Annie Waldman wrote this article for ProPublica in January, after DeVos’s confirmation hearing and before she was confirmed. I’m sorry I missed it. Waldman tried to pin down DeVos’s views on creationism. As we have learned, what Betsy is really good at is evasion. She and her spokespersons say she doesn’t take a position on how science should be taught. But: she and her family foundations have given large sums to Focus on the Family, which opposes teaching evolution and supports equal time for intelligent design.
She writes:
“DeVos and her family have poured millions of dollars into groups that champion intelligent design, the doctrine that the complexity of biological life can best be explained by the existence of a creator rather than by Darwinian evolution. Within this movement, “critical thinking” has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design.
“Candi Cushman, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, described DeVos’ nomination as a positive development for communities that want to include intelligent design in their school curricula. Both the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation and Betsy DeVos’ mother’s foundation have donated to Focus on the Family, which has promoted intelligent design.
“Mrs. DeVos will work toward ensuring parents and educators have a powerful voice at the local level on multiple issues, including science curriculum,” wrote Cushman in an email.
“DeVos has not publicly spoken about her personal views on intelligent design. A more nuanced outgrowth of creationism, the approach lost steam after a federal court ruled a decade ago that teaching it in public schools would violate the separation of church and state. Greg McNeilly, a longtime aide to DeVos and an executive at her and her husband’s privately held investment management firm, the Windquest Group, said he knows from personal discussions with DeVos that she does not believe that intelligent design should be taught in public schools. He added that her personal beliefs on the theory, whatever they are, shouldn’t matter.
“I don’t know the answer to whether she believes in intelligent design — it’s not relevant,” McNeilly told ProPublica. “There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.”
“That assurance provides little comfort to those who worry that DeVos’ nomination could erode public schools’ commitment to teaching evolution.”
Hearing DeVos refer to “critical thinking” was “like hearing old catch phrases from a nearly forgotten TV show that never made prime time,” Michigan State University professor Robert Pennock told ProPublica. Pennock has written several books and articles about creationism and intelligent design, including “The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism” (2000), and has testified as an expert witness that intelligent design should not be studied in public school science courses.
“She evaded what should have been a simple question about not teaching junk science,” Pennock wrote in an email. “More than that, she did so in a way that signaled her willingness to open the door to intelligent design creationism.”
Just remember that when someone from the far-right praises “critical thinking,” that’s a new code word for intelligent design (I.e., the Hand of God).
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“…she doesn’t take a position on how science should be taught.”
In the case of creationism, the issue isn’t how science is taught; its if science is taught.
Diane: Good grief: “Within this movement, ‘critical thinking’ has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design.”
Orwellian double-speak lives. It’s like Subaru taking over “love” or Liberty Mutual taking over the Statue of Liberty. They cannot leave anything good alone. Now we have to come up with another expression to refer to what we used to mean by “critical thinking.” The religious right has enough dough to hire their own advertising (aka: propaganda) firms.
Perhaps the greatest mystery of all, how bunches of molecules formed self-replicating systems and ultimately life. To extend belief so that mystery is erased is a part of a more profound intellectual suicide that disengages one from the real world and ultimately isolates everyone.
Akademos If I understand your note correctly, the interjection into the empirical sciences of (what creationists mean by) intelligent design diminishes the religious thrust in all of us, including their own.
On the other hand, science is, in fact, open-ended; and Darwin, as important as his contributions are, is not the end-all to our scientific inquiry, by any means. From an empirical view, it’s the ideological tag-alongs, so invasive to that open-ended scientific thought, that make scientist’s skin crawl, and not the idea that we may find that the mystery we still do not know, and that we may find at the end of our empirical travels, is God.
My I be of help
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/origins-life-new-model-may-explain-emergence-self-replication-early
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-life-form-new-a-t-c-g-x-y-scripps-research-institute-synthetic-semi-a7544056.html
Have no fear someday they may be able to create intelligent life in the Republican party.
