Did Climatology disappear from the list, too?

Lysenko is laughing his ass off.

Maybe if no one studies it, evolution will go away!

Now that's funny:

'Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Ed Department folks were unavailable for comment, but a spokescritter suggested this was just a "clerical consolidation of some kind." Roger that.'

Knee slapper there, KD.

You know, notions of intelligence in the GOP are just a theory.

Thanks republicans for choosing to encourage Americans to be even stupider and more close minded. You will reap what you sow.

The Chronicle of Higher Education notes today that the Department of Education's "Smart Grants" program, designed to reward students majoring in engineering, mathematics, science, and certain foreign languages, is missing a subject: evolutionary biology.

Good job because it would be wrong to teach one side of the debate without teaching the other side. If the Smart Grants were awarded to students majoring in Biblical Creationism also, than I would have no problems with giving grants to people majoring in evolutionary biology. Otherwise it would be wrong to give grants to only one side of the evolution/creationism debate but not the other.

Brilliant and succinct, Thomas!

Yes, Al. While we're at it, let's be fair and promote both capitalism and socialism. We wouldn't want to just give one side of the story, would we?

If only it were so easy to delete those who have failed to evolve...

dont forget to click the missing link....

Thanks Al. You have demonstrated, yet again, that the position of Dumb Fucking Moron on the board is held down firmly by you.

Creationism goes under the same heading as greek mythology.

the amusing thing is the people who didn't determine that Al was a joke two years ago. As for those who still haven't figured it out; well, I doubt their mental acumen.

The "clerical consolidation" rationale appears to be legitimate. "Evolution" is listed as an approved subfield under both the paleontology and genetics fields.

I believe by its very title, the grant program in question demarks a universe of fundable subjects that excludes "Biblical Creationism."

Don't worry Kevin. Evolutionary biology is really the only kind of biology that currently exists in the scientific world.

Unfortunately Al isn't (exactly) a joke. His remarks always mirror, or derive from, President Chimpy. So, God help us, they are serious stuff.

the amusing thing is the people who didn't determine that Al was a joke two years ago. As for those who still haven't figured it out; well, I doubt their mental acumen.

Posted by: Philo-Al on August 22, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

My problem with the current incarnation of Al is that he doesn't even attempt humour...and the satire is so old that it is annoying without a little gem.

Compare this: "Good job because it would be wrong to teach one side of the debate without teaching the other side. If the Smart Grants were awarded to students majoring in Biblical Creationism also, than I would have no problems with giving grants to people majoring in evolutionary biology. Otherwise it would be wrong to give grants to only one side of the evolution/creationism debate but not the other."

With this: "Wrong again, Kevin. The richer are smarter as measured by their wealth. Let's say Bill Gates IQ is 200 and he's worth 50 billion. I'm worth about 500,000 so calculating the corresponding ratio means my IQ is probably about 0.002--that sounds about right."

There is no comparing the two. The second quote, while being useless as a source of information or as a kickstart to a debate, is really quite funny. The first quote just plain sucks all around. There is neither intellectual nor humorous value to it.

99% of the time, I wish Al would fuck off, but its not because I don't get it, its because its an unfunny waste of time.

"Good job because it would be wrong to teach one side of the debate without teaching the other side. If the Smart Grants were awarded to students majoring in Biblical Creationism also, than I would have no problems with giving grants to people majoring in evolutionary biology. Otherwise it would be wrong to give grants to only one side of the evolution/creationism debate but not the other."

Is this Al serious? Wake up, there is no debate going on. Unless your half retarded you know religion in a nice story and is made up. Evolution is the real deal. Evolution/creationism debate is fucking hilarious. Debate. HAHAHAHAHAHA. See slopes trial down south somewhere like 80 years ago morons. The debates over.

And speaking of climatology:

http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/
Hoax by Mark Fiore

"I don't know whether that's going to be this year or five years from now or a hundred years from now. But as long as we continue to develop the coastline like we are, we're setting up for disaster." Max Mayfield, director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center

"99% of the time, I wish Al would fuck off, but its not because I don't get it, its because its an unfunny waste of time."

I agree its a waste of time and annoying but we have to be aware of the stupidity that is alive in this great country of ours and thanks to Al we can see glimpses of this.

