The Creation Museum apparently has a petting zoo, and one of the animals they have is a zonkey (usually referred to as a zebra mule). This creature is quite obviously infertile, but despite the fact the obvious conclusion as to why a zonkey cannot produce offspring should be that they are too genetically different to do so, the brilliant minds at the museum actually think this is evidence of creationism. They actually believes this proves all Equidae must have originated from the ones on Noah’s Ark.

The real reason zonkeys are infertile is because of the fact donkeys and zebras have a different number of chromosomes, a testament to the fact that although they share the same genus, they are not of the same species. This genus extends as far back as 54 million years ago, not six thousand as creationists would have anyone believe.

If donkeys and zebras had only split off from one another by less than 10,000 years, they would be able to create fertile offspring, since that is but a blip in evolutionary time. The fact they cannot is just another testament to the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. It’s frustrating to read their childish and brutally retarded statements that the zonkey ‘proves’ the creation myth. Can everyone stop giving these morons money, please?

I had never heard of James Corbett until today, when I read a letter he wrote in response to a judge finding him guilty of violating the First Amendment by speaking his mind. I know it sounds as though I wrote that wrong, but apparently disparaging creationism during class time is a big no-no in America. Corbett was sued by one of his students, and lost in a federal court that found he had violated the Establishment Cause of the Constitution by saying creationism is “religious, superstitious nonsense”.

I decided to read up on the history of the First Amendment to see if there were other instances of unfair rulings concerning freedom of speech issues, and was shocked to see how often the US government has created laws which utterly violate its spirit. During the 1800s, for example, the government created the ‘Sedition Act’, which made it a crime to disparage or spread scandalous writing against the government or any of its officials. They also created the ‘Alien Enemies Act’ which allowed them to detain any resident aliens if their home countries were at war with America. The Sedition Act expired in 1801. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect today.

The particular precedent that found Mr. Corbett guilty was the ‘Lemon Test’, based on a case in 1968 which found that reimbursing the salaries, textbook cost and instruction materials for Catholic schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (making the establishment of any religion unconstitutional). The precise requirements of the test include:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

The courts now see this as applying also to any disparaging comments made AGAINST religion. The student who sued James Corbett had said, according to the court transcript, a “religion of secularism” was being promoted by Corbett, and that is was what violated the Establishment Clause. This clever twist is what made his statements unconstitutional, apparently.

The problem here is James was not promoting a religion at all. He was challenging the claims made by Christianity in the realms of science and morality, something the First Amendment is supposed to defend. The fact his student, Chad Farnan, was offended by the statement that creationism is “religious, superstitious nonsense” is unimportant. Corbett was making a factual claim. Although there will be some who think his statements were only meant to be offensive, the truth of the matter is creationism is nothing more than an incorrect and childish interpretation of the material world. There is no question it is religious in nature, and any statement as to its nonsense is an invitation of proof by those making the supposed factual claim.

Atheism is not a ‘secular religion’, and as such any statements made in regard to gods should entirely be protected under the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. This uncomfortable fact has unnerved the religious right, as they now see the threat posed by secularism in schools. They will continue to insist their superstitious beliefs be respected, despite the fact there is no reason to give them any special treatment. How would the courts have reacted to Corbett stating Zeus was simply a fictional character, and whose mythology was simply superstitious nonsense? Not too seriously, I imagine.

I can’t beat around the bush when it comes to Alberta and their education policy: moronic is too kind a word, but I’m working on toning down my swearing. Their government is proposing a new bill allowing parents to pull their children from discussions of evolution or homosexuality in public schools, and it’s expected to pass. Parents who want their children to be sheltered from evolutionary fact, or from sexual identity issues will now have the freedom to restrict their education. Alberta has taken a giant step towards becoming Arkansas.

Despite what some very polite Christians may be telling you, this is quite clearly the result of the war on science and homosexuality their precious religion is bent on fighting. I don’t find it at all surprising religious conservatives are using their political power to force their beliefs on us. What I find surprising is how easily they are getting away with this garbage. Do we have no one with the balls to tell these morons to take a hike? Are we going to let them pull their ‘be tolerant of our views’ bullshit while they simultaneously preach intolerance of others?

Don’t you just love the Internet? Everyone on this planet has an opinion, and we have access to billions of different ones in all different languages. The Internet is just like real life; it’s filled with plenty of crap, a plethora of porn, and it’s also populated by some truly wacky and unintentionally hilarious people. Take for example this website called ScienceagainstEvolution.org. The site looks like Geocities threw up all over it, and the arrangement of text can only be described as manic. It doesn’t have any actual science, but the anti-evolution part is there. Here is an example of the funny shit you’ll find there:

We don’t entirely agree with the evolutionists’ claim that it is wrong to look for data to support a theory. You rarely find something unless you are actively seeking it. There are scientists who believe there is a cure for AIDS, and they are looking for it. There is nothing wrong with that. It only becomes wrong if the desire to find the cure makes you consciously (or unconsciously) report the results incorrectly. That is, there is nothing wrong if a zealous doctor actually finds a cure for AIDS. There is something wrong if he manipulates the data to make it appear that he has found a cure when he hasn’t.

