Notice the following video of Kent Hovind in his natural environment (in front of an audience of gullible friendlies) doing what creationists do, which is to lie. Fortunately someone made the great effort to watch this video and identify each of Hovind's lies (82 in under 10 minutes, impressive). Unfortunately the people he's talking to have no such truth detection system. They will all no doubt go home and encourage their children (the ones who don't home school anyway) to go into school and spread these Hovind lies. Preferably during science class while the teacher is attempting to finish a sentence that would in fact expose one of these statements as false.
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Graduates from Texas universities, your degrees are about to become worthless
State Rep. Leo Berman was outraged, Outraged! that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was not able to grant Master of Science degrees.
So he did something about it. Meet House Bill 2800, which will allow all non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the authority of Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board. The board authorizes institutions of higher education the ability to grant degrees. It is how we know the young job applicant with a degree from University of Texas, or Baylor, or a small community college near Houston, actually learned something.
Even though the bill is in response to the plight of ICR it is not specific to IRC.
Which could create even bigger problems for the state than just being a laughing stock, and the state of choice for students wishing to pursue an advanced degree in creationism.
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.
So he did something about it. Meet House Bill 2800, which will allow all non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the authority of Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board. The board authorizes institutions of higher education the ability to grant degrees. It is how we know the young job applicant with a degree from University of Texas, or Baylor, or a small community college near Houston, actually learned something.
Even though the bill is in response to the plight of ICR it is not specific to IRC.
Which could create even bigger problems for the state than just being a laughing stock, and the state of choice for students wishing to pursue an advanced degree in creationism.
“This would open the door to other fly-by-night organizations that come in and want to award degrees in our state, because the bill is highly generalized,” said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.
“Right now, we don’t have this problem in Texas. Texas is not a center for degree mills, because our laws allow only the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to approve the granting of graduate degrees.”
“It would certainly open the door to all kinds of chicanery,” says Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. “I mean, all you have to do, it looks to me from the bill, is start a non-profit organization, don’t take any federal or state money, and then offer degrees in any fool subject you want.”
Monday, March 16, 2009
Creationism in education
I recently came across a website called Education News. It seems to be, as the name would imply, a site dedicated to news and information about education. I haven't really explored it too much, but on the surface it seems pretty good. Just a big repository for news about education, both K-12 and higher ed. Unfortunately I was on the site for about 30 seconds when I noticed a column titled "No one is really talking about any weaknesses in evolution."
Even more unfortunately, it is exactly what it sounds like, creationist propaganda. It is written by a "guest columnist" named David Shormann.
Shormann begins his column with:
Oh no. I should have stopped there, but I continued:
Okay. Wow. Where to start with that? It appears Dr. Shormann does not consider the possibility that perhaps some of the 3000 young salmon that starved to death did not have the best ability to find food, or that some of the ones that survived predators may have been a little faster than some of their kin which did not, or that just maybe a few of those young salmon who met their untimely fate by getting smashed against rocks were not as strong of swimmers as those that did not.
I say it appears Dr. Shormann did not consider any of these possibilities because he finishes with
I am not going to go into a complete take down of his argument here, because the presence of this column is not my big problem here. After I read the column I of course looked at the comments. Ednews.org allows commenters to rate the article with 1 to 5 stars. I am assuming the visitors to this site are mostly professional educators, which is why I found it so disturbing to see so many 5 star comments singing the praises of the article. In fairness, there are many one star comments that are excellent rebuttals to the article, but on a site dedicated to education and educators there are far too many responses that sympathize with the columnist. This is a problem. Far too many professional K-12 teachers (unfortunately including science teachers) are either outright creationists or simply don't understand evolution.
Even more unfortunately, it is exactly what it sounds like, creationist propaganda. It is written by a "guest columnist" named David Shormann.
Shormann begins his column with:
In March, the State Board of Education will vote on amendments to the new Texas high school biology teaching standards. Please contact your State Board of Education (SBOE) representative and encourage them to unanimously approve of teaching strengths and weaknesses regarding all scientific theories, particularly evolution.
Oh no. I should have stopped there, but I continued:
Consider for example a female sockeye salmon in Alaska's Copper River. Let's say she lays 3,000 eggs, and all of them hatch. Now, to keep the population stable, only two of those eggs need to mature to adults and return, which means 2,998 of them will probably not make the return journey and produce offspring. Some will get eaten by birds, others by bears, or maybe even a salmon shark. Some will get smashed against rocks, others may starve. Only two are likely to survive to journey from their birthplace to the sea, then venture thousands of miles, before returning to their birthplace.
