…and this is a 
Oh, actually, shaved apes would be an upgrade from Josh Brecheen, who is more like a shaved and bipedal member of the subgenus Asinus. He's a new legislator who has announced his intention to introduce creationism into Oklahoma schools (or, as perhaps I should refer to them, "skools") for a set of reasons he laid out in a notably ignorant column in the Durant Daily Democrat.
His column is amazing. The faculty of Southeastern Oklahoma State University are covering their eyes in shame right now, since apparently this creationist-cliche-spewing plagiarist and professional goober managed to successfully graduate from their institution. My students ought to be worried, too, because now I feel like I've got to tighten up my standards and start flunking more students out lest they come back and haunt me from positions of power. Seriously, it's a remarkable work he's posted: it's largely cribbed from the creationist Lee Strobel, but at the same time, he's managed to make standard creationist arguments worse. Here's his whole column, with a little helpful annotation from me.
One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by "intellectuals" [It's not a promising beginning when you're discussing a scientific topic and immediately dismiss intellectuals] so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it's [sic] merits. It doesn't address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) [I dread learning about their quality, given the dreck espoused here] but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity [a familiar refrain, in which a fringe belief is undeservedly promoted to equal time with well-established science] to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology [says the guy who wants to promote a religious ideology] . I'm talking about the religion of evolution [eyes roll everywhere]. Yes, it is a religion [No, it isn't]. The religion of evolution [Seriously. It isn't. It's a scientific theory that explains a large body of confirmable facts, and that provides a useful framework for new research. It has no resemblance to any faith of any kind.] requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God [God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed.], when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors [Here comes the bad math]). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Only at the sight of three exclamation points…we're all wondering if he typed this while wearing his underpants on his head] "It's not a religion as it's agreed upon by the entire scientific community," some are saying at this very moment [No, we're not, because its status as a science rather than a religion is determined by its properties, not some kind of consensus or vote]. Are you sure? Let's explore the facts. [As if Brecheen has any.]
As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution [If only someone had forced him to learn about logic and grammar!] I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory [Because there aren't any, at least not in the sense Brecheen is talking about. There are critics of aspects of the theory and differences in emphasis, but no credible, knowledgeable scientist has any doubts about the overall fact of evolution]. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write [What we professors call "teaching", or dumber students call "forcing"] almost every paper over the "facts" of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me [Oh, really?] by semester end due to our many respectful debates [In the classroom, professors tend to avoid expressing what they really think of some of the clowns in our student body. Don't mistake professionalism for intellectual respect] as I chose to not be blindly led [Says the creationist]. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution [But we do! Bacterial resistance, new species, observations of changing frequencies of alleles, etc., etc., etc.] (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit [Jebus. What a maroon. No, evolution does not predict that monkeys will don business suits]).
Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the "fact" of evolution, approximately 100 [100 fringe cranks out of a population of about a million scientists] physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists [Don't forget the dentists! Relatively few on the "Dissent from Darwinism" list were actually qualified biologists, and quite a few have since been very surprised to learn that they were included] organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution". These weren't narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals [Actually, yeah, they were] ; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee [Anyone can be nominated, and nominations are supposed to be secret; why this is always cited as a qualification is mysterious] Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist [chemist, no expertise in biology] in the world and Fred Figworth [This is called a plagiarized error. Lee Strobel made this typo, and now it gets echoed in creationist rants everywhere. There is no Figworth at Yale; his name is Sigworth] , professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.
Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth [Yes, they are. Evolution is firmly established.]. Renowned [Fact not shown] scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored [Also laughed at] . That's where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue [Oklahoma: mountain state, archipelago, rain forest, or lunar mare? That's a multifaceted issue, too. Shall we teach invented geography with equal time?]. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable [OK, if we're to teach the complete story, we'll rightfully have to invest 179.99 days in teaching the scientific evidence, which all supports evolution, and 3 minutes on creationism on the last day. Fair's fair]. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves [Both sides doesn't imply a body of evidence is equal to a body of myth and superstition], however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change [Wrong. We're consistent: we want the scientific evidence taught. It's not our fault the creationists haven't provided any]. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.
We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual [This one? Wrong. It's not in the Origin, it's in Darwin's notes, which I doubt that Brecheen has read. It also looks nothing like what he describes] to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories [What he's about to describe isn't the tree of life, and I don't know where he came up with it, but plucked from his ass seems a reasonable hypothesis], depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit [What's with all the monkeys in business suits?].
Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined "divisions" (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record [Fair enough, Darwin does propose this as an issue, saying that there should have been long periods of time prior to the Cambrian, during which life swarmed in the seas. Of course, he's since been shown to have been right.]. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over [What? Never heard of it]). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized [What?] for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate [I'm so sorry, OSU] I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a "weenie" dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried [sic]. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution [No, it is evolution. You don't just get to define away obvious examples of changes over time as non-evolution] , its [sic] adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla [Again, I say, what? I've been grading a lot of papers lately. I can tell when a student is trying to BS his way through a topic he doesn't understand, and Brecheen is showing all the signs] . Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates) [Ah, so that's what he's getting at. An insect must turn into a mammal for evolution to be true. Sorry, guy, such a phenomenon would demonstrate that evolution was wrong — biologists make no such prediction]. Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin's common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate [Nope. This nonsense about "phyla changes" or "phyla cross-over" is simply stuff Brecheen has made up out of whole cloth (or stolen from one of his creationist source). Real biologists argue that mammals and insects evolved from a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, which would have been a generalized worm-like creature. Organisms do not suddenly leap across lines of descent; it's like arguing that before you'll believe I'm descended from my grandmother, I have to give birth to my cousin].
The rapid appearance of today's known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario [No, it doesn't.]. This biological big bang of fully developed [Nonsense. Cambrian organisms were precursors to modern forms, and the full range of extant forms was not present in the Cambrian—there were no bumblebees or birds, no squirrels or snakes.] animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion's phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in [sic] the same [Nope. The Cambrian chordates, for instance, were represented only by small wormlike swimmers that were spineless and jawless and brainless; modern chordates are significantly more diverse. Mr Brecheen, for instance, possesses a jaw, although he may be lacking in some of the other key characters]. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed [What does that even mean? Of course they were functional organisms], not in a transitional form ["Transition" refers to an intermediate between two forms. They were transitional between pre-Cambrian forms and modern chordates]. In fact we don't have a transitional form fossil [Of course we do.] crossing phyla classification [Again with this bizarre "phyla crossing" nonsense. We expect no such thing] after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any [Again, we do! We have fossils from the Vendian/Ediacaran; we have 600 million year old embryos; we have trace fossils and the small shelly fauna. Brecheen's ignorance is not evidence of absence] . As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years [As I just said, we've got 'em. They're worms and slugs and fans and weird quilted creatures] . Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries [Imagine Brecheen closing his eyes real tight right now, sticking his fingers in his ears, and going "lalalalala". What exactly did he learn in that OSU Animal Science program? It sure wasn't any basic biology]. Darwin's cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate's transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking [No, it isn't. The molecular evidence is robust. Brecheen just doesn't understand it, or more likely, never saw it] and so is Darwin's "theory".
I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts [So, Oklahoma, you elected this idiot to office. Are you going to stand by and watch him poison your educational system with this garbage?].
Politics
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 22, 2010 8:30 PM
Shouldn't someone introduce this idiot to the applicable case law about promoting creationism in schools? McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) and Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) both found laws mandating teaching creationism in public schools to be unconstitutional.
Posted by: James F
|
December 22, 2010 8:33 PM
Even the double facepalm isn't adequate here.
Posted by: LightningRose
|
December 22, 2010 8:35 PM
Why, yes. Yes they will.
Posted by: Dean Buchanan
|
December 22, 2010 8:42 PM
Legislator Josh Brecheen.
Self-pitying, self-rightious, humorless, ignorant, careless, blind, liar.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
December 22, 2010 8:42 PM
Is "adaption" even a word? I think you need to include another [sic], Professor.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 22, 2010 8:45 PM
There were so many sics, I couldn't possibly keep track of them all.
Posted by: sheik.djibouti.al.nayt
|
December 22, 2010 8:47 PM
I'm about 90% certain he plagiarized that mess from Robert Byers.
Posted by: antitheist
|
December 22, 2010 8:49 PM
Please tell me you forwarded this to him?!
Posted by: Fil
|
December 22, 2010 8:51 PM
I'm surprised you have the energy to comment on such dribble PZ. I'm glad you did though, as I've been giggling like a happy child reading your comments. :-)
How depressing it must be in the States for educators (and the truly educated) to continually do battle with such cretinous thinking (says me living in Oz, where we spawned Ken Ham...groan).
Incidentally and somewhat on topic, I am often asked to recommend a decent, modern, text on evolutionary theory by sparring partners on other forums, but being outside my area of expertise, I am somewhat at a loss. Not books that attempt to prove evolution (such as some of Dawkins' works) rather, accessible text books for intelligent lay people.
Can anyone recommend something?
Posted by: Strad27
|
December 22, 2010 8:52 PM
This is downright horrifying, though not surprising. In fact, that compounds the horror.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
December 22, 2010 8:54 PM
"...one of his creationist sources."
PZ says
Only if you're a mormon.
I've got one of these on my blog: "no proof of common ancestors," blah blah blah. They don't listen!
Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death
|
December 22, 2010 8:56 PM
I have to wonder: is Brecheen's fascination with 'cross-phyla' is associated with a predilection for 'cross-dressing'?* Sorry for the mental image.
When I hear/read idiocy like this, it sounds like someone who is severely overcompensating -- 'see, I am a real ChristianTM so you can stop looking into my private life, there's nothing to see there, look at what a great anti-science know-nothingist I am!" If only we read the dreck spouting from his lips, we will let him get away with anything in his oh-so-holy private life.
*I am not impugning cross-dressing. I am questioning this asshat's motives.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
December 22, 2010 8:56 PM
Hey, hey, hey!
Let's keep our rage on target. Monkeys in business suits are hilarious.
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
December 22, 2010 9:02 PM
Gue?? Who spells "goo" as "gue"? And how did PZ miss this additional golden opportunity?
Posted by: j-brisby
|
December 22, 2010 9:04 PM
All that stuff about all phyla coming into existence at once, in the Cambrian explosion...He's saying that evolution is possible within phyla but not between phyla; and he doesn't even realize that he's acknowledging that a human can evolve from an inch-long wormlike creature.
