Well personally I'm on pins and needles.

I don't want to skew the result but I am kind of hoping for a cross between and armadillo and a giraffe.

I think we can all agree that the world would be a much better place with arma-giraffe's walking around.

When is a science teacher NOT a science teacher? When this is the "science" that they teach.

Larger image.

So essentially the argument used here is that since there have been advances in science which disagree with some of Darwin's hypothesis that the entire discipline should be rejected and a return to biblical explanations for life embraced.

And since when is the "true calling" of scientists to master nature for the benefit of mankind?

I thought their calling was to examine and explore facts in order to better understand the reality in which we live.

As for scientists rejecting Darwin, according to the Smithsonian magazine nothing could be further from the truth:  

Perhaps because of that remarkable success, "evolution," or "Darwinism," can sometimes seem like a done deal, and the man himself something of an alabaster monument to wisdom and the dispassionate pursuit of scientific truth. But Darwin recognized that his work was just the beginning. "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches," he wrote in Origin. 

Since then, even the most unanticipated discoveries in the life sciences have supported or extended Darwin's central ideas—all life is related, species change over time in response to natural selection, and new forms replace those that came before. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," the pioneering geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled a famous essay in 1973. He could not have been more right—evolution is quite simply the way biology works, the central organizing principle of life on earth. 

In the 150 years since Darwin published Origin, those "important researches" have produced results he could never have anticipated. Three fields in particular—geology, genetics and paleoanthropology—illustrate both the gaps in Darwin's own knowledge and the power of his ideas to make sense of what came after him. Darwin would have been amazed, for example, to learn that the continents are in constant, crawling motion. The term "genetics" wasn't even coined until 1905, long after Darwin's death in 1882. And though the first fossil recognized as an ancient human—dubbed Neanderthal Man—was discovered in Germany just before Origin was published, he could not have known about the broad and varied family tree of ancestral humans. Yet his original theory has encompassed all these surprises and more. 

Darwin never claimed to have provided all of the answers but the template that he did provide has helped just about every scientific discipline imaginable make incredible  discoveries that benefit mankind in incalculable ways.

We owe Charles Darwin a huge debt of gratitude for his invaluable assistance with breakthroughs in anthropology, biology, zoology, ichthyology, ornithology, genealogy, medical advancements, you name it and it was probably benefited in some way by the work of Charles Robert Darwin.

And EVERY science class in America should make it a priority to teach that to their students.

South Carolina GOP candidate for School Superintendent calls Intelligent Design a "scientific theory" and would like to see it taught in public school classrooms. No!

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Sheri Few, one of eight Republican candidates for superintendent of education, said Tuesday in a GOP primary debate that she opposed the Next Generation Science Standards and believed that intelligent design should be taught alongside the theory of evolution. 

“In regard to the evolution issue, I have to say that that is one of the problems with our education system today, and it is one of the problems that has been brought to light through the problems with the Common Core standards,” she remarked. “Children are not receiving an objective education.” “There is plenty of science and research behind the theory of intelligent design, and yet it is not allowed in the classroom,” Few added. 

“There is no reason why the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be taught in the classroom alongside the theory of evolution, and that way children would receive an objective education and they could also — for Christian children — could point to their God though the theory of intelligent design. Children need to have an objective education.”

There is NOTHING scientific about Intelligent Design, which is just a new name for Creationism, and anybody ignorant enough to think there is needs to be kept far away from the public school system.

If South Carolina wants to protect their children from superstitious nonsense they need to send this woman packing.

Natural selection vs intelligent design.

Dave has a point.

And by the way I have the same question about prayer. Never made sense to me.

Evidence of ACTUAL Intelligent Design.

It's just too bad that so many Americans refuse to recognize the hand of the creators in bringing everything around us to life. And their purpose for doing so.

Ball State University announces that it will no longer teach superstitious nonsense in their science classes. Wait, what?

