Open Thread: barking and tweaking edition : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

The essence of the conservative ideology is for the government to do as little as possible for the least of us, to allow intolerance and bigotry to run their natural course, and that individual economic self-interest is the be-all and end-all of human existence.

Rack Jite

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« That could be my motto | Main | Give me creaturely over preacherly any day »

Open Thread: barking and tweaking edition

Category: Open Thread
Posted on: February 19, 2006 1:22 PM, by PZ Myers

While we're threading openly, I'll also bring to your attention these fine collections of interesting bloggery:

Oooh, look! I also made some tweaks to the CSS, in an effort to distinguish myself from all those other scienceblogs out there.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/1265

Comments

Posted by: Torris | February 19, 2006 1:45 PM

Super Cool Tweaks!!!

Posted by: An Enquiring Mind | February 19, 2006 1:46 PM

Duck! It's Shooter Cheney!

Posted by: wamba | February 19, 2006 1:47 PM

Arf! Arf!

Posted by: Orac | February 19, 2006 2:10 PM

Thanks for the Skeptics' Circle plug. Always appreciated.

Since this is an open thread, I hope I won't be abusing PZ's hospitality too much if I take this opportunity to mention a problem I've been having. (PZ can certainly delete this if he thinks it's too far off base, of course.) I've been having big problems with the new ScienceBlogs blog since last night.

Movable Type won't let me publish new posts or rebuild the blog. Whenever I try to publish them, the application hangs. Attempts to rebuild the blog time out with an internal server error, as do any attempts to republish the posts and comments in question. Posts and comments show up in the control panel as "published," but do not show up on the blog. I have no idea what's wrong, but it seems like a database problem.

Believe it or not, I'm actually starting to miss Blogger.

I'll post an announcement on my old Blogspot blog when things are working again. In the meantime, I may publish what I had intended to publish there instead of on ScienceBlogs. Either that, or I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday, and bury the new blog in accumulated posts.

I'll also make sure that all comments appear where they belong, once things are fixed.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and sorry in advance to PZ if I've unduly abused his open thread.

Posted by: wamba | February 19, 2006 2:19 PM

Nomination for Ironic comment of the week:
Iowa State professor shunned over 'intelligent design'

(Guillermo) Gonzalez, who identifies himself only as a Protestant, says he is irritated with religious groups that use intelligent design to advance an agenda.

How much Discovery Institute money, provided by religious groups, has Gonzalez taken?

Posted by: coturnix | February 19, 2006 2:23 PM

Also, I am accepting submissions to the Circus of the Spineless, to be held on Science And Politics on February 28th.

Posted by: Charlie Wagner | February 19, 2006 2:25 PM

My Favorite Short Story

If you've never read SEEDS by Sherwood Anderson, now may be the time:

He was a small man with a beard and was very nervous. I remember how the cords of his neck were drawn taut.

For years he had been trying to cure people of illness by the method called psychoanalysis. The idea was the passion of his life. "I came here because I am tired," he said dejectedly. "My body is not tired but something inside me is old and worn-out. I want joy. For a few days or weeks I would like to forget men and women and the influences that make them the sick things they are."

There is a note that comes into the human voice by which you may know real weariness. It comes when one has been trying with all his heart and soul to think his way along some difficult road of thought. Of a sudden he finds himself unable to go on. Something within him stops. A tiny explosion takes place. He bursts into words and talks, perhaps foolishly. Little side currents of his nature he didn't know were there run out and get themselves expressed. It is at such times that a man boasts, uses big words, makes a fool of himself in general.

And so it was the doctor became shrill. He jumped up from the steps where we had been sitting, talking and walked about. "You come from the West. You have kept away from people. You have preserved yourself--damn you! I haven't--" His voice had indeed become shrill. "I have entered into lives. I have gone beneath the surface of the lives of men and women. Women especially I have studied--our own women, here in America."

"You have loved them?" I suggested.

