Pennsylvania school has to defend its policy at requiring students to hear about ID in biology lessons on evolution. Court has to decide the fundamental question: Is ID religion or Science. If they come up with the right answer, it could finish the long lasting "Teach both side"-discussion. Intelligent Design is by definition religion and it has nothing to do in science classes.
Intelligent design faces first big court test
Parents sue after alternate to evolution added to science curriculum
By Reporter Alex Johnson - MSNBC - Sept. 23, 2005
A federal judge in Pennsylvania will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit that both sides say could set the fundamental ground rules for how American students are taught the origins of life for years to come.
At issue is an alternative to the standard theory of evolution called "intelligent design." Proponents argue that the structure of life on Earth is too complex to have evolved through natural selection, challenging a core principle of the biological theory launched by Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” in 1859. Instead, contend adherents of intelligent design, life is probably the result of intervention by an intelligent agent.
Intelligent design has been bubbling up since 1987, when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach the biblical account of creation instead of evolution, because doing so would violate the constitutional ban on establishment of an official religion.
Critics deride intelligent design as creationism gussied up for the courts; advocates say it is an explicitly scientific construct that makes no supposition about the identity or nature of the designer.
The disagreement has led to anguished public debates and hearings before local school boards for almost 20 years. While judges have considered smaller questions barnacled to the issue, the trial that opens Monday is believed to be the first time a federal court has been asked to decide the fundamental question: Is intelligent design religion or science?
Finally, a chance for a definitive ruling
The Pennsylvania case "is probably the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which opposes challenges to the standard model of evolution.
"This will be the first legal challenge to intelligent design, and we’ll see whether they have been able to mask the creationist underpinnings and basic orientation of intelligent design," she said. Regardless who wins, "it will have quite a significant impact on what happens in American public school education."
The suit, brought by 11 parents, challenges the Dover Area School District’s adoption last year of an addition to the science curriculum directing teachers — in addition to teaching evolution — to tell students about intelligent design and refer them to an alternative textbook that champions it. Three opposing board members resigned after the vote.
The parents contended that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment. Their case was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation for Church and State, with support from Scott's organization.
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom President Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
Science organizations have generally turned their backs on forums in which they have been challenged to defend Darwinian evolution, on the theory that engaging the intelligent design school in any way is to take its ideas too seriously. For example, when the Kansas Board of Education held hearings this year on new science standards that criticized evolution, science groups boycotted.
The Pennsylvania case, however, gives scientists the chance to go on the attack, forcing intelligent-design advocates to defend their beliefs. But because local school boards have almost complete latitude to set the content of the curriculum, the plaintiffs must navigate a narrow path.
It isn't enough for them to discredit intelligent design — indeed, that is almost irrelevant to the legal question. Instead, what they must do is show that the school board’s decision would have an unconstitutionally religious purpose and effect, Scott said.
Even so, Scott and others make no bones about their principal motivation: Intelligent design as science is bogus, they insist, and teaching it is a grave disservice to students.
"Intelligent design is simply the most recent version of creationism, which is admittedly a religious concept," said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and publisher of the journal Science. "There is no scientific basis to intelligent design."
Debating the terms of the debate
This is where things get sticky, because it all boils down to a basic argument over just what is evolution and what is religion.
Advocates have labored for years to have intelligent design be taken seriously as science. Although many of the leading thinkers in the movement openly acknowledge their Christian faith, they also sport Ph.D.s in hard science and maintain that their suppositions are rooted in principled observance of the scientific method.
And they generally have no problem with much of evolutionary theory, which can — in part —be stated as the change of species over time. Evidence, they agree, amply bears out this observation, which is known as micro-evolution.
Where they dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution — the transformation over time of a species into another species. The distinction is drawn in "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," the alternative text endorsed by the Dover school board:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their primitive features intact, rather than gradually developing."
In other words, their argument is not so much with evolution per se as it is with what they see as the failure of evolution to account for how it all started. It is perfectly reasonable as science, they believe, to explore whether an outside agent triggered diversity of complex biological structures seemingly engineered to sustain life on Earth.
Intelligent-design supporters are careful to say they don't know who or what that outside agent was, but to the large majority of biologists, that’s beside the point: Science is concerned with the natural world, while intelligent design supposes an agent independent of the natural world.
You can teach such concepts, Leshner and Scott say; indeed, you should — just do it in philosophy and religion and literature classes. Don't do it in science classes, because, by definition, that's religion. It isn't science.