Joel Herman: While we are at it, I want to thank Susan Schwartz for the (earlier posted here) below link to a review of John Dean’s 2006 book on changes in the Republican party: “Conservatives Without Conscience.” See below the link for the full review.
Catherine
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/conservatives-without-conscience-an-insider-views-the-gop-s-ominous-politics/
ALL QUOTED BELOW
Conservatives without Conscience: An insider views the …
http://www.peoplesworld.org
BOOK REVIEW Conservatives without Conscience By John W. Dean Penguin Books, 2006 Hardcover, 246 pp., $26.95. In recent years our society has witnessed the rise of a …
BOOK REVIEW
Conservatives without Conscience
By John W. Dean
Penguin Books, 2006
Hardcover, 246 pp., $26.95
In recent years our society has witnessed the rise of a right-wing authoritarian political movement hiding behind a self-described “conservative” label while engaging in vicious, confrontational and hypocritical tactics in all areas of political activity. The unholy alliance between this movement, the Republican Party and religious right extremists has created a grave threat to our democratic freedoms.
John W. Dean is a former Watergate figure and counsel to the late President Nixon. In Dean’s latest book, “Conservatives without Conscience,” he observes that under the Bush-Cheney administration, there has been a “striking shift toward a very un-American type of authoritarianism,” in all branches of the federal government.
The author charges “the Grand Old Party to which I belonged has moved so far to the right, that on the contemporary political spectrum, I now often fall to the left of the Republican center.” Dean credits the present administration with giving “authoritarianism a new legitimacy in Washington.”
The author explains that this book originally began years ago as a collaborative project with the late conservative Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater during the last years of his life. Goldwater himself, certainly no model of moderation during most of his career, had become greatly concerned over the growing influence of religious right extremism in the Republican Party, and he gave this book its title.
Dean quotes Goldwater saying: “Those people (the religious right) frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. The government won’t work without it. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know. I’ve tried to deal with them.”
Authoritarians take over
Much of this work is devoted to a description of social science and psychological research that has been conducted on the American political right over the past four decades. Dean especially cites the work of American Robert Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba in Canada. He notes that a large number of studies have documented a high correlation between authoritarianism and conservatism, and they have also defined the two types of authoritarian personalities, namely leaders and followers.
Most importantly, research shows that right-wing authoritarian leaders score high on measures of “Social Dominance Orientation.” Empirical data demonstrates that they are “relatively power-hungry, domineering, mean, Machiavellian and amoral, and hold conservative economical and political outlooks.”
Their followers are blindly submissive to authority, which can lead them to do harm to others if they believe such behavior is sanctioned. In addition, the followers also “accept the traditional norms of society and tend to be fundamentalist in religion and reject moral relativism.”
Persons who score high on both scales of authoritarian followers and leaders are described as “particularly scary,” and they “inevitably see the world with themselves in charge.” The writer describes Vice President Cheney as a “double-high” on the measurement scales. Cheney believes in “unimpaired authority,” and Dean charges that he has been “the catalyst, architect and chief proponent of Bush’s authoritarianism.”
Terrorism — cover for agenda
Dean writes that neoconservatives and Republicans in the Bush administration believe they are “more likely to maintain their influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke potential terrorists throughout the world.”
Dean accuses the present administration of exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 “as an excuse to indulge their natural authoritarian and conservative instincts.” Criticizing Bush-
Cheney, Dean explains that they use the politics of fear as “their most troubling of authoritarian radical tactics.” The Bush administration is not being serious, he says, “about addressing the possibility of another major terror attack in the United States.” Dean cites the five F’s, twelve D’s and two incomplete grades given to Bush-Cheney on the 2005 report card evaluated by the 9/11 Commission.
Merging right-wing religion with politics
Finally, a key element in the rise of authoritarianism has been the merger of Christian religious fundamentalists with the right-wing politics of the Republican Party. Dean cites the warning from former President Jimmy Carter, who said, “Narrowly defined theological beliefs have been adopted as the rigid agenda of a political party.”
