Can We Have a Moment of Science, Please?

Every once in awhile my head gets turned by my first love, science. We humans can do some amazing things, and NASA’s Kepler Mission is one of those things. The Kepler Mission (Named after Johannes Kepler, the father of modern astronomy), this is a mission to send a space telescope into Earth orbit, one with incredible optics that can detect the presence of distant solar systems, suns with orbiting planets.

And, no the telescope is not powerful enough to actually see the planets. It takes advantage of the fact that when the planets come between our line of sight and their star, the star’s brightness diminishes slightly, the bigger the planet, the greater the diminishment.

And thus far, the mission has identified hundreds of solar systems with 2,326 “planet candidates.” That’s not bad. But today they announced the discovery of a “Goldilocks Planet.” This is a planet whose average orbital radius is within the zone that allows water to exist in its liquid form, universally considered to be the primary ingredient for the existence of life.

And they know the average orbital radius because they can measure the orbital period of the planet. If it is close to an Earth year, it is within the “not too hot, not too cold zone.”

And they found one.

They call it Kepler-22. A “planet candidate” that, if it is rocky and not a gas ball, and it has the requisite ingredients of abundant liquid water plus carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and potassium, etc. could support life.

And this is just one of a little over 2000.

Consider the odds.

And no, I have not surrendered this blog to science. It is still a political blog. Witness the video that this story reminded me of. Eric Idle’s Galaxy Song.

 

  Galaxy Song by Eric Idle

Solar Flare and Things to Come

Wow. Did you hear about the massive solar flare that erupted from the surface of the sun yesterday morning? Here is a photograph of it at its largest extent before most of the billions of tons of material fell back to the surface of the sun.

But even though this is quite possibly the largest solar flare ever observed it should have minimal impact on Earth because of where Earth is presently in its orbital path. Earth should receive cosmic particles at a very oblique angle. They say that it should enhance the Aurora Borealis and they do expect some disruptions in communications sometime on the 9^th of June.

Speaking of which, I continue to wonder what we are getting ourselves into with the way we depend more and more on cellular communications and global positioning systems. Now from what information I have gathered, we are due for another solar max late next year to early 2013. A solar max occurs once every 12 years and extends over several months.

This is when sunspots appear. Sunspots are magnetic storms. This is when The Sun outputs more cosmic radiation – the kind that can disrupt communications systems on Earth. Trend-wise it looks like the next solar max will not be very severe – more akin to the severity of the one that occurred in 1928. But this is my main point: never in history have we had a solar max AND a cellular/wireless system that nearly everyone over the age of 7 depends on.

Really, communications-wise, the potential for some real interesting times may just be ahead of us.

Hawking: God Is Not a Factor

I am a noncombatant in this battle between science and religion. As such I think I can be fair-minded and not hold a biased view in the relationship that each has to mankind.

For this reason, I am somewhat struck by Stephen Hawking’s latest assertion in a new book to be released next week, “The Grand Design,” not that God doesn’t exist, but that God was not a factor in the creation of the universe.

I guess by that line of thinking, though, one could argue that if God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, that God is indeed not The Creator, then what role does God play in the scheme of things?

Hawking relies on a unification of four superstring theories, that they are simply dualities of each other, a theory called M-theory (the M stands for Membrane) for making his bold assertion that given the very existence of the field force known as gravity

“…the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.”

The universe, and existence, Hawking says, are inevitable consequences of the laws of physics.

As a noncombatant I was interested to see what the religious community would say about Hawking’s assertion and they did not fail to react.

Said Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest:

“A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said.”

Said Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute of Science and Religion:

“Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative.”

Said Imam Ibrahim Mogra, committee chairman at the Muslim Council of Britain

“If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror.”

And finally, said Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:

“Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being.”

Interesting, huh?

It seems that religion cedes to science every aspect of explanation but one: why do we exist? Hawking seems to be saying that there isn’t a “why.” There is no “why do we exist,” we simply are.

