Since I professed that Intelligent Design creationism is zombie pseudoscience, but that creationism was far from dead, people were wondering what new slogan or tactic will emerge. It’s already here! It’s been lurking about for a few years now, and Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott discuss the new tactic at some length.

The magic words are, of course, “academic freedom”.

Those words in the hands of creationists are used the way Republicans name bills: exactly contrary to the actual content. “Academic freedom” bills have been getting pushed into legislatures all across the country by — you guessed it — Christian evangelicals who see them as a tool to inject biblical creationism into the public school curriculum under the guise of fairness and high intellectual standards.

In Florida, for example, a representative of the Discovery Institute dithered when asked whether intelligent design constituted “scientific information” in the sense of the bill, saying, “In my personal opinion, I think it does. But the intent of this bill is not to settle that question,” and adding, unhelpfully, “The intent of this bill is … it protects the ‘teaching of scientific information.'” Similarly, during debate on the Senate floor, the bill’s sponsor was noticeably reluctant to address the question of whether it would license the teaching of creationism, preferring instead to simply recite its text.

Thus, despite the lofty language, the ulterior intent and likely effect of these bills are evident: undermining the teaching of evolution in public schools–a consequence only creationists regard as a blessing. Unfortunately, among their numbers are teachers. A recent national survey conducted by researchers at Pennsylvania State University reveals that one in eight U.S. high school biology teachers already presents creationism as a “valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species,” with about the same percentage emphasizing that “many reputable scientists” view creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.

So be prepared, this is the new strategy: creationists will be openly superficial and nebulous in order to steal away the necessary rigor of our public school systems. And once science has been reduced to a floppy, useless pile of vacuous blather in their hands, they can insert any old nonsense they want…and the products of those schools, the next generation of parents and voters, will be too ignorant to oppose them.

Allen MacNeill makes an interesting observation: those little eruptions of ID creationism on college campuses, the Idea Centers, all seem to be moribund, and he pronounces the college ID movement dead.

I quite agree. I think Intelligent Design as a whole is a zombie philosophy at this point — it’s dead, its brain is rotting, and it has no glamor or appeal to most people anymore. It’s still shuffling about, and it will continue to get mentioned now and then as people struggle to find some pretense of a non-religious motive for creationism, but really, we’re all just waiting for someone with a metaphorical shotgun to put it down with a metaphorical blast to its metaphorical head.

This is not to say that creationism is dead. It’s still thriving on college campuses. Look at all the openly religious campus organizations, like Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and various other faith organizations, and you’ll still find anti-evolution high on their agendas. The ID movement, though, is just a reeking nuisance.

Some online news organization has revivified the Cincinnati Zoo/Creation “museum” controversy, and they have blamed me for it all. Thank you, thank you, I appreciate the credit, but really, it must be shared with the thousands of people who responded with their letters, and particularly with the zoo administrators, who so quickly saw the folly of forming an affiliation with an anti-science/anti-education organization like Answers in Genesis.

However, Mark Looy of the Creation “museum” generously credited me by name as the ringlea…um, criminal mastermi…uh, instigator of the campaign to separate science from irrationality.

“I think so much pressure came on the zoo — not only by local residents, but [from] all over the country, including an email campaign instigated by a professor in Minnesota, several hundred miles away,” notes Looy.

“He got many of his colleagues to send very angry emails and made some nasty phone calls to the zoo — so much so that the guest relations people at the zoo were just overwhelmed with how to deal with this.”

According to The Associated Press, University of Minnesota-Morris biology professor P.Z. Myers urged readers of his blog to contact the zoo. In an email to the news service, he expressed his pleasure that the zoo moved so quickly and stated that someone in the zoo’s marketing department “lost sight of the educational mission of the institution while trying to make money.”

You know what this means. It means a new flood of angry emails from aggravated creationists. I guess the site where this was posted gets a lot of right-wing traffic, because the loons are calling. I’ve tossed a few of these letters below the fold — have fun. It’s the weirdest thing, too — the majority of them are actually written in Comic Sans. You didn’t think I picked that font for posting ridiculous comments on accident, did you?

[Read more…]

A student, Brandon Creasy, submitted an opinion piece on evolution to the school news magazine. The principal, Kevin Bezy, rejected it and has held up publication of the magazine until it is revised. Bezy explains himself, and it’s the usual kind of weasely nonsense that makes me very snarly in the morning.

When asked his opinion of evolution and how that may have factored into the situation, Bezy declined to discuss his feelings on the theory. He said he considers that irrelevant to the matter, believing it important to remain unbiased when making decisions.

I don’t give a good greasy squirt of slimy spit for Mr Bezy’s “feelings” about evolution. He is supposed to be a professional educator, and the unbiased status of the theory is that it is the only legitimate explanation for life’s diversity; no other explanation, including the page and a half of poetic metaphor and myth included in the book of Genesis, is even close. When censoring well-supported scientific ideas, hiding behind a false objectivity is not an option.

“The law gives the principal the responsibility to edit publications of the school,” Bezy said. “It is an important responsibility because the principal has to look out for the rights and sensitivities of all students, especially in a diverse and multicultural area.”

Man, this guy sounds like a pompous gasbag. All this talk about sensitivities and multiculturalism isn’t being used to promote a diversity of ideas: he’s using it to squelch the expression of any opinions that differ from the flavorless, mealy pablum to which he wants the cultural environment of the school reduced. A “diverse and multicultural area” should be one where there is an outspoken clash of ideas, not one where disagreement is silenced.

Continuing, he said of the piece: “It didn’t present the theory with a sensitivity for those who hold other theories. The teacher of the student was asked to take out language that stated his theory is the only theory.”

Other theories? Like what? Name some, Mr Bezy. Show us the courage of your convictions that these other ideas are worth abusing science for. Does it include young earth creationism, the claim that the universe didn’t exist prior to the time a few Hebrew patriarchs started scribbling down notes about how to control their tribes? Or perhaps you are thinking of Intelligent Design creationism, a fatuous pretense to scientific thinking that has no evidence, no research program, and no rationale other than that they want to put a false front over some silly old myths?

So far, evolution is the only theory deserving of the name … unless Bezy is confusing the scientific meaning of the word “theory” with the colloquial, and thinks it is equivalent to “brain fart”. It is not the business of a public school to inundate students with a variety of brain farts — they get enough of those in church on Sunday — but to provide a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas. Which of those two alternatives is the mission of the Gereau Center?

The Secular Alliance of Indiana University took a field trip to Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum”…and they made a video!

Now nobody else needs to go. I suspect the nosh at the Waffle House at the end was the highlight of the expedition.