More creationist ellipses!

Over on Uncommon Descent, Sal Cordova quotes Lauren Sandler from her book Righteous, in a self-congratulatory attempt to claim the Dover decision as a victory for ID (oh, my, but aren’t they desperate). However, if you look at Cordova’s quote, there are…ellipses. Seeing an ellipsis in a creationist quote really ought to make you automatically wonder. Fortunately, Steve Story pulled out the actual, original quote over at Antievolution.org, so you too can see what was edited out.

Sal Cordova’s version

intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach thier views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intellignt design movement…

no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis–the name says it all–don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one….
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth

The actual text:

Moreover, intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach their views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intelligent design movement that thinks in small steps, always taking the long view; any opportunity to introduce theism in the classroom is a push forward.
To be sure, a legal victory would have been a boon to the movement, but no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis-the name says it all-don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one. Lawsuits, even the Rock for Life kids would tell you, aren’t the way to change hearts and minds.
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth: hire Evangelical teachers in mainly Christian communities, and make sure the local church elders have a presence on the PTA.  This is exactly what’s happening all over the country, beyond the gaze of newspaper assignment editors and pro bono prosecutors, and it’s working.

The message is simple: NEVER EVER TRUST A CREATIONIST.

Reason #13 to vote for Pharyngula

i-25661347df3e5a91e24784063255add5-waf.gif

This will be my last plea for your vote, to the relief of many. My next comment on this subject will be a miserable concession speech glorious in-your-face crow of triumph, after all the votes have been counted and validated. We’re behind right now, but I’m sure there will be a last-minute rush to the polls to save me.

i-527e9dee3c0ceef75700bef41d0107ec-phil_tanked.jpg

I think it’s time to up the ante a bit. Since Phil’s doom is imminent, perhaps we need a little wager, just to make everything more interesting. My first thought was to have Phil’s penalty on his loss was to come live in one of my tanks, as illustrated here (little known fact: Phil is a very tiny man. That’s not a telescope in the infamous nude photo, it’s a ballpoint pen). But then I considered what he’d probably demand in return, and although I’m not going to lose, one should never make wagers one can’t pay—and I really don’t want to spend the rest of my life crammed in a tiny space capsule, going “beep-beep-beep”.

So here’s a different deal: if when I win, Phil has to write an article on astrobiology for Bad Astronomy, and dedicate it to ME and all the wonderful, intelligent, perceptive Pharynguloids who had the discernment to vote for this blog rather than his. In the purely hypothetical instance that Phil wins, I have to write an article on something of his choice (I’m not sure what; astronomy is so boring, so I suppose it could be on kittens or whatever. Maybe he can think of something) and similarly dedicate it to his legions of misguided fans (or perhaps, that one guy who cheated and voted 7,000 times for him).

So come on, Phil. Let’s see if you’re tough enough to take the wager.

Vote for Pharyngula (and remember, you can vote every day!). Unless you really want me to say something nice about a mob of chordates.

P.S. The fiercest contest is between Bérubé and “Spunky Homeschool”. At least if I lose, I’m being crushed by a fellow scientist…but if Bérubé loses, it will be to a defunct blog with “spunky” in the name, and the shame will be unbearable. David Horowitz will mock him evermore for it. He’ll be laughed off the hockey rink. He might change his blog name to “Spünký Bérubé”. Help the poor guy out, and vote Bérubé.

Important Update: the terms of the wager have been agreed upon!

When I win: Phil will write an article praising the importance of biology in some way, and most importantly, expressing his appreciation of the perspicacity and noble mien of the readers of Pharyngula. In addition, in his talk at The Amazing Meeting this year, he will take a moment to further sing the praises of Pharyngula (and he must spell it correctly!) before his audience. Rah!

If Phil, by some ungodly miracle and happenstance, should win: I will write a similar article that singles out the Bad Astronomer’s readership for far, far greater praise than they deserve. My extra penalty: I will pose for the SkepDudes calendar. That last was part of my new cunning plan—I am committed now. If I lose, this body will be in the calendar, and I assure you, people opening it to that month will wonder if that is a man or a mollusc. Everyone’s going to vote for me now, lest that photograph ever be made. Mwuhahahahaha!

A book request

Now here’s a difficult question from a reader:

Long time reader, but only very occasional poster here. A friend asked me
to recommend some books to read to small
children (2 -5 years old) to teach the basics of atheism. His son is
getting exposed to a lot of religious training from
his wife, and my friend wants something to present the alternative
perspective.

Any suggestions? Feel free to open this up to the blog.

BTW, he is also interested in short books about the sciences suitable to be
read to children of the same age as bedtime
stories. Suggestions in this category are also welcomed.

I don’t have a good answer. Usually, I’d just say that there shouldn’t be “atheist” children’s books — there’s nothing not to teach, and I’d rather kids were just brought up to think for themselves — but this is a request for specific counter-programming against religious indoctrination. Anyone have any suggestions?

Genderification of Genre

Several of us here on scienceblogs have recently discussed the stereotypes of women who read science fiction. Syaffolee puts an interesting twist on it: what about men who read romance novels? She’s reporting on an article that says almost a quarter of the readers are men.

Nobody seems to be speculating on whether guys who read bodice-rippers are cuter than average.

There is an interesting idea there about the genre ghetto. I’ve read a few, years ago, and didn’t care for them much…and now I judge the whole genre by a fuzzy memory of a non-representative sample. Are there great authors I’m missing because I can’t get past the pink covers with bare-chested men on them?

Another genre I avoid is the cowboy novel (in my local library, cowboys and romance are probably the dominant forms of literature, too). I read some Louis L’Amour, also years ago, and was shocked at how bad the writing was, and haven’t gone back since.

Genre fiction seems to be a tool to lock in to a specific segment of the audience, but it’s also an effective way to lock out an even larger audience, because we’ve all got these biases.