Indiana: more nonsensical gymnastics

If you thought that Indiana state Senator Dennis Kruse's previous effort at shoehorning creation "science" into the state's scientific curriculum was ridiculous, his current effort is even sillier:
 
The expected antievolution bill in Indiana appears to have mutated. As NCSE previously reported, state senator Dennis Kruse (R-District 14) told the Lafayette Journal and Courier (November 10, 2012) that he planned to introduce a bill drafted by the Discovery Institute, presumably along the lines of the bills enacted in Tennessee in 2012 and Louisiana in 2008, encouraging teachers to misrepresent evolution as controversial. But now the Indianapolis Star (December 4, 2012) reports that Kruse plans "to pursue legislation that allows students to challenge teachers on issues, forcing them to provide evidence to back up their lessons."

In 2011, Kruse's Senate Bill 89 would have allowed local school districts to require the teaching of creation science — despite the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science in public schools is unconstitutional. SB 89 passed the Senate but was amended there to delete the reference to creation science and to require reference to "Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology"; the speaker of the House of Representatives declined to let it come to a vote there, citing concerns about a potential lawsuit, and the bill died when the legislature adjourned.

It's a pity the bad idea that inspired it it didn't die as well:

Describing his new idea as "a different approach," Kruse explained to the Star,  "I would call it 'truth in education' to make sure that what is being taught is true ... And if a student thinks something isn't true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true."

Now, does anybody want to try to point out to Kruse what the problem is, here? Namely, that what a science teacher is supposed to be providing in a lesson plan is already supposed to be based on an understanding of what current scientific research has already discovered?

Likewise, if a student were to attack what the teacher knows on a basis that has nothing to do with science or the scientific method (read: on religious grounds alone, which seems likely), is that acceptable? I suspect that Kruse would say yes. He'll apparently say "yes" to any number of silly things (as state newspapers have also pointed out), so why not that as well?

(Also at WTTFTG)

On the other hand...

...at one point or another, you realize that all of the anti-science pointing and shouting in the world will never take away from a utterly bizarre, wonderful discovery like this:

Astronomers have discovered what they believe to be a rogue planet floating through space without a star. The super-Jupiter, called CFBDSIR2149, has a mass four to seven times that of our own gas giant, and is probably a scorching 800 or so degrees Fahrenheit. It appears to sit in a moving group of stars that, at a rough distance of 65 light-years, is just a cosmic stone’s throw away from us.

If the idea of a planet sans star seems more than a trifle outlandish, it probably isn't. Probably.

Researchers aren't quite sure how such an untethered planet comes to be: It may be that they form the standard way, from the ring of coalescing dust around a young star, and is later somehow kicked out of the system.

So the next time anyone is daft enough to believe that there's no point to scientific research or even the idea of science in general, show them this. And then feel free to shake your head.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Indiana: more nonsense on stilts

No one should really be surprised that the Indiana state Senate is about to undergo yet another round of "intelligent design" silliness in the form of a bill drafted by the Discovery Institute and sponsored by Dennis Kruse (R-14th), who was also one of the parties responsible for Senate Bill 89 last year. As usual, the  emphasis of the bill on alleged scientific doubts about the theory of evolution (just like all of the others based on the "teach the controversy" approach the DI favors) quickly took a back seat to the religious rhetoric of the sponsor:

Although the text of the bill that Kruse eventually introduces in the senate may disclaim any intention to promote a religious doctrine, it seems likely that in Indiana as in Tennessee and Louisiana, it will be difficult for the legislative sponsors to avoid disclosing their true intentions. "I'd guess 80 percent of Indiana would be oriented with the Bible and creation," Kruse was quoted as saying. His previous efforts — SB 89 and two similar bills he introduced in 2000 and 2001 while serving in the Indiana House of Representatives, plus a 1999 pledge to introduce legislation to remove evolution from the state science standards — might also be taken as indicative.

