Ignorance As A Weapon

Thanks to PZ Myers, this from Baptist Press. The reporting itself is quite straightforward -- or as much as can be expected -- note the attempt to make opponents of evolution sound reasonable and cogent. The quotes, however, for anyone who is used to thinking rationally, are dead giveaways:

The language in the proposed standards, Kendall said, is dogmatic when it asserts that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all biology."

Referring to the discovery that Pluto no longer is considered a planet by scientists today, Kendall said scientific opinions can change as scientists explore new information.

Note, that last is an argument against science. These people are obviously not equipped to deal with a universe that contains uncertainties, which, regrettably, is the universe we inhabit. I doubt that Mr. Kendall is deliberately obfuscating the issue through his use of the word "dogmatic." It's probably something he picked up from the likes of James Dobson or Lou Sheldon and is just parrotting without realizing what he's saying. Ditto the later attempt to describe evolution as a religion (see below).

This is slightly more subtle:

Another speaker at the Feb. 3 hearing, Beverly Slough, a member of the St. Johns County school board and president-elect of the Florida School Boards Association, said opponents of the proposed science standards aren't advocating the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design but instead are advocating open-mindedness.

"I think to limit our children and to teach evolution as dogma, not allowing them even open discussion, is not intellectually honest," said Slough, who has a degree in biology.

It's still a crock. Open-mindedness is a requirement of science, but it doesn't necessarily include dumb-as-a-post credulity. It has to come with a healthy dose of scepticism. This is another case of the Christianists saying the opposite of what they mean in order to sound reasonable. She's being dishonest herself, and ignoring an earlier statement by one of the writers of the standards:

The proposed standards ask students to examine the evidence for evolution and to think critically, said Campbell, one of 20 people who spoke in support of the proposed standards and who teaches advanced placement biology in Clay County.

"Did we eliminate other concepts? Yes, we did," said Campbell, who identified himself as a lifelong Christian. "We did not include Intelligent Design based on legal work and on decisions made earlier. I would also point out that we eliminated dogmatic ideas like flat earth, astrology, geocentrism and the prospect that canals on Mars were actually constructed by intelligent life."

In Christianist vocabulary, "thinking critically" means accepting authority as a replacement for rational thought and examination of evidence -- i.e., not thinking at all. Slough is lying, to put it bluntly: of course they are advocating the teaching of creationism and ID, because those are the only alternatives to evolution that they recognize.

Here comes the "religion" argument:

"My objection to their proposal is that, at its core, the suggested science standard relative to evolution is a set of beliefs unproven. They believe that millions of years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something. They have no proof. It's not replicable. It's clearly a belief," Kemple said. "You can give it a name and call it evolution, but it is nonetheless a set of beliefs."

Let's start with the straw man and the sliding definitions. First, the flat assertion that evolution is a set of unproven beliefs. Demonstrably untrue, unless you are in complete denial. Then the straw man, his second statement. Not what evolutionary theorists believe at all, and one of the most pernicious, because most widely accepted, arguments: evolution does not address the origin of life. Period. Never did, never will. Third, another unfounded assertion, that there is no proof, and therefore evolution is a "belief." If you believe evidence, yes, it is. It is not, however, a belief in the sense that he is trying to project. It's the same tactic the creationists use with the word "theory." Change usage in midstream, but don't tell anyone you're doing it.

Kemple noted that a set of beliefs is typically considered a religion or non-religion. A large number of educated people believe evolution is not correct, he noted, and thus, as a set of beliefs, it should not be taught without stating its shortcomings.

Robin Brown, a retired middle school science teacher from Polk County, quoted from a number of well-educated people who disagree with the theory of evolution. Drawing from philosopher Karl Popper, astronomer Fred Hoyle, law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson and quantum physicist Paul Davies, Brown discussed ideas promoted by these men that argue against evolution and/or develop the idea of Intelligent Design.

Note the "well-educated people" who deny evolution: a philosopher, an astronomer, a lawyer, and a physicist. Not a biologist in the group. Regrettably, being "well-educated" in this country does not mean that you understand everything, or even most things. (And do note that intelligent design is now part of the mix.) The sad part is that the basic concepts of evolutionary theory are not that difficult or esoteric, and you can see them around you. (One of the prime examples of selection, and one that influenced Darwin's thinking, is stock breeding. Granted, it's not natural selection, but the mechanism is the same. It's just that a cattle breeder becomes a factor in the environment.)

I really can't interpret these comments as anything other than a combination (in which proportions I'm not prepared to judge) of ignorance, stupidity, and mendacity. Some of these people are obviously just parroting things they've heard from prominent creationists; others, I think, are really working an agenda, and doing so dishonestly.

And so Florida continues its campaign to become the Alabama of the twenty-first century.