Unlike other commentators I am not going to discuss the fact that Republican Senator John McCain has picked the former beauty queen and hockey-mom Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Excepting this: it is a risky move, designed to try and pick up the Hillary Clinton women's vote and give the Republicans a greater appeal by picking someone younger than McCain and a woman. Given her lack of experience it may well give the Democrats the edge. Its a calculated risk by the Republicans though and it remains to be seen if it helps McCain to the Whitehouse.

Place your bets.

What I'd rather discuss is Sarah Palin's dangerous views:-

What I don't agree with is Palin's disregard for the climate change argument and man-made global warming. She wanted to sue the federal government for making polar bears an endangered species.

What I don't agree with is Palin's policy of teaching both creationism and evolution in Science classes.

Incredibly, Sarah Palin is the daughter of a Science teacher.

McCain also advocates teaching both, but at least he'd only teach evolution in a Science class. He is however linked to groups teaching Intelligent Design, creationism by another name.

It just concerns me that here we have a Vice President candidate that thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

And she's on the same ticket as a 72 year old running for President in one of the most powerful countries in the world. (A 72 year old who may not be as pro-creationist as Palin but is willing to put the arguments in schools.)

I dread to think what education policies Sarah Palin might put through if she did make President, if McCain stood down with ill-health or whatever.

We might go the same way as the dinosaurs.

From what I have read about her thus far, this is what I know about her:

1) She is pretty
2) She hunts and fishes
3) She has promoted teaching intelligent design, a sham response from Crazy Christians to the serious and well-proven theory of evolution
4) She is tough... because she has taken on the rigid Republican establishment of Alaska? Is that serious? In the definition of "Alaska" that pops up on my computer's dictionary, the most significant feature of Alaska is that OIL was found there one year before it was granted statehood. Need I say more. So, her advocacy for oil drilling in Alaska combined with her LACK of belief in global warming shows how vapid of a choice she really is.

I get it, she plays well with Christian conservatives. That is her single attribute that seem politically advantageous. But I think her weaknesses far outweigh her strengths. But I'm not a professional political strategist, so what do I know. Republicans aren't dumb. I assume they have formulated this pick from some obscure Rovian formula.

I just don't think she's going to cut it. Period.

*sigh*

What the hell is wrong with people?

Ms Squeaky spouts her rhetoric about something - not really sure what, but her name is Palin - that's PAY-Lin. She is from Alaska, that's near Canada for those in the US who don't have a clue who she is.

She is under investigation and only met John McCain once, you could see the love in his eyes when he introduced her - he was so nervous it must have been like the first time he shagged Cindy.

She is a woman who is, surprisingly, against women's rights. That will get all the Hillary Clinton supporters on-board, then.

She is a member of the PTA - well was - before coming a mayor. Oh - and she sold an aeroplane, and stopped a bridge being built. GO SARAH!

Now - McCain is 72, happy birthday John - that means if he drops dead, she will become president.

Joe Biden could take on the mantel if anything should happen to Obama - but the Beauty queen, as president? Erm...OK! :shock:

Not that this really means anything - what she also spouts is that children - in America - should be taught Creationism in school. Yep - that is correct. This is what she says:

And earlier that year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

This, when you really, really think about it means, taking into account that McCain is going to fill the Supreme Court with right-wingers, will mean that evolution will have to be taught at the side of Creationism. That will bring all those Hillary suppoters over, then!? Erm...nope.

So is it that she was brought on-board to keep the evangelical up to speed and want to vote, not for him but for her. Did he bring her in because she is a woman? As my wife says: "Did he think he could replace one vagina with another and get the same respect?"

Says it all really.

As of today - I do feel sorry for those who wish to vote Republican - I think John McCain, the maverick(?) has lost his marbles!

This Post!