When somebody like Kruse admits that he's playing to the crowd as blatantly as he does, you can take it as a sign that a real scientific argument for the bill is hardly an issue - he's just trying to get re-elected. One of these days, maybe his district will wise up;  but somehow, I doubt it.  

(Also on WTTFTG)

Stepping in a pile of Broun

There is, of course, the slim possibility that Paul Broun's publically uttered pile of Stupid from a few days ago was actually caused by a brain fart of incredible proportions and is not actually what he believes. Fine. I also hold that there's the equally slim possibility that I was secretly made the King of Sweden overnight (my apologies to King Carl XVI Gustav for unseating him if I'm wrong), but somehow I doubt it.

Paul Broun, as far as I know, is running unopposed in a district where most voters actually think that his particular brand of serial idiocy is perfectly acceptable to all involved. What's especially nauseating is that the district actually includes the University of Georgia (and boy, that fact must fill their seven biological sciences subdivisions with oodles of pride, right?), and despite the fact that some people in that district probably don't want him around anymore he's still running unopposed. Apparently, nobody could even find a rock brave enough to take him on despite the rock's obvious intellectual superiority. Which leads me to the following:

A while back, Dan Savage took issue with the equally vapid Rick Santorum on a certain issue and ended up sticking him with the (completely deserved, in my opinion) stigma of having a surname synonymous with certain, shall we say, unpleasant byproducts of a sexual act. I'm not trying to top Savage on this, mind you, but I believe that the following proposition concerning the meaning of the surname "Broun" should be added to the next slew of dictionaries to be published because it just fits so well. To wit:

"Broun (1) (n); An individual whose position of authority and public trust are entirely contradicted by his or her intellectual inadequacy and by concomitant appeals to ignorance and demagoguery in order to shore up their aforementioned position;

(2) (v) To engage in demagoguery and similar unsavory appeals to anti-intellectual behavior in order to gain and/or maintain public favor".

By the way, I intend to take full credit for getting the ball rolling on this if it succeeds. And maybe somebody will find a rock (or - shock of shocks! - an actual human being) brave enough to take him on by 2014.

(Also on WTTFTG)

State legislative attacks on evolution in science education since 2011: a rough guide

It took me a while to get around to this, and for obvious reasons; so many of these bills have been proposed since January 2011 that even writing up a brief list of them (with massive help from the NCSE's archives, of course) took a fairly long time to compile and edit. The following is a list of bills that either contains language attacking the teaching the Theory of Evolution (or that advocate "alternative theories" such as Intelligent Design) that have been proposed in state legislatures from January 2011 to the present; they also include information on who proposed the legislation, whether anthropocentric global warming (AGW)  or other scientific topics were also targeted and whether the bill has passed, was voted down or merely died in committee as a result of being tabled.

KENTUCKY House Bill 169; proposed by Tim Moore (R-26th district) on January 4, 2011; died in committee as of March 9th, 2011.

MISSOURI House Bill 195; proposed by Andrew Koenig (R-88th district) and 13 others on January 13th, 2011; died in the House Elementary and Secondary Education commitee as of May 13th, 2011.

OKLAHOMA SENATE BILL 554; prefiled by Josh Brecheen (R-6th district) on January 19th, 2011; died in committee on February 28th, 2011.

OKLAHOMA House Bill 1551; prefiled by Sally Kern (R-84th district) in January 2011; initially rejected in committee on February 22nd, 2011; reintroduced by Gus Blackwell (R-61st district) on February 20th, 2012; passed the House 56-12 on March 15th, 2012; died after being rejected by the Senate Education Committee. Bill also attacked academic discussion of AGW, abiogenesis and human cloning.

NEW MEXICO House Bill 302; introduced by Thomas A. Anderson (R-29th district) on February 1st, 2011;  died in committee on March 8th, 2011. Bill also attacked discussion of AGW, abiogenesis and human cloning.