"Yes," he said. "Yes--you are right there. I have done that. It is the only way I can get at things. I have to try to love. You see how that is? It's the only way. Love must be the beginning of things with me."

Read the whole story HERE:

http://www.online-literature.com/sherwood-anderson/1474/

Posted by: Ian Robinson | February 19, 2006 2:29 PM

BBC 4 Radio Pointer. This weeks BBC Radio 4 "In Our Time" was on human Evolution. It's good stuff. You can listen to it via the BBC website:

If you're reading this after 24th February you'll need to use the archive to listen to it. You can also get it as a podcast via iTMS for a week at:

Ian

Posted by: wamba | February 19, 2006 2:32 PM

Missed a detail:

Intelligent design belongs to philosophy and religion not science

In the 2005 Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District trial, the judge (a religious man and a creationist) found that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

A few points off a well-intentioned letter to the editor.

#10

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 2:38 PM

PZ, I see that DaveScot's taken another potshot at you with his toy cork gun over at UnavailingDissent. He seems to think you've taken a step to the dark side with your digital electronics analogies. It must be tempting not to use such analogies since any time a serious biologist does so, the IDists wet themselves with excitement. Good for you for not bowing to such temptation.

#11

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 2:47 PM

#12

Posted by: Anonymous | February 19, 2006 2:50 PM

Bible Guides Tour Museums to Counter Science

They are trailing Rusty Carter, a guide with Biblically Correct Tours. At a large, colorful panel along a wall, Carter reads aloud from a passage describing the disappearance of dinosaurs from the earth about 65 million years ago. He and some of the older students exchange knowing smiles at the timeline, which contradicts their interpretation the Bible suggesting a 6,000-year-old planet.

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?" Carter asks. A timid yes comes from the students.

"How do we know that to be true?" Carter says. There's a long pause.

"What day did God create dinosaurs on?" he continues.

"Six," says a chorus of voices.

"What day did God create man on?"

"Six."

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?"

"Yes," the students say.

#13

Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2006 3:01 PM

DaveScot is quite the fool. Suggesting that my ideas provide aid and comfort to Designists is like suggesting that Eric Davidson is also a fellow traveler of the Church of the Butt Propellor.

#14

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 3:11 PM

#15

Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 19, 2006 3:19 PM

Re: Bible Guide Tours ...

Oh, just shoot me now!

#16

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 3:29 PM

#17

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 3:31 PM

Oops - sorry about the multiple posts - all I was getting was an HTTP 500 error, so I thought the post didn't get through. Please delete all dupes.

#18

Posted by: wamba | February 19, 2006 3:35 PM

The phrase "dances with werewolves" comes up empty in a google search.

#19

Posted by: Michael I | February 19, 2006 3:36 PM

Just a note. As of right now, it appears that the links for "Skeptic's Circle" and "Carnival of the Godless" are linking to the same place.

#20

Posted by: wamba | February 19, 2006 3:37 PM

Oops, that's not true. I was searching Google news, not the whole web.

#21

Posted by: Monado | February 19, 2006 3:44 PM

It's not just in the U.S. -- Australians are complaining that their govenrment is toning down a major report of climate change and, in particular, left out their conclusions and recommendations.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sensitive-material-cut-from-climate-report/2006/02/19/1140283950664.html

#22

Posted by: No spam, please | February 19, 2006 4:11 PM

Researchers have developed a three-dimensional model that catches a virus in the act of infecting a host cell.

I was fascinated by a news article I saw about the above: "The researchers photographed about 15,000 frozen viruses and fed the images into a computer. The images were then used to construct a 3D-model based on common features." Imagine the delicate grabbing and balancing act required to maintain the 'docking' while the virus injects its rogue DNA into the victim bacterium.

Probably an FAQ (but I don't remember seeing the answer), but I gather that the ID-ists consider the bacteerial flagellum 'intelligently designed', yet the DNA injection apparatus of this virus looks just as complex to me. Do they say that it is 'intelligently designed' too? If so, what does that say about the designer? Why do they say the designer designed and implemented such nasties?

