A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute shows public school science standards in Pennsylvania are given a “D”, as compared to Ohio, Maryland,  New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, which were in the “A-” to “B” range.  The top scorer in the US was California.

Why only “D” for Pennsylvania?  The full report details how Pennsylvania is full of vague standards with little sense of scientific rigor or a coherent ordering through the grades.

The Pennsylvania science standards are generally poor. If a bright spot exists, it’s in the earlier grades, where the coverage does occasionally earn reasonable marks for rigor. In high school, however, the material generally descends into flabbiness and disorder. By no means could these standards serve as the foundation for a sound science curriculum for students in the Keystone State.

Throughout the standards for science, there was little in terms of expectations.  The reviewers wrote:

In addition, much of the high school content simply demands too little of students. For instance, biology standards scattered among the tenth-grade expectations are pitched at such a low level that they do not merit discussion.

But, what really hurt the ratings was the lack of clarity:

[T]he standards are written in such vague language as to be incomprehensible, as in the glossary definition of the rock cycle: “The process by which rocks are formed, altered, destroyed, and reformed by geological processes and which is recurrent, returning to a starting point.” It is a “process” made up of “processes” and returns to a starting point?

No wonder the kids are confused.   The drafters of the standards have no idea of how to describe basic concepts.

Finally, the standards fail to support any basic science that might conflict with theology.  For example, human evolution, which as in the 2002 standards, was dropped from the 2009 standards! A the same time there was support of pseudoscience that has been creeping into science classes throughout the US:

Other standards foster the insinuation of pseudoscience into science content by inviting teachers to “teach the controversy” about evolution and global warming, when delineating the specific scientific content they should learn would obviously be preferable.

As written here and elsewhere, Governor Corbett’s plan to improve education is to slash budgets and while providing state vouchers to religious schools.

It is time real standards for real science are adopted statewide.  Let’s hope this report will be a wake up call for legislators to get to work on the real issues of day.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

“ To my colleagues Robert Plomin, Günter Wagner, Martin Nowak, and Brian Greene, among many other scientists on the Foundation’s payroll: have you no shame at all at about taking money from Templeton—an organization that’s just given three million dollars to fund studies of Jesus, and about how to reconcile neuroscience with a nonexistent soul? And to hire a pastor in residence to counsel those who get into trouble when trying to reconcile brains and souls? Is there no organization so soaked in religious woo that you scientists won’t take money from it?  

I must say that although these scientists turn their back on Templeton’s pro-woo activities so they can fund their own pro-science initiatives (e.g., The World Science Festival), I find that kind of cognitive dissonance contemptible. In the end, such scientists, by lending their Big Names to Templeton’s website, only put their imprimatur on the Foundation’s pro-religion and pro-right-wing activities.  I call that selling out.

And I call on journalists to question these scientists how they take Templeton money with one hand while covering their eyes with the other.”

Militant?  Our detractors, of course, would say so and are the first to hurl this accusation in our general direction.  They have to, otherwise the voices of sanity and reason might seek their their hermetically sealed bubbles.  All so-called “Gnus” must constantly deal with such epitaphs simply because we dare to speak what is an obvious and unimpeachable truth.

I wish it weren’t so, but direct experience tells me that Coyne’s cry for help from journalists will fall mostly on totally deaf ears; they are too enamored with woo of all stripes themselves to  understand the contemptible, cognitive dissonance of which Coyne accuses them.  Just take a quick gander at the writings of Pittsburgh’s own Jack Kelly if you have any doubts.  This contemptible little squeak of a man believes with all of his being that he - in the fine tradition of the Thomas Sowell * Cal Thomas * Sean Hannity * Bill O’Liellly * Pat Buchanan School of Journalism in which he is a magna cum laude graduate – has carte blanch  license to spew as much misinformation, disinformation, distortions of the truth, incoherent nonsense and outright lies to his audience that he wishes.   It matters little to him what negative or challenging reactions he might get from his audience.  Why do I say that?  Simple.  It’s because he knows that he can simply ignore any challenges that come his way.

Jack Kelly’s not writing for reality-based people.  He’s working to shore up support from and give more encouragement to the lunatic fringe in his audience.

His employer is guilty of the very same crime.  The simple fact is, the Post-Gazette needs these readers, and the income their subscriptions bring to them.  From the Gazette’s perspective, lunatic dollars are just as green as the dollars spent by reality seekers.  So why not nurture that angle as long as they possibly can for the profit that can be wrenched from it?  Seriously now, think about is for a nanosecond.  What else could possibly explain Kelly’s continued employment at the Post-Gazette or Thomas Sowell’s or Cal Thomas’ syndicated columns appearing in newspapers throughout the US?

Jack Kelly – like his brethren of the school of journalism of which he is a member – is shameless.

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

By the way, his new book has nothing to do with atheism; it is about science.  This means that a noted international scholar from Oxford University, who will speaking on the wonders of science, is denied a public venue because of his (lack of) religion.  Just incredible.  What century are we living in?

Clergy have never been an official part of the 10 remembrance ceremonies at ground zero, which include one six months after the attacks and one on each 9/11 anniversary since. Instead, the events have featured moments of silence during which audiences may reflect and pray.

A little slow on the uptake, the religious right are all in twitter over this “new” development.

“It’s unbelievable,” says Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. “We live in a country where the overwhelming majority of people identify as Christian or have a religion, and clergy were some of the first people to respond on 9/11 to minister to victims.

Excuse me? I thought for sure it was firefighters, police and other first responders. You can be upset, but let’s not rewrite history. Or, redefine terminology to suit your needs.  In a recent article, the Christian Post quoted John Long, who bizarrely concludes

“You can’t have a memorial service without religion. If it wasn’t for God and his direction, you couldn’t have memorial services to begin with.”