TENNESSEE House Bill 368; introduced by Bill Dunn (R-16th district) on February 9th, 2011; passed the state House of Representatives by a 72-23 vote on March 16th, 2012; allowed to become law by Governor Bill Haslam without signature on April 10th, 2012. Bill also attacks discussion of AGW, abiogenesis and human cloning.

TENNESSEE Senate Bill 893; introduced by Bo Watson (R-11th district) on February 16th, 2011; passed the state Senate by a 24-8 vote on March 19th, 2012; allowed to become law by Governor Bill Haslam without signature on April 10th, 2012. Bill also attacks discussion of AGW, abiogenesis and human cloning.

FLORIDA Senate Bill 1854; introduced by Stephen R. Wise (R-5th district) on March 5th, 2011; died in committee on May 7th, 2011.

TEXAS House Bill 2454; introduced by Bill Zedler (R-96th district) and James White (R-12th district) on March 8th, 2011; died in the House Committee on Higher Education on May 30th, 2011.

NEW HAMPSHIRE House Bill 1148; prefiled by Jerry Bergevin (R-17th district) on December 21st, 2011; defeated 280-7 by House vote on March 16th, 2012. Also attempted to compel inclusion of the "political and ideological viewpoints (of  "theorists") and their position on the concept of atheism".

NEW HAMPSHIRE House Bill 1457; prefiled by Gary Hopper (R-7th district) and John Burt (R-7th district) on December 21st, 2011;  killed by voice vote in week previous to vote for HB 1148 above.

INDIANA Senate Bill 89; prefiled by Dennis Kruse (R-14th district) in December 2011; passed by the Senate by a 28-22 vote on January 30th, 2012; shelved by the House of Representatives in early February 2012.

MISSOURI HOUSE BILL 1227; introduced and sponsored by Rick Brattin (R-124th district) and five others on January 10th, 2012; died in committee on May 18th, 2012.

MISSOURI HOUSE BILL 1276; sponsored by Andrew Koenig (R-88th district) and 13 others on January 11th, 2012; died in committee on May 18th, 2012.

OKLAHOMA SENATE BILL 1742; prefiled in January 2012 by Josh Brecheen (R-6th district) in January 2012;  Bill also attacked AGW, abiogenesis and human cloning. Died in committee on March 1st, 2012.

ALABAMA HOUSE BILL 133; introduced on February 7th, 2012 by Blaine Galliher (R-30th district); died in committee on May 16th, 2012. Would have authorized "local boards of education to include released time religious instruction as an elective course for high school students.", including courses in "creation science".

OKLAHOMA HOUSE BILL 2341; a previously passed bill that was amended by Steve Russell (R-45th district) to include language identical to Oklahoma HB 1551 above; bill died when it was not brought to the floor for a vote in amended form on April 26th, 2012.

(Also available at WTTFTG)

It bears repeating...

I've been remiss in banging the drum here for a while (because, see, I was at this thing in late August and early September that took up most of my leisure time), but I got the feeling that somebody a good deal more credentialed than I am should drop some appropriate propaganda on readers of this blog. Granted, the following videos definitely fit the category of preaching to the choir on this blog, but if you think somebody needs to see these, then by all means point these out:

 

Something to be optimistic about, for once

The Mars Curiosity rover made it to the surface of its target intact and is probably collecting reams of data as I write this.

Louisiana continues to slide into the muck

Bobby Jindal continues to offer up reasons why he should never, ever be elected to anything ever again:

Louisiana is about to spend almost twelve million dollars to fund the teaching of creationism, charges Zack Kopplin, famous for organizing the effort to repeal the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act. In Kopplin's sights now is a controversial new voucher program in the state that uses public school funds to pay for tuition and certain fees at private schools for students who attend low-performing public schools and whose family income is below 250% of the federal poverty level. When the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education considered a set of accountability guidelines for such private schools at its July 24, 2012, meeting, Kopplin testified that of the roughly 6600 spaces available for students under the program, 1350 will be filled, as the Lafayette Independent Weekly (July 26, 2012) described it, "at private Christian schools that teach creationism and peg evolution as 'false science.'”

