State failed to outline Bible classes for schools: I was sure the state board would give this matter the same thoughtful evaluation as it gave courses in aerobics and apparel in our public schools. In fact, the state board’s aerobics standards are specific to the point of making sure students can identify appropriate footwear. Standards for apparel courses specify that students will “apply principles of effective wardrobe planning.”

Surely the best-selling book in history, the book that hundreds of millions of Christians hold as their sacred scripture, would be given the respect and care given to aerobics and apparel.

I was wrong.

(Via Texas Freedom Network.)

When the creationist plurality currently on the state board of education loses a Baptist minister who can get an editorial like this published in the Abilene paper, you know they’ve lost a good part of their base. Texans might have an ornery, independent streak, but no one likes being laughed at. It’s time for voters to recognize the laughingstock this current BOE is making Texas, and vote appropriately at the next election.

A priest has died after trying to demonstrate how Jesus walked on water. Evangelist preacher Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle. But he drowned after walking out to sea from a beach in the capital Libreville in Gabon, west Africa. One eyewitness said: “He told churchgoers he’d had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus. “He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. “He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back.”

(Via Pharyngula.)

C’mon now. Once the water was over your head, don’t you think you’d think something might be wrong, no matter how strong your faith was? Maybe after your lungs started burning?

Stem Cells Without Embryo Loss – New York Times: Nevertheless, religious conservatives have already denounced the technique, and the President’s Council on Bioethics, in a white paper evaluating alternative ways to produce stem cells, declared this approach “ethically unacceptable.”

The technique would seem to sidestep the council’s main objection, that it is unethical to put the tiny embryo at risk for research unrelated to the welfare of the embryo. Instead of removing a cell purely for stem cell research, the company proposes to use cells already removed for diagnostic tests at fertility clinics.

The clinics routinely remove a cell from eight-cell embryos to screen them for possible genetic defects before transferring the remaining embryo into a woman. Now the company proposes to intercept these cells, allow them to divide in a laboratory dish, and then use one cell for the diagnostic test and the other to derive stem cells. The process would add no additional risk to a diagnostic procedure that already seems quite safe.

(Via mc_dork @ LiveJournal.)

So…let me get this straight. There is a process that already safely removes a stem cell from a developing embryo to perform genetic testing. The process to develop embryonic stem cells would not remove any additional cells from the embryo, but would only take the already removed cell, allow it to divide a little, and then take one of those cells to test, and use the remainder to make stem cells. Meanwhile the embryo is safe to continue growing normally.

And this is bad, and has to be opposed as a moral crusade.

Got it.

I wonder how long until Pat Robertson claims that the flooding in Massachusetts is God‘s wrath for gay marriage.

Any takers? We could set up a betting pool. Today’s 700 Club is probably too easy a guess, so any other time, through any other venue is open.

Since I seem to be in a metaphorical mood, it’s only fitting that I run across someone else of the same mind today. PZ Myers, [tag]biologist[/tag]-blogger extraordinaire, has a nice extended metaphor up on his blog. Go read:

Doors:

Here’s an entirely hypothetical scenario.

You’re in a room with two exits, marked Door A and Door B. By each is a guardian, Guardian A and Guardian B. You need to go through one of the doors.

Door A is light and flimsy, easy to open—just turn the knob and you’re through it. Reasonably enough, before charging through, you ask Guardian A what’s on the other side.

“Joy and delight, an eternal life of perfect happiness, an end to doors and constant traveling…and all you have to do is turn that little knob, and believe.”

(Via Pharyngula.)

Every once in a while you run across something online that makes you come up short. I’m sure someone else has made this insight somewhere else in the past, but it was the first time I had seen it:

God hates squid: From the comments, here’s something bizarre: creationists (at least the ones at Answers in Genesis) have defined life and it excludes squid! I have yet another reason to reject the Bible, in this case for disrespecting perfectly wonderful invertebrates.

Many scientists make the distinction that vertebrates have hemoglobin [ . . . ] and invertebrates [that] do not have red blood. As far as we’ve researched at this time, all vertebrates have hemoglobin and invertebrates do not, though there may be exceptions we are not aware of.

So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered “living” and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered “nonliving”. This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for “blood” (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for “red” (aw-dam). [ . . . ] So the logical conclusion can be made that a “living” creature is one that contains red blood.

[. . . ] What I’d really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they’d go through when it’s pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5^th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.

(Via Pharyngula.)

Well, isn’t that just fascinating? I think it is, but I’m generally considered easy to amuse. Bring it up at your next party and see if you can get the fireworks going.

Technorati Tags:
religion, science, politics, abortion

What’s this? Could there truly be a worldwide shift in the attitudes of clergy? Are we seeing the beginnings of a return the ethics of social gospel? Another story:

Kenya church in Aids apology: Kenya’s Anglican Church issues a public apology for previously shunning those with HIV/Aids.

(Via BBC News Front Page.)

Again, this is a nice turnaround to see. Now that the Church is willing to recognize AIDS as a disease and not a curse, perhaps new progress can be made in fighting its spread in Africa. Now if the Church would just treat homosexuals as human beings . . . Ah well, baby steps.