The author also cites others who have noted that the real power of the religious right “lies in the lower parts of the Republican machinery, in precinct meetings and the like.” And the Christian right “have a virtual lock on state and local Republican politics, and have totally outmaneuvered their opposition.” The Republican Party now depends on Christian religious extremists to win elections, and their domineering influence on Republicans has fueled the authoritarian bent of that party.
Class forces?
Dean has written an important and informative political study and analysis on the role of the authoritarian right in American politics. Although this political study clearly lacks an economic or class focus, such as: What is the corporate role in these events? But this should still not deter folks from reading this work especially during this important election year.
The mere fact that Dean and other traditional conservatives such as the late Sen. Goldwater would now find themselves to the left of center in the present Republican Party speaks volumes to the degree to which that party has shifted. The author concludes writing, “I am not sure which is more frightening: another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack. Both are alarming prospects.”
Yes, alarming and scary as hell. END QUOTED MATERIAL
In 2006 Dean wrote the book. Darth Vader (D.C. )might be a welcome relief .Dean worked for the last moderate Republican in the White House so for him to feel far to the left of center is not saying a lot . I am afraid that Cheney might find himself to the left of this group of circus clowns and treasonous thieves.
No, the oppressive interjection of belief into the world of thought, the potential oppression of thought.
Perhaps replace ‘mystery’ with inquiry or study or appreciate or knowledge, or all of those things. It need not remain a mystery. It simply is a mystery at this point.
Appreciation
Betsy DeVos and her ilk are simply not part of mainstream Christianity when it comes to so-called “creationism”/’creation science” that mainstream Christian churches not only condemn, but also urge their members to actively fight against. The problem really is that even most members of the many churches that have officially declared for evolution don’t know their church’s stance, and the conventional news media isn’t going to tell them because these media thrive on controversy, such as creationism vs. evolution. Here’s what America’s mainstream Christian churches say about phony “creationism”/”creation science” Share it widely:
The CATHOLIC CHURCH: Already back in 1909 the Catholic Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies declared that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis do not properly conform to the historical method of translation “used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time” and therefore Catholics do not have to take these chapters of the Book of Genesis literally.
In the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body could have evolved “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics are only bound to believe that the evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve but is created by God.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed to the Pontifical Academy of Science that Pope Pius XII was absolutely correct in the establishing for the faithful “that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one does not lose sight of several indisputable points” such as those cited in the 1950 “Humani Generis” encyclical.
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH in its 67th General Assembly officially declared: “Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and
Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and
“Whereas, the terms ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and
“Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and
“Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it
“RESOLVED, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further
“RESOLVED, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further
“RESOLVED by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”
The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”
The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that: “Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
“Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,
“Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
“Be it RESOLVED that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”
The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that: “Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:
“Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,
“Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”
Centuries ago, St. Augustine gave this warning to his fellow Christians: “It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense on scientific topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in Natural [scientific] knowledge, so they can detect the ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger is obvious: The failure to conform to demonstrated Natural [scientific] knowledge opens the Christian, and Christianity as a whole, to ridicule. If non-Christians find a Christian mistaken on a scientific subject that they know well and hear such a Christian maintaining his foolish opinions, how are they going to believe our teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?” Simple answer: They’re not.
Nothing is more important to the survival and growth of Christianity than getting the message out to intelligent young people that Christianity embraces scientific evolution and that fanciful “creationism”/”creation science” is not part of mainstream Christianity.
Scisne BRAVO!
2 Bravos
Well stated! I was shocked to read that there are about 70 million evangelicals in this country.
That translates to roughly 20% of the population.
80% of Americans do not attend religious services weekly.
Take some comfort in this
http://www.cnbc.com/2009/07/14/Top-US-States-For-Online-Pornography.html?slide=1
The only outlier is Hawaii and the number 1 is a shocker . So perhaps there is hope in Red states . They would rather be fishing with a copy of Playboy (or their Iphone ) then attending services.