But really that question is one of the first ones that pops into the head of a sentient being: why am I here?

And then all of a sudden it dawned on me that religion occupies that niche rather well. The one burning question that science cannot deliver on is handled very nicely by religion thank you very much.

And then I realized that this is a matter upon which money is a huge factor. Religion in all of its incarnations is worth trillions worldwide. What Stephen Hawking seems to be saying is that all of these trillions of dollars are being mis-spent.

What a calamity. If what Stephen Hawking asserts is true, that there is no grand design and no creator, that there is no “why,” only an “is” then what are we going to do with all of those out of work clerics? What happens to all of the churches, mosques, synogogues and temples? All of the artwork? All of the literature?

That’s right. Stephen Hawking’s idea hasn’t a snowball’s chance in H-E-double-hockey-sticks of general acceptance now or in the immediate future.

It would cost too much.

Touchdown Jesus Gets a Touchdown

In 2004 the Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio built a 62 foot tall statue of Jesus pictured at right. A rendering of Jesus from the waist up with his arms upraised over his head, reaching toward heaven, it would seem.

Either that or signaling the scoring of a touchdown in a football game.

Earning the statue its nickname of “Touchdown Jesus.”

Well, it seems the Solid Rock Church should have taken its name more seriously and constructed this statue out of solid rock. Heck, even gunnite sprayed over chicken wire would have worked better than what they settled on.

They settled on constructing a steel frame that resembles a football goal posts that supported an outer shell of plastic foam and fiberglass.

Not a good idea.

 
Had they opened up their science books they would have seen that the posts that they used to support Jesus’ upraised hands were identical to a Benjamin Franklin invention that he called a lightning rod. Lightning rods are used to control where lightning is going to hit. They are erected in places that people want lightning to hit.

Preferably if lightning is going to touch down on Earth anyway, it hits the rods, and not buildings or people.

So the lightning that would have hit Earth somewhere in Monroe, Ohio last night, was drawn to Jesus’ upraised arms.

Upraised arms that supported highly flammable fiberglass and plastics.

I show the before and after photographs here for illustrative purposes. To see the video, go to this USA Today web page and scroll down for a 2 minute 33 second video of the flaming inferno that was the statue last night. Accompanying the video is a rather strange audio track. How it ties in with the subject I’ll leave to you to figure out.

My theory: What goes around comes around.

Galloping Gertie II

A friend sent a link to me with video coverage of a bridge recently completed in Volgograd, Russia. The bridge is doing something that is unique to suspension bridges.

It is swaying.

The roadbed, that is.

Here is a video clip from YouTube>



I particularly like the sound effects.

Russians have now gotten to experience a phenomenon in bridge-building called resonance. Resonance is something akin to how you keep your swing swinging at the playground. You move your body at a certain frequency and that frequency matches the natural frequency of the swing.

Its also how the Bay of Fundy has that huge tidal range.

Americans, sadly, had their own case of a resonating bridge 70 years ago. In 1940 a recently completed suspension bridge started swaying after 3 days of nonstop winds at an average speed of 43 miles per hour.

Here is a newsreel clip of that event.



Reporters labeled that ill-fated bridge “Galloping Gertie,” so I guess the Russian bridge is “Galloping Gertie II.” Or maybe Galloping Georgyi.

So along with the bridge collapse one really nice-looking car, a Plymouth, I think, went into the drink.

The only fatality, however, was a dog. The dog was in the car. That guy tried to retrieve the dog, his daughter’s pet, but the dog was so frightened it didn’t want to come with him.

I often ask myself how did that guy ever explain to his daughter what had happened to her little dog, “Tuffy.”

On Secrets and Public Education

Yesterday’s article in FortBendNow shows an interesting development in a local school district’s project to build a district science center, staff it, and use it to teach its K through 8 students aspects of science that cannot be taught in a typical middle or elementary school classroom.

And teach their teachers about science.