Yeah, creationists have never manipulated any data to support their insane claims…Look, you can print page after page of specific examples of missing or incomplete data, but it does not diminish the power of the theory as a whole; just as any potential falsehood in evolutionary theory does not mean creationism is the answer. What they offer in terms of explanation is a literal interpretation of a prayer book, and nothing more. It’s intellectually lazy, dishonest, and false.

If these guys are serious about treating their endeavors as science, then they have to play by its rules, and the first rule is: disproving a theory does not prove your own. The second rule is: a theory isn’t just some idea you through out there, but a complex model to explain how something works. And finally, the third rule is: you can’t point to the unexplained for proof of anything other than ignorance.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it?

I’ve often been accused of being anti-American. It’s true I love to criticize the crazy things that go on down there, but I’m well aware stupidity, ignorance and bigotry are not uniquely American. Here’s a classic example of Canadian idiocy care of James Lunney, Conservative member of Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

See? Canadians are just as stupid as Americans. We’re just less ‘in your face’ about it.

There’s more info from the New Scientist about the proposed changes to the science textbooks over in Texas, and it doesn’t look too promising. The Board voted to completely remove the age of the universe from the textbooks, and more importantly, they claimed students will not be penalized if they subscribe to a specific opinion on science. In other words, if a student answers on a test that the earth is 6000 years old, his answer won’t be considered wrong.

The article also goes on to say the real brains behind this is obviously the Discovery Institute. They desperately want teachers to get sued for teaching religion in science classrooms, especially in a state where they have a strong chance of getting a different outcome than the Dover trial.

Luckily, it’s not all gloom and darkness. Senator Rodney Ellis and Representative Garnet Coleman are trying to introduce a bill that would transfer the authority of textbook adoptions to an organization run by people who actually know something about science. The Texas School Board of Education is also having elections next year, so hopefully they put a few more scientists and a few less real estate agents and dentists.

I thought the whole Texas Board of Education nonsense was over when the creationists were narrowly defeated, but it looks like they are introducing another amendment allowing teachers to tell students there is some ‘debate’ as to the age of the universe. If you think a debate amounts to every serious scientist on this planet accepting the modern estimates at 13.5 billion years versus a group of undereducated religious morons who think it’s 6000, then yeah, it’s a debate. By that logic, I think every class should also debate if the earth is flat, and also whether or not women should be allowed to be in a public building when they are menstruating.

Unless some miracle happens, this will be allowed to pass, and then the floodgates will burst open and allow every religious whackjob with a soapbox to demand that more dogma be introduced in the science curriculum. Get your shit together, Texas. You’re literally dragging humanity down.

Who isn’t? Now just two days away from deciding what will constitute the standard science textbook in Texas, everyone should be paying attention. This is especially true since many other states often base their own curriculum on what Texas does. I didn’t know this, but these guys produce most of the teaching material for much of the south. So in that sense, this whole issue just got a lot more intense.

It seems obvious evolution is only the first of many targets for creationists. There are plenty of other subjects that would seriously be undermined under their tutelage. Cosmology, physics, and medicine are subjects these guys also feel really strongly about, and not in a good way.

I don’t want to sound melodramatic, but if you live in Texas and you aren’t ready to explode, something has to be wrong with you. When will the madness end?

If you live in Mississippi and you care whether or not your kids grow up to be smart and well educated, you should be outraged by House Bill 25, which aims to introduce this disclaimer on all biology textbooks:

The word “theory” has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

I always liked this “no one was present when life first appeared on Earth” business. It sounds so ridiculous as a way of discounting evolution I am embarrassed by it. Yeah, no one was around when the planet was formed, but you don’t see many Geology textbooks with a silly disclaimer, do you? Does someone need to be there to witness something in order for it to be considered true?

Also of note is their use of the words ‘unproven belief’ when referring to evolution. I’m not sure what they constitute proof. Apparently, all the millions of fossils, including transitional ones, DNA, and geological evidence all pointing to the soundness of evolution by natural selection is being debated! Yes, gravity is also being debated, as in no one can actually see it. It must therefore be an invention by Newton meant to make us question the notion that God is simply pushing us down on Earth because He ‘wills’ it so! Scientists and their theories, eh?