religious comments made by Corbett, but were dismissed by the Judge, including "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," and a quote the judge said was likely attributable to Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool." Earlier in April, Selna dismissed other comments attributed to Corbett, such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want." A more detailed account of Corbett's mouthy, pompous, and rambling trash talk -- often exhibiting a clear disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular -- can be found in Farnan's original complaint. [3]

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran at Capistrano Valley High School, remains on the job.

I view this ruling as much more significant than many might realize, since the case offers insight into a widespread and growing trend of open hostility in many high schools directed by teachers towards students who question some aspects of evolution or who simply hold to conservative, traditional, or religous values. The ruling is also significant for the relief it offers for students who suffer similar hostile encounters with their teachers. Many students who question evolution on either scientific or religious grounds have frequently suffered strong opposition and open discrimination from their teachers, resulting in lower grades, loss of recommendations to schools, loss of other academic support, and in-class denigration.

Learning environments for students are even more challenging in many institutions of higher learning, where both students and educators face nothing less than a full-scale onslaught against them if they harbor particular beliefs and values. Those who disagree with various aspects of evolution are particularly singled out for a wide variety of discrimination tactics, as documented in the book Slaughter of the Dissidents, by Dr. Jerry Bergman.[4] Ironically, the one comment Judge Selna faulted Corbett for was made in reference to a remark Corbett uttered about a former creationist educator (John Peloza) who once taught in the same school district Corbett hails from. The Peloza case is also addressed in Bergman's book.

Reaction on many blogs runs high in opposition to Corbett, and many who agree with him in principle are expressing their outrage at his behavior and are very upset that he appears to have seriously set back efforts to secularize our public schools.

One particularly vehement blogger lamented "Why do you have to ruin it for the rest of us. We do not need this case to reverse all that we have done to finally remove Chritianity from the school systems..." Corbett responded by noting in part:

I'm the teacher, Dr. Corbett. I never "bashed" any religion. I've never belittled a student. I talked about the 18th Century Catholic Church in Austria and I quoted Voltaire. In addition, I characterized the notion put forth by a local biology teacher that the earth was "very young, less than 6,000 years old and created by God, complete with fossils," as (my quote) "superstitious religious nonsense." It is, as a matter of science. When I said that, I also said that as a matter of faith, students can believe anything they want, but trying to turn religion into science perverts both religion and science. I'm disappointed that so many people still seem to think I would ever hurt a student. [5]

After reading Farnan's complaint, which is chock full of Corbett's clearly anti-religious statements, one can only conclude that he is in a state of serious self-delusion. There is clearly a definite disconnect between what Corbett thinks he said and what the rest of us can plainly see from reading his remarks.

Comments from other observers on this matter suggests that Judge Selna strangely refused to take Corbett to task for many of his clearly inappropriate and anti-religious diatribe, finding fault with only one of Corbett's comments. Ed Brayton, with whom I often disagree, expressed sentiments that are perhaps most in line with my own:

There will inevitably be conflicts between things taught in school and the religious beliefs of some students. When those conflicts occur, a teacher has to handle those situations with some degree of sensitivity. It is one thing to tell a student that they are teaching something because it is the position best supported by the evidence; it is quite another to tell them that their religion makes them incapable of seeing the truth and that their religion is a fraud believed in by fools. I think this teacher clearly crossed over the line here, and not just in the one statement the court found to be a problem. [6]

One other very interesting result of this case is that Selna's ruling found that the school district was not liable for Corbett's remarks - which stands in stark contrast with the fears expressed by many school districts about teachers who make comments on creationism or ID in a classroom setting. Many districts are concerned that any such remarks are inappropriate and leave them open lawsuits that could result in significant legal costs.

For now, Selna's ruling should offer some welcome relief to many students who would otherwise be subjected to ridicule and humiliation similar to that dished out by Corbett. Unfortunately, it will not reign in other types of discrimination that will continue to be made by educators intent on derailing the educational goals of many students who are viewed as Darwin skeptics. I wish young Farnan well as he seeks to enter college, and we'll all be watching to see if any college educator dares to cross his path with more of the same. If, that is, he gets admitted first.

[1]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

[2]http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

[3] http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2007/12/capistranovalleysuitcomplaint.pdf

[4] http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

[5] http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8eyy3/heres_the_christain_douchebag_chad_farnan_who_is/?sort=new

[6] http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/california_teacher_liable_for.php

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

I've been keeping my ear to the ground regarding the fallout in Texas over the recent State Board of Education (SBOE) vote on science standards...

I'm beginning to hear some rumblings about mounting a possible legal challenge to the vote, as well as taking legislative action to change the way Texas state science standards are decided in the future: and the upshot seems to be, keep 'the people' out of the process as much as possible.

A legal challenge, if picked up, would be promoted in part because of the "religious" motivations of some school board members. The new standards are viewed by many critics as "poisoning" the minds of school age children who would come under its influence.

Here's the spin:

"Cynthia Dunbar would like to make it required that "any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern." She also calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion."

And Don McLeroy, the leader of this group, argued passionately at last month's public hearing that someone in this country needs to stand up to the science experts.

As members of the 15-member Texas Board of Education, Mercer, Dunbar, and McLeroy are some of the most powerful decision-makers in the country in terms of what children read in public school science class."

And here's the warm-up shot:

"Now the issue is whether there is enough prima facie evidence to challenge the Constitutionality of the wording now, or wait for the textbook review process in two years."

"They have shown clear religious motivations that certainly raise some questions," Quinn said. "But if the board requires phony religious arguments in the science textbooks, I can't imagine somebody won't challenge it." Publishers may end up producing a textbook for Texas and other conservative states and a separate version for other states - because under the new guidelines, a Texas textbook "will be poison in states that value education," Quinn said.[1]

One of the biggest objections by critics of the recent SBOE vote is that it promotes (according to them) first and foremost an anti-science "religious" agenda - an intolerable threat to their way of thinking, and worse, that supporters of the new standards are intent upon "poisoning" and "injuring"[2] children with their views, and their voice and influence should be stopped at all costs. The vote of the SBOE (who are, by the way, ELECTED by the people of Texas...) has literally lit a fire under those who oppose the wording of the new standards, and they are using it as leverage to influence any other elected officials who will listen to their claims that good science is under attack by a bunch of religious loons.

