The right to an opinion

This is a corollary entry to yesterday’s, in which I wondered about what sort of legacy we leave behind.

As I continued to read some old entries, I came across one in which it was said that I don’t have any right to an opinion on kids or their education because I don’t have children of my own. This is obviously absurd, but I’m going to explain why.

First of all, one does not have to experience something directly in order to have an opinion on it. This is why we have books and articles about things, and why it is possible to take a class and actually learn about a subject like archaeology, despite never having been on a dig. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

Secondly, as a taxpayer, I think I have a perfect right to let my legislators know how I feel about certain things concerning our public schools. This is why I wrote letters to my state Representative, my state Senator, and our Governor when Indiana was considering the idiotic bill that would allow the teaching of creationism in public science classrooms.

Thirdly—and this is related to the second point—as an American, I have a vested interest in our school system and what is being taught to American kids. As a microbiologist, I very much want our future leaders and researchers to be strongly grounded in science, rationality, and critical thinking.

As a woman, I am sick and tired of the attitude from some that not having children somehow makes me less of a person, one who is not entitled to speak her mind when it comes to education or what messages are being conveyed in our public schools. I am certainly not an expert when it comes to what one experiences when pregnant or when giving birth, or the day-to-day details of raising a child, and I have never pretended to be one; but when it comes to what goes on concerning the education of America’s students, I have just as much a right as anyone to voice my opinion.

Being all citizenish and junk

I very recently wrote about the bill making its way through my state legislature that would allow the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms. At the time, it had only made it out of the Education Committee (sadly, by an 8-2 vote), but it has since gone on to pass the Senate 28-22.

This is simply unacceptable.

This afternoon, I got busy and wrote to my Representative (a Democrat), my Senator (a Republican), and my Governor (also a Republican). I wrote similar letters to all, but I reserved the most eloquence I could muster for Governor Daniels. After seeing some of the comments on a local station’s Facebook post about the bill, it only strengthens my belief that the last thing we need is to inject religion into our public schools, especially when it comes to science classes. It was amazing to see the misconceptions and downright perplexing ideas being voiced there, everything from “I say we let the kids decide!” to “Macro evolution hasn’t been proved, because you’ve never seen a species give birth to a new species” to that Golden Oldie “Man didn’t come from apes.” I’m happy to report that my head didn’t explode.

Anyway, here is what I wrote to Governor Daniels. I encourage my fellow Hoosiers who want to see a strong and vibrant scientific community and education in our state to write to your own legislators (if you aren’t sure who they are, you can find them here); I would even encourage anyone from out-of-state to write if you feel that this is an important issue. Who knows? Your state could be next.

Dear Governor Daniels,

I am writing in regards to SB 89, the bill under consideration in the Indiana Congress that would allow the teaching of creationism in our public school science classrooms. As I have watched the bill move out of committee and pass the Senate, I have grown increasingly appalled.

According to a study reported by Bloomberg and many others, America's schoolchildren rank 25th out of 34 countries in science education. It simply boggles my mind that Indiana's solution to this would be to inject a religious belief into our science classrooms.

Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a creation myth that comes from a religious text, and as such has no place in a science classroom; some try to call it a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. Let me reiterate: it is a religious belief. Contrary to what some might think, most of us opposed to this bill do not wish that creationism never be mentioned. I would have no problem with it being discussed in a comparative religions class, a philosophy class, or a religious literature class. But keep it out of the science classroom.

Although we have differed on some issues lately, I truly believe that you want what is best for our state. You wish to create policies that will make us more business-friendly, and keep our best and brightest students in-state. Allowing this bill to become law will have the opposite effect. It will make us a laughingstock among the scientific community.

It will also result in an immediate challenge by organizations like the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and after millions of Indiana taxpayer dollars are spent in defense of this foolish and shortsighted bill, it will certainly be struck down by a higher court as unconstitutional. Similar cases in Louisiana and Pennsylvania have resulted in exactly that outcome. As someone who claims to be fiscally responsible, please don't force our taxpayer dollars to be spent on such a defense.

