Red State Rabble

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. Orac Knows) called our attention to a series of antiscience stamps featuring George Bush, Rick Santorum, William Jennings Bryan, and, who else, God.

You can download a sheet of the parody stamps at Stay Free, who saw a new series of stamps devoted to American scientists, while standing in line at the post office. It's kind of ironic, says the developer of the parody stamps, considering how our sciences are now under attack from all corners, kind of like singing "Happy Birthday" to a man as he's being taken away on a gurney.

I urge RSR readers to pick up a copy of Chris Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science, now at 292 on Amazon according to Chris.

In the meantime, here's a portion of an e-mail from the latest casulty in that war, Susan Wood, director of FDA's Office of Women's Health. The New York Times reports that she resigned Wednesday in protest over the FDA's refusal to approve over-the-counter sales of the morning after pill.

"I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled," wrote Wood, who also was assistant commissioner for women's health. "The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health."

"Sen. Rick Santorum spoke from a lectern, separated from the audience by rope lines, strategically placed bookshelves, a few local police, and the watchful eye of his small entourage. The two-term senator was there to promote his newly released book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good -- from a report in the National Catholic Reporter by Joe Feuerherd.

They love him there, don't they?

"My view is that [Mr Robertson] is frankly not the sort of person we would welcome into Britain," says Nigel Griffiths, an Edinburgh South MP. "The new law would catch him as someone preaching hate and murder"

Anti-terror laws, proposed by Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been designed to prevent some Islamic preachers who back suicide bombers and terrorism from coming to Britain. If those laws are adopted, they would give the government the ability to refuse entry to anyone found to have incited terrorism -- including the good reverend Robertson.

According to a report in The Scotsman by Hamish McDonnell, "Mr Griffiths said yesterday that he supported the new anti-terror laws, but argued the legislation should be used in an even-handed way, and if that meant annoying the US government, that was not his concern."

No doubt, Mr. Blair did not expect the anti-terror law to be used to "catch Christian preachers, however radical, particularly those with influential friends in the US Republican Party, such as Mr Robertson."

The Government refused to comment on Mr Griffiths' remarks, according to The Scotsman.

"It's probably the deepest question we can ask about the nature of reality," says Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University astronomy professor, intelligent design activist, and author of The Privileged Planet, a book that asserts the probability of complex life existing is so infinitesimally small that our planet, Earth, must have purpose and significance.

"Is (our existence) the product of a mind? Or is it completely the product of mindless forces?"

Perhaps so, but is it a scientific question? Part of the diffiiculty of doing science is that not all questions rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis -- an idea that can be experimentally tested. The problem for intelligent design proponents, such as Gonzalez, is that their philosophical speculations offer no guide for what series of astronomical observations or experimentation might be conducted to move them out of the realm of metaphysics and into science.

There's nothing wrong with this sort of idle speculation. We all do it. It's very human. It's just that most of us understand this sort conjecture, while highly interesting, isn't what science is about.

That is why 124 of Gonzalez' colleagues at Iowa State University have signed a petition opposing the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific fact.

The DesMoines Register has a good story on the issue by Reid Forgrave that gives an overview of this developing story, including the story of Gonzalez' conversion during a solar eclipse.

Is the solar system "just a theory?" The reDiscovery Institute points out that new evidence --including the recent discovery of a 10th planet (2003 UB313) -- proves that a cabal of atheistic scientists -- many of them are French -- have conspired to distort the truth about the solar system.

The orbits of the planets, are not a fact as most people have been led to believe. Rather, their foundation is based on a rather flimsy theory of gravity. It's nothing more than a hunch. A guess at best.

In fact, as we now know, the so-called theory of gravity has had to be constantly reworked as scientists have added three new planets to their solar system since 1781. When is it going to end?

Learn more about the solar system fraud at the reDiscovery Institute.

RSR reader Bill F. points out that the case for teaching the controversy about the Flying Spagetti Monster is getting stronger. In fact, we don't see how the Kansas State Board of Education can ignore it any longer.

According to Wikipedia, the Flying Spagetti Monster religion has become an Internet phenomenon. The FSM site reports over 10 MILLION people have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Bill F. suggests that it's time for a new list: Scientists (it's okay if you just walked through a bookstore that has a science book on the shelves) Who Doubt Darwin, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, But Love Parody.

Send your e-mails to Red State Rabble and we'll post a list.

The newspaper of record asks, "Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There." Have you been touched by his noodly apendage?

Lehigh University and the Department of Biological Sciences will present "Darwin's Genome: Answering the Challenge of "Intelligent Design" by Dr. Ken Miller of the Brown University Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, & Biochemistry on Wednesday, October 12th at 7:00 p.m.

Lehigh University is the home of intelligent design advocate Dr. Michael Behe.

The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh has adopted the following position on evolution and "intelligent design."

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

"Connie Morris took LSD at her high school graduation," reports Tom Baldwin in The Times, (UK) "posed nude as a model and frolicked in free love before suffering sexual abuse and descending into drug addiction. Then she found God. "

Now she wants to tell us what to teach our kids.

In The Times interview Morris confided:

“I’ve read stacks of stuff . . . which refutes evolution.” She confirmed that, along with two-thirds of the US public according to a recent opinion poll, she believed that mankind was created directly by God. How long ago — 5,000 years? “I’m not sure that matters,” she said.

University of Kansas Provost David Shulenburger says he believes the debate over creationism and intelligent design in the public school curriculum and the resulting decline in the state’s reputation are partly to blame for KU’s recent drop in U.S. News and World Report magazine’s rankings. KU dropped three spots to rank 45th among public universities.

Sophia Maines reports on the reaction in "Within science circles, Kansas square: KU officials say standards debate has harmed state’s reputation, prospects" in the Lawrence Journal-World.

"Creationism is now newly emerged as intelligent design. It really should be called intelligent deception, because it is the same old thing but more coy. Don't mind the man behind the curtain (he's probably a preacher or a friend of a preacher). The irony is that those who support this supposed theory must actually think the rest of us are descended from monkeys if we can't figure out what's going on."

From a column by Reg Henry in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Brighten your day, take a look at it.

RSR's advice? Recognize that you are descended from monkeys (oh, all right, a prehomminid ancestor) but don't let the creation scientists, or their more refined cousins, the intelligent design theorists, make a monkey out of you.

"In the United States, the battlefront is in the schools, on the question of evolution and creationism," writes William F. Buckley in a commentary in National Review Online.

Too bad, these right-wingers are using our kids for cannon fodder in this cynical battle in a culture war that aims to turn back the clock to pre-Enlightenment times.

Is there really any substantive difference between the Muslim fundamentalists who demand a return to the Caliphate and Sharia Law, and Christian fundamentalists who want to return to the "Dark Ages" and Mosaic Law?

"Is 'intelligent design' a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science?" You won't be surprised to learn that Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and the author of "Freedom Evolves" and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" has the answer in a Sunday New York Times OpEd, "Show me the Science."

The "problem is that there is no way to prove, in a scientifically valid way, the existence of an intelligent designer," says a Newsday editorial. "That's a metaphysical concept that can only be accepted on faith. Instead, the bold assumptions that Darwin made on the inheritability of variations based on natural selection are constantly supported by new data in genetics, physics and biochemistry. Although, clearly, there is a limit to what science can explain - that is where metaphysics does come in."

"Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah's Ark? Give me abreak," said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. "For them, 'The Flintstones' is a documentary."

More good stuff from an article by Ashley Powers in the LA Times, "Adam, Eve, and T. Rex."

Those on the born again evangelical right usually refer to mainstream Christians, Jews, and Muslims as followers of the Anti-Christ.

