Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

[Barry Karr <SkeptInq@AOL.COM>]

Items Collected Under the Banner of Science Under Siege
    
1)  Skeptics Say Georgia Department of Education Should be Ashamed of Ignorance,
Not Evolution

Amherst, N.Y. (January 30, 2004)-Yesterday, Georgia's State Superintendent
of Schools Kathy Cox spoke at an afternoon press conference to explain why
the word evolution is missing from the proposed new Georgia Performance
Standards Biology Curriculum. 

Cox told the press that the concepts of evolution would still be taught
under the curriculum proposal but that the word evolution itself-which she
repeatedly called a "buzzword"--would not appear in it. She also said that
the omission would not apply to new textbooks or include a gag rule on
teachers. Cox said the proposal was partly intended to alleviate pressure on
teachers in socially conservative districts where parents object to its
teaching.

"It will be a sad day in science education if this proposal passes," says
Paul Kurtz, Chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a non-profit organization that monitors
trends in pseudoscience and other unscientific beliefs. "The Georgia
Department of Education is undermining science education to pacify a few
ignorant residents. Evolution is an important scientific fact, and every
student should graduate from Georgia schools knowing the word and what it
means."

Kurtz says that in the nearly thirty years that CSICOP and its publication
Skeptical Inquirer have been monitoring attacks on science and science
education, the assault by creationists, "intelligent design" proponents, and
religious fundamentalists has been the most enduring and effective. Despite
the fact that evolution is accepted by the scientific community, recent
polls have found that 68 percent of Americans favored teaching creationism
in schools (Gallup News Service 2000) and a shocking 16 percent of Americans
want no mention of evolution in schools at all (PFAW 2000).

"In four years, half of the ten states that previously deleted the 'e-word'
from their science standards have restored it," says Eugenie Scott, a CSICOP
fellow and the executive director for the National Center for Science
Education (www.ncseweb.org). "Georgia has gone in the opposite direction --
from mentioning evolution to removing it! If Georgia really wants to have
'world class science standards' it has to have standards that reflect the
consensus of science, which is that evolution happened."

A statement on the Georgia Department of Education Web site says that "[t]he
unfortunate truth is that evolution has become a controversial buzzword" and
that the department does not "want the public or our students to get stuck
on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted
theories for biology."

Kurtz rejects the description of the word evolution as a "controversial
buzzword." He says that the Georgia Department of Education is caving in
reaction to misinformation and religious fundamentalists who reject modern
science. "What we're seeing in Georgia is simply another manifestation of
the problems we've seen in other states like Ohio, Kansas, Missouri and
Texas," he says. "The so-called controversy about evolution has been created
out of thin air by a minority of religious conservatives and well-funded
propaganda campaigns conducted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the
Institute for Creation Research in California, and other groups. Anyone who
understands science sees the truth and significance of evolution.
Unfortunately, there are some who want fewer Americans to understand
science." 

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP) is a 501(c)3 non-profit science and education organization
dedicated to critically examining paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs
and claims. CSICOP publishes its official journal, Skeptical Inquirer, six
times each year. The official Web site for CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer
magazine is www.csicop.org. 

Contact: Kevin Christopher
Phone: 716 636 1425 x 218
Fax: 716 636 1733
E-mail: press@csicop.org

Source: 
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/30evolution.html


FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER WEIGHS IN -
These comments were released on Jan. 30th by the Carter Center: "As 
a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at 
Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's 
attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students. 
Her recommendation that the word 'evolution' be prohibited in 
textbooks will adversely effect the teaching of science and leave 
our high school graduates with a serious handicap as they enter 
college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted. 
Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be 
inevitable if this proposal is adopted, and additional and 
undeserved discredit will be brought on our excellent universities 
as our state's reputation is damaged. All high school science 
teachers, being college graduates, have studied evolution as a 
universal element of university curricula, and would be under 
pressure to suppress their own educated beliefs in the classroom. 
The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our 
state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in 
the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no 
incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning 
geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that 
stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to 
defend our religious faith. Fortunately, it is the responsibility of 
the State Board of Education to make the final decision on the 
superintendent's ill-advised proposal."

