Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Don’t forget to read the Carnival of the Godless before you go to bed…it’s as effective as prayer!
Our country, with the approval and encouragement of George W. Bush, has been carrying out a program of religious indoctrination and the unconstitutional endorsement of evangelical Christianity. Federal money has been funneled into “faith-based” programs that make religious dogmatists prosper, and have no other actual, real-world value. The clearest examples are the prisons, where con artists like Chuck Colson have been engaged in a kind of ministry that is actually religious extortion and bribery.
The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks. More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the typical visiting rooms.
But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress.
The article documents many instance of this kind of behavior line up at the trough and get cash—large amounts of cash—to proselytize to captive audiences. It’s genuinely despicable. This is exactly why the government should not be involved in favoring one religion over another—these gasbags cannot be trusted to put the interests of their target audience above their need to preach dogma.
For another example of the sleazy behavior of evangelicals, I give to you Kent Hovind. Hovind is a dishonest creationist who was caught committing tax evasion. Not only was he skimming to enrich himself, but by playing games with their salaries and paying them under the table, he was screwing over his employees, which seems to be a most Christian thing to do. He’s been convicted and thrown in jail, and he has been sporadically posting blog entries from prison. These are appalling stories of a con man who can’t stop bilking his fellow inmates.
have also been teaching math and science to some of the others. It is great to see convicted drug dealers get excited when they learn fourth grade level math for the first time. I have spent quite a bit of time with one 29-year-old man who cannot read at all. I have been teaching him phonics and we are reading Genesis 1, 2, 3 and John 1, 2, and 3. His face lights up when he sees that he can do it. I offer commissary items like soup or coffee to men who memorize Bible verses. There is no way to describe the joy that they show when they get it right. Many have never memorized scriptures in their life, and maybe that is why they are in jail. Scripture helps us to “cleanse our ways” Psalm 119:9-11.
Hovind is not a good teacher. I’ve heard his lectures; he’s a fraud and a liar who babbles at a frantic pace, who has been peddling anti-scientific crap for decades, and now he claims to be teaching science to his fellow inmates. This is an injustice. We’re locking up these poor fellows as punishment, isn’t it a bit much to also allow a bunco artist like Hovind to fill their heads with lies and actively contribute to their ignorance?
Also note the outright bribery I highlighted in the quote—the man has no shame at all.
In fact, he is so shameless I expect that he’ll soon be applying for federal aid in his propaganda efforts…and given the record of this Republican administration, he’ll probably get it. After all, a belief in Jesus seems to be sufficient qualification for any clown to be a teacher (or a president!), overcoming any amount of stupidity.
(crossposted to The American Street)
They never rest, and you know the creationists are constantly probing, trying to find the next likely inroad into the schools. Sahotra Sarkar offers some concerns about what’s coming next in creationism—these seem like quite probable strategies to me.
As the physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger noted in the Skeptical Briefs newsletter last September, The Privileged Planet represents a new wedge in the creationists’ arsenal. Equally importantly, the Smithsonian episode shows how this new physics-based version of creationism is being propagated with unusual stealth. Biologists may now feel safe that the problem of combating creationism has moved out of their backyards to infest the haunts of the physicists. Some religious biologists have even endorsed the idea of a conscious creator of the universe, so long as it does not affect biological theory. For instance, the biochemist Ken Miller, who ably defends evolution against creationist charges in Finding Darwin’s God, goes on to claim that God created the universe with its laws and evolution is simply a result of these laws.
These moves are dangerous: once the creator enters the science classroom, even through the physicists’ backdoor, the room for mischief is enormous. Biologists would do well to remember that, ultimately, what has motivated creationists to action throughout history is the natural origin of the human species. Sooner or later creationists will return to the theory they fear and detest most: evolution by natural selection. Moreover, if religious dogma manages to breach the defenses of science, there is every reason to believe that it will proactively encroach on every other secular institution of society. The new stealth creationism is, in short, as dangerous as its older cousins, Intelligent Design and Young Earth creationism. It can and should be defeated in the same way they were.
We’ve seen this coming for a long time: the Discovery Institute has been pushing that fine-tuning argument for a while, and that line of argument makes an end run around one of our most successful debaters, Ken Miller, and also puts Francis Collins and many other theistic evolutionists on their side. We prickly, cranky, vociferous biologists, who’ve been fighting this nonsense for years and are ready to start roaring at the first attempt to smuggle a creationist onto a school board, are also going to be less effective—for instance, I don’t pay that much attention to the physics standards, and wouldn’t have any influence at all on physics teaching. We’d need more effort at the public school level in this discipline.
And, honestly, physics teachers are smart people, but they get even less training in coping with creationist arguments than biology teachers, and unfortunately, a lot of physics instructors and engineers and chemists have more sympathy for ID than do the biologists. Add to that problem the fact that a few notable evolutionists are perfectly willing to pass the headaches on to the physicists, conceding the Big Bang to a vague version of a god, and this could be a major worry.