• “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today,” Pat Robertson once confided to his followers.
• "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing," adds Robertson. "Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

Well, they don't have to be nice, but now that they've decided to sue the University of California over its admission policy of requiring incoming students to know something of biology, they're certainly changing their tune.

''A threat to one religion is a threat to all,'' says Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents some 800 schools.

"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.

From a good article by Ashley Powers in the LA Times, Adam, Eve, and T. Rex.

We may not be getting any closer to finding WMD in Iraq, building a stable democracy there, or winning the war on terrorism, but we can thank George Bush for one thing.

His recent statement that, "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about," said Mr. Bush, referring to intelligent design and the theory of evolution. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

Yes, Red State Rabble believes supporters of real science education owe President Bush a deep debt of gratitude for raising the profile of intelligent design.

Since Bush spoke out for the "teach the controversy" side on intelligent design, the issue has received unprecedented coverage in the media worldwide.

Not long ago, RSR sometimes feared there was not enough happening on the ID front to merit daily blog posts. Now we can't even begin to keep up.

And the good news is that the media -- with very few exceptions -- have done a good job of explaining the links between intelligent design and its country cousin, creationism. They've looked at the so-called science behind ID and found it wanting. Most have pointed out there is no controversy, as ID proponents claim. Almost all see ID for what it really is, a political issue. A tool of the right. A battering ram in the culture wars.

Those who understand evolution, and those who have followed this issue for some time have expressed a certain disappointment or frustration with the coverage, and, indeed, there have been weaknesses.

That being duly noted, we have to resist the urge see this coverage through our own eyes. We have to try to see how it looks to someone for whom the evolution, intelligent design, creationism issue has flown across the radar screen for the first time.

Polls show that less than half the population knows what intelligent design is. RSR is confident that when people learn what intelligent design really is, they will reject it.

That's is why so many of the biblical literalists who run in local school board elections -- as Iris Van Meter did in Kansas -- run stealth campaigns. They understand instinctively that the more voters know about the real aims of the intelligent design and creationist activists the more likely they are to reject them.

Getting intelligent design out in the open is a positive first step in defeating it.

Thank you, Mr. Bush.

"If the Designer of Intelligent Design is so intelligent, how come he made George W. Bush president of the United States?"

Roger Pulvers, writing in the Japan Times, interviews I.M. Lord, the principle of Dorothy Toto School of Intelligent Design in Rumsfeld, Kansas.

A "new bipartisan group of Kansans are hoping for as they organize themselves to launch an effort to unseat conservative State Board of Education members in the 2006 election," reports Scott Rothschild in the Lawrence Journal-World.

David Rosenzweig, a Los Angeles Times staff writer, reports that the Association of Christian Schools International has brought suit against University of California admissions officials claiming that they discriminate against students who've graduated from high schools that teach creationism.

Last year, University of California admissions officials adopted a policy that denies certification to high school science courses that use textbooks, from the well-known science textbook publishers Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books, that challenge Darwin's theory of evolution.

"It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view," Patrick H. Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is assisting the plaintiffs, told the LA Times.

The Questionable Authority has a post up there [also cross posted to Panda's Thumb] on the contents of the Bob Jones University biology text that the University of California finds less than scholarly. I strongly urge RSR readers to visit there to see what science textbooks will look like after the creationists and intelligent design activists have their way with us. I assure you that even the most cynical among you will not believe what is in the textbook.

The A Beka Books website says its 10th Grade biology text, Biology God's Living Creation is "[t]horoughly Christian in perspective and tone. Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."

Truly nonevolutionary in sequence of study? We truly love that one.

Is the University of California attempting to "secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view"? Is it discriminating against Christians?

Of course not.

First, the Christian schools that teach biblical literalism, are a minority among all Christian schools. For example, UC officials have no problem accepting students -- provided they meet admissions criteria -- from Catholic schools or from schools of other Christian sects that teach real science.

Christian fundamentalists -- who, more often than not, claim to be the only real Christians -- don't really speak for all Christians. They can't legitimately complain that the UC admissions policy discriminates against Christians -- it just requires students who attend schools that dispense with all that "teach the controversy" nonsense and go straight to that good old time religion to meet the same requirements demanded of all incoming freshmen.

Likewise, if these schools taught their students that they might believe what they want about Genesis -- even what their biblical literalist teachers tell them they must believe to be good Christians -- but that they also need to understand what science is all about, they would have no problem with UC admissions officials, either.

All universities have an admissions policy that requires students to master a number of disciplines -- algebra, biology, English, a foreign language, and so on. If a student attends a school that fails to meet the entrance requirements, they do so at their own risk.

The UC admissions policy does offer these students two options -- they may be admitted if they first complete required course work at a community college, or if their SAT scores are high enough. The lawsuit suggest that this last option is "heavily stacked against students seeking admission through that route." A telling admission about the overall quality of education at these schools.

For our part, we applaud the policy adopted by the University of California. Will they apply the same standard to Kansas schools after the board approves the antiscience revisions to the science curriculum this fall? Certainly that would be a first step at putting a stop to this nonsense.

Associated Press political writer John Hanna, who has covered Kansas state government and politics since 1987, has this to say about the upcoming Kansas State Board of Education race:

Connie Morris is a big political target for people who don't share her
conservative views, and her attempt to win re-election next year to the State Board of Education again could put the global spotlight on Kansas.

Five of the Board's 10 seats are up for election. Conservatives hold four of them.

Red State Rabble grew up in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. We delivered the local newspaper, now named the Morning Sun, to the dorms at Central Michigan University and to prosperous readers in the area near the university that was known locally as "Pill Hill."

That's why we were excited when we noticed a review of Chris Mooney's new book, The Republican War on Science in our old hometown paper.

[The latest example of this war was brought home to us tonight as we typed up this post. The ABC Evening News reported that the FDA -- which had previously announced that its decision on the morning after pill would be driven not by politics, but by the science -- would instead delay its ruling 60 days for public comment.]

The review of Mooney's book, by Eric Baerren, the Sun News editor observes:

One of the most obvious defects of modern journalism – well, the kind that most people are exposed to daily – is that it preaches objectivity, but practices something more akin to equal time for both sides...

Avoiding the appearance of taking sides when one side is full of crap rewards the outlandish and even crackpot, while punishing experts whose only sin is being part of the consensus majority...

In no other area will this be more damaging than in science-related issues. How we, as a nation, approach science will affect almost every facet of our lives – from public health, to more wisely protecting the environment, to competing for future foreign investment, and to – yes – national security.

That's what makes Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science“ such a valuable book.

Peter Ward, a University of Washington professor of biology and earth and space sciences has a modest proposal:

I have a great idea. To improve the scholastic ability of our children, let’s teach them that the Earth is flat.

And let’s be serious about it – really try to convince them the Earth is indeed flat as a pancake, and that all those laws of physics and pictures from space showing a round Earth have been misinterpreted by those arrogant scientists.

Read it all in the Tacoma (Washington) News Tribune.

Jill Lawrence of USA Today sets the table for the upcoming Dover intelligent design court case and school board election – both coming up this fall.

Yet despite all the attention they've drawn, critics of evolution are losing in court and making little headway so far in most state legislatures and school boards. And intelligent design remains mysterious to many; more than half in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll say they are not
familiar with it.

The key for science supporters is that most people do not yet know what intelligent design is. That means there is an opportunity to frame this discussion. Let’s take advantage of it.

Orac is known far and wide for his good judgement and critical thinking skills. Breaking from that tradition -- no doubt out of desperation -- he's asked Red State Rabble to host the Sixteenth Skeptics Circle on this blog September 1st.

The Skeptics' Circle is a biweekly carnival for bloggers who apply critical thought to questionable stories, such as Urban Legends, the Paranormal, Quackery, Pseudoscience, Historical Revision. Posts dealing with the meta-analytical process behind sorting reason from the misinformation -- Critical Thinking -- are also welcome.