The challenge that Florida Citizens for Science posted, to provide help to science classrooms that were in need of supplies, has been met! "

Here is what we did to help Florida science education:

Safety goggles are going to Claude Pepper Elem School, Miami.
Preserved animal specimens for biology “show and tell” are going to Edgewater High School, Orlando.
A set of magnets is going to Royal Palm Charter School, Palm Bay.
Five microscopes are going to Quail Hollow Elementary School, Wesley Chapel.
Impact cars, a projectile launcher and other related lab equipment is going to Avon Park.
A stereo microscope is going to Country Oaks Elementary School, Labelle. "

I am so excited! :-) Thanks to everyone who donated! You are Awesome! :-D

From a LiveScience report on the study:

"What we found in sponges though were the building blocks for nerves, something we never expected to find."

[...]

Degnan and colleagues studied a sea sponge called Amphimedon queenslandica. "What we have done is try to find the molecular building blocks of nerves, or what may be called the nerve's ancestor the proto-neuron," Degnan said. They found sets of these genes in sponges.

"But what was really cool," he said, "is we took some of these genes and expressed them in frogs and flies and the sponge gene became functional — the sponge gene directed the formation of nerves in these more complex animals.

Palin’s conservative credentials certainly aren’t in question. Among other things, she has backed the teaching of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. “I am a proponent of teaching both [evolution and intelligent design]," Palin said in a debate during her run for the governor’s office. "And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution."

"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

"His" theories of evolution? The always ready and reliable dating method of "ask children how old things look to them?" I'd like to hear a little more about exactly what her father taught, because while hardly indicative of anything, this little statement sets off a few red flags.

Of course, maybe this is a reason to vote for McCain: the VP slot has about as little influence on education policy as any major political position, which is a win-win for students in Alaska.

In any case, the platform of Palin's own party is solidly, undeniably creationist.

The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

Palin said at the time (when running to, in part, hold sway over the state's education policy) that she hadn't really given much thought to the issue. I wonder if that's changed?

Those who belong to that school of thought labeled Intelligent Design typically describe themselves as Christian, sometimes Jewish, and sometimes there is only an impression of a vague Theism. In any case, most of these thinkers would likely claim to believe in a Creator who is an all-powerful and all-knowing God. Yet, they think to understand the Lord's work and His thoughts using what can be readily learned in less than two years of modestly difficult college work -- a little calculus and some probability and statistics, a little chemistry and some astronomy and physics.

Do these thinkers imagine God's thoughts and the possibilities open to Him as a Creator to be so limited? Math is hard. Physics is hard. Philosophy and literary studies are hard. Understanding God's acts of Creation is all of that plus one hell of a lot harder. Anyone who thinks the Creator's thoughts and acts can be understood by simply applying a few equations from Probability Theory 101 is deluding himself and insulting God.

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

Afarensis: Intelligent Design and the Alaska Governor's Race.

---

Nice.  And she can even use McCain as a specimen (hey-yo!).

The more I look into this lady, it looks like she's a fundy reformer.  Doing some good stuff on the corruption-side (well, one good thing).

Frankly, it seems she could do the U.S. the best work by staying in Alaska and fighting the oil companies there.

===

More info on this one here.

Marcelo Duarte of the Santa Catarina state environmental police said nearly 200 washed up since Sunday, and told the Associated Press that the oil probably leaked from a large ship and police say they are trying to determine the culprit.

Source

155 Penguins have been found alive and are being treated.

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin thinks drilling in the arctic can be done safely without much impact on wildlife and beauty.

The Governor, like the Alaskan Governors before her, is extremely passionate about how Alaska holds the answers to much of America’s energy dilemma and that Alaskans have been shouting this solution for decades. Palin strongly supports opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR to oil and gas development as well as environmentally responsible development of the outer continental shelf (OCS). ...

Source

Which leads me to point out something that I'm sure people don't consider. If we start drilling in the arctic, we will have to open shipping lanes which will further endanger wildlife. ...

... the biggest threat may well come from the captain of a single-hulled, crude oil tanker who tries to save time and fuel by taking a shortcut through the Northwest Passage. If that ship runs aground or is crushed by melting ice spilling out of the High Arctic, it could make the two-year, $2 billion clean-up of the Exxon Valdez look like a kitchen spill. ...

Source

If McCain is elected, let's hope he stays alive long enough to keep her in check.

EDIT to POST: This has just been brought to my attention ... She thinks it's OK for "Other theories" to be taught beside evolution.