Nothing wrong with being religious as long as you do not force me to pay for it or believe what you believe.
“your sect by it’s sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance, inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practised by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights by putting all on an equal footing, but more remains to be done…Nothing I think would be so likely to effect this as to your sect particularly as the more careful attention to education, which you recommend, and which placing it’s members on the equal and commanding benches of science, will exhibit them as equal objects of respect and favor.”
Do I need the citation ?????
I just read an article by experts that indicate tRump spoke more fluently when he was younger. This change may have come from several different problems.
……………..
Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
STAT asked experts to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017. All noticed deterioration, which may signal changes in Trump’s brain health.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
Betsy DeVos’ Top Adviser Led a For-Profit University That Defrauded Students and Hoovered Up Federal Student Aid
Now Robert Eitel is tasked with “right-sizing” the Department of Education. What could possibly go wrong?
By Jennifer Berkshire
http://www.alternet.org/education/screw-you-betsy-devos-top-adviser-led-profit-university-defrauded-students#.WSnNCitHA9E.gmail
That is a perfect example of a “conservative without a conscience.”
The meaning of scientific inquiry is being challenged in a federal lawsuit. Creationists expect to win. If so, scientific research can and will be challenged on many more fronts. If so, the Supreme Court will make it legitimate for religious views to be offered up as “scientific.”
This case, filed in early May 2017, is against the US. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and Grand Canyon National Park.
Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist who holds a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney, was denied a request to conduct research in the Grand Canyon National Park.
The lawsuit claims that Dr. Snelling was denied a research permit in the Grand Canyon Park because of his Christian beliefs. Since 2007, Dr. Snelling, has been the Director of Research for Ken Ham’s enterprise known as “Answers in Genesis” and the related edutainment center “Creation Museum” and Ark Encounter,” operated in Northern Kentucky.
Dr. Snelling wanted permission to obtain a few fist-sized rock samples from the Grand Canyon for analysis in support of “young earth” creationist theory promoted by Answers in Genesis and evident in publications by Dr. Snelling at the Answers in Genesis website.
.
Although Dr. Snelling had done prior research in the Grand Canyon, Park officials denied this request, and according to the lawyers and details in the lawsuit “ran him through a gamut of red tape for more than three years.”
Evidently, the Park Service sought reviews of the proposed research from two geologists who objected to the project as “unscientific.” Snelling’s lawyers say that Park Service denied his request “after learning of his Christian views about the Earth’s beginnings.”
Dr. Snelling’s research contributes to the lessons taught at Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, and Creation Museum. Visitors are taught the young earth theory: Earth was created about 6,000 years ago, humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time and the Biblical account in Genesis is correct. Mainstream geologists generally conclude the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and regard the theory of evolution and supporting evidence the only acceptable scientific explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.
A press release for this case from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) quoted the Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Scientists will always look at data and challenge one another’s interpretations of the information.” “Such disagreement is how science works. But when the government starts refusing access to even collect the information because it dislikes one scientist’s views, it undercuts science and violates the law. And this case perfectly illustrates why President Trump had to order executive agencies to affirm religious freedom, because Park officials specifically targeted Dr. Snelling’s religious faith as the reason to stop his research.”
A second ADF Attorney, Michael Kitchen, said, “The government isn’t allowed to discriminate against someone based on their viewpoint, and National Park officials have absolutely no legal justification in stopping a scientist from conducting research simply because they don’t agree with his views. Using someone’s views to screen them for a government benefit is unconstitutional.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a legal non-profit based in Arizona. The 990 form from 2015 indicates that its mission is to defend “the right of people to freely live out their faith” and “God-given freedoms.”ADF “offers exceptional legal advocacy and expertise from our 58 staff attorneys based at our ADF headquarters in Arizona and at offices around the world.”