And, they appear to be gaining at least some traction.[3][4]

Opponents of the new science standards are contemplating every possible avenue they can to both challenge and roll back the SBOE vote if possible and/or make sure it doesn't happen again. The Kitzmiller decision has emboldened them to think they can win in court. In their mind, they have a duty to protect kids from the horrible influence of the SBOE majority vote, and if they think they can achieve this via a legal challenge, you can bet your last doughnut they will do so.

There may not be a legal challenge yet, but we would do well to anticipate their future actions based on what we know about how they view "creationists" and the level of their determination to leave no stone unturned in an effort to smack them down. If they thought they'd have a chance at filing a successful lawsuit - don't think for a minute they wouldn't.

Meanwhile... those who oppose the new science standards are very actively engaged in taking other steps in an effort to ensure that voter influence will no longer be a factor in future decisions regarding state science standards or content in science textbooks. In the wake of the recent SBOE vote, a "slew of bills" have recently been proposed to "reign in the authority of the Texas State Board of Education." [5][6]

Think about it: this is the response to a body of public officials who were elected by the people into office.

These bills have been introduced since the vote, and has seen the reported emergence of "a parade of witnesses testifying to the state board's unfair processes, divisive ideological history and outright ineptitude."[7]

One of the bills (Senate Bill 2275) was considered just yesterday in Texas by the Senate Education Committee. The purpose of this bill is to take away the authority of the SBOE to vote on the state science curriculum standards, and place that decision into the hands of just one person: the state education commissioner. But the bill goes much further than that, since it would also require "the commissioner to establish teams of educators and content experts to develop standards and review textbooks for approval." In other words, regardless of what the commissioner decides the language of the standards should be, the bill ALSO provides for a team of expert editors to be at the ready to ENSURE that the language of the textbooks conforms to what the content experts say should be there. If this bill does go anywhere, then we need to be prepared to address the way the science texts will be influenced by those individuals. More important, if enacted, this bill would also remove the people, currently represented through elected officials on the SBOE, from the decision-making process. [8]

SBOE efforts to promote good language in the TX science standards has been derided as "code" for creationism instead of good science. To marginalize the text of the new Texas standards in this manner is an important indicator of just how far the opposition will go in their efforts to discredit the ruling of elected officials in the decision-making process. This indicates a complete disregard for the validity of democratically elected voices - and is an assault not just against "creationists," but also against the democratic process itself. Critics of the SBOE vote are seeking to eliminate the influence of the people in the process by pointing to the threat of the "creationists" in this debate, who (according to them) don't deserve to have a voice. The irrationality of such so-called "rational" thinkers is breathtaking, and their strong inclinations towards scientific fascism should continue to cause great alarm.

Residents of Texas would do well to let their elected representatives know that 'the people' want to keep their voice in the process.

[1]http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/scienceandreligion/1308/evolution_challenged_in_%22textbook%22_case:_as_goes_texas,_so_goes_the_nation/

[2] http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sboe_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.4acfccf.html

[3] http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sboe_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.4acfccf.html

[4] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/04/the-education-f-14.html

[5] http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Bills2009

[6] http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/texas-creationism-legislative-update-16-apr-09/

[7] http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/reckoning-approaches-for-state-ed-board/

[8] http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/major-sboe-bill-up-for-hearing-at-capitol/

[9] http://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2009/04/bill-would-limit-education-boards-power.html

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Most of us have heard reports about problems with honeybees in recent years. As a long-time beekeeper (well, sort of -- I've been a beekeeper for the past 8 years running), I've followed the issue of the Big Bee Dieoff (CCD) with interest. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems in the beekeeping industry seems to be that of preserving the honeybee as the primary source of pollination for many of our crops. While I sympathize with the losses beekeepers have been subjected to in recent decades (I have lost many of my own hives), I think our focus needs to shift from preserving the honeybee to a focus on a much more pressing issue that has resulted from the decline of honeybee populations: the ability to pollinate our food sources effectively. In my view, we cannot continnue to rely on honeybees for pollinating our crops as heavily as we have in the past, and we need to shift very quickly from a focus on trying to fix the myriad problems facing the honeybee industry to a different pollination solution, or we will be facing a much more significant crisis than the loss of the honeybees: less food for our tables.

THE HONEYBEE DILEMMA

Imagine what it would be like if milk cows suddenly started dying off in vast numbers due to some unknown disease. Or if chickens the world over were suddenly overcome with a serious form of avian flu that rendered them unfit for human consumption or egg-laying. This is essentially the equivalent of what has been going on in the honeybee industry in recent years. Honeybees have suffered a tremendous series of hits beginning in the early 1980's when they began to be attacked rather hard by two types of parasites - tracheal mites and varroa mites. These mites can and often have decimated honeybee hives, and did such a great job of it in America that by the 1990's you'd have been hard pressed to find very many wild honeybee hives living in the USA. I well recall as a young man observing a honeybee hive in continuous operation for many years inside an oak tree in the neighborhood where I grew up. It's now long gone, and moreover, any feral hive is almost certain to be doomed by these mites within a short period of time (except in Hawaii, where the mites have not yet infiltrated, last I heard). Of course, these mites also attacked honeybess that were kept by bee keepers in large apiaries, and if just one hive got infected, you could count on it spreading rather rapidly to other hives in short order. This chain reaction has had the effect of wiping out hive colonies en masse over the years, and has provided beekeepers with a significant challenge: how to keep their hives strong and healty - strong enough in fact to produce enough honey to harvest and also enable their bees to survive into the next season.

