Check out the video below:

(This post is satire)

One of the bills in Missouri is identical to a bill that died last year. The other bill in Missouri specifically requires equal treatment of evolution and intelligent design.

The Oklahoma bill is apparently modeled on the Louisiana Science Eduction Act. It has been put forth by the same guy who openly stated last year that his intent was for creation science to be taught alongside evolution.

Along these lines, someone needs to tell the Discovery Institute’s David Klinghoffer that the description of an organ as “vestigial” does not mean that the organ is useless. It simply means that the organ does not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals.

We go over this stuff in my freshman Biology classes. It’s not rocket surgery.

NCSE has the details. The “Track the Bills” widget has been updated accordingly.

Yes, it has been over 6 months since we posted anything on this blog. Priorities have changed, but we’re still here to stand up for REAL science. We’re not going to stop paying attention simply because the efforts of anti-evolution activists are becoming increasingly ineffective and irrelevant. We’ve been around long enough to know better.

A couple of days ago I fell off the wagon. I had been trying so hard to quit arguing with Creationists on the Internet, but I just couldn’t resist the temptation.

Don’t get me wrong, it can be fun at times. In addition, I’ve learned a lot from the research that it has prompted me to do over the years, and this has been my one justification for continuing. In fact, it was an argument with a Creationist that led me to create the first of the Evolution is REAL Science videos. (Video #6 is in the works – stay tuned.)

But arguing about evolution can be maddeningly frustrating and even somewhat depressing. It’s also an addictive habit, so much so that I would sometimes stay up way too late in order to fine tune my responses, crafting just the right rhetorical devices and including lots of references to the primary literature. Then, when I eventually did go to bed, my brain would still be running in high gear so that it would take hours for me to finally fall asleep. Losing sleep over this kind of stuff is just not worth it, in my opinion, so I made the decision to stop doing it.

Well, to my dismay, my self-restraint gave out on Tuesday.

I was pulled back in by a blog post entitled Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence by Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute’s erroneously-named Evolution News and Views (EN&V) blog. I don’t visit EN&V very often, but I happened to notice that comments were allowed on Casey’s post, so I thought I’d ask him a question. The post is about how the evidence for common descent is supposedly “dicey” and that ID proponents are interested in “taking a scientific approach” to the question in order to “follow the evidence where it leads.”

This is all pretty standard fare from Luskin, but I was particularly interested in exploring his preliminary point, namely that “human/ape common ancestry is compatible” with intelligent design (ID). I have always found this disclaimer to be strangely hypocritical because Luskin quite obviously rejects common ancestry (or at least his warped understanding of it). It just seems odd that he promotes an idea (ID) that may or may not be compatible with the central conclusion of the scientific framework that he is fighting against (evolution). I’m no psychologist, but there’s probably some cognitive dissonance occurring there.

Casey Luskin receives a lot of criticism for his anti-evolution activism. I mean, A LOT. As I see it, most of the scientific criticism directed toward Luskin is deserved, and some is even earned. But some of the critical attention Casey receives crosses the line from criticism to counterproductive mocking and name-calling. It’s to the point now that when you put Casey’s name into Google, the first suggestion in the drop-down list is “casey luskin is an idiot.” Ouch.

So I guess this post could be considered gratuitous piling on. For that, I apologize.

In my past online encounters with Casey, he has always been very polite and cordial. The schmaltzy tone of his writing sometimes comes off a little forced and disingenuous, but he doesn’t resort to the kind of vitriol that is often directed at him, and I respect that. Casey’s consistent refusal to wallow in the mud-slinging gives him the moral high ground in most situations, although the fact that he frequently plays the “civility card” erodes away some of that high ground.

Anyway, I was pleased to see that Casey approved my first comment almost immediately after I submitted it. I looked forward to an enlightening discussion. Unfortunately, in his response to my post, Casey avoided answering my question. I thought maybe this was because he misinterpreted my point, so I responded with the following:

The above comment was submitted on Tuesday evening, June 14th, 2011 around 11:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (that’s 1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning where I live – as you can see, I really need to get a life). I specifically remember seeing the screen saying that my comment was being held for moderation, so I know that it was submitted.

As of this writing, my comment has not been posted, even though it is in full accordance with EN&V’s comment policy. My last couple of sentences may have been a little sarcastic, but that pales in comparison to some of the stuff that get’s posted on EN&V. Sadly, given that several other comments have been posted since I submitted mine, it appears that Casey has chosen to ignore the evidence I presented. I’ve thankfully learned to save my comments to a .txt file before submitting them, or else all of that work would have been lost.

So why go to the trouble to document this? After all, I’m certainly not the first person in the world who has had a comment denied on a blog!

Here are my three reasons:

First, I don’t want my recent fall off the wagon to be in vain. I am not going to take the time to write up something like that just to have it dumped into the Internet abyss (although I think I may have settled on the topic for video #7!- thanks Casey!).

Second, I think it’s important to document Casey Luskin’s to lack of integrity in this situation, especially in light of his repeated claims about wanting to “follow the evidence” where it leads. He’s not really following the evidence. He’s running away from it.

Finally, I think this incident nicely highlights one of the major differences between Casey and people like me: I don’t get paid to argue about evolution on the Internet, but Casey does. To me, that explains a lot. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to follow the evidence when his salary depends on him running away from it.

Sadly, it was not. Listen at your own risk:

Apparently, this pastor was preaching to a group of students at a church down the road from where I have taught high school Biology for the last decade. I cannot help but wonder whether any of my former students were there that evening, quietly listening while their pastor told them “the truth” about what they were learning in my classroom.

My fellow Biology teachers: pay attention! This is what we’re up against.

Here’s a man who began his sermon by openly admitting his own ignorance concerning the topic of Biology. Unfortunately, the rest of his sermon merely served as a demonstration of this fact. Those young people were woefully misinformed that evening, and it saddens me to think that their minds may have been permanently closed to the very idea of evolution by the horrendously misleading historical and scientific misinformation they were being fed.

My fellow Christians: pay attention! This is what we’re up against.

Here’s a brother in Christ who started out his sermon by freely admitting that he knew very little about a well-established scientific theory. He then proceeded to spread several blatant falsehoods about the theory, all in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Those young people were woefully misinformed that evening, and it should sadden all of us that such streams of misinformation originate from uninformed Christian pastors across the country.

In the past, I have encountered people from other countries who ask me why the United States has such a low percentage of people who accept evolution. In response, I point them to sermons like this one. There are some in this country who will do whatever it takes to close young minds to evolution before they even have a chance to learn about the unifying theory of Biology. I have, on occasion, seen the effect of such mistreatment in the questions asked by my students. I must tell you that it is truly sad to see young people struggle as they come to realize that their pastors have not been telling them the truth.

It does not have to be this way.

Brandon Haught at Florida Citizens for Science has the details.