Posted by: Zeno
|
December 22, 2010 9:04 PM
Nick beat me to the punch: "gue" had me laughing out loud.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
December 22, 2010 9:06 PM
FB, I love Carl Zimmer's Evolution, subtitle The Triumph of an Idea. He's an excellent writer. It's a textbook that 'reads' like a novel.
Posted by: raven
|
December 22, 2010 9:06 PM
They do this every time the Oklahoma legislature meets. That and pass some laws that make abortion illegal. This time they will probably issue drivers licenses to all zygotes and lower the driving age to the 4 cell stage and call them persons.
They usually fail or get thrown out in court.
They've already made Sharia law illegal. Must be time to make Interstellar alien law illegal.
It is also time to ask for Obama's birth certificate again.
I've seen kindergartens that were more intelligent and productive.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
December 22, 2010 9:09 PM
It never ends, does it.
Semi-literate dimbulbs like this clown trying to legislate for teachers to lie to children.
Posted by: Zeno
|
December 22, 2010 9:10 PM
Found another "[sic]" for you, PZ. The "then" should be "than." (Although I would have used "from." But I'm literate and this guy is not. [Say "this guy is not" several times fast, just for fun.])
Posted by: quibblista
|
December 22, 2010 9:11 PM
nick and zeno - I'm pretty sure he means grue. It's a grue that becomes a monkey in a suit.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
December 22, 2010 9:12 PM
It never ends, does it.
Semi-literate dimbulbs like this clown trying to legislate for teachers to lie to children.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 22, 2010 9:14 PM
Usual moron, demanding that evolution be magical like creationism should predict, then when the miracles aren't found, it's evolution that's supposed to be wrong.
He really is appallingly stupid. And dishonest--at least intellectually. No intellectually honest person would call evolution a religion.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Zeno
|
December 22, 2010 9:19 PM
Brecheen's illiteracy infests his campaign website, too. After pointing out that Brecheen has a 100% pro-life rating, the front page of the campaign site say, "Josh choice to run on the Republican ticket centers on this issue."
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 22, 2010 9:22 PM
As of 9:22 p.m. EST, here is the entire list of hits that appear in google for the search string
"phyla cross-over"
5 results (0.26 seconds) Search Results
When did Oklahoma start electing shaved apes to their legislature ...
Dec 22, 2010 ... The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over [What? ...
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/.../when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.phpGet more results from the past 24 hours
Durant Daily Democrat - Brecheen discusses evolution and Darwinian ...
The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in ...
www.durantdemocrat.com/.../article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory?... - Cached
Democrats of Oklahoma Community Forum - Republican Brecheen ...
18 posts - 11 authors - Last post: 2 days ago
The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). ...
demookie.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48916 - CachedGet more discussion results
atheist news feeds | The Rational Response Squad
The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over [What? Never heard of it]). ...
www.rationalresponders.com/aggregator - Similar
198 - Public Anthropology
Jan 17, 1982 ... The data also shows that fewer warm phyla cross over the 10°C isotherm barrier than cold phyla. They attribute this imbalance to the ...
www.publicanthropology.org/Archive/Aa1982.htm - Cached - Similar
As can be seen there are four hits related to the original silly article and PZ's response, and one false drop.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
December 22, 2010 9:22 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how it is that people think they can disprove something by completely ignoring what that thing is and making shit up, then saying that because it doesn't work like their total ass-pull.
Doesn't matter if it's evolution, global warming/climate change, or what.
Posted by: melior
|
December 22, 2010 9:25 PM
I was recently re-reading Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain and encountered a remarkably concise little list of ten attributes that distinguish science from religions:
Especially love the "and so on" -- presumably eschewing plagiarism is among those Dawkins left off the list.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
December 22, 2010 9:25 PM
There's creationism in a nutshell for you.
Posted by: stopthatastronaut
|
December 22, 2010 9:27 PM
What gets me is that someone actually published that? As-is? With no copyediting?
I guess the staff thought it was funnier in the original form.
Posted by: tumorous
|
December 22, 2010 9:27 PM
Props for the Pratchett reference!!!
Posted by: Ragin Redhead
|
December 22, 2010 9:29 PM
Unfortunately, yes! We Oklahomans have no choice but to watch the tea baggers run roughshod, as they took over in a MAJOR way in November. Both houses of the legislature are Repubs as is the new Gov. Ashamed, I am! But as a native Oklahoman I shall firmly grip HOPE, continue to vote, and write my solons (though it does little good).
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 22, 2010 9:36 PM
He does realize that Gunther from Futurama is a work of fiction. But he did have a rather dashing hat.
Posted by: Rumtopf
|
December 22, 2010 9:36 PM
Awwww man, before this ridiculous article was submitted, "pyla cross-over" was probably a googlewhack. What a waste.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
December 22, 2010 9:41 PM
Funny...
My AP Biology students just submitted their 9th (and final) reaction paper to Jerry Coyne's WEIT. Sadly, 9/28 students (supposedly, the best of the best in our HS) are devout young-earthers.
In the beginning, I hammered them for simply saying they "disagreed" or "cannot believe that..." I critiqued, chastised and challenged everyone to explain their rationale for agreeing or disagreeing with Coyne, using his evidence or any contradictory evidence they could find.
Naively, I had hoped that they would find the religious evidence to be specious, and re-evaluate their position. Instead, I was disheartened by the redundantly unsupported, and simplistic nature of their religious arguments for divine creation. Most of all, I cannot believe the ridiculous similarity to Brecheen's column..."no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observation..."
As a result, I've been mildly depressed for the past 8 weeks and, considering the influx of recently elected conservative Republicans here in PA, I am quite concerned...it's only a matter of time before they try the same shit in our state legislature.
PZ, you're not the only one who needs a beer.
Posted by: ganf17
|
December 22, 2010 9:55 PM
Shaved Apes
Phlya Crossover
Another two great band names, especially if the first is pronounced in the Elizabethan form "shave-ed" "Apes"
Actually, I may change my name to Phyla Crossover it rolls off the tongues like a fine Pinot Noir
Posted by: Larry
|
December 22, 2010 10:00 PM
I've got a theory about Oklahoma. Back in the dust bowl days, all the intelligent Okies loaded up their trucks, stuck Grandma in a rocking chair tied to the top, and headed off to California. This left nitwits like this Brecheen asswipe's grandparents to spread their moron genes through out the remaining population.
That or this jackass gets his stupid from a mutant gene that was hit by some cosmic ray.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
December 22, 2010 10:01 PM
so, bioteacher... I hope I'm not being too forwaard in asking... anybody fail the class?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
December 22, 2010 10:04 PM
There is a tree diagram in The Origin of Species.
This one.
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 22, 2010 10:05 PM
Updating myself at #25 - I should have also searched "phyla crossover" [sans hyphen] which, of course yields different, and perhaps more relevant, results:
5 results (0.25 seconds) Search Results
Evolution?
Feb 7, 2008 ... Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the elements. Bishadi. 7th February 2008 - 04:27 PM ...
lofi.forum.physorg.com/Evolution_20315.html - Cached
Evolution?
Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the ...
lofi.forum.physorg.com/Evolution_20315-400.html - Cached
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ...
15 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Feb 7, 2008
What exactly do you want proof of? Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the elements. ...
www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20315&st=15 - Cached
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ...
15 posts - 4 authors - Last post: May 1, 2008
Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the ...
www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20315&st=405 - Cached
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ...
15 posts - 10 authors - Last post: Feb 7, 2008
What exactly do you want proof of? Phyla crossover using a unifying ...
www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20315&st=0 - Cached
Posted by: Klatu
|
December 22, 2010 10:09 PM
*groan* not again these fucking IDiots!
Bertrand Russell said it best:
or, in short:
"put up or shut up!"
Make your fucking hypothesis a falsifiable, scientific theory (and watch it crash and burn) or stay the hell away from science. It's that simple.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
December 22, 2010 10:11 PM
Help me, please.
What does he mean by: "...sediment beds spawning the ages."?
plumberbob
Posted by: Mister Wizard
|
December 22, 2010 10:18 PM
@plumberbob #41
I think he means "spanning". Just a guess. I haven't spoken fluent Dumbass since I moved out of Louisiana several decades ago.
Posted by: Les Lane
|
December 22, 2010 10:21 PM
Passing such legislation is a great recipe for spending millions of dollars defending the State of Oklahoma against lawsuits. The state should consider waiting until the Lemon Test is no longer considered legal precedent.
Posted by: Karen
|
December 22, 2010 10:28 PM
I don't know how you continuously are able to edit these articles as you do without going insane from the idiocy. >.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 22, 2010 10:29 PM
I've always felt that state legislatures need two rules not presently in place. The first is, that they are only paid out of the surplus in the budget at the end of the fiscal year. The second is that they get twenty points of unconstitutional laws and they are automatically impeached, and cannot hold any elective position anywhere in the country after that happens. They get one point for voting for laws determined unconstitutional, five points for being a cosponsor, and 10 point for being the main sponsor. It would weed out those who don't understand the constitution, and how SCOTUS applies it. I suspect Brecheen would be impeached very quickly, or his colleagues would talk some sense into him.
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 22, 2010 10:31 PM
Fil | December 22, 2010 8:51 PM:
The Greatest Show On Earth
(Yes, I know you asked for something other Dawkins. But I think it is sufficiently appropriate for intelligent lay people that you should reconsider.)
Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne.
Evolution: What the Fossils Say, and Why it Matters, by Donald Prothero.
Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
December 22, 2010 10:32 PM
@ Mister Wizard #42,
I presumed that it was "spanning" too, but I though that one should be pointed out also.
What would he do if we got a good Oklahoma taxidermist to make us a crocoduck with a zipper connecting the necks together, and then we made a presentation of it to him?
Just wondering how much we could jerk his chain.
plumberbob
Posted by: OKSkepChick
|
December 22, 2010 10:36 PM
All I can say is I didn't vote for him. I have a couple of friends who went through the Animal Science program at Oklahoma State and they are all skeptics, atheists, and fans of science. I guess every now and then a nut slips through. They'll get a kick out of your take on this asshat's column and then we'll all get depressed and start opening up bottles of wine.
I'm going to stick it out in Oklahoma. I'm getting more involved in politics and hope to help elect better politicians. It's hard though when most people vote straight ticket and most voters in our state are old and Republican. And hell, if I can find a nice skeptic, atheist to date while I'm at it - this state won't be so bad after all. Political misery loves company.
