Now the English are Making Fun of Us

Or at least they should be.Check it out.

Nearly two-thirds of those in a Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe ``creationism'' should be taught alongside ``evolution'' - a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools.

``What this basically tells us is that in contentious issues, many people take the default position - teach both sides and let people make up their own minds,'' Lugo said."

Almost half, 48 percent, said they believed humans have evolved over time. Some of those people, 26 percent of all those polled, said they believe evolution occurred through natural selection, and another 18 percent of all those polled, said evolution was guided by a supreme being.

The Pew Research Poll claims a 2.5% margin of error. That makes us officially the back woods dumbasses every one thinks we are.

Okay, okay, I should tone down the venom and make myself clear. Science decisions, decisions of the public school curriculum, should be made by educators and based on secular standards. Why? Because we have a constitutionally mandated separation between church and state. This includes the public school system. Therefore, what you believe is true about the nature of the universe is all fine and dandy, but unless you have something more that a stellar work of serial fiction to back it up, it doesn't come into the classroom. Same goes for policy decisions involving a woman's body. Or space exploration. Or fiscal policy. Or Social policy. Or any other actions of the government.

I knew it!

So, the current ID v. Evolution debate, the stem cell debate, the morning after pill debate and the remnants of the abortion debate pitch religious ideals against secular society. Some are searching for a balance between the two, some don't believe in reaching any compromise. That's what makes this so funny.

Twenty percent of Americans sampled believe the sun revolves around the earth.

We're doomed.

Drunk Post Number 1

Crutcher says i shouldn't threaten anyone, despite mildly inebraited-ness. I say, fuck that. It Pat Rober-christ can call publicallyfor the assasination of a world leader, then surely I can threaten morons with the wrath of the iron maiden and forced frontal lobotomies.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, here's a follow up to the other day's article concerning ISU astronomy profs teaching intelligent desgin. Apperantly, he wrote a book with sme ID proffesional wackos about ID, and is now incorporating it in his class. Oh, and he thinks a petition signed by 7% of the faculty denouncing ID in the class room is mean. He's making religion a part of the curriculm at a public university, but standing against him is mean spiritied.

Fucker.


BTW, I'll fix the spelling and stuff in the morning, no afternoon, when I wake up sober.

ciao.

More Pastafarianism

I went ahead and bought a Flying Spaghetti Monster shirt from Boing Boing I feel vuagly trendy, yet rebellious. Next I'll be gelling my hair and wearing 12 to 15 buttons with politically aware slogans, and my descent into hipster-ism will be complete.

Back to the science...

I love New Zealand Herald. Really, I do. Take, for example, this headline. "Intelligent design - coming to a school near you"

I think their spin should be the one the American press takes. It's a good article.

I wonder if this is on G's schedule

This is insane

"Guillermo Gonzalez is a soft-spoken assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State, but he is also a lightning rod for a national debate." Why the hell is an anstronamy assistant teaching intelligent design? What possible justification does he have? Who cares? How did this get approved?

"More than 120 staff and faculty from ISU have signed a petition asking that the university reject all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor."

Hey sis! Pleaase tell me you're taking this class? And if I give you $20, will you kick him in the shins for me? I mean, geez, you said there was nothing in Iowa but white bible bangers and corn, but I thought you were exaggerating at least a little. This kinda crap I would have expected in Alabama, but ISU I thought was a slightly more respectable school.

*Sigh*

I'm really not in the mood to fool with this today, so here's a breif and humorless run down of the current top Google News articles relevant to the man v monkey debate.

Debate over `intelligent design' is a not-so-wise diversion from science education: "The real question is not evolution versus intelligent design, but whether this debate is worth more than a nanosecond of public effort? Given the more urgent challenges in science education today, it would be far more useful if the president turned his attention to America's declining edge in science and engineering." Right, 'cause the president attention to science hasn't done enough damage to stem cell research, or NASA, or...

Intelligent Design debate hits New York Times’ front page it's a Baptist News resource talking about what the New York Time's front page looks like.

Give intelligent design a place in classrooms Guess what this is about? "We are often told "real" scientists have not provided evidence that might support intelligent design. They suggest it is only disguised creationism. I would expect nothing less from anyone who worships Darwinism." Damn, I guess they've got me. Now if you'll excuse me, it's "Charlie Knows Best" Wendsday, and I haven't yet opened my Holy Book of English Naturalists or sipped a virgin's blood.

ACLU opposes Rio Rancho intelligent design policy Woot, ACLU!

How intelligent is Intelligent Design? I've only read the first few paragraphs, but the set up looks good.

An epic evolution It's a story about cricket, but the fact that it came up like this really amuses me.

BREAKPOINT: On solid ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design More Baptist News Ug. "I was in Oxford recently, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible. In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove Who God was. I said, “If you could prove Who God was, you could not love God—which is the principle object of life.”" I really think reading too much of this drivel is going to drive me to drink (more). And I still fucking hate C.S. Lewis.

More Smartasses in the News

I'm sure by now that everyone has seen the Boing Boing post about the spaghetti monster by now.

You haven't? Oh!
Flying Spaghetti Monster

Noodly Appendage

Because, you know, stupid decisions need an appropriate response. And hey, if there must be a creator to teach in the fairy tale section of biology, why not one we can all identify with?

I paticularly like the title the Washington Post gave to article. Kansas moves to stem role of evolution in teaching Not only does it evoke the "family tree" imagry so relevant to the debate, it also hints at the other major bitching point of the Bush administration. Eh.

This I like: "This is neo-creationism, trying to avoid the legal morass of trying to teach creationism overtly and slip it in through the backdoor,"

Yep. Sure is.

Smartasses in the News

Smartass#1. I really like this. Of course, I read it twice to make sure he was saying what I thought he was saying.

Smartass#2 on the other hand, was a bit more obvious. And funny, I thought.

And Smartass#3 drives hope the Galileo analogy again.


That is all.

Is this the problem?

"Intelligent design is actually less an explanation than it is a way of poking holes in evolutionary theory. On the whole, the scientific community deplores it, not least because its claims cannot be tested by experiment."

That's the opinion of David Yount, as carried by the Scripps Howard news service and reprinted in the News Tribune. For someone on the other side (I guess) that strikes me as a really succint summation of the problem.

Of course, I belive very much in chance.

So what?

Pea Soup is a reaction.

I think it's a reaction against stupid. Yeah, yeah, there's another side.
Recently, the President came out in favor of intelligent desgin taught in schools. I find this an extremly dangerous idea. This is where I'm going to track this debate, day by day, little by little.

And I hope I won't be able to blog for very long before this whole thing goes away.

Reading for today:

Harvard enters the fray. Sort of.

Lines are drawn in the sand.

And a fairly good article breaking down the debate, past and present, told from a right leaning viewpoint.

test.

test.