Courtesy of HuffPo:

Ball State University president Jo Ann Gora announced that the school would no longer teach intelligent design in science classes following a complaint about the curriculum at the public university. 

In a statement released Wednesday, Gora said "intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science," and that it would no longer be a part of the university's science classes. 

"Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.” 

The statement responded to complaints from the Freedom from Religion Foundation that Eric Hedin, assistant professor of physics, crossed the line by teaching intelligent design in an honors science class called The Boundaries of Science. The foundation claimed that Hedin may be teaching Christianity to students, violating separation of church and state. 

BSU spokeswoman Joan Todd told the Muncie Star Press that the school is monitoring Hedin's class to "ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline." 

Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, praised Gora's statement on his blog. "I count this, perhaps a bit prematurely, as a victory," Coyne wrote. "And it would not have been possible if 'outsiders' like the Freedom from Religion Foundation hadn’t warned BSU what was going on."

Seriously? They had to be pressured by outside groups before  making a decision to protect the integrity of their science program?

Way to keep those academic standards high.

Stay tuned for the first Right Wing Fundamentalist nutjob to bitch that the university is stomping all over the student's right to be taught 18th century claptrap in place of modern day science.

How long did they say it would be before the majority of the planet would be made up of non-theists again? Because I am tired of waiting.

Missouri Republican Representative wants to alter the definitions of scientific terms in order to make Creationism seem like science. Which it's not!

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion—it's all in the name of science. 

"I'm a science enthusiast...I'm a huge science buff," Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. "This [bill] is about testable data in today's world." But Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education, disagrees. "This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange," he tells Mother Jones. "And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design." 

HB 291, the "Missouri Standard Science Act," redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a "hypothesis" is redefined as something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular." A scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy." And "destiny" is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it's "the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race." 

The bill requires that Missouri elementary and secondary schools—and even introductory science classes in public universities—give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design (any other "theories of origin" are allowed to be taught as well, so pick your favorite creation myth—I'm partial to the Russian raven spirit.) "I can't imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this," Meikle says. "The material doesn't exist."

"I'm a science enthusiast?" Don't you have to have some understanding of a subject BEFORE you can become a fan?

This guy is a fan of science the way a rapist is a fan of women.

You know this may be one of the most devious and  troubling attacks on science yet.

If this asshole is successful in changing the very definitions that science uses in order to differentiate itself from faith or belief, than he will make it that much harder to fight allowing Creationism to be taught in the public school classroom.

I would usually make jokes at this idiot's expense, but this actually sends a chill up my spine. The people of Missouri need to stand up to this ignorance before it takes hold and then spreads to other states as well.

Scientists speak out concerning the assault on science represented by the teaching of Intelligent Design.

I sometimes hear frustration that there are not more scientist, other than the great Richard Dawkins of course, who are willing to speak out publicly against the attempts to force the religiously based Creationism/Intelligent Design propaganda  into our public school science classrooms.

So here is a segment from the great Nova documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" of a number of scientists explaining the flawed thinking behind Intelligent Design and why it should NEVER be introduced as "science" in a public school classroom.

American Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson destroys idea of "Intelligent Design" by pointing out the complete lack of intelligence in nature's design.

So there you have it.

The only reason that people assume that things are perfectly created are those people too stupid or lacking in curiosity to investigate the truth.

And if that explanation was too hard to follow, or you just like your dismantling of the Creationist's argument to be more humorous, here is Louis CK's smackdown. Less "science-y" but perhaps more satisfying.

Perhaps all is not lost for Texas after all.

Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education:

Pop the champagne corks. The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC.

"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers," said Josh Rosenau, NCSE programs and policy director, who testified at the hearings this week. In his testimony, Rosenau urged the board to approve the supplements--recommended by a review panel largely composed of scientists and science educators--without amendments, and to reject International Database's creationist submission. The board did just that, and asked for only minimal changes to the approved supplements.

