Blogging is slow this week. I've got a talk at AAAS in Chicago to prepare, an abstract for a conference in Montreal to prepare, and a dissertation to complete.
So let it be known that creationism still sucks, that I'm glad a bill forcing evolution disclaimers into Mississippi textbooks failed, that creationist bills in Iowa and New Mexico are lame and should go away (as should similar legislation in Alabama and Oklahoma), and that the Disco. Inst.'s attempt to co-opt the anniversary of Darwin's birth is pretty damn lame. More blogging anon.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I want to add a point to my response to the Disco. Inst.'s claim that TFN's survey of Texas biology teachers is a "push-poll" and "jackbooted thuggery."
That language is unbecoming and unprofessional, but we have all come to expect that from the Discovery Institute.
It is also hypocritical.
I…
I haven't read Ken Miller's new book, Only a Theory, as yet, but the magic of the intertubes has allowed me to see his recent appearance on "The Colbert Report." Like PZ already noted I think Miller steamrolled over Colbert to make sure he got his talking points across (which is practically a…
The NCSE is reporting that the Mississippi Disclaimer Bill has died in committee, leaving Alabama as the only state with a disclaimer on biology textbooks. Apparently the bill’s sponsor, Gary Chism (R-Distinct 37) is considering “drafting another bill next year supporting the teaching of the…
I am so incredibly tardy with this information that Arizonian John Lynch and the lovely folks at Uncommon Descent have already blogged this, but recently an "academic freedom" bill was introduced in Iowa. For those who may be unfamiliar, in addition to "teach the controversy," these "academic…
I haven't heard of the Iowa bill (I'm in Des Moines)...do you have details? I/we need to get on this quick before it gets out of hand. Thanks for the heads up!
Joshua Agonistes works as well as Samson Agonistes. You have some friends on the reconciliation side who also struggle to point out that science and faith might coexist beautifully were it not for political/religious extremism.
The creationism/ID lobby seeks to establish their sectarian interpretation of faith over physical evidence by promoting as science an astonishing religious error which actually contradicts the Bible!
This teaching claims that evolution by natural processes, including what both creationists and IDâers continually label âblind chanceâ (random occurrence), could only be âaccidentalâ, and therefore godless. In this they agree with the atheist position.
Why this current marriage of convenience, agreeing with atheism against the Bible, in order to promote a religious agenda? Might it be because this heretical tactic permits them to deny the possibility of guided evolution through chance?
This startling and contradictory machination is carefully explained here:
Intelligent Design Rules Out Godâs Sovereignty Over Chance
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289
âWhat proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.â