College conservative group upset that ASU Biology professor compared Creationism to magic.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

A biology professor at Arizona State University is under attack for an image he showed in class that compared creationism to magic. 

The conservative group Campus Reform, which targets educators it perceives to have a liberal bias, reported last week that professor Christofer Bang showed the image during a PowerPoint presentation in his Biology 100 class. 

The PowerPoint slide, titled “Evolution vs. Creationism,” showed the March of Progress illustration of human evolution next to an image of Jesus Christ shooting lightning out of his fingers to create a human. The image shows Jesus saying, “MAGIC!” 

A student told Campus Reform that the picture was offensive: “Quite a few students in the lecture hall were bothered by the picture, and it didn’t contribute to the lecture besides adding spite.” 

Conservatives at Arizona State University also expressed their displeasure with the professor on Facebook. 

“Liberal scum certainly exists on this campus! While I personally support the drawing on the left, I think it’s wrong and unethical for professors to shame those who believe differently,” one person wrote on the Facebook page for College Republicans at ASU.

Another conservative student complained on Facebook that the Founding Fathers also believed in Creationism, which is a point that is hard to argue against since Charles Darwin did not publish Origin of Species until 1859.  (Yes folks, that's your college tuition money at work.)

You know I recognize that it must be hard for some of these students to come face to face with  undiluted facts for the very first time, and it hurts their little irrational feelings when somebody points out that they have been lied to their entire lives. But really what's the solution?

I mean do you take each of these Christian school educated children into a room with soft light and soothing flute music, have them lie down on a comfy sofa with a cool drink, and THEN tell them that everything they think they know is bullshit and that their parents and teachers were fucking morons?

I mean come on if you suggest that Evolution, which painstakingly lays out exactly how organism evolved into what we see around us today, and choose to replace it with the idea that God made it all happen like this....

....then yes, you believe in magic.

Unless of course one of these little geniuses wants to explain exactly HOW God simply thought things into existence. Because I am fairly certain that the professor would LOVE to hear that hypothesis.

Arizona school board member complains that Biology textbook violates her "religious rights." Decides to cut out offending pages. A little thing we call "censorship."

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

The textbook, the one with the wide-eyed lemur peering off the cover, has been handed out for years to students in honors biology classes at the high schools here, offering lessons on bread-and-butter subjects like mitosis and meiosis, photosynthesis and anatomy. 

But now, the school board in this suburb of Phoenix has voted to excise or redact two pages deep inside the book — 544 and 545 — because they discuss sexually transmitted diseases and contraception, including mifepristone, a drug that can be used to prevent or halt a pregnancy. 

A law passed two years ago in Arizona requires schools to teach “preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption” over abortion, and the school board decided that those pages were in violation of this law — even though the Arizona Education Department, which examined the book for compliance, found that they were not. 

The controversy has turned into a referendum on the 2012 law, with supporters saying the textbook content cannot be removed fast enough and opponents crying foul for any number of reasons: technical, ethical, pedagogical. But the Gilbert school board is moving forward, trying to figure out how to remove the material in question — by way of black markers or scissors, if need be — despite resistance from parents, residents, the American Civil Liberties Union and even the district’s superintendent. 

“It comes down to, it’s the law, and we need to be in compliance with the law,” said Julie Smith, a member of the Gilbert Public Schools governing board and also a parent who raised concerns about the book. “If people don’t like the law, they need to take it up with their state legislator. I don’t write the law. It’s my job to uphold it.”

The offending pages.

By the way that Julie Smith woman is apparently the driving force behind this censorship.

And here are her reasons why:

Ms. Smith, the school board member and parent, said she had been driving her family home from church back in January when her son told her about what was in the textbook. “I almost drove off the road,” she said. 

“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”

"We do not contracept?"  Well considering this woman's heavy handed parenting style that's probably too bad.

As for violating her religions rights? Well nobody's religious rights should have any impact whatsoever on what is taught in a public school classroom.

And in my opinion if science classes are taught in a factual manner than they should violate somebody's religious beliefs almost daily.

By the way you know that removing these pages, or using a sharpie to black them out, is going to do NOTHING to stop students from accessing them. It's called the internet folks, and if the kids want to read them (And after this you they all will.), then by gosh they will do exactly that.

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.

Female California Republican leader says " percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence." I didn't know Todd Akin had a sister!

Oh that Marco Rubio! Always surrounding himself with the best of the Republican party!

Courtesy of the Daily Democrat:

A California Republican leader may have inadvertently revived the controversial subject of rape and pregnancy. 

Before arriving at the state GOP's spring convention here, Celeste Greig told this newspaper that pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized." 

Grieg is the president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, the state's oldest and largest GOP volunteer organization. Ronald Reagan once called it "the conscience of the Republican Party." 

Ironically, Greig was in the midst of criticizing former Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin for saying that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." It was a remark that many believe led not only to his defeat in November but also helped tarnish the Republican brand around the country. 

"That was an insensitive remark," Greig said. "I'm sure he regretted it. He should have come back and apologized." 

Greig, however, went on to say: "Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act."

You know perhaps we ought to take our focus off of teaching sex ed classes to kids, and instead start offering them to Republican politicians. 

Hey maybe THIS is why their are fewer and fewer Republicans these days, They don't understand how reproduction works!

Pastor claims that women who use the pill have "tiny fetuses embedded in their wombs" and serve as "graveyards for lots of little babies."

From Americans Against the Tea Party:

TEApublican radio host Pastor Kevin Swanson is certainly no scientist. On his radio show he claimed that upon examination by “certain doctors and certain scientists” that “there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb…Those wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.”

