creationism

In Wisconsin, a bill has been proposed to ban intelligent design from science courses. Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a plan Tuesday that would ban public schools from teaching intelligent design as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom. The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and comes as a debate over how to teach the origins of human life rages in local school districts. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, acknowledged the measure faced an uphill fight in a…
I got a tip from a fellow working at the UBC Botanical Gardens. "Take a look at some of the descriptions the US National Park Service uses," says he, "and compare the more politicized parks to the others." Well, we know which park gets the most attention from the creationists—that would be the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is more than a great chasm carved over millennia through the rocks of the Colorado Plateau. It is more than an awe-inspiring view. It is more than a pleasuring ground for those who explore the roads, hike the trails, or float the currents of the turbulent Colorado River.…
Ah, I remember those endlessly complicated maps of cellular metabolism I had to memorize for biochemistry. Now here's a clever idea: weblogs as enzymes in the metabolism of the blogosphere. I better not have to memorize the whole thing.
…but she wasn't. She was allowed to continue her educational malpractice until her contract expired, and then was not rehired—something that happens to adjunct and assistant professors all the time, with no necessary implication of poor work. Caroline Crocker, if you've never heard of her, is the lead topic in an article in the Washington Post today, and you may also have read an account of her situation in Nature. She's a molecular biologist who believes in Intelligent Design, and who was released from her position at George Mason University. Now she wants to claim that her academic freedom…
As long as I'm making addenda to posts, let's hit up this one, too. Some people have mentioned that they knew the creationists would come gunning for other domains of science sooner or later, and see George Deutsch's remarks as confirmation. There is absolutely no surprise to the criticism of physics, and it's been going on for a long while. Ultimately, the gripe the religious have isn't with the simple facts, it's with the process. Science is a tool that has been incredibly successful at digging into the nature of the universe, and religion is a proven flop next to it. That rankles, I'm sure…
Kristine Harley attended James Curtsinger's lecture at UMTC last night, and passed along an abbreviated copy of her notes. I wish I could have gone—it sounds like it was an informative evening—but living out here in the wilderness, I have to plan those long drives into the Big City with some care. Curtsinger's talk was only very loosely organized around the theme of "ten things," and was mostly a comprehensive overview of the various forms of creationism from Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) to Michael Behe's embarrassing performance at the Dover trial. I would say that there were around 20-25…
Dave Eaton, Mouth of Yecke, public advocate of poor education, creationist pest, has given up the fight. On Tuesday, January 31, School Board member Dave Eaton resigned from the Minnetonka School Board. Noting personal reasons, he informed the Board that he is no longer able to continue his service. Mr. Eaton had served on the School Board since being appointed on June 4, 2002. The School Board is expected to act on Mr. Eaton's resignation at its Regular Meeting on Thursday, February 2, 2006. The Board will discuss a process for filling the vacancy at a scheduled work session on February 7…
There's always Austin. Check out the nice and lucid op-ed against Intelligent Design creationism published down there: it points out that ID is on a fool's errand that will always allow it to be defeated in a scientific argument. ID will be trapped in a morass of implausible and unscientific rationalizations, trying to explain why a designer did this or that, whereas evolution does not ascribe purpose to the process called "natural selection." As Gould emphasized in his final public appearance here (in February 2002), it is unscientific and self-centered to think that our species—perhaps 160…
Behe's ideas have been rejected by his colleagues; it seems those ideas were also the subject of a public forum at his university, with essays on the issue available online. During the fall semester, a Chaplain's Forum held on campus to offer differing perspectives on the contentious issue drew a standing-room-only crowd. The six faculty members who participated addressed the implications of intelligent design for science and for religion. This series of essays, which grew out of the Lehigh forum, is intended to shed light on an issue that all too often engenders only heat. Behe's essay is…
