About Ed Brayton

 This is going to be hard for me to write.

Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars has long been a favorite skeptical blog of mine, since it featured a wonderful combination of incisive analysis, strong opinion and outright snark. It's bounced around from when I first ran into it on Scienceblogs, but Ed has always kept the same degree of quality and intelligence in all of its incarnations up until now.

Unfortunately, serious health problems dropped his output to the point where he couldn't post nearly as often as he liked.

And then I read something that just ruined my night.

Ed has decided to apply for hospice care, since his medical condition has deteriorated to the point that palliative care instead of yet more trips to the hospital and yet more stays in rehab facilities would just make more sense.

I understand his decision and respect it.

That doesn't make it any easier to accept.

As somebody who has a blog that has nowhere near the following that he does, it's like a giant sinkhole appeared and ate the place where I live. He was one of those bloggers who kept swinging for the fences even when a number of completely spurious lawsuits from some of his targets started coming in to try to shut him up. They didn't, but you know how idiots are when you point out their stupidity. They just keep plugging away even though all that proves is that they're still idiots.

Unfortunately, being shut down by your own medical problems is something entirely different.

Ed is, in my mind, irreplaceable, just as any great blogger is. I'm sure he'll keep up at it until he no longer can, but the end is the end, regardless of that. And that's what's so difficult to stomach about it.

"Congratulations", Andrew

Because if you don't think that Andrew Wakefield is still largely responsible for this happening, I'd like to know why he continues to bang the broken drum of his own fraudulent theories like any disgraced snake-oil salesman would. Granted, he's probably foolish enough to think that his constant promotion of anti-vaccination woo isn't responsible for the rise in cases of measles worldwide, but as this article from the Guardian helpfully points out, he's openly getting anti-vax politicians elected in Texas, which has one of the worse rates of measles cases in the US. And this paragraph is especially telling:

But Wakefield’s most substantial contribution to Texas appears to be the network of autism-related charities and businesses he has been affiliated with, and in some instances drew six-figure salaries from, from the early 2000s onwards.

So much for the Hippocratic Oath. There's a very powerful profit motive in promoting quackery, and it appears Wakefield would take the almighty dollar in a heartbeat over the health and safety of children - actually, of anyone - threatened by a resurgence of preventable diseases caused by science-free opposition to vaccination. And I can't even feign surprise at that.

Stay trendy and dumb, and the money will roll right in

It's not just that Gwyneth Paltrow's GOOP empire has expanded to the point of being an extremely viable boutique (read: overpriced and vacuously trendy) business based on all sorts of ridiculous air-filled woo, but that the promotion of said woo in the face of all sorts of counterevidence (such as from gynecologist Jen Gunter) seems to not have slowed her death march into the land of big money quackery down one bit:

At Harvard, G.P. called these moments “cultural firestorms.” “I can monetize those eyeballs,” she told the students. Goop had learned to do a special kind of dark art: to corral the vitriol of the internet and the ever-present shall we call it cultural ambivalence about G.P. herself and turn them into cash. It’s never clickbait, she told the class. “It’s a cultural firestorm when it’s about a woman’s vagina.” The room was silent. She then cupped her hands around her mouth and yelled, “VAGINA! VAGINA! VAGINA!” as if she were yodeling.

(Yeah, I know - those last three sentences almost seem like a scene written by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in one of their more cynical moments, but no, she apparently really did do that.)

As of June, there were 2.4 million unique visitors to the site per month, according to the numbers Goop provided me. The podcast, which is mostly hosted by Loehnen and features interviews with wellness practitioners, receives 100,000 to 650,000 listens per week. Goop wanted to publish articles about autoimmune diseases and infrared saunas and thyroids, and now it can, on its own terms — sort of.

