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.
More like this
This groundbreaking report--"Marion duPont Scott Equine Medical Center offers new treatment for lameness"-- just out, is riveting. And I think this says it all:
Daniel Zwerdling has an excellent article on the chicken slaughter industry in the latest Gourmet. I had no idea that Americans consumed more than 9 billion broiler chickens every year. Or that, thanks to newfangled forms of feed, it only takes a broiler chicken six weeks to reach market weight.
With silliness running riot
Last week, I wrote about the latest attempt to defy the laws of thermodynamics and make a free energy machine and how it went down in flames.
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