Now, do you really think the two salmon that survived to adulthood did so because they were clearly the best suited for the environment? Perhaps, but in reality, there is only a 1 in 3000 chance the salmon with the best set of genes survived to adulthood. And the likelihood gets smaller when you consider redfish, which can lay over one million eggs each season.
Okay. Wow. Where to start with that? It appears Dr. Shormann does not consider the possibility that perhaps some of the 3000 young salmon that starved to death did not have the best ability to find food, or that some of the ones that survived predators may have been a little faster than some of their kin which did not, or that just maybe a few of those young salmon who met their untimely fate by getting smashed against rocks were not as strong of swimmers as those that did not.
I say it appears Dr. Shormann did not consider any of these possibilities because he finishes with
Genes mutate, resulting in differences in parents and offspring. However, the low probability of mutation and selection working together to produce fitter populations is a weakness of natural selection theory, and Texas high school biology textbooks should explain such weaknesses.
I am not going to go into a complete take down of his argument here, because the presence of this column is not my big problem here. After I read the column I of course looked at the comments. Ednews.org allows commenters to rate the article with 1 to 5 stars. I am assuming the visitors to this site are mostly professional educators, which is why I found it so disturbing to see so many 5 star comments singing the praises of the article. In fairness, there are many one star comments that are excellent rebuttals to the article, but on a site dedicated to education and educators there are far too many responses that sympathize with the columnist. This is a problem. Far too many professional K-12 teachers (unfortunately including science teachers) are either outright creationists or simply don't understand evolution.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
More Craziness in Oklahoma
As a college undergraduate I had the opportunity to see people such as Ralph Nader, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Frank Serpico, and Henry Rollins speak on my campus. Obviously I do not agree with every view point expressed by each of these individuals, but they all offered an amazing educational experience beyond anything I could have received in the classroom. I feel privileged to have heard each of these individuals speak. I would have been enraged if a state politician had tried to prevent the university from allowing any one of these people from speaking.
So a few days ago when I found out a state legislator from Oklahoma introduced a bill denouncing Richard Dawkins and encouraging the University of Oklahoma to prevent him from speaking, I felt some sympathy for all the reasonable, rational, people in the state.
You see, University of Oklahoma managed to get Dawkins to come speak there as part of their Darwin 2009 Project. Richard Dawkins is a world renowned evolutionist and one of the great popularizers of science. Anyone should feel privileged to have the chance to hear him speak. State Representative Thomsen (R-Creationistland) feels other wise, and decided the best way to express his personal opinion would be through an official House resolution (I may have chosen to call and bitch to a friend).
HR1015 was introduced by Thomsen on March 3, 2009. You can click the link if you think you can stomach it, if not here is a highlight:
It seems though, this was a compromise from his even more terrifying HR1014, introduced on March 2.
The obvious temptation was to mock and ridicule the entire state of Oklahoma. I chose to refrain, however, knowing Rep. Thomsen does not speak for all the people of Oklahoma. In fact, as I said, I felt some sympathy for all the reasonable people of the state.
Of course Dawkins did speak at the university, and much to his credit addressed the whole matter in the way those people should be dealt with, by holding them up to scorn and ridicule.
Notice all those fine, rational Oklahomans laughing at the creationist nonsense.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation has also donated $5,000 to the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. A truly worthy cause.
So a few days ago when I found out a state legislator from Oklahoma introduced a bill denouncing Richard Dawkins and encouraging the University of Oklahoma to prevent him from speaking, I felt some sympathy for all the reasonable, rational, people in the state.
You see, University of Oklahoma managed to get Dawkins to come speak there as part of their Darwin 2009 Project. Richard Dawkins is a world renowned evolutionist and one of the great popularizers of science. Anyone should feel privileged to have the chance to hear him speak. State Representative Thomsen (R-Creationistland) feels other wise, and decided the best way to express his personal opinion would be through an official House resolution (I may have chosen to call and bitch to a friend).
HR1015 was introduced by Thomsen on March 3, 2009. You can click the link if you think you can stomach it, if not here is a highlight:
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
It seems though, this was a compromise from his even more terrifying HR1014, introduced on March 2.
