North Texas Skeptic - Vol 20 No 01 - 2006

Magazine Overview

The January 2006 issue of The North Texas Skeptic, Volume 20, Number 1, features a cover story titled "Inevitable Justice" by John Blanton, which delves into the legal and scientific ramifications of the Dover creationism case. The magazine is published by The North Texas Skeptics and provides a platform for skeptical inquiry into paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Inevitable Justice: The Dover Creationism Case

John Blanton's lead article, "Inevitable Justice," examines the lawsuit filed by parents and the ACLU against the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania. The case, dubbed "Scopes redux," centered on the school board's 2004 decision to include Intelligent Design (ID) in its science curriculum. Blanton highlights the parallel to the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" and notes how the ACLU, having gained strength over 80 years, took up the case. Despite the board members' claims of secular intent, their decision to introduce material casting doubt on Darwinism led to legal challenges. The article details how the board members were required to deny their early denials in court and how proponents of ID, like Michael Behe, testified, acknowledging that the "Designer" could be anything, even "space aliens." The piece emphasizes that the ACLU's stance against anti-evolution has persisted while anti-evolution itself has barely budged.

Blanton recounts that the ACLU's defense of John Scopes in 1925, though a legal loss, succeeded in framing anti-evolution as a backward-looking attitude. The Dover case, however, involved no prohibition against evolution itself, but rather an attempt to introduce material casting doubt on Darwinism. The article points out the irony of board members who touted religious convictions publicly lying to cover their tracks.

Judge Jones' Ruling

The article extensively quotes and summarizes the ruling by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, delivered in December 2005. Judge Jones concluded that the Dover school board's ID Policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because ID is not science and cannot be separated from its creationist, religious antecedents. He refuted the presupposition that evolutionary theory is antithetical to belief in a supreme being, noting that scientific experts testified that evolution is accepted by the scientific community and does not deny the existence of a divine creator. Jones stated that while Darwin's theory is imperfect, it should not be used as a pretext to introduce religious hypotheses into science classrooms. He criticized the board members for lying to cover their tracks and for wasting the community's resources. The ruling permanently enjoined the defendants from maintaining the ID Policy and required them to pay nominal damages and attorneys' fees.

Judge Jones' opinion, running 139 pages, was available on the NTS Web site. The judge asserted that his decision was not activist but a response to the activism of an ill-informed faction on the school board, aided by a national public interest law firm. He emphasized the need to preserve the separation of church and state.

Icons of Evolution: A Critical Review

Another significant piece by John Blanton, "Icons of Evolution," reviews the anti-evolution book by Jonathan Wells and its accompanying video. Blanton notes that Wells, despite having a Ph.D. in biology, does not seem to use it in an ordinary sense. The article highlights that while the book presents ten "icons of evolution" that Wells claims are more show than substance, practicing scientists have demonstrated that Wells' points lack substance.

The review discusses the "Icons of Evolution" video produced by ColdWater Media, LLC. Blanton points out that the video uses the story of Roger DeHart, a former high school teacher who allegedly ran afoul of the curriculum for wanting to teach "what's wrong with evolution," as a narrative vehicle. The video features speakers from the Discovery Institute explaining the "icons" and claiming they are unfairly painted as creationists. Blanton notes that the video gives mainstream scientists like Eugenie C. Scott and Kenneth Miller an opportunity to defend evolution.

However, Blanton criticizes the video for omitting the book's critiques and for not addressing the peppered moth icon, which he believes has been thoroughly rebutted by scientists. He also notes that the video does not mention the Discovery Institute by name, despite its significant involvement.

The Case of Roger DeHart

Blanton delves deeper into the case of Roger DeHart, suggesting that the "Icons" video presents a one-sided narrative. He reveals that DeHart was directed to present an article demonstrating how scientists address "irreducible complexities" but failed to do so, instead finding an outline on evolutionary theory. A letter between lawyers indicates that DeHart did not present the materials as directed, did not retain them, and could not produce them. Blanton concludes that DeHart's halo slips when the whole story is considered, and the "Icons" video comes across more as propaganda than real science advocacy.

Other Articles and Columns

Homology

This section discusses how the "Icons of Evolution" video argues against Darwin's "tree of life" concept, which posits common descent. Blanton notes that traditionally, Intelligent Design proponents have not disputed common descent. He suggests that the argument against the tree of life is a tactical move by the Discovery Institute to gather religious fundamentalists and disrupt Darwinian evolution. The article explains that while the video uses homology (similar form) as an argument against common descent, it ignores the vast sea of evidence supporting heredity.

Survival of the Fittest

This piece addresses the evolution of drug resistance in bacteria, a topic mentioned in the "Icons" video. Creationist Scott Minnich introduces this as a point in favor of evolution, but the narrator explains why it is not. Blanton clarifies that medical scientists use Darwinism to understand antibiotic resistance and that resistant strains disappear when the drug is absent, with standard strains predominating.

"What's New" by Robert Park

This column includes a brief mention of the Dover decision, calling it a "bestseller" and reiterating Judge Jones' conclusion that teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is unconstitutional. It notes that the decision might deter other school boards from adopting similar policies and mentions Rick Santorum's reaction to the decision.

Skeptic Ink

This section contains several short items:

• "This is heaven? you may want to ask about the alternatives."": Questions the basis for a two-hour ABC special on heaven, given the lack of evidence.
• "Ghost story: while we're on the subject of scientific ethics."": Discusses ghost-written papers in medical journals, where academic researchers lend their names to articles promoting company products, comparing it to academic misconduct.
• "Evolution: things are a little sticky in Cobb County, Georgia."": Mentions a federal appeals court panel's apparent criticism of a ruling requiring the removal of a sticker from biology texts that stated evolution is a theory, not a fact.
• "Report cards: a lot of children are going to be left behind."": Refers to a report on science standards for K-12, noting that many states received low grades, with Kansas receiving an F-, and suggests the "No Child Left Behind" law may have contributed to low science scores by focusing testing on reading and math.
• "Columbine redemption: 'bad science produces bad consequences.'"": Discusses the "bad science" (evolution) that the father of Rachel Scott, a Columbine victim, believes led to the tragedy, and his organization's goal to remove evolution from schools.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The North Texas Skeptic consistently promotes a skeptical and scientific viewpoint, critically examining claims related to Intelligent Design, creationism, and evolution. The magazine advocates for evidence-based reasoning and the separation of church and state in public education. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of established scientific consensus and against the introduction of religious or pseudoscientific ideas into science curricula. The magazine also highlights ethical concerns in science and media reporting.