It seems that a local group of activists have asked the Fort Bend County district attorney’s office to look into the possibility that recent actions, or shall I say inactions, by the Fort Bend ISD administration are violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The group has petitioned the school district to present records on specific details in regard to its feasibility study and other actions taken to promote the construction of the center, thought to be costing somewhere in the $23 to $25 million range.

Things like (from FortBendNow):

1. All documents under review by a committee the district set up to study the proposal’s feasibility
2. All comments made about the project publicly on an FBISD website
3. A list of “current committed companies and the amounts they have already donated to this project
4. All communication between members of the feasibility committee, PBK architects, FBISD Superintendent Timothy Jenney, and former Sugar Land mayor and developer David Wallace, who headed the feasibility committee
5. Any available financial disclosure statements since 2007 for Jenney.

The group claims that they have yet to receive any of these documents despite the fact that the records-release deadline has long since expired. So DA John Healey, truly a man of action, asked the Fort Bend Sheriff’s Department to look into the matter.

So that should do it. Now we’ll see some action, right?

Can anyone say “dead man in a truck in Needville?”

Now all of this took place earlier this year, but since these events, filings, and inactions the Houston Museum of Natural Science has opened its Sugar Land branch in a restored prison barracks building 3 miles from where Fort Bend ISD wants to build its science center.

It even has its own web page.

But my main point is here. They are going to be offering a wide variety of educational opportunities for the local student and teacher community.

Daytime classes ($10 per student)

Field Trips ($2.50 per student to “varies”)

Professional Development (Free - that is, sponsored - to $1250/person)

Because this makes me ask three questions:

1. If the district wants to build its own science center, what are the chances that it will want to send a single student to the museum to take advantage of their offerings?
2. In the absence of building the center, and in light of the same arguments that the district cannot afford a center, how much does anyone think that the district will have funds budgeted to take care of financing these field trips?
3. And finally, if those who oppose building the science center get their way, are these self-same people willing to kick in, say, $100 per student per year to take care of the museum fees?

Because “public education,” despite its appellation, isn’t free.

The Wallace Line: Private Funding Sought for Science Center

Not that you didn’t hear about this before . . .

I hate to say it. I really do. No, really I hate to say this thing that I hate to say. The thing that nobody wanted to listen to me about. The thing that . . . oh H-E-double-hockey-sticks . . . I was RIGHT as RAIN about.

In this afternoon’s FortBendNow, out comes David Wallace with the bombshell that I thought would have been delivered in about, oh . . .say, three weeks from now.

“We have had talks with private businesses and institutions that have expressed interest in the possibilities of forming collaborative partnerships to help fund the center. If we could move in that direction, we believe the center could be funded without any need to raise taxes, or take away resources already allocated for other district purposes.”

So let me translate.

In order to fund the construction of the proposed Fort Bend ISD Global Science and TechnologyCenter, the district is looking for external sources and “collaborative partnerships.” That is, the plan is that no public funds will be involved in the construction of this center. No money to buy copy paper, no money to buy textbooks will be used to fund this “Taj Mahal.”

Gee, no kidding.

So my read of Ms. Bhuchar’s comments and cautions to her opponent had some degree of validity after all.

Why, a reader wrote in the comments section to the blog posting in question, would the district construct a “sales pitch” to the public if they already had the funds lined up?

Why indeed. Maybe they didn’t, and the feasibility study was conducted to find out if they would have it. Or maybe the “red herring” was well-played. Who knows what the truth is.

One thing is for sure, with this announcement coming out one month before Election Day rather than one week before, we will all now get to witness how or whether there is a realignment in argument. My question, asked in the previous blog is still timely:

“My question, then, is this: if the funding is found, and the Global Science and TechnologyCenter is planned and built with this private sector funding, is there any further objection to the project? Private sector funds in this case would never be used to buy textbooks, copier paper, or pay salaries of teachers. These funds are donated with the express purpose of seeing this thing gets done.”

So the question remains: is there any further objection to the project?

And if there are now new objections to the project, where were they before?