"If we human beings evolved as a result of natural cause, are we special to God? Does life then have some sort of purpose?" Scott asked.
They’re legitimate questions, but "these are issues that are outside of science," she said. "These are not issues that should be part of the science curriculum."
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Pseudovidenskabeligt ernærings-FUP
Godt gået til Ekstrabladet for denne artikel:
Slankeguru giver forkerte råd
Lene Hansson vejleder hver uge fede danskere på TV3 - men der er ingen dokumentation for hendes principper
- Ekstrabladet d. 19.09.05 af Lisbeth Langwadt - 10:47 - 19. sep. 2005
På plakater i hele landet kan man se kostvejleder Lene Hansson give en hotdog og en kakaomælk et lag tæsk som reklame for TV3-programmet 'Du er, hvad du spiser'.
Men måske burde deltagerne og seerne i stedet give Lene Hansson en i skallen for at trække dem gennem ulideligt mange fanatiske og forkerte råd om, hvordan de kan tabe sig. Et vægttab de kunne opnå uden Lene Hanssons selvbestaltede metoder blot ved at følge sund fornuft.
Med tarmskylninger, syre-base-forhold og adskillelse af stivelse og protein må deltagerne finde sig i en ny livsstil, som bygger på decideret forkerte koncepter. 152.000 seere følger 'Du er, hvad du spiser', og over 10.000 har sikret sig Hanssons bog af samme titel.
Deltagere bliver vildledt
Camilla Udsen, ph.d., fødevarepolitisk medarbejder i Forbrugerrådet supplerer:
- Hun giver ingen dokumentation i sine bøger eller programmer. Hun konstaterer bare, at sådan er det.
- Hendes principper er udelukkende baseret på hendes egne værdier, siger Per Brændgaard Mikkelsen, cand.scient. i human ernæring og leder af Suhr's Slankeskole.
- Hendes kostråd baserer sig helt grundlæggende på forkerte principper. Det er et stort problem, for så får deltagerne i programmerne og hendes læsere ikke en bedre forståelse for kost. De bliver snarere vildledt, supplerer Camilla Udsen.
Lene Hansson er uddannet receptionist, har arbejdet som stewardesse, er aerobicinstruktør, reiki-healer og Bach-terapeut. Hendes ernæringsvejlederuddannelse er en kombination af amerikanske studier og forskellige alternative uddannelser.
Det er pseudovidenskab
Lene Hansson mener, at man altid skal spise protein og stivelse hver for sig - de må ikke indgå i samme måltid. Stivelse er den slags kulhydrat, som findes i kornprodukter og kartofler.
- Det passer simpelthen ikke. Kroppens systemer kan sagtens klare protein og stivelse samtidig. Ellers ville alle, der spiser kartofler til en bøf, blive syge og fede. Faktisk er der store fordele ved at spise det sammen - så udnytter man proteinerne bedre, siger Brændgaard Mikkelsen.
Morgenmad er også bandlyst af Lene Hansson. Indtil kl. 12 er kun frugt tilladt. Og det på trods af, at utallige undersøgelser har vist, at de fleste mennesker føler mindre sult i løbet af dagen og dermed spiser færre kalorier samlet set, hvis de får et solidt morgenmåltid.
- Hendes koncept er pseudovidenskab. Men hun bruger et ordforråd, der lyder videnskabeligt og rationelt. Det er med til at gøre folk forvirrede og skeptiske over for, hvad de skal tro på. Og så holder de også op med at lytte til de fornuftige, officielle råd, siger Camilla Udsen.
Jeg synes, beviset ligger i resultaterne
- Lene Hansson, eksperterne siger, at mange af dine teorier er forkerte. Hvad siger du til det?
- Ingen af dem har siddet med klienter i 20 år, som jeg har. Hvorfor skal alting bevises videnskabeligt? Jeg synes, beviset ligger i resultaterne. Ud af deltagerne i de seks første programmer, er der kun en, som ikke stadig lever efter det.
- Men eksperterne har vel ret i, at vægttab handler om at spise sundere og få færre kalorier?
- Jeg er ikke helt enig. Jeg går ind for en ændring af livsstilen, som så fører til vægttab. Jeg bruger syre-base-teorien, fordi det illustrativt viser folk, at deres kost indeholder for meget af det forbudte. Hovedbudskabet er, at man skal spise frugt og grønt, dyrke 30 minutters motion hver dag, spise varieret og være positiv.