There's more, but don't bother to read the link if you're depressed about the state of science education in the US. It won't help.

(Also on WTTFTG)

The Aurora shootings: "explanations" that don't explain much of anything

By now, any number of unlucky people have run into some serious whoppers that  purportedly "explain" the root cause of James Eagan Holmes' rampage at a Aurora, Colorado cinema during the midnight preview of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises on July 20th. Other than predictable missives full of irrationality from all the usual suspects (including such piles of  self serving drivel as Louis Gohmert's "it's all the fault of atheism!", Rick Warren's equally hideous "it's all the fault of the Theory of Evolution!" and a hackneyed laundry list of convenient scapegoats provided by the American Family Association), I'm sure that there will be the usual reams upon reams of nonsense generated by people who - much like Columbine - have decided to use this tragedy to fill their coffers with donations and generate unwarranted media attention.

Add to this the fact that Holmes previously was a honors student in neuroscience and you have all the makings of another parade of idiots attacking science and scientists for no good reason except that it earns them easy points with people dumb enough to agree with them. It'll happen. Just you wait.

(For those of you who'd like to read a far more exhaustive list of articles both good and bad on the subject of the Aurora shootings, Gawker has provided one.)

(Also on WTTFTG)

Kansas: supporting documents for Dumbth

It turns out that Ken Willard does indeed have supporters for his latest effort to slip pro-creationist language into the NGSS debate, but they consist of the usual predictable suspects:

The Associated Press (June 13, 2012) reports that Ken Willard, a member of the board, described the draft as "flawed" and "distributed a nine-page letter criticizing the draft multistate standards from the group Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc., which lists officers in Florida and Kansas. The letter suggested that the draft standards ignore evidence against evolution, don't respect religious diversity, and promote secular humanism, which precludes God or another supreme being in considering how the universe works." Willard said of the letter, "I hope that it will be taken seriously and not as just information from a bunch of crackpots."

But Citizens for Objective Public Education is not exactly a well-known or a well-established group; its vice president Anne Lassey told the Associated Press that it was founded only in March 2012. Lassey is the wife of Greg Lassey, who was one of the authors of the so-called minority report of the committee that revised Kansas's state science standards in 2005; the report systematically deprecated the scientific status of evolution. The group's president, Jorge Fernandez, is a self-proclaimed young-earth creationist, with publications to his credit in Journal of Creation and on the True.Origin Archive website. The letter claimed that Citizens for Objective Public Education represents "children, parents and taxpayers who share our views"; Lassey told the Associated Press that the group has members across the nation.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Kansas: here we go again

You'd think that certain individuals on the state Board of Ed would've learned their lesson by now. No such luck:

Kansas is among the twenty-six "lead state partners" of the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) development process, officially assisting in the development, adoption, and implementation of the standards; although the lead state partners are not required to adopt the standards, they have agreed to give them "serious consideration" for adoption when they emerge in their final form — which may be as soon as the end of 2012. But Kansas state board of education member Ken Willard told the Associated Press that the draft embraces naturalism and secular humanism, which he described as "very problematic" and as "preferring one religious position over another"; he intends to raise the issue on June 12, 2012, when the board is scheduled to hear a presentation on the present status of the NGSS.