To have your writing included in the Sept. 1 edition of the Skeptics' Circle, send an e-mail to Red State Rabble with the URL for your post along with a brief description.

Here are the guidelines Orac made RSR sign a blood oath to follow:

The Skeptics’ Circle is meant to be apolitical, and here that means not touching social causes mired in political action. We don’t want to read posts about how Bush’s Social Security reform is going to bankrupt our nation, or how liberal activists are pushing “institutionalized racism” or malpractice caps or anything about abortion.

This is also not the place for personal causes. If you think personal light rail is a bad idea in your area, take that up with your local media. The Circle was created to clear up things rendered unnecessarily mysterious and fight frauds, not to push anyone’s agenda.

Finally, the data used to debunk or make a case should be empirical. Hotly debated social issues where there really is no answer at present are outside the scope of this carnival.

We are looking for your best writing. Bring it.

Skeptic Michael Shermer takes a page from Daniel Dennet as he takes on Deepak Chopra on intelligent design:

[J]ust because we cannot at the moment explain some particular complex phenomena such as bacterial flagella, Cambrian body plans, or even consciousness, does not mean that we must abandon the crane of naturalism and turn to the skyhook of supernaturalism.

Stephen Mark Messenger, writing in the Cavalier Daily, the independent daily newspaper at the University of Virginia, draws an equal sign between Nazi experiments on Jews, and embryonic stem cell research. He writes:

A Jewish victim undergoing experiments would not have consented to such experiments whether they were beneficial and conducted humanely or not, especially if such experiments ended in death.

Similarly, a human being in the embryonic stage does not wish to be destroyed in the name of societal benefits. Both the life of the Jew and the embryo are devalued, and a similarity can certainly be made between the experimenters, for both attribute no value to their victims, regardless of their intentions.

And, it's not just Mr. Messenger. Jerry Falwell is on record as equating stem cell research with the crimes of the Nazis. James Dobson and Pat Robertson, likewise, see stem cell research as murder.

"Before long, we'll be harvesting body parts from fully formed people. Once you begin this concept of utilitarian use of cells, then everything is up for grabs," says Pat Robertson.

When will Christian fundamentalists, the Pat Robertsons of this world, grant living, breathing human beings like Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, the same right to life they demand for a clump of cells?

These Old Testament prophets are always lecturing the rest of us about values. Maybe, just maybe it's time for them to shut up and put their own houses in order. There is a moral disconnect of cosmic proportions in a man, a church, or a faith that equates stem cell research with murder, yet calls publicly for the murder of another human being.

Science has a new, and very effective supporter in Bill Maher, the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." Here's Maher on Intelligent Design from the Aug. 19th show:

"Now, President Bush recently suggested that public schools should teach intelligent design, alongside the theory of evolution. Because, after all, evolution is quote, "just a theory." Then the President renewed his vow to drive the terrorists straight over the edge of the earth... "

"It just seems pathetic to be so insecure about your biological superiority, to a group of feces-flinging, rouge-buttocked monkeys, that you have to make up fairy tales. Like we came from Adam and Eve, and then cover stories for Adam and Eve like, intelligent design. Yeah, leaving the Earth in the hands of two naked teenagers. That's a real intelligent design... "

"I'm sorry, folks, but it may very well may be that life is just a series of random events. And that there is no... master plan. But enough about Iraq . Let me instead restate my thesis. There aren't necessarily two sides to every issue. If there were, the Republicans would have an opposition party... "

"And finally New Rule: You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap... "

Thanks to RSR reader Bill F. for sending the transcipt along.

Yes, the list is only 399, not the 400 so recently touted by the brotherhood of bible college biologists at the Discovery Institute.

That's because Bob Davidson, an M.D., scientist, and professor for 28 years at the University of Washington medical school -- an ardent Christian whose name appears on the list -- says he believes "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

"When I joined [the Discovery Institute] I didn't think they were about bashing evolution, says Davidson. "It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

"I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this," Davidson now says.

To fully understand the depths of Davidson's disillusionment, to get a glimpse at the utter cynicism and the dishonest manipulation of at least some of those whose names appear on Discovery Institute's much touted list of Darwin doubters you really must read the report by Seattle Times staff columnist Danny Westneat.

We were sorely tempted to post the entire article -- or at least more of the choice quotes from Davidson that Westneat supplies -- but we didn't want to cheat our readers of the pleasure of reading it all in the original context.

By the way, the Clergy Letter Project currently lists 7,016 signers of a statement that reads in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

The National Center for Science Education's Steve-O-Meter currently sits at 589. Project Steve is a tongue-in-cheek parody of creationist and intelligent design lists such as Discovery's Darwin Doubters list. NCSE's list of scientists -- all with the first name of Steve or Stephanie, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, have signed a statement that reads in part, "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. " NCSE estimates that roughly one percent of the population -- and, therefore, one percent of working scientists -- have a first name of Steve or Stephanie.

Okay, we're still not done venting about the Rev. Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela.

We godless Darwinists are often told that a universe without God is a universe without morals. If evolution is true, then we humans are no better than the beasts. Without God, the only law is the law of the jungle.

How then, did God fail Pat Robertson? How could God have failed to inform the good reverend that murder and assassination violate His covenant with Moses? How did Robertson become disconnected from the moral vision that we are told belief in God is supposed to supply?

The good Rev. Robertson is not just a believer. He's one of God's generals in the battle with sin. The leader of a mighty army of evangelicals who fight to restore the lost moral basis for Western society. These are the people -- they never seem to tire of telling us poor lost souls -- who live and vote their values.

These are people who believe in the right to life -- unless, of course, they don't agree with you.

The Dover (Pennsylvania) School Board has voted unanimously to appoint David Napierskie to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Bill Buckingham, who led the board in mandating the reading of a statement supporting intelligent design to school children there.

Napierskie is new to Dover having moved from California in 1999, according to Michelle Star of the York Daily Record.

Napierskie, who was the only person to apply to fill the vacancy left by Buckingham's abrupt resignation -- just as the board was being taken to court by parents unhappy with the interjection of pseudoscience into the curriculum -- refused to be pinned down on his position on the controversy, saying only, "I think all exposure to science would be great. I am not opposed to my children to be educated on anything new or different."

Dover CARES is running a slate of candidates in the November election to restore real science to the school district curriculum.

As a longtime skeptic, Red State Rabble finds it more than a little embarrassing to have to explain -- time and again -- the meaning of the Ten Commandments to our Christian fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I mean, if they're going to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, don't they have some personal responsibility to read the words and grapple with their meaning?

The reason RSR is venting like this, is the call Monday by the televangelist Pat Robertson for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Are we the only ones who find it chillingly similar to the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie?

Now in our own fumbling, highly skeptical way, Red State Rabble has read the Ten Commandments. We see no mention there of gays. And yet, for men like Robertson, gays seem to have become special targets for hate. Here's but one example:

“If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all suffer for it.” - 700 Club, 9-6-95 (source: People for the American Way Foundation)

While we see nothing in the Ten Commandments about gays, we do note that one of them in particular seems to take an especially strong line against murder. Without mincing any words at all, one of the commandments comes right out and says, "Thou shalt not kill."

We don't pretend to be experts, but the assassination of a democratically elected leader of another country sounds an awful lot like an out and out violation of God's covenant with Moses. Am I missing something, here?

RSR doesn't often offer advice to right-wing Christians -- we don't see that as our particular function -- but we can't hold back this time. Okay folks, if you're going to insist on a literal reading of the good book, read it. Is that too much to ask?

The departments of Physics, Astronomy, and Geology at the University of Kansas in Lawrence will sponsor a public lecture on the early Earth, life, and climate by Distinguished Professor Jim Kasting of Penn State at 7:30 pm in Alderson Auditorium on Oct. 24.