In hearings yesterday, NCSE members and allies showed up in force. At least four times as many people testified in favor of the supplements as written, versus those opposing the supplements or demanding significant changes.

Ultimately, the board approved the Holt supplement, and directed Commissioner of Education Robert Scott to review the list of supposed errors, and to develop amended language for Holt to incorporate. NCSE and Texas education groups are confident Scott's revisions will reflect the current state of evolutionary biology, and not any creationist alternatives.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, NCSE's Executive Director is celebrating the decision. "These supplements reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the core of modern biology, and is a central and vital concept in any biology class. That these supplements were adopted unanimously reflects a long overdue change in the board. I commend the board for its refusal to politicize science education."

Well I guess this is a glimmer of sanity in a state which still has Rick Perry as it Governor and whose abstinence only sex education program causes it to have the highest teen birth rate in the nation.


Oh well, at least now that Texans understand that evolution is fact they might soon realize that Rick Perry is somewhat further down that evolutionary trail than one might expect for the Governor of their state.

I mean seriously, is this guy even able to use rudimentary stone tools yet?

Creationists attempt to use new argument, called the"strengths and weaknesses" provision, to challenge evolution in public schools.

A coalition of Texas scientists warned the State Board of Education Tuesday not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools.

The group worries that social conservatives on the 15-member board will insist that public schools teach the "weaknesses of evolution." The board plans to adopt new science curriculum standards next year.

"We are here to support and promote strong, clear, modern science education in Texas schools," said David Hillis, professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin. "Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education."

Scientists contend the "strengths and weaknesses" provision is simply an excuse to expose students to "supernatural and fringe explanations" instead of sticking to traditional scientific principles.

"We should teach students 21st-century science, not some watered-down version with phony arguments that nonscientists disingenuously call 'weaknesses,' " said Sahotra Sarkar, a professor of integrative biology at UT. "Calling 'intelligent design' arguments a weakness of evolution is like calling alchemy a weakness of chemistry, or astrology a weakness of astronomy."

Wow these "intelligent design" proponents are getting trickier. You think they might be evolving?

I will again point out that even if these people were to uncover a flaw in the evolutionary theory, that it would in no way immediately mean that the answer to the question of man's origins would have to be found in the Christian bible.

It would be like finding that there was a discrepancy in the findings by a famous Anthropologist and then deciding to sit and watch reruns of the "Flintstones" in an attempt to uncover the truth about prehistoric people.

It is the kind of simplistic argument that only somebody who received their education in a bible college could possible believe was logical. Since logic in a bible college is a rare thing indeed.

Creationists claim that banana's are proof of Intelligent Design. And they are right.

The Creationists make the following points to show how bananas must have been designed:

1 Is shaped for human hand
2 Has non-slip surface
3 Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
4 Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5 Is perforated on wrapper
6 Bio-degradable wrapper
7 Is shaped for human mouth
8 Has a point at top for ease of entry
9 Is pleasing to taste buds
10 Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

However, and this is why a working knowledge of science can be so helpful in rejecting stupid assertions like this one, our modern day bananas did not simply grow wild, they were "guided" by the hand of man: Those first bananas that people knew in antiquity were not sweet like the bananas we know today, but were cooking bananas or plantain bananas with a starchy taste and composition. The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color—instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it was massively grown for world markets.

Now you may be wondering how anybody was ever influenced by such a ridiculous assertion in the first place and I would have to direct you to "Growing Pains" teen heartthrob Kirk Cameron and his partner in scientific retardation, Ray Comfort. Here rather then explain the stupidity myself, I will just let you see the video.



Now this truly is one of the dumbest arguments ever made to demonstrate God's hand in the creation of our planet, but it was made much worse by this Comfort guy and Cameron claiming that this is irrefutable proof of design. Well Spanky consider your "proof" refuted.

And by the way using this same logic, then doesn't it stand to reason that the existence of the coconut proves there isn't a God? I mean have you ever tried to open one of those things without tools?