#23

Posted by: Chris | February 19, 2006 4:44 PM

The Bible Guide Tour folks have nothing on this guy and his fascinating theology. Please tell me it's satire.

#24

Posted by: Jamie | February 19, 2006 4:52 PM

Better buy your white kids some brown baby dolls:

. . . new studies have found that by this age�three months�many babies start to prefer faces of people from their own race to those of another race. This early favoritism may represent the first glimmers of racial prejudice, psychologists say.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm

But can any psychology folks here explain how you even detect racism in a 3 month old? The article states that the length of time a child looked at the image of a face indicates racial preference. Am I missing something, or does this seem not particularly convincing?

#25

Posted by: tacitus | February 19, 2006 5:17 PM

Chris, aliens == demons is a fairly common belief amongst fundamentalist Christians. The problem they have with aliens is that they aren't accounted for in the Bible. Since the only other sentient beings mentioned in the Bible are angels (and fallen angels) then "logically" any ET encounters must be with one of those.

It says much of their credulous nature that they would rather believe that these alien/demon encounters are real as opposed to simply saying that they didn't happen in the first place.

Apart from the sheer excitement that such a discovery would bring, should we detect an ETI signal, I would be fascinated to see what these fundies will make of it. I would bet a sizable amount that many will ditch the "demon" explanation for something a little more plausible (but equally as wrong).

#26

Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | February 19, 2006 5:28 PM

"A few points off a well-intentioned letter to the editor."

Not a good letter. Later on: "In certain Scandinavian countries, the appendices of babies are intelligently removed sometime after birth to spare them the agony of appendicitis in later life."

Where do people get such nutty ideas? And it would probably be both harmful and unethical, I can't believe the risk of such an operation in outweighs the risk of appendicitis. (I can't find any data to conclude either way, though.) And possibly stupid, we know that the appendix plays a role in the immune system.

"Please delete all dupes."

You would like that, wouldn't you?

#27

Posted by: Robert S. | February 19, 2006 5:49 PM

I'm wondering what folks are thinking of Leon Wieseltier's diatribe against Dennett's latest book?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/books/review/19wieseltier.html?ex=1298005200&en=9ecb4016f9ff8682&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

#28

Posted by: ekzept | February 19, 2006 5:56 PM

there's a paleoclimatic datapoint that present climate understate the increase in temperatures as CO₂ increases in concentration, balancing certain claims they overstate it.

it's just one datapoint, but disturbing if so.

#29

Posted by: ekzept | February 19, 2006 5:58 PM

I'm wondering what folks are thinking of Leon Wieseltier's diatribe against Dennett's latest book?

as i wrote, i couldn't make out what he was saying. maybe that liberal arts college education wasn't worth it after all.

#30

Posted by: ekzept | February 19, 2006 6:21 PM

Chris, aliens == demons is a fairly common belief amongst fundamentalist Christians. The problem they have with aliens is that they aren't accounted for in the Bible. Since the only other sentient beings mentioned in the Bible are angels (and fallen angels) then "logically" any ET encounters must be with one of those.

one of the significant problems i saw with Christianity, when i was nominally a Christian, was its problems with the idea of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. whether or not such life would be detectable or recognizable, a religion (or for that matter philosophy) which based its creed upon a visition by an aspect of a godhead to Our Green Planet for the purpose of saving us from Original Sin implied this Planet and this Species were singular and special.

options seemed: (a) we were special, or (b) the aspect of the godhead visited everywhere, or (c) few if anyone elsewhere was in need of salvation. well, "(a)" seems counter-Copernican. "(b)" seems a bit like Santa Claus. and if "(c)", being sinners makes us special and i really should join the Playboy Club.

i concluded that while a Christian hierarchy like Catholicism might make a valiant post factum attempt to adapt their theology to a confirmed contact with an offworld intelligence, such a transformation would not be accepted by all sects, would take a long time, and, if successful, would necessarily leave a theology markedly different from its present. it would, to me, confirm Christianity as a failed religion.