Unfortunately, the treatment for these parasites has been a (get this) type of insecticide inserted into beehives that takes out the mites, but doesn't kill the bees. Well, it might not actually KILL the bees, but it certainly does weaken them. Plus, the insecticide percolates into the wax created by the bees. My advice for those of you who like to eat honeycomb: don't do it. That wax is most likely contaminated with a variety of pesticides - even from hives that are supposedly organic. Pesticides are picked up by the bees from the sources they visit for pollen and nectar, and you can't control whether the bees fly to locations where pesticides are used. So just because a beekeeper doesn't use any pesticides and calls his honey "organic" doesn't necessarily mean it's free from pesticides (unless he can certify that no one sprays within at least 4 miles of his beehives).
http://beediary.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/american-research-team-find-46-different-pesticides-in-ccd-colonies/

Anyway, for many years now, the mites (as you might have guessed) have built up a resistance to the insecticide used by many beekeepers, and so this treatment has become less and less effective against mites in recent years (just like DDT). A newer and safer treatment is formic acid, but there are handling issues for beekeepers. It's a product that requires extreme caution - but it does seem to be effective, and much safer for both the bees and humans if used properly.
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/formic/default.htm
http://www.miteaway.com/

So the mites are still a huge problem, and beekeepers continue to do battle with them. Any major beekeeper has to fight this battle in some way (and win) if he expects to continue with a viable honeybee business.

Add to all this the genetically modified Africanized honeybee (aka "Killer Bees") that have now invaded much of the Southern USA and are presently extending their range. These bees are actually very productive when it comes to honey, however, they will often take over a beehive without the beekeeper's knowledge. The problem is, these bees are 30x more aggressive than the usual breeds of honeybees used by commercial beekeepers, and pose a significant threat to humans and animals. As they continue to expand their range, they will continue to be a thorn in the side of commercial beekeepers.

ENTER THE NEW DISORDER: CCD

In just the past few years, beekeepers have seen their hives decimated by yet another type of challenge - only this one is invisible, and no one has any answers for it yet. We still do not understand for sure what causes Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). But we do know that commercially kept honeybees are dying off in great numbers. And, this IS having a very disasterous result on crops that have become dependent upon commercial beekeepers providing honeybees for pollinating those crops.

And that is the issue that needs to be addressed. Many in the beekeeping industry seem to think that the solution needs to be finding a way to preserve honeybees -- but this view is based on the self-interest of the beekeeper, not the real issue we are facing with the sudden die-off of honeybees. The real issue is finding alternative ways of pollinating our crops.

CAUSE FOR ALARM

The problem with the honeybees is cause for alarm since much of the food we eat is dependant upon them as pollinators for much of our nation's fruit trees, vegetables, and many other plants that bear fruit. Many states which produce much of our food, particularly California, have come to rely on honeybees for setting the fuit for everything from almonds to watermelons.

With the widespread and deep collapse of the honeybee brought on by mites and CCD, alternatives are not only a good idea, it's fast becoming a necessity. The longer we wait to implement these alternatives, the more disasterous will be the effect on our ability to produce the food we need.

ALTERNATIVES

Here is where I'm going to offer my observations and suggestions regarding what needs to be done about this problem.

1) Increase the use of alternative pollinators. While it is important to figure out what's killing off the honeybees and figuring out a recovery strategy, my opinion is that it is far more important to launch one or more agressive alternative pollination strategies. Fixing the honeybee problem is not the solution to pollinating our crops. We need to see the deployment of massive numbers of alternative pollinators. Honeybees are not the only pollinators that can be used to get crops "set" so that fruit and vegetables will grow. My own experience shows that a variety of other insects will also participate in pollination activity if they are given the chance. If they become part of the natural habitat, they will reproduce to whatever extent a nearby crop requires. Many studies indicate that honeybees outperform natural pollinators by only a factor of 10%, which is significant, but hardly the disaster many seem to indicate regarding this crisis. Some would have us think that without honeybees, many crops would simply not get pollinted at all. Personally, I think this is a lot of hype. Alternative pollinators do exist, and can even be encouraged to grow (and I believe their numbers WOULD grow if they did not have to compete with artifically inserted honeybees brought in by beekeepers during the bloom season).

For example, I have a raspberry field on my property, and I can vouch for the fact that bumblebees outperform my honeybees for pollination on a scale of at least 10 to 1. When my raspberry plants are in bloom, I can see scores of bumblebees engaged in pollination, and hardly any honeybees, even though they are more numerous and are close by.

Bumblebees - will pollinate some crops that honeybees often won't even touch where I live (like raspberries, for example)

Masonbees - will pollinate almost anything, and are a viable alternative to honeybees.
http://flying-insects.suite101.com/article.cfm/orchard_mason_bees

Leafcutter bees - are opportunists, ie, they will go wherever there is pollen.
http://www.actahort.org/books/288/288_25.htm
http://www.nbii.gov/portal/community/Communities/Ecological_Topics/Pollinators/Pollinator_Species/Invertebrates/Bees_and_Wasps/Leafcutter_Bees/Alfalfa_Leafcutter_Bee/

Honeybees are currently by far and away the most relied-upon source of pollination for many key crops all across America, which means if something were to ever happen to honeybees, there go many of our crops (and that's exactly what we're looking at...). So, I think we need to focus on stimulating and growing a variety of home-based indigenous pollinators on a massive scale.

2) Increase the diversity of honeybees used in commercial operations. If we MUST use honeybees (and I don't think we must, but, if we do...) then we should be encouraging the use of a much wider variety of honeybees that are more naturally resistent to varroa and tracheal mites (cetain genetic factors and grooming behaviors contribute to increased survivability against mite infestations among different varieties of honeybees). Currently, the variety of honeybee used by most commercial beekeepers is the Italian. Other varieties have proven to be superior survivors against the mites, and so at the very least, we should be encouraging the distribution of a much broader blend of such honeybees. Thus far, we've only seen experimental efforts, not the widespread implementation I think is needed.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/060809.htm

In addition, there is another factor that seems to help: honeybees that create a smaller cell size. Almost all commercial beekeepers place their bees in hives containing frames. Each frame has a standard sized wax-coated "template" (known as "foundation" within the industry) with the initial dimples in place for each honeycomb cell. By making the cell sizes smaller on these templates, some beekeepers in Arizona have shown encouraging results in keeping varroa mite populations down. Beekeepers should pursue this avenue on a much larger scale, keeping in mind that bee size is a function of both inherited characteristics and cell size. Just as farmers breed cows for various traits, so the beekeeper can also choose to use different strains of bees for his enterprise.
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bcfeb1990.htm
http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/cellsize.html
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

In my own bee colonies, I experimented by placing empty hive boxes below boxes with frames, thus allowing the bees to create wax comb below the frames at the size THEY wanted rather than using the size dictated to them by the frame templates. The results were impressive - they survived much better.