Take heed Red State Rabble readers. This may be the only warning you get. Carl F. Worden has looked deep and long into your black Darwinist soul. He's seen your wickedness, and he's telling the whole world on the Sierra Times, the Internet publication for Real Americans!

I believe that is what gave the Theory of Evolution legs in the first place. I truly do. The whole fat lie was embraced and promoted by people who did not want to believe in any superior creative entity that might condemn them for their immorality or wrongful and selfish actions, and it’s beginning to appear that is why the Theory of Evolution survived even until today.

Just remember Darwinists, on your best day, you'll never be a Real American.

The Rio Rancho (New Mexico) school board voted 3-2 Monday to adopt a policy allowing alternative theories to evolution to be discussen the city's public school science classrooms.

The alternative is apparently not Lamarkism, but intelligent design, according to Peter Simonson of the New Mexico ACLU.

Intellectual abuse is not to be tolerated in a civilized society. Educated citizens are the best national security investment. We must find candidateswho are willing to make a difference by running for office as members of the [Kansas State Board of Education]. We must support those who dedicate their time to the resolution of this crisis in learning.

An editorial in the Bennington [Vermont] Banner observes:

The debate over evolution vs. creationism - or "intelligent design" as proponents are now calling it - seems to have skipped over the Bennington County area which probably says something about how local school curricula are intelligently designed.

This is not to disparage anyone's religious beliefs. Many scientists and many of those who oppose teaching intelligent design are deeply religious.

However, despite strenuous efforts that have been made recently to blur the line between church and state, we believe that there are important reasons for the distinction to remain clear.

"I was a normal scientist."

From an editorial, "We need to fight for Science," by Cynthia Tucker in the Sanford [North Carolina] Herald.

Never mind that millions of Christians, including me, are quite comfortable with the teaching of evolution, since it neither attempts to confirm nor deny the existence of a Creator. Never mind that countless believers support broadening research on donated embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. The absolutes of a narrow minority rule the day.

The United States stood in the vanguard of the fight against communism and fascism, ensuring that democracy survived the last century and would flourish in the next. But in the race for scientific hegemony, we've tied a white lab coat to a stick and are waving it at Asia: We surrender.

Did you know that militant Neo-Mendeleevist chemists refuse to teach the controversy about the Periodic Table of the Elements? Never fear, the reDiscovery Institute is on the case.

Kansas, as usual, is at the forefront of this new scientific revolution. The new, simplified Periodic Table -- coming to Kansas schools soon -- lists all four elements: earth, fire, air, and water

"While it's appropriate to teach children there are multiple points of view on this issue," said Jason Gibbs [a spokesman for Vermont Gov. James Douglas] "in the governor's view, science should be taught in our science classes and religiohttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=10302564n should be taught in our places of worship."

From an article in the Bennington Banner by staff writer Chris Parker.

Here's a handy link to complete coverage of the evolution, intelligent design debate from the paper of record.

Jodi Wilgoren has written an everything you ever wanted to know about the intelligent design think tank Discovery Institute but were afraid to ask sort of article in the Sunday New York Times -- a must read in our opinion.

Today, the Times comes back with Kenneth Chang's "In Explaining Life Complexity Darwinists and Doubters Clash" that presents the ID criticisms of evolution and rebuttals by scientists. The article comes complete with a graphical sidebar summarizing ID claims and the scientific response.

The Associated Press is reporting that Tim Cruz, the former mayor of Garden City, has announced he plans to run against Connie Morris. She's the Kansas State Board of Education member who made her bones with the Kansas right through opposition to educating the children of illegal immigrants. Some time back, Morris famously -- and falsely -- accused Cruz of being in the country illegally.

For our part, Red State Rabble will miss Connie -- she's always been our go-to gal on the board when we needed something funny to write about. In her own inimitable way, Connie's fashioned herself into a reliable source of humorous posts -- so much so that we've come to think of her as the Old Faithful of intelligent design creationism.

RSR is trying to come to grips with the loss. Right now, we're consoling ourselves with the knowledge that the election is still a way off -- in 2006. We don't have to go cold turkey. We'll be allowed to wean ourselves away, slowly.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who increasingly seems to be floundering in his attempts to position himself to run for president in 2008, apparently doesn't realize that Christian fundamentalists neither forgive nor forget.

His video diagnosis of Terry Schiavo already forgotten, Frist lost the support of hardcore right-wingers recently when he came out in support of embryonic stem cell research. As a result, he was judged not pure enough to rail against activist judges with Tom Delay and James Dobson at Justice Sunday II last weekend.

Apparently, no one has had the heart to tell Frist the game is up. In an attempt to woo the base back to his side, The Harvard M.D. told a Rotary Club meeting in Nashville yesterday he favors exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design

"I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future," says the clueless Frist.

The back-to-the-future Christian right -- in a its headlong rush to embrace Old Testament family values -- is no longer moved by quaint notions of Christian forgiveness. Turn the other cheek is out. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is in.

Frist and his fellow country-club Republicans thought they'd discovered a clever strategy to herd large numbers of yokels into the voting booth to pull the levers for corporate conservatives. Now they are beginning to perceive -- perhaps only dimly -- that they are merely the dog being waved by the tail.

Will somebody please call Frist and tell him that he can go to a zillion NASCAR races. He can pander. He can surrender anything that's left of his dignity, his reputation, his soul -- but it will never be enough for the Christian fundamentalists in the Republican base. He crossed them once on stem cells. They will never trust him again, and for that reason, he will never be elected president.

Robert King reports in the Indianapolis Star that "[w]hen some residents in Columbus petitioned the School Board three years ago to give the Bible's creation account equal time with evolution, school officials came up with a novel response."

They created a new class -- under the heading of social studies -- that examines all the theories on human origins. Not only did the class cover evolution and creationism, it also surveyed Navajo beliefs, the Hindu creation story and a host of other perspectives.

The BiologyPublic Affairs Advisory Committee of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecurlar has announced it will sponsor a public affairs symposium on Teaching the Science of Evolution Under Threat from Alternative Views at the ASBMB Annual Meeting, April 1-5, 2006, in San Francisco. The symposium is scheduled for April 4.

The decision to sponsor the symposium, sponsors say, is a response to continuing and ongoing efforts in many states and localities around the country to mandate the teaching of philosophical alternatives to the theory of evolution in K-12 science classes such as creation "science” or its close relative, “intelligent design.”

The session will be chaired by PAAC Chair Bill Brinkley, Baylor College of Medicine. The panel of speakers includes:

• Dr. Ken Miller: Brown University, a prominent cell biologist and advocate for the theory of evolution who has authored a book on the subject, Finding Darwin’s God.
• Dr. Don Johanson: founder of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, Tempe, is a worldfamous paleoanthropologist who is the discoverer of the “Lucy” fossil, the 3.2 million-year-old partial skeleton of a female member of the species australopithecus afarensis.
• The Reverend Ted Peters: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley, California, speaks frequently on the compatibility of science and religion, and is a co-editor of the journal, Theology and Science.
• Dr. Eugenie Scott: Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, in Oakland, California.

Kansas Board of Education Chair Steve Abrams is standing by embattled school board member Connie Morris who recently repaid $2,900 in questionable expenses she'd claimed for a Miami Beach magnet school conference that included a $339 suite at the Fontainebleau Hilton Resort.

Why is Abrams backing the values challenged Morris? Bluff City resident Frank Smith, who has examined Morris' expense report thinks he knows why:

"The taxpayers are not being represented by Dr. Abrams, and the reason is, I think, he needs the votes," Smith said. "His problem is, he's got a one-seat majority. If one seat changes, he's got an impasse and that's not what he wants, so he's doing his best to protect her. It's very unfortunate."

