Utahns have something to do tomorrow night

Carel Brest van Kempen is going to be at the Hogle Zoo on Friday evening, showing off his artwork. We have fond memories of the zoo; our apartment was just down the road from it in Salt Lake City when we lived there, and when the kids were at that perfect age to be enthusiastic about it all. (Salt Lake City, despite the weird religion everywhere, is actually a wonderful place to raise kids; when we atheists take over the country, we have to remember to build zoos and big parks and lots of schools in our cities.)

Admission is free from 7-9pm. If we were living a little closer, we’d be there—if you’re in that part of Utah, you should make the trip!

Oops, not free, but still a good deal!

The Opening Reception on Friday (Feb 9) from 7-9 is for artists and invited guests only. However the show will run from Feb. 10 – April 1 and is free with paid admission to to Zoo. We have 10 of Carel Brest van Kempen’s pieces in the show as well as the poster for this year’s show he created. The poster will be available for sale for only $5!

Debbie Schlussel might become a Muslim terrorist any day now

Really, I don’t read Debbie Schlussel’s blog—a reader sent me a link, so I put on the waders and gas mask and climbed down into the sewer. I’m now completely baffled; why is this insane and deeply stupid person ever put on television? Her response to the CNN complaints is illustrative, and even if you sympathize with her, you’ve got to recognized the big picture here: she’s not very bright.

[Read more…]

Whitewash!

One sign that the fading Bush administration knows that they’ve been on the wrong side of reality is that they’re now busy scrubbing the archives, trying to change what was said in the past. Chris Mooney catches a blatant attempt to rewrite the administration’s history on global warming.

Man, the GW Bush Presidential Library is going to be a real work of art, isn’t it? Maybe it should be called a “propaganda archive” rather than a “library”.

CNN must have felt the heat

That wretched excuse to bash atheists on the Paula Zahn program that I criticized must have generated some intense and voluminous correspondence, because right now they’re scrambling to do damage control. I just got word from Richard Dawkins that they are going to repeat the lead segment (the part with the ostracized atheist family), and then instead of showing the bumbling bigot panel, they’re planning to replace that debacle with a new interview with Richard Dawkins. That’s tonight, Thursday, at 8PM EST.

For symmetry, it would have been better to have a panel with Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to talk about those darned obnoxious Christians…the asymmetry would have reemerged, though, when they discussed the issue with more class and thoughtfulness than Debbie Schlussel and Karen Hunter.

A convenient deletion

The other day, I shredded Pat Boone for mindlessly parroting the Lady Hope story. You’ll have to take a look at the Pat Boone evolution article now, though: mysteriously, that entire paragraph has vanished without acknowledgment. Aren’t computers wonderful?

Alas, the rest of the article is still there, and it’s still crap. If we take it apart paragraph by paragraph, can we make the whole thing disappear?

This is one way to narrow the field of viable Democratic candidates

If this is true—that the Edwards campaign has caved to pressure from the right wing—he has lost my vote.

The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps — John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare’s Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan “anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots,” and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.

I’ll want to see some confirmation from the targets of this rumor first, but if it’s true that Edwards would rather heed the screams of right-wing sleazebags like Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue than the people he’s supposed to represent, then he has lost. We don’t need another timid Democratic candidate who flits away at every gust of noise from the Republican slander machine.

Zuzu says more, much more. Jebus, but I’m tired of craven Democrats.

“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less,” said Jonathan Wells

Correcting Jonathan Wells’ misrepresentations is practically a full time job. He’s been yammering away in the Yale Daily News lately, trying to defend his absurd disagreements with evolution, and he’s just digging his hole deeper and deeper. In his latest, he’s trying to argue for his abuse of the term “Darwinism”, which has steadily become a term of art for the rantings of creationists in addition to its more specific meanings.

Here’s his most unpromising start to his letter:

In a recent column (“Churches shouldn’t buy into Darwinists’ ploys,” 1/29), I distinguished between “evolution” as change over time, and “Darwinism” as the theory that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided processes such as random mutation and natural selection. I criticized Evolution Sunday for disguising the latter (which is scientifically and religiously controversial) as the former (which nobody denies).

Evolution Sunday originator Michael Zimmerman responded (“Writer missed point of Evolution Sunday,” 2/5) that “Darwinism is a term that is almost exclusively used by creationists to attack evolution.” Yet prominent biologists Ernst Mayr (“The Growth of Biological Thought”) and Stephen Jay Gould (“The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”) often used “Darwinism” as I used it above, and the term occurs regularly in scientific journals. By trying to discredit the more accurate (though controversy-provoking) term “Darwinism” and insisting on the more ambiguous (and innocuous) term “evolution,” Zimmerman proves my point.

It’s the old microevolution vs. macroevolution shell game with different names. He wants to relabel microevolution as evolution, and “Darwinism” as macroevolution, while also making the false claim that evolution/microevolution is undeniable (correct), while “Darwinism”/macroevolution/common descent is scientifically controversial (it isn’t, except in the specific details).

He should have stopped there, and I would have just rolled my eyes at the boring old creationist boilerplate, but no…in his second paragraph he goes on to try and support those claims. If you know Wells like I know Wells, then you also know that whenever that guy attempts serious scholarship, you’re either going to witness a hilarious pratfall or a con man’s sleight of hand, or both. And when he cites an authority like Gould or Mayr, who also happen to be dead, you can trust him to completely misrepresent their views.

[Read more…]