So far, there has been lots of talk about what the industry must do so recover from these challenges, but I've not seen much action in implementing what we know will help on the scale that is needed.

There is a lot of tire-spinning going on around this issue, and it's not being treated with the significance it requires. In my view, the problem is solvable, if only we would get out of the "paralysis of analysis" stage and start taking actions we know will improve the situation. Saving the honeybees isn't the main issue (but that's how the matter seems to be viewed by too many folks) - getting our crops pollinated is. We can live without as much honey as we've become accustomed to -- but we sure can't live without the food our growers have come to rely solely on honeybees to pollinate. I say, let's get other pollinators into the mix, and pronto, before we find ourselves in the middle of a much more serious crisis than the loss of the honeybees.

Another site worth looking at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/Services.htm?modecode=53-42-03-00

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

Let the Whining Begin!
by Kevin H. Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

On Friday the Texas School Board voted 13-2 approving the language that will be used in Texas textbooks (and potentially other states - though not as strongly as in the past thanks to recent advances in publishing technology) for the next decade after 2011. I expect the standards will be posted online in the coming week, and it when they are, I will update this post to reference them.

I've noticed that the initial news reports generally tend to praise the vote as either a mixed bag or a victory for evolution. I'm seeing remarks like "split outcome", "compromise," and the state still has the creationist "Camel's nose under the tent." Few have called the vote a victory for advocates of academic freedom. Either way, I'm not seeing much in the way of a declaration of victory for our side. However, I expect in the coming days we're sure to see a spate of wonderful blog commentary decrying the loss of progress to science education because advocates of critical thinking managed to sway some influence. In fact, the whining has already begun with the post by Jerry Coyne and others (see the links under "COMMENTARIES..." below)

I won't be offering much in the way of opinion here, but I do want to refer my readers to an excellent summary post by David Coppedge over at "Creation Evolution Headlines." Here's a sampling:

"It is a sad measure of our cultural demise when getting a vote in favor of fairness and critical thinking requires a herculean effort against a dogmatic establishment. Much as we celebrate with those who won, consider what a small advance this is. The Darwinist totalitarian regime has imposed such thought control on the scientific and educational institutions they can hardly think straight. This should have been common sense. In what other branch of inquiry is it normal for students to have predigested conclusions poured down a funnel into their skulls? Of all subjects, science should be the most open to critical thinking. Not so with the Darwinism."

You can read the rest of his excellent post by going to his site:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200903.htm#20090327a

TEXAS SCHOOL BOARD NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Also, the audio recordings of the Texas Board of Education Meetings can be reviewed here: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/audio_archived.html

Video of Eugenie Scott testifying before the Texas Board
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BhqRi3_co

SCIENCEINSIDER
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/04/in-full-intervi.html
Three weeks into his job as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology, presidential science adviser John Holdren has laid out clear positions on myriad issues facing the Obama Administration. He shared his views on the recent decision in Texas with ScienceInsider.

EDUCATION WEEK
Evolution Debate Remains Vexing for Texas Board
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/01/27brief-b1.h28.html

HOUSTON CHRONICLE
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6346723.html
Texas ed board approves science standards
Portraying the vote as a "compromise"
Quoting Eugenie Scott as saying ""I think we've seen some classic examples of politics interfering with science education"
(poor Eugenie...)

SALON
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case/
Texas on evolution: Needs further study
".. in a compromise that alarms and dismays many science education advocates, the board did adopt language that attempts to cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of the central evolutionary concepts of natural selection and common ancestry."

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif.-based organization dedicated to protecting
the integrity of science education in the public schools, says that once McLeroy and his allies failed to pass the "strengths and weakness" language, "they had a fallback position, which was to continue amending the standards to achieve through the back door what they couldn't achieve upfront."

CNN
Texas board comes down on 2 sides of creationism debate
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/

DALLAS MORNING NEWS
Conservatives lose another battle over evolution
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_28tex.ART.State.Edition1.4a87415.html

Read a critique of the DMN's report by the Discovery Institute
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/dallas_morning_news_offers_alt.html

WALL STREET JOURNAL
Texas Opens Classroom Door for Evolution Doubts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819751472561761.html
"Critics of evolution said they were thrilled with Friday's move. "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a
scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute"

Kathy Miller, president of the pro-evolution Texas Freedom Network,said "The board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks."

USA TODAY
Texas scraps school anti-evolution requirements
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/03/texas-may-end-s.html

SEATTLE TIMES
Texas Upholds Teaching Evolution
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008932356_texas27.html
Supporters of evolution hailed the vote but were critical of amendments adopted by the board that they said could create new paths to teaching creationism and the similar notion of intelligent design in public schools.

NY TIMES
Defeat and Some Success for Texas Evolution Foes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/education/27texas.html?hp

EL PASO TIMES
Board of Education OKs Science Change: State Curriculum to consider 'all sides'
http://www.elpasotimes.com/education/ci_12015289

NATURE
Texas Deadlocks on evolution standards
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/03/texas_deadlocks_on_evolution_s.html

NEWSWEEK
The Texas-Size Debate Over Teaching Evolution
Sure, discuss Darwin's 'strengths and weaknesses.' Just not in biology textbooks.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191400

DISCOVER MAGAZINE
Texas Wrapup: Yup. Doomed.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-wrapup-yup-doomed/
So the vote was made, the standards were set, and now the dust is settling. And what do we see? I see Texas being the laughing stock on a world stage, finally replacing the Kansas fiasco from the 1990s.

