I like Kansas and Kansans—I’ve got a copy of Oceans of Kansas(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) on the coffee table at home, I think the paleontological history of the region is wonderful and represents a great opportunity for the residents to learn. And then there’s this news: a major meteorite find, and what do people in the area do? They declare a meteorite festival! How cool and science-friendly is that?
Well, unfortunately…
Normally, I’d get indignant at plagiarism and any student who tries it with me is likely to get axed on the spot. In Ann Coulter’s case, though, while not disagreeing with the assessment, ripping off “33 word passages” and such just doesn’t get me worked up. That she literally transcribed scattered chunks of her book is nothing compared to the wholesale intellectual dishonesty of the work. Why get upset that she lifted a sentence, when whole chapters are exercises in numb-skulled vacuity?
I flunk students out of a course when they plagiarize. When they do things on a level of stupidity similar to Coulter’s book, I take them aside and recommend that maybe they need to switch majors. Actually, that’s not fair; I’ve never had a student as horrible as Coulter. In that kind of case, I’d probably gently suggest that not everyone needs a college degree, and maybe there’s a world of satisfaction out there away from the life of the mind.
Dembski babbles on in his own little world, unaware of how ridiculous his strange contortions look. He has a paper out that compares Evolution as Alchemy, attempting to argue that the incompletely described history of life on earth means that evolution is as phony as an antiquated mystical philosophy about chemistry. In his usual turgid style, Dembski struggles to tell us what his gripe with alchemy and evolution is.
Wingnuttia, O Wingnuttia. There are so many lunacies uttered in that fabled land that one cannot possibly keep up with them all, so it’s useful when one of them distills it all down and gives us a condensed list of the properties of a True Conservative. We have such a useful list, written by Rob Hood in the Conservative Voice. He is a very silly man, but that online rag has him up there on the front page with Robert Novak and…and…well, a lot of ranting nobodies. This is a distinguished host in Wingnuttia, though!
As a matter of fact if you like Ann Coulter and want to make some liberals’ blood pressure to rise, all you have to do is tell them nine key things that conservatives and Christians believe and they will lose their mind:
Ready? We’re going to lose our minds!
The Intelligent Designer has been found, and his name is Phineas J. Schwartzfeld.
Phineas Schwartzfeld, who wears a mask and a garish purple and green costume emblazoned with the letters “I” and “D”, claims to be immortal and that he invented life, the universe, and everything else many thousands of years ago. He is currently wanted on several outstanding warrants for illegal firearm possession, littering, and substandard product assembly on platypuses, armadillos and New Hampshire’s Old Man of the Mountain (a large geological sculpture which collapsed in 2003 due to inherent structural defects).
Well, I guess I’m done now then.
Josh Rosenau is being proactive and is looking for help defeating the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education. He has a list of contested seats and recommendations of science-friendly candidates—Kansans can vote, the rest of us can send donations to their campaigns.
When I criticized that Ron Numbers article, I should have mentioned there were lots of other peculiar little comments that I didn’t bother to address. Jason Rosenhouse fills in the gaps. One of the things Numbers tried to argue was that creationists are pro-science because they pay lip service to science…but Jason squashes that idea.
Referring to creationists as anti-science is not meant as a description of how they see themselves. It is meant as a description of what they are. Just as the Devil can cite scripture for his purposes, so too can creationists use scientific sounding jargon in making their case. The fact remains that in both word and deed their actions drip with contempt for science and scientists. It is terribly naive for Numbers to pretend otherwise.
A reader sent along this tempting job offer.
| Job Title | General Education: Biology |
| Date | 6/1/2006 |
| Location | NATIONWIDE, |
| Min Salary | $2,100.00 |
| Max Salary | $3,500.00 |
| Job Type | Contract Part-Time |
| Job Description |
BIOLOGY Faculty compatible with a young-earth creationist philosophy to teach general education Biology courses. |
It’s from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, of course. Doesn’t it make you want to jump up, drop whatever you’re doing, and enter the exciting world of academia?
Aside from the demand that you teach biology as if the world were 6000 years old and with complete neglect of any research and evidence acquired in the last two centuries, I should mention that the salary offer isn’t that absurd. This is fairly typical for non-tenure-track college instructors: a university will give you a few thousand bucks to teach one course for a term. It’s your job to accumulate a living wage by gathering multiple contracts, which may be from scattered universities. You won’t get any benefits, you typically have no say at all in faculty governance, you’re treated like a peon, and there’s absolutely no job security.
Parents, don’t let your children grow up to be adjunct professors.
I hopped out of bed this morning, certain that someone would have bravely answered my challenge to support Coulter’s ‘science’. But no, the Coulterites have completely vanished from my mailbox, and the official tally of entries stands at
0
Maybe I just haven’t given them enough time. It takes a while to read a book when you have to slowly sound out each word, and when you’re constantly tempted to close it so you can gaze rapturously at the cover, drooling.
I’ll report back when we hit the one month mark. Will that be time enough?
Here’s a dilemma: I think Ron Numbers, the philosopher and historian of science, is a smart fellow and a net asset to the opposition to creationism, and I agree with him that a diversity of approaches to the issue is a good thing. My opinion could change, though, because I am experiencing considerable exasperation with the apologists for religion on the evolution side, and this interview with Numbers isn’t helping things. Here’s an example of the kind of nonsense that drives me nuts.
QUESTION: Are scientists in general atheistic?
MR. NUMBERS: The public often gets the impression that most scientists are non-believers. But, that’s not true. Just within the past year the journal Nature published a study that revealed even today roughly the same proportion of scientists believe in God as did 75 years ago. [The figure is almost 40%]