ADF claims to have played a key role in 49 Supreme Court victories. Two of three recent Supreme Court cases claim that antidiscrimination laws “force” businesses to serve LGBTQ customers in violation of the religious beliefs of the owners. A third case is about public funding of improvements on a church playground. The ADF website claims to have nearly 3.200 allied attorneys, in addition to programs educating lawyers and law school students of core its issues.
Read the legal document. Snippets from the peer reviews solicited by the Park Service begin on page 7. (I could not find the full reviews.) The lawyers mention Trump’s Religious Freedom Executive order on p. 14
The main arguments are that Dr. Snelling’s rights were violated: First amendment rights to freedom of speech and right to free exercise of religion, Fifth amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and rights granted by The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(Bb) Et. Seq.
Click to access snelling-v-united-states-department-of-interior—complaint.pdf
See Trump’s Executive Order here. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/04/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty
What a joke the executive order is! THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON!!!!!!!! What is WRONG with this country? Oh….forgot. We vote but get NO REPRESENTATION. In fact, we are just the servants who serve the meal (our young) to those who enslave us.
Scream!
I do not understand why not let that guy get some rocks from the Grand Canyon.
Let him get his samples and allow him to do his testing and draw his conclusions. (Who knows, maybe he will even learn something)
But critique his work AFTERward.
That’s how science is supposed to work.
Denying him samples because he is a young earth creationist is not legitimate peer review. It’s censorship.
It’s not like he was asking for permission to do experimentation on humans or even animals where there is a concern about whether the experiments are legitimate science.
It’s absurd that they won’t let him get a few rock samples.
SomeDAM Poet I thought similarly–only that maybe there was more to it that we don’t know about? It didn’t sound to me like the whole story when I read that post in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if there is “more to it”, if all he wants is a few rock samples, which is certainly not going to hurt anything in the Park and won’t even be noticable.
If his working hypothesis is that the earth is only 6000 years old, that is actually a perfectly legitimate hypothesis from a scientific standpoint.
If he claims after testing that his hypothesis was not disproved, he has to present his evidence to the scientific community.
At that point, scientists are free to critique his methods and conclusions.
It’s pretty clear that by denying him a few samples, the Park service is actually not engaging in science, which makes their claim that his project was “unscientific” very ironic.
Science actually can’t work if you play the game this way.
SomeDAM Poet Quoting your note: “It doesn’t matter if there is ‘more to it’, if all he wants is a few rock samples, which is certainly not going to hurt anything in the Park and won’t even be noticable.”
Of course IF that’s all he wants, then I would agree. But that’s my point–the conditional IF leaves the question of “more to it” open. It certainly matters to me. And jumping to conclusions is not exactly a tenet of critical-scientific method.
There is actually nother irony involved here.
By denying him a few rock samples, the Park Service has given him far more publicity than he would have ever received if they had just allowed him to collect the samples and he had then made goofy claims that they were only 6000 years old.
The problem is that it if he made the claim that all he wanted was “a few fist sized rock samples” and that were actually not all he wanted, he would certainly have little chance of winning his current case in court and any lawyer would advise him of that.
In other words, it is very unlikely that he would have brought the suit if that were the case.
There might be something else involved. But I doubt that this is it.
It would make no sense.
SomeDAM Poet. Right. Let’s wait and see.
I do think that pushing the envelop in court by going to extremes (if that’s what he is doing) misplaces the test of the argument in either case. That is, the test is of OUR (and their) reason-ability, political responsibility, and even love of community.
As you suggest, if it IS just a handful of dirt, then the restrictions HAVE overreached. On the other hand, if it’s just the play to the press and to go to court, then it’s an abdication of THEIR responsibility–that of living in a secular and constitutional democracy, if you see what I mean. The authentic power is ultimately in us and our ability to live together in peace. The courts are there like traffic lights, and for when we are NOT being respectful, reasonable, and responsible to one another. But in the end, they cannot do it all.
But hay–I do love the law, not to mention poetry.