"...creationists are using this as a wedge to lie about evolution. And yes, I mean lie: they hammer away with old, outdated, and easily-disproven ideas in an attempt to make evolution look weak. But let’s be clear: evolutionary ideas are the very basis of modern biology, and are as solid a fact as gravity is. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. This is not just a theory. It’s fact."

THE CHRISTIAN POST
Texas Board approves new standards requiring critique of evolution
http://www.christianpost.com/Education/Creation_evolution/2009/03/texas-board-approves-new-standards-requiring-critique-of-evolution-28/

MY SA NEWS
Evolution Showdown pits critcs and supporters
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Evolution_showdown_pits_critics_and_supporters.html

ScienceInsider
Creationists Notch Win in Texas Showdown
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/creationists-no.html
According to NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott ..."What the creationists got was a bunch of heavily compromised standards that will allow them to go to textbook publishers and ask for content for teaching of intelligent design."

PHYSORG.COM
Texas education board approves science standards
http://www.physorg.com/news157356139.html

TEXAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE
http://www.texscience.org/

NSTA Comments before the vote
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/nsta-issues-statement-regarding-revised-texas-state-science-education-standards/

More News posts can be found at the Discovery Institute's web site:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/texas/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

COMMENTARIES/OPINIONS/BLOGS

NOTE: Some of these were published before and after Friday's vote:

NCSE
A Setback for Science Education in Texas
http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710
This piece summarizes key commentary from many of the articles appearing in this post, lambasting the "flawed" standards, and offering quotes from many who oppose them.

"The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the country," Scott added. Among the organizations calling upon the board to adopt the standards as originally drafted by a panel of Texas scientists and educators were the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the Paleontological Society, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers, as well as fifty-four scientific and education societies that endorsed a statement circulated by NCSE. The board's chair, avowed creationist Don McLeroy, responded by crying (video is available on NCSE's YouTube channel), during the meeting, "Somebody's got to stand up to experts!"

NPR
Talk of the Nation - featuring Eugenie Scott
April 10, 2009
Eugenie gives her impressions of what happened in Texas (audio)
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=102964799&m=102964792

EDUCATION WEEK
Retooled Texas Standards Raise Unease Among Science Groups
By Sean Cavanagh
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/08/28evolution.h28.html

GO SAN ANGELO.COM
Charles Garner and David Klinghoffer
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/apr/05/charles-garner-and/
Texas has been the scene of a stirring illustration of democracy at work...Lobbyists for strict enforcement of Darwinian theory as sacred dogma fought hard. In testimony given before the vote, scientists in favor of strengthening the requirement of critical analysis kept their remarks focused on the relevant scientific issues. Darwinian activists, however, sought to scare everyone with hysterical warnings about Biblical literalist "creationism" run amok-a grossly dishonest red herring, often waved about in the Darwin debate, and one that the board as a whole saw through and dismissed. The new science standards are about science, not religion.

WIRED.COM
Reporting from the Front Lines of the Texas Evolution Debate
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/texashearing.html

PHYSORG.COM
Science Setback for Texas Schools
http://www.physorg.com/physics-news/

"The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science," says Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). "The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the country." NCSE presented the board with a petition from 54 scientific and educational societies, urging the board to reject language that misrepresents or undermines the teaching of evolution, which the board likewise ignored.

NY Times
Evolutionary Semantics, Texas Style
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/opinion/31tue3.html
The Texas Board of Education gave grudging support last week to teaching the mainstream theory of evolution without the most troubling encumbrances sought by religious and social conservatives. But the margins on crucial amendments were disturbingly close, typically a single vote on a 15-member board, and compromise language left ample room for the struggle to continue.

Creationism in the Classroom
By Jerry Coyne
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/26/evolution-science-texas-school-board
No list of commentaries would be complete without reference to Jerry's invective...(KHW)

Enlisting in the Culture War
in the Austin American Statesman
By Don McLeroy
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/25/0325mcleroy_edit.html

ARS TECHNICA
New Texas Science Standards saddled with incoherent changes
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/mixed-results-for-science-in-texas.ars
The Texas State Board of Education managed to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language out of the science education standards, but passed a series of small amendments that provide guidance that is, at times, scientifically incoherent.

NEWSWISE
Science Setback for Texas Schools
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/550595/
After three all-day meetings and a blizzard of amendments and counter-amendments, the Texas Board of Education cast its final vote Friday on state science standards. The results weren't pretty. The board majority amended the Earth and Space Science, and Biology standards (TEKS) with loopholes and language that make it even easier for creationists to attack science textbooks.

"What we now have is Son of Strengths and Weaknesses," says Josh Rosenau, a project director for NCSE. "Having students 'analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence' is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology textbooks."

DISPATCHES FROM THE CULTURE WARS
Good news and bad news in texas
Ed Brayton's Blog
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/good_news_and_bad_news_in_texa.php
The Texas Board of Education passed the new science standards on Friday. The good news is that an amendment to add back in the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement failed. The bad news is that a more specific amendment with the same effect passed and was added to the standards, where it will now be used to shoehorn creationist propaganda into science classrooms.

DALLAS MORNING NEWS
Jarstfer and Coghlan: Don’t censor questions of evolution
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-jarstfer_25edi.696396e1.html
In January, the evolution lobby convinced a slim majority of the board to tentatively remove the required teaching of “weaknesses” from the standard. Now the same activists are demanding that the board cut the words “analyze and evaluate” from the high school biology standards dealing directly with evolution. It is the Darwinian activists who are picking the fight.

Evolution activists have raised a string of phony issues. They claim that board members are trying to insert creationism and a “young earth” into the science standards. Completely false. Remember, it is the Darwinian extremists who are attempting to change the existing science directives. Under the existing standards there has not been a single reported case of a teacher using the standard as a pretext to teach religion, creationism, or anything other than science.