"She frolicked in free love, drowned in drugs and endured domestic violence and sexual abuse before giving herself to Christ. But even Jesus couldn't tame
her."

Hillary Clinton? Well, no, actually it Kansas' own Connie Morris, creationist, fiscal conservative, and Kansas State Board of Education member who feels that teaching evolution will corrupt the morals of our youth.

If you don't do anything else today, read "Unnatural Selection: The strange redemption of Connie Morris, high school slut turned Kansas State Board of Education anti-evolutionist" by Justin Kendall in The Pitch, Kansas City's alternative newsweekly

Can anybody tell us what it is about these creationists and intelligent design "theorists" and political corruption, anyway? We've long noted that there seems to be some fine print in the Ten Commandments about lying -- that's the one about bearing false witness for you flatlanders -- it's okay, as long as you're doing it for God.

Now we are beginning to detect a pattern of political corruption among the true believers, as well. Consider these examples:

• Ohio Citizens for Science and the Columbus Dispatch have reported on the behind the scenes maneuvering between religious fundamentalists and Ohio Gov. Bob Taft to introduce intelligent design into the Ohio public school science curriculum. Yesterday, Taft pleaded no contest to charges that he broke state ethics law by failing to report golf outings and other gifts. A judge fined him $4,000.
• Missouri House Rep. Cynthia Davis -- sponsor of an intelligent design textbook bill -- used her campaign funds to pay taxes on a second home.
• Kansas School Board member, creationist, and fiscal conservative Connie Morris recently was forced to reimburse the state for creative expense reporting for her Miami Beach boondoggle.

The moral values crowd has been telling us that the problem with evolution is that it takes God-given laws and morality out of the picture, making human beings into little more than beasts. If we teach evolution, they say, the law of the jungle will prevail.

RSR's take is that biblical literalism and religious fundamentalism seem an easier path to throwing off the shackles of conventional morality. Anything goes if you're doing it for God.

Red State Rabble has been on a work-related road trip, but we're back and bloggin'. Check back soon for more...

"Activist justices -- we're trying to find out what we can do to stop that activity," says Mike Miller. "Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments."

James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, joined House Majority Leader Tom Delay -- possibly the most corrupt politician in U.S. history -- at Justice Sunday II in Nashville. Co-equal branches of government may be in the constitution, but it's not in the Ten Commandments.

Over at Intelligent Design The Future, there is an interesting juxtaposition between posts right now.

In one post, "It's Been a Busy Weekend" Jonathan Witt asks rhetorically if "the case for Darwinism is so powerful, why the repeated attempts to duck both competition and critical inquiry?"

In the very next post, Witt notes that some "Darwinists have complained that we don't allow comments at our blog."

Just who is ducking who?

Lenny Flank of the DebunkCreation website and The Panda's Thumb has compiled the juicy bits from the Kansas science hearings last May. If, like RSR, you can't get enough of this kind of stuff, take a look here.

The American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, is reiterating its call for evolution to be included in the K-12 science curricula at an “age-appropriate level,” because it is “central to our modern understanding of science.”

“Evolution is a well-established, central scientific concept,” said William F. Carroll, Jr., Ph.D., ACS president. “In the proper context, students should be exposed to a wide diversity of ideas to help them shape their own opinions. But they should get a solid understanding of science from their science teachers through a full and robust scientific curriculum. Evolution is the proven scientific model that we should be teaching in the science classroom.”

Carroll said: “Because the debate has recently moved to the national stage, the American Chemical Society wants to reiterate its position that the curricula in our nation’s science classrooms should be based on well-established science, such as the theory of evolution in biology and other sciences.”

In a recently adopted policy statement, the Society said that “evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis, but is the scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of species, and explains significant observations in chemistry, biology, geology, and other disciplines."

"President Bush is down on his ranch in Crawford doing what he likes best for relaxation - attacking timber with a chainsaw. As a warm-up, just before he decamped to the Texas White House for the rest of the summer, he sawed into a leafy, living branch of science - Darwinian evolution."

From a smart and funny piece by Harold Evans in BBC News World Edition.

Last Thursday, Slate posted an article by Jacob Weisberg, "Evolution vs. Religion: Quit pretending they're compatible" that has ignited a firestorm of debate among supporters of science education at Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb. Weisberg's proposition -- that we should quit pretending that evolution and religion are compatible -- is certainly provocative.

Red State Rabble noted the appearance of Weisberg's article when it was posted without commenting on it -- other than to say it was important and to urge others to read it. We have been thinking about it, and reading the reaction to it on other sites over the last few days. Now, we'd like to offer some tentative observations.

First, although the discussion Weisberg's article provoked has been more heated, in some ways, than may have been absolutely necessary, we think it's been valuable and should continue in various forms. It's forced many of us to confront the issue in a way that we haven't until now.

For RSR's money, the most thought provoking element of Weisberg's piece was this result from a 1993 NORC study:

In the United States, 63 percent of the public believed in God and 35 percent believed in evolution. In Great Britain, by comparison, 24 percent of people believed in God and 77 percent believed in evolution. You can believe in both - but not many people do.

To us, this says less about any possible incompatibility between evolution and religion than it does about the different strategies pursued by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, who might be said to be on opposite sides of the question Weisberg raises.

Both Gould and Dawkins are (were) atheists. Both exemplary defenders and popularizers of evolutionary thought. Even so, they had sharp disagreements about how to interpret the evidence supporting evolution, how to explain evolution to the public, and what philosophical conclusions might be drawn from evolutionary theory.

Gould championed what he called Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA):

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). (Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," 1997) [The online Stephen Jay Gould Library from which I originally printed this article is not online as I write this, so I am unable to provide a working link]

Dawkins, on the other hand -- calling religious faith a "brain virus" -- rejects any religious authority in the area of morality. The violent conflict between adherents of Catholicism and Protestantism in Northern Ireland and Jews and Muslims in the Middle East being but the latest examples of the utter failure of religion to lead its most passionate followers to respect the ideas, property, and lives of their fellows. Dawkins also allows science more of a role in areas that Gould would concede to religion:

Religion may aspire to provide its followers with various benefits -- among them explanation, consolation, and uplift. Science, too, has something to offer in these areas.

Could it be that as an American, living in a society in which a majority reject evolution, believe in God, attend church, and where science education is under constant attack from religious fundamentalists, Gould's formulation of NOMA should be seen primarily as a strategy of building a united front between secularists on the one hand and believers who accept evolution on the other?

Is it unreasonable to think that Dawkins, living in the U.K., where science education is not under serious attack and more than three people in four say they do not believe in God, is addressing a different audience with other concerns.

Writing from Kansas, where young earth creationists recently voted to inject antiscience nonsense into the state's science curriculum, it's hard for RSR to see how to successfully defend evolution teaching without building a movement that includes believers and nonbelievers alike. We support the position of Kansas Citizens for Science which states that people of faith do not have to choose between science and religion.

Is this strategy tenable, or are Weisberg and Dawkins right that evolution and religion are fundamentally incompatible.

First, it should be noted that the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 for the intelligent design inspired proposal. The four board members who voted to defend science education are not secular humanists, agnostics, or atheists. Apparently, they do not find one incompatible with the other.

There is much other evidence that many believers themselves find no conflict between their religious faith and their acceptance of the findings of science about the natural world. Many Catholics have reacted strongly against Cardinal Schönborn's New York Times Op-Ed supporting intelligent design. Most Jews are suspicious of the motives of the Christian fundamentalists who are driving the antiscience bus and have no trouble reconciling their faith with modern science. In Kansas, one of the most eloquent supporters of evolutionary theory is a Presbyterian theologian.

