You'd think that the previous removal of arch-cretin Don McLeroy from the Texas State Board of Education in a primary election might count for something in this day and age, but apparently it didn't. From the Texas Freedom Network:
It looks like the Lone Star State’s reputation as a hotbed of
anti-science fanaticism is about to be reinforced. At least
six creationists/”intelligent design” proponents succeeded in getting
invited to review high school biology textbooks that publishers have
submitted for adoption in Texas this year. The State Board of Education (SBOE)
will decide in November which textbooks to approve. Those textbooks
could be in the state’s public school science classrooms for nearly a
decade.
Among the six creationist reviewers are some of the nation’s leading
opponents of teaching students that evolution is established, mainstream
science and is overwhelmingly supported by well over a century of
research. Creationists on the SBOE nominated those six plus five others
also invited by the Texas Education Agency to serve on the biology
review teams. We have been unable to determine what those other five
reviewers think about evolution.
Although 28 individuals got invites to review the proposed new
biology textbooks this year, only about a dozen have shown up in Austin
this week for the critical final phase of that review. That relatively
small overall number of reviewers could give creationists even stronger
influence over textbook content. In fact, publishers are making changes
to their textbooks based on objections they hear from the review
panelists. And that’s happening essentially behind closed doors because
the public isn’t able to monitor discussions among the review panelists
themselves or between panelists and publishers. The public won’t know
about publishers’ changes (or the names of all the review panelists who
are in Austin this week) until probably September. Alarm bells are
ringing.
The TFN link has a full list of the intellectual lightweights in question, but it's entirely unsurprisingly that most of them are either shills for Intelligent Design (one of them - namely, Raymond Bohlin - is a research fellow of the Discovery Institute) or are avowed, open creationists. Only one (Richard White) seems less than enthusiastic about jumping up and down about his ID/creationist affiliations despite advocating the same "teach the controversy" nonsense that his comrades in arms are far more open about.
As it is, this is going to be a long, hard march to November. Then the real silliness begins.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Smokin' the creationist bluegrass
It used to be that you had to make stuff like this up, mostly for the sake of parody or research for a play (a point to be brought up later). Not anymore, though:
Supporters and critics of Kentucky’s new science education standards clashed over evolution and climate change Tuesday amid a high-stakes debate on overhauling academic content in public schools.
The article (quoted from the original at cincinnati.com, by the way) continues:
"Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked,” said Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, a science advocacy group that endorses the standards.
Dave Robinson, a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said neighboring states have been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies, and Kentucky could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.
Now, those are perfectly reasonable points made by perfectly reasonable people working in academic fields (or advocating for them) that have considerable relevance to the subject of science education.
Now comes the bad part.
But the majority of comments during the two-hour hearing came from critics who questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.
One parent, Valerie O’Rear, said the standards promote an “atheistic world view” and a political agenda that pushes government control.
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
Yep, all of the usual bizarre fundamentalist/YEC/Tea Party tics are there for the taking, if you actually want them: misused snarl words like "fascism" and "socialism", unverified anecdotal assertions about how evolution leads to "drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions" (and I'm sure that Mr. Singleton actually has case studies in his possession that can actually prove those anecdotes, right?) and a whole slew of accompanying gibberish that makes me wonder if any of the aforementioned speakers have cracked open a book on science past the age of 18, much less read any of it.
Speaking of gibberish:
At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
What?
That's the way socialism works? Funny, but what that mushwit just described is pretty much how something like bullying works. Of course, Ms. Stewart-Gore is one of those people who probably thinks it's perfectly okay if non-Christian students are bullied for their religious beliefs, but that thought probably never popped into her head when she used the term "religious".
Likewise, the assertion that teaching real science will "create difficulties for students with learning disabilities" seems to be based on the singularly odd belief that students with learning disabilities (a dangerous, one-size-fits-all term of convenience if there ever was one) are one uniform blob of stereotypical mentally challenged gimps who can't learn anything, whether it has to do with biology or tying their own shoes. It's as if the kids who are wheelchair-bound are being thrown in the same room with those suffering from dyslexia, hyperactivity or ADD and are all classified as uneducable as a result.
