Making libraries safe havens for the ignorant once again

A Canadian school board has decided to remove Philip Pullman‘s books from its schools’ shelves because people complained that the author is an atheist. This is a remarkable objection, obviously. I mean, we don’t see school boards screaming to remove Chuck Colson’s books from the shelves because the author is a convicted felon, which seems to me to be a much more serious indicator of moral turpitude than atheism, nor do we see a call to eject books by Ann Coulter because she is incredibly stupid, and is therefore a poor role model for students. It’s just atheism that spurs this objection.

I think we ought to run with it. The school board didn’t go far enough. Let’s purge school libraries of all books by atheists.

[Read more…]

The logic that makes him confident history will remember him as the man who brought peace to Iraq

Since George W. Bush no longer owns a baseball team, he can take credit for whoever wins the World Series this year. After all, somebody will win despite his absence.

George W. Bush is a friend of the oil industry who has shown little interest in cultivating research into alternative energy or conservation—therefore, when (or if) someone develops a strategy for providing energy as the oil supply declines, George’s heroic boosterism for oil will be remembered as the stimulus for the future.

The Bush administration dallied when Katrina struck, but New Orleans is still there, and George W. Bush now deserves full credit for the brave efforts of Louisiana’s citizens to rebuild.

This Orwellian “logic”, that individuals who neglect or oppose an endeavor are to later be rewarded with accolades for their hindrance, comes to mind on reading this ridiculously effulgent piece praising Bush for the recent stem cell breakthrough.

I believe that many of these exciting “alternative” methods would not have been achieved but for President Bush’s stalwart stand promoting ethical stem-cell research. Indeed, had the president followed the crowd instead of leading it, most research efforts would have been devoted to trying to perfect ESCR and human-cloning research — which, despite copious funding, have not worked out yet as scientists originally hoped.

So thank you for your courageous leadership, Mr. President. Because of your willingness to absorb the brickbats of the Science Establishment, the Media Elite, and weak-kneed Republican and Democratic politicians alike — we now have the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem-cell medicine and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate, our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human life.

This is insane. The work that led to understanding the way to switch somatic cells into pluripotency required work on embryonic stem cells—the research Bush opposed. That scientists found ways to work around the Bush restrictions does not rebound to the credit of the man who threw up obstacles. This is also not a medical breakthrough at all: it opens the doors for basic research into how cells develop and differentiate (which may, of course, lead to medical advances), but to claim this develops “stem-cell medicine” is exactly wrong.

Reading that over-the-top praise for the man who hindered this progress reminded me so much of Powerline that I suspected John Hindrocket of authoring it…but no, it was my other bête noir, the Discovery Institute and Wesley J. Smith. I should have known. That’s one right wing think tank that has really mastered the art of double-speak.

D’Souza dishes up more dreck

Zeno compares Dinesh D’Souza to Mark Twain. This exercise is much like comparing mouse droppings to our upcoming Thanksgiving feast, but I suppose it must be done. Note D’Souza’s argument for free will:

I am sitting at my computer with a cup of coffee on my desk. I can reach over and take a sip if I choose; I can knock the coffee mug onto the carpet if I choose; I can just leave the cup alone and let the coffee get cold. Now I ask: Is there anything in the laws of physics that forces me do any of these things? Obviously not.

I had no idea that he was that stupid.

Strong female role models do little girls no favor

Hey, you — you look really stupid with your jaw gaping open like that.

That was a little preemptive scorn to get you to prep yourself for this link: it’s a fellow complaining about women working as astronauts (and even commanders of the space shuttle!) inspiring little girls to emulate them and ending up throwing pampers and pepper (?) at each other. This part is really disturbing:

Whatever happened to young men looking for a good Christian wife and finding a young woman still clinging to her doll?

It’s about finding masculinity in infantilizing women. It’s the flip side of the posturing macho faux-masculinity of Kim du Toit (warning: that link will make real men, those who don’t think a strut and a gun defines male identity, gag).

The comments on the article are interesting, too. There are a lot of smart women chewing him to bits, but then…well, read it for yourself.

Its ok. Christ did command us to subjigate our will, and that is what is so hard for people to do in this day and age. It’s all about “ME” in this day and age. Christ taught us humility and charity. As Christians, we are not our own, we are bought with a price. Christ paid it. If God tells me to submit my will to my husband, who is also in Christ, who am I to defy God’s will?

(via John Lynch)

Sokal’d!