Are we willing to look a gift horse in the mouth? Even if the gift horse will have to be called the Taj MaSchlumberger? The Fluorapalooza?

SBOE Religious Reactionaries Lose Another Vote

It’s nice when truth and goodness wins out over darkness and ignorance, isn’t it?

Today, coming off of the 7-7 tie that dealt a death blow to the “strengths and weaknesses” phraseology that would require biology teachers to ask students to evaluate evolutionary theory based on observations and evidence, its kindred, the “sufficiencies and insufficiencies” phraseology met with a similar fate.

So it would appear that Texas was ready to go full speed ahead toward adoption of state curriculum standards for the next 10 years, and adopt them they did, with a 13-2 vote.

Honestly, from all of the attention that it got, you would think that biology, and the unit on evolution, was the only science taught in Texas. They spent that much time on this. That despite the fact that standards needed to be adopted for a whole host of other science disciplines.

But then, no one is challenging any of Newton’s Laws. That despite the fact that Einstein poked huge holes in these “Laws of Nature” a century ago.

But since the Genesis story did not deal with quantum mechanics, or so I hope, the Texas State Board of Education won’t be going there any time in the near or distant future.

So now that the state school board has acted, and will now move on to social studies (do rightwing evangelicals believe that the Holocaust occurred? I forget) we will now watch the drama transplant itself in the Texas Legislature, that august body of experts in the area of population genetics and speciation.

Because now that the SBOE has failed to carry out the neoconservative evangelical agenda, it falls to State Rep. Wayne Christian.

A man who takes his surname far too seriously.

State Rep. Christian has introduced HB 4224, a bill that does the work of what the state school board just voted to omit. The bill amends Section 28.0037 of the Texas Education Code to read, in part, like this:

“(b) Instructional elements for scientific processes: the student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”

It goes further, of course.

“…no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses.”

Now this sounds all well and good to religious evangelicals, who don’t want Johnny to get a bad grade just because he mouthed off in class that what teacher just said about fish crawling out onto the land was all wrong.

But perhaps Rep. Christian didn’t quite think this completely through, do you think?

After all, there is no wording to the effect that the position that the student ascribes to must specifically deals with Darwinism, speciation or the descent of man, or whether the student ascribes to a position antithetical to specifically those ideas.

In fact, the sky is the limit on what scientific theory the student may ascribe to, and in no way may the teacher give the student a failing grade because of that.

So this means that a student may ascribe to the position of Aristotle, that an object that is placed in motion by violent force remains in motion by the impetus that the violent force invests in the object, and that the object comes to rest in the object’s natural place when all of the impetus in it is used up.

What the heck, what was good enough for 1800 years’ worth of scholars should be good enough for Texas’ science students, huh?

The heck with Newton and Galileo, what did those guys have that Aristotle didn’t?

Oh, Newton invented calculus?

Heck, forget that. Calculus is hard.

Hats off to State Rep. Wayne Christian, our Texas Science Scholar of the Century.

Will the Brawl Brewing in Fort Bend ISD Be Defused?

If you are even mildly interested in local Fort Bend County school board politics, or in science education in general, your attention must have been drawn to an item of discussion that has cropped up in the run-up to the May 9^th elections where all too few voters will decide who will fill two seats on the Fort Bend ISD School Board.

While policies in tax dollar expenditures are a common topic in school board elections, the issue has become focused on the proposition to build a Global Science and TechnologyCenter whose construction has been recently proposed, and whose feasibility is currently under study by a select group of individuals who represent the district and the local community.

Position 2 on the Board of Trustees is currently held by Sonal Bhuchar who is running for re-election. She is being challenged on the ballot by oil and gas industry consultant Carlos Cain who opposes construction of the center. As outlined in this article, and in a previous posting of mine, the issue of whether or not to build this centerpiece structure in Fort Bend ISD has become the central point of contention in the Position 2 contest, and has also been addressed in the Position 6 race, currently an open seat, that is being sought by three individuals, two of whom, have also come out against the construction.