BTW, it's Mikolaj Kopernik's birthday.

#31

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | February 19, 2006 6:56 PM

BTW, anyone who wants to read Wieseltier's review of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" can read it at the International Herald Tribune -- these days the NYT seems to be missing the spirit of the Web and has gone back to paid content -- how very 1997. Fortunately, the IHT reprints many NYT articles -- and with open access.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/17/arts/idlede18.php

My opinion of the review is mixed. While I'm always glad to see bogus Evolutionary Psychology arguments deflated, I'm not convinced that's Wieseltier's only motive.

BTW, before members of the cult of Dennett eviscerate Wieseltier under the assumption that he is some Discovery Institute mole, realize at least that he has written some good stuff attacking ID in the past.

#32

Posted by: ekzept | February 19, 2006 7:10 PM

BTW, before members of the cult of Dennett eviscerate Wieseltier under the assumption that he is some Discovery Institute mole, realize at least that he has written some good stuff attacking ID in the past.

no cult here. as said, i'd be happy to evaluate and appreciate Wieseltier if only i dug what he was saying.

#33

Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2006 7:15 PM

And here I've gone and just posted a dismissive opinion of his review. I thought it was very poor -- he's indignant about something, all right, but he's so busy whining about materialism that he trips over his own transcendant shoelaces.

#34

Posted by: PZ Myers | February 19, 2006 7:16 PM

Oh, and I'm not a member of the cult of Dennett. I dislike Darwin's Dangerous Idea rather intensely.

#35

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | February 19, 2006 7:30 PM

Well, I think the key part of what Wieseltier is saying is the following:

"But we also have creeds, and the ability to transcend our genetic imperatives.'' A sterling observation, and the beginning of humanism. And then more, in the same fine antideterministic vein: ''This fact does make us different.'' Then suddenly there is this: 'But it is itself a biological fact, visible to natural science, and something that requires an explanation from natural science.'' Dennett does not see that he has taken his humanism back. Why is our independence from biology a fact of biology?

Exactly the key problem with EP. Once you accept that human behavior is more complicated than mere instinct, it doesn't make much sense to talk about human behaviors like religions "evolving" in a biological sense. There is nothing particularly "biological" about, for example, the idea of religion. One could easily imagine an society of intelligent computers or robots inventing a religion -- as indeed many SF authors have. Yes, there is the pop-science idea of "memes", but they don't act at all like genes and only "evolve" metaphorically, and in a Lamarkian sense to boot.

#36

Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | February 19, 2006 8:01 PM

"its problems with the idea of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe"

And think of the problems religions may have if we can communicate, however slowly and piecemeal, and those intellects have conceived religions totally different from our own anthropomorphic ideas!

I like to think of a succesful SETI as a much needed kick in some butts, my own probably included. (And a new playground for biologists and anthropologists.) Which is why such a small probability is still cherished.

#37

Posted by: Jamie | February 19, 2006 9:03 PM

One day left in the Great Backyard Bird Count.

#38

Posted by: Keith Douglas | February 20, 2006 8:13 AM

On the other hand (re: EP), the psychosocial "modules" (units of selection from the behavioural perspective) used by religion might have gotten coopted from others. This seems to be the thesis of Pascal Boyer's book. (http://prime.gushi.org/~kd/Professional%20Web%20page/books/reli.html towards the bottom) I agree that determining the evolutionary origin of something is difficult, but perhaps one step at a time - first discuss "naturalistic" origins in general via convention psychology and sociology of religion and then slowly link to EP, etc. (Incindentally, the SofRel has been around as a field for well over a hundred years by now - begining with, say, Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity, etc.)

#39

Posted by: Dianne | February 20, 2006 9:32 AM

Tweaking the design: Can we get pirate mode back?

"And think of the problems religions may have if we can communicate, however slowly and piecemeal, and those intellects have conceived religions totally different from our own anthropomorphic ideas!"