Tarmrens og syre-base
- Hvis det er hovedbudskabet, hvorfor skal man så ud i alt muligt med syre-base og tarmrens?
- Tarmrens ligger i det koncept, TV3 har købt fra England. Syre-base-kosten er noget, jeg har valgt at tage med.
- Men forbrugerne bør vel støtte sig op ad kostråd, som bygger på fakta?
- Det er jo det, man har gjort fejlagtigt i mange år. Der er kommercielle interesser blandet ind i det. Så hvor neutrale er de officielle råd?
Tykkere og mere syge
- Men hvem skal forbrugeren så tro på? Dig?
- Der er ikke én retning, der virker for alle. De budskaber, Ernæringsrådet og Suhr's er kommet med gennem årene, har ikke hjulpet os. De har tværtimod gjort os tykkere og mere syge. Det, Suhr's underviser i, har ikke fornyet sig i 70 år.
- Det kunne jo være, fordi der er noget om det?
- Nej, for så ville folk jo ikke blive mere overvægtige og syge.
Volapyk og få kalorier
Selv om eksperterne ikke giver meget for Lene Hanssons metoder, kan du godt tabe dig ved at følge hendes råd:
- Man taber sig, når det samlede kalorieindtag er lavere, end det antal kalorier man forbrænder. Og med Lene Hansson får man - foruden en masse volapyk - faktisk få kalorier, siger Per Brændgaard Mikkelsen.
- Deltagerne i programmerne lever ekstremt usundt, så det er klart, de taber sig, når de får færre kalorier og begynder at dyrke motion. Men de ville også have tabt sig uden at gå op i syre-base-balance osv., supplerer Camilla Udsen.
FUP ELLER FAKTA
Lene Hansson: Du skal opretholde din 'indre pH-værdi' ved at spise en rigtig kombination af syre-base-fødevarer.
Sundhedspanelet: Det er en gammel myte inden for alternativ ernæringsteori. Fakta er, at kroppen har et særdeles effektivt justeringssystem. Den eneste måde, du selv kan optimere det, er ved at være fysisk aktiv.
Lene Hansson: Du må kun spise frugt indtil kl. 12, og spis det altid på tom mave.
Sundhedspanelet: Vrøvl. De fleste mennesker har brug for et solidt morgenmåltid med havregryn eller groft brød. Frugt mætter ikke nok, så det kan forårsage, at man overspiser senere på dagen.
Lene Hansson: Din fordøjelse bliver bedre, hvis du ikke blander kulhydrat og protein, fordi hver fødevaregruppe kræver forskellige fordøjelsesenzymer, der kan ødelægge hinanden, hvis de blandes.
Sundhedspanelet: Forkert. Kroppen kan sagtens fordøje kulhydrat og protein samtidig -det bliver du ikke tyk af.
Lene Hansson: Kroppen har en døgncyklus. Mellem kl. 04-12 må du kun spise frugt og saft. Fra 12-20 kan du indtage fast føde. Fra 20-04 må du kun få frugt og saft.
Sundhedspanelet: Sludder. Man optager mad, efter man har indtaget det. Så man kan ikke sige, at døgnet er delt op i en 'indtagelses-' og 'optagelsesproces'.
Lene Hansson: Faste og tarmskylninger kan afhjælpe forskellige sygdomme.
Sundhedspanelet: Det er en myte, at kroppen ikke selv kan komme af med gift- og affaldsstoffer. Fedme forsvinder ikke af fanatiske tarmskylninger eller faste. Den eneste vej er sunde kostvaner og færre kalorier.
Slankeguru giver forkerte råd
Lene Hansson vejleder hver uge fede danskere på TV3 - men der er ingen dokumentation for hendes principper
- Ekstrabladet d. 19.09.05 af Lisbeth Langwadt - 10:47 - 19. sep. 2005
På plakater i hele landet kan man se kostvejleder Lene Hansson give en hotdog og en kakaomælk et lag tæsk som reklame for TV3-programmet 'Du er, hvad du spiser'.
Men måske burde deltagerne og seerne i stedet give Lene Hansson en i skallen for at trække dem gennem ulideligt mange fanatiske og forkerte råd om, hvordan de kan tabe sig. Et vægttab de kunne opnå uden Lene Hanssons selvbestaltede metoder blot ved at følge sund fornuft.