I almost don't even know where to begin with this one.

This idiot's lack of knowledge about how women's bodies work, what the pill actually does, and how babies are made is beyond comprehension.

The insane part is that there are people listening to his radio show who believe that, simply due to his credentials as a minister, he has some revealed knowledge that they need to accept as fact.

Of course there are NO doctors or scientists that have "done research on women's wombs" and discovered tiny fetuses embedded in them, that is simply something this idiot made up and expects others to accept without questions.

And the sad thing is that due to being undereducated, home schooled, or educated in a Christian school, there are a number of people who will simply buy into these statements without any further research.

Sometimes there is just so much stupid in this country that it is exhausting.

The Godless Vagina. That got your attention didn't it?

Now I must confess I don't have one of these, so I cannot write with any authority about how one feels about theirs.  However I really thought that this made a certain amount of sense.

Personally I have always been in awe of the vagina and have always approached access to it as a privilege.  If I was disrespectful to the owner in any way, married or not, I fully expected to be denied contact with this special part of her anatomy, until she had forgiven me of course.

While in a relationship I never felt it was my right to have ANY say over what she did with her vagina one way or another. And I certainly do not believe that a person NOT married to, or in a committed relationship with, the owner, should even consider acting is if they have any authority over it one way or another.

One final thought.

I have often heard that women suffer from "penis envy," something which I find almost impossible to believe.

After all how can that be? Actual human beings are known to emerge from this most amazing body part.

All men can manage to do with THEIR appendage is write their name in the snow.

Not even a close contest. Women win hands down.

Rick Santorum does not believe that a lack of adequate health care adds to the number of deaths in America. No I'm not kidding!

"Wait, a person's health and their longevity are connected? I don't believe that!"

This a statement I just found, from a campaign event in Christian college in Sioux Center Iowa, that took place about a month ago:

Santorum also had a tense moment when a student asked him about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. 

The student said he didn’t “think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of healthcare every year,” citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University. 

“Dying?” Santorum answered before going back and forth about the validity of the study. 

“The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. There’s — I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance,” Santorum said to a crowd of 100. 

“People die in America because people die in America. And people make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. And they don’t go to the emergency room or they don’t go to the doctor when they need to,” he said. “And it’s not the fault of the government for not providing some sort of universal benefit.

WTF? "People die in America, because people die in America?" Does he also believe that "People die in car accidents, becasue people die in car accidents?" I guess passing a law to make drivers wear seat belts, or put their children in car seats, is just a complete waste of time then isn't it?

Now whether Santorum believes people should have universal health care or not, surely it is not an open debate that NOT having adequate health insurance leads to people skipping regular basis doctor visits, and not getting checkups when they don't feel well due to the cost?

And can he NOT then follow that line of logic to realize that if people do not receive physicals and health screenings, it is almost a certainty that potential health problems will not be diagnosed early when they are more treatable and that people will die as the result?

Not recognizing that seems either purposefully obtuse, or the result of some kind of mental retardation.

Perhaps somebody could direct this "frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter" to the study that student referred to done in 2009 by the Harvard Medical School:

Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States — a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease. 

“If you extend coverage, you can save lives,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard who is one of the study’s authors. The research is being published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health and was posted online Thursday. 

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance — as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.

You know just when I convince myself that the idiots running for the GOP nomination are just a few, and not representative of the entire field, another one opens their mouth and suddenly it seems that the ONLY way to become a nominee is to demonstrate a crippling lack of intellect.

And here I thought that Sarah Palin would simply embarrass herself if she tried to run. Hell from what I can see of the field she might have been chosen as the honorary valedictorian of the 2012 class of Republican Presidential candidates.

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.

Sunday Science Sermon.

For today's science sermon I would like to talk about "life". In particular life on this planet. In other words "us".

It seems that there is growing evidence that life on this planet, "us", did not originate here. In other words the building blocks for life arrived from space and landed in an environment that allowed them to evolve and mingle to create life. ALL life. Even us.

Here just read this: The Murchison meteorite, which fell on Australia in 1969, has been found to contain purines and pyrimidines, which are crucial to a large number of biological molecules like DNA, RNA, and ATP (adenosine triphosophate, a chemical our cells use for fuel).......So the Murchison meteorite has native chemicals in it that are the basis for life. Obviously, since they were found at all, that means they survived entry into our atmosphere and impact. This in turn means that in the distant past, when the Earth was bombarded by such rocks, these chemicals were scattered across the planet, where they could be incorporated into ever more complex molecules, which eventually became life. And, well, us.


Well, cool. And even, wow! It’s been hypothesized for years, decades, that the basis of organic chemistry may have fallen to Earth from space. And now we know that it’s true.

Wow, is right! Okay so the scientists are being kind of cautious, as scientists often are, and not absolutely stating as fact that the building blocks of life did not originate on earth. But what they ARE saying is still pretty damn explosive.

What they are saying is that the idea of life being exclusively attributable to earth is more then likely a false assumption. In other words it is very unlikely that we are indeed alone.

Whether or not this means that there is intelligent life on other planets, or even life similar to what we have here, there is simply no way of knowing. But isn't it fun to imagine the possibilities?

Now boys and girls THIS is why science is important and why school curriculum's that try to do away with biology and evolution classes are engaging in a form of state sponsored child abuse.

If our government stops trying to make our children stupid just imagine what we may learn next. Fight state sponsored child abuse by electing a Democrat.

Oh wait I almost forgot.....Amen.