Technorati Tags:
justice, religion, Anglican Church, Africa, AIDS, Kenya, HIV, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi

Churches resist tougher immigration laws: Religious leaders are trying to recast the issue as a moral imperative.

(Via Christian Science Monitor.)

This is what I like to see: churches getting involved in public policy on the truly compassionate side. When churches attempt to advance debate by taking the side of those who lack power, they truly are taking the moral high ground. For too long some churches in this country seem to have hijacked the “moral” position to advance narrow interests and spread fear and near xenophobia.

Technorati Tags:
justice, religion, politics, immigration, Catholic Church, society

Newsvine – Robertson Finds Radical Muslims ‘Satanic’: Robertson’s Virginia Beach-based network did not include his remarks when it posted the program on its Web site, however. That decision was made out of concern Robertson’s remarks could be misinterpreted if viewed out of context, Watts said.

(Via Newsvine.com.)

I was talking to a friend who said this is the kind of material that John Stewart would just play, look into the camera with a blank expression, and say, “I got nothing.”

Really, if you want to know how not to sound like an idiot and a reactionary thug, in or out of context, it probably helps not to say things like: “the goal of Islam [ . . . ] whether you like it or not, is world domination.”

Yeah.

Technorati Tags:
terror, religion, middle east, Pat Robertson

Several related stories for this post. There’s been much discussion lately about education in this country, and (happily) at the moment rational forces are winning out over those that would dilute the foundations of a rationally-based humanistic liberal arts and sciences education with not-so-sly “teach critical thinking” attacks that are designed to sow confusing, pseudo-science, and narrowly constructed programs based upon one faith.

Let’s be perfectly frank: I’m all for student’s learning to think critically. I’m uncomfortable with the direction education has taken recently, with so much pressure being placed on teachers to perform to a certain standard that they feel forced to “teach the test.” I don’t think that this is a healthy turn for education in general, and certainly won’t improve the quality of education that our students receive in public schools.

The best teachers are not those who churn out classroom after classroom of students who meet the minimum standard, like so many replaceable cogs that have been machined to within a certain tolerance. The best teachers are those who can inspire their students and instill a lifelong love of learning. The best teachers are, unfortunately, rare; and it doesn’t help to attract new blood to the field by cutting their healthcare, paying wages insufficient to repay the cost of obtaining a modern education, or basically undercutting their authority. Society should esteem the teacher to the level of the doctor, the lawyer, the stock broker. Only then will the profession regularly attract the talent that our children deserve.

Having said that, students need to think critically, but that is not at all what advocates of ID and their allies, evangelical Christians want when they propose these standards. Anyone who believes otherwise is either the world’s biggest rube or lying.

Thankfully, some of the latest fronts in this battle have been going the way of rationalism and naturalism. There’s the much written about story in Dover, and also this, from Ohio:

The Panda’s Thumb: Science: Ohio School Board Boots Out ID: Indeed, while some have denied that the Dover decision would be a Waterloo for Intelligent Design, the Dover ruling seems to have played a significant role in the stunning reversal of the Ohio State Board of Education.

What surely must have helped is Judge Jones’ observation that ‘teaching the controversy’ is just an insincere effort to introduce Intelligent Design into school curricula. Also, the board members were shown how independent scientists had described the lesson plan in very unflattering terms. Several of the board members, when confronted with the evidence, changed their position.

(Via The Panda’s Thumb.)

But we certainly must not allow recent victory’s to blind us to the larger dangers . Unlike twenty to thirty years from now, many of the current generation of power-brokers had the benefit of the greatest increase in the broadening of higher education ever, and additionally benefited from massive public investment into public science education spurred on by the launch of Sputnik.

Today, the student is under attack, via those who would corrupt the light that science shows through a cloudy lens of superstition. They lost on Creation Science in the 80s, and, so far, have lost on Intelligent Design. But every setback means they only reformulate their attacks to be that much more clever, that much more subtle. Intelligent Design is already old news; it is the tactic of the 90s. The tactic of yesterday was to teach the controversy and to teach students to “critically evaluate” evolution. The tactic of tomorrow will be enshrining complete avoidance:

Higher Education in Arizona:: An Arizona State Senate committee recommended on Wednesday that the Senate pass the following bill (paragraph break added):

Each university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents and each community college under the jurisdiction of a community college district shall adopt procedures by which students who object to any course, coursework, learning material or activity on the basis that it is personally offensive shall be provided without financial or academic penalty an alternative course, alternative coursework, alternative learning materials or alternative activity.

Objection to a course, coursework, learning material or activity on the basis that it is personally offensive includes objections that the course, coursework, learning material or activity conflicts with the student’s beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.

That’s right: If you’re a student at an Arizona public college or university, you would be able to get out of any requirement by simplying showing that you find it morally offensive.

(Via The Volokh Conspiracy.)

What a frightening prospect, that the student should be in total control of the curriculum. Look, it’s not that students don’t deserve to have a certain degree of input into their own education, but neither is it the case that they deserve veto power. True education is not always pleasant, and to be worthwhile, must sincerely challenge preconceived notions and deeply held beliefs. Beliefs that survive this crucible process are valuable and should be kept. Beliefs that cannot stand up to rational inquiry and introspection . . .

