Texans need some wise advice. KTBX asks, How do you think science should be taught in Texas schools?.
Evolution only – 34.50%
Creationism only – 16.83%
Combination of both – 48.67%
Total Responses – 600
Those numbers don’t look quite right to me. I’m about to get on a plane and fly to Minneapolis…is there any chance there will be a significant shift by the time I land?
I was premature in mentioning the good news from the Texas hearings: the situation is much messier than I thought. The ‘strengths and weaknesses’ amendment lost on points, but the creationists responded with a flurry of new amendments to various pieces of the science standards — most of them look like very nit-picky changes in wording that have deep meaning to creationists, I assume. Science wasn’t murdered by the Texas board, but is only being wounded and made to suffer the torture of a thousand cuts.
The Texas Freedom Network has released a summary statement.
The word “weaknesses” no longer appears in the science standards. But the document still has plenty of potential footholds for creationist attacks on evolution to make their way into Texas classrooms.
Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks.
We appreciate that the politicians on the board seek compromise, but don’t agree that compromises can be made on established mainstream science or on honest education policy.
What’s truly unfortunate is that we now have to revisit this entire debate in two years when new science textbooks are adopted. Perhaps the Texas legislature can do something to prevent that.
I am no longer confused, just unhappy.
The Pope, under the spell of infallibility and religious delusion, recently declared that condoms “increase the problem” of HIV transmission in Africa. This would be news to the CDC.
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners.”
Now the Lancet speaks out.
But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had “publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue”.
It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.
“Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear,” said the journal.
But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record,” it said.“Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide.”
The Kwok has been mailing all over the place. He has complained to facebook, and to the Panda’s Thumb. He has written to CFI-Michigan in advance of my visit here, telling them to throw a pie in my face. I have heard from quite a few friends in the scientific community that Kwok has written to them, as well, telling them what an awful jerk I am and how they should not ever associate with me. He has now cc’ed to me a message he sent to several of my colleagues at UMM, with an incredibly ironic title.
The effort to insert the ‘strengths and weaknesses” nonsense into the Texas science curriculum by creationists has been defeated. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that it was a real squeaker, defeated by a 7:7 vote. It was a ridiculous notion, and it’s similarly ridiculous that it was even close.
Scientists are baffled by his ability to survive. After the recent discovery of transitional fossil octopods, I predicted that creationists would abuse the discovery…and Denyse O’Leary fulfilled my prediction of stupidity by claiming that the fossils showed that cephalopods hadn’t evolved at all. Wouldn’t you know it, but Joseph Farah of World Nut Daily has upped the ante by being even more explicitly wrong.
1Scientists are baffled by the latest fossil find.
2
It’s an octopus they claim is 95 million years old.3
And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.4
In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn’t evolved — not one tiny bit.
1Scientists aren’t baffled at all by this discovery.
2Superficially, this is true — they do say it is 95 million years old. Farah is trying to spin it, though, by implying it is only a “claim”. It is a conclusion supported by the evidence.
3There are hundreds of octopod species. The level of description Farah provides is about what a four-year-old with a crayon might say, and it’s false. They (there were several species identified) do not look like modern octopods, but have several tell-tale differences.
4Completely false. Farah hasn’t read the paper, which fits these fossils into a long history of evolutionary change in the lineage.
That’s an impressive collection of falsehoods. It takes a creationist to screw up a story that thoroughly, I guess.
Another revelation in the tragic Montanaplane crash endorsed by anti-choice freaks: one of the women on the plane was five months pregnant. If their deity is responsible for these deaths, not only is their god an abortionist, he’s one of those hacks who butchers the mother in the process…but apparently, Gingi Edmonds is alright with that.
One of our more popular commenters now has a couple of more letters he can tag on the end of his name in addition to the Order of the Molly. You can cheer loudly here — I don’t recommend going up to his place in Boston and ringing the doorbell, since he might be recovering from the celebration still.
There was a good suggestion in the comments that I have a thread dedicated to suggestions for a new car. I do have criteria: it should be amphibious, it must have tentacles, and the ability to fire a cloud of ink is desirable; it must also at least have mounts in place for a bank of lasers. I need a squidmobile.
Unfortunately, any new vehicle is not for me, but for my wife, Mary (I get to inherit her decrepit Honda Civic). She has different requirements. This would be a commuter car to get her to and from work every day; our first need is for safety, then good gas mileage and efficiency, and of course, price and availability. We’ve heard about Smart Cars, but we are automotive ignoramuses. I call upon the collective wisdom of the Pharyngula hordes to give us car shopping advice!
(Oh, and if it does have squidlike properties…well, maybe she’d let me drive it on weekends.)
