Thursday, March 29, 2012
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?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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)
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)
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
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)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)