The problem is that they'd probably just conclude that the aliens were sinners and the religion demon worship or some such and completely ignore or become actively hostile when faced with any challenges to their own views.

#40

Posted by: John M. Price | February 20, 2006 10:59 AM

Academic Freedom? or Tyranny of Faith?

The state where I was born is trying to offend me greatly, it seems. Here is the full text of a Senate Bill (SB1331) regarding community colleges and universities and the instruction they provide:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 15, chapter 14, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ALTERNATIVE COURSEWORK AND MATERIALS

START_STATUTE15-1881. Alternative coursework or materials

Each university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents and each community college under the jurisdiction of a community college district shall adopt procedures by which students who object to any course, coursework, learning material or activity on the basis that it is personally offensive shall be provided without financial or academic penalty an alternative course, alternative coursework, alternative learning materials or alternative activity. Objection to a course, coursework, learning material or activity on the basis that it is personally offensive includes objections that the course, coursework, learning material or activity conflicts with the student's beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.

Ben Edwards would be proud. As s holder of a California Community College Credential, I am insulted that anyone would consider this.

I will leave it to you all to admire this work....

#41

Posted by: John M. Price | February 20, 2006 11:07 AM

But can any psychology folks here explain how you even detect racism in a 3 month old? The article states that the length of time a child looked at the image of a face indicates racial preference. Am I missing something, or does this seem not particularly convincing?

Actually this is a standard measure of interest/boredom, etc. Moving it to racism is likely in the discussion section of the paper. Keep the methods and results as those are data and likely solid. Take any inference from the discussion with some salt. (Or Mrs. Dash, as the case may be...!)

#42

Posted by: John M. Price | February 20, 2006 11:16 AM

Eggs? EGGS???

You put eggs in the banners?

I'd 've thought dubloons and a sword or two.

#43

Posted by: wamba | February 20, 2006 1:59 PM

Another Meyers sighting in The Minnesota Daily:

My question: What are intelligent design proponents afraid of? Do they think if we keep delving into science, we are going to disprove God? If Kyle Potter is right that Behe has not allowed his work to be peer-reviewed, I would be very skeptical of taking anything he has to say as fact. If Behe (and the �other scientists� I hear about but are never named) is withholding his work, he can be scared of nothing other than being discredited. Maybe he is, as University Morris campus biology professor PZ Meyers says, �a fraud.� Meyers said after Behe�s speech (which I attended as well) at Tate Hall on the Twin Cities campus, �This was a completely empty talk, a hollow shell with a few buzzwords and fallacious analogies.� It is funny how much misinformation you can communicate with analogies; religion is good at that.

This Meyers fellow sounds like a bright guy. I should look him up.

#44

Posted by: Theo Bromine | February 20, 2006 2:51 PM

If only you had put the Simpsonification link in here, then you could have had "Barting and Tweaking".

#45

Posted by: ekzept | February 20, 2006 5:09 PM

yeah, i want PIRATE MODE!

then again, i might get back to Drab Reality and mention the Discovery Institute's latest prank.

BTW, why do those institutionalized at the Discovery Institute care about things like the FCC's proposal to reform cable franchising? is that about science, too?

#46

Posted by: wamba | February 21, 2006 9:34 AM

Grauniad reports on Creationism in the UK

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday February 21, 2006
.
growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
...

#47

Posted by: wamba | February 21, 2006 1:21 PM

Call for Intelligent Design coalition
It's written by a Pastafarian, and it's a spoof.

#48

Posted by: Torbjorn Larsson | February 21, 2006 2:55 PM

"The problem is that they'd probably just conclude that the aliens were sinners and the religion demon worship or some such and completely ignore or become actively hostile when faced with any challenges to their own views."

Yes, some would do that. But others may (have to) be as tolerant to those new religions as they are to the old they share this Earth with. And it may be much harder for them.