Source: 
http://www.11alive.com/help/search/search_article.aspx?storyid=42289

Thanks To Dave Thomas  http://www.nmsr.org/

2)   Op-Ed Contributor: The Stars Have Voted
February 3, 2004   New York Times
By ERIN SULLIVAN 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/opinion/03SULL.html?ex=1076822338&ei=1&en=959810997674a506

SANTA FE, N.M. - If seeking the presidency is like reaching
for the stars, then why not look to the stars - and the
other heavenly bodies - for insights on the candidates. The
Democratic hopefuls face seven primaries today. Here's what
their astrological charts can tell voters about their
character - and who may have a celestial advantage: 

Wesley Clark was born on Dec. 23, 1944, with Sun in
Capricorn and Moon in Aries, two leadership and executive
signs. He has a warrior signature: when civilized it
indicates a master strategist; at its most martial, it is
ruthlessly determined and messianic. For him, this year is
an astrological rite of passage into elder status. His
conservative Capricorn nature is now at its most rigorous,
so what we see is who he is. Endowed with wit and a
youthful nature, General Clark is a man's man. His
horoscope shows him at a high point of achievement, having
opportunities to be influential and willing to take what he
can get. 

To Read the Entire Article Visit:  

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/opinion/03SULL.html?ex=1076822338&ei=1&en=959810997674a506

Response From  
Kevin Christopher
Public Relations Director
Skeptical Inquirer
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:24 PM
To: 'letters@nytimes.com'
Subject: February 3rd, 2004, op-ed by Erin Sullivan

 
To the editors:

Shame on the New York Times for publishing the February 3rd, 
2004, op-ed by Erin Sullivan, "The Stars Have Voted." While I 
am not myself a professional astrologer, I can see that 
Sullivan's column was written under the sign of Taurus: pure bull!
 
There's no evidence whatsoever that astrology can tell us 
anything about a person's character, history, or future. In 
fact, it has been debunked time and again by skeptics.
 
Surely you receive and reject scores of op-ed contributions 
each day that provide far more interesting and serious 
commentary on the characters and motivations of the 
Democratic candidates than Sullivan's astrological pseudoscience. 
 
I hope the appearance of Sullivan's op-ed does not signal a 
 new trend for the New York Times opinion pages. What would 
appear next? Op-eds suggesting that weapons inspectors in 
Iraq use divining rods to look for weapons of mass destruction?
 
Kevin Christopher
Public Relations Director
Skeptical Inquirer

Response From John Allen Paulos

Hi Barry,
        I assume you saw yesterday's OpEd in the NYT on astrology and the
candidates' horoscopes. It was a straight piece by an astrologer with no
whimsy in it. Amazing! In any case, they at least ran my letter, included
below.
                                Best, John
The New York Times
February 4, 2004, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

HEADLINE: The Fault Is Not in Our Stars, but in Ourselves

To the Editor:

 "If seeking the presidency is like reaching for the stars, then why not
look to the stars -- and the other heavenly bodies -- for insights on the
candidates.

" With that as justification, Erin Sullivan uses the public personas of
the candidates to cast their horoscopes ("The Stars Have Voted," Op-Ed, Feb.
3).

Maybe this sort of thing can be extended to other historical issues.

If throwing tea into Boston Harbor will have consequences for our war with
Britain, why not look at tea leaves to see what these might be?

Scientific issues might also be clarified. If we're unsure whether our
industrial practices threaten biodiversity, why not study biorhythms to
gain insight? Maybe we should keep on eye on black cats, too.

JOHN ALLEN PAULOS
Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 2004

Boosk by John Allen Paulos include:   
A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market 
Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences
A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper 


3)  Website to Check out:  http://www.savethehubble.org

To: United States Congress and the National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationPlease use my name in petitioning the United States Congress and NASA to not allow the Hubble to be retired, so it can continue to be used for scientific purposes, as well as for educational outreach.