FortBendNow focused on Position 2, due to the presence of an incumbent I imagine, and due to the obvious differences in the opinions of the respective candidates on whether this science center should be built.

From FortBendNow:

“‘I am in favor of anything that will help our students academically,’ Cain said recently. However, ‘I can’t in good conscience justify spending $40 million or whatever when we don’t have enough copy paper for our teachers, when we’ve got kids sharing textbooks and we’re telling principals we can’t make all the building repairs that are needed.’”

And,

“‘How can you oppose something if you don’t know all the facts?’ Bhuchar asked, noting that a district-appointed feasibility committee, chaired by former SugarLand mayor David Wallace, has just begun the first of several community meetings seeking comment on the proposal. ‘Everyone has tremendous concerns over the financing of it, myself included. But let’s see what they come back with,” she said of the feasibility committee.’”

Both candidates exhibit legitimate concerns on expenditure of public funds. Bhuchar, however, hints around something that I think is almost assuredly in the mix: the fact that the center will not be financed by public funds.

In the reality that is FortBendCounty, taxpayers are irate over their property taxes and school taxes which are collected at the same time. Some of these are legitimate concerns, and some of these concerns, in my opinion are knee jerk reactions from people who don’t know, can’t know, and have little appreciation for how much a quality education costs in this day and age. They just don’t want to pay anything of any real substance for education and view all calls for additional educational funding with a venomous eye.

And given past practices in the district, they generally expect that they will also be asked to foot the bill for this project in Fort Bend ISD.

And therefore think they have a point to make and can take issue with this new construction project.

But what if Bhuchar’s words “…let’s see what they come back with,” referring to the feasibility committee’s work, means that there is a concerted effort underfoot to line up a collection of corporate sponsors to privately fund this project? Really, there are lots of science/technology-based corporations in the immediate area, not to mention the corporate employers of many of the parents of Fort Bend ISD students.

My question, then, is this: if the funding is found, and the Global Science and TechnologyCenter is planned and built with this private sector funding, is there any further objection to the project? Private sector funds in this case would never be used to buy textbooks, copier paper, or pay salaries of teachers. These funds are donated with the express purpose of seeing this thing get done.

I wonder about this, because I wonder what happens if, down the road, the feasibility study is completed, say one week before the election, and all of the objections of the candidates who opposed the project dissipate with the news that $25 million in private funding have been lined up.

That is, if this is what happens, having all of your eggs in one basket seems like a very bad idea because the whole issue could become moot.

National Center for Science Education Has a You Tube Home Page

This is an appropriate time to spread the word that the NationalCenter for Science Education, an organization that has been at the forefront in defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, now has a You Tube home page.

An appropriate time because starting on Thursday, March 26^th, the Texas State Board of Education will meet once more to finalize the Science TEKS that will govern how science will be taught in Texas’ public schools, and more importantly, what demands will be delivered to the publishers of science books so that Texas, a huge school textbook customer, will adopt their textbooks in the upcoming adoption cycle.

To what end you would ask. Why would the NCSE do this just now?

Well, for one thing, I as an interested party in science education have had to depend upon the kindness of strangers to provide first- or second-hand coverage of what transpires at these board meetings. People who “live-blog” the meetings. People who provide snippets of conversation through audio recordings.

But at the NCSE’s You Tube home page, you have one-stop shopping.

The NCSE has a very complete recording of the testimony of one of their own at a recent SBOE meeting. Dr. Genie Scott gave testimony on inclusion of the “strengths and weaknesses” argument in the Science TEKS, especially as found in the Biology curriculum vis-à-vis the teaching of evolution. It also shows her fielding questions from creationist and non-creationist board members alike.

It also shows Don McLeroy’s comments at the meeting, showing how by waving publications about, shouting who cites whom in them, McLeroy arrives at disingenuous conclusions that no one but another creationist would come to.

One part of this last set of videos has been “pulled” by You Tube, leaving the rest of us to speculate on whom had it pulled and why.

