More Darwin Day festivities.
In the [US]’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Is it just me or is this ruling especially sweet because Judge Jones is a Bush-appointed Republican?! FOCLMAO. Intelligent Design. Bah. I tell ya, if the school board had come to me when I was teaching biology, and said I had to teach ID (read: creationism) in my classes, I’d’ve laughed in their faces. Probably I’d’ve thought it was a joke. No biology teacher worth his/her salt is going to teach religion as science.
You know what really gets me are these so-called “scientists” who are pushing ID. I figure they have to be getting something out of the deal, some sort of kickback, because honestly, if they have degrees from reputable universities (and maybe they don’t, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt) they have to know what they’re espousing is BS. How they can blither away on CNN with straight faces is beyond me.
On a related note, on Sunday an older guy on a bike stopped and asked where I got my Darwin fish (it’s on the back of my car). Go evolution!
“If you liked The Da Vinci Code, you’ll love the Downing Street Memo.”
Okay, so this article at Slate isn’t really about the Da Vinci Code. But I had to share anyhow, because it’s exactly what I’ve been thinking ever since the hype started and exactly why I haven’t read it yet (well, that and the hardcover vs. paperback thing).
A few weeks ago, at an airport in Europe, I saw Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code staring at me across the bookstore bins. I had seen it many times before and averted my gaze, but I was facing a long delay, and I suddenly thought: May as well get it over with.Well, of course I knew it would be bad. I just didn’t know that it would be that bad. Never mind for now the breathless and witless style, or the mashed-paper characters, or the lazy, puerile reliance on incredible coincidence to flog the lame plot along. What if it was all true? What if the Nazarene had had issue, in fleshly form, with an androgynous disciple? The Catholic Church would look foolish but, then, it already looks foolish enough on the basis of the official story. “Opus Dei,” according to Brown, is a sinister cult organization. Excuse me, but I already knew this, so to speak, independently.
As previously mentioned, snarking at creationists? Always fun.
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him….
We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it.
It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia.
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Because snarking at creationists is always fun. 😉
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this said better, if at all. I think this is really important, and it’s something I’ve thought about a lot, especially with all the recent media attention on banning books that depict same-sex families because they’re “age inappropriate.” One, I don’t think that it’s ever too early to show kids that not all families are of the one mom, one dad variety. And two, I think it’s pretty presumptuous to assume that your child is heterosexual.
I also think she’s terribly cool. She’s on my “must read all books by her/him” list. I try to take these things slowly though, because it’s always a little disappointing when you’ve read a writer’s entire oeuvre and there’s nothing left to discover.