After a few too many cultural firestorms, and with investors to think about, G.P. made some changes. Goop has hired a lawyer to vet all claims on the site. It hired an editor away from Condé Nast to run the magazine. It hired a man with a Ph.D. in nutritional science, and a director of science and research who is a former Stanford professor. And in September, Goop, sigh, is hiring a full-time fact-checker. G.P. chose to see it as “necessary growing pain.”

Oh, but I can actually think of a better cure for those growing pains: actually involving more than just one former Stanford professor, but a number of actual doctors and scientists - if not to debunk some of this nonsense, then to provide something at least resembling a counterpoint to the mindless cheerleading for all of this crap.

I just don't think it'll happen. Too much work, and too hard on Gwyneth's sizeable bank account. Which, of course, is the real beneficiary here.

In Memoriam: Stephen Hawking, 1942-2018

Hawking's passing wasn't exactly unexpected, considering his nearly lifelong illness; what was unexpected was the fact that he survived ALS for over 50 years while becoming one of the most important scientists of that same half-century. His death is a gigantic loss to the science world, of course, but a couple of essays published by Gregory Benford in 2005 and 2012 (and reproduced on File 770 here and here) show a more personal side of Hawking. From the former:

A week after my evening at Cambridge, I got from Stephen’s secretary a transcript of all his remarks. I have used it here to reproduce his style of conversation. Printed out on his wheelchair computer, his sole link with us, the lines seem to come from a great distance. Across an abyss.

Portraying the flinty faces of science—daunting complexity twinned with numbing wonder—demands both craft and art. Some of us paint with fiction. Stephen paints with his impressionistic views of vast, cool mathematical landscapes. To knit together our fraying times, to span the cultural abyss, demands all these approaches—and more, if we can but invent them.

Stephen has faced daunting physical constrictions with a renewed attack on the large issues, on great sweeps of space and time. Daily he struggles without much fuss against the narrowing that is perhaps the worst element of infirmity. I recalled him rapt with Marilyn [Monroe], still deeply engaged with life, holding firmly against tides of entropy.

"Big Game", big pick, big deal

People not interested in the upcoming Super Bowl can skip this, unless they're actually interested in reading my immortal prose (what? I repeat, what?) concerning the upcoming Super Bowl.

Two things are rather obvious at this point:

1) Outside of his little football world, Tom Brady is a woo-promoting jackass;

2) That's still no reason to go after his daughter in public, though, like one radio host did.

That being said, I'm under the impression that if anyone's going to upset The Belicheck Machine That Ate The AFC it might be Philly. The Eagles are every bit as capable of making life tough for opponents as the Pats are, and the fact that they mercilessly pounded the Vikings 38-7 in a game where the Vikes were favored by Vegas is proof of that. Even so, the Pats have more experience. And they have a quarterback who's incredibly skilled and pulling off last-minute wins even if he is a quack medicine-promoting idiot off the field.

So Pats by 2.

However...

I have shit luck picking Super Bowl winners since I started doing it again in 2006. Last year was a rare exception (Pittsburgh beating Arizona in 2008 was the other one, and I didn't even cover my own spread that time), but considering my lack of luck picking winners in - which years were they, now? - 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 you can at least rest assured that just because I was right about the Pats in 2016 I might not be this year considering my Monopoly money-worthless 2-9 record.

So, Pats haters? Don't give up hope.

Yet.

Signal Boost: "White House’s 2018 Budget Plan Would 'Devastate' R&D, Says AAAS CEO Holt"

If you really needed any more explanation from a source outside President Unintelligible Central about why his budget would be especially hard on scientific and medical research, look no further than the following post from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

The double-digit percentage cuts President Donald Trump is proposing in his fiscal 2018 budget plan for science and technology programs would “devastate America’s science and technology enterprise” and weaken the nation’s economic growth, Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said Tuesday.

Pointing to the budget blueprint the White House delivered to Congress Tuesday, Holt said, the plan, if enacted, would make steep cuts to science and technology programs and “negatively affect our nation’s economy and public well-being.” He cited several agencies and programs facing particularly “severe” cuts.