FWIW, here’s my guess about the Park Service denial of the request.
Collection of rocks (of any size) is prohibited by law in the National parks by the average Joe. There is a legitimate reason for this because there are millions of visitors to the parks each year and that all adds up, even if just a small fraction of those are taking home just a couple fist sized rocks.
But an exception is made for collection of small quantities for scientific purposes.
So it is likely that the opinions of the two peer reviewers that the project was “unscientific” was probably a significant factor in the denial of the request.
If it had merely been the sample size, there would have been no need for peer review. The Park service could merely have said, “No, even scientists are only permitted x pounds. Your request exceeds that. Request denied”
So, that leads us back to the idea that the Park service is making the denial based not on the sample size, but on whether the proposed project is actually science.
While that gives them leeway to decide what to accept and what to deny, it also raises the question of how they are deciding that. Lol
SomeDAM Poet: Yes, indeed. That’s the value of just raising such questions–it makes THEM move into a self-reflective mode to consider their own motivations. And who among us cannot use THAT exercise?
There is actually a huge irony in this.
“Science denial” is the critique often leveled at believers in creationism and ID, but denying someone a few rock samples is quite literally “science denial”. They are denying him the chance to even DO science .
This is every bit as dangerous as people who deny scientific evidence.
When resources are limited or protected, there has to be a compelling reason to release them. Questionable research proposals may indeed be rejected if they are not reasonably expected to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. Nobody is denying the kooks the “chance to do science;” they are, rather, denying the kooks access to protected resources. It is the correct stance.
“There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.”
These laws don’t matter much, do they? They can always be changed.
As long as a great proportion of Americans believe, evolution is a matter of belief, there is always a possibility to teach intelligent design and friends in public schools. There is always a way, as there is a way to demolish Dept of Ed, EPA, etc.
Times are changing, and it seems this is the last desperate wave in the US to resist the views of the rest of the world to spread here on science, free healthcare, and free education. Half of the country is already riding the modern waves, and 10 years from now either the whole country will do the same, or the US will be split into at least two parts.
Greg McNeilly, DeVos’ aide, is either a flat-out liar or he has some very serious cognitive issues. Perhaps both.
If DeVos and her family have donated large sums to creationist organizations, like Focus of the Family, then they have basically subscribed to creationism. There’s just little way around that.
As to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and Andrew Snelling, they just keep pushing the Creationism is Science malarkey.
Ken Ham’s ark is a perfect example:
“Ken Ham built an ark, …The founder of Answers in Genesis, an online publishing ministry with a strict creationist interpretation of the Bible, employed 700 workers to erect the $120 million Ark…He had the boat designed by a veteran of amusement park attractions…Christian school students storm the ramps, many completing science quizzes based on anti-evolutionary teachings…Ham and his brethren are creationists and Christian apologists who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old…He believes that dinosaurs prowled the planet alongside humans and that the biblical flood created the Grand Canyon…He maintains that Noah labored seven decades to construct his vessel and was 600 years old when the storm surged…”
But wait, there’s more:
“the project’s single largest source of funding was $62 million in junk bonds floated by the town of Willamstown, population less than 4,000, home to the Ark Encounter and the county seat of Grant County…The Ark Encounter negotiated a vastly discounted 30-year rate on property taxes in 2013…Ham argues that his organization received a tourist tax break while creating jobs…As a condition of employment, the museum and ark staff of 900, including 350 seasonal workers, must sign a statement of faith rejecting evolution and declaring that they regularly attend church and view homosexuality as a sin.”
These people have some serious issues. Okay, whatever, The big problem is that they want taxpayers subsidies for their skewed beliefs, and they also want to use government to force those beliefs on everybody else.
