Climate Change is a Hoax, Evolution is from Hell, Rape is a Gift - Vote for Me! November 06, 2012 08:54 5 Comments
With Your Help, Cute Robots Like This One Might Be Spared the Cruelty of Governing Officials With Little-to-No Intelligence. (Source: T3, NASA)
If You're A Fan of Logic, Science, and Reason, Maybe The Following People Do Not Deserve Your Vote Today
The headlining act today is Barack "Things Could Have Been Worse" Obama VS Mitt "Insert Binders-Full-Of-Women-Joke, 47-Percent-Remark, or Mormon-Reference Here" Romney. But those of us who have voted before might recollect, after waving off the fog of crushing responsibility and old people funk, that there's a lot more going on on Election Day. Each of us has the power to minutely influence not only the Presidential election, but myriad Congressional contests as well.
With that in mind, Dana Liebelson of the journalism website Mother Jones has compiled a list of the 9 Most Anti-Science Candidates in America, all of whom are up for election or re-election this today, November 6th. So, if the Curiosity Rover, newly classified species of frog, and confirmation of speculative subatomic particles give you a raging brainer, maybe those nine folks don't deserve to be making policy decisions in this country. Just maybe.
Hank Johnson Wields More Power Than Mortals Can Comprehend
I won't list them all here, but I've got to share my absolute favorite. Sure, there's Mr. Akin's abominable belief that rape never results in pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," or Paul Broun's claim that "all that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang Theory—all that is lies straight from the pit of hell." Classic stuff. But the cake and ice cream has to go to incumbent Georgia congressman Hank Johnson, who was concerned that Guam would be overpopulated to the point of TIPPING OVER. Yep... capsizing. Because islands are just like kayaks.
Do your duty. Then wipe your bottom and go vote!
South Korea's Dino-Tastic Science Win September 14, 2012 23:16 4 Comments
South Korea (!) Sticks to Science in Its Textbooks
Now THERE'S a piece of comforting news (from Wired)! Too bad its coming from halfway round the globe! Take a look, These United States, and see how it's done: recently, a group known as the "Society for Textbook Revise," (probably sounds cooler in Korean), which itself is an offshoot of Korea Association for Creation Research (probably sounds just as foolish in Korean), put some pressure on textbook publishers to remove certain sections regarding "the evolution of horses and the Jurassic-era early avian-like dinosaur Archaeopteryx" (probably sounds far less cool in Korean). See, this group felt that, since the archeological community is still in debate as to whether this bad mamma jamma:
...could fly, or glide, or if it's just got lovely plumage. These creationists chums say, well, since there's debate, leave it out of the books, please. Thankfully, there's a board of sensible, sane folks within South Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology who rightfully decided that scientific uncertainty can still be taught. I mean, sure, having all the answers would be great, but until we do, why keep the question away from those seeking knowledge? What a great lesson plan that is: see this wicked dinosaur? Archaeologists still don't know what this millenia-old creature was capable of! Let's talk about it! I don't remember my textbooks having info on feathered dinosaurs... crap! South Korean creationists got to my education. IN THE PAST!
Two things about this story intrigue me: First - what a smart tactic for a creationist group to take. By picking such a specific, tiny target, had they won? That could have opened the door for more and more evolutionary teaching to be dismantled bit by bit. I hope no one on this side of the world gets any ideas. Second - someone in the comments of this article, and there are always these people, argued that "both sides" should be taught so children could decide for themselves. While I do think that an understanding of other beliefs is necessary (mostly so they can be dismantled and mocked more efficiently), A) they don't deserve equal time with FACTS in a SCIENCE CLASS, and B) when someone says "both sides," what's the other side they're referring to? Someone else in the comments on Wired brought up a fact I had never considered - these "both sides" people really only mean Christian creationism when they say that, don't they? No one advocating that "creationism" be taught alongside evolution is talking about including ALL creation stories, just theirs. What if we gave them what they wanted, but forced them to include the Frost Giant Ymir's death and his body forming the Earth realm or Anum forming substance from the chaos of Nu? Now that'd be a class.