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 22, 2010 10:37 PM
nickmatzke.ncse | December 22, 2010 9:02 PM:
I seem to recall seeing "gue" quite frequently when I was an irregular reader of talk.origins .
It is either yet another uncritically propagated typo, or something is trying to warn them that if they do not quickly fetch some knowledge with which to light up the darkness in their minds, they will be eaten by a grue, and they have misunderstood ...
Posted by: barfy
|
December 22, 2010 10:39 PM
"...ignorance is not evidence of absence."
Oh, sweet Jesus, I have seen the light!
Six words that are the single best argument against creationism that I have ever seen.
I want them on a t-shirt.
I want them on a billboard.
I...I...I...want them as a tattoo across my arse so that I can point to it while delivering my own personal interpretation of the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
December 22, 2010 10:39 PM
He's decided that "kind" doesn't sound sciencey enough to all those "intellectuals", so he's substituted the word "phyla" in its place.
Posted by: Quaxotic
|
December 22, 2010 10:40 PM
In all fairness to us aussies.
Ken Ham was born in Australia, but he had to go to america to get any recognition.
Even my private xtian highschool taught evolution as a fact.
Posted by: Mister Wizard
|
December 22, 2010 10:40 PM
@Nerd of Redhead, OM #45
This takes me back to my undergrad days at LSU. One of my all-time favorite profs, Dr. James Hardy, taught a "History of Western Civilization" course. These mandatory courses for freshmen are usually guaranteed soul destroyers, but he managed to make the material informative, interesting and (believe it or not) riveting. If I remember only one thing from his lectures (always delivered entirely without notes), it is his contention that "state legislatures are infested with sleazy shysters and low poltroons." Spot on, Prof. Hardy!
Posted by: kantalope
|
December 22, 2010 10:41 PM
is this figworth/sigworth guy really anti-evolution? And if so why? And why is he still working at Yale?
Can't these people be shamed in some way?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
December 22, 2010 10:45 PM
@ Nerd of Redhead, OM,
Most excellent rules. However, if impeached, wouldn't he need to be tried by his peers, and wouldn't he be made eligible by them for a medal and a raise?
Scary!
plumberbob
Posted by: Monkey Genes
|
December 22, 2010 10:49 PM
...Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist [PZM: chemist, no expertise in biology]...
LOl! Please remember this everybody posting here!
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
December 22, 2010 10:53 PM
@kantalope
I'm not sure if that particular guy is on the list, but DonExodus2 actually went to the trouble of tracking down most of the people on it and asking the real scientists if they did in fact deny the theory of evolution and common descent. Here's his video breaking it down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
It's been a while since I've watched it though.
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 22, 2010 10:55 PM
Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 22, 2010 10:29 PM:
It sounds very tempting, but in my home state, I would be worried that the welfare rolls could not take on so many new applicants.
Posted by: quantheory
|
December 22, 2010 10:56 PM
I left a note there, in the STANDARD creationist "communciation style", requesting that the firmament be taught as well, as an alternative to the "so called Big Bang and Milky Way Galaxy theories". I'm slightly concerned that the editorial staff might moderate it out, but who knows, maybe they'll have the opportunity to become offended at and then dismiss my satire.
Posted by: Deepsix
|
December 22, 2010 10:57 PM
The guy starts off by dissing intellectuals, and then immediately misspells a three-letter word. I think that pretty much set the tone for the rest of...well, whatever that was.
Posted by: iknklast
|
December 22, 2010 10:57 PM
Unfortunately, it isn't just one lone nut; while I was working for the State of Oklahoma (I won't mention where...), I encountered a whole raft of people with Masters Degress in Zoology or Biology, from both OU and OSU, who denied evolution and embraced creationism. Oh, and some of them believed in demons, too!
It isn't OSU's fault. I teach Biology at the college level, and I know that I am not given the freedom to fail a student who is prepared to give the proper answers on tests and assignments, even if I know they're a raging creationist. As long as they are willing to meet the standards of the class, I can't fail to pass them just because they don't accept a word of what they're writing, even if they tell me openly that they reject all scientific evidence that conflicts with God. Of course, many of these aren't science majors, but that's not the issue...especially since a great number of them are majoring in K-12 education, where they will have the opportunity to indoctrinate youngsters (or at the very least, fail to give them adequate instruction).
I believe we should have the right to refuse degrees, especially advanced degrees in Biology, to people who refuse to entertain any idea that wasn't included in an ancient book written by a small tribe of nomads 3000 years ago. Right now, we don't have that right, so OSU is stuck with a pretender...just like many other colleges throughout the country are stuck with these pretenders.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
December 22, 2010 10:58 PM
sasqwatch,
Thus far, only 1 of the 9 true-believers is failing the course - he's universally dumb in all areas of biology, and is generally a poor student. Two of my young-earth'ers have an A- (they truly understand the biology, but disagree with the conclusions). The other 6 have managed to earn B's and C's over the course of the semester because they're decent students.
To be honest, I am not in the business of indoctrinating people, nor do I want them to think like me. I simply want to challenge their existing beliefs and make them think about things they normally do not think about. It's all part of being 'professional.'
I do hope they will learn to evaluate conflicting ideas and make rational choices, but would never require their allegiance to any theory, esp. considering the 'tenuous' nature of science (not that evolutionary theory is any danger of being overturned).
Besides, I am already "enemy #1" within the evangelical community where I both teach and live, and do not want to give my school board reason to dismiss. My 9 year old is often told, by a bus-mate, in a very un-Christ-like fashion, that he is going to hell for his lack of faith (you see, atheists can be harrassed without consequence in our district).
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
December 22, 2010 10:59 PM
I'll take self-fulfilling prophecies for $200, Alex.
Posted by: Uglyhip
|
December 22, 2010 11:00 PM
It has taken me a long time to realize that when many creationists parrot that line that the Cambrian explosion included all the major phyla, they genuinely believe that this does mean that there were bumblebees and squirrels (as PZ alluded to), not to mention humans. (We're a "phylum", right? After all, we are a baramin.) The word "Cambrian" doesn't, for these folks, trigger the image of trilobites-etc as it does for me; most of them probably first heard that word from creationist propaganda. They then construct an image of the fossil record based on their knowledge of Genesis.
They're not living with cognitive dissonance— they figure that the fossil record ought to straightforwardly reflect the story of creation, given that creation is true. Unlike full-time creationists, who deal with the "Starlight Problem" and other conundrums, the casual ones are not even aware that anything needs 'splaining.
Helping in all this is that extinctions tend to be more hyped than appearances, so a creationist can be totally unaware of there being any similar "explosions" in the fossil record. Some of them probably don't even get that the famous extinction of the dinosaurs, to pick one example, is timed to the specific strata of 65 mya; the known facts about this extinction aren't merely that there aren't any dinos anymore, which is the level at which children first approach the subject.
Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com
|
December 22, 2010 11:00 PM
PZ, don't argue against this one. Here is your grand opportunity.
(1) move to Oklahoma
(2) help Brecheen pass pass a law stating that teaching evolution is a religion
(3) file for tax exempt status
(4) profit!
Posted by: elucifuga
|
December 22, 2010 11:00 PM
Yes, we do have idiots here in Oklahoma (e.g., Senators Inhofe and Coburn), more than our share perhaps, but all are not supportive of crap like that of Senator Josh Brecheen. An effort already underway against him is evidenced by the many pro-evolution comments on his article at: http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10717736/article-Brecheen-discusses-evolution-and-Darwinian-Theory?instance=home_opinion_lead)
The two state colleges in his district are drafting supportive statements on evolution and a major letter writing effort is underway as a start.
Interviews with Brecheen and a college biology professor on TV gave good opposing views:
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=13724262
The editor of the paper has agreed to publish a counter op-ed when Brecheen publishes his promised second column. The op-ed will be by a biology professor in Brecheen's district.
My State Senator called me last night to discuss this guy and his bill and asked for suggestions on countering the bill when it comes up in the State Senate. Also, some of Brecheen's fellow Republicans are expressing dismay at this guy and his planned bills that include repeal of a puppy mill law passed last year, anti-immigration bills, etc.
Almost every year for the past ten, we have had bad bills, but have been able to stop creationist crap (unlike Louisiana and Texas), mostly due to the organization of State and national efforts, mostly led by Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education ( http://www.oklascience.org/ ) but with help from many individuals and organizations. However, given the supermajority of Republicans (many are real bad fundies) in both houses of the Legislature and in all major State offices, this could be a year of losses, but not without a fight.
PZ's counters to Brecheen's ignorance and plagiarized (in part) post are right on and I will post a comment on Brecheen's article in the Durant Daily democrat linking to the Pharyngula item. It would be good if PZ would also send Brecheen his posting ( brecheen@oksenate.gov ). Maybe others will have a desire to write him as well!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/a1dnknFljYC2y6M2QP32tlMfOTALiR0-#697c4
|
December 22, 2010 11:03 PM
When did Oklahoma start electing shaved apes to their legislature?
1907.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go018.html
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ySJ8lS8Zk4eL5zBaKslsAWy_lpIR#b18ed
|
December 22, 2010 11:12 PM
In fairness to Southeast Oklahoma State, his degree was apparently in "Agricultural Communications" and "Animal Science", ie livestock farming. Related, but not even close to being a biology degree.
What does he think about Darwin's drawing a parallel between natural selection and artificial selection, I wonder?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
December 22, 2010 11:15 PM
Have hope, folks!
I read the original column and the 15 comments after it. 13 of the comments were on our side (pro-evolution, or at least anti wingnut); only 2 of the comments were from bible thumpers.
One of the writers is waiting gleefully for the vast store of "proof" to be featured next week.
plumberbob
Posted by: bluescat48
|
December 22, 2010 11:25 PM
I think the reference to "Monkeys in business suits" is that that is what these creotards have the mentality of. Sorry if I lowered the monkey's mentality to the level of a creationist.
Posted by: I'm sorry, thank you
|
December 22, 2010 11:27 PM
PZ, you missed a lot of sics, but for that you can be forgiven.
However, you made one critical error: "Brecheen's ignorance is not evidence of absence."
Indeed, sir, it is. It is evidence of his absent research. It is evidence of his absent understanding. It is evidence of his absent rational thought processes. And it is evidence of his absent intelligence.
There is a lot of evidence of absence in Brecheen's ignorance.
Posted by: I'm sorry, thank you
|
December 22, 2010 11:30 PM
PZ, you missed a lot of sics, but for that you can be forgiven.
However, you made one critical error: "Brecheen's ignorance is not evidence of absence."