Source

I can't say that I'm surprised.

I'm writing today to officially announce my candidacy for President Of The United States...in 2016.

I feel that since I don't have any "political experience" or "millions of dollars" the time to get started is now. I may not "know what's best" for this country, or have your "best interests" at heart but I'll make a damn fine President. Let me outline some of my policies below.

• The more money you make, the higher your taxes will be. The wealthy are too greedy. The poor need help. 'nuff said
• I will increase money to fund domestic social services to help those who really need it. At the same time I will increase investigations into fakers and fraudsters. Being fat will no longer be considered a disability.
• Evolution will be the only thing kids learn in school. No "Intelligent" Design, no Creationism.
• I will reduce the violence on TV, but increase the titties on TV.
• No sex scandals! I'm single, and probably will be once elected. Right now Brittney Spears gets a good idea more than I get laid. Once I'm President though, bitches will be lined up around the block. It'll be a pussy buffet, and I'm hungry. By making you aware of this now, it won't be a scandal when some barely legal pop star leaves the White House with a Russian Tattoo on her cheek.
• I will solve the Israel-Palestine issue in one meeting. I don't know how just yet, but I will.
• I will legalize gay marriage.
• I will send gays to Iran. I was deeply saddened to learn that Iran has no gays. They are missing out.
• I will send a man to Mars. It will be Rush Limbaugh, and it will be a one way trip
• I will make it legal to abort your children up to their 18th birthday, or 21st if you're paying for their schooling and they're still fucking up.
• Casual Fridays will include toplessness.
• Bloodhound Gang will be the official band of the U.S.
• I will invade China. Delicious Chinese food is expensive, this will lower the prices dramatically.
• I will move the White House to Phoenix. Fuck winter.

• I will legalize all porn featuring performers at least 18 years of age. No more stupid obscenity trials. If you wanna see a midget getting double fisted by Hulk Hogan while a Japanese schoolgirl pukes on her, that's your business.

This outlines my plans for the United States. I have no doubt you'll vote for me.

Thank you and god bless.

Technorati Tags: barack, obama, president, united, states, 2016, money, taxes, wealthy, greedy, evolution, creationism, intelligent, design, violence, titties, boobs, breasts, sex, scandals, buffet, bitches, russian, tattoo, israel, palestine, abortion, Bloodhound, Gang, China, Chinese, food, White, House, Phoenix, winter, porn, midgets, hulk, hogan, vomit, puke, japanese, schoolgirl
Site Search Tags: barack, obama, president, united, states, 2016, money, taxes, wealthy, greedy, evolution, creationism, intelligent, design, violence, titties, boobs, breasts, sex, scandals, buffet, bitches, russian, tattoo, israel, palestine, abortion, Bloodhound, Gang, China, Chinese, food, White, House, Phoenix, winter, porn, midgets, hulk, hogan, vomit, puke, japanese, schoolgirl

Unfortunately, work has gotten in the way of me writing too much about this right now, but it caught my eye while I was browsing the news. Kevin Rudd has come out as saying he believes there is an intelligent cause for the existence of the universe (ok, not just any old intelligence, but the Anglican god himself).

Kevin Rudd, so far, has been a more progressive Prime Minister than our previous one (John Howard), what with the Apology to the Stolen Generations and ratifying Kyoto and all, but he hasn't had much time to show us all if he's actually much the same as ol' Johnny. I don't have a problem if my Prime Minister considers himself religious. I really really don't. As long as his religion doesn't influence policy. How long before his conscience demands that Intelligent Garbage be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution? Some may scoff and say that would never happen in Oz, but this statement from Ruddy scares me a little:

If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I've got to say it [creation of the universe] probably wouldn't have happened.

So I think there is an intelligent mind at work.

Oh, right! He used the phrase 'mathematical probabilities', so he must know what he's talking about.

This makes me angry. More later, as I have some deadlines to meet!

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the ordered nature of the cosmos convinces him of the existence of God.

Mr Rudd, a regularly practising Anglican, was on Friday asked on Fairfax Radio in Brisbane to give his single biggest argument in favour of the existence of God.

