DefendingScience,Scientists,&NonScientists

This meeting was a joke. Only 10 people showed, including myself and a WSU faculty scientist that I recognized. Fitting for March, at the end there were only 4 including J. David Lehman, who is apparently taking a vacation from rescuing Mormons from their own religion.

The meeting consisted of the viewing of a 2 1/2 hour long John Calvert vehicle, “Teaching Origins Objectively.” The putrid propaganda piece focused on the mock trial the Kansas Board of Education held in 2005 as 23 “expert witnesses” tore apart a virtually undefended, though by no means abandoned, effigy of mainstream science. Notoriously, mainstream science had no witnesses because scientists who support evolutionary theory, which is pretty much all of them, boycotted. Attorney Pedro Irogonegary, who supported the boycott, was the only person at the trial that defended mainstream science. This subject was harped on during this 150-minute long brainwashing, which showed the testimony of the anti-science, Minority Report supporters. The Minority Report was the one adopted by the Kansas State School Board in 2005 that was supposed to allow for unqualified, stand-up comedy style, criticism of evolution in the classroom without the requirement that the criticisms have any backing of empirical evidence or strive for an explanation that is possible in the natural universe. As long as long it’s considered as “more adequate.”

The boycott makes sense to me. A scientific debate can only be achieved when only science is involved. Science demands that scientific methodology be used. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate as much bias as possible, including any a priori convictions by the observers, the scientists. It was already apparent that the board had a majority that supported the Minority Report, a document that when read demonstrated that a clear a priori conviction by those in charge of the kangaroo court. Thus, scientific methodology would not be respected, in fact openly argued against in the hearings, so a scientific debate could not be achieved. The only valid choice for a scientist to make is to not attempt to hold a scientific debate in that venue. This also explains why I was the only pro-science person left at the end of the meeting, but I don’t go to these things under the delusion that a scientific debate is possible. I stomach these things to try to do what I can to help those of the innocent public to wander in. It’s hard sometimes. The WSU faculty scientist left in obvious, though kind and quiet, disgust.

I said at the beginning of this recap that this meeting was a joke. All of these meetings are jokes that I never find to be the least bit humorous. I thought that this might because I’m having trouble identifying the punchline, so at the conclusion of the video and a short prayer led by Dr. Paul Ackerman, who said beforehand, “I feel that any discussion that will happen will be informal so let’s put the meeting to a close,” I asked for it.

“What’s the goal?”

Ackerman looked puzzled at the question, and stretched for, freely associated, “It constitutes research on origins. Gives information that is not available here at the university. I think the views and statements of Calvert are sound.” And then he said something about the “fallacy of the suppression of evidence” that I couldn’t understand in the context that he provided. Then he said, “Why are you asking? You asking it is intimidating.”

I said, “Perhaps you feel intimidated because you feel guilty for showing it.”

He asked me what I meant and I said, “CORR is a Christian organization. Many good things are done by Christian organizations, such as helping the poor and otherwise unfortunate. You seem to be Hell bent on using this group to promote scientific illiteracy.”

He said, “All of the CORR meetings since… … …”

I helped him, “Since Dave left and you started presenting?”

He continued, “Right. They haven’t been about this.”

I asked, “Then why did you show the video?”

He said, “Because it’s now available.”

I began to walk out and Ackerman mentioned to something to me about the boycott. I said, “They boycotted because the court was shown to be biased. ” I pointed out the fact that the board members presiding over the meeting were the three biggest anti-science boobs available on the board.

He said that it was only that way because scientists boycotted the meeting. I said a simple reading a the Minority Report shows bias, and the fact that the hearings were even held showed that. I finished with, “Stop playing dumb. You’re better than that.”

On my way out Lehman was following close behind me. I held the door open for him. He asked me, “Are you still beholden to evolution?”

I said the only thing I felt he could understand and would feed his lack of maturity in understanding that science and religion are different things, “I pray to it every night.”

I couldn’t do much at this meeting. No new faces were there for very long. I have noticed I’m losing my diplomacy, and I can’t find a way to feel the least bit bad about that.