Indeed, sir, it is. It is evidence of his absent research. It is evidence of his absent understanding. It is evidence of his absent rational thought processes. And it is evidence of his absent intelligence.
There is a lot of evidence of absence in Brecheen's ignorance.
Posted by: Nick
|
December 22, 2010 11:53 PM
He's right, monkeys don't turn into humans.
They don't want to be mistaken for certain Oklahoman politicians.
Posted by: c_v
|
December 23, 2010 12:05 AM
at least now I'm somewhat less embarassed for Kentucky.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
December 23, 2010 12:10 AM
This, I feel, is an appropriate picture to cover my thoughts about this guy.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 23, 2010 12:36 AM
It would be really nice to see Creationists attack evolution on what it is, as opposed to arguing a straw man. It would also be really nice if Creationists would make a positive case for creationism instead of thinking 'God did it. See: Genesis' is a positive argument.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
December 23, 2010 1:14 AM
I've got this mad idea to run for government on the conservative ticket and copy & paste all my policies at random from the more hysterical parts of the internet and just see how far I get before someone realises I'm taking the piss.
Sadly I'm thinking it might be prime minister...
Posted by: Colin S. Miller
|
December 23, 2010 1:23 AM
How is religion taught in Oklahoma?
Would Brecheen be in favour of a comparative religion course for all Oklahoman pupils? Such lessons would have to teach the major tenants and schisms of all Abrahamic religions (and probably Dharmic religions as well), including Islam.
Whilst searching for the current state of religious education in Oklahoma, I came across this paper, which seems to argue against comparative religion courses.
Religious Education in the Public Schools
Julia J. Bartkowiak (undated in the abstract)
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Soci/SociBart.htm
Posted by: browsell
|
December 23, 2010 1:24 AM
Hey, the dude misspelled Shaeffer's name too.
I know a lot of chemists who know an awful lot about biology, by the way! (I'm not one of them though...yet)
Posted by: Felix
|
December 23, 2010 1:34 AM
Ibis3 #57
I just watched that video again. Sigworth did in fact respond, stating that he does acept common descent (also recommending Ken Miller's book). All in all, 88% of the people who responded to DonExodus's question do accept evolution, and several have requested years ago to be taken off that list, and were ignored. Only two people listed as biological scientists actually do reject common descent, but in the dialogue with DonExodus (Whitney), also proved themselves ignorant of any evolutionary research (ERVs) done within recent decades.
Posted by: Amy(T)
|
December 23, 2010 1:34 AM
Oh dear gawd, they're at it again! The abortion laws are scarier than what these creationists propose. It's crazy here, the republicans were tea baggers before there was an "express" yet they're obsessed with making more laws. If you're not white, christian, straight, and reproducing they try to make you illegal. I'm a liberal, but the level of government these "conservatives" want to control over your personal life and public education is ass backwards! Please help.
Hi to all the skeptical Okies out there!
Posted by: Misfire
|
December 23, 2010 1:40 AM
It just keeps going....
It would be nice if universities, even if they didn't retract degrees, could officially state their conviction that they were in error when graduating an olympian like this.
It's bad enough when Joe Lunchbox thinks he knows as much as any scientist; Brecheen seems to fancy himself to actually be a scientist.
Posted by: danlwarren
|
December 23, 2010 1:50 AM
I know the title is a rhetorical question, but do a wikipedia search for Manuel Herrick and you'll see that the answer is "a long-ass time". The guy was nicknamed "The Okie Jesus Congressman" for good reason.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 23, 2010 1:57 AM
browsell:
So what? I know a lot about biology too, and I'm an artist. Knowledge about biology does not make one a biologist.
Posted by: ScottDogg
|
December 23, 2010 2:29 AM
I decided to anagram the phrase "Monkey In A Business Suit". The best I came up with was "Bet simians sue 'n' skin you."
I bet they will too, Mr Brecheen. Just like real lawyer monkeys.
Posted by: Entertained by Idiocy
|
December 23, 2010 2:30 AM
About time I made a comment on this blog, after lurking for years. Loved the entry!
His [worthless, ignorant] argument seems based on a failure to understand "macroevolution", which is to say he has failed to learn that there is no such thing really, rather the periodically observable accumulation of small changes.
Nothing new of course, just to note that in my experience this is most often the core point that non-scientists have a problem with.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
December 23, 2010 2:54 AM
"... more like a shaved and bipedal member of the subgenus Asinus."
So Josh Brecheen is a hairless ass rather than a hairy ass?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/B3_XVSszp.PQ5I_qqw8Kid481pKTnxX.IA--#5ba23
|
December 23, 2010 3:06 AM
Ah, the internet ... a wonderful forum for spreading utter bollocks. A fact which Mr. Brecheen (credit where credit's due after all) has obviously understood well.
What a shame he has the grammar skills of my 5 year old son.
Posted by: purbrookian
|
December 23, 2010 3:11 AM
How do such catastrophically inept mammals get elected, even in Oklahoma? Perhaps it's the W syndrome: "I'm a semi-literate oaf just like you are, so vote for me."
Posted by: Truckle
|
December 23, 2010 3:19 AM
Hang on... This reads to me that he expects to see evidence of Monkeys evolving into an item of clothing?
If we found a monkey turning into a business suit that really WOULD screw up current evolutionary theory, however I dont even think Kent Hovind thought that.
Posted by: shonny
|
December 23, 2010 3:49 AM
Sounds like this guy is a VERY RETARDED monkey in a business suit. Didn't know 'people' (used in a very loose sense) without any wherewithal could be elected to anything. But then again we're dealing with Okies, so the choice would be representative.
Posted by: hamberg.jonas
|
December 23, 2010 4:29 AM
Putting my first foot in the waters of of the squid-infested ocean...
..the reason is to point out not an error but perhaps an omission.
"[Anyone can be nominated, and nominations are supposed to be secret; why this is always cited as a qualification is mysterious]" -PZ
PZ - Anyone can be nominated for Nobel Prizes but not everyone can nominate:
Nominations
"Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3000 individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are awarded. These individuals are often academics working in a relevant area. For the Peace Prize, inquiries are sent to governments, members of international courts, professors and rectors, former Peace Prize laureates and current or former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The deadline for the return of the nomination forms is 31 January of the year of the award The Nobel Committee nominates about 300 potential laureates from these forms and additional names. The nominees are not publicly named, nor are they told that they are being considered for the prize. All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the prize." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Nominations
Yes, yes, source wikipedia.. but I didn't have time to find anything else.. I really should be working.
The argument could be made (I'm not saying it is a strong one) that if you are nominated by someone that is seen as leading in your field it is more of an achivement than just being nominated by anyone. What this field is though is quite important for the debate.
In general for the peace prize you need to be a national parlimentarian to nominate. So I guess any creationist that has been voted in could nominate any other creationist... but only for peace prize.
But yes.. the nominations should be kept secret.. but it can of course be leaked by anyone who has the possibility of nominating.
In ending I would like to weep for the demise of sanity and logic in the mind of this Oklahomian.
Posted by: casey.fields
|
December 23, 2010 4:49 AM
This is just sad, very sad.
Posted by: jmorgan1234533
|
December 23, 2010 5:08 AM
Perhaps he meant the French word 'guenon' - a female monkey. That would fit with the idea that his "cross-phyla" may somehow be tied in with an obsession for cross-dressing.Posted by: Ryan
|
December 23, 2010 5:09 AM
Yes, yes we are. They will piss themselves with glee if this passes. There are many good, educated Oklahomans, yet we are vastly outnumbered. I apologize as a citizen of Oklahoma, born and bred, for my state sullying anyone's mind that read this drivel. Our new incoming Governor, Mary "Shit for brains" Fallin will have a big signing ceremony for this one, just watch.
I haven't shared this story with my dad yet, but I am sure he will hang his head with shame, as he attened SOSU for a semester in the '70s. I am very glad that my brother joined the army, so at least my niece will get to live in another (hopefully less imbecilic) state. I don't want her growing up here. My high school evolution educated consisted of two days wherein we were divided up into a pro-evolution group (no one knew what they were talking about, 'cept for me and maybe one other) and a pro-bullshit group and we "debated" while the "teacher" sat back and listened. Luckily, I had a great role model for a parent and I learned what I needed to know on my own.
Posted by: conelrad
|
December 23, 2010 5:24 AM
Gue & goo are pronounced differently--try it in a sort of generic midwestern American accent & you can hear the sarcasm & disdain in gue as opposed to the gravity & seriousness of goo. I think it is similar to the use of bias when the creationist writer means biased--it is a word which has been learned by ear, from listening to sermons, rather than from reading.
Posted by: clamcyp
|
December 23, 2010 5:26 AM
I knew I'd heard him before, somewhere,
"And when we say
Yeeow! Ayipioeeay!
We're only sayin'
You're doin' fine, Oklahoma!"
Next century we'll teach Okies English.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
December 23, 2010 6:01 AM
Gah!
What is it with all these creationists, who will typically claim that the Theory of Evolution is unflasifiable, and then demand to see examples of things that - if they really had occured - would falsify the theory (dogs giving birth to cats, monkeys turning into humans, inter-phylum reproduction, etc)?
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
December 23, 2010 6:08 AM
From the comments below the article:
Apart from the obligatory "busted!", this could just explain how he graduated from the Southeastern Oklahoma State University: he copied everything from other people.
Posted by: Legion
|
December 23, 2010 6:20 AM
Sorry PZ, I know you put a lot of effort into your rebuttal, and I do like these embedded commentary posts, but the stoopid, it burnz!
Really, I couldn't even make it to the halfway point. Between the poor grammar and the content-free gibberish, I was starting to drool -- proving that stupidity is infectious.
I'm going away now to let my brain recharge. Maybe in three or four sessions, I might be able to work my way through the whole thing.
Pray for me.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
December 23, 2010 6:40 AM
Wait, this Brecheen moron is an elected official?
I weep for American democracy.
It is bad enough that such a living, breathing quantum singularity of 'teh stoopid' even exists, let alone that it has any measure of actual power and authority.
A minimum prerequisite for any one who would legislate on scientific issues should be that they at least understand what the scientific method is. Preferably, they should also have some small grounding in the specific field itself. You know, like actually knowing what evolution means.