So if you want to go and watch our state school board in action, I suggest perusing the small library of videos there.

I, for one am enlightened, but not really surprised.

“Sowing Atheism” On Don McLeroy’s SBOE Recommended Reading List

In preparation for next week’s “final showdown” on the teaching of evolution in Texas public schools (honestly, I thought the final showdown took place in 1925 in Tennessee), Texas State Board of Education chairman and avowed young-Earth creationist, Don McLeroy, has a new book that he’d like the 15 members of the Texas school board to take a look at before they render a final vote on the wording that will set in stone for the next ten years how evolution will be taught in Texas public schools.

At issue is the “strengths and weaknesses” doctrine whereby students are asked to make educated judgments on how well, or how poorly a scientific theory, or even a scientific principle is supported by scientific evidence and observation.

A task that would daunt a university graduate student, let alone an 8^th grader whose agility in text messaging far outpaces his astuteness in the area of evaluation of scientific theory.

“Strengths and weaknesses” was voted out of the curriculum by a bare majority back in January, when the board last met to discuss this issue.

Nevertheless, McLeroy is bent on educating his flock, and help them see the light, by recommending that they read the book, Sowing Atheism: The National Academy Of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme To Teach Our Children They’re Descended From Reptiles as we see here. And they don’t even have to buy the book. They can download the entire book on .PDF, much to the dismay of Amazon.com which is trying to sell it to make money for its stockholders by hawking the book for $12.95.

I’ve read parts of this book. It was written with the chief intent of refuting the 2008 National Academy of Sciences book Science, Evolution, and Creationism. A book, they say, that has been sent “to every public school principal and every science teacher in America” (I’m still waiting for my copy). Sowing Atheism has lots of inflammatory statements in it. Here are but a few:

“These are farmers of darkness, plowing into the minds of our children, planting their poisonous seeds of elitist atheistic evolution. Their deception is so systematized, so interwoven with bits of truth, that it is difficult for unwary readers to see with immediate clarity the false syllogism which animates the entire content of the NAS book.”

“The Greek word translated as stupid is moron, where we get our word for a mentally dull and sluggish person. In my judgment, only morons—more than 11,500 [Christian pastors] morons in this case—could sign a letter maintaining that the “timeless truths of the Bible” are compatible with the billions of unpredictable aberrations of evo-atheism. What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?”

“Indeed, the NAS hierarchy pushes its evo-atheistic religion in the classroom with “ferocity,” and with a zeal that’s hardly matched in Christianity. We can’t properly call them evangelical, however, because that word comes from the Greek eu-angellion, meaning literally, well-message, more commonly, good news. Teaching children or adults that they are descended from reptiles is never good news. We should call evo-atheists mal-angelical, because it accurately describes what they’re doing: spreading hopelessly bad religious news.”

Now here is what I hope. I hope that the 15 members of the Texas school board take Don McLeroy’s suggestion to heart, and read this book from cover to cover. I couldn’t this morning because I am working with an empty stomach. But I want them to read the book and get out of it what I have been able to get from it. That this attempt by McLeroy and others of his ilk is nothing more than a naked assault on science by evangelical Christians. An action that completely supports, in the opposite sense, the whole point of Chapter 7 of the book that McLeroy recommends.

This effort to change how science is taught in Texas, specifically how evolution is taught, is nothing more than an assault on the “Establishment clause” of the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution. An attempt to bring the Christian religion back into the public school system.

And we all have Don McLeroy to thank for pointing this out by recommending this book.

Who Says Religion is at Odds With Science?

Traditionally we regard science and religion as opposing systems of ideas where one cannot prove or profit from the ideas of the other. St. Augustine made this point, and was a little less than charitable than is usually observed toward the system of knowledge he considered as anti-religious, math and natural science.

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”

St. Augustine must be spinning in his grave with today’s news that the religious are making good use of the devil’s tools to preserve and protect their icons of faith.

It’s in the Chron, an AP article by religion writer Eric Gorski.