Med tarmskylninger, syre-base-forhold og adskillelse af stivelse og protein må deltagerne finde sig i en ny livsstil, som bygger på decideret forkerte koncepter. 152.000 seere følger 'Du er, hvad du spiser', og over 10.000 har sikret sig Hanssons bog af samme titel.
Deltagere bliver vildledt
Camilla Udsen, ph.d., fødevarepolitisk medarbejder i Forbrugerrådet supplerer:
- Hun giver ingen dokumentation i sine bøger eller programmer. Hun konstaterer bare, at sådan er det.
- Hendes principper er udelukkende baseret på hendes egne værdier, siger Per Brændgaard Mikkelsen, cand.scient. i human ernæring og leder af Suhr's Slankeskole.
- Hendes kostråd baserer sig helt grundlæggende på forkerte principper. Det er et stort problem, for så får deltagerne i programmerne og hendes læsere ikke en bedre forståelse for kost. De bliver snarere vildledt, supplerer Camilla Udsen.
Lene Hansson er uddannet receptionist, har arbejdet som stewardesse, er aerobicinstruktør, reiki-healer og Bach-terapeut. Hendes ernæringsvejlederuddannelse er en kombination af amerikanske studier og forskellige alternative uddannelser.
Det er pseudovidenskab
Lene Hansson mener, at man altid skal spise protein og stivelse hver for sig - de må ikke indgå i samme måltid. Stivelse er den slags kulhydrat, som findes i kornprodukter og kartofler.
- Det passer simpelthen ikke. Kroppens systemer kan sagtens klare protein og stivelse samtidig. Ellers ville alle, der spiser kartofler til en bøf, blive syge og fede. Faktisk er der store fordele ved at spise det sammen - så udnytter man proteinerne bedre, siger Brændgaard Mikkelsen.
Morgenmad er også bandlyst af Lene Hansson. Indtil kl. 12 er kun frugt tilladt. Og det på trods af, at utallige undersøgelser har vist, at de fleste mennesker føler mindre sult i løbet af dagen og dermed spiser færre kalorier samlet set, hvis de får et solidt morgenmåltid.
- Hendes koncept er pseudovidenskab. Men hun bruger et ordforråd, der lyder videnskabeligt og rationelt. Det er med til at gøre folk forvirrede og skeptiske over for, hvad de skal tro på. Og så holder de også op med at lytte til de fornuftige, officielle råd, siger Camilla Udsen.
Jeg synes, beviset ligger i resultaterne
- Lene Hansson, eksperterne siger, at mange af dine teorier er forkerte. Hvad siger du til det?
- Ingen af dem har siddet med klienter i 20 år, som jeg har. Hvorfor skal alting bevises videnskabeligt? Jeg synes, beviset ligger i resultaterne. Ud af deltagerne i de seks første programmer, er der kun en, som ikke stadig lever efter det.
- Men eksperterne har vel ret i, at vægttab handler om at spise sundere og få færre kalorier?
- Jeg er ikke helt enig. Jeg går ind for en ændring af livsstilen, som så fører til vægttab. Jeg bruger syre-base-teorien, fordi det illustrativt viser folk, at deres kost indeholder for meget af det forbudte. Hovedbudskabet er, at man skal spise frugt og grønt, dyrke 30 minutters motion hver dag, spise varieret og være positiv.
Tarmrens og syre-base
- Hvis det er hovedbudskabet, hvorfor skal man så ud i alt muligt med syre-base og tarmrens?
- Tarmrens ligger i det koncept, TV3 har købt fra England. Syre-base-kosten er noget, jeg har valgt at tage med.
- Men forbrugerne bør vel støtte sig op ad kostråd, som bygger på fakta?
- Det er jo det, man har gjort fejlagtigt i mange år. Der er kommercielle interesser blandet ind i det. Så hvor neutrale er de officielle råd?
Tykkere og mere syge
- Men hvem skal forbrugeren så tro på? Dig?
- Der er ikke én retning, der virker for alle. De budskaber, Ernæringsrådet og Suhr's er kommet med gennem årene, har ikke hjulpet os. De har tværtimod gjort os tykkere og mere syge. Det, Suhr's underviser i, har ikke fornyet sig i 70 år.
- Det kunne jo være, fordi der er noget om det?
- Nej, for så ville folk jo ikke blive mere overvægtige og syge.