I am not arguing for a technocracy, merely that crass ignorance should not trump knowledge due to the outcome of a glorified popularity contest for compulsive liars. No legislature has the power to ratify reality. What exists, exists and that which is fantasy, is fantasy, irrespective of how many votes your unevidenced woo can garner. Science concerns itself with evidence. It is unconscionable that it should be yoked to the ignorance of creationism in order to spare the fragile feelings of ill-educated fundies. Or, more accurately, to help them replicate their ignorance in the next generation by sabotaging scientific education.
Isn't this the kind of thing that 'checks and balances' exist to prevent?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
December 23, 2010 6:42 AM
Unless you are a biologist, then you're probably not equipped to judge someone else's knowledge of biology.
This is why newspapers seem to make a lot more mistakes when they are reporting on a topic you are familiar with.
Posted by: A. Barbarosa
|
December 23, 2010 7:03 AM
@Raven
I am a kindergarten teacher. Believe me, my kids are just starting to develop logic and critical thinking, and they wouldn't buy this cracker's baloney for a second. It's never too early to teach critical thinking, in case anyone is interested. It's a hell of a lot of fun.
Posted by: Legion
|
December 23, 2010 7:15 AM
I remember reading The Marching Morons in Omni magazine back in the seventies. It's the sci-fi short story that the movie
was based on.At the time I found the story amusing and entertaining, but wholly implausible.
Boy was I wrong.
In recent years the rise in out-atheism has given me hope, but at the same time the parallel rise of the stupid class makes me wonder what kind of world my children are going to inherit.
Right now I feel like the terraformers in the second Aliens movie -- trapped and making a last stand against an army of darkness.
Posted by: magicJay
|
December 23, 2010 7:28 AM
Shameless self promotion?
Posted by: writzer
|
December 23, 2010 7:38 AM
Perhaps "OSU" was a sic, too. Maybe "ORU" is what he actually meant to type.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
December 23, 2010 7:40 AM
Legion @ 104;
What you need is some Ripley, stat.
Just so long as no one is thinking of taking off and nuking the entire site from orbit, even though it is the only way to be sure...
Then again, I am sure that the fundies despise the Alien franchise. The whole facehugger thing probably reminds them uncomfortably of 'teh ghey' that they are all so obsessed with/afraid of.
Posted by: smkane42
|
December 23, 2010 7:43 AM
but, but...
If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are MONKEYS + C.E.O.s ??
Posted by: Jud
|
December 23, 2010 7:52 AM
I think a Bible quote is a particularly appropriate comment regarding Mr. Brecheen. I take as my text John 11:39:
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
December 23, 2010 7:54 AM
Well, I can't furnish Brecheen with a monkey in a business suit, but I can find a gorilla wearing a tie
Maybe he is just a huge Donkey Kong fan?
Posted by: JackC
|
December 23, 2010 8:10 AM
[quote]Gue?? Who spells "goo" as "gue"? And how did PZ miss this additional golden opportunity? [/quote]
Oh come on! Didn't you people watch Hill Street Blues? Sheesh - who can forget Lotta Gue?
OK - I will stipulate that it probably IS a (nother) typo. My wife and I have a theory. People that write like this - consistently misspelling words and consistently misusing punctuation - when used at all - are "unread". This no doubt includes that favourite of their books.
This effect produced a wonderful line from a friend who wanted to introduce the new "neckless" lighting on a local bridge.... It's pretty, but I am pretty sure that the bridge never really had a neck.
JC
Posted by: ksurrecords
|
December 23, 2010 8:13 AM
As someone who lives in Oklahoma with 20 month old twin daughters it makes physically ill to think such garbage could ever come back into public schools. I remember being in 8th grade and my biology teacher brought in a priest to teach us the weak points of evolution. I don't want this kind of shit continuing in our public schools, especially for my daughters sake.
Posted by: Joe
|
December 23, 2010 8:14 AM
Send him this as well
http://news.ufl.edu/2010/12/22/life-origins/
Posted by: antallan
|
December 23, 2010 8:20 AM
Do Creationists actually create a straw-man version of evolution – complete with crocoducks and “why are there still apes?” – knowingly or are they just plain stupid?
Posted by: Ajxplza
|
December 23, 2010 8:25 AM
You weren't the only one he made sic(k).
Actually it does, by ensuring that school science classes will be a complete waste of everyone's time.
Shorter Rep. Moron:
Posted by: MJP
|
December 23, 2010 8:49 AM
But how could the Cambrian Explosion create more life if it were whut killed the dinosaurs?
Posted by: Cor (formerly evil)
|
December 23, 2010 9:00 AM
Some good news, for once:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
Sorry for the mess, it's 6:00am here. Blech
Posted by: Quagmire
|
December 23, 2010 9:16 AM
I am fairly well-convinced at the moment that Oklahoma is the most backward state in the US (surpassing previous title-holders Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Arizona, Utah, Alaska, and Georgia).
Posted by: Lary9
|
December 23, 2010 9:17 AM
I advocate a policy of strict, mandatory secession for all southern states. My motto is---
"Back To 1861.
Give Them Back Ft. Sumter
and
Let Them Reconsider!"
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
December 23, 2010 9:19 AM
As for the already commented-on word "gue" ...
I think that must hold some kind of record!
TWO spelling errors in a THREE letter word!
Can you beat THAT, you silly interlicktuals?
Posted by: amc
|
December 23, 2010 9:31 AM
What a hilarious and informative takedown of a total ass's gue.
Posted by: What a maroon
|
December 23, 2010 9:32 AM
And all these years I've been spelling it gueue.
BTW, if the "law" of gravity is right, why aren't all of the paper clips on my desk sliding over and sticking to my belly? Answer that, mister smarty-pants physicist.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 23, 2010 9:34 AM
I know I've posted this before, but it is actually possible to show mathematically that ID cannot be a scientific theory. In effect, for each event that occurs, the "designer" must decide whether to intervene and if so how. So there are at least as many parameters in the theory as there are events. Therefore: zero predictive power. Moreover, it is impossible for the theory to evolve, because it is impossible to falsify any premise of it.
So, frankly, I think we should compromise with the God botherers. We will teach ID in a class on the nature of scientific theory to show precisely where it falls short.
Posted by: greame
|
December 23, 2010 9:39 AM
@9 Fil
While not a textbook, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan is an incredible book which deals not only with the evolution of life, but gives a detailed explination of even the collision selection of how our solar system...dare I say... evolved... from an unimaginable large cloud of gas and dust into the sun and planets we see today. It's a detailed, easy to understand book I recommend to any intellegent person interested.
Posted by: Eric Lawrence
|
December 23, 2010 9:44 AM
The worst part is that this guy is young. I would be relieved to learn that creationism only afflicts older generations, brave captains of their deepest delusions, inevitably going down with the proverbial ship. However, this doesn't appear to be the case.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/D3lfA6Fzh962mBh8VbWUhDOmZ.Zb#7838f
|
December 23, 2010 9:47 AM
Josh Brecheen - I have the evidence you seek:
http://strange-lands.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/monkey_suit.jpg
Posted by: Isherwood
|
December 23, 2010 10:13 AM
[God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed.]
This should be a t-shirt. (I say that at least once a week after reading Myers, Dawkins, Sagan, DeGrasse Tyson, et al.)
Posted by: iknklast
|
December 23, 2010 10:13 AM
" It's never too early to teach critical thinking, in case anyone is interested."
It may never be too early, but it can certainly be too late, I'm afraid. If you don't start until they reach college, you've got an uphill battle, as I've discovered, but it's still possible, though improbable. If you wait longer than that, you have probably passed the point of no return (though I'm sure there are exceptions).
For the commenter with twin daughters who doesn't want creationism returned to Oklahoma schools: it never left. Many Oklahoma schools teach creationism by default, simply by ignoring evolution and leaving human origins up to the parents and the churches, but some of the teachers actually do teach creationism. My son had Sally Kern as a teacher in high school, and she, along with one of his other teachers, was trying to fill his head with creationism. Fortunately, since I had begun his education in critical thinking at birth, he saw right through them. Many students wouldn't be so fortunate.
Posted by: Nij
|
December 23, 2010 10:20 AM
Indeed they are.Look up Kitzmiller v. Dover. You'll get to see a replay in the courts almost the day after this gets passed. It's because of the Moronic Constant: the average intelligence of a population must remain constant, so by increasing the intelligence of some people, you require a lowering in the intelligence of other people. I'm skeptical of being able to do it mathematically.
You could do with pure logic though: a principle is scientific if and only if it follows the scientific method. IDiocy does not follow said method. Therefore it is not scientific.
Posted by: Jan Witkowski
|
December 23, 2010 10:20 AM
Evilcor (#117) considers the Gallup poll good news?! That 4 out of 10 Americans believe that god created human beings 10,000 years ago (i.e. 120,000,000 people); that 3.8 out of 10 believe that god had a part in guiding human evolution (i.e. 96 ,000,00 people); so that a total of 216,000,000 believe in god (66% of the population), if all my math is correct
I'm sorry - I find these numbers and the slight changes demonstrated in the graphs deeply depressing. Is it any wonder that Brecheen thinks he's on to a good thing politically?
Posted by: The other Tim
|
December 23, 2010 10:24 AM
@ 120
A (possibly apocryphal) special exam given to an OSU linebacker in an effort to secure his academic eligibility:
"Now, Bobby-Joe, I'm going to give you one word to spell. If you get even one letter correct, you get a passing grade in my course. The word is coffee."
"K-A-W-P-H-Y"
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqQXrl7yEsdEmCGIJY6e4vK85szmL2lf8
|
December 23, 2010 10:40 AM
Josh Brecheen For State Senate
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Josh-Brecheen-For-State-Senate/133112473367326#!/pages/Josh-Brecheen-For-State-Senate/133112473367326?v=wall
Posted by: BMW
|
December 23, 2010 10:57 AM
He's been mentored by Tom Coburn, what a surprise. From his web site:
Josh Brecheen, a field representative for U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn of Muskogee for five years...
- a 100% pro-life rating from Oklahomans for Life
- an AQ rating from the NRA (the highest, of course)
Posted by: LightningRose
|
December 23, 2010 11:08 AM
Hello Sailor,
"GUE" is an acronym for the "Great Underground Empire", from the Infocom classic Zork series of adventure games.
If your lantern went out, or you entered a dark place without a lantern, you were likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
December 23, 2010 11:26 AM
Despair. PZ, please seize the opportunity to mark as "sic" the use of "then" in the following sentence:
The author is making a comparison above, and not specifying a particular time, as in, "I was stupid then, and I'm stupid now," so "then" should be "than." Oh, the poor children of Oklahoma.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
December 23, 2010 11:29 AM
To paraphrase Thunderf00t,
what this guy got out of a biology class would be like me attending his church and saying they taught that the universe was created in a battle between space mushrooms and time ninjas.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
December 23, 2010 11:31 AM
[Posted in the right place this time.]