GIZMODO
TEXAS Decides Evolution Needs More Study, I Decide I Need Less Texas
http://i.gizmodo.com/5188521/texas-decides-evolution-needs-more-study-i-decide-i-need-less-texas

HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Board of Education Evolves into a Sideshow
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/6334924.html
The human brain seems not to have changed since homo sapiens first appeared 150,000 years ago. That means evolution is false. We don’t have every bone, so the fossil record undercuts the theory of evolution. A few scientists have fudged proof of evolution, so that calls into question all the other evidence.

EXAMINER.COM
Texas Science education debate over -- but the win is a loss
http://www.examiner.com/x-2430-Science-Examiner~y2009m3d27-Texas-science-education-debate-over--but-the-win-is-a-loss

There is the possibility that all the text books in the nation will include information that fulfills Texas standards requirements. If this were to happen, the entire country would fall even further behind the rest of the world in certain areas of science education. Further, student would be woefully behind when entering college when the time came for them to take prerequisite science classes.

SOFTPEDIA
Texas Votes for Evolutionary
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Texas-Commission-Votes-for-Evolutionary-107929.shtml

But scientists argue that the theory of creation or Intelligent Design would make kids question even well-established scientific truths, and could create a generation of citizens that is unable to tell real scientific facts from fiction.

They also pinpoint that creationists and ID adepts twist scientific facts to fit their claims, by questioning techniques such as carbon dating. Scientists tell that they are puzzled at this tactic that creationists employ in their actions, because even the Pope, the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church, has admitted that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the Christian belief, as long as people accept that, at some point, God gave soul to our common ancestors.

POLI GAZETTE
Texas School Board Rejects Scientific Method
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/28/texas-school-board-rejects-scientific-method/

TEXAS OBSERVER
And So it Ends

EXAMINER.COM
TEXAS Fundamentalism bites a little dust
http://www.examiner.com/x-3346-Minneapolis-Church--State-Examiner~y2009m3d27-Whats-with-Texas-anyway

But I choose to look at this Texas school board decision the way God intended; the glass is indeed, half full. Enough, all ready, with the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific hypothesis. These are to be tested, proven or disproven and not debated. I always get a kick out of the question, "do you believe in evolution?" How can a person "believe" a fossil-based, scientific theory? It's like asking someone if they "believe" in gravity.

QUOTES

"Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks."

- Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network

"Somebody has got to stand up to these experts. Why does evolution have this lofty status? It's all about ideology."

- Texas Board of Education Chairman Don McElroy

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently scheduled for release sometime in June 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development

Quite often I come across some fairly hypocritical commentary emanating from the Dork Side of the Farce. The topics of these bulletins range from "15 things that are wrong with ID" to other delightful tidbits of smugly painted sanctimonious preaching intended to help those who might otherwise be mislead to spot the errors of ID. I guess if ad hominem attacks or vitriol doesn't work, then breathtaking hypocrisy might fare better. A recent example of this would be New Scientist book review editor Amanda Gefter's recent commentary on "How to spot a hidden religious agenda." In it, she attempts to help her readers detect "religion in science's clothing."

But as I read her piece, I couldn't help but notice that nearly every single item she mentions as a problem with the religious-like thinking she is so intent on hammering has a direct corollary with evolutionary thinking as well. It's so interesting how critics can see the imperfections with someone else's perspective, yet fail to see the same exact problem with their own. Not only that, but many of her conclusions (as is typical of many like her who try to correct how IDers define themselves and their mission) are clearly either imprecise, cherry-picked, or flat-out wrong. Nothing like knocking down straw men (and women).

Take for example just one of her comments, where she claims that "If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism."

Well, perhaps this is true for some Ms. Gefter, however, it also means a whole lot more than that to many others. The case for academic freedom NEEDS to be pressed in our legislatures because freedom is being suppressed right and left in academia. It's a much needed response to what Big Science is typically unwilling to do: allow dissent to be freely expressed without exterminating those who disagree.

In case some are not paying attention (and clearly, Gefter isn't), freedom of expression is a rare commodity within academia and science (just check out my earlier post "Big Science Takes A Huge Hit for Snubbing AIDS Research Dissenters"). To be sure, an educator CAN express his or her opinion about problems with Darwinian concepts, but 5 seconds later the hooked cane has jerked them off the scientific stage with lame cries of "religion," "separation of church and state," or "pseudoscience!" And, behind the curtain and out of sight of the audience the dissenter gets the living daylights beaten out of him by self-assurred ideological thugs who see themselves as the saviors of science education. And these are the same folks who bemoan the use of water-boarding as an inhumane torture tactic. Meanwhile, educators who thought they were free to express themselves about SCIENCE (not religion) often lose their job, career, families, degrees, and on and on because they dared to dissent.

Gefter, like many others, attempts to set up the issue on a false premise, ie, that the goal of academic freedom legislation is to insert "creationism" or "religion" into public school science classes. Actually, this legislation is an effort to ensure freedom of SCIENTIFIC dissent, which I realize is a far-fetched concept for folks like Gefter, who think we should only allow others to express an evolutionary point of view. Anything critical of evolution or smacking of Design is "religious." But get this: many educators are not allowed to present articles critical of evolution to their students even if taken directly from some of the most prestigious and peer-reviewed science journals on the planet. If the article shows any problems with evolution, then it should not be distributed to highly impressionable students based on the alleged "religious motivations" of the educator. And this is despite the fact that the article has already passed muster within the rigors of the scientific establishment.

Meanwhile, educators who advocate evolution are free to use their authoratative influence to persuade their students to accept the view that the "appearance of design" is not "actual" design. Fortunately, many students these days aren't buying it.

Academic FREEDOM means having the freedom to express one's views without fear of punishment. And that is cearly something Darwin Dorks like Gefter have not yet learned how to handle or appreciate. According to them, freedom should be reserved only for those with the "correct" view of science.