Those of us who are secular in outlook should be careful not to conflate the childish literalism of the fundamentalists with more sophisticated religious belief that can be tolerant, comfortable with metaphor, and widely varied in content.

Skeptics, secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists -- however they describe themselves -- should remember that while science is very good at what it does, it's not a Swiss Army Knife. There are other ways of knowing. Science can explain the workings of the natural world, but has little to say about the existential questions we humans have. Music, film, literature, the visual arts, dance -- all of which might be seen as filling the role that religion once did -- can get at these existential questions in a way that science can't.

Having been raised a Catholic -- that great transmission belt to doubt -- Red State Rabble rejected religion long before we knew much of anything about evolution. Our confirmation class was so out of control that the nice little old lady who was our teacher withdrew and was replaced by a martial arts expert and physical education professor from the university.

We don't think Weisberg has made a convincing case for cause and effect between evolution and doubt.

As a skeptic, RSR has a profound sympathy with the argument advanced by Richard Dawkins' that religion has been a spectacular failure as a guide to living the moral life. We disagree with those who say that atheists -- and here PZ Myers at Pharyngula has been particularly eloquent in debunking this notion -- should refrain from writing or speaking out about their views because it may endanger science education in this country.

There is no way -- and no need -- to silence thinkers like Dawkins who speak plainly about the philosophical conclusions they draw from the study of science.

Inevitably, creationists and intelligent design proponents will use what Dawkins and others say. That is unimportant as long as we clearly separate our own philosophical speculation from what we propose to include in the science curriculum -- in Kansas, the majority of the science curriculum writing committee -- mostly theistic evolutionists -- was meticulous in this regard.

Secularists should clearly and patiently explain their own philosophical views even as they join hands with men and women of faith to defend science education from the know-nothing attacks of the fundamentalists. There is nothing incompatible in this approach.

"Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began," reports Gareth Cook of the Boston Globe, "joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution."

''We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But ''my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Over at Panda's Thumb, Kansas Citizens for Science leader, Jack Krebs, has a post up about the shenanigans of intelligent design advocate, John Calvert.

While not licensed in the state of Kansas, Calvert nonetheless represented himself as an attorney in the science hearings last May.

Steve Case, chairman of the science standards writing committee, has filed complaints against Calvert in Kansas and Missouri -- where Calvert is licensed.

Is it really a big deal? Here's what Krebs says:

Calvert has been passing himself off as “legal counsel” for the Minority since December, when the state Board and the writing committee were informed by email that the Minority had “appointed John Calvert, Esq. as counsel and as a spokesman for the group.” As a member of the writing committee and as Irigonegaray’s assistant during the hearings, I can certainly say that in both settings I believed that Calvert was actually legal counsel for the Minority.

Christina Lee Knauss reports in the South Carolina State that state superintendent of education hopeful Karen Floyd of Spartanburg says she will encourage the teaching of intelligent design in public schools when she runs in 2006.

''This is evidence of a worldwide flood,'' he said, holding up a fossilized fish set in sedimentary rock. "This is a perfect example that the word of God is true.''

From an article by Alexander Alter in the Miami Herald. Take a look at this one to see how creation "scientists" and intelligent design "theorists" work together tag team fashion -- think Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant -- and tailor their message depending on the audience they're addressing. John Calvert speaking for ID and Tom Derosa, for the Creation Studies Institute, an arm of Coral Ridge Ministries in Ft. Lauderdale, are featured.

The intelligent design brain trust insists it has no idea who the "designer" might be, over at the Lives of the Saints blog, Nittacci asks if they would really be satisfied by irrefutable evidence that, say, extraterrestrials were the designer. Nittacci -- who by the way thinks there is an intelligent designer, but doesn't think his particular philosophical speculation rises to the level of science -- thinks they won't accept that answer. Just as they refuse to accept the mountain of evidence supporting evolution, they'll accept any answer, as long as it's in the Bible. Check him out.

Dave Ranney of the Lawrence Journal-World reports on a growing split among Kansas Republicans:

“Our enemies are no longer the Democrats, they are the RINOs — Republicans In Name Only — who side with the Democrats,” says Mark Gietzen, former Sedgwick
County GOP chairman, now director of the anti-abortion group Kansas Coalition for Life.

Interestingly, Gietzen is not just critical of the RINOs -- he's also going after state GOP chairman Tim Shallenburger, a fellow conservative:

“He’s made a point of welcoming pro-aborts into the Republican tent. He wants to make them an integral part of the party,” Gietzen said. “So at a time when other state parties are becoming more and more pro-life, we’re moving to the middle. This is stupid, it’s ‘Bleeding Kansas’ all over again.”

An editorial in the Garden City, Kansas Telegraph says "Kansans interested in growth - and weary of [the evolution debate -- RSR] should unseat BOE member Connie Morris of St. Francis and her fellow conservatives who are determined to interfere with science teachings in Kansas schools."

Thanks to RSR reader JW for sending this item along.

Over at the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog, the intelligent design "theorists" offer critiques and corrections to major news stories about the debate overhow to teach evolution.

This amounts to a steady stream of complaints about the coverage they get from journalists and the media. To listen to the fellows at DI's Center for Science and Culture tell it, no group in history has been so misunderstood.

And yet, as RSR reader Bill F. points out:

The DI says "aliens did it" and the newspapers are all over it. TheNational Academy of Sciences issues a statement and it's already yesterday's news. Page 9.

Red State Rabble was sitting on the deck last night reading Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We were admiring the master's deft touch. The way, brick by brick, he built a seemingly insurmountable case for design in the early chapters of the book, only to tear it to shreds in the succeeding ones.

It was then that Mrs. RSR stuck her head out the door to say -- a little more pointedly, we thought, than was absolutely necessary -- that the grass was getting a little long.

We pointed out that the Kansas City Metro, sweltering as it so often does this time of year in the upper 90s, was currently under an ozone alert and that residents were strongly advised to postpone mowing.

Mrs. RSR, an ardent environmentalist, was momentarily defeated. She withdrew into the air conditioned house commenting darkly that she hoped the condition of our yard wouldn't compel the neighbors to revive their petition drive.

We returned to our book, although not with the same concentration as before. It seemed to us that every time we saw one of our neighbors talking across the fence, or going next door to borrow a cup of sugar that they might be talking about the state of RSR's lawn.

Then, winking slyly up at us from the page, we saw what every blogger who has to feed that voracious beast on a daily basis is looking for. An insight. An idea. The subject for our next post. And we promptly forgot about the sorry state of the lawn.

What caught our eye was Dawkins description of how bats find their way around in the dark using echolocation:

You might say that if this is a problem [finding their way in the dark -- RSR] it is a problem of their own making, a problem that they could avoid simply by changing their habits and hunting by day. But the daytime economy is already heavily exploited by other creatures such as birds. Given that there is a living to be made at night, and given that alternative daytime trades are thoroughly occupied, natural selection has favored bats that make a go of the night-hunting trade (p. 22).

In reading this passage, with its references to economy, a living to be made, and night-hunting trade, we were immediately struck by the paradoxical positions taken by those on the fundamentalist right who are at once supporters of a decentralized, market-driven economy and bitter opponents of evolution.

Evolution, it seems to us, is the ultimate in market driven economies. Each gene, each organism, each species fights for its own survival. Each operates in its own self interest. Dawkins' bats could be thought of as entrepreneurs of the night. A start up operation exploiting a hitherto unrecognized niche market. Isn't this the rugged individualism, the unregulated creativity, the magic of the market, that those on the right so claim to admire?

Creationism and intelligent design, on the other hand, it seems to us are the ultimate in centralized planning -- the six days of creation sounding like nothing so much as a highly compressed five year plan. No wonder 99.9 percent of all the species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct. Think of the waste, the inefficiency, the bureaucracy.