It seems that every year about this time a rash of thefts takes place at Nativity scenes from coast to coast.

They keep stealing Baby Jesus.

Jesus in the manger keeps getting swiped, sometimes more than once a year. This comes to some consternation of churches and families that put together these displays because in some cases the statue representing Jesus is an objet d’art, and worth some significant coin.

For example:

“For two consecutive years, thieves made off with the baby Jesus figurine in Wellington, a well-off village of 60,000 in Palm Beach County, Fla. The ceramic original, donated by a local merchant, was made in Italy and worth about $1,800, said John Bonde, Wellington's director of operations.”

So these people don’t get mad, they get a GPS location system.

“So last year, officials took a GPS unit normally used to track the application of mosquito spray and implanted it in the latest replacement figurine. After that one disappeared, sheriff's deputies quickly tracked it down.”

Now I call that a fine marriage of science and religion, don’t you?

So Savior snatchers, be on notice. That Baby Jesus you just lifted just may be bugged.

Comer: TEA’s Neutrality on Evolution v. Creationism is Unconstitutional

Former Texas Education Agency Science Director, Chris Comer, has filed suit in federal court charging that her firing was a violation of the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

I was waiting for this. This is a neatly-timed lawsuit, I think, filed just as the TEA is set to review the state’s science curriculum. The review comes in advance of Texas decennial textbook adoption process, a process that affects how publication houses present science content in their textbooks, because Texas’ adoption policy is so monolithic, it affects how textbooks are written for national consumption.

Comer was forced to resign, it will be recalled, as a result of an email message that she forwarded internally within the TEA, and externally, that announced a a talk by National Center for Science Education board member Dr. Barbara Forrest, co-author of “Creationism's Trojan Horse”, a critique of intelligent design and its roots in creationism.

Charges were leveled by Lizzette Reynolds, a recent TEA hire, who came to the TEA from an appointed position at the Bush Regime’s Department of Education, that Comer had violated the TEA’s “Neutrality Policy” regarding the teaching of the origin of life and species. Specifically, that she violated the policy by showing a preference that was against creationism and intelligent design. Comer countered at the time that by forwarding the message, she was not indicating a preference, and simply attached the notation “FYI” to the forwarded message.

At first, Comer was given a “30-day suspension,” but as we later found out, this was just to give Reynolds enough time to dredge up other trumped up but related charges, and forced Comer’s ultimate resignation.

Now Comer is back, and with all guns blazing. Gone is the excuse that an “FYI” is not an endorsement, it isn’t but that wasn’t the issue in the first place. The issue is, as stated in Comer’s lawsuit, that

“The Texas Education Agency has a policy of purported “neutrality” on teaching creationism as science in public schools. By professing “neutrality,” the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory. Creationism, however, is not a valid scientific theory; it is a religious belief. The Agency’s policy is not neutral at all, because it has the purpose or effect of inviting dispute about an issue – teaching creationism as science in public schools – that is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.”

This issue has already been settled in the US Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the Court held that a Louisana law promoting the teaching of creationism as a science in concert with the teaching of evolution violates the Establishment Clause because “it lacks a clear secular purpose.” The Louisiana law essentially placed creationism and evolution on equal footing, each with equal weight, but in doing so, the Court found that the teaching of creationism had a religious purpose, and not a secular one. In Texas now, we have a similar issue, but with a different angle: the “Neutrality Policy” at the TEA is essentially the same as Louisiana’s law that gives equal weight to both creationism (or intelligent design) and evolution.

Why be neutral on a controversy when the conversants are not considered as equals?

So Comer has a strong case, and Supreme Court precedent behind her. What I hope, and this is very much out on a limb for me, is that the lawsuit will serve as a cloud over the TEA as it takes up its reconsideration of the state’s science curriculum.

If the TEA was not aware of it before, it should be now: the world is watching what they do.

TEA Clearing a Path For Intelligent Design?