Volapyk og få kalorier
Selv om eksperterne ikke giver meget for Lene Hanssons metoder, kan du godt tabe dig ved at følge hendes råd:
- Man taber sig, når det samlede kalorieindtag er lavere, end det antal kalorier man forbrænder. Og med Lene Hansson får man - foruden en masse volapyk - faktisk få kalorier, siger Per Brændgaard Mikkelsen.
- Deltagerne i programmerne lever ekstremt usundt, så det er klart, de taber sig, når de får færre kalorier og begynder at dyrke motion. Men de ville også have tabt sig uden at gå op i syre-base-balance osv., supplerer Camilla Udsen.
FUP ELLER FAKTA
Lene Hansson: Du skal opretholde din 'indre pH-værdi' ved at spise en rigtig kombination af syre-base-fødevarer.
Sundhedspanelet: Det er en gammel myte inden for alternativ ernæringsteori. Fakta er, at kroppen har et særdeles effektivt justeringssystem. Den eneste måde, du selv kan optimere det, er ved at være fysisk aktiv.
Lene Hansson: Du må kun spise frugt indtil kl. 12, og spis det altid på tom mave.
Sundhedspanelet: Vrøvl. De fleste mennesker har brug for et solidt morgenmåltid med havregryn eller groft brød. Frugt mætter ikke nok, så det kan forårsage, at man overspiser senere på dagen.
Lene Hansson: Din fordøjelse bliver bedre, hvis du ikke blander kulhydrat og protein, fordi hver fødevaregruppe kræver forskellige fordøjelsesenzymer, der kan ødelægge hinanden, hvis de blandes.
Sundhedspanelet: Forkert. Kroppen kan sagtens fordøje kulhydrat og protein samtidig -det bliver du ikke tyk af.
Lene Hansson: Kroppen har en døgncyklus. Mellem kl. 04-12 må du kun spise frugt og saft. Fra 12-20 kan du indtage fast føde. Fra 20-04 må du kun få frugt og saft.
Sundhedspanelet: Sludder. Man optager mad, efter man har indtaget det. Så man kan ikke sige, at døgnet er delt op i en 'indtagelses-' og 'optagelsesproces'.
Lene Hansson: Faste og tarmskylninger kan afhjælpe forskellige sygdomme.
Sundhedspanelet: Det er en myte, at kroppen ikke selv kan komme af med gift- og affaldsstoffer. Fedme forsvinder ikke af fanatiske tarmskylninger eller faste. Den eneste vej er sunde kostvaner og færre kalorier.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Pseudoscience by Deepak Chopra
The Huffington Post is delivering the opinion by Deepak Chopra about Invisible Neurology: "Why Does Pain Hurt?"
I am no "psychic", but I risk predicting that Mr. Chopra will not accept the 1-million dollar challenge offered James Randi. Mr. Deepak already has millions of dollars earned by spreading pseudoscience.....
This invisible neurology answered the question of why pain hurts very easily: If everything is conscious at a deep level, then there is no "raw" or unconscious data. The transformation of neural impulses into thoughts and sensations was just a twist from object to subject. Consciousness penetrates both observer and observed.and more...
This is one area where we have the best chance of bringing consciousness into science, because the invisible neurology that underlies acupuncture and Ayurveda -- not to mention many forms of hands-on healing -- produces results. This is demonstrable,...Can anyone explain to me how we can block pain by local anaesthetic if everything is conscious?
I am no "psychic", but I risk predicting that Mr. Chopra will not accept the 1-million dollar challenge offered James Randi. Mr. Deepak already has millions of dollars earned by spreading pseudoscience.....
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Science museums live by the rules of science
Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 20, 2005
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.
One company, called B.C. Tours "because we are biblically correct," even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists' explanations for the exhibitions.
So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on.
Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members.
"The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up," she said. "Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take a more proactive role in evolution education."
Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.
"Just telling them they are wrong is not going to be effective," he said.
Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science. They seek answers in nature to questions about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional - capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered.
"Is it against all religion?" he asked. "No. But it is against some religions."
There is more than one type of creationist, he said: "thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced" and "people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you."
Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged.
"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."
Dr. Allmon says even trained scientists like Dr. Durkee can benefit from explicit advice about dealing with religious challenges to science exhibitions.
"There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful," he said.
A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about."
