The bad news about evolution: every Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Texas supports teaching creationism in public schools. Of course.

January 30, 2014 • 9:13 am

Professing belief in creationism (or rejection of evolution) is becoming a litmus test for Republican candidates for office. Do you remember the 2007 Republican presidential debates, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they didn’t accept evolution? Here’s the clip showing the three out of eleven who raise their hands, effectively swearing that they’re either idiots or lying panderers. At least John McCain had the guts to affirm that he accepted evolution.

But it’s getting worse. From the Houston Chronicle we get this bit of depressing—but unsurprising—news about evolution. All four Republican candidates for Lieutenant Governor have come out in favor of teaching creationism in the public schools.  And this after Texas has just rejected any incursion of creationism into public-school textbooks! I’m told that in Texas, unlike other states, the lieutenant governor has extraordinary power, but I haven’t checked this out.

You can see the debate here, which includes other issues, but the Chronicle has handily summarized the candidates’ answers to the question posed by Texas Public Radio:

Does creationism belong in schools? Would you like to see creationism in textbooks?

The answers. Prepare to weep (my emphases):

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson: Creationism, intelligent design, evolution should be taught in school. Our students should be armed with knowledge about creationism, intelligent design, evolution. Let the parents and ministers decide what should prevail in child’s life. … Comparative religion – kids ought to learn about other religions. So they feel more comfortable with their own. … Should be tolerant.

Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples: Don’t need to apologize for being a Christian. Creationism can be taught in our schools. It is something most Texans believe in. … Pay good teachers more. Lt. Gov Dewhurst is the first lieutenant governor to have a personal security detail. … We should expose kids to creationism. … We have many needs in our schools. We should end culture of teaching to the test. … Shouldn’t just throw money at education. To Dewhurst, he said: Your loss to Ted Cruz says you’re out of touch.

State Sen. Dan Patrick: We teach kids in church on Sunday about Jesus. On school, on Monday, they can’t talk about Jesus. They must be confused. We have yielded to secular left. I believe we’ve been blessed by God as a nation. When it comes to creationism, not only should it be taught, it should be triumphed, it should be heralded. Brought Christmas back into school; tired of “winter holidays.” … We have a crisis in our inner-city with dropout rates. We must have school choice. It is the hub of the wheel. We have no future in Texas if we don’t have an educated workforce. School choice would improve inner-city education.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: I believe in creationism but I understand it alone cannot be taught. And I am fine with teaching creationism, intelligent design, evolution. Let students, with advice and counsel, decide for themselves which one they believe in. All three should be taught. As far as public education system, I am proud of improving public education over the years. Proud of passing a landmark school finance bill in 2006 – we put a record amount of new funds in. … I want to see merit pay. … Intelligent design, creationism and evolution should all be taught. We reduced teaching to the test.

In other words, since teaching creationism—whether Biblical or in the form of intelligent design—is illegal everywhere it has been contested in the U.S., all four candidates are advocating that their state violate our Constitution. Come on, Texas, why do you breed people like this?

The proper answer, even if you are a creationist, is “Well, I personally believe in creationism, but I also believe in good science, and the courts have declared that teaching religious theories of origins in the public schools is illegal. I believe in enforcing the law, not my personal religious beliefs.” But you won’t see these panderers saying that.

The Four Stooges:

Picture 1
Republican Texas lieutenant governor candidates, from left, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Sen. Dan Patrick, Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. (AP)

h/t: Michael

The (mostly) good news: Darwin Day

January 30, 2014 • 7:04 am

The good news is that Darwin Day (February 12) is approaching, marking the day that Our Saviour (that’s for the Discovery Institute to distort) was born in 1809—the exact same day that Abe Lincoln emerged from the womb.  As you know, universities and science organizations throughout the U.S. have programs on evolution to mark the day, which is a good thing.  There are gazillions of them this year, and if you go to the International Darwin Day webpage you can link to everything.

All the Darwin Day events are collected on one separate page, and you can click on the location to find out what and where things are happening.

On the main webpage you’ll find a news item about how U.S. congressman Rush Holt (a Democrat, of course), has introduced a resolution in Congress designating Feb. 12 as an official “Darwin Day” in the U.S. We already have a Day of Prayer (contested by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and still in the courts), so wouldn’t Darwin Day be even more appropriate?

In anticipation of the 205th birthday of Charles Darwin, celebrated around the world on February 12th as Darwin Day, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (NJ) re-introduced a resolution today “expressing support for the designation of February 12 as Darwin Day.” The American Humanist Association worked with Rep. Holt and his staff on H. Res. 467, also known as the Darwin Day resolution, and will be sending copies of Darwin Day Celebration, a booklet on celebrating Darwin Day and highlighting Darwin’s contributions to science and humanity, to all 535 members of Congress to encourage support of the resolution.

“Charles Darwin is even more than the author of the theory of evolution, as great as that is,” Rep. Holt said.  “He represents a way of thinking, a philosophy, a methodology.  It was his thirst for knowledge and his scientific approach to discovering new truths that enabled him to develop the theory of evolution.  This lesson, about the value of scientific thinking, is almost as valuable as the theory he uncovered.”

The headline notes that the resolution is “re-introduced,” and we know what that means:

The Darwin Day resolution was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 2011 by former Rep. Pete Stark of California, the first and only open atheist to serve in Congress. It was reintroduced by Rep. Holt in 2013.

