Pharyngula

Posted by: MikeM | April 12, 2008 5:31 PM

I went to the grocery store a few minutes ago. In the checkout line, there was a slot for National Geographic magazine, but I already subscribe to it. Except... It wasn't filled with National Geographic magazines; it was filled with Harvard Lampoon's parody of National Geographic.

"Paris Hilton by night." That's a mental image I did not need.

And yes, I bought one.

I wonder how many little old ladies got home and said, "Huh?".

Posted by: j | April 12, 2008 5:51 PM

Wal-Mart fires videotape company without warning. Said company ends up selling Wal-Mart footage to unions and plaintiff's lawyers.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/569277.html

Posted by: Sili | April 12, 2008 6:11 PM

Turkish secularists hold rally (video - sorry)

I promise this will be my last attempt to make thousands of atheist cephalopodishists flood in and love Kris Straub Good thing I don't believe in gods and thus have no morals that might prevent me from breaking that promise.

Posted by: FutureMD | April 12, 2008 6:46 PM

Remember Baghdad Bob? I was thinking recently: what if his statements were meant as satire of the transparent lies coming out of our administration and none of us got the joke?

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 12, 2008 7:02 PM

Galileo legal process ticks over
Wow, those Inquisitor types never give up.

Posted by: thalarctos | April 12, 2008 7:34 PM

hey, DavidM--

I know you're a paleontologist, but I bet you know your way around the neontology world a bit, too.

If you had an idea about squamous epithelial cell deveopment in carnivores at the gross anatomical/histological level, and you wanted to check it out with someone, where would you start? In other words, who do you think of when you think about the comparative anatomy of skin?

I am looking at PubMed to see who's active in that area, but just thought I'd check with you because you might know off the top of your head, too.

and I certainly wouldn't turn down any suggestions from anyone else, either, if anyone comes to mind.

thx!

Posted by: myth | April 12, 2008 8:53 PM

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_585710.html

Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.

this was just a taste, be sure to read the rest.

Posted by: Damian | April 12, 2008 10:18 PM

"Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interview"

It is not as though creationists have a long track record of lying through their teeth, is it? I notice that you haven't provided any evidence for this claim?

Oh, you'd like some evidence to the contrary?

(1) A letter from the producer Mark Mathis, from April 2007, clearly stating that the film was to be called "Crossroads: The intersection of science and religion", as well as the blurb from the Rampant Films website making out that the film was a neutral exploration:

I'm gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆.

(2) The Expelled domain name was purchased well before those on the side of evolution had even been asked to participate. The Crossroads domain was never purchased:

Busted: Expelled producers lied from the start

(3) Ben Stein admits in an interview with WORLD that he knew what the film was about as early as 2006:

"WORLD: How did you get involved with Expelled?

STEIN: I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can't question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you'll lose your job, and you'll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.

Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally."

I have a personal interest in the end to all of this lying. Apart from the obvious ethical issues, the baby Jesus has been crying over Cheshire, England, for what seems like the last year. And non-stop as well! Please stop doing it, even if it is just for a few months this summer, so that I won't get piss wet through, yet again. I beg you!

Posted by: MikeM | April 13, 2008 2:46 AM

I'm going to give myth @14 the benefit of the doubt here. I sincerely hope it's justified.

I went to the link, and he's quoting the website verbatim. He hasn't added his opinion to the commentary to which he's referring (next time, blockquote it so it's more clear, okay?).

Myth #2 is, "This film is anti-science", which anyone can see is not true. There's a long paragraph afterward, which I refuse to add here, justifying this ludicrous claim, er, lie. From what I've read and seen so far, I do not think myth #2 from that article is a myth at all.

All "myth" was doing was showing us the article. I hope.

Tell me I'm right, myth. Please.

And thanks for the link to what I think is a terrible article (and I think you were trying to show how terrible the article is).

Change of topic (asked here because this is an open thread)...

It seems to me that ID proponents are claiming that cells are intelligently designed (a premise I reject). Does anyone out there know if anyone is claiming elements and molecules are also intelligently designed? To me, that'd present a cunundrum: If atoms and molecules were designed by a supernatural force, wouldn't that mean that such an agent would have been made without the benefit of chemistry?

I read a long time ago in some stupid rag that "God is made of nothing; if He was made of something, that would imply that someone made Him, which clearly is not possible!".

(I had to point out that if He's made of nothing, that implies that we cannot possibly have been made in his image, as claimed in the Big Black Book.)

All this is my long-winded way to a question: Are websites run by chemists also under attack by the likes of the DI?

Posted by: steppen wolf | April 13, 2008 6:31 AM

The very first Molecular and Cell Biology Carnival is up! Come over have a look, and submit posts for the next edition!

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 13, 2008 6:41 AM

Oh, hey, Russell @13 good essay. (Can't believe I am saying that about something at a conservative site.)

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Additional response to #13: I quite enjoyed that piece, but the comments following it are disappointing.

Posted by: Sili | April 20, 2008 1:08 PM

It's not a 'pod, but silverfish are pretty damn cool. Am I correct in believing they've been around for some 100 My? They'd be a lot cooler if they didn't eat books.

I sure hope someone here appreciates the awesomeness of a FLEECE silverfish. Be sure to check out the gallery for more creepy-crawlies.