Yeah opposing teaching creationism is like punishing someone for heresy for stating the now well known, scientific fact, that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Not only is creationism not science, but no one in the US is persecuting creationists for their beliefs. Not being able to teach things like Intelligent Design in public schools isn’t the same thing. Galileo had to stand trial for his beliefs. He even spent the last years of his life under house arrest. Glenn Beck actually has more in common with the people who prosecuted Galileo for one reason, even through he’s not persecuting anyone, he’s denying reality, because he doesn’t want to accept it.
I thought about talking about this earlier, but I never got around to it, until now. However I thought I should mention it eventually. Our “friend” Robert Spencer who also likes to hang with our other “friend” Pamela Geller. Has very low standards for a scholar. How low you may ask?
Well the company that publishes many of Spencer’s books ( Regnery Publishing ) in addition to printing his Paranoid and Bigoted propaganda has also published a book promoting Intelligent Design Creationism.
Images for both books via their respective page at Amazon.
Here’s an excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design’s Amazon Page,
Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction
Okay than, never mind that its still around and every attempt to get intelligent design to pass as science has failed. Including Kitzmiller v. Dover which happened right before that book was published.
The Panda’s Thumb, a well known pro Science blog also did a great job debunking Johnathan Well’s entire “politically incorrect Guide To Darwinism and Intelligent Design” A list of their pages debunking the book can be found here
Now if Spencer was really as objective as he claims to be, why isn’t he more upset about the fact that the company which publishes his work has been promoting this along with other forms of pseudoscience such as Climate Change Denial On more than one occasion? Even one book that calls environmentalists, “Eco Facists” for their concern for the planet.
Of course why would someone like Spencer who once had an article published in a white supremacist magazine as Leah Nelson at Hate Watch pointed out, care about all this? He doesn’t. He’s not an academic, or a scholar, he’s a propagandist. If he were an academic he would have much higher standards, wouldn’t you think?
However Spencer is highly respected within the so called “counter jihad” movement, where people respect and treat him as an authority, when he is not. Many of the people worried about non existent Islamic bias in American public school textbooks, are so biased themselves that they never bother questioning anything he says about “stealth jihad.”
If someone tries to convince you that Spencer should be taken seriously, ask him or her why he at the very least he couldn’t get any of his work published by a university, or at the very least a company with standards of objectivity high enough that they wouldn’t publish books promoting creationism. Also don’t forget to mention the article from hate watch about him Showing His White Nationalist colors and allying with confirmed racists, which is even worse by far for his credibility than allying with creationist propagandists.
Update 12/17/13 at 9:47pm
Fixed a few mistakes that I should have noticed before I published this. Kitzmiller v. Dover also happened before the intelligent design book was published. I got the dates mixed up for some reason. Sorry about that. I should have noticed. Anyway, it even further proves my point rather going against what I was saying. The book was published in 2006 and the court case was in 2005.
Fundamentalists in Texas are still trying to stop biology textbooks from teaching scientific facts. Only now they’re not Bible-thumping; they’re denying that scientific facts are possible.
In April 2012 Don McLeroy, a dentist from Bryan, Texas, appeared as a guest on The Colbert Report to talk about textbooks, evolution, and the nature of reality. McLeroy is famous for pushing creationism as the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, and the highlight of the interview comes when Colbert quizzes McLeroy about paleontology. “Human beings and dinosaurs walked side by side?” Colbert asks. McLeroy looks uncomfortable. “That’s my personal view,” he replies, and then Colbert pounces: “That’s your personal scientific view.” McLeroy agrees. “Science,” Colbert concludes, “can be a personal choice.” At the end of the interview, the host expands on that point. “I’ve always been a fan of reality by majority vote,” he says before shaking McLeroy’s hand
“Will anti-evolutionists be able to adapt and survive in a new textbook market?” Hopefully the answer to that question is no. Evolution is fundamental to biology. like it or not, accept it or not. Also one can believe in God and accept evolution, contrary to what many will claim, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Raymond Bohlin holds a doctorate in molecular biology. He received his master’s degree in population genetics, the study of how adaptation and speciation is expressed by DNA. In other words, he possesses more than a passing knowledge about the theory of evolution. At the University of North Texas, he participated in research revealing that colonies of pocket gophers in Oklahoma and Texas, once indistinguishable, had diverged somewhere along the way into two identifiably distinct species.
In a way, so had Bohlin. He never accepted the hypothesis central to his discipline, hardened in the crucible of 150 years of experimentation, validated by the advent of modern genetics. He could not believe that evolutionary mechanisms could account for the dizzying complexity he saw in the living world. It was easier for him to detect the work of some unseen force — a designer’s hand guiding a spontaneous appearance of species — behind the rise of complex life. It’s the sort of completely untestable idea that doesn’t gain much traction among the editors and reviewers of scholarly journals.
And so, according to his own list of published work, Bohlin’s name was never attached to another peer-reviewed scientific study after his paper on gophers in 1982. Faith in a theory for which there is no experiment turned out to be a dead end. Yet he may be the only creationist to have participated in naming a new species, which is exactly what makes him so valuable to a movement that has worked for decades to scrub Charles Darwin from Texas public schools.
Intelligent Design Is Stupid
Neil deGrasse Tyson describes the absuridity of “intelligent design”. Sorry folks, the universe was not designed for us. Accept it, we’re nothing special.
Naming Rights / The Erosion of Progress by Religions
Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium, discusses how Islamic fundamentalist destroyed the enlightenment era of the Middle East and why we should be concerned today.