This resolution has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, even though it is far worthier than a useless Day of Prayer. The Congress will pass a law mandating socialized healthcare for all Americans before it would ever honor Darwin.

Meanwhile, I looked up the Darwin Day events hosted by the College of Charleston in South Carolina. I participated in these last year, giving a lecture at the College on the evidence for evolution, and then debating a Lutheran theologian at the historic Circular Congregational Church on the topic “Are science and religion compatible?” As I wrote at the time, my host for both events, Dr. Rob Dillon of the College, attended that church and took the opportunity after the debate to try to humiliate me in public for questioning accommodationism—even though he’d invited me to engage in that very debate.  When I looked up what Dillon was arranging in Charleston this year, I found these events for the College’s Darwin Day (to be sure, there are a handful of straight science talks and one talk questioning intelligent design). But note that these are three of only seven events:

Picture 1How does one live “religiously as a naturalist” given that religion abjures naturalism? Yes, you can be a “naturalist” by studying nature, but this is a Deepity that ignores the palpable truth that an immaterial god for which there’s no evidence is not part of “naturalism.”

Note that this next “conversation” (i.e., kumbaya lovefest between faith and religion) is held at a church, and of course there will be not the slightest questioning of the harmony between faith and Darwinism (4 of the 5 participants are ministers or theologians):

Picture 2

This next one is absoutely execrable, for it is clearly aimed to enable religion. Do you suppose the answer would be “no”? Even if it’s not, how could genetic studies or brain imaging possibly give any information about whether God exists? All they could show is whether humans are hard-wired for belief in God or have some parts of the brain that light up only when the divine is mentioned (two possibilities that I doubt, and which in any case gives no information on the reality of God).Picture 3

In Charleston, Darwin Day has been transmogrified into Darwin and Jesus Day, and I would never again participate in events there—not as long as God in on the menu. Darwin would roll over in his grave were he to see celebrations like this in his honor.

h/t: Diane G.

Thursday: Hili dialogue

January 30, 2014 • 3:40 am

Hili is getting a bit cranky as Editor in Chief, as her staff keeps interrupting her naps with questions.

A: Hili, look at this article. Are we taking it?
Hili: Decide by yourself. If a person cannot delegate she is not fit to run an organization.
(Photo: Sarah Lawson)
1782112_10202639478335454_33463468_nIn Polish:
Ja: Hili, spójrz na ten artykuł, bierzemy to?
Hili: Podejmij sam decyzję, jak ktoś nie potrafi delegować uprawnień, to znaczy, że nie umie zarządzać firmą.

A sugar glider

January 29, 2014 • 6:25 pm
 
 

We’ve recently seen videos and photos of flying squirrels from the New World, but here’s a very distant relative, the sugar glider from Australia (Petaurus breviceps). Flying squirrels are placental mammals, while sugar gliders are marsupials, and have evolved their morphology and behavior completely independently of flying squirrels. This is in fact a remarkable case of convergent evolution, one that I mention in WEIT.

Matthew Cobb sent me a gif, and why not share it? Note that this is a long one, with three different aerial displays:

View post on imgur.com

Sugar gliders are popular pets, even in the U.S., but I’ve never had one, and would be wary of it. They are, after all, wild animals that are completely arboreal. If you’ve had one, weigh in below.

Iowa State University puts Bibles in guest rooms, riling up the FFRF

January 29, 2014 • 1:40 pm

This may not seem like a biggie, but I really do see violations of the First Amendment as a slippery slope.  Every time the Ten Commandments is displayed on public property, every time creationism is taught without opposition in public-school science classes, every time a manger goes up on a courthouse lawn, it makes it easier for further (and perhaps worse) violations to occur in the future. That’s why it’s important to quickly nip in the bud any incursion of religion into the U.S. government.  The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF, the Official Website Atheist Organization™) is superb at this: they try to stop First Amendment violations at the outset, avoiding lengthy and expensive court battles. It’s important to recognize that doing so doesn’t just protect nonbelievers—it protects members of all faiths, for none should be privileged.

Iowa State University (ISU) is of course a public university, but the officials have allowed Gideon Bibles to be placed in the university guest rooms. We’ve all opened drawers in our hotel rooms to find such Bibles, but some readers have carped about that. Well, hotels can do what they want (Marriott hotel rooms, for instance, also have copies of the book of Mormon, since Bill Marriott, the son of the chain’s founders, is a Mormon.

Well, one of our readers, whose name I won’t reveal, complained to the FFRF about the Bibles in the ISU student union, and today the FFRF (i.e., staff lawyer Patrick Elliott) sent them one of their patented letters, which any sane lawyer will recognize as a shot across the bow.  (Its implicit message is, “If you don’t take action, we’ll sue your pants off.”) I reproduce it below.

As I mentioned, this is not a huge battle in the war to keep church and state separate, but every little bit helps. And it does tick me off to see Bibles in hotel rooms. You never see the Bhagavad Gita or The God Delusion!

Note, in the letter below, the case law stating that Gideon Bibles cannot be placed in public secondary schools. Public universities are clearly not exempt from such a ruling.

Picture 2

Picture 1
Ceiling Cat bless the FFRF and its staff! If you want the biggest secular bang for your charity buck, you could do worse than give them a donation. Oh, and if you see potential violations of the First Amendment, always think about reporting them to the FFRF. They are nice folks and will decide whether any issue is worth pursuing.