Dr. Allmon told his audience to "be firm and clear, not defensive." The pamphlet says that if all else fails, and docents find themselves in an unpleasant confrontation, they excuse themselves by saying, "I have to go to the restroom."
Eugenie C. Scott, who directs the National Center for Science Education and is conducting training sessions for Dr. Diamond's program, said that within the last year or so efforts to train museum personnel and volunteers on evolution and related topics had substantially increased. "This seems to be a cottage industry now," Dr. Scott said.
Robert M. West, a paleontologist and former science museum director who is now a consultant to museums, said several institutions were intensifying the docents' training "so they are comfortable with the concepts, not just the material but the intellectual, philosophical background - and they know their administrations are going to support them if someone criticizes them."
At the Denver science museum, the staff and docents often encounter groups from B.C. Tours, which for 15 years has offered tours of the museum based on literal readings of the Bible. The group embraces young-earth creationism, the view that the earth and its plants, animals and people were created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago.
"We present both sides from an objective perspective and let the students decide for themselves," said Rusty Carter, an operator of the group.
Mr. Carter praised the museum, saying it had been "very professional and accommodating, even though they do not support us." A typical group might have 30 or 40 people, he added.
Kirk Johnson, a paleontologist who is the chief curator at the museum, was philosophical about the group. "It's interesting to walk along with them," he said.
Participants pay the admission fee and have as much right as anyone else to be in the museum, Dr. Johnson said, but sometimes "we have to restrain our docents from interacting with them."
John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, "It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically."
Dr. Scott, who trained as a physical anthropologist, said that in training docents she emphasized "how the public understands or misunderstands evolution and some of the misconceptions they come in with." She hopes to combat the idea that people must choose between science and faith - "that you are either a good Christian creationist or an evil atheist evolutionist."
"It's your job," she told docents, "not to slam the door in the face of a believer."
At the American Museum of Natural History, which is about to open what it describes as "the most in-depth exhibition ever" on Darwin and his work, curators and other staff members instruct volunteer "explainers" on the science behind its exhibitions, according to Stephen Reichl, a spokesman. If visitors challenge the presentations, the explainers are instructed to listen "and then explain the science and the evidence."
Sarah Fiorello, an environmental educator at the Finger Lakes State Parks Region who took part in the Ithaca training session in August, said she was now prepared to take the same approach. When she describes the region's geological history on tours of its gorges, visitors often object - as even a member of her family once did - that "it does not say that in the Bible."
Now, she said, she will tell them, "The landscape tells a story based on geological events, based on science."
Dr. Durkee also said she found the session helpful. "When you are in a museum, you can't antagonize people," she said. "Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs.
"I like the idea of stressing that this is a science museum, and we deal with matters of science."
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 20, 2005
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.
One company, called B.C. Tours "because we are biblically correct," even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists' explanations for the exhibitions.
So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on.
Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members.
"The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up," she said. "Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take a more proactive role in evolution education."
Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.
"Just telling them they are wrong is not going to be effective," he said.
Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science. They seek answers in nature to questions about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional - capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered.
"Is it against all religion?" he asked. "No. But it is against some religions."
There is more than one type of creationist, he said: "thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced" and "people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you."
Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged.
"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."
Dr. Allmon says even trained scientists like Dr. Durkee can benefit from explicit advice about dealing with religious challenges to science exhibitions.
"There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful," he said.
A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about."
Dr. Allmon told his audience to "be firm and clear, not defensive." The pamphlet says that if all else fails, and docents find themselves in an unpleasant confrontation, they excuse themselves by saying, "I have to go to the restroom."
Eugenie C. Scott, who directs the National Center for Science Education and is conducting training sessions for Dr. Diamond's program, said that within the last year or so efforts to train museum personnel and volunteers on evolution and related topics had substantially increased. "This seems to be a cottage industry now," Dr. Scott said.
Robert M. West, a paleontologist and former science museum director who is now a consultant to museums, said several institutions were intensifying the docents' training "so they are comfortable with the concepts, not just the material but the intellectual, philosophical background - and they know their administrations are going to support them if someone criticizes them."
At the Denver science museum, the staff and docents often encounter groups from B.C. Tours, which for 15 years has offered tours of the museum based on literal readings of the Bible. The group embraces young-earth creationism, the view that the earth and its plants, animals and people were created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago.
"We present both sides from an objective perspective and let the students decide for themselves," said Rusty Carter, an operator of the group.