For instance, the proposal calls for sharp reductions in science and technology programs, including 11% from the National Science Foundation, which champions basic scientific research across all fields except medical topics; 22% from the National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest biomedical research agency; and 44% from the Environmental Protection Agency’s science and technology programs.

“Slashing funding of critically important federal agencies threatens our nation’s ability to advance cures for disease, develop new energy technologies, improve public health, train the next generation of scientists and engineers and grow the American economy,” said Holt.

The Energy Department’s scientific research efforts also face deep cuts. Its Office of Science, the government’s central energy research agency, largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and the home of a renowned network of national research laboratories, would be cut by 17% and its Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy would face a 69% reduction. The budget proposal also calls for the department’s Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy program to be eliminated altogether by fiscal 2019.

The Agriculture Department’s research programs were not immune to proposed reductions. Funding for the Agriculture Research Service, for instance, would shrink by 38%; the National Institute for Food Agriculture would face an 8% decrease; and the Forest Service research programs would be cut by 10%. The Interior Department’s U.S. Geological Survey, which maps the Earth’s systems to help officials monitor natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes and landslides, is slated to be cut by 15%.
  
At the Commerce Department, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientific agency, which uses satellite data to forecast and track severe weather and conducts research on oceans, fisheries and climate, would see funding fall by 9%, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology that leverages measurement science to advance innovation would see a 23% decrease.

Holt stressed that the budget proposal in now in the hands of Congress where it is up to lawmakers to accept, reject or shape, a reality that was on full display when the Republican-controlled Congress restored many of the cuts Trump outlined in his fiscal 2017 budget plan.

During an afternoon press conference, Holt noted that the administration’s budget proposal deviates from how the scientific enterprise has long been viewed. “It has been regarded as an investment that leads to economic growth and human welfare,” said Holt, noting that the fiscal 2018 plan “is completely contrary to the idea of investment.”

Holt applauded Congress for “prioritizing federal research and development” when lawmakers finalized spending on May 4 for the remainder of fiscal year 2017, which ends after Sept. 30.
He called on Congress to continue to make research and development investments a priority and “to once again act in the nation’s best interest and support funding for R&D in a bipartisan fashion – including both defense and non-defense programs – in FY 2018 and beyond.”

The real perils of antiscience beliefs in politics, 2014 edition

Courtesy Charlie Pierce.

(And don't say I didn't warn you when you read it. It is, on balance, a pile of thoroughgoing Ick beyond description, but if you don't want to take Pierce's word for it you can read this equally excruciating piece on Congressthing Lamar Smith instead.)

Two legitimate reasons to be angry about science education

Both of the following reasons were found via Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and both one of them are quite disturbing, to say the least:

A study concerning the level of knowledge among science teachers in Oklahoma on the very subjects they're supposed to be teaching proved that their supposed expertise is downright abysmal, and - unsurprisingly - the abysmal nature of that lack of knowledge extends straight down to the students they're supposed to be teaching. I could also go on about the AP/GfK poll that reveals some equally scary facts about the lack of acceptance of science in the American population at large, but enough people have already done that - but perhaps not loudly enough, though.

The most horrible thing revealed here is that Oklahoma - a state where I normally joke that "all the cool people I know from that state have escaped" (not quite true, but close enough) has had know-nothing idiots like Sally Kern and Josh Brecheen (feel free to look them up - I patently refuse to link to their own web sites for obvious reasons) trying to pass laws weakening science education in that state even further for decades. All in the name of getting the Yahoos to re-elect you over and over again, of course, and also to apparently produce a new generation of the Future Fry Chefs of America out of that vast mass of intellectually incurious high school graduates that they're effectively created.

The sad thing is that Neil deGrasse Tyson said it boldly a while ago, and not enough people listened. Not nearly enough. Which is why I'm reposting it again. For your kid's sakes, if no one else's.