Laugh, everyone! A bunch of the people who reject scientific ideas about global warming, including a certain big fat fish and quite a few right wing blogs, were taken in by a fake paper that claimed that “concerns about manmade global warming are unfounded.” If you have even the slightest acquaintance with math, all you have to do is glance at the paper to see that the equations are all gibberish.

Nature has a summary, and an interview with the author of the hoax.

Of course, it’s not exactly comparable to the Sokal hoax since this one didn’t take in the mainstream climatologists at all…only a collection of fringe pundits who oppose an inconvenient reality.

The Catholic League catches on to our latest subterfuge in the War on Christmas

The Catholic League is afraid parents might see The Golden Compass…and then buy the books for a Christmas gift. Horrors! You can’t give books by atheists on Christmas! Watch the video from Fox News to witness the outrage. Also, I have to love this quote from a Christian who opposes the movie fervently, despite never having seen it or even reading the books. But he has his reasons.

I don’t have to read the book, I’ve never been bitten by a snake either, but I, you know, it’s not something that I have to do to know that it’s not going to, that it’s not necessarily going to be a good thing for me.

In related news, snakebite victim’s family sues. Would you believe a religious snake-handler was bitten by the snake she was playing with to demonstrate her faith, and it bit her? And now her family is upset because she died at the hospital. Shouldn’t they be suing God instead, because he promised that those strong in their faith would be unharmed by poison? Or maybe they ought to find fault in the woman, who clearly was not faithful enough.

Hey, maybe the Bible was actually prophesying The Golden Compass — the snakes in Mark 16:17-18 are actually metaphors for Philip Pullman, promising that the faithful will be unharmed if they watch this movie.

Hello, Stan Palmer!

Hi, Stan. You’re new here, like a whole lot of people. You’ve just shown up, and here’s your very first comment.

I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.

I’ve looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can’t find any.

Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I’m an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it’s all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I’m writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I’m also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I’m stretched very, very thin right now, I’m a bit frustrated myself that I haven’t had much spare time for the blog, and I’m feeling extremely cranky.

Welcome, Stan Palmer, I’m going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!

[Read more…]

I’m very disappointed in Mike Myers

Iconoclasts- Enlightenment

Posted 47 Minutes Ago

Comedian/actor Mike Myers talks about how enlightenment actually means “lightening up” when he sits down for a one-on-one conversation with philosopher Deepak Chopra in this clip from the next episode of Iconoclasts. Airs Thursday, November 8th @10PM on The Sundance Channel! For More info, visit: http://www.sundancechannel.com/iconoclasts/

Sucking up to Deepak Chopra? Blechh. Pretending that his nonsense has anything to do with enlightenment? Double blechh.

The only part that’s valid is the claim that humor is part of enlightenment values—so let’s all laugh at these two goofballs.

Should this student have been suspended?

This is a troubling story if you just read the right-wing perspective: a student at Hamline University (an excellent liberal arts college in the Twin Cities) was suspended for writing a letter to the university administration. That shouldn’t happen, I’d say — we want to encourage free speech. Even if the student seems to be a bit of a far-right nut, and if the letter was supporting that lunatic idea that school massacres wouldn’t happen if everyone were carrying a concealed weapon, people should have the privilege of expressing their opinions.

So I read John Leo’s opinion piece on the issue and was actually agreeing with him, which was a curious sensation in itself. He didn’t actually quote any pieces of the letter in question, though, which was a little odd. So I looked up the letter from Troy Scheffler on the web. Uh-oh.

[Read more…]

Let’s all laugh at Australia now

A-ha! It’s not just the United States that’s stocked with religious creepazoids and hypocrites!

  • A candidate for the conservative Family First party has dropped out of his race. He was caught flaunting his junk on the internet, and admits to viewing porn…neither of which are particularly wicked, but when your party is against internet porn, well, there’s a little problem with consistency. There’s also a problem with making pathetic excuses, like these:

    I might have been drunk off my face or my political enemies might have drugged me.

    But that’s not my penis.

    Look, maybe somebody photoshopped it, and put another one on the photo.

    First rule of lying is to get the story straight, and keep it simple. Mr Quah’s ineptitude at lying clearly disqualifies him for political office.

  • And then there’s this Muslim kook, who is a problem of a whold different order: not just foolish, but hateful as well. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali blames victims for their pain.

    In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.
    While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make-up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years”.

    It’s all girls’ fault for being so irresistibly pretty. This analogy explains it all:

    In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

    “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

    Hmm. Who should be more offended? Women for being compared to cat food, or men for being compared to cats with poor impulse control?