"In the past," the Associated Press noted, "Willard has supported standards for Kansas with material that questions evolution; guidelines that he and other conservatives approved in 2005 were supplanted by the current ones." As NCSE reported, in November 2005, the Kansas state board of education voted 6-4 to adopt the draft set of state science standards that were rewritten, under the tutelage of local "intelligent design" activists, to impugn the scientific status of evolution — a decision roundly condemned by state and national scientific and education groups. After the antievolution faction on the board, which included Willard, lost its majority in the 2006 elections, the board reversed the decision in February 2007; the antievolution version of the standards was not in place long enough to be felt in the classrooms.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Good riddance times three

Good news out of Oklahoma for once:

When the Oklahoma legislature adjourned sine die on May 25, 2012, no fewer than three legislative attempts to attack the teaching of evolution and of climate change (i.e., Senate Bill 1742, House Bill 1551 and an amendment to House Bill 2341) were finally laid to rest. All three would have encouraged teachers in the public schools of the Sooner State to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming."

One of these days, I'm going to have to sift through the NCSE's archives and see exactly how many of these bills floated in state legislatures contain the usual weasel words concerning the supposed "controversies" concerning "biological evolution" and "global warming". I'm not going to be able to get around to it now, but my guess is that the over-under is around 15 bills in total since January 2011. Place your no-prize wagers and we'll see. 

(Also on WTTFTG)

Cretin of the moment

Representative Jeff Flake (R-Wingnut), for a self-serving (but futile, apparently) attack on the NSF's 2013 budget that puts him in the running for "politician with the most appropriate surname".

Oppose CISPA - before CISPA opposes you

This is a bit of a departure from the science-themed nature of this blog, but it's still a highly important issue for anyone using the Internet, much less writing on it:

Congress is currently considering CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act) – a bill that purports to protect the United States from “cyber threats” but would in fact create a gaping loophole in all existing privacy laws. If CISPA passes, companies could vacuum up huge swaths of data on all Internet users and share it with the government without requiring a court order. CISPA is an exceedingly bad piece of legislation that should be opposed on constitutional grounds, and Congress would be wise to reject it and any other legislation that:

*  Uses dangerously vague language to define the breadth of data that can be shared with the government.

*  Hands the reins of America’s cybersecurity defenses to the NSA, an agency with no transparency and little accountability.

*  Allows data shared with the government to be used for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.

Please join me in opposing this bill by posting this statement on your own page and using the online form available at the link below to send a letter to Congress against CISPA:

(Form available here)

Tennessee: things get worse - far worse

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam did the gutless (but entirely predictable) thing concerning the "monkey bill" (translation: Tennessee Senate Bill 893 and House Bill 368) and decided to let the bills become law without actually bothering to sign it in the face of a potential legislative override. Feel free to read Haslam's statement and decide for yourself whether he's waffling about supporting the bill without actually "supporting" it:

“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

Ah, political doublespeak.

What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."

Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Recycling drivel doesn't make it wisdom

Here's no real surprise: in Oklahoma, yet another attempt at introducing  previously recycled evolution and global warming denial language in an education bill is being undertaken by a state legislator (Steve Russell [R-45th] is the crackpot panderer you should blame), and this time the method was genuinely underhanded:

As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.

But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.

No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.

(Also on WTTFTG)    

Cretin(s) of the moment

The 72 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives who were dumb enough to vote for House Bill 368. On the other hand, this happened before in the state Senate, so why shouldn't the other chamber drive their car over the cliff despite being warned of the possible consequences by scientists who work and reside there?

Cretin(s) of the moment

The 24 intellectual lightweights in the Tennessee Senate who passed Senate Bill 893, known as one of the "monkey bills" (the other being House Bill 368) for entirely good reasons. As you could guess, informed  opinion hasn't quite been on their side on the issue if the opinions of either the National Association of Biology Teachers or the Nashville Tennessean are anything to go by.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Tennessee: sometimes, The Stupid makes an unexpected early return

In the latest news concerning state legislatures and attempts to attack scientific theories via political fiat, Bo Watson's (R-11th Senate) "monkey bill" (aka Senate Bill 893) has returned from the dead and continues to smell just as bad as before. The state House has already gotten on the "teach the controversy where there isn't one" bandwagon by passing House Bill 368, which the Knoxville News Sentinel discussed in less than glowing terms:  

There is evidence the bill in reality is a vehicle for sneaking intelligent design into science classes.State Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville and the bill's House sponsor, insists there's no religious intent, and the bill contains a disclaimer that it isn't promoting religion.