All I have to do is see that there's red annotation added to the original text, and I start giggling.
Come for the science; stay for the comedy gold.
Thank you, PZ. And Merry Christmas.
MikeM
Posted by: Yoav
|
December 23, 2010 11:46 AM
But I saw picture of crocoducks on the interwebs so they must exist. He probably think of one of these type of drawings. But then, this moron probably agree with Ken Ham that the Flintstones is a documentary.Posted by: Silent Service
|
December 23, 2010 12:00 PM
Stand by? Hell, PZ, the fuckwits are going to cheer him on.
Posted by: Silent Service
|
December 23, 2010 12:03 PM
Stand by? Hell, PZ, the fuckwits are going to cheer him on.
Posted by: Darreth
|
December 23, 2010 12:33 PM
Awesome. The lawsuit this maroon has invited will be bigger than the Dover case.
Bring. It. ON.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 23, 2010 12:37 PM
I'd presume that they'd mix this with evolution and outlaw Ape Law
Posted by: humanapexx
|
December 23, 2010 12:48 PM
The typical American totally agrees with Mr. Brecheen. For example, "evolution is a religious belief", I've seen this countless times. According to many Christians (most of Idiot America) any scientific fact that conflicts with the Christian death cult is a religious idea.
The good news is this shows how easy it should be to eradicate the Christian disease. Just improve science education.
-- Human Ape
Posted by: capnsnazsnap
|
December 23, 2010 12:49 PM
I just want to say thank you. Being an elementary public school teacher (an art teacher, however), it's frustrating enough struggling with the increasing emphasis on a comparison of U.S. students to foreign students, primarily based on standardized test scores, which often ignore the vast educational literature on various modes/styles of learning, and real situations in the classroom or at home that may hold sway in a child's success, and which focus purely on literacy, math and writing, instead of creativity, ingenuity, teamwork (characteristics that many of today's leading companies/employers are saying most of our college graduates and young job seekers are lacking); it's nice to see someone like yourself exposing the fraud of politicians who are focused on making our educational system even more convoluted, backwards, and broken. Again, thank you.
Posted by: ralphgentile3
|
December 23, 2010 12:52 PM
@ Fil #9,
Not a text book exactly, but Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson is an engaging primer written at an undergraduate level - it's like a script for a nature tv show.
Posted by: ralphgentile3
|
December 23, 2010 12:54 PM
@ Fil #9,
Not a text book exactly, but Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson is an engaging primer written at an undergraduate level - it's like a script for a nature tv show.
Posted by: Lori
|
December 23, 2010 1:19 PM
He represents the part of Oklahoma in which I reside. He was elected by the people who live around me, and I can honestly say that he is an accurate representation of the people who elected him, both in his ideology and in his poor grasp of the language.
I do love Oklahoma, though. I was born and raised here and I have no intention of abandoning the state.
Posted by: EricHetvile
|
December 23, 2010 1:20 PM
I guess the only positive spin I can get from this is that it makes my state, Texas, not look like the dumbest. This week.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
December 23, 2010 1:36 PM
I don't recall Darwin showing how a monkey turns into a business suit. Dang, I gotta read The Origin of Species again.
Posted by: AJS
|
December 23, 2010 1:39 PM
I think a much better idea would be to slip in a sneaky Federal law that requires schools in the USA, if they teach any creation stories at all, to teach at least the local Native American tribe's creation story. After all, no religion has a monopoly on creation stories. It's only fair that kids should learn several. You know, never get just one estimate, let the free market decide, and all that.
I'm suspecting that the requirement to teach competing myths (and none is any less riduculous than any other) might put some Christians off the whole "teach creationism" idea.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 23, 2010 1:48 PM
Right now, there is no problem teaching creationism in the classroom. Providing the classroom is about comparative religion, mythology, or philosophy. But, since creationism is religious, not scientific theory, it has no place in the science classroom.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 23, 2010 1:56 PM
I know I've posted this before, but it is actually possible to show mathematically that ID cannot be a scientific theory.
[Out of my depth]
Are you talking about information theory? I have seen the claim that the principe of parsimony (Occam's Razor basically) can be formalized as an information theoretical expression, but I confess to not really understanding that. Could you elaborate?
/oomd
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 23, 2010 2:30 PM
CJO, Yes, information theory is probably the easiest tool to use in proving ID cannot be scientific. The thing to remember is that any measurement always has errors on it, so it is never enough to simply explain a set of observations, one also has to make predictions about how the system under study will behave in the future.
Let's say that I have 3 data points {x,y), each consisting of an independent variable, x, and a dependent variable y that is determined by x. I could fit those three data points in a plane exactly with a parabola--that is, a 2nd degree polynomial). However, since the measurements are the product of both the dependence of y on x AND the errors on the measurement, this will not help me when it comes to predicting my fourth data point. It's very unlikely that the errors on data point #4 will match those on 1, 2 and 3, right. So, we can say that there just isn't enough informationin 3 data points for a 3 parameter model. I'd probably do much better predicting #4 if I just figured out the best line through the points. That will at least tell us if the series is increasing, decreasing or roughly stationary.
With me so far?
It turns out that you can do this more generally. For any statistical model, we can determine whether adding additional parameters to a model will improve its predictive power or degrade its predictive power. There is a quantity called the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) that can be used to compare two models with different numbers of parameters. AIC is fairly intuitive: It has a term that measures how well the theory fits the data (the likelihood, L) and a term that penalizes the theory for the number of parameters (k) in the theory.
AIC=2k-2*ln(L)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
In general, to justify adding terms to a model, the added terms have to improve the fit of the model to the data exponentially! And the theory that has the lowest AIC is the best.
OK, what does this mean for ID. Well, every time we make an observation, we have to ask ourself, "Did the designer intervene? If so, how?" That is at least 1 parameter (yes or no) for every observation, right? So the first term in AIC blows up as we take more data. It's like fitting our 3 data points to a parabola, right?
This is why ID never has sufficient predictive power to make a testable prediction, and why it can't be a scientific theory. Ever!
Posted by: jmcnary
|
December 23, 2010 2:42 PM
Actually, if you do a Google Images search for "monkey in a business suit" you will find that dozens of examples.
Statistically impossible, my ass!
Posted by: CJO
|
December 23, 2010 2:44 PM
Thanks ARIDS. That makes such good intuitive sense that it's not at all surprising to find it has a mathematical expression. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it, and quite clearly as well.
Cheers.
Posted by: jmcnary
|
December 23, 2010 2:50 PM
Er -- scratch the 'that' and add this link:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1920&bih=979&q=monkey+in+a+business+suit
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 23, 2010 2:58 PM
CJO, I'm glad that was understandable. The really cool thing is that AIC is not some arbitrary construction, but is actually related to a fundamental statistical quantity called the Kullback-Leibler distance/divergence.
I just think it's cool that Occam's razor is actually derivable from statistics!
Posted by: Waydude
|
December 23, 2010 6:50 PM
Phyla Crossover is a new car coming out next year from the revived Pontiac. It's bascially an Aztec, but not as cool.
Posted by: attorney
|
December 23, 2010 7:18 PM
Lynna, OM @135
Good call. In addition to the obvious spelling error, it's also a grammatical/syntax error. Things differ "from" other things, not "than" other things.
So it should read:
"Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different from changes among Phyla . . ."
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
December 23, 2010 10:20 PM
ha ha ha
I liked this tool-of--xtian-leaders idiot's idea that sediment beds can spawn time itself.
Posted by: Carl Hill
|
December 24, 2010 12:34 AM
Josh Brecheen is SO IMMATURE. Everyone knows babies are found under cabbage leaf. Someday the stork will have to explain it to him. From the left side of this world to the right side, as Osiris as my witness, the lucky rabbit's foot will gain a stature of obsolescense. I saw it in the tea leaves.
Posted by: Noddin
|
December 24, 2010 2:44 AM
Shaved ape? lol.... Would you ever say that about a non-white creationist .... didnt think so. I just saw all of you squerm.
Posted by: bluesman9584
|
December 24, 2010 5:26 AM
Josh Brecheen is a rank amateur when it comes to being full of shit. However, he is just getting started and will likely improve.
More than a few of Josh's fellow travelers here in Oklahoma believe God put fossils on the earth to test our faith. I have to admit it sounds like the kind of crap God might do.
Posted by: eccles
|
December 24, 2010 7:57 AM
Holy Shit. I weep for you PZ. Oaklahoma: That is in the United CHRISTIAN States of America - the Buckle of the Bible Belt?
You can see what is happening. I just read about a survey (we seem to get them every hour) stating that many youths are not embracing Religion or giving it up. This is an action to poison student's minds with Christianity and it's crap about "Creation", six day creation, to make matters worse and deny them the essential knowledge of SCIENCE and Evolution.
They want to turn America into a Third World Nation of brain dead Christian FundaMENTAList ZOMBIES.
Posted by: eccles
|
December 24, 2010 8:12 AM
"Ken Ham was born in Australia, but he had to go to america to get any recognition"
Don't rub it in, Mate, I live in Queensland, JOHland where Ham comes from.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 24, 2010 8:39 AM
Noddin, humans are apes. Get over it.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD
|
December 24, 2010 9:26 AM
a_ray, I just bookmarked your comment #153 (I called it 'arids_explains_AIC_&_refutes_ID'). I thought you'd put the case pretty strongly in the intuitive short version (#123), but... that just about wraps it up for God.
Merry Squidmas to all! (it's not long gone midnight where I am... still Queensland, but counting days)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/X8CPMQ8ooIvEBUo6S85EnwmA3FXO6Q--#6661a
|
December 24, 2010 1:21 PM
At least some creationists try to incorporate evolution (how long is God's day?) but obviously this "elected" legislature is completely taken by magic thinking.
http://userpages.chorus.net/jphibbs/mnkyboy.wav
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
December 24, 2010 3:22 PM
But what if it was a 900-foot tall levitating monkey, not only in a business suit... but also having a top hat and cane, tap-dancing and singing "hello my baby, hello my honey, hello my ragtime gal..." and regenerating its own tail after biting it off only moments ago?
Wouldn't that be the final, incontrovertible proof for the existence of evolution?