Schadenfreude: Sylvia Browne

I suppose this is going to make me a bad, bad person in some people's minds*, but my guess is that - like practically everything else she "predicted" - she didn't see it coming. Ah, well.

(*As usual, I await your emails of complaint, etc.)

Frederick Sanger, 1918-2013

You'd do better to read the entire L.A. Times obit, but one of the true giants of biochemisty is gone. Luckily, his life's work isn't.

And the prize goes to...

I fail to see how these two shouldn't have got the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics, but I'm sure someone will argue that point. I won't.

Nearly 50 years ago, Francois Englert of Belgium and Peter Higgs of the United Kingdom had the foresight to predict that the particle existed.

Now, the octogenarian pair share the Nobel Prize in physics in recognition of a theoretical brilliance that was vindicated by the particle's discovery last year.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the prize to them.

Higgs and Englert's theories behind the elusive Higgs boson explained what gives matter its mass.

The universe is filled with Higgs bosons. As atoms and parts of atoms zoom around, they interact with and attract Higgs bosons, which cluster around them in varying numbers.

Certain particles will attract larger clusters of Higgs bosons, and the more of them a particle attracts, the greater its mass will be.

The explanation helped complete scientists' understanding of the nature of all matter.

"The awarded theory is a central part of the Standard Model of particle physics that describes how the world is constructed," the Royal Swedish Academy said in a post on Twitter.

As is tradition, the academy phoned the scientists during the announcement to inform them of their win. They were unable to reach Higgs, for whom the particle is named.

The conversation with Englert was short and sweet. "I feel very well, of course," he said, when he heard the news. "Now, I'm very happy."

Deservedly so, I might add.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Texas SBoE: your tax dollars at wr0k

This is just so special:

At a Texas State Board of Education meeting last month, the Republican head of the school board defended the qualifications of a biology textbook review panelist who said that “creation science based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption.”

 SBOE chair Barbara Cargill defended the panelist, who is not a biologist but… a dietitian. Cargill defended another Creationism advocate on the panel, a businessman, because he has a degree in chemical engineering, saying that not enough biology teachers wanted to serve on the panel reviewing textbooks.

Which, it seems, is a bold-faced lie:

They might be well-qualified in their own professional fields, but they are no more qualified to review biology textbooks than a biologist would be qualified to review a mathematics or engineering textbook,” Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network points out.

He also notes that Cargill’s claim that teachers didn’t step up to serve on the panels is baloney, as 140 of the 183 of the “individuals who applied or were nominated by State Board of Education members to serve as biology textbook reviewers” were educators, and the “vast majority of them have degrees and teaching experience specifically in biology." 

At least part of this bad joke is documented on video below:

On the other hand, educators specializing in biology (or - even worse - an actual biologist working in the field) might have good reason to stay away from working with the Texas SBoE since they've shown nothing resembling intellectual honesty in matters like this. It might be necessary to refute this ongoing nonsense, but it's hardly rewarding - unless you're really fond of filling up airsickness bags day after day, that is.

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/texas-school-board-chair-hails-creationist-dietitian-and-businessman-biology-experts#sthash.rDpRPGVD.dpuf

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

Well, it's been roughly a year since I last did this, so here it is again. The more things change...

From the original post:

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.

MONTANA HOUSE BILL 183: originally proposed by Clayton Fiscus (R-46th district) on November 5th, 2012. Originally had "intelligent design" language included which was later changed to an "encourage critical thinking regarding controversial scientific theories" gambit. 

TEXAS HOUSE BILL 285: prefiled on December 14th. 2012 by Bill Zedler (R-96th district). Specifically mentions "intelligent design" in text. Legislation died in committee on May 6th, 2013 on expiration of committee passage deadline. Bill tabled in committee on February 5th, 2013.

COLORADO HOUSE BILL 13-1089: introduced on January on January 16th, 2013 by Stephen Humphrey (R-House 48th) and Scott Renfroe (R-Senate 13th) and 10 others. Rejected in committee on February 4th, 2013. Bill also attacked AGW.