Maybe a public schooing focus on democratic citizenship is an idea that more educators and citizens should embrace.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-giant-ark-is-just-the-start-these-creationists-have-a-bigger-plan-for-recruiting-new-believers/2017/05/24/b497bd14-2920-11e7-be51-b3fc6ff7faee_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_theark-644pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d087176430bd
I wish to thank this blog for some interesting reading. As a practicing Christian, I have been thinking about the issue from a church standpoint since I was very young. I have close friends who stand staunchly on both sides of this divisive issue. It is and has always been sad to me that I cannot talk to those who are on one side in the presence of those on the other. The conversation would be too rancorous.
We all know why this fellow wanted rocks from the Grand Canyon. He was trying to provoke an incident to test in court, much the same way George Raplea talked John Thomas Scopes into getting himself sued for breaking the Tennessee law that forbade teaching evolution theory (my suggested book on the Scopes Trial is Ray Gingers Six Days or Forever). There is a long history of test cases in American judicial history, so we should not be surprised. So this is a political, not a religious issue.
The religious issue is the question of interpretation of scripture. The distant right in American Christianity believes what it wants based on a cherry picking view of its scripture. It is unthinkable in the minds of so many today that God might have used evolution to produce man. That would undermine the special place humans have in the scripture. Ironically, Christian commands that the poor be ministered to and that enemies be viewed with sacrificial love seem to be easier to forget by those who insist on literal interpretation.
I have come over the years to a differing interpretation of scripture. Genesis confirms evolution. Both science and Genesis place man squarely in the amoral animal kingdom. Like worms or wildebeests, humans cannot know where their actions lead them. Thus humans are doomed to action that ultimately becomes evil. If we knew the future, we would be as gods and evil would not be in us. But clearly, we cannot know whether our beliefs as we advocate for what we think will really produce what we envision. So the human flaw is not knowing.
Do I now propose that my idea should be taug in public schools? That would contradict my belief system, but it no doubt filters into my teaching. Let us just all try to get along.
“we would be as gods and evil would not be in us.”
Evil not in a god? Not in your god, Roy?
“Decapitate Them!
“And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'” (Numbers 25:3-4)
Comment
Those who worshipped other gods must die, and even more horribly, their heads displayed publicly. Either God never said anything so cruel, or we truly live in a cursed universe, ruled by a maniac Supreme Being.
Millions of people, today, switch their religions. If God had any interest in this ongoing process, there appears no evidence of this.”
Or
God Kills The Firstborns!
“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.” (Exodus 12:29-30)
Comment
“If we believe every word in the Bible as coming from God, then it stands to reason that the violent actions from the God described in Exodus cannot give us a moral comparison to live our lives in a peaceful world.
If one wishes to believe that God possess love for His creations, then the killing of innocent children cannot possibly come from God, and therefore, these verses from the Bible must have come elsewhere. But note that if one takes the Bible’s words as absolute truth, then not only did God smote the firstborn children, but all firstborn regardless of age. This means all firstborn teenagers, firstborn men & women, firstborn octogenarians, and even all firstborn cows and bulls. Regardless of how much love, charity, or goodness they may have imparted to the world, if they had the unfortunate luck to have first passed through their mother’s vagina in the land of Egypt, according to the Bible, God killed them!”
Quotes from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm#babylon-is-fallen
Duane: you seem to interpret numbers literally. Literal interpretation of scripture is the problem. By definition, the creator of good cannot do evil. I will be honest, I do not know what to make of these verses, but I do not think they validate head impaling. Some mystery is necessary for true religion.
Roy: “Duane: you seem to interpret numbers literally. Literal interpretation of scripture is the problem.”
How else can you interpret, Roy? Any way you want? Any way you are told? is more than one interpretation allowed? Who decides what’s a correct interpretation? Who decided that a literal interpretation is not good?
Roy: “By definition, the creator of good cannot do evil. ”
I do not know what definition means in this context. But: is the world good? And: who created evil?
And, btw: who created the creator?
Wonderfully stimulating questions. The problem I see with literal interpretation of scripture is that it lends itself to a divorce of the reader from the context of the writing. I do believe there will be multiple interpretation of almost all writings. Thus for me to claim my own is the only correct one would be to place myself in the position of God. Surely this cannot be right.