Please do not let this bill become Indiana law. As someone who spent her entire career in science, it breaks my heart that we are attempting to reverse advances in science by several decades. Veto this bill if it reaches your desk. The integrity of Indiana's science education depends upon it.

Thank you for your time.

Science education an endangered species in Indiana schools

I make no bones about loving my state, despite its right-leaning ways; I live in a very Democratic county, and I’ve often defended my state based on what I experience here in my little nest of liberals. I was pretty happy when we recently voted in the youngest Mayor for a city of our size, Pete Buttigieg. Super smart guy, seems very decent, and I look forward to seeing what he does with our city. (Sadly, we are out of the city limits, so couldn’t actually vote for him. We supported him in other ways, though!)

However, I am deeply ashamed to see what my state legislature recently did. They sent a bill out of committee to be voted on in Congress. SB 89 would allow for the teaching of creationism in public schools, and it got an 8-2 vote out of the Education Committee to be passed on to the Congress. The Education Committee! 8-2! I’m surprised they didn’t just burst into flames right then and there.

As someone who has tried to show to friends from all over the country (as well as a few other countries) that not everyone in Indiana is a stupid rube, I can’t begin to tell you how humiliating this is. The bill doesn’t specify in which classes creationism can be taught, so it means that any school district in the state could allow it to be taught in science class. This makes me want to cry.

Creationism is not science. I honestly don’t know how I can state that any stronger or convince people who think that “Hey, what’s the harm? Teach both.” No. NO. You cannot teach creationism in science class because it is not science. It is based on a religious belief and on a religious book. Numerous court cases have upheld decisions that creationism and intelligent design are religious concepts, not scientific ones.

I have no problem with creation myths being taught in comparative religion classes, as long as they are elective classes. I have no problem with creation myths being taught in literature classes as part of a study of religious books of various cultures. But teaching it in science class? I have a serious problem with that. America is lagging behind in science education compared to the rest of the world, and this will only make the problem worse.

This is nothing more than religious indoctrination being taught in our public schools. This so-called “education committee” (exaggerated, sarcastic finger quotes) does not seem to comprehend the implications of this. First and foremost, if by some stupid chance the Indiana state legislature actually passes this bill (and I wouldn’t put anything past them), it will most assuredly be challenged and after long legal battles, declared unconstitutional. This will cost the Indiana taxpayers millions in legal fees. Second, it is obvious that the ‘creationism’ they want to teach is that of the Judeo-Christian faith. That is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which states that no religion shall be promoted above any other, so are they prepared to dictate the teaching of ALL creation myths? There are quite a few.

Finally, let me reiterate. I can’t state this strongly enough. Creationism is not science. It cannot be proven, it cannot be duplicated, it is in no way, shape, or form anything even resembling science. It can’t even be studied in order to see if it’s credible. It is not a scientific theory. Some claim that it is, but that shows a lack of knowledge when it comes to the scientific method. It is a religious concept, and as such, has no business in the science classroom. There is no “teaching the controversy,” because there IS no controversy. Evolution is scientific; creationism and intelligent design is religious.

We’re getting close to the Super Bowl, and we’re going to have people from all over the country coming to Indiana. I find it embarrassing that this comes at a time when my state legislature has actually moved this idiocy out of committee. Governor Daniels wants us to be seen as a great place to do business. It would be nice if our legislature would not pass this stupid bill that makes us look like a great place to have a hoedown while we all dance around in our overalls and eat corn and thump our Bibles. Gahhh!

A non-designing woman

Before I get into that, I hope you’ll send positive thoughts to my dear Cousin Shane. His awesome Dad, John, passed away yesterday. You all know that I love Shane like a brother, and it pains me to see him hurting. John loved road trips, cars, and Route 66. I wish him pleasant travels. Be careful on the highway out there. (One of his favorite things to say to Shane.)

In the interest of not letting myself fall back into the abyss of sadness, I will try to keep my mind occupied by writing a few things about the documentary I watched yesterday afternoon before I got Shane’s phone call. My friend Darren recommended it to me, and I can tell you that it is well worth watching.

“Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” was a Nova episode on PBS. It deals with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in 2005 in which concerned citizens brought suit against the school district for trying to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. (The link is the Wiki article, which is pretty good and jibes with what I saw in the documentary.) I recall reading and hearing about this, but didn’t pay close attention at the time. I suppose I probably felt that it was a no-brainer, not realizing how much sway the equal-timers had upon our school districts.

To sum up: a couple of fundamentalist Christian school board members decided that teaching evolution in science class wasn’t giving the students the full picture. When their proposal of an additional textbook promoting intelligent design was rejected, they took matters into their own hands and secretly purchased the textbook from the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for the teaching of intelligent design (AKA creationism) in our high schools. A battle of wills ensued, in which the science teachers refused to add ID to the curriculum, the superintendent required that they read a statement stating that evolution was “only a theory” that had significant gaps, and that some see intelligent design as an alternative possibility; the teachers refused to read the statement, so the assistant superintendent came into their classrooms and read it to the students.

As concerned parents got wind of this from their kids, one of them called the ACLU, and we were off to the races! This was a battle that had continued to brew after the Scopes trial of 1925, with many people refusing to accept the exclusion of creationism from the science classroom. (Eight decades, America? Really? Really?!) There was no jury here; it was heard by district court Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, and his decision would be the final one on the case.

The plaintiffs presented a stellar group of witnesses, several scientists explaining the basic premises behind evolution and how scientific experimentation has supported the premise. Not only did they explain the science behind it, they explained how scientific inquiry itself works. In even more devastating testimony, they demonstrated that the ID textbook that had been sent by an “anonymous donor” to the science classrooms came from the Discovery Institute, and they showed that earlier drafts of the book had used the word “creationism,” which was altered in subsequent versions to read “intelligent design.” In other words, the concept was still the same--a religious one--and all they had done was change the phrasing. In yet more devastating testimony, they provided statements from a conservative advocate saying that the problem with the intelligent design movement was that they had no theory; if they were going to promote ID as an alternative to evolution, they had to come up with one.

In the most devastating testimony of all, they showed one of the fundamentalist school board members stating on camera that “creationism” needed to be taught alongside evolution, which showed that there was clear religious promotion there. Worse, they caught both of the fundamentalist school board members perjuring themselves when they said they didn’t know who they “anonymous donors” were; they had orchestrated the entire thing, and one of the board members’ fathers had written the check.

The defense countered with experts of their own, but their arguments were meticulously destroyed by the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The concept of “irreducible complexity” (which posits that there are some biological systems that are so complex that there is no function if one part is missing...the example of bacterial flagella was used, and was refuted) was discussed and proven wrong; one witness’s statements that no scientist has bothered to research or write about the complexity of our immune system was discounted in a very graphic way when he was handed numerous papers and a stack of textbooks that dealt with exactly that subject matter. The dismantling of every argument put forth about why ID is a legitimate scientific endeavor was a beautiful thing to see.

Judge Jones took some time to deliberate the case, and found that ID was not a scientific theory, and was, in fact, just another name for creationism. As a religious concept, it has no place in the science classroom. He also found that the two school board members violated the First Amendment in the Constitution by promoting a religion in the classroom. He also noted that the board members who had perpetrated this ID promotion because of their religion seemed to have no qualms about repeatedly committing perjury.

The whole documentary was excellent (if you have a couple of hours, and want to see more about the arguments put forth, I really recommend it), but there were a couple of things that I found of particular note. The witnesses for the plaintiff took particular pains to address the usual complaint of creationists that “evolution is just a theory.” (I’ve encountered that argument often, myself.) A quote from “The Princess Bride” is applicable here. Theory...“I do not think it means what you think it means.” A scientific theory is not an immutable fact; it is a body of thought that maintains, like all science does, that there may be modifications as more is discovered. Evolution is an ongoing investigation. Nothing has appeared to refute its claims, but more and more evidence is being found that confirms it. The scientists at the trial pointed out that the advent of molecular techniques, some of the most sophisticated tests to date that can provide incredibly detailed information, have only confirmed the theory of common ancestry. If anything were to disprove evolution, it would be looking at encoded information on a genetic level. Instead, we are finding incredible similarities between our own genetic code and that of other hominids, especially chimpanzees.