Mr. Carter praised the museum, saying it had been "very professional and accommodating, even though they do not support us." A typical group might have 30 or 40 people, he added.
Kirk Johnson, a paleontologist who is the chief curator at the museum, was philosophical about the group. "It's interesting to walk along with them," he said.
Participants pay the admission fee and have as much right as anyone else to be in the museum, Dr. Johnson said, but sometimes "we have to restrain our docents from interacting with them."
John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, "It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically."
Dr. Scott, who trained as a physical anthropologist, said that in training docents she emphasized "how the public understands or misunderstands evolution and some of the misconceptions they come in with." She hopes to combat the idea that people must choose between science and faith - "that you are either a good Christian creationist or an evil atheist evolutionist."
"It's your job," she told docents, "not to slam the door in the face of a believer."
At the American Museum of Natural History, which is about to open what it describes as "the most in-depth exhibition ever" on Darwin and his work, curators and other staff members instruct volunteer "explainers" on the science behind its exhibitions, according to Stephen Reichl, a spokesman. If visitors challenge the presentations, the explainers are instructed to listen "and then explain the science and the evidence."
Sarah Fiorello, an environmental educator at the Finger Lakes State Parks Region who took part in the Ithaca training session in August, said she was now prepared to take the same approach. When she describes the region's geological history on tours of its gorges, visitors often object - as even a member of her family once did - that "it does not say that in the Bible."
Now, she said, she will tell them, "The landscape tells a story based on geological events, based on science."
Dr. Durkee also said she found the session helpful. "When you are in a museum, you can't antagonize people," she said. "Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs.
"I like the idea of stressing that this is a science museum, and we deal with matters of science."
Sunday, September 18, 2005
A collection of selected skeptical links. Enjoy!
I've collected some interesting links on my way, that I would like to share:
Skeptical websites:
Superstition Science Fact or Fiction
This website is maintained by Mario Di Maggio and his TOC is worth reading.
He defines himself as a bright - I'm an atheist and I don't believe in God, but it's actually not the same as a bright:
A skeptic moment with Tim Kammer
Better Avoid That Black Cat -- It's Friday The 13th
Tim Kammer is a member of the Seattle Society for Sensible Explanations, check out their Web site. They promotes science, critical thinking and sensible explanations for alleged paranormal events.
Mystery Investigators
Using the Method of Science to Investigate the Strange and Mysterious.
Audio and Video Clips:
James Randi
Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
James Randi Multimedia
An ABC News Special examines the supernatural and our willingness to be deceived. James Randi is the guest.
Richard Dawkins Multimedia
About Richard Dawkins
Michael Shermer Multimedia
Skeptical websites:
Superstition Science Fact or Fiction
This website is maintained by Mario Di Maggio and his TOC is worth reading.
He defines himself as a bright - I'm an atheist and I don't believe in God, but it's actually not the same as a bright:
A "Bright" is someone whose worldview is free from supernatural or mystical elements. "Atheist" is someone who denies God's existence, or one who doesn't believe in God. While "Atheist" is the negation of "Theist" (sounding like it starts from the "max position" and then disproves God), "Bright" doesn't involve the word "Theism" at all.(explained here)
A skeptic moment with Tim Kammer
Tim Kammer has been asking questions and questioning answers from childhood. It was when he saw a PBS documentary debunking Bermuda Triangle myths that Kammer realized adults don’t always tell the truth.His schedule is astro on monday, Psychic on tuesday, Mythical on wedneysday, Quack on thursday and Space Alien on friday. Enjoy!
Better Avoid That Black Cat -- It's Friday The 13th
Tim Kammer is a member of the Seattle Society for Sensible Explanations, check out their Web site. They promotes science, critical thinking and sensible explanations for alleged paranormal events.
Mystery Investigators
Using the Method of Science to Investigate the Strange and Mysterious.
Audio and Video Clips:
James Randi
Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
James Randi Multimedia
An ABC News Special examines the supernatural and our willingness to be deceived. James Randi is the guest.
Richard Dawkins Multimedia
About Richard Dawkins
Michael Shermer Multimedia
Thursday, September 15, 2005
New York Ad agency
This piece was written by Tim Bolen:
I haven't heard of the New York Ad agency earlier, so I made a google search on the subject to learn more.
