Weariness and Updates Abound

Sheesh!

It's so difficult to find time to add anything to this blog this time of year.

Oh, by the way, I hope you had a very merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate. And if you don't celebrate any holidays this time of year, I wish you no specific harm, but hope you and yours are at least semi-happy and generally in good health.

There. How's that for non-committal?

Anyway, I'm always amazed at how much is going on during a time of year we call the "Holiday Season". I've been running from one holiday obligation to the next, like a madman, all the while balancing my work schedule, some exercise time, as well as some general play time. And I'm nearly exhausted.

Shouldn't there be almost nothing to do during a holiday? I mean, the word itself connotes a lazy, toes-in-the-sand, ski-poles-in-the-snow vibe, doesn't it?

Oh well. I'm not really complaining. After all, things could be a lot worse.

Let me just give you a quick update on the latest in my little world, and I'll be on my way. I'm sure you have plenty to do as well.

The big dust up over the Texas State Board of Education's apparent push to weasel intelligent design into the state's science curriculum has settled down; at least for the time being. Not much has surfaced since board chairman, Don McLeroy, responded in a letter to the editor that The Dallas Morning News ran on Dec. 21.

The letter predictably tries to indicate that we had old Donnie boy all wrong. Says McLeroy:

. . . I would like to clarify any impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows;" . . . .

Heck fire, people!! We castigated this man prematurely, didn't we? Looks like McLeroy was on the right track all along, doesn't it?

Well, don't cast your vote for McLeroy for Most Misunderstood Creationist of the Year until you see this bit of sleight of hand he includes in the next paragraph (bolding mine):

. . . . no subject should be "untouchable" as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student. What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper. In science class, it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science.

Did you catch that?

Folks, that paragraph contains the type of spin that would make any politician burst with pride. It suggests that the issue at hand — biological evolution — has "shortcomings"; that it positions itself as an "irrefutable preconception".

This is a completely erroneous idea. Biological evolution is not an irrefutable preconception. It's not a preconception at all. The concepts of biological evolution are where all the "empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence", which McLeroy claims is his focus, have lead scientists. There is no preconception involved in any unbiased examination of the empirical evidence. That's precisely why science works so well.

Not only is biological evolution not a preconception, in the strictest sense of the word, it's not irrefutable. All scientific inquiry is refutable. It must stand up to scrutiny and the examination of new evidence when it is introduced. It is open to refutation on a supreme scale. But the fact that evolution, like gravitation, like a spherical Earth, like a solar-centric system of planets, like the germ theory of disease has passed muster over and over and over and over again fairly well precludes a major paradigm shift, which is what intelligent design would be.

At least McLeroy gets something right when he says ". . . the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false". That's absolutely correct when describing how science works. Of course, it's a different story when describing how faith-based notions like creationism work. All creationism and intelligent design have is a consensus of a conviction. Period. No evidence. And certainly no empirical evidence.

We're watching you, Donnie boy, and our eyes are wide open.

And I'm sure we'll see more fireworks in the coming months, as the 10-year review is scheduled for February.

Also, a quick note on the same issue going on in Florida. Seems the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has come to the rescue. The Pastafarians, as the loyal call themselves — even though the "Noodle Monster as god" concept is sophomoric and in my view lost its allure a couple of years ago — have managed to shine a light on the inanity of the local school boards in Florida. You can read a recap here.

In other news, Curiosity Aroused, the pilot radio program produced by my friend, Rebecca Watson, has already been licensed by Public Radio stations in Seattle and New York City. This is very exciting. Let's hope it gets picked up by more stations across the country.

Well, that's about it for now. I've got to go do something . . . . I'm not sure what exactly, but I know I need to be somewhere for something sometime soon. Maybe I'll see you there.

Sheesh! I'm tired.