MISSOURI HOUSE BILL 79: introduced on January 16th, 2013 by Andrew Koenig (R-99th district) and 10 others. Died in committee on May 17th, 2013.

OKLAHOMA SENATE BILL 758 and HOUSE BILL 1674: prefiled by Josh Brecheen (R-6th Senate) and Gus Blackwell (R-61st House) on or around January 18th, 2013. Senate bill died in committee on February 25th, 2013; House bill died in March 14th, 2013 when a reading deadline in the Oklahoma House of Representatives was not met.

INDIANA HOUSE BILL 1283: introduced on January 23rd, 2013 by Jeff Thompson (R-28th district). Attempted to take a stealth "teach the controversy" approach and was introduced by the House sponsor of Senate Bill 89 above. Bill died on February 25th due to a missed reading deadline.

MISSOURI HOUSE BILL 291: introduced on January 24th, 2013 by Rick Brattin (R-58th district) and two others. Died in committee on May 17th, 2013 (see above).

ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1213: introduced primarily by Judy Burges (R-22nd district) and Chester Crandall (R-6th district) with 4 others as cosponsors on or around January 26th, 2013. Bill died on February 22nd, 2013 when it failed to be passed by its committee.

NOTE: although there have been separate bills proposed in state legislatures attacking the scientific basis for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), those bills (such as Kansas House Bill 2306) will have to be left for a separate post at a later date.(Also on WTTFTG)

Identity politics, Christian fundamentalist style

This is rich.

Ten to twenty years ago, proponents of this type of crap would be the exactly the same sort of people who'd bitch and whine if a similar strategy came from a left-leaning legal foundation, similarities in tactics be damned:

Ed Brayton:

In case you thought Kansas hadn’t had enough idiocy over science curricula in public schools, a group of fundamentalist Christians has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the implementation of science standards on the grounds that they will teach things that are “inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs” of the plaintiffs. The Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in a press release:

In addition to citing numerous areas of law that the standards violate, the complaint cites that the standards cause the state “to promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another.”…
Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute noted, “it’s an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students—as young as five—to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong.” He continued, “it’s one thing to explore alternatives at an appropriate age, but to teach theory that is devoid of any alternative which aligns with the belief of people of faith is just wrong.”

 Brayton again, pointing out the silliness in all its glory:
:
Exactly! So they should immediately stop teaching that the earth is round because that would subject children of Flat Earth Society members to a “teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong.” And heliocentricity has got to go too, since that will expose the children of geocentrists to a “teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong.” There isn’t a single thing taught in any school that does not conflict with someone’s religious beliefs. That has precisely nothing to do with what ought to be taught in public schools.

Of course it doesn't.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is this - ignorance can be educated out of people; willful stupidity is a terminal condition.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Buffoon, uninterrupted

Yesterday's post on the Texas State Board of Education's hearing concerning science standards (translation' The ToE, primarily) mentioned that Don McLeroy got a crack at proving that he is, indeed, still Don McLeroy.

From the link at Right Wing Watch:

One of the first people to speak was Don McLeroy, a former chairman of the State Board of Education who was prominently featured in the documentary The Revisionaries. While most people were allowed just two minutes to speak, the board let McLeroy go on for over ten minutes in a bizarre speech in which he argued that the current textbooks teaching evolution should be approved because their evidence is so “weak” that children will realize that the theory of evolution is just “words” and a “just so story," and thereby strikes a "final blow" to the theory.

WARNING: that's this thing, right here. Consider yourselves warned. I take no responsibility for any noticeable decline in your overall intelligence as a result of watching this with the sound on.

And of course, a certain scene from an Adam Sandler film needs to be added; luckily, it doesn't actually feature Adam Sandler.