However, a report in Knoxville's Metro Pulse outlines how the bill originated at the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design. Biology, like all sciences, attempts to discover how the natural world works. It does not look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. 

There is no controversy in the scientific community about evolution, which is the only purely scientific theory supported by evidence found in the natural world that explains how species adapt and change over time.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a concept better suited for a philosophy or religion class than a biology lab. It is predicated on the existence of an intelligent designer - most, if not all, proponents would say the God of Christianity. Because it introduces a supernatural element into the discussion, intelligent design can't be considered science. It's doubtful even its supporters would claim God can be seen through a microscope.

The House has approved the bill. The Senate Education Committee takes it up this week. The origin of the bill with the Discovery Institute should give senators pause, and not only because other states have rejected similar bills from the think tank.

(Also on WTTFTG)

New repeal effort under way in Louisiana

Senate Bill 374 (a bill designed to repeal the abysmal "Louisiana Science Education Act", an Orwellian name if there ever was one) has been introduced by Karen Carter Peterson (D-5th) in the state Senate. It's about time.

(Also on WTTFTG)

My open letter to WTTW

I've had a considering bug up my ass (lovely image, that) about some of the pseudoscience and medical woo that makes the rounds on PBS programming in general (and WTTW in particular) during pledge drives, so I decided to give them a piece of my mind, such as it is.

Without any further ado, my cranky little letter to the station follows. And it wasn't written in even written in crayon, either. Imagine that.

Good evening:

I recently received a letter soliciting funds from you and would like to give you a reason as to why I would not be willing to become a subscriber at the current time.

Although currently unemployed, I would have been completely willing to contribute if it were not for your poor choice of pledge drive programming. In the past - and in this upcoming pledge drive as well - you have given exceedingly large chunks of your programming time to promoters of pseudoscience and medical quackery such as Deepak Chopra, Gary Null, Mark Hyman, Daniel Amen and others. Considering that you also air quality programming such as _Nova_ and _Nature_, I have to seriously wonder if you ever look into the supposed qualifications of these hucksters.

It seems contradictory that a station supposedly devoted to educational and news programming would somehow allow people to broadcast glorified informercials promoting one form of quackery or another merely becuause your station feels the need to attract attention to your fundraising efforts regardless of the method used. Such a strategy seems rather defeatist considering what your stated purpose is as a public television station.

If you think I'm alone in this sentiment, feel free to read the following article by Dr. Robert Burton, (link provided below) which you may or may not be familiar with. I would also like to point out that I would _gladly_ contribute to WTTW if you changed your policies concerning this segment of your programming, but as for now I cannot do so.

Thank you for your time.

Chris Krolczyk

(The Burton article in question can be found here)

(Also on WTTFTG)

Nothing shocking

It's Oklahoma and it's the beginning of a new legislative session. So what happens? Why, an old "education" bill simultaneously attacking the Theory of Evolution and AGW is resurrected from the dead.

Predictably, my guess is that the Cubs won't win the World Series this year, either.

(Also on WTTFTG)

50 years ago today

Rock on, Colonel Glenn.

(Also in WTTFTG)

Two steps forward, one step back (update)

First, the good news: creationist-friendly "education" bills have been tabled in both Indiana and New Hampshire, at least as far as the current legislative sessions are concerned.

The bad news: a bill proposed by Blaine Galliher (R-30th House District) in Alabama seems intended to sneak "religious instruction" (read: exactly what you think it is) into the curriculum statewide by means of awarding elective academic credit to "released time" extracurricular activities. Galliher himself admits what he's trying to accomplish with this bill and is hardly shy about it.