"As you know I'm a believer and I've never pretended not to be and I respect those who have no religious belief - it's a free country," Mr Rudd said.

"For me, it's ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation.

"You can't simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time.

"If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I've got to say it probably wouldn't have happened.

"So I think there is an intelligent mind at work."

Mr Rudd said in his entire political life he had never been asked in a media interview to prove the existence of God.

"You ... have a world first," Mr Rudd said.

Just keep governing like a secularist ok?

Satellite images have shown that the polar ice coverage has been decreasing steadily since 1978.

Current ice coverage in the Arctic has already reached the second absolute minimum since observations from space began 30 years ago. Because the extent of ice cover is usually at its lowest about mid-September, this year's minimum could still fall to set another record low.

Some scientists claim it could be "ice free" as early as 2040.

In 2009, ESA will make another significant contribution research into the cryosphere with the launch of CryoSat-2. The observations made over the three-year lifetime of the mission will provide conclusive evidence on the rates at which ice thickness and cover is diminishing.

And even though our Polar Bears are beginning to struggle for existence, On June 19th, President Bush gave me another reason to vote for Obama. He ...

"... renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ..."

Source

Even though McCain realizes how awful that would be and wants to keep the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in place. I just don't trust big oil to back off the republican party.

The only safe bet is to vote democrat this year.

Louisiana has launched a flagship we can only hope doesn't lead other rafts of the conservative right down the wrong stream.  It seems teachers in school districts in this state will be allowed a free-for-all to answer questions and provide additional materials to supplement their teachings of evolution in their science classrooms.

This law, while it doesn't specifically sanction evolution, intelligent design or creationism, does allow teachers to follow their respective consciences, as it were, and perceptions of needs and questions, to provide what is viewed as "critical" discussion in their classrooms.  It is said this will foster skepticism and critical thought in the students.  Now most people know the majority view of Darwin's theory in this part of The Bible Belt in the United States.

Just how much critical thinking can occur in classes filled with students who come from fundamental Christian homes?  Further, how equipped is a teacher from this area -- with the obvious majority-rule value systems -- to moderate such discussions?  We know how uncritically children accept what they are taught in school.  Are we parents not often told by our kids that their teachers know more than we do?

Gladly in my state, a law that would support the teaching of intelligent design was overturned in 2005.  In my children's school, as a matter of fact, creationism is taught in a World Civilizations class as part of a survey of comparative religions, as history shows there are creation myths in many world religions.  Now this I would call intelligent design of curriculum, and I'd come to expect it from this school -- a progressive and small school where parents like me take their children to learn -- not to be indoctrinated by perceived morality "norms".  Darwinian evolution is taught in biology classes just as it is -- an unchallenged theory in the biological sciences.

But what of other states where the ruling classes and leaders are religious fundamentalists?  If sloppy legislation such as what has been recently proposed in Louisiana is seen as a reasonable solution to the evolution/intelligent design/creationism schism, what should we come to expect of our children's education systems?  If teachers in less homogeneous populations find it necessary to influence a discourse to critical discussion of Darwinian evolution to their leanings of conscience, what should a concerned parent expect of systems that support this?  Should a parent be left to patch the science of biology its child brings home?  Should it not be the other way around?  If a parent is religious, should a child not be taught creationism or intelligent at home, if the family is so inclined?

This is a problem with the religious in our societies today.  They abdicate themselves of the responsibility to teach their children the philosophical principles of their traditions and turn to the school systems to teach their children what they think society at large should believe.  They express angst that religion is disappearing in our societies and being replaced by the evils of secularism.  Do they not have enough confidence in the strength of their family values that they can teach their children adequately and have them carry their moral values into society?  Has religion become something more than a teacher of moral values? -- and if so, what??

Education is a function of our society to teach the sciences, humanities, history, social studies, and skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic.  Religion belongs in churches and homes.  If the religious will become so protective of their beliefs that they will not allow critical scrutiny and examination of the same, as we do with politics, consumer affairs, and the like, what makes them think we should allow their beliefs in our education systems?  And as varied as our cultures are becoming, which religion, if any at all, has the right to rubber-stamp our civic institutions?

