When I have died and gone to hell, and the slavering demons have begun ramming their humongous, barbed members into my every bleeding orifice, and squirting their corrosive fluids into my torn-out eye sockets for all eternity, I will still be sincerely grateful that I never again have to debate the merits of evolution with a supporter of Intelligent Design.

  Of course, if there were a hell, it would probably involve dull-witted mouth-breathers yammering on about transition fossils and irreducible complexity as they strangle me with my own steaming intestines.

Time to get on the stick. February 12th is Darwin Day, and I don’t see a card. Jerks.

  On Sunday, Carl Hiaasen waded into the argument over science education standards in Florida with a great editorial warning about the damage that the teaching of evolution could do to the state’s reputation.

  Unfortunately, it looks like the state school board didn’t take Mr. Hiaasen’s recommendation seriously. Four of the seven board members voted to include the word “evolution” in public schools science standards for the first time.

  After much wrangling, The board approved the use of the term “scientific theory of evolution,” so as to placate the anti-science crowd, who still seem to think that tossing the word “theory” about somehow weakens evolution. It’s so sad that, in the 21st century, it still takes this kind of pandering to get real science in front public school children. Somebody call Spain and ask if they’ll take the peninsula back.

Dear Little Bald Bastard,
  Why haven’t you been screaming off the top of your lungs about this Expelled movie? It looks like something that would really wind you up.
- TooDo0od

Dear TooDo0od,
  Sure enough, I have been keeping a quivering, rage-filled eye on the marketing of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If you’ve just gotten Internet access in your cave, Expelled is an odious piece of creationist propaganda that purports to uncover a vast conspiracy by “Big Science” that keeps legitimate evidence for “Intelligent” Design out of the science classroom, and ruins the careers of innocent scientists who dare to question the “Darwinist” regime.

  The exploits of the movie’s producers are legendary and widely documented. They lied to secure the participation of prominent science advocates like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott. They prevented Myers from attending a screening, and then lied about why they did it. They’ve packed screenings with creationist wonks, while trying to exclude legitimate film critics.

  The film appears to be as incompetent as its producers. It quickly abandons its central thesis in favor of a ridiculous (and entirely ahistorical) attempt to blame Charles Darwin for the Holocaust and Stalinism. It tries (and fails) to cast Ben “Bueller…” Stein as a right-wing Michael Moore. It gets wrong basic facts about the scientists whose careers it purports to defend, and about the evolutionary science that it blames for all the world’s ills. And apparently, it’s an all around amateur mess.

  All of this is tangential, though, to the actual question. Why haven’t I weighed in on the controversy surrounding the movie? Why wouldn’t I go all head-splodey over a creationist flick that claims scientists are conspiring to keep “Intelligent” Design out of science and science education, and that other researchers are losing their jobs for taking “I”D seriously?

  It’s true that the controversy has been thoroughly dissected by just about every blogger with an interest in science or religion. I doubt my contribution to the general chatter will be at all interesting or enlightening. But that’s not the real reason. The real reason…

  I wish they were right.

  “Intelligent” Design is a non-testable, non-falsifiable hypothesis, for which not one shred of verifiable evidence has ever been discovered. It’s entirely based on the ignorance and misunderstanding of fools, who believe that their inability to comprehend the details of evolution means that their idea must be better. Their whole argument consists of pointing out parts of evolutionary theory that haven’t quite been ironed out, and pretending that those wrinkles support their nonsensical alternative.

  Call it Creationism, call it “Intelligent” Design, call it Magic Dancing Deity Jizz - call it whatever you want. It’s NOT. FUCKING. SCIENCE.

  I would love it if real scientists had the necessary combination of will, clout and impressive genitalia that it would take to grind this nonsense out of science education once and for all. Every time I read about another school board trying to inject religion into public science education in the guise of a non-existent scientific controversy, I want to take a road trip just so that I can throw up all over the officials responsible. I want to force feed them pages of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, brand the First Amendment on their chests, and then vomit on them until they resign.

  I would also be just fine with the summary firing of any scientist whose grasp of the scientific method is so tenuous that he or she agrees with Creationist arguments as they’re currently framed. If you want to be a scientist who believes in “Intelligent” Design, fine. But you damn well better come up with evidence to support your argument, or be willing to check your faith at the laboratory door. Science, REAL science, is all about evidence and examination, and letting other scientists test your conclusions to their limits. If you can’t handle that, you’re not a scientist, and you should go get a job with the Discovery Institute.

  So there you go. I’ve held off on mentioning the whole Expelled mess because, in my cold, dark, secret heart, I wish that they had a valid point. If anybody actually read my blog, I’m sure I’d be in for criticism for fueling their righteous fire. (As if these hacks had gathered anything remotely flammable on their own.)

  I’m going to slither off my soapbox now, but I want to say one last thing. Mr. Stein, show us one, ONE piece of evidence, ONE THING that is not a straw man swipe at Darwin or a ridiculous conflation of evolution with genocide. Show us that one piece of evidence, or shut your fucking lie hole.

Look at my city, doing something awesome.

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, originator of the modern theory of evolution, just months away, the University of Pennsylvania, in conjunction with Penn Museum and joined by major Philadelphia cultural organizations, launches an ambitious YEAR OF EVOLUTION of public programs and events.

I can’t get over how great this is, and I’m especially pleased that it kicks off the day after the release of Expelled. There’s a huge schedule of events already on the agenda, and it’s a WHOLE YEAR, so you can’t say you didn’t have a chance to attend at least part of it.

via Pharyngula

As part of its Expelled Exposed project, the National Center for Science Education tackles that tired creationist argument, irreducible complexity. If you’re not familiar with this line of reasoning, it basically goes like this:

“I can’t imagine how [COMPLEX ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE] could possibly have evolved from simpler structures, without any deliberate guidance. Therefore, relying only on my own ignorance as evidence, I conclude that [COMPLEX ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE] must have been conjured up fully formed by a benevolent sky-grandpa.”

Luckily for the poor, misguided creationist, there are plenty of scientists who can imagine, and describe in great detail, the intermediate stages and slow development that led to the current version of [COMPLEX ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE]. In the video below, they demystify the development of perhaps the favorite target of the irreducible complexity argument, the eye. Enjoy.

Roger Ebert posted an item on his website that purports to be from someone practicing selective breeding of M&Ms.

Here’s how he describes the selection process:

I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them breaks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.”

Aside from a hearty chuckle, I had a couple of reactions. First, this method doesn’t guarantee that the fittest will survive the process. The survivor is always the winner of the last “duel.” If a superior M&M, weakened by the stresses of several previous rounds, happens to splinter when paired up with an inferior, but previously unsqueezed specimen, then the “winner” of this final matchup might be less fit than many others in the bag.

The only way to prevent this would be to create a bracket system, like in a sports tournament. Only match winners against winners from other rounds, and make sure that each contest is played out between individuals that have been subjected to the same number of stressful squeezings. This would go a long way toward ensuring that you’ve chosen the fittest to survive.

My second thought was that I’m a gigantic nerd, and I really need to knock it the hell off once in awhile.