Behavioral sciences and exercise psychology are missing because the religious right has issues with those fields as well -- remember Dr. Laura's vendetta against the American Psychological Association? Psychology "legitimizes" the stuff they are religiously opposed to. It shows that gay marriages have no negative impacts on kids raised in them, that being gay is not a disorder, etc. I'm not sure why they would pick on exercise psychology, unless they think it is frivolous. For that matter, I'm not sure why exercise psychology has its own classification number. Did they leave in the other subfields of psychology?

Nancy, that's why this appears to be legitimate. They didn't touch psychology, except for "exercise psychology" which the right hardly has objections too. So your spiel was for naught.

This appears to have been nothing more than a legit reworking of the categories. As I noted, there are still at least two evolution subfields.

Kevin, this is much ado about nothing and a waste of a post.

I have been a working scientist for twenty years. I am currently working toward a PhD in Environmental Biology after a career in medicine and neuroscience research (ironically my husband is currently a medical student) and I can say with absolute veracity that I have never had a professor denounce evolution. It is the fundamental basis of biology as it is studied today, and professors who teach creationism in the lab are usually relegated to Bob Jones University, Liberty University, that sort of non-school. No serious academic I have ever held a conversation with has ever expressed any desire or deep professional longing to teach at one of those jokes. I graduated from a Mormon school (it was closest to where we were stationed.) Creationism was never mentioned and evolution was not only taught, it was the basis of the biology department.

There is William Harrison, the shame of the University of Missouri system. He was the "academic" that helped Kansas re-write the science standards that cost the conservatives the majority on the state BOE in the primary on Aug. 1. He is on the faculty at UMKC, but I have never met the joker in two years of study at the graduate level and in two different departments (neuro and now environmental.) Part of that is admitedly due to an effort on my part, and a great many of my fellow grad students have done likewise. This has not gone unnoticed by the Chancellor and the Dean of Physical Sciences. They are just waiting for the tenured fuck to retire. We all are.

This is really a non issue. We are scientists. It is our job to ascertain fact. We do this by developing hypotheses and then methods to test them those hypotheses that will stand up to peer review. There is only one way to do that, and that is to rely on sound science from the very inception. Sound science in biology requires a solid understanding of macro-evolution. It is adressed in the very first class a freshman takes and revisited in every biology or life sciences class taken thereafter.

While all the kerfluffle has gone on about evolution - by people on both sides who barely understand the deeper concepts of the theory - we have gone on about our business, conducting research, tesing our hypotheses and reviewing one anothers results. We have barely paid the chuckleheads on either side of the issue any attention, other than to get a chuckle or make jokes. But of course, we are an obstreperous and ornery lot by nature, and not given to caring two s*#ts what anyone thinks about us or our research. We are also smart enough to get our grant money and conduct our research no matter what some clerical classification says.

I was in grad school in the earlier 90s with a peculiar fellow, who once gave a talk on the ozone hole, and after explaining the causes and threat, ended his talk with, "But it doesn't matter, because God will protect us."

Don't know what ever happened to him....

earlier=early

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片 七彩铃音 经典铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 西门子铃声 东信手机铃声 手机铃声图片 诺基亚手机铃声 qd铃声下载 手机彩铃 彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 手机炫铃下载 移动炫铃 联通手机彩铃 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通手机炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通彩铃 联通彩铃网站 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃网站

Global Citizen - While all biologists believe in evolution I wonder what the percentages would be for high school science teachers. A little over
50% of Americans believe God create humans just as they appear today.

Al demonstrates that, as time goes on, conservatives get stupider and stupider.

His current IQ is somewhere in the 60s, it appears.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kris

That is a frightening reality, Social Darwin. And I know that religious spin gets applies at theat level. But most parents who raise scientifically literate children who go on to major in the hard sciences raise hell and demand that their children receive the appropriate science education. That means no intelligent design because it does not stand up to the criteria of the scientific method because no testable hypothesis has ever been set forth. No testable hypothesis, it isn't science. Period. Next question.

For the non-scientists who have forgotten the science you took, the scientific method is defined as follows:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for a characteristic of scientific investigation. This generally involves the observation of phenomena, formulation of a hypothesis concerning that phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the verasity or falsehood of the hypothesis and a conclusion that either validates of modifies the hypothesis.

Remember the cartoon? Equations all over the blackboard, with a box in the middle that says "Miracle happens here"? That is about how seriously I take intelligent design. I tell students to get in another section if they are going to attempt to discuss ID as science in my classroom, because it will cost them.

My classroom my rules.

Necessar for and a characteristic of is how the first sentence of the definition should end.

Say it with me now: Preview is our friend.

Oh never mind!