The Questionable Authority dissects some moron's essay on why I.D. will win over evolution.

My favorite bit from the moron:

So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?

Which just proves the point that I.D. isn't science--it is magic: "Whatever we discover, that's exactly the way our Unspecified-Omnipotent-Being-Who-Isn't-God-Wink-Wink designed it!"
Read more...

Sumo is, allegedly, awesome.

This is as yet unconfirmed.
Read more...

This is the first time that I have seen a conservative pundit literally stick their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!" in order to avoid listening to someone deconstruct their bullshit.

But most of them do more or less the same thing.
Read more...

Is this going to be indicative of the style of Miers' rulings if she's confirmed?
Read more...

An article about Phillip Johnson, someone who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, has this quip:

He went on to say that one of the major flaws of the theory of evolution is that it excludes the possibility of divine intervention within the creation of living organisms.

To which P.Z. Myers says:

As for the exclusion of divine intervention, that's true enough, but is not a flaw. Science tries to restrict itself to the observable and the testable. God is neither. As soon as the IDists manage to scrape up some evidence for their designer, we'll use it. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to strap an angel down, take some dental drills to its skull, clamp it into a stereotaxic, and start diddling about in its divine cerebrum. But then I have a rather sadistic attitude towards religious concepts.

That makes me think of Amrit: "It's gorgeous! I think I'll dissect it."
Read more...

This is almost as good as Noah battling dinosaurs to keep them off the ark.
Read more...

This isn't exactly a new story, but it seems one of the more plausible explanations of why we went to war.
Read more...

The Church acknowledges common sense!
Read more...

Enough, Fitzgerald! The suspense is killing us!

Please be true....
Read more...

I really wouldn't recommend reading "The People's Voice on Gay Marriage". I couldn't stomach all of the drivel he was spewing, but the gist of his argument is thus:

But today liberalism all too often displays a strong antidemocratic streak, and nowhere is it more blatant than on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Every time voters have been asked whether the fundamental definition of marriage -- the legal union of a man and woman -- should be radically redefined, they have given the same answer, and generally in a landslide. In the past five years, voters in 16 states have adopted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. (Statewide votes are pending in five more states.) Those who believe that gender should be irrelevant to marriage may be passionately convinced of the justice of their cause. But they have not managed to convince a majority of their fellow citizens.

Faced with such strong and consistent electoral opposition, same-sex marriage advocates ought to be reworking their arguments and finding better ways to make their case. They could be trying harder to understand the concerns and depth of feeling on the other side. Or they could decide to wait until public sentiment has shifted, and then go back to the voters with a new referendum.

Instead they seem to have decided that if they can't win democratically, winning undemocratically will suffice.

Which is complete, utter incompetence.

This isn't the first time I've been subjected to such inanity, and my response now is as then: a democracy enforces the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. If the majority wants to take away the rights of the minority, that's not democratic!

Perhaps expecting a retort of this nature, the article ends with this bullshit:

And it is no answer to say that gay and lesbian marriage is a matter of civil rights, and no one's civil rights should be put to a vote. Whether same-sex marriage should be thought of as a civil right is precisely the question to be decided. The way to decide it fairly is to decide it democratically.

What a joke. There isn't any question here--the Supreme Court has several times declared marriage to be a fundamental right. How much clearer can it get, you obfuscating prick?

In the beginning of the article he attempts to contrast the desire for equality today with yesteryear's desire for equality, making the ridiculous claim that somehow the push for women's suffrage was different than the push for gay marriage.

Yeah. Right.
Read more...