All the articles about New York Ad agency which I found was written by Tim Bolen, who compares himself to Dwight Eisenhower:
Sepp Hasslberger seems to be fighting against the New York Ad agency too.
It seems that Tim Bolen often talk about the New York Ad agency and maybe he's right about it:
This letter OFFLIST and 4YEO written to Peter:
I've got the impression that it's all opinion and conspiracy in the battle between Science and Quackery.
University of Virginia "Drug Whores" attack Echinacea...The whole story can be found here.
I had a good laugh this last week. The University of Virginia Medical School showed the world how easy it is for "Big Pharma" to buy the appearance of science, from a University, with their so-called "Echinacea study."
Then the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) ran a pompous editorial on the subject by one of the best known, and laughable, CRACKPOTS in the US, Wallace Sampson MD.
Then the New York Ad agency (the one that runs the "quackbusters" ), sent out, to every media outlet in the US and Canada the story that "Echinacea had been discredited."
........
I think that one, or more, American manufacturers of Echinacea will be raided by the FDA - with guns drawn - and the whole "raid" will be covered on TV network news. The story will be run for at least three days. The owners, and employees, of the companies will be dragged out in chains from their offices, and "child pornography" and "automatic weapons" will be found in someone's home - just to set the "tone" of the story in the people of America's mind.
I haven't heard of the New York Ad agency earlier, so I made a google search on the subject to learn more.
All the articles about New York Ad agency which I found was written by Tim Bolen, who compares himself to Dwight Eisenhower:
I'm a strategist, and a tactician like Dwight David Eisenhower. "Ike," as he was popularly known devised and executed the plan to take back Europe from the Nazis, and shut them down, for all time. I devise and execute plans to take back health care from Big Pharma, and its minions. Like "Ike," I play to win.Link
Sepp Hasslberger seems to be fighting against the New York Ad agency too.
It seems that Tim Bolen often talk about the New York Ad agency and maybe he's right about it:
This letter OFFLIST and 4YEO written to Peter:
I'm somewhat worried about this one. What happens if Ron Law and Tim Bolen (or, god forbid, pests like Judith Alta, Ilena Rose, and Betty Martini) find out? Bolen always talks about the "New York ad agency". I was certain I could call his bluff on that one, because he simply *couldn't* know about our real connections with "Big Pharma".....but now I'm beginning to worry. Maybe he does have some proof! If Icke knows about QBOTI, then he's got connections in the NCAHF. I don't see any other way it could happen. Have you covered your tracks well? I live as usual, so no one would suspect that my monthly paycheck is padding a rather large bank account....;-) Even my wife has no idea. (This email gets deleted from my PC as soon as it's sent.)I didn't find any evidence to proof the existence of the New York Ad agency.
I've got the impression that it's all opinion and conspiracy in the battle between Science and Quackery.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Bad Chinese Morality in Skin Cream
Would you like to smear your face with a dead chinese? An investigation by the Guardian has discovered that a Chinese cosmetics company is using the skin of executed Chinese prisoners in their beauty products. Having a dead chinese in your skin cream is bad chinese morality and sickening!
Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot. The agents say some of the company's products have been exported to the UK, and that the use of skin from condemned convicts is "traditional" and nothing to "make such a big fuss about".The beauty products from the skin of executed Chinese prisoners
With European regulations to control cosmetic treatments such as collagen not expected for several years, doctors and politicians say the discovery highlights the dangers faced by the increasing number of Britons seeking to improve their looks. Apart from the ethical concerns, there is also the potential risk of infection.
MPs on the Commons select health committee are to examine the regulatory system and may launch an investigation and question ministers about the need for immediate new controls. "I am sure that the committee will want to look at this," said Kevin Barron, its Labour chairman. "This is something everyone in society will be very concerned about."
Plastic surgeons are also concerned about the delay in introducing regulations to control the cosmetic treatments industry. Norman Waterhouse, a former president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, said: "I am surprised that we are taking the lead from the European commission, because this is bound to delay action on this important area which is increasingly a matter for concern. It seems like a bit of a cop out to me."
It is unclear whether any of the "aesthetic fillers" such as collagen available in the UK or on the internet are supplied by the company, which cannot be identified for legal reasons. It is also unclear whether collagen made from prisoners' skin is in the research stage or is in production. However, the Guardian has learned that the company has exported collagen products to the UK in the past. An agent told customers it had also exported to the US and European countries, and that it was trying to develop fillers using tissue from aborted foetuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)