Plans are afoot in Pennsylvania “to lobby the state legislature with a plea to enable teachers in public schools to present alternate, controversial ‘theories’ — ones that violate the basic scientific principle that they be able to be tested — when teaching evolution,” according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (April 11, 2013). Following a series of presentations from young-earth and “intelligent design” creationists in a Murrysville, Pennsylvania, church, the church’s senior pastor is calling for legislation enabling teachers in the state’s public schools to share alternates to evolution — especially “intelligent design” — with their students.
But NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau told the Tribune-Review that “intelligent design” simply isn’t science: “When someone talks about the idea of intelligent design, it sure sounds like saying some magical being descended and poof, created stuff. That sounds a lot like creationism.” He added, “For something to be science … you have to be able to test something and say this idea is wrong. That’s what scientists do all day is try to prove themselves wrong. … But if you’ve got this being that is acting outside of the laws of nature, how do you put that in a test tube? How do you put that under a microscope?”
The last antievolution legislation in Pennsylvania was House Bill 1007, introduced in April 2005 while the preparations for the trial in Kitzmiller v. Dover were in progress. HB 1007, if enacted, would have allowed school boards to add “intelligent design” to any curriculum containing evolution and allowed teachers to use, subject to the approval of their board, “supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design”; the term “intelligent design” was not defined in the bill. The bill received a hearing in the House Subcommittee on Basic Education in June 2005, but proceeded no further.
Inspired by a comment I made here, I’ve been thinking about something.
About how RWNJs do not respond when you present their own contradictory views in opposition to one another. (This may have something to do with an earlier page of mine, but I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.)
Abortion is bad. Anchor babies are bad. Should potential anchor babies be aborted?
RWNJs just clam up and don’t respond/engage (except, possibly, for vituperation).
That’s why I’m calling this logic-judo.
Some bouts to have:
- Why is it good to have a national database about people's mental health, but bad to have universal background checks for gun purchases (of course, assuming that that info would be placed in a similar database)?
- Were Adam and Eve Cro-Magnons? Or were they a precursor human-line species? If you say Cro-Mag, what about all these habilis, neatherthals, and whatever fossils -- where do they come from?
- When you want to "teach the controversy" regarding Intelligent Design versus evolution, how many alternate ID theories are you supportive of? In addition to the Biblical creation story, there's also the Alien Astronauts theory, the Hindu story of creation, and even the Norse creation legend (et al.). You're saying we should teach all of these in our HS biology classes, to teach the controversy against evolution?
As I said, these even-minded, blase, comparative comments are almost never addressed. Ignored. Met with only silence or foaming insults.
I suggest adopting logic-judo in interacting with the far-gone. Just find a part of their philosophy negates another part of their philosophy. Worse case, they block you. Best case, they question their ideas.
It has been more than 25 years since the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that mandated religious instruction in science classes, yet lawmakers in many states are still pushing ahead with attempts to force creationist concepts into the public schools.
The 2013 legislative session has just begun, and there are already anti-evolution bills (in some cases more than one) circulating in Missouri, Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma and Indiana.
According to our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the latest bill is Missouri’s HB 291, a whopping 3,000-word manifesto masquerading as an attempt to provide a “standard science” curriculum for public elementary and secondary schools. It also seeks to create introductory science courses in public colleges and universities and would require those institutions to give “the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.”
The bill even includes an incorrectly alphabetized glossary of bogus terms such as “biological intelligent design,” which is defined as “a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence.”
Unfortunately, HB 291 is just the latest attempt in Missouri to create a science curriculum that would teach creationism and evolution side by side. NCSE noted that this bill is very similar to one that failed in 2004 and another that flopped in 2012.
The creationism proposals in Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma and Indiana aren’t much different from the Missouri plot, although some of those pretend to promote “academic freedom.”
The freedom to do what, you might ask? Teach creationism in public schools, of course.
As my colleague Rob Boston noted in a recent piece for Alternet, fundamentalist Christians have been on a crusade to force Bible-based creationism into public schools for decades. As the article shows, the Religious Right has evolved in its approach but not its goal, a fact not lost on those who follow this issue.
“It’s ironic that creationist strategies continue to evolve,” NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott told the Joplin (Mo.) Independent. “At first, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools altogether. When they were no longer able to do so, they tried to ‘balance’ it with the teaching of biblical creationism, or scientific creationism, or intelligent design.
“After the Kitzmiller trial in 2005,” she continued, “in which teaching intelligent design was found by a federal court to be unconstitutional, there’s been a shift toward belittling evolution - as just a theory, or as in need of critical analysis, or as the subject of scientific controversy.”
He’s not even sworn in yet.
Montana state Rep. Clayton Fiscus (R) hasn’t even been sworn into office yet, but he’s already made clear that he’d like to work on a bill that would require the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution when he officially goes to work at the state Capitol.
The National Center for Science Education reported this week that Fiscus had submitted a request for a draft of the legislation as one of his first orders of business.
The measure, which broadly plans to “require public schools to teach intelligent design along with evolution,” will now be drafted and considered by the legislature when it goes into session next year.
As the NCSE points out, the issue of teaching intelligent design in public school has already been settled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, a 2005 federal case that found the theory to be a form of creationism. The teaching of such a religious-based theory in public schools would violate the separation of church and state.
Fiscus has also filed additional legislative requests, though the others concern more innocuous topics such as parks, highways and taxes.