I would not ask that religions disappear from our cultures.  I would just ask that they remain within the groups of traditions and within the families who choose to practice their ways.  They live in societies in our nation (the United States) that protect their right to believe as they will.  Our nation does not, however give them the right to spread their beliefs into our civic institutions.  And they should not expect our nation to provide laws that allow them to push their beliefs onto others, which is essentially what laws that positively sanction the teaching of religion in our science classes do.

. . . embrace curiosity -- never stop wondering

Är du skeptisk till evolutionsteorin och letar efter argument på internet?

Det har nog undgått artikelns författare att evolutionsteorin är en av de bäst underbyggda vetenskapliga teorierna, någonsin. Den är bevisad om och om igen. Att leta argument mot den är ett ogjort arbete, men det hindrar inte folk från att försöka, och det florerar en multitud av missuppfattningar, missförstånd och felaktigheter kring evolutionsteorin.

Att vara skeptisk mot evolution är att vara okunnig om den; att inte förstå den; att inte förstå bevisen. Evolution är inte en öppen fråga; den är ett faktum.

I artikeln står det också, lite lätt missnöjt, att det

[t]ill exempel finns massor av information om evolutionen [anm: på Wikipedia] - men knappt något alls om skapelseläran.

Ja, det finns mycket att skriva om en så välstuderad naturlig mekanism, men väldigt lite finns i faktaväg om skrönor och sagor, och seriös forskning för att bevisa fablerna är svår att finna. Biologer och vetenskapsmän lyckas däremot med att utöka bevisfloran.

Man kan, lite retoriskt, fråga sig var de vetenskapliga bevisen för skapelseberättelsen finns. Ingen presenterar några sådana, av den enkla anledningen att de inte existerar. Det är lönlöst att fylla spaltmetrar med kreationistargument som bemötts ett flertal gånger, och inga håller för granskning.

Det tipsas också i artikeln om att

[...] kunskapstörstande [kan ]hitta information om till exempel intelligent design [...]

Visst, läs gärna om det, men kom ihåg att det inte är vetenskap, om ens pseudovetenskap.

Dagen.se presenterar en egen tolkning av ordet "alternativ", och den är alltså av betydelsen "felaktig".

Det ironiska med information av och för fundamentalister är att den ibland inte går att skilja från parodi, vilket gör att även Conservapedia brottas med uppgiften att sålla det parodiska från mer blygsamt nonsens.

Conservapedia rekommenderas dock som underhållning, som ett slags textbaserat Fox News. Varning: Frustration och irritation kan uppstå vid läsning!

We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

On the flip side, however, science fiction's use of ID has only underscored how extremely different this world would be if life actually were designed:

What these authors are doing is even more tricky, if you look at their work as a sneaky critique of ID theory. Essentially they're saying, "Let's invent a universe where ID is truth. Oh, that would be the universe that science will build for us." And ultimately, in these novels, the Designer is not a God or even gods, but instead a whole bunch of sentient creatures harnessing the power of science and technology to design worlds and bodies intelligently.

This is the truly proscience version of ID theory: The notion that humans will eventually live in an ID universe, where our bodies and everything around us is designed. Only it will have been designed by us, in the service (hopefully) of bettering humanity. We won't be the playthings of some third party entity whose motivations are unclear. In the end, we will become our own intelligent designers.

Sci-Fi tries intelligent design, finds it vastly different from an evolved world

That's the trouble with trying to get people to take your pseudoscience seriously--they actually may do so.

I think this is a very positive development. On blogs and the like we often point up the fact that this biological machines, systems, and organs are not at all like what any intelligent designer would create, and this is all well and good. But your typical IDist simply runs straight into denial. Book-long stories about actual designed worlds, on the other hand, should get through to people who are immune to the science just the sorts of differences there actually are between the wide-ranging possibilities inherent in design, and the constrained world of heredity and limited change with which animal evolution was produced.

In other words, we have the arguments. Sci-fi writers can get through to people on an emotional level. And even if the IDists won't read their stories, we can always bring up the fact that when people take design seriously and imagine worlds in which intelligence is responsible for complexity, the results are nothing like the life that we know now.