Think of the contradictory ideas the wingnuts must try to reconcile inside their aching heads.

The right claims that evolution is cruel. They claim that if it is true, human beings are no better than beasts -- that without god-given laws there is no basis for morality. And yet, they work tirelessly to tear down the man-made laws and social institutions that protect the poor, the elderly, the infirm.

What sense does it make to reject evolution in nature, but espouse rugged individualism -- otherwise known as social Darwinism -- in relations between human beings?

An article by Scott Rothschild in the Lawrence Journal World digs deeper into the case of retired attorney John Calvert who represented intelligent design forces in hearings before the Kansas school board science sub-committee last May:

Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who represented mainstream, pro-evolution scientists during hearings in May on science standards, accused attorney John Calvert, who represented the anti-evolution scientists, of misstating his official job position.

Irigonegaray said of Calvert, “He has never been licensed to practice law in the state of Kansas and all the time in those hearings he was acting as a Kansas lawyer.

“It’s an outrage. It is both illegal and unethical to do so. There are criminal statutes that sanction against false impersonation and that includes acting as though one was something that one isn’t.”

Calvert on Wednesday conceded he is not licensed to practice law in Kansas. He said he is licensed in Missouri.

Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate today, argues that we should quit pretending that evolution and religion are compatible. Weisberg cites the official position of Kansas Citizens for Science -- People of faith do not have to choose between science and religion -- but argues that as a practical matter of fact they do.

To support this argument Weisberg points out that:

In the United States, [in a 1993 NORC study -- RSR] 63 percent of the public believed in God and 35 percent believed in evolution. In Great Britain, by comparison, 24 percent of people believed in God and 77 percent believed in evolution. You can believe in both - but not many people do.

Red State Rabble is still thinking through the implications of American scientist, educators, and their supporters adopting such a strategy. Whether Weisberg is right, or whether he is wrong, the Slate piece is well worth reading.

Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Spend, Spend, Spend

Just when we thought nothing more would be revealed about Kansas school board member Connie Morris' $339 a night taxpayer funded junket to Miami Beach last April we get this report from Duane Schrag in the Salina Journal:

• During her six nights in the $339-a-night room at the Fontainebleau Hilton Resort in Miami Beach she had a studio ocean-view suite. According to resort staff, it is “very nice.”
• Promotional material from Magnet Schools of America, according to Schrag's report, says that a special conference rate of $147 a night was available for attendees who registered before March 29. Morris registered in late February.
• Her receipts include a $147 cab ride, although, she may have rented a car.
• A receipt for a $75 cab ride to the airport is day one day before her flight left.

There is more, much more.

Just the other day, Red State Rabble had a little fun at retiree John Calvert's expense. You remember him, he's the ID advocate and FOCM who is leading the charge for intelligent design with the school board.

Now, however, we've come to a new appreciation for our retired citizens. It seems like the information in Schrag's report come not from the tireless work of a MSM investigative reporter, but from Frank Smith, a Bluff City, Kansas resident who, according to Schrag, describes himself as a retiree who likes to stir up trouble.

We reported a couple of days ago that Connie has reimbursed the state board $2,890 for her boondog... eh, trip. Even so, our favorite fiscal conservative refuses to be drawn into any long-winded explanations:

“I’m done haggling about it,” Schrag reports her as saying. “I just don’t have anything to say.”

"With all due respect to that handful of scientists who have been willing to go out on a limb to make the case that intelligent design is a scientific theory on par with evolution, that is just plain poppycock."

Thanks to RSR reader Bill F. for bringing this commentary from the Philiadelphia Inquirer by Marci A. Hamilton, the author of God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law to our attention.

"Does the Bible Predict Nuclear War?" asks Pastor Jerry Johnston of the First Family Church in Overland Park, Kansas (a suburb of Kansas City).

He will explore this "curious" verse, 2 Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

"Bring a pen," says Pastor Jerry, "it is going to be phenomenal night of learning!"

Red State Rabble noted that, in the wake of President Bush's endorsement of intelligent design, there was an uptick in the number of bloggers who wrote posts saying it was time for any sane person to move to Canada or New Zealand -- in fact, any reality based country would do.

For our part, we're going to stay and fight. We don't think it's possible to move far enough away from people who believe that nuclear war is a hopeful sign of the second coming of Christ. We certainly don't think these biblical literalists should be left alone and in charge of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

John Calvert is the Kansas attorney for whom intelligent design has become the idee fix of his golden years. While other retirees focus on having the greenest lawn in their neighborhood, Calvert set his sights on taking down the Enlightenment.

The latest sign that Calvert has far, far too much time on his hands is his 20-page reply to a statement adopted by the majority of the Kansas science standards writing committee that opposed adding intelligent design inspired pseudoscience to the science curriculum taught in the state.

Here's a sample:

A second problem that plagues the [Majority -- RSR] response is the claim that the Changes [Made by the school board -- RSR] are false or erroneous without describing in particularity the words that make the statement false and without providing any evidence that supports the claim of error. Thus, the claim of the Response that it is incorrect to say that there is no known cause for the Cambrian Explosion is not supported by reference to a known cause for the event. A known cause would falsify the Change. Instead the claim of error is accompanied only by a statement that science has much information about the products of the event. A claim that we have much information about a dead body does not explain the cause of its death.

No, we couldn't make much of that either, but that doesn't stop it from going on for page after mind-numbing page. If you have far too much time on your hands, or you're having a hard time getting to sleep, you can read the whole reply here. If you still can't sleep, they've also posted a reply by Jonathan Wells.

President Bush's "teach both sides" answer to a reporter's question, coming, as it did, on the heels of Cardinal Schonborn's New York Times Op-Ed favoring intelligent design may seem, on the surface anyway, to have given a boost to intelligent design's flagging fortunes.

In reality -- and yes, this is a reality-based blog -- these two events may be seen in the light of later events as ID's last gasp.

From all indications, Cardinal Schonborn's Op-Ed have generated a furious opposition from progressive forces within the church, who have no problem reconciling deep faith with modern science. In RSR's view, the Op-Ed gave the boys at Discovery a short-term public relations coup, but will offer nothing of lasting value in terms of a change in church policy.

The statement by President Bush generated an enormous amount of publicity. For a time, intelligent design was reported by Technorati to be the most popular search term on the Internet.

The endorsement by Mr. Bush may, in the end, prove only a mixed blessing. After all, the president is still more likely, by several orders of magnitude, to find WMD in Iraq than the fellows at the Discovery Institute are to find scientific evidence backing their "theory."

John Milborn of the Associated Press reports that "Connie Morris has reimbursed the State Board of Education $2,890 for a trip she took earlier this year to Florida after receiving criticism that the trip was excessive."

Naturally, Morris, who originally submitted an expense report claiming $3,600 for a six-day Florida junket -- including $339 a night for luxury hotel accommodations at the Fountainebleau Hilton Resort in in Miami Beach -- claimed the moral high ground.

"No amount of media bullying can take from the good people I serve the vision and knowledge gained from the conference," Morris said. "God says avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. My dad says that if you want to know the character of a man, look in his billfold."

The vision and knowledge Morris gained was from the Magnet Schools of America Conference in April -- unfortunately there are not magnet schools in Connie's district. Kansas only has three magnet schools. They are in Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City.

Fortunately, Connie's daughter lives near the Miami Beach conference site, so the trip probably wasn't a total loss.

Steve Case, chair of the Kansas science standards writing committee, and Pedro Irigonegary held a newsconference in Topeka today to charge that John Calvert, the retired attorney and ID Network activist who represented the intelligent design movement in hearings before the school board science sub-committee last May is not licensed in Kansas -- a possible violation of ethical standards.

