They’re violent, murderous bastards. Rudi Boa, a scientist, got into an argument with Alexander York, an ignorant ass, while on a backpacking trip in Australia. Boa was arguing for evolution, while York was arguing for idiocy. Later, under the influence of alcohol, York attacked, stabbed, and killed Boa.

York was just tried and sentenced to five years in jail, eligible for parole in three. The judge apparently thought York was a man of good character.

As Greg Laden put it, “Stabbing an evolutionist to death, in Australia, is not considered a serious offense if you are a person of good character.”

Hector Avalos sent me his response to the Discovery Institute’s ‘shocking’ revelation that people had been discussing Guillermo Gonzalez’s affiliation with Intelligent Design creationism before they denied him tenure. It’s a classic pointless objection: of course they were, and of course his openly expressed, unscientific beliefs which were stated as a representative of ISU were a serious consideration. It does not speak well of the Discovery Institute that they had to cobble together quote-mines from the email to try and make a non-case for a non-issue.

[Read more…]

This exercise in false equivalence, Duelity, is beautifully animated but promotes a poor idea. It’s basically two videos, one telling the Christian creation myth inaccurately and in the style of a scientific explanation, and another that inaccurately summarizes the evolution story as if it were holy writ. There’s a pretense that these are equally valid descriptions of the history of the world that is completely wrong, and that amplifies the errors throughout the individual stories from mere irritations to dishonest propaganda.

The comments there are largely positive. All I can assume from that is that a lot of people are easily swayed by good production values.

All right, who’s in charge of pool predicting the location of the next big creationist trial? The odds on Florida have just gone up: another Board of Education member has said something stupid.

I would support teaching evolution, but with all its warts. I think that some of the facts have been questioned by evolutionists themselves. I would want them taught as theories. That’s important. They could be challenged by others and the kids could then be taught critical thinking and they can make their own choices.

Thank you, Linda Taylor. Warts: name two. Theory: define the term. Answer the following multiple choice question:

Who is best qualified to make informed choices about complex scientific theories?

1. Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory.
2. Creationists who won’t even commit to an estimate of the age of the earth.
3. Members of the board of education who have absolutely no training in the sciences.
4. Children who are just being introduced to the topic for the first time, haven’t read any of the primary literature, and who are entirely dependent on the competence of the instructors who have given them an outline of the general story.

So I’m leaning towards a big blow-up in Florida. Now you might think Texas should be in the lead, what with the obvious clown circus in the Chris Comer story, but I suspect that the Texas creationists have grossly overreached and are going to face a serious backlash — Texas biology professors are pissed off and are mobilizing to fight back. Floridans are going for the slow and steady buildup.

Florida parents are also contributing to the problem. Let’s see more Florida parents rising up to protest so I can dial those odds down a notch.

The inimitable Peter Irons has been hot on the trail of the Nathaniel Abraham case, the ditzy creationist who is upset because he got fired from an evolutionary biology lab. There are some interesting tidbits below, specifically the fact that Abraham claims the job ad did not make reference to acceptance of the theory of evolution as fact, yet when Irons dug up the job posting, it does say that this is work on evolutionary relationships.

It’s a bad sign when you’ve got to misrepresent the facts in your court complaint.

[Read more…]

OK, astronomers and physicists, get to work. This movie is supposed to be a refutation of modern science, but it’s full of bogus claims like, ‘Since 98% of the sun is hydrogen and helium, the earth ought to be 98% hydrogen and helium.’ There is a lot of similar trivially idiotic nonsense, all marshaled to support the false contention that if science can’t explain it, then god must have done it, but here’s the thing: almost none of it is in the Index to Creationist Claims. We need an update!

There are some rational people in Florida, as Robyn Blumner’s column makes clear. Not only does she mock Texas for their foolish harrassment of Christine Comer, but she goes on to point out the disastrous consequences of Republican religious meddling, and that Huckabee is going to be more of the same.

Here is something scary-ignorant. Last week, the Web site ChristiaNet.com, which bills itself as “the world’s largest Christian portal,” cheered the results of a survey it took finding that half of its 1,400 Christian respondents said that dinosaurs and man roamed the Earth at the same time.

Putting aside that the schoolteachers of these people should be slapped silly, these are Huckabee’s peeps. We can’t afford to put this kind of backward thinking and scientific illiteracy in the driver’s seat again.

That also highlights one of the sources of the problem: that these Christwits are proud of their ignorance.

And speaking of Chris Comer, the TEA education commissioner, Robert Scott, has spoken up. It’s nothing new, but is what you’d expect: denial. He claims there are no litmus tests for political ideology at the TEA, and that religion is irrelevant, and that Comer had a history of personnel problems that lead to her dismissal.

Here are the concluding questions of the interview, where it all gets very confusing.

Was her advocacy of evolution over creationism an element in her dismissal?

She wasn’t advocating anything. My understanding is that the e-mail she forwarded – let me rephrase that. She wasn’t advocating for evolution. But she may have given the impression that … we were taking a position as an agency – not as an individual but as an agency – on a matter.

She wasn’t advocating for evolution, OK. So why was she called into meetings to discuss the problem of forwarding this email, and why was she pressured by human resources to quit? And what “matter” caused the problem, then? I get the impression that Mr Scott is lying clumsily to obscure the actual issues involved.

And this, of course, is a good question:

Why shouldn’t the agency advocate the science of evolution? Texas students are required to study it.

I don’t think the impression was that we were taking a position in favor of evolution. We teach evolution in public schools. It’s part of our curriculum. But you can be in favor of a science without bashing people’s faith, too. I don’t know all the facts, but I think that may be the real issue here. I can’t speak to motivation but … we have standards of conduct and expect those standards of conduct to be followed.

I don’t get the impression that the TEA is favoring evolution, either, more shame to them. The rest — accusation of faith-bashing and violated standards of conduct — is simply more desperate floundering to cover what is turning into a major gaffe by the creationists.