Godless heathen that I am, even I can read the subtext in Don McLeroy’s recent letter to the Dallas Morning News. First he reassures us that he is very, very, very Christian, and then he promises to purge the dogma from Texas education. We know what that means in the up-means-down world of Christianist fanaticism: the dogma is the science and his empirical evidence is the revealed word of his Lord, Jesus Christ.

I’ve heard a few words about the situation looking up in Florida, but Texas is a dismal scary place for evolution education — I’m going to have to put a few more quatloos on Texas in the creationist courtroom catastrophe pool.

Steve Fuller, the smug sociologist who testified for the creationists in the Dover trial, has a new book out. Who cares about the book, though? You want to read Norman Levitt’s review, “The Painful Elaboration of the Fatuous”. Wow. Fuller gets deconstructed.

Here’s a small taste.

A similar farce plays out when Fuller tries to address the larger question of the supposedly contentious nature of evolutionary theory within the scientific community itself. In the World According to Fuller, evolutionary theory never really got past the stage of being a “well evidenced ideology” rather than a “properly testable science” (p. 123). What he is saying, in effect, is that the claims from all branches of biology and related science that they have contributed to a vast stream of convergent evidence verifying the essential precepts of evolution are in great measure delusional. He seems to think that biology, as a constellation of disciplines, is some kind of socially-constructed freemasonry in which assent to basic Darwinian principles constitutes a ritual formula necessary to make one part of the brotherhood rather than a cognitively-justified inference from hard evidence. More, he seems to think that evolutionary thought is mere ideological window-dressing, contributing nothing to the “hard science” behind molecular biology and the like.

None of this is backed up by serious analysis of the working methods and logical structure of biology itself. Fuller complacently views the ascendancy of evolutionary thought as a “rhetorical” rather than a “scientific” development. His principal evidence? The paucity of Nobel Prizes awarded for work on evolution! Of course, he never pauses to consider that under the idiosyncratic organization of the Nobel awards, there is no prize for biology as such. Biologists are smuggled in under the “Medicine and Physiology” category, which is just expansive enough to accommodate ethologists like Lorenz or Tinbergen, but not hard-core evolutionary theorists. In all of these pronouncements, Fuller is hard-pressed to hide his scorn for actual scientists who, it is obvious to him, know much less about what they think and how and why than a social theorist like himself who is enormously content to cite his own work endlessly.

…and that’s one of the kinder bits. Enjoy it all!

It’s a strange thing to read another review of Behe’s Edge of Evolution. This one is by David Levin, and it strongly highlights the compromises and the irrelevancy of the book.

In the end, the most irritating aspect of this book is Behe’s selective use of the ever-expanding base of scientific knowledge as a soapbox from which to shout his embrace of perpetual ignorance. The better our understanding of the intricate details of complex biological systems, the stronger is his belief that they must have been designed and that science will never unravel how they came to be. This is a trend for him. As Eric Rothschild, chief counsel for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial, observed of Behe’s claim that the immune system is irreducibly complex, “Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system … Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire “intelligent design” movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don’t bother.” Scientists have never listened to him. But with so many concessions to evolution mixed with his new message of God-as-mutagen, will anyone?

It’s a good review, but does anyone care anymore? His thesis is rejected by biologists and ignored by creationists, and the man is on his way to well-deserved obscurity.

The man who wrote the email that got Chris Comer fired spills his guts on the issue.

He seems curiously proud of the fact that he’s pro-science and that he thinks the Texas Education Agency’s position of “neutrality” on evolution is ignorant humbuggery.

Textbook selection by the South Carolina State Board of Education has been held up because of baseless objections by creationist reviewers. Does this sound familiar? It’s what triggered the Dover trial — clueless school board members rejecting standard biology textbooks because they wanted something more…biblical.

During October and November, the texts approved by the state Evaluation Committee were sent out for public review to 28 sites – mostly colleges and universities with teacher education programs. It was during this period of time, that Ms. Kristin Maguire (or one of her colleagues) apparently contacted two outside referees to review the texts, a Dr. Joseph Henson and a Dr. Horace D. Skipper.

Skipper and Henson are young-earth creationists. Dr. Skipper is listed on the Institute for Creation Research website among the colleagues of Carl Fliermans, an ICR “Associated Scientist.” Henson is on the faculty at Bob Jones University. According to his testimony on the BJU website, “Through his high school years, [Henson] did not believe evolution because of his religious upbringing, his familiarity with the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood, and because he did not take biology in high school. However, during his college years he entertained ideas about theistic evolution and other compromising positions in an effort to reconcile the Bible with what was considered science… These questions, along with the commandment in 1 Peter 3:15, prompted him to study, think, and pray on his own, as well as consult believers knowledgeable in science and philosophy who upheld the absolute authority of the Bible. These years of struggle resulted in a firm belief in the biblical account of Creation.”

Real winners there; there objections at that link are funny. Ken Miller’s response to the creationist criticism of his textbook is an entertainng read, too.

Those are the four incompetents the residents of Pinellas County, Florida need to vote against in the next school board election: they favor corrupting science education with creationist nonsense. They all claim that students should be taught multiple “theories” in science classes, where they mangle the word “theory” to mean any ol’ crap someone wants to babble about, without regard for the evidence.

Hey! Dan Whipple got to see a preliminary screening of Ben Stein’s silly movie, Expelled!

Read the review — it makes the point that the movie doesn’t even bother to explain what ID and evolution are before taking sides, and it defends its position incompetently. The movie is “so intellectually garbled it’s hard to summarize,” which is about what we all expected.

There’s no mention of my role, but I expect it would be a tiny part anyway; no mention of Eugenie Scott, either. Dan Whipple, if you see this — there are a lot of us who’d like to know more details about how our interviews were chopped up for this movie!