Yes, people actually believe this shit. And no, I couldn't think of a word more poetic than "shit", since that's the most straightforward way of classifying this nonsense.
As mentioned before, this stuff could be the subject of a play. It has been in the past. Reading the original version of Inherit the Wind is entirely relevant. Inherit, incidentally, came out back in 1955, at the tail-end of the McCarthy era.
Feeling intellectually threatened, yet?
(Also on WTTFTG)
Supporters and critics of Kentucky’s new science education standards clashed over evolution and climate change Tuesday amid a high-stakes debate on overhauling academic content in public schools.
The article (quoted from the original at cincinnati.com, by the way) continues:
"Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked,” said Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, a science advocacy group that endorses the standards.
Dave Robinson, a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said neighboring states have been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies, and Kentucky could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.
Now, those are perfectly reasonable points made by perfectly reasonable people working in academic fields (or advocating for them) that have considerable relevance to the subject of science education.
Now comes the bad part.
But the majority of comments during the two-hour hearing came from critics who questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.
One parent, Valerie O’Rear, said the standards promote an “atheistic world view” and a political agenda that pushes government control.
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
Yep, all of the usual bizarre fundamentalist/YEC/Tea Party tics are there for the taking, if you actually want them: misused snarl words like "fascism" and "socialism", unverified anecdotal assertions about how evolution leads to "drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions" (and I'm sure that Mr. Singleton actually has case studies in his possession that can actually prove those anecdotes, right?) and a whole slew of accompanying gibberish that makes me wonder if any of the aforementioned speakers have cracked open a book on science past the age of 18, much less read any of it.
Speaking of gibberish:
At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
What?
That's the way socialism works? Funny, but what that mushwit just described is pretty much how something like bullying works. Of course, Ms. Stewart-Gore is one of those people who probably thinks it's perfectly okay if non-Christian students are bullied for their religious beliefs, but that thought probably never popped into her head when she used the term "religious".
Likewise, the assertion that teaching real science will "create difficulties for students with learning disabilities" seems to be based on the singularly odd belief that students with learning disabilities (a dangerous, one-size-fits-all term of convenience if there ever was one) are one uniform blob of stereotypical mentally challenged gimps who can't learn anything, whether it has to do with biology or tying their own shoes. It's as if the kids who are wheelchair-bound are being thrown in the same room with those suffering from dyslexia, hyperactivity or ADD and are all classified as uneducable as a result.
Yes, people actually believe this shit. And no, I couldn't think of a word more poetic than "shit", since that's the most straightforward way of classifying this nonsense.
As mentioned before, this stuff could be the subject of a play. It has been in the past. Reading the original version of Inherit the Wind is entirely relevant. Inherit, incidentally, came out back in 1955, at the tail-end of the McCarthy era.
Feeling intellectually threatened, yet?
(Also on WTTFTG)
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Fossils, fossils and yet more fossils
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome Nasutoceratops to the fold:
This year's sensation from Utah might well be another ceratopsian, Nasutuceratops titusi, known from an almost complete skull and an associated left forelimb, as well as skull fragments from two other individuals. Some skin impressions were also found with the forelimb. Nasutuceratops is still a nomen nudum (“naked name”), meaning it has not been officially and formally described in a published scientific journal yet. It has been named by Eric Karl Lund (advisor: Scott Sampson) in his Master of Science Geology thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Utah in 2010. In a comprehensive phylogenetical analysis, this short snouted long horned centrosaurine ceratopsian was found to be closely related to the contemporary Avaceratops lammersi from Montana.
Add to this the fact that there's new evidence that anyone trying to ride a T-Rex might've made a big mistake and the whole YEC "humans co-existed with dinosaurs!" idiot lobby might have to spend a whole thirty seconds or so wrestling with intellectual inadequacy issues before posting their next non-response to actual scientific research.