(Update: although NH House Bills 1148 and 1457 were dismissed by the House Education Committee, both still face a vote by the full House. The Concord Monitor has weighed in on the subject in an editorial attacking both bills [direct link here] prior to that vote.)

(Also in WTTFTG)

Indiana: (expletive deleted)

Predictably, the Indiana Senate has now gone completely bonkers in passing Senate Bill 89 by a 28-22 margin. Any bets on how long it'll take a corresponding Federal district court to rule it unconstitutional?

(Likewise, congratulations to the Indiana state senate in doing your best to ruin the previous high rating you received from the Fordham Institute.)

(Also on WTTFTG)

The Fordham Institute study, etc.

The sad fact is that I wouldn't have even known about The State of  State Science Standards 2012 if it hadn't been mentioned all too briefly on CBS' news radio network this morning. That being said, some reaction has already come trickling in from Texas, and the Houston Chronicle posted reactions ranging from the intelligent (Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science) to the incredibly vapid (Don McLeroy - yes, that Don McLeroy).

For argument's sake, my home state - Illinois - rated a D. Not good. Not good at all.

(Also on WTTFTG)

There's more than corn in Indiana - but not much more, apparently

In yet another example of what happens when state legislators choose to play the religious demagoguery card in order to curry votes, Indiana Senate Bill 89 made it out of committee despite the fact that it would probably be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS if the standards in play since Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 are anything to go by.

(Also in WTTFTG)

Anti-science follies in state legislatures, 2011-12

A while ago, a post on the NCSE web site declared that in 2012 at least six bills opposed to the teaching of the theory of evolution (many of which also opposed even the mention of scientific research into anthropogenic global warming) had been prefiled or proposed by state legislators in states ranging from Indiana to Oklahoma. If you also take all of 2011 into account, this means that no less than 13 such bills have been proposed in a period of slightly over a year. Although the following information is available on the NCSE web site, I thought that it'd be instructive to list each bill and its sponsors over that period of time. The listings are according to date of filing or report, state, number of bill and sponsors of that bill (and their party affiliation and district in the legislative house they're seated in) in order.

2011

January 5th, Kentucky: House Bill 169: Tim Moore (R-26th)
January 13th, Missouri: House Bill 195; Andew Koenig (R-88th), 13 others
January 19th, Oklahoma: Senate Bill 554; Josh Brecheen (R-6th)
January 20th, Oklahoma: House Bill 1551; Sally Kern (R-84th)
February 1st, New Mexico: House Bill 302; Thomas A. Anderson (R-29th)
February 9th, Tennessee: House Bill 368; Bill Dunn (R-16th)
February 16th, Tennessee: Senate Bill 893: Bo Watson (R-11th) 
December 21st, New Hampshire; House Bill 1148; Jerry Bergevin (R-17th)
December 21st, New Hampshire: House Bill 1457; Gary Hopper (R-7th) and John Burt (R-7th)
December 29th, Indiana: Senate Bill 89; Dennis Kruse (R-14th)

2012

January 10th, Missouri: House Bill 1227; Rick Brattin (R-124th), 5 others
January 11th, Missouri: House Bill 1276: Andrew Koenig (R-88th), 13 others
January 20th, Oklahoma: Senate Bill 1742; Josh Brecheen (R-6th)

(Also available at WTTFTG)

State legislature anti-science follies

It's the beginning of another year and that means that a state legislator or two (and probably closer to you than you'd like) is courting the wingnut vote through proposing "education" bills that attack the theory of evolution, anthropogenic global warming or both. Unsurprisingly, new bills are being proposed in both Oklahoma and Missouri, but it seems that the best (read: worst) efforts of a like-minded panderer in Indiana may be going nowhere fast judging by the adverse publicity it's starting to pick up.

Cretins of the moment

Two for the price of one, this time: the "winners" are eternal crank Peter Duesberg and fundamentalist loudmouth Bryan Fischer for promotining Duesberg's old pile of HIV quackery for all the usual wrong reasons.