Speaking of that, another thing that creationists like to toss out is “I don’t know about you, but I didn’t descend from no ape!” Not only is that grammatically incorrect, it shows a complete ignorance about the entire concept. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I suppose I will: evolution is not a straight stick poking up out of the ground, with one-celled organisms at the base and us brilliant humans (ha) at the top. It is a tree with many branches. There have been many twists and turns along the way, with offshoots happening constantly over the millennia. Genetic mapping continues to show the similarities and where divergence took place.

After his decision, Judge Jones was accused by conservative groups of being an “activist judge.” Remember, he was appointed by GW Bush. He and his family received death threats, and one of the fundamentalist school board members said the judge is a “jackass.” Doesn’t that old-timey religion just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Finally, the documentary showed a local pastor who said that he was “personally offended” that the kids were being “indoctrinated” with evolution, without hearing alternative viewpoints. If you want your kids to hear alternative viewpoints, go ahead and teach them that at home. Your alternative viewpoint is not a valid scientific theory. It is based on your religious beliefs, and as such, has no place in the science classroom. As for you being “personally offended”...cry me a river, dude. The Constitution guarantees us all certain rights. The right to not be offended isn’t one of them. Get over it, and keep your religion out of my science.

Who knows what lies beneath?

First things first:

Rabbit rabbit rabbit! Evil spirits are banished from Nutwood for the month.

Happy April, everyone. This might not be the official start to spring, but doesn't it sort of feel like spring is here as soon as April arrives? It's very blustery here today, but the sun is shining, and it's up to about 50° (about 10° Celsius...I need to remember I have readers who don't think in Fahrenheit terms!). It's also a good day because Ken has a day off, and it's nice to hang with him. It feels like Saturday!

Marty commented on my purple finch sighting: "I don't know why they call that a 'purple finch.' I looks red to me." Good observation, and I actually had an answer for him, thanks to one of my bird books. The Latin name, genus and species, of the purple finch is Carpodacus purpureus. The Latin word purpureus means "crimson" or some other reddish color. I guess the similar sound between purpureus and "purple" made people start calling it a purple finch. I was just thrilled that I got to see him, and I spotted him again just a moment ago! And yes, I DO have a life, thank you very much!

The main story on AOL this morning was the finding of a beautiful stone head a couple of millimeters under the stucco façade on the famous bust of Queen Nefertiti that resides in a Berlin museum. Several years ago, they did a CT scan of the bust, but it wasn't as highly detailed as what they can do now. I found these images amazing, and you all know how I love stuff like this, especially anything to do with ancient Egypt. In looking at the image of Nefertiti, I wonder if this is an accurate rendition of her? Was she really that beautiful, or was the sculptor honoring his queen by making her more beautiful than she really was? While the scientists were able to find the stone figure beneath the stucco, they cannot answer the 'why' of the change...and they shouldn't try.

I recently read an entry on one of my new favorite blogs, Wired Science, that talked about the recent hearings in Texas concerning science textbooks and the teaching of evolution. It's worth a read if you get a chance. I found this particularly interesting (and it's exactly how I feel).

Science is about explaining the how of the natural world: how the universe began, how life originated, how the diversity of species occurred. Scientists feel no need for their work to answer why the universe exists, why we are here. For scientists, those are questions better left to philosophy, religion and after-work hours.

I believe that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. But that's not what science is about. I love to speculate on the meaning of life, or why things happen a certain way, but for science, it's all about the 'how.' We can't know what was going on the mind of the sculptor who did the bust of Nefertiti, any more than we can know what was going through the minds of those men who wrote the books of the bible. It's all speculation, and there is a time and a place for it. I don't believe that time and place is in the science classroom, although I know there are some who disagree. Science is science, with hypotheses and experiments to prove the validity of those hypotheses. If they can't be proven, they don't become theory.

People have the right to believe what they want to believe. Creationism and intelligent design can be taught at home. They don't belong in science class.

Now...turn your watch back...and I'll meet ya by the third pyramid!