The obvious temptation was to mock and ridicule the entire state of Oklahoma. I chose to refrain, however, knowing Rep. Thomsen does not speak for all the people of Oklahoma. In fact, as I said, I felt some sympathy for all the reasonable people of the state.
Of course Dawkins did speak at the university, and much to his credit addressed the whole matter in the way those people should be dealt with, by holding them up to scorn and ridicule.
Notice all those fine, rational Oklahomans laughing at the creationist nonsense.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation has also donated $5,000 to the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. A truly worthy cause.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Louisiana says science not welcome; Scientists say Okay
The president of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology recently sent a very polite letter to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal informing him they will not be holding their 2011 annual meeting (or any others) in New Orleans.
This decision was in response to the passage of Louisiana's Science Education Act. The Science Education Act is actually a direct attack on evolution that was heavily pushed by the Discovery Institute.
Louisiana Coalition for Science issued a press release with all the information, and a pdf of the letter sent to the governor.
For those who don't think this is a big threat, SCIB has more than 2300 members and its 2009 meeting that just ended in Boston brought over 1850 scientists and graduate students to that city for 5 days. A nice boost to any local economy.
In March the National Science Teacher's Association will be holding their 2009 annual conference in New Orleans, and while I understand it is too late to change the venue for that, it would be nice if in the future they followed suit and also boycotted states that attack science education.
As much as I love the city of New Orleans, and as much as it desperately needs money right now, I am in full support of the SICB decision to boycott the state. If they are going to trash science for political gain the scientific community should refuse to help subsidize their budgets.
So kudos SICB. If they spit in your face, kick 'em in the wallet.
This decision was in response to the passage of Louisiana's Science Education Act. The Science Education Act is actually a direct attack on evolution that was heavily pushed by the Discovery Institute.
Louisiana Coalition for Science issued a press release with all the information, and a pdf of the letter sent to the governor.
For those who don't think this is a big threat, SCIB has more than 2300 members and its 2009 meeting that just ended in Boston brought over 1850 scientists and graduate students to that city for 5 days. A nice boost to any local economy.
In March the National Science Teacher's Association will be holding their 2009 annual conference in New Orleans, and while I understand it is too late to change the venue for that, it would be nice if in the future they followed suit and also boycotted states that attack science education.
As much as I love the city of New Orleans, and as much as it desperately needs money right now, I am in full support of the SICB decision to boycott the state. If they are going to trash science for political gain the scientific community should refuse to help subsidize their budgets.
So kudos SICB. If they spit in your face, kick 'em in the wallet.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
So stupid it hurts.
Ray "Where does the banana fit?"Comfort discusses evolution with Pat Robertson. This might make you sick (or stupid).
How painful was this video to watch?
I have in the past (okay, it was today) watched all three RoboCop movies in one day. Some people have told me they think RoboCop is the darkest, most depressing movie ever. To them I say, "You obviously haven't seen RoboCop 2". I managed to make it over 3 hours through this marathon of misery without putting a 45 caliber hole in my skull when something strange happened. I began to notice the serious social commentary and strong undercurrents of humanism in this anticorporate manifesto. I saw the beauty of the RoboCop movies.
My RoboCop ecstasy came to an abrupt end when the makers of RoboCop 3 appearently decided RoboCop needed a jetpack so he could fly. It was like running a marathon only to get a sharp kick to the nuts within sight of the finish line.
I would rather go through all that again than hear Ray Comfort's "Missing female" argument one more time.
Enjoy:
How painful was this video to watch?
I have in the past (okay, it was today) watched all three RoboCop movies in one day. Some people have told me they think RoboCop is the darkest, most depressing movie ever. To them I say, "You obviously haven't seen RoboCop 2". I managed to make it over 3 hours through this marathon of misery without putting a 45 caliber hole in my skull when something strange happened. I began to notice the serious social commentary and strong undercurrents of humanism in this anticorporate manifesto. I saw the beauty of the RoboCop movies.
My RoboCop ecstasy came to an abrupt end when the makers of RoboCop 3 appearently decided RoboCop needed a jetpack so he could fly. It was like running a marathon only to get a sharp kick to the nuts within sight of the finish line.
I would rather go through all that again than hear Ray Comfort's "Missing female" argument one more time.
Enjoy:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