Fortunately, someone else did us a service and created a well-written parody of Gefter's incredibly disingenuous piece.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

For readers who would like to find out more about what happens to Darwin Dissenters, and many others who have suffered discrimination for being Darwin skeptics, I recommend grabbing a copy of "Slaughter of the Dissidents," which can be ordered here.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book about her experience as an Expelled University professor which is scheduled to be released sometime in early 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development

I guess this year's top 10 Darwin and Design news stories are blindingly dull for some folks. I got a rather silly email from someone today, and thought I would share his thoughts and my response. I won't reveal his actual name here...so I'll call him Smitty.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hello Kevin, happy holidays. I just read your list of top ten news stories and listened to the podcast on "ID the future." It looks like another year and absolutely nothing has been learned about the intelligences behind intelligent design, nor anything new about the process of design. I've been saving these for the last few years and as I look them over, I see that the trend continues. There are no discoveries about either intelligence or the design process. Instead, the subjects you've selected are either intelligent design PR, intelligent design persecution, the politics of ID versus evolution or genuine science stories that you re-interpret to somehow imply support for ID.

For yet another year, there is absolutely nothing new that's been discovered about the intelligences or about the process of design. Is there anyone even working on those subjects? Even the Biologic Institute doesn't seem to be working on those topics. Their most newsworthy result is publishing software! How can anyone claim that ID is a science if no one is working on proving the central claims? If it were really a science then wouldn't the major share of the research funding be spent finding out who the intelligent designers are? I can't imagine there would be a more interesting question to answer. But after years of following this field, I can find no evidence of anyone past or present who's conducting any research to identify the nature of the intelligences. How do you explain that?

Regards,

Smitty

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ah Smitty,

Happy Holidays right back at you. Thanks for reading our Top 10 stories and also for listening to our podcast recap.

If you'll permit me to be a bit brash, your questions don't indicate to me that you've been seriously thinking very hard about the implications of what we reported in our Top 10 news stories.

No new discoveries? Sure, we included all the usual suspects you identified. But you need to think about this a bit more. We gave you far more value than you claim. Part of what we do with these stories is underscore and remind folks that we need to be looking at evidence, not just speculation. Your tweaking shows how shallow your powers of analysis are, and it deserves a response.

1) I think the clutch feature of the flagellum (news story #6) was pretty nifty (you didn't include that one in your list...). The discovery of a clutch system isn't impressive to you? Wow, then I guess if we could somehow make the whole state of Alaska disappear that wouldn't be a very big deal for you either. I think we should continue to feature a new characteristic for this poster child every year until the expanded explanation of this little organelle is pretty much an overwhelmingly obvious example of a mind behind the scenes. Don't know how much more complicated it needs to be before you'll get the point, because if it's not convincing now, there's not much more that could be said.

This is a great example of what many Darwinians would call "Apparent design," only, it's pretty obvious to most observers that trying to explain how the flagellum came about via purely naturalistic processes has yet to be DEMONSTRATED by science. Until that time, you can claim IDers are chasing the "God did it" theme all you want, but most reasoning people recognize that the Darwinian answer (ie, "Evolution did it") is not compelling evidence either. Neither explanation can be presented empirically, and both are based on faith. Not only that, but if one must choose between chance and intellgence being the cause, then logic dictates that the flagellum was engineered by a brain. Chance has no chance of looking very convincing in this matter, no matter how much time you allow.

2) If you were paying attention, you'd see that the focus of many of our Top 10 stories revolves around the common thread of of cellular complexity. The movie "Expelled" (our #3 story) features one of the most amazing animation sequences of the cell one could imagine. And it barely scratched the surface. Go rent the movie and look at that sequence again, and then come back and explain to me how evolutionary processes demonstrate that all of those cellular components could originate with their specific functions and interrelationships via evolutionariy processes.

3) Continuing with molecular biology and the theme about the impressive complexity of the cell is our #8 story about the Ribosome. We provided a link, did you actually READ the transcript? No? I thought not. Consider the new paradigm shift proposed by John Brockman in his opening remarks:

"We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented." (Life: What a Concept!, EDGE Foundation, 2008, p. 6)

The lofty goal of creating molecular machines is heralded here as the next big deal. That would be nice, except to achieve this requires synthesizing (among other things) ribosomes. Contributor/participant Dyson refers to the ribosome as the "central mystery" to the explanation for the origin of life. He talks about the ribosome as being "invented," which is hardly a Darwinian concept, since evolution cannot possibly be called on to "invent" anything. It makes much more sense to theorize that a brain invented something as complicated as a ribosome. You don't need to know HOW something was invented by a brain to deduce that it was. So far there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of the ribosome, but Darwinists are confident, even without any evidence, that it somehow evolved.

Venter notes (p. 51)

"The lay press likes to talk about creating life from scratch. But while we can create and develop new species, we're not creating life from scratch. We talked about the ribosome; we tried to make synthetic ribosomes, starting with the genetic code and building them - the ribosome is such an incredibly beautiful complex entity, you can make synthetic ribosomes, but they don't function totally yet. Nobody knows how to get ones that can actually do protein synthesis."

This might not be particularly newsworthy to most Darwinians, or even the "lay press," but it is worth pointing out to folks who care to think about the issue. Dyson notes that "Once the ribosome was invented, then the two systems, the RNA world and the metabolic world, are coupled together and you get modern cells."

There is no evidence, and no compelling explanation for HOW this specualtive evolutionary development all took place, only the specious confidence that it somehow did. Sounds about as "God of the gaps"-sensical as any ID explanation, right? This is a great example of where we remind folks that evidence is not the same as speculation. Brilliant conjecture, no matter how well endowed with persuasiveness, is never a good substitute for compelling evidence. Yet this is the stock and trade of Darwinians.

Aside from that, your critique about a focus on those other issues is really rather hollow, considering that evolutionists put a pretty big stake in those same topics you rattled off ("intelligent design PR, intelligent design persecution, the politics of ID versus evolution or genuine science stories that you re-interpret to somehow imply support for ID.").

You really should re-examine each of these items, because I can provide you with a bunch of examples of how Darwinists focus on these very same targets all the time.