This year's sensation from Utah might well be another ceratopsian, Nasutuceratops titusi, known from an almost complete skull and an associated left forelimb, as well as skull fragments from two other individuals. Some skin impressions were also found with the forelimb. Nasutuceratops is still a nomen nudum (“naked name”), meaning it has not been officially and formally described in a published scientific journal yet. It has been named by Eric Karl Lund (advisor: Scott Sampson) in his Master of Science Geology thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Utah in 2010. In a comprehensive phylogenetical analysis, this short snouted long horned centrosaurine ceratopsian was found to be closely related to the contemporary Avaceratops lammersi from Montana.
Add to this the fact that there's new evidence that anyone trying to ride a T-Rex might've made a big mistake and the whole YEC "humans co-existed with dinosaurs!" idiot lobby might have to spend a whole thirty seconds or so wrestling with intellectual inadequacy issues before posting their next non-response to actual scientific research.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
News travels slow in Louisiana, I see...
Shorter Louisiana House of Representatives concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.: "it don't matter if the Supreme Court said it's illegal back in 1981 in Edwards v. Aguillard - we're still keepin' it on the books! Yeeehah!"
Prediction: one of these days, they'll be downright scandalized that a Civil Rights Act was enacted on the Federal level back in 1964.
Prediction: one of these days, they'll be downright scandalized that a Civil Rights Act was enacted on the Federal level back in 1964.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Better late than never: the Pigasus Awards
Okay, I admit it. I've been busy. But that's no reason not to finally get around to posting the results of the latest James Randi Educational Foundation Pigasus Awards, right?
My congratulations to Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, the Pumpkin Hollow Retreat Center, SyFy, Alex Jones and Dr. Mehmet Oz for choosing to step in it hard and deep. Your hard work at fostering differing forms of woo and complete bullshit are a cautionary lesson in gullibility and a source of unintentional humor for the rest of us.
(Also on WTTFTG)
My congratulations to Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, the Pumpkin Hollow Retreat Center, SyFy, Alex Jones and Dr. Mehmet Oz for choosing to step in it hard and deep. Your hard work at fostering differing forms of woo and complete bullshit are a cautionary lesson in gullibility and a source of unintentional humor for the rest of us.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Higgs. Yes, *Higgs*.
Earlier in the week, there was some degree of confusion as to whether
CERN had actually discovered the Higgs Boson (or the "God particle", if
you so choose); apparently, they did:
We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. The outstanding performance of the LHC and ATLAS and the huge efforts of many people have brought us to this exciting stage,” said ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti, “but a little more time is needed to prepare these results for publication.”
"The results are preliminary but the 5 sigma signal at around 125 GeV we’re seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle. We know it must be a boson and it’s the heaviest boson ever found,” said CMS experiment spokesperson Joe Incandela. “The implications are very significant and it is precisely for this reason that we must be extremely diligent in all of our studies and cross-checks."
“It’s hard not to get excited by these results,” said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “ We stated last year that in 2012 we would either find a new Higgs-like particle or exclude the existence of the Standard Model Higgs. With all the necessary caution, it looks to me that we are at a branching point: the observation of this new particle indicates the path for the future towards a more detailed understanding of what we’re seeing in the data.”
(Also on WTTFTG)
We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. The outstanding performance of the LHC and ATLAS and the huge efforts of many people have brought us to this exciting stage,” said ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti, “but a little more time is needed to prepare these results for publication.”
"The results are preliminary but the 5 sigma signal at around 125 GeV we’re seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle. We know it must be a boson and it’s the heaviest boson ever found,” said CMS experiment spokesperson Joe Incandela. “The implications are very significant and it is precisely for this reason that we must be extremely diligent in all of our studies and cross-checks."