Texas SBoE hearings on science textbook standards

The Texas Freedom Network helpfully posted a live blog of the State Board of Education hearings on textbook standards, and although they characterized it as a "lopsided victory for science" there was plenty of testimony by people who wouldn't know the meaning of the word "science" if it...well, free free to insert the cliche of your choice. It also Included testimony by one (very un-) usual suspect:

2:28 - Don McLeroy, former SBOE chair and leader of the creationist faction when the board adopted the controversial science curriculum standards in 2009, is about to testify. McLeroy lost re-election to current member Thomas Ratliff of Mount Pleasant in the Republican primary in 2010.

2:30 - McLeroy claims that textbooks are “filled with dogmatic” support for evolution. But he says the board should still vote to adopt the textbooks because they will somehow destroy evolution (“strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution”). Huh? He claims that while the textbooks claim solid evidence for evolution, McLeroy says, the books actually don’t do so. Yeah, sure. If it makes you feel better to believe that, Don.

 2:32 - What we see around us supports what the Bible says, McLeroy says. He claims even the textbook chapters on evolution supports what the Bible says.

 2:34 - McLeroy is essentially arguing that the textbooks make such weak cases for evolution that the only alternative is what the Bible says. (“It’s weak!”) Interestingly, the creationists serving on the textbook review teams seem to disagree. Their reviews are filled with objections that the textbooks claim that evidence shows that evolution is well-established, mainstream science.

2:38 - Thomas Ratliff, who defeated McLeroy in 2010, asks McLeroy to try explaining again. McLeroy says students will see so little evidence for evolution in the textbooks that they will think that God didn’t use evolution.

 2:40 - And with that, McLeroy’s fascinating (and nonsensical) testimony ends.

Seriously, where do they find people like The Deranged Dentist? And can we actually send him back?

Big news on the HIV vaccine front

Normally, the use of the word "vaccine" in one of my posts would usually presage my bringing up  yet another chunk of anti-vax woo being expounded by someone else jumping on that crowded bandwagon of idiots (for example, see the bizarre nonsense from Louie Gohmert, below), but not today.

From scienceblog.com:

Sumagen Canada Inc and Western University announced today that the Phase I Clinical Trial (SAV CT 01) of the first and only preventative HIV vaccine based on a genetically modified killed whole virus (SAV001-H) has been successfully completed with no adverse effects in all patients (emphasis mine). Antibody production was also boosted after vaccination.

Being a realist on this issue, I realize that this hardly a well-deserved death knell for HIV/AIDS; only a completely giddy optimist would believe that. But it's a promising start, for reasons that Medical Daily lays out here:

Since the virus was characterized in 1983, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions around the world have attempted, yet consistently failed, to develop a vaccine. What is unique about (Dr. Chil-Yong) Kang’s vaccine is its use of a killed-whole HIV-1, which is similar to the vaccines developed for polio, influenza, and rabies. HIV-1 is also genetically engineered; this raises its safety profile and the possibility of it being produced in large quantities.

Anti-vax hysteria of a different, possibly even stupider kind

Shorter Louie Gohmert: "Hey, I want to get in on the anti-vaccination bandwagon that Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield are riding on, and I know just how to do it"!

Just for comparison's sake, this video seems to be more...er...coherent.

Georgia on my mind (just not for a good reason)

This data from the NCSE website is more than a bit disturbing, to say the least:

A new poll (PDF) of Georgia voters suggests that creationism is popular in the state. Asked "Would you say you believe more in creationism or evolution," 53% of respondents preferred creationism, 29% preferred evolution, and 18% were not sure.

I guessed I really shouldn't be surprised, since this is the bible belt we're talking about: I hardly expected the numbers to be the reverse. But 53% to 29%? Really? In 2013?

On the other hand, this is a state where people like Paul Broun get elected without so much as token opposition. An object lesson in the failure of congressional politics on the local level, I guess, but that's what happens when you let the terminally uninformed get their hands on elected office so easily. In a district that includes the University of Georgia, no less. 

Education in a backward, Third World country named Texas

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)