Posted by: Broncho
|
December 24, 2010 4:01 PM
He's back!
http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Senator-Brecheen-says-those-who-believe-in-evolution-have-been-persuaded-by-an-experiment-plagued-with-falsehoods?instance=secondary_opinion_left_column
Rather than defend his previous work, he apparently decided to vomit more nonsense that doesn't even pertain to evolution.
Posted by: KG
|
December 24, 2010 6:58 PM
Yes, of course, why not? I would only say it about creationists who have had the educational opportunities to know better, not about those who are simply the ignorant victims of liars, but ethnicity has no relevance whatever here.
Posted by: Jeff
|
December 25, 2010 11:11 AM
@Larry:
I've been saying it for years - breed them out of the genome, and, in the meantime, don't let them vote and don't allow them anywhere near children. Of course, the last time I said it here, I was called a hateful person and hounded off.
@iknklast:
Absolutely - and, if they earn the degrees honestly then flip out afterward, the degrees should be rescinded.
Refusing to award a graduate degree in science shouldn't be a problem, even in Oklahoma. Graduate students, unlike undergrads, aren't merely showing up and taking tests; they're required to do original work, which has to be based upon a foundation of the work of their predecessors. This can't be done if they repudiate the basic principles of science. I have to see this business of giving graduate science degrees to creationist morons as pandering to the Christian right. I can understand it in the case of a state school in the south or Midwest, but I can't understand it in the case of an Ivy League university, or any other school in the liberal, godless Northeast - yet that appears to be what is happening.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/M11PAPtwrIjTnQR39Fh4g2RCBM_zbw--#2ec9d
|
December 25, 2010 2:56 PM
Cool link about the Creation Museum
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moron+magnet
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 25, 2010 3:10 PM
John@167, glad it was helpful.
Posted by: grudgedk
|
December 25, 2010 11:52 PM
I've always wondered why politicians only ever use "paid for by the taxpayers" about spending they disagree on? Do they really think that if anyone had any choice in the matter, that anyone would care that some fraction of a cent paid on every dollar worth of tax revenue goes towards making their kids smarter, in a country where every half dollar is spent on maintaining the worlds largest military by several orders of magnitude, despite the country not having a credible military threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union nearly 2 decades ago? Are Americans really that stupid?
Posted by: Complicated Lifeform
|
December 26, 2010 1:22 PM
You know, years ago there used to be this ad for PG Tips (a brand of tea) on British television that featured chimpanzees wearing clothes, sitting around a kitchen table and generally doing human activities. Maybe that's where he got the "monkeys in business suits" idea from.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
December 26, 2010 1:45 PM
"Of course, the last time I said it here, I was called a hateful person and hounded off."
Or it might have been because it would be 1) a gross violation of civil rights and grant the sort of powers to the government (restriction of reproduction) that I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with anyone having, let alone potentially the wrong people, and 2) the tie between genes and intelligence is highly speculative and depends largely on how one defines "intelligence" anyway. Idiocracy might have been an entertaining movie, but it's sloppy science.
Posted by: silverwingpegasus
|
December 27, 2010 5:33 AM
a mega facepalm is not enough
Posted by: ksinger
|
December 27, 2010 9:14 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I live in Oklahoma, and stuff like this is just so cringe-inducing. Please people, don't believe that everyone here is like that, or that everyone here would have voted for this yayhoo. There really are a few people in Oklahoma who don't have calluses on their knuckles. We just can't overcome the majority that do, alas.
Alright, back to pushing that boulder uphill...
Posted by: BeamStalk
|
December 27, 2010 9:20 AM
I have a child in the public school system here in Oklahoma. Pass this law so I can sue the state.
Posted by: revatheist
|
December 27, 2010 10:50 AM
I'm from Oklahoma, and his attitudes are unfortunately very common around here. However, just to prove how dim this idiot is, if you go to his official state bio site http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/biographies/brecheen_bio.html#county_rep you will find that apparently this dumbass has no job, no education (which was self-evident), doesn't know where he's from, and has no idea what counties he's representing. Of course, you could call this an ad hominem attack, and it may be, but you could also call it another indicator of his idiocy.
Posted by: Jeff
|
December 27, 2010 12:16 PM
Or it might have been because it would be 1) a gross violation of civil rights and grant the sort of powers to the government (restriction of reproduction) that I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with anyone having, let alone potentially the wrong people, and 2) the tie between genes and intelligence is highly speculative and depends largely on how one defines "intelligence" anyway.
Or it could be because many of PZ's regulars are nearly or just as dogmatic as the fundies they (rightfully) despise.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 27, 2010 1:08 PM
Jeff,
The problem is not a lack of intelligence or competence, but rather the inability of people to recognize that they lack competence in a particular area of expereise.
This is a failure of education. "Intelligence" is a fraught concept--in part because those designing the "tests" invariably develop tests that favor their particular type of intelligence.
I am still first and foremost a democrat. I just think that we need to find a way to educate people in the areas they must understand to be competent voters--science among the rest.
Posted by: ginarex
|
December 28, 2010 11:36 AM
Josh Brecheen is one more case of a person whose thinking function is stuck in magical thinking; we all are born this way - the default mode of the brain is magic. Rational thought must be activated through education. If it isn't developed early, the child may NEVER be able to follow a reality-based train of thought. To try to change the thinking of a magic-based brain like Brecheens is futile - the necessary neuropathways are just not there.
Unless we begin teaching kids at a very young age that the environment and humans are subject to natural laws, this degradation in brain function toward supernatural belief will continue to take us backwards. This is no joke. Unfortunately, millions of American children are captives within Christian Cults that are anti-rational.
If you look at the Senate and House, most of the members are hampered by supernatural beliefs that direct their decision-making. We're essentially screwed.
Posted by: Osbert
|
December 28, 2010 3:32 PM
A would-be atheist dear to me and near to my heart called my attention to this, both of us finding it milk-snort hilarious.
It would be utterly utterly so were not the muck from which it arises so sad.
Josh Brecheen is enough to give the Holy One, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, a bad name.
Pace Jeff
(December 27, 2010 12:16 PM #182)The sadder part is not just that Brecheen is ignorant of what he would refute, but so too of the Scriptures and the power of God (cf. Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24). From them he draws no, nor can draw any, support, nor (to put the matter as one might adapt from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer) is there is any health in him.
(John 13:30)Brecheen is an impostor, a masquerading ass wearing public office as a lion skin, to be accorded authority he does not have in what is God's and what is Caesar's (cf. Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17).
Would that someone in this forum, preferably an Okie, go to him and tell him to sheathe his sword before he impales his soul upon it, although I doubt any responders here are any better equipped to do so than he is in his own dubious and dubitable dabblings where he has, as the Scots say, nae ken.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
December 28, 2010 4:00 PM
"Or it could be because many of PZ's regulars are nearly or just as dogmatic as the fundies they (rightfully) despise."
Tell you what. Devise an intelligence test that is free from cultural and political bias and would be a good indicator of who should and should not breed, and then go find the genes that are responsible for low scores, and then if I still object, you can call me a dogmatic fundie until your heart's content.
Posted by: mclisa
|
December 28, 2010 10:30 PM
He's not an ass. I have asses. They're way smarter than this guy. Probably better looking too. Definitely more useful.
Posted by: Kemist
|
December 29, 2010 12:20 AM
Well, he doesn't. Chemistry is a very vast field, that goes from very near physics to analytical methods to more biology-related medicinal chemistry.
He's a computational & theoretical chemist (think closer to physics than to the wet hands-on world of organic/biochemistry) from back when computational chem was, shall we say, limited. Had to look him up, never had heard of him. Somehow he's not very "cited" anymore. But what PZ says stands : no expertise whatsoever in biology - his field is as far from it as that of an engineer or a physicist. He's not an organician or a biochemist - those would know at least some things about biology.
I don't know how a competent organician could be a creationist. A human brain cannot withstand such dissonance without dissolving into madness. But then that complete doofus Behe is supposed to be a biochemist. Well, not that he's a competent one.
Posted by: still1
|
December 29, 2010 5:03 AM
Hmm...no-one addresses his objections, just abuse.
Myers:
evidence based on subjective obervations that would not pass muster in any other "hard" science.
math: huh? what math.
experiments: with fruit flies, bacteria etc. hardly conclusive for macro evolution and common ancestry.
Check out this from one of those who signed that rebuttal:
That seems somewhat compelling to the lay mind.
Now, please Myers, or one your epigones (an epigone of an epigone) provide some evidence, math, objective observation and whole-of-theory confirming experiments for evolution, or links to some such.
thank you
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 29, 2010 5:11 AM
still1:
'Lay mind' does not mean ignorant, and science is not a religion.
Call it what it is: the scientifically ignorant mind.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 29, 2010 5:18 AM
PS
<spoing!>
Posted by: ginarex
|
December 29, 2010 10:15 AM
What I find disturbing is how many posters think this guy, and those like him are funny, hilarious, and ebtertaining. Also how many are ignorant of magical thinking as the source of superstition and fundamentalist belief in the supernatural.
TABOO, MAGIC, SPIRITS A Study of Primitive Elements in Roman Religion, by Eli Edward Buriss, is an excellent and brief description of human magical behavior.
I can't believe how little awareness of the basis for religious thinking there is among scientific types (assuming that's who posts here).
Posted by: Osbert
|
December 29, 2010 1:22 PM
It is interesting that the term "lay" appropriated (no less if not even more so in the social groups of scientists (some may say "the scientific community")) to speak of "not of a particular profession" or "lacking extensive knowledge of a particular subject" originates from Christian practice (see, for example, Merriam-Webster (M-W http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lay, sense 5 adjective), as "of or relating to the laity" or "of or relating to members of a religious house occupied with domestic or manual work" (in turn "laity" as "the people of a religious faith as distinguished from its clergy" and also "the mass of the people as distinguished from those of a particular profession or those specially skilled").
The M-W entry for "religion" provides, "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (M-W http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) and for "religious," "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" (M-W http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious).
There is no disparagement in sensing that these senses sound an awful lot like good science and good scientists and what they do well.
For some in fact, "[s]cience is not a religion." For some (PZM likelily among them) it is -- or if not per se in fact -- "ultimate reality or deity," and just as there can be "the scientifically ignorant mind" so to "the religiously ignorant mind" and a panoply of others. I find the provincialism (Kant might call it "self-imposed immaturity") in which some devotees of scientism (well to be distinguished from devotees of science itself) -- even otherwise sober, sensible, scrupulous scientists not deterministically immune -- think to escape exposure naive and bemusing. Science can be an idol, whether it ever considers idolatry a scientific category.