…but my university actually supports me. There's a profile of yours truly that's part of a random rotating collection of links on UMM's main page (if you don't see it there, reload the page; it'll appear eventually.) I am aware that I am slightly harsher and more radical than many of my colleagues on some issues (others have their own domains of expertise and radicalism), but one of the great things about UMM is that even if they don't explicitly endorse all of my opinions—and that acknowledgment on the main page is not an admission that this university is a hotbed of militant atheist…
Here's a fascinating glimpse of history for those involved in the creation wars: the Seattle Weekly has published scans of the original Wedge document from the Discovery Institute. Now you too can see it in it's original cheap-ass photocopied glory, and also learn who leaked the documents…two people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. The paper also has an account of how the Wedge was revealed. I didn't know this part of it at all, and I have to thank Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes for casually breaking the rules of their firm (I presume!) and exposing this remarkably pompous, dishonest,…
The Guardian has a piece titled Steve Fuller: Designer trouble, in reference to testimony that the aforementioned professor gave to the Dover court. After reading the article I have to say that I'm not surprised that he testified, he seems to not be of any camp aside from that of Steve Fuller, and oh how he loves himself. Fuller notes that "It is not like people love you for doing this" in reference to his pro-ID testimony at Dover. Sure, but it gets you 1400 word write ups in The Guardian, along with putting "social epistemology"1 on the map that has to make you somebody.
I've got a couple of posts that have been nominated for The 2005 Koufax Awards: Best Post, so I've quickly brought them on board here at the new site. Voting isn't yet open, but here they are: Idiot America. This one is something of a howl of anguish, and it's really more a lot of quotes from Charles Pierce's article of the same name in Esquire. If this gets the nomination, credit should go more to Pierce than to me—and that's OK. Planet of the Hats. This article is probably the best representation for how I actually feel about religion. It's all metaphor, but if you don't get it, I won't be…
I love this article. Ctenotrish sent along a copy of Greetings from Idiot America, by Charles P. Pierce (sorry, but it's behind a firewall, and you have to pay $2.95 to see it) from the latest Esquire. I don't think I've ever read this magazine before—it's one of those things with half-naked young ladies draped over the cover, which, strangely enough, isn't something that usually entices me to pick up a copy—but this one article has all the vigor and passion that most of our media have wrung out of their press, replacing it with tepid timidity and vacuous boosterism for whatever the polls…
We're getting signs that the Discovery Institute is going to be shifting their strategy a little bit. Thoughts from Kansas has an excellent discussion of the subject. Basically, they're going to embrace more of the actual science, and focus their dispute on finer and finer points. What does this mean? Common descent is now in. DaveScot on Bill Dembski's blog (TfK has the link) has a bit of a rant on it—he's going to kick out anyone who questions the idea of common descent, and goes on and on about how denying common ancestry is a religious idea that goes against all of the scientific evidence…
John Lynch catches Dembski getting all breathless about a class in Switzerland that includes a lecture on ID. Big whoop, John says, he teaches it, too. So do I. Why wasn't Dembski announcing this glorious victory last semester, when I mentioned it on Pharyngula? Maybe it's because when ID is discussed in a science class, it's to rip it apart.
I was not alone in receiving a silly survey from an ID creationist: Tara, Mike, John, and Wesley all got it, and all rejected its premise. I'm joining in the universal dismissal. If you're curious, I've put the "survey" below the fold, but here's my answer. A. Insert thumbs in ears. B. Flap hands. C. Cross eyes. D. Make loud raspberry sound. P.S. Now the guy is whining that the "defenders of science" refuse to participate in his "scientific" survey, failing to note that our complaint is that it is not scientific in any way…and as expected, he's turning any response into an excuse to berate…
I guess I'm not the only fan of the weirdness that is Jim Pinkoski—another collection of Pinkoskisms has been unearthed at Ooblog.
Darksyde's "Know your creationists" series on Daily Kos has become a "Know your friends" edition today, with a profile of Wesley Elsberry of the NCSE.
Everyone sing their birthday wishes to Red State Rabble, who is also optimistically looking forward to an uprising by the moderates of Kansas in the coming year.