In a few weeks, on January 3-7, I’m going to be attending the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Phoenix. I’m going to be part of a panel in a Media Workshop, along with a few other names you might recognize:
Blogs are online “diaries” that are growing in popularity. Popular political and social commentary blogs are making the news, but is there more out there than chatty gossip and collections of links? How about some science? Can this trendy technology be useful for scientists? Come to the Media Workshop and find out! Experienced science bloggers P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula; http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/), Grrl Scientist (Living the Scientific Life; http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/), and John Lynch (Stranger Fruit; http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/) answer your questions about how blogging works, setting one up, finding things to write about, and using the medium for your classes, for research, or for educating the public.
Cool, hey? Even better, afterwards there will be a ten-round boxing match between me and John, with GrrlScientist doing the honors as the card girl (nah, not really…all three of us will probably just buy each other beers and get embarrassingly sloppy.)
The real coolness, though, is in the schedule: there are some great talks and posters going on at this meeting, and once I get the panel out of the way, I am going to thoroughly enjoy myself, learning new stuff. And yes, of course, I will be blogging the SICB meeting.
What I really want to know is what Shelley was looking for when she stumbled across this: an art project to collect 1000 liters of human sperm and display it in a transparent cube. The Sperm Cube does not look like it was well thought out, I’m afraid.
One problem is the collection method. They just want donors to ejaculate into a vial, and mail it, unrefrigerated, to them. Would you like the job of opening tubes of rancid semen and dumping it into the cube?
Another is the health risk. Human fluids need to be treated as a biohazard—they can be ripe with nasty pathogens (HIV? syphilis?), and they do seem to be rather indiscriminate in who they’re accepting donations from.
Now look at the design. They’ve got a 1 meter cube full of a viscous fluid on top of their cooling element. Does that look efficient to you? There’s going to be a damp, runny slurry on the top and sides of that, and nothing will increase the visual appeal of a giant lump of frozen sperm than thriving multi-colored colonies of bacteria and fungi growing on it…unless, maybe, it’s nice squirming masses of maggots tunneling through the semi-congealed mass.
Do they have a disposal plan? This is not practical as a permanent display, and at some point they’re going to have to turn off the freezer and do something with the gunk.
I suspect this is a case where an artist really should consult with a biologist and an engineer before charging off into an insane project.
Look at this…Phil is sneaking around my back, recruiting people at the JREF to vote for him, as if he is the only skeptic in the running. He’s also tried to win people over on talk.origins. I’ll have you know I’ve been fighting for the forces of rationality for years now. I’ve debunked astrology, I’ve jumped down Deepak Chopra’s throat, I’ve skewered creationist cranks, and yes, I’ve even done movie reviews. There is also much more sex on a biology blog than you’ll ever find on a mere astronomy blog.
Although, I do have to grudgingly confess, Phil’s recent post about religious goons violating the lighting laws near Palomar Observatory was darned good stuff, too. So he gets it right now and then…it’s still not a good enough reason to vote for a sneaky squid-hater.
Vote for Pharyngula (and remember, you can vote every day!). Unless you’re a woo-woo or a eunuch.
P.S. You might also vote for GeekyMom. Geeky moms are the finest kind.
Can you stand one more Gene-Ray-level internet crackpot? A reader sent me a link to this guy, Neal Adams, who has this insane “Growing Earth” idea. Forget all the physics and geology you think you knew—this animator and comic book publisher has invented his own solution, and it involves reworking particle physics (there are no electrons!) and making bizarre calculations, all ‘demonstrated’ with computer animation.
That last link give you another reason to despise this kook: he’s responsible for that awful annoying commercial with the big-eyed bee hawking allergy medicine. I hated that stupid bee—it was the work of someone who’d never even looked at an insect, and why did it have that dumb French accent?
Phil is still playing the speciesist card, and now he wants to invoke the so-called superiority of bony internal skeletons. There’s nothing wrong with a good hydrostatic skeleton, you know, it’s one of those useful innovations that allows a soft tissue to extend and become rigid. I’m sure Phil’s lovers have all wished he had one. (Perhaps that’s the source of the telescope fixation over there, a little rigid tube envy).
And look at how far he’s willing to go:
That is why I am promoting the “Defense of Vertebrates Act”. This legislation, which I will submit to the National Academy of Higher Mammals, states that affection, care, and declarations of ” Awwwww, isn’t that cute!” can only be given to animals with bones (and to whatever animal goes into making McNuggets).
If he’s going to do that, we’re going to have to restrict all declarations of “Thou art AWESOME!” to organisms other than the bone-bags he’s raving about. He can have the trivial “cute” adjective for all of gangly, clumsy concatenations of stick-like sprues he favors, and we’ll reserve “terrifying”, “slimy”, “spiny”, “oozing”, “gelatinous”, “tremendous”, and other such inspiring adjectives for the non-vertebrate biota—the majority, as we all know.
Vote for Pharyngula (and remember, you can vote every day!). Unless you like flaccidity.