"This brings into question the veracity, the accuracy and the truthfulness of this entire process," Irigonegaray said, according to a report by Josh Funk for Knight Ridder newspapers.

The Kansas State Board of Education voted today, as expected, to approve new science standards that criticise evolution. The 6-4 vote clears the way to send the intelligent design friendly standards to the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, in Denver for review. Following that review, the board is expected to give final approval to the standards perhaps as early as October.

The majority of the science standards writing committee, which opposed the inclusion of antiscientific intelligent design and creationist arguments against evolution in the standards asked to have their names removed from the standards and the board agreed.

As Red State Rabble was noodling along I-435 this afternoon, we heard Fresh Air host Terry Gross interview Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, and author of a new book, New Rules: Polite Musings of a Timid Observer.

The subject of President Bush's endorsement of intelligent design came up.

In the interest of preventing a massive pile up on the interstate, RSR refrained from writing what Maher said about ID on the back of an envelope that was lying on the floorboards under a mound of trash, but we think we can paraphrase his words quite closely, nonetheless.

Here goes:

Maher said he doesn't hate America -- as those on the right sometimes claim -- but he is embarrassed by her leaders from time to time. One of the things that embarrassed him recently was the president's endorsement of intelligent design, which he called a code word for creationism.

Republicans wouldn't be Republicans, Maher said, if they didn't use code words.

That, we think, is an interesting observation that hasn't received enough attention here, or anywhere else for that matter.

While it is true that some proponents of intelligent design are utterly sincere -- we're convinced there are at least six of them in North America -- there are many others who see it as just the vehicle -- a Hummer, perhaps -- to drive through the front doors of your local high school in order to put creationism into the public school curriculum.

And those are the good guys.

There are some more Machiavellian types -- Karl Rove comes to mind -- who see both intelligent design and creationism as the ideal blunt instrument. The perfect accessory for the well-dressed culture warrior.

And for them, the culture wars have little to do with abortion, gay rights, public education, and the Ten Commandments. For them, the culture wars have everything to do raising money to elect politicians who will maintain the system of crony capitalism that came to power with the Bush family. Their job, as they see it, is the sale of the people's government to the corporate class. All prices have been marked down. No reasonable offer will be refused. Everything must go.

As Maher also observed, lobbyists have now become the fourth branch of government.

In this context, intelligent design can proudly take its place next to States Rights, Southern Strategy, Defense of Marriage, Activist Judge, and Family Values as the double talk that now dominates our political life.

The supreme irony of our current situation -- which we are convinced will become the hallmark of our era when historians look back from the future -- is that those who run the government now, those who say they are for traditional values and old fashioned morality, are presiding over the most corrupt era of American political life. The robber barons that came to power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries never had it this good.

The ark could accommodate all earth's creatures, including the dinosaurs, explains an exhibit at the Museum of Earth History in Eureka Springs, Arkansas because it was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. That, and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board.

In the wake of President Bush's endorsement of intelligent design, some of the news coverage has tended to use the terms evolution and origin of life interchangeably.

For example, Joe Garofoli, writing an otherwise excellent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, says:

The real impact of President Bush weighing in on the national debate over how to teach the origins of life may be felt in the classroom, where much of the anti-evolutionary lobbying is done under the radar.

The fact is, however, scientists and educators aren't the ones who propose teaching the origins of life in high school science classrooms -- creationists and intelligent design "theorists" are the ones who want desperately to inject origins into the science curriculum and use it to sow doubts in student's minds about evolution.

In Kansas, for example, the pro-science majority of the science curriculum committee didn't propose teaching the origins of life -- that is the change from inorganic matter to living organisms -- it was, instead, the intelligent design activists organized by the Discovery Institute and the ID Network who pushed for inclusion.

Most of the witnesses they brought to Kansas focused their testimony on origins. In fact, they devoted so much time to origins that at one point board member Connie Morris blurted out "I'm a little confused by the prebiotic soup!"

Fellow board member Kathy Martin rushed to her aid, as she so often does. "We can't see a soup in nature, so talking about it is not naturalistic. It's speculation."

At this, all three board members nodded sagely.

Scientists and educators don't propose teaching origins in an introductory biology class because there is, as yet, no scientific consensus on how life grew out of inorganic matter. As Ernst Mayr puts it in What Evolution Is:

In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century (p. 42).

If there is no scientific agreement about origins, then why do creationists and intelligent design activists want to teach it to high school students getting their first exposure to the biological sciences?

First, it is a gap in our knowledge -- like the so-called gap in the fossil record they seem to find so congenial -- that science has not yet been able to fill. It's a gap that ID activists want to exploit to raise doubt in student's minds about the scientific consensus on common descent and other widely accepted elements of evolutionary theory.

Second, because these members of this holier-than-thou "values crowd" have absolutely no compunction -- the depth of their cynicism, apparently, is boundless -- about using our children as cannon fodder in this culture war they have chosen to fight.

Origins is an interesting area of research that one day may yield new insights into the story of how we humans got here -- but it is not one that scientists, educators, or supporters of science education propose putting into the high school science curriculum now.

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, in a statement issued Aug. 3, said it is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design - effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms.

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

Read the whole statement here.

According to a report on Panda's Thumb by Wes Elsberry, the Discovery Institute has hired Creative Response Concepts, the PR firm behind the Swift Boat Vets ad campaign which Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House condemn.

Red State Rabble must admit that their is a certain synchronicity between the Swift Boat Vets and the intelligent design movement. CRC must have understood immediately that the casual disregard for the truth shown by both groups makes them a particularly good fit for the firm.

In Seattle, hiring CRC is undoubtedly is viewed as a move to shore up support from those in the values crowd who see no problem with lying, as long as it's done for God.

The Practice Areas page of the Creative Response Concepts website advises potential customers that "[w]hether you are launching a new product, facing an imminent crisis, or looking to educate the public, CRC helps you achieve your goals."

RSR can see that all three "practice areas" might be highly useful for Discovery just now, especially advice on "facing an imminent crisis."

Aaron Nathans, a reporter for the Capital Times, in Madison, Wisconsin, reports that all 33 active members of the biochemistry department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison signed a letter to the Grantsburg School District urging the system to uphold the teaching of evolution there as fact.

Last year, according to Nathans', the district voted to require teachers to explain the "scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory."

The letter from the biochemistry faculty said in part:

"Scientists accept evolution as fact precisely because of the overwhelming mass of evidence behind it. This evidence has accumulated in countless thousands of carefully refereed and published studies in dozens of scientific disciplines over the last 150 years."

After the Creation Mega Conference drew about 2,000 participants recently, we've been waiting on pins and needles to see how the Uncommon Dissent Conference in Greenville, N.C. was going to do.

At the Mega Conference, intelligent design took something of a beating from the creationists there. In one presentation reported by Ronald Bailey on Reason Online, Georgia Purdom, identified as an assistant professor of biology at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Mount Vernon, Ohio, had this to say about the citified airs being put on by her intelligent design cousins:

"I couldn't believe it [intelligent design] because it did not fit with the God I know; the God with whom I have a personal relationship," insisted Purdom. Intelligent designers share the same problem with evolutionists—both ignore Scripture.

So, we wondered, would the intelligent design "theorists" outmobilize their increasingly discontented country cousins in Greenville.

We were concerned because the Uncommon Dissent Conference seemed to have dropped off the face of the planet. As of Monday morning, no report has appeared on the Evolution News and Views blog, and unlike the Mega Conference, the event seemed to have drawn little MSM attention.

Then we saw this Associated Press report. Despite Discovery's intense promotion of the event, only 200 people bothered to attend. Even Discovery's newly hired Swift Boat Vets PR firm couldn't get this dog to hunt.

[BTW Jason Rosenhouse also had an excellent series of reports from the Mega Conference at Panda's Thumb]