It is fairly unnoticed, but a singular event occurred recently at the Texas Education Agency. In a fairly comprehensive article by Laura Heinauer at the Austin American Statesman, it was revealed that Chris Comer, the TEA’s director of science curriculum, a 9-year veteran of science wars on the TEA, has been fired recently by the TEA on charges that she showed bias toward one point of view with regards to science instruction.

The charges were leveled by one Lizzette Reynolds, a recent TEA hire, who came to the TEA from an appointed position at the Bush Administration’s Department of Education, and was previously a legislative director for then Governor George W. Bush. Reynolds was recently hired at the TEA as a “senior adviser on statewide initiatives”.

The charge? You’re actually not going to believe it. The charge was that Chris Comer was publicly displaying her bias with regard to a Bushie Science Favorite: Intelligent Design. In an email simply titled “FYI”, Ms. Comer informed a short list of people about an upcoming speaking event by Barbara Forrest, author of “Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse” a book that describes how Creationists are behind the political movement to introduce “intelligent design” into schools’ science curriculum.

Comer was given a 30-day paid suspension for that infraction last October, giving her antagonists enough time to dredge up other trivial charges that were eventually listed as causes for termination.

In short, Chris Comer was fired for having an opinion on science instruction. An opinion that she felt free to share with colleagues.

This is what I know about science: when science becomes a political football, science is doomed. When science is doomed, technology is close on its heels. Our society is in large part based on technology. When science becomes all about a political hack’s personal religious agenda, we all begin to suffer.

The names Chris Comer and Galileo Galileii have probably never appeared in the same sentence ever in history, but they have now. And the reason that they have has everything to do with religious persecution, persecution of a person based on their ideas and opinions that don’t agree with another’s religion.

And again, we find a Texas governmental agency in the spotlight, and again, find Texas to be a laughingstock in the world arena.

Nick Lampson Named Conferee to Lead Science, Academic, and Industry Legislation

You have to hand it to my congressman. He knows how to get on committees, and as a former science teacher and a committee member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, he is a good fit. That’s a good thing for us in Texas CD 22.

Based on two related bills recently passed in the House (HR 2272) and the Senate (S. 761) (Summary of S 761 here), COMPETES was enacted to promote science education in America and to put this country back in the lead in the fields of science and technology. While not yet signed by Bush, he would be a fool not to sign this bill as it 1) would make him look like a bigger idiot than he already looks and, 2) a veto in this case can be easily overridden. So this is going to happen.

The text of the press release appears below.

LAMPSON NAMED CONFEREE TO LEAD SCIENCE, ACADEMIC, AND INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Congressman Nick Lampson (D-Stafford) was named as a conferee to the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act ("COMPETES") conference committee. This legislative effort culminates work that began in the 109th Congress, and now is receiving a final push from the House Committee on Science and Technology, on which Congressman Lampson sits.

"I am honored to be a conferee on such important legislation that assists students, teachers, businesses, and hard-working Americans in so many academic and professional sectors," said Congressman Lampson. "This ground-breaking competitiveness and innovation initiative will greatly assist the southeast Texas economy, prepare our students for the future in the sciences, and continue to move our nation forward."

House and Senate conferees will meet in committee today to resolve differences between the America Competes Act (S. 761) and the 21st Century Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2272). The eventual conference report for the COMPETES Act will include several key pieces of legislation, including House-passed proposals authorizing a total of $23.6 billion over FY 2008 to 2010, including $21 billion for research and education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF), $2.5 billion for the research labs, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and other activities at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), and $96 million for early career awards and teacher professional development programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). An additional $70 million is authorized for these programs at DOE for FY 2011 to 2012.

"Congress has neglected such key science-related funding for too long, and now our great nation stands in jeopardy of being surpassed by other countries in leading our global scientific efforts and innovation," added Congressman Lampson. "I will continue to work hard to ensure we fully fund these initiatives, as this is not a Republican or Democrat issue - this is about the future of American academics and industries, and a better and stronger economy for future generations."

###