It is difficult if not impossible for many if not all such to avoid intellectual hypocrisy in flinching off application -- unbiased, free from preconceptions -- of the same impassive empassioned regard for what they perceive as "religion" as they bring to their other chosen bodies of knowledge and discovery. They may find the faith roots of science embarrassing. Darwin's undergraduate major was theology. Newton wrote ten times as much theology (mostly not so done well) as physics (done pretty well, quantity and quality inversely proportional, but that is another matter). Linnaeus had over the door of his study a plaque reading (translated from Swedish) simply, "Live humbly. God is nigh." (And so might we all, of whatever persuasion.)
Readers not craven from such topics may find Melvyn Bragg's “Interrogating Nature - to reveal God's way?” (Oxford Today 22.3 Trinity 2010 http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2009-10/v22n3/02.shtml) on the origins of the Royal Society instructive.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 29, 2010 5:26 PM
Osbert, alas, your pontifications are rendered moot because science is a method, not an ideology.
There is no religious aspect to science, and I here note that your argument from idiom is silly.
There is no theory where scientists say "... and then, a miracle occurs". :)
--
PS Your attempt to diss science by comparing it to a religion (futile as it may be) is a tactic that evinces your acknowledgement that to be religious is to be inferior in some sense.
Heh.
--
I suppose next you'll claim that since some scientists are religious, science and religion are perforce compatible.
Come on, you know you want to...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 29, 2010 5:29 PM
I can't believe how little awareness of the basis for religious thinking there is among scientific types (assuming that's who posts here).
yeah, um, us sciencey types tend to actually look at the primary literature.
you know, that stuff that actually IS science?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58.abstract
so take your ignorant condescending head and shove it...
oh, nevermind, you've already done that I see.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 29, 2010 5:33 PM
ginarex:
1. Your disturbance is noted.
2. Whatever gave you that impression?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 29, 2010 5:37 PM
math: huh? what math.
man, you fuckers are so ignorant it's scary.
you could actually even start with Darwin, but I bet you don't even KNOW enough math to process the equations even Fisher used in the book that became the nucleus of the modern synthesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genetical_Theory_of_Natural_Selection
here:
http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/kokko/Publ/AREES.pdf
please solve all the linear algebraic equations in this paper, please.
fucking ignorant lunatics.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 29, 2010 5:41 PM
The taint of human subjectivity clings too much to it.
Is that the taint I aim my next kick at?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 29, 2010 5:58 PM
Ichthyic nailed it. Frequentist statistics was born from evolutionary genetics...read Fisher, Wright, or Haldane. Read Nei or Kimura. Read Hartl and Clark's Principles of Population Genetics. Read Felsenstein, Edwards, Cavalli-Sforza or Yang. Learn something about coalescence theory, phylogenetics, ecological niche modeling, or predictive mapping. Or maybe pick up the latest issue of the journal Evolution. Evolutionary theory is mathy if it's anything.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 29, 2010 6:29 PM
Still 1 is an absolute moron. Jebus, dude, did you ever even look at a genetics text. Ever hear of William Hamilton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton
Just try reading one of his papers. Maybe your mommy can help you with some of the bigger words.
Congrats asshat. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the Intertubez. And xtians wonder why smart people want nothing to do with their fucking religion!
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 29, 2010 6:43 PM
Osbert, I have an idea. Why don't you actually study some science. It is not a belief system, but rather a method for obtaining understanding of the natural world.
Ditch the postmodern crap and try something that actually works--e.g. science.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 29, 2010 6:48 PM
The fundamental mathematical basis of evolution through natural selection has its roots in information theory. Information theory has produced some of the most intriguing mathematical breakthroughs in the last century, from chaos theory to set theory.
The theory of evolution is every bit as mathematical as physics. The difference is the mathematical domain which is most applicable.
Biology became mathematical the instant Gregor Mendel discovered the secrets of heredity.
Further, go blow yourself.
Posted by: still1
|
December 30, 2010 3:43 AM
You(plural) Lie
Erecting models AFTER a hypothesis has been proposed in order to disaggegate the mechanics of just how said hypothesis could, may, possibly operate does not constitute exposing fundamental, underlying structures in reality, expressed mathematically, which is what physics and chemistry do. eg. the Schrodinger equation in quantum theory IS the dynamics of micro reality whereas what Fisher, Hamilton et al are attempting are quantifications of how natural selection MAY POSSIBLY work, given its (natural selection within groups) assumption as a paradigm.
Moreover, Hamilton's "rule" has not been validated (would any formula in physics or chemistry survive without such?), and, I quote:
In other words, all your vaunted math in evolutionary theory amounts to is mere modelling of countervailing and confused assumptions amongst professionals who possess NO fundamental mathematical presentation of biological reality that could confirm Darwin's main revolutionary hypothesis: common ancestry as the basis for all of life and macro evolution by means of natural selection. It remains an unconfirmed idea, both mathematically and empirically.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 30, 2010 5:48 PM
still1:
Testing hypotheses is a way-stage, you nong.
You're supposed to be talking about a theory, you know.
Your boastful conceit that you know better than professionals is cringe-worthy.
Oh, please. It's as if it were sunny outside and you claimed it was in fact raining.
Makes you look idiotic.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 30, 2010 6:05 PM
Hey homeskool:
Evidence confirming common ancestry discussed here. And FFS, Darwin provided empirical support for natural selection. Do a quick googlescholar search for any of the 1 bazillion papers that provide evidence for diversifying selection...
Why am I bothering. You are obviously pig-ignorant, and never, ever want to get better.
Posted by: ginarex
|
December 31, 2010 11:45 AM
Ichthyic #195 - really now - insulting me doesn't change facts. My background is in geology, but that doesn't prevent me from investigating non-rational belief, which is the instinctive and magical mode used by the human brain to explain the environment, and which is dominant in most of humanity. Science is a learned system that has been painstakingly developed by a minority of humans.
These two systems of thought cannot be reconciled: they can exist discretely in one brain - ie, the scientist who is rational at work, but fervently adheres to Chrisianity or any other religion outside of work. These two modes can be so isolated within the brain that the scientist will argue vehemently that there is no conflict between physical laws and supernatural control of all events in the universe.
Some individuals are limited to magical thinking (for a variety of reasons) - it is pointless to argue with them, to call them stupid, or otherwise insult them. The magical mind cannot follow a rational sequence of facts and ideas. It is counter-productive to get angry,yell, explain, edify, etc. It is productive to promote rational thinking through early education, when the child brain is flexible and receptive to ideas in science and math.
Posted by: max
|
May 18, 2011 5:10 PM
This could be a really amateurish question, something that has already been sorted out by evolutionary scientists long ago, and if it is then I apologize in advance for my ignorance and wasting the classes’ time, but, which gender evolves or transmutates first in this whole evolutionary scheme, the male or the female form, and at what point does the other gender happenchance into the picture in order to be able to reproduce the new species?
Posted by: max
|
May 18, 2011 5:15 PM
This could be a really amateurish question, something that has already been sorted out by evolutionary scientists long ago, and if it is then I apologize in advance for my ignorance and wasting the classes’ time, but, which gender evolves or transmutates first in this whole evolutionary scheme, the male or the female form, and at what point does the other gender happenchance into the picture in order to be able to reproduce the new species?
Posted by: KG
|
May 18, 2011 5:24 PM
max,
Not so much amateurish, more sort of utterly fucking stupid. In species with two sexes, both evolve together. Any individual unable to reproduce with members of the other sex in the population, leaves no offspring. Populations as a whole in general* change gradually over many generations.
*There are exceptions, mostly among plants, where new species can be produced in a single generation by a mechanism called polyploidy, which doubles the number of chromosomes in the cell.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
May 18, 2011 5:26 PM
@max
Sex/gender as we know it is fairly new and also fairly complicated. It's not a true binary for one thing.
The question is a lot more complicated than you realize but I'll take the moment to tryt o answer it for you from several angels
Developmentally: While you have a genetic gender decided by presence or absence of a Y chromosome, you developmentally start out as female and masculinization occurs later. You can actually get a person who has various genders that do not match up (Ie genetalia does not match genetic or some do not match hormonal etc) that lead to ambiguous genders.
Evolutionarily: the earliest life forms were asexual. After that they were sexual but not gendered and a life form could generate one of three types of gametes: Small, medium, large sized. Small size due to their size moved around quicker in the medium but lacked the size to provide much nutrition, large was less mobile but had plenty nutrition to provide and medium was split. Small and large gametes were mutually selected for as you get the best fertilization and chance of development when those two gametes fertilized rather than SS/MS/MM/LM/LL combination. You have hermaphrodite organisms then that gradually continue to divergently be selected for for structures and behaviors that maximize the effect of their gamete type.
There are of course life forms that either did not take this path (Fungi can have dozens of genders) or developed further and lost it (One species of lizard for example has lost it's male gender. Females self fertilize themselves but because of their past evolutionary history as sexual creatures require female to female mating courtship in order to induce the event)
That's a really really brief, as layman as I can make it explanation.
To review
Asexual->divergent gamete strategies->hermaphrodites->specialized genders
Your question depends a lot on what you define the genders as.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 18, 2011 6:09 PM
Somebody has been listening to Ray Comfort.
I'd start with that problem: you're getting your information about evolution from a raving idiot.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
May 18, 2011 6:16 PM
Hey now, PZ and KG. 3 post rule.
Yes it's oddly suspicious that we're getting someone asking that...again. But it could be honest. And the evolution of sex was one of my favorite lessons in undergrad.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
May 18, 2011 6:20 PM
That was a nice summary, Ing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 18, 2011 6:30 PM
Shiloh is that you, sounding even stoopider than normal?Both sexes evolve simultaneously, otherwise the species is extinct. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out, just real and logical thinking (which leaves out creationist web sites). Which is why the question rates a 12 on a 1-10 scale of sheer and utter inanity.
Posted by: coadyvision
|
November 2, 2011 2:45 PM
We are KGS Construction. We are a Northern Virginia company based out of Manassas. We provide a wide range of services including: roofing manassas, waterproofing manassas, sealant replacement, leaking roof manassas and roof repair manassas, concrete and masonry repair, and general contracting. We pride ourselves on providing superb craftsmanship and work, and because of that we are highly regarded as the preeminent commercial construction manassas company in Northern Virginia. Let us help you out with your roofing repair manassas.Check us out at http://www.kgsconstruction.com/