As for the rest of your list of questions, they are, in my humble opinion, unanswerable. Like in plane Geometry, I choose to start with some basic postulates concerning God and try to proceed from there in a journey led by faith. Along this journey, I will arrive at wrong answers. I hope that I will live like Ghandi suggested, so that the wrong things I do or think hurt me instead of others.
Most of these comments about the Answers in Genesis legal case are spot on, but please read the lawsuit. It is short. It is well argued. The Park Service did not have, or did not use, anything like a standard protocol for peer reviews. Snelling had been cleared for gathering rock samples in a prior project.
Two “scientifically” oriented reviewers opened up good grounds for the case. Snelling’s lawyers foucused on some comments and at least one email. Unfortunately, I could not find these or any of the exhibits attached to the lawsuit.
As near as I can tell from the Answers in Genesis website, all of Snelling’s publications have been in Creationist journals, and if peer-reviewed, had passed muster with like-minded reviewers. The second round of reviews initiated by the Park Service came from geologists who are not proponents of the “young earth” theory. They helped to make this case viable.
I think that the Park Service tried to bail out of some missteps by saying the rock samples being sought could be found outside of the Grand Canyon National Park. But that would not allow Snelling to seek the proofs he wanted to affirm the Biblical account and offer up geological evidence for Answers in Genesis, his employer since 2007.
I am reminded that some of the same arguments came into play in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. in that case, with the judge ruled against teaching a science curriculum based on “intelligent design”
I am reminded of the scientists who worked long and hard to “prove” that smoking tobacco was not harmful.
For some understanding of the people qualified to give peer reviews of scientific research at and on behlf of Answers in Genisus, please look at the tests for inclusion. This is a test of religious faith that must be passed.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/scientist-inclusion-procedure/
There are two Snellings, even though both are the same man.
Snellngs 1 publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which helps to burnish his ‘scientific’ credentials.
Snellings 2 publishes exclusively in creationist ads and communications.
As one critic put it, Snellings 1 never cites Snellings 2, and Snellings 2 never cites Snellings 1.
This is quite purposeful.
As to why the Snellings proposal to gather Grand Canyon rocks was turned down by the Park Service, scientists who reviewed his proposal said it lacked any scientific merit.
That’s most likely because Snellings 2 uses Snellings 1 as a front, and Snellings 2 had no scientific intent whatsoever for gathering the rocks.
Seriously, Democracy? It does make sense, though. Creationists’ earlier attempts to appear scientifically acceptable have failed. Just think about Michael Behe’s Black Box.
Thanks for your reference to Black Box. I had never heard of that writing and read a couple of reviews. What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?
(This is not on-topic, but please post it)
Friday, May 26 at moonrise, Ramadan began in North America. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Hejira (Islamic) calendar. It was in Ramadan, that the Holy Koran was revealed to the prophet Mohammed (PBUH). This is a joyous and sacred time for Muslims. It is a month of prayer, fasting, scripture reading, and celebration.
In keeping with our splendid American tradition of freedom of religion, Let us pray for our Muslim neighbors in our community and our nation, and throughout the world. Our nation has recently experienced some occurrences of religious bigotry, and Muslims have suffered. Mosques have been vandalized, and individual Muslims have been victimized. I see Muslims and think “There but for the grace of God, go I”. Sadly, religious bigotry is no stranger to our nation. We must not tolerate intolerance.
When you see a Muslim, in your neighborhood, or in a store, or on the bus, approach them, and say “Salaam Aleikum” (Peace be unto you), and also “Happy Ramadan”.
“We must learn to live together as brothers, or we will surely perish as fools” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Charles Wonderful note. They showed “Tora! Tora! Tora!” yesterday on TCM. In the context of your note, I remember how most here in the United States felt about and responded to Japanese Americans during and after the war–and now, how radically things have changed.