This comes as a real shock to atheists. In fact, memorial services are exactly what atheists, agnostics, and non-religious folks often hold to remember those gone.  Fortunately, the Mayor’s Office is going to continue doing what they have been doing for the past ten years.  I am pleased to hear that the commeration will be focused on remembering the lives lost and not on religious (or even political) speeches that often serve to divide rather than unite.

“When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position,”

Unfortunately, the view that we look to scientists to understand science is not the norm.  Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are well known for ignoring basic scientific principles. Richard Dawkins summarized the absurdity of the situation in  a recent blog:

In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Check out his entire, no-holds-barred essay.  It is time to stop being polite and start fighting back against ignorance.

At his new blogging site, PZ Meyers writes:

Ken Ham is putting up a for-profit theme park, has already got big sales tax breaks from the state of Kentucky, and now we learn that he’s also getting a major break on property taxes.

“The property tax agreement means the Ark Encounter would pay 25 percent of the local taxes due on 800 acres of property where the $150 million theme park will be built. Mayor Rick Skinner says the reduced property taxes will generate far more revenue than unoccupied land.”

Well, with that logic, we all ought to get tax cuts on our homes to just slightly more than the valuation of an undeveloped lot.

We need to stop giving takes breaks  to this sort of BS and start funding real science.  Stories like this are an embarrassment for the United States.  Just how bad is it?  This graph shows exactly how much out of sync we have become with regard to accepted scientific principles (click on image to enlarge).

Not surprising, the show was filled with unending and unquestioned claims that: heaven is real, god is real, I saw it with my own eyes, etc, etc. By inference, they could have added that: all dreams are real, Santa Claus is real, and the voice telling me to eat chocolate ice cream is real.  Feel free to vote in their unscientific poll, which adds to their unscientific approach to the topic.

On the plus side, there was a short segment with a scientist, who confirmed that one’s worldview (atheist or religious) can shape your interpretation of events. That might also explain why the ABC correspondent, Bob Woodruff, felt force to keep saying AAHHH-theist, like it was a bizarre cult. If you want an antidote to the pabulum on ABC tonight, I would suggest watching the Beyond Belief talks from the Science Network.

The story of evolution, we have been told, is the story of the survival of the fittest. The strong eat the weak. The creatures that adapt to the environment pass on their selfish genes. Those that do not become extinct.

He goes on to say this image of evolution is being challenged and that evolution is now seen to include “sympathy, empathy, cooperation and collaboration.“  Unfortunately, the picture he paints is far too dramatic, as it has been known for some time that social behaviors are available to the forces of natural selection.  Just think about the development of communication and language.  Talking to oneself just won’t cut it; it is dependent on social interaction.  Language skills evolved because it led to greater interaction.  “You scratch my back and I will scratch yours” led to healthier backs and longer lives.

It is true that a recent rash of books have extended this line of logic and have produced some surprising results to the extent of cooperation.  There have been also interesting demonstrations about the benefits and risks of deviating from group norms.  The Evolution of Altruism on this very topic was presented by philosopher Andy Norman at the April 2011 meeting of the Center for Inquiry/Pittsburgh.

David Brooks did a fairly good job of presenting some the newer findings, but then ended the column with what was a truly baffling conclusion:

But the big upshot is this: … if cooperation permeates our nature, then so does morality, and there is no escaping ethics, emotion and religion in our quest to understand who we are and how we got this way.

There is no escaping religion?  I think he has it upside-down.  There is no need for religion.  Robin Marie of An American Atheist summed it up with these questions:

Haven’t theists and other conservatives been telling us for decades, nay centuries now, that the reason we will always need religion is because without it, we would all become relativistic nihilists? Wouldn’t the increasing evidence that this is not the case therefore suggest, that we don’t need religion?

An obvious consequence of this new line of research is that we evolved a sense of right and wrong.   In fact, it is the dependence on religion for moral guidance, which has become the weak sibling, destined for extinction as we learn more about evolution.

an independent and outside review of all allegations of sexual abuse against priests during [Bevilacqua’s] Pittsburgh tenure.

Dayvoe pushes the argument even further and rightfully argues

So I’ll say it again. Given the Church’s atrocious behavior protecting it’s priesthood, why should we spend pay any attention to any statement of sexual morality from the Roman Catholic Church?

In an earlier post, he made some choice comments about Rick Santorium’s possible run for the presidency:

Lil Ricky sez: America belongs to God. Tell me where in the Constitution it says that.

He also waxes philosophical on choice. Did you know that Roe v Wade was a restriction of freedom? According to Ricky it is. He says:

Well, if you lived in the trenches of the social conservative movement you’ve seen this in America. You saw it in the issue of life. When a group of judges decided, ‘Well, we’re just smart enough and we’re going to take that decision away from you. We’re going to take that power away from you to make that decision.

I guess he means that by allowing women to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, the Supreme Court restricted the rights of that subset of Americans who feel they are entitled to make those decisions for everybody else.I am so happy Ricky’s thinking of running for President. This is going to be so much fun!

And finally, on the news that the teaching of creationism continues to flourish in public school classrooms, Dayvoe states

I’ve said it before. If we are a society in decline, this is one of the reasons – a willful, stubborn, arrogant, religiously-supported scientific ignorance.

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said on Real Time recently, the beauty of science is that it’s still true, even if you don’t believe it.

There should be no compromise with science.

It is great to see such clear and concise thoughts in one the most read political blogs in Pittsburgh.