So, I don't understand what your objection is. If Darwinians can talk about these issues, why can't IDers? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, unless of course, you're suggesting that we should be playing by a different set of rules than our critics. In which case I'll be waiting for your explanation with great anticipation. We think it's newsworthy stuff, and you don't. Fine with me. You say we're guilty of hijacking "genuine science stories that you re-interpret to somehow imply support for ID."

AS IF Darwinians never do this.

Ha! They do it EVERY SINGLE TIME they find a new fossil. Every new fossils find is assumed to be evidence for evolution, even if they can't figure out how just yet. Talk about who hasn't been coming forth with the evidence! I've been waiting all my life for Darwinians to explain how fossils provide overwhelming evidence for evolution. All I keep reading about from the expert paleontologists is speculations piled upon conjectures surrounded by extrapolations. They "think this happened", or "we suppose that occurred", and "we can't imagine (yet) what critter preceeded this one," and so forth. So, please spare me your prattle about how ID isn't producing any answers. Darwinians haven't been doing such a great job either. So let's just call it a draw, shall we?

The consensus about Darwinism isn't as tight as Darwinists claim, and the supporters of ID are not all a bunch of Bible thumping religious nuts. Let's see, Antony Flew is a good start. Then we have David Berlinski, and others in story #2 indicating that hmmmm, maybe there IS a rational way to look at ID if these agnostic and atheist folks can see it. This IS news for many Darwinians who somehow missed this story.

You say that "For yet another year, there is absolutely nothing new that's been discovered about the intelligences or about the process of design. Is there anyone even working on those subjects? Even the Biologic Institute doesn't seem to be working on those topics."

Hmmm. Let me ask you something: Have you contacted the Biologic institute and asked them if they're working on this stuff? And if YOU were an IDer, what peer-reviewed journal would you tell them to submit their research findings to?

The process of design isn't important to ID research. You don't need to explain HOW something was designed or engineered to detect that it was. Nor is it really important to know anything "about the intelligences" to detect design. So maybe that's why you haven't heard anything about that from Biologic lately.

You asked a spate of other questions, so I'll respond to them in turn:

You: Their most newsworthy result is publishing software!
Me: OK, did you indicate the same level of surprize when the Darwinians publish their little evolutionary software tools? And we never said that the software story was the "most newsworthy result," you did.

You: How can anyone claim that ID is a science if no one is working on proving the central claims?
Me: Who says no one is working on this? Not ARN. Not me. Not anyone I know within the ID community. Oh, let me add that I'd be delighted to accept any research funding on behalf of the ID movement -- we can produce lots of research on this problem with a little more coin.

You: If it were really a science then wouldn't the major share of the research funding be spent finding out who the intelligent designers are?
Me: So how do you know anything about who and how much research funding is or is not being spent? And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, the research wouldn't focus on who the "intelligent designers are." ID doesn't seek answers to that. What ID does is postulate that we can detect whether something was designed or not, period. It's agnostic about Who might have done the designing. You don't need to know anything about the designer to detect engineering or design.

Let's not overlook the fact that Darwin waited 20 years to publish his Origin of Species. ID hasn't been doing research anywhere near that long. Be a little more patient. If you
just can't wait any longer, I suggest you look a little deeper. If our Top 10 news stories don't get you excited, then heck, who are we to stand in your way? I'm pretty sure if you cared to, you could find even better stories. We don't own the market on 'em. If you can find a better one, I'll consider publishing it.

On the one hand I'm tempted to say you'll get your nickel's worth if you just hang in there a little longer. But on the other hand, if you continue to wait for someone else to show you the light, you'll never find it. I sugges that you stop "following" our Top 10 stories and start digging for a few on your own. Go find the answers yourself instead of waiting for others to "prove" it to you. ID isn't a cosmological vending machine for answers you think ought to convince you. It looks to me like you think others are responsible for providing you with the compelling evidence, and if none of it pleases you, that lets you off the hook, right? Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. If you're not convinced, then start digging. And if you're really serious, you won't be sending us any more of your prattle and tweakage about how disappointed you are (oh really?) that ID hasn't come up with anything convincing for you this year, or in previous years. Heck, I've met some pretty glorious pontificators who could learn volumes from your subtle approach.

You: I can't imagine there would be a more interesting question to answer.
Me: And, I would agree with you on that point. Meanwhile, Behe and Dembski should have given you plenty to chew on for now. Have you written any critiques about their work yet? I'd love to read it. If not, then start there.

You: But after years of following this field, I can find no evidence of anyone past or present who's conducting any research to identify the nature of the intelligences. How do you explain that?
Me: ID isn't concerned about the "nature of the intelligences" as you put it. It is only concerned with demonstrating that intelligence is a reasonable explanation for what many Darwinians refer to as the "apparent design" found throughout nature. IDers would suggest it's not "apparent design" at all, but rather evidence of "actual" design. Obviously engineered structures imply that a mind was at work, and is a logical and rational explanation.

I guess you didn't think any of those poor dissenters in the recent HIV-AIDS controversy over the past 25 years had anything useful or convincing to say either, right? I'm thinking of the dismissal of those darn pesky dissidents who've been insisting that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. How dare they challenge the findings published in a peer-reviewed journal! The refusal of Big Science to even take a whiff of their concerns was based on an article in that mainstay of scientific empiricism, Science magazine. And of course, no research funding was spent going down that rabbit hole of an idea. Big Science is hesitant to fund irrational notions that go against established findings.

But gee, this must be old hat for many Darwinians who already knew IDers like Phil Johnson never saw that one coming.

NOT!

You need to read my blog post at:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/12/25/big_science_takes_a_huge_hit_for_snubbin

Big Science took a Big Hit on this one, and you KNOW they're never going to say "Gee, that silly old Berkeley Lawyer/Dissidenter/Philosopher Phil Johnson knew it all the time and we dismissed him so cavalierly. Maybe he has some OTHER ideas we ought to listen to."

As if that'll ever happen.

Regards,

Kevin

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book about her experience as an Expelled University professor which is scheduled to be released sometime in early 2009. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book about her experience as an Expelled University professor which is scheduled to be released sometime in early 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.