Which brings me around to another event that’s been much discussed lately, but that frankly doesn’t interest me very much (sorry): the Great Cartoon Controversy of 2006. About all I want to say about it is that the reaction of radical Muslims to this event, even if completely sincere, has only further strengthened my resolve in the above point. If your faith can’t withstand a few scribbles on a piece of paper, then how resolute is your faith in the first place?

Mohammed Cartoons in the Classroom, in the News:: The Colorado State University Collegian reports on what happened when Professor James Lindsey showed three of the Mohammed cartoons — “includ[ing] a satirical sketch of the prophet wearing a bomb on top of his head and another that depicted him wielding a sword, surrounded by women” — to his about 125-student Islamic history class.

Zaki Safar, vice president of the Muslim Student Association, said the cartoons make the holy figure out to be a terrorist and a “sex maniac” who oppresses women.

“The one with the bomb on his head was the worst,” the Saudi Arabia native said, still teary-eyed just after 2 p.m., when class let out. “I cried with tears in the middle of the class.”

Other students chuckled at the cartoons or were puzzled at the reaction, he said. [ . . . ]

Students interviewed on campus Thursday afternoon generally supported the professor’s decision, so long as the presentation was tactful…. But Safar was firm in his belief that the blasphemy should simply not have been shown. [ . . . ]

“My job is not to bring people together,” Lindsay said. “My job is to teach history. History is not pleasant in many cases, and I made it very clear in class that this is America and you all have the right to offend but you do not have the right to not be offended.”

(Via The Volokh Conspiracy.)

And rightly so. Lindsay is a teacher, and if he’s doing his job, especially at the collegiate level, then he’s challenging his students in many different ways and on many different levels. This means that sometimes, as a student, you’re going to be faced with confronting a cherished belief and learning to examine it critically. If you make it through college without doing so, then you ought to demand your money back, because your time was certainly wasted.

Some of the creepiest tactics that the zealots have begun to employ are total avoidance of even the mention of subjects that don’t mesh with their beliefs. The bill in Arizona is certainly one manifestation of this, but it’s not the only one, and it’s not limited to the U.S.:

Bible-quoting science students on rise – World – smh.com.au: A GROWING number of science students on British university campuses are challenging the theory of evolution, saying that Darwin was wrong. [ . . . ]

A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who asked not to be named, said the Koran was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin says. “There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It’s only a theory. Man is the wonder of God’s creation.”

(Via The Sydney Morning Herald.)

How can you make it through college and into medical school believing this? “No scientific evidence?” That’s nothing more than total, complete, willful ignorance. It is a direct, personal choice to ignore the education which has been granted to you out of nothing more than supreme arrogance. You know what is right, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Your own biases and prejudices are superior to results derived from methods constructed to, as much as possible, eliminate bias and prejudice.

Speaking of arrogance:

Richard Cohen, advocate for ignorance: Here is a serious problem:

Here’s the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it. You will never need to know—never mind want to know—how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later—or something like that. Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column or even a thank-you note—or reason even a little bit. If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side. But algebra? Please.

That’s Richard Cohen, who is supposedly the ‘liberal’ columnist for the Washington Post, giving advice to a young girl.

It’s outrageous.

Because Richard Cohen is ignorant of elementary mathematics, he can smugly tell a young lady to throw away any chance being a scientist, a technician, a teacher, an accountant; any possibility of contributing to science and technology, of even being able to grasp what she’s doing beyond pushing buttons. It’s Richard Cohen condescendingly telling someone, ‘You’re as stupid as I am; give up.’ And everything he said is completely wrong.

(Via Pharyngula.)

Go read the rest, too. PZ Myers is really quite good. But this highlights the challenge facing education today. Too many people are focused too heavily on the end results and not enough on the process used to reach those results. Too many people look at the process behind creating a great doctor, a great programmer, a great scientist, a great teacher, and conclude that the book knowledge alone is what confers that ability.

But that’s not it at all; it could not be further from the case. Great thinkers and teachers gain their ability from the totality of education. That’s why teaching the test will never make our kids the best and brightest in the world. Results-oriented approaches sacrifice the depth in process that generates the truly great.

Of course, the damage might already be done:

Reporters Find Science Journals Harder to Trust, but Not Easy to Verify: News organizations say they are starting to look at science journals a bit more skeptically after fabricated research was published.

(Via NYT > Science.)

It’s widely acknowledged that the news media collectively has been especially lacking and vacuous these last several years. That it should even require statement that critical examination of science journals by the media is an alarming indication of the media’s lack of critical inquiry generally.

So what’s the solution? Maybe this administration, damage though it’s done, has been something of a wake-up call to the forces of rational thought. Maybe it’s enough that we’ve seen how bad it can be, or at least that we’ve been shown the path down which we could to days best left in the past. The school board election in Dover, PA is a step in the right direction. The religious right in this country began their march to power by running in every local election they could, and sooner or later they started winning. And so can we.

Technorati Tags:
education, religion, news, science, politics, intelligent design, evolution