“It’s hard not to get excited by these results,” said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “ We stated last year that in 2012 we would either find a new Higgs-like particle or exclude the existence of the Standard Model Higgs. With all the necessary caution, it looks to me that we are at a branching point: the observation of this new particle indicates the path for the future towards a more detailed understanding of what we’re seeing in the data.”
(Also on WTTFTG)
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Creationism in state legislatures: same old same old
It's been a while, but the anti-science legislation mills that exist on the state legislature level are back in action as usual. To wit:
Missouri: House Bill 179 (primarily sponsored by Andrew Koenig [R-District 99] who was also responsible for House Bill 1276 from last January) was introduced to the Missouri House of Representatives on January 16th. Unsurprisingly, the language of the new bill seems just a little reminiscent of the earlier one.
Colorado: House Bill 13-1089 was introduced on the same day by cosponsors Stephen Humphrey (R-House District 48) and Scott Renfroe (R-Senate District 13) and regurgitates the usual boilerplate about "respectfully (exploring) scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning." It's as if merely repeating those words in every one of these bills will somehow cause them to get passed by accident. It's also the first time a pro-creationism bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature since 1972.
Oklahoma: Not to be outdone, the state with one of the worst records in similar legislation attacking the biological sciences saw the introduction of two more bills, namely Senate Bill 758 (Sponsored by Josh Brecheen [R-District 6], who was also responsible for Senate Bill 554 in 2011 and Senate Bill 1742 in 2012) and House Bill 1674 (sponsored by Gus Blackwell [R-61], who also sponsored the revival of 2011's House Bill 1551 in 2012). What's surprising here is the lack of Sally Kern's hand in promoting this latest slew of bills; she's practically made a career out of it.
The really frightening thing here actually isn't the bills themselves, since most probably won't make it out of committee and certainly none will survive a court challenge. The really terrifying fact is that politicians continue to do this for all the usual reasons (pandering to a still virulent conservative evangelical voting bloc, for example) despite the fact that just like Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers and Birthers their obvious quackery just gets more and more unintentionally funny (while remaining disturbing for its anti-intellectual tone) with time.
UPDATE: this is somewhat old news, but the Oklahoma bills are effectively dead - at least for now.
(Also in WTTFTG)
Missouri: House Bill 179 (primarily sponsored by Andrew Koenig [R-District 99] who was also responsible for House Bill 1276 from last January) was introduced to the Missouri House of Representatives on January 16th. Unsurprisingly, the language of the new bill seems just a little reminiscent of the earlier one.
Colorado: House Bill 13-1089 was introduced on the same day by cosponsors Stephen Humphrey (R-House District 48) and Scott Renfroe (R-Senate District 13) and regurgitates the usual boilerplate about "respectfully (exploring) scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning." It's as if merely repeating those words in every one of these bills will somehow cause them to get passed by accident. It's also the first time a pro-creationism bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature since 1972.
Oklahoma: Not to be outdone, the state with one of the worst records in similar legislation attacking the biological sciences saw the introduction of two more bills, namely Senate Bill 758 (Sponsored by Josh Brecheen [R-District 6], who was also responsible for Senate Bill 554 in 2011 and Senate Bill 1742 in 2012) and House Bill 1674 (sponsored by Gus Blackwell [R-61], who also sponsored the revival of 2011's House Bill 1551 in 2012). What's surprising here is the lack of Sally Kern's hand in promoting this latest slew of bills; she's practically made a career out of it.
The really frightening thing here actually isn't the bills themselves, since most probably won't make it out of committee and certainly none will survive a court challenge. The really terrifying fact is that politicians continue to do this for all the usual reasons (pandering to a still virulent conservative evangelical voting bloc, for example) despite the fact that just like Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers and Birthers their obvious quackery just gets more and more unintentionally funny (while remaining disturbing for its anti-intellectual tone) with time.
UPDATE: this is somewhat old news, but the Oklahoma bills are effectively dead - at least for now.
(Also in WTTFTG)
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
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)
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)
Thursday, November 15, 2012
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)
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)
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)
Monday, October 8, 2012
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)