#49

Posted by: wamba | February 21, 2006 5:14 PM

Jerry Bergman says: scientific study proves God is indeed creator

I began extensive library research, using only secular academic literature, to determine whether these structures were, in fact, vestigial as claimed by Darwinists. One by one, I found documented evidence of functions for all of the putative vestigial organs commonly listed for humans. I then selected the next proof of evolution and, again, delved into the literature, producing several articles, monographs, or book chapters on my findings.
.
Thirty years later, I was able to eliminate all of the major (and most of the minor) arguments used to support Darwinism (and I am still working on refining my research).
.
At some point, I realized that the case against Darwinism was overwhelming and, conversely, the case in favor of the only alternative was scientifically very strong. My research eventually caused me to reject the macroevolution scenario based on mutations as the ultimate source of the genetic information from which natural selection selected.
.
Eventually, after much study (my library now contains more than 15,000 books on Darwinism, intelligent design, atheism and apologetics) I came to accept orthodox Christianity. I strongly believe apologetic study is critical to determine the validity of a theological conclusion. I typically cringe when people claim that intelligent design is accepted on faith.

Pity he didn't have time to include a single shred of that evidence in his article.

#50

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | February 21, 2006 11:36 PM

Pity he didn't have time to include a single shred of that evidence in his article.

I can't imagine what it would have consisted of. Well, I guess I can imagine but I agree; it would have been nice if he included his evidence.

#51

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | February 22, 2006 12:07 AM

I wish I had discovered this site sooner. I just finished "PZ Myers' Own Original, Cosmic, and Eccentric Analogy for How the Genome Works -OR- High Geekology". It had a different kind of feeling to it. Sure it talked about the danger of using an analogy to understand the genome but it wasn't the same as a recent post on the use of metaphors. It was fun. I think the change has to do with the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" prevalent here. I found the same thing on other older posts too. The one on digit development. (I can't find it now) I think he even had a light hearted jab at a IDer (as opposed to a voracious attack) if I'm not mistaken.

#52

Posted by: wamba | February 22, 2006 8:11 AM

Pity he didn't have time to include a single shred of that evidence in his article.

It's also a pity he didn't invest a small percentage of the time he allegedly spent investigating biology to study up on the historical, philosophical and moral underpinnings of Christianity.

#53

Posted by: wamba | February 22, 2006 3:47 PM

What the USA will be like soon if the converged political/religious right has its way:
Pastors and prophecies call Uganda election

KAMPALA (Reuters) - Hundreds of born-again Christians drop their Bibles and begin singing songs hailing Uganda's long-serving President Yoweri Museveni.
.
A pastor tells them he will only bless those who vote for the former rebel leader, and compares Museveni's rivals in Thursday's election to half-cooked food not ready to be served.
.
"If you deceive me and do not vote for Museveni, I will pray that you suffer," he tells the two-day prayer meeting in Kampala, before leading a chorus of "Museveni tajja genda" ("Museveni won't go" in the local Luganda tongue).
...
Janet, who is standing for parliament for the first time, has cited divine instruction for her candidacy and told a local newspaper she was acting on orders from above.
...

#54

Posted by: wamba | February 23, 2006 10:04 AM

Follow the money, part A:
Dover ID bill: $1M

#55

Posted by: wamba | February 23, 2006 10:08 AM

Follow the money, part II:
Public schools need open debate on intelligent design

The Badger-Herald
by Joelle Parks
Thursday, February 23, 2006
...
William Dembski, one of the leading supporters of intelligent design, is offering a $1,000 award to the first teacher in Wisconsin who would challenge the policy by teaching intelligent design as science within a public school curriculum.
...

$1000 for you, $1000000 for your school district. Hmmmm.

... It started with no prayer in public schools and has led to a ban on teaching intelligent design in public schools.

Now why would she compare ID to a religious issue?

#56

Posted by: wamba | February 23, 2006 11:51 AM

Malene Arpe says:

I happen to think religion is destructive, oppressive and overburdened by silly hats. I also think the only reason Christianity has more adherents and respectability than, say, the Raelians or the Scientologists, is that the Christians came along first.