To really do this consecration thing right, these superstitions freaks need to sacrifice a lamb on the inauguration platform as Obama is sworn in.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
Handy list for smacking the refuse to evolve crowd with.

"The topics specifically identified as controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.""

Not gravity? Gravity is the least understood concept in all of science. If the LHC ever gets running properly, we might get some answers on gravity, but only if we're lucky. If it turns out the String Theory explanation is right, we'll never know for sure. It seems with the Religious Right, only non-controversial theories can be considered controversial.

Neuhaus:
"He's in a better world now . . . and so are we."

Can we just concede to the Okies that THEY ARE the people created and chosen by god? If you need proof just tune into some local Okie talk radio station some time. Their Okie logic could only be swallowed on faith alone.

no, digitusmedius,

i think they booby-trapped the door with a big bucket of crisco propped on top, so that when obama walks thru on the way to be inaugurated, the oil will spill down and anoint him -- just like john ashcroft.

(btw, ashcroft -- my calico cat -- told me she's looking forward to watching this. she is able to talk because she is, of course, an agent of the devil.)

"Can we just concede to the Okies that THEY ARE the people created and chosen by god?"

Well, if that's the case, God must be an idiot.

"In a first for presidential inaugurations, Congressman Paul Broun (pronounced BROWN) of Georgia joined the Reverends Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) of Faith and Action and Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, both based in Washington, DC, in a prayer service inside the US Capitol today . . .

Rev. Mahoney, who is undertaking a 21-day fast . . . ." from Christian News Wire via Right Wing Watch

Of course, if Rev. Mahoney was a true believer, he would extend his fast to 120 days to give God the opportunity to show his power by miraculously keeping Mahoney healthy. Just sayin' . . . .

I still think this 'last word on the war on Christmas' deserves mention.

It is *ahem* a different take on the 'War on Christmas' by a pastor who has his own battle with it:

Don't read with full mouth

And no, it doesn't seem to be a parody, since one of the sites linked to shows Stuckey giving a sermon. (btw h/t Ed Brayton)

Until people like DeMitt show me their plastic Jesus tacked up on the dashboards of their cars, I think their moral indignation is a bunch of hooey! -Kevo

That's Jim W. DeMint

Hi, Prup. Thank for the link. Unfortunately, I don't think it is a parody, either, but it does read like something on Landover Baptist Church web site. (Hilarious, BTW).

Pity that foolish man can't even spell the Claus in Santa Claus correctly.

There is good news in Texas regarding science standards. The creationist weasel-words were removed and Texas buys a lot more books than Oklahoma.

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/1118331.html

"and Texas buys a lot more books than Oklahoma"

That's a point that few people really get. Texas is the second largest purchaser of English language textbooks in the world. California is number one. The problem is that textbook publishers don't want to make very many versions of their books. So they make a Texas version and a California version. Everyone else buys one of the two. So what goes in Texas goes for a lot of the country. Fortunately, what goes in California also goes for a lot of the country. But with Texas becoming reasonable, everyone benefits.

"..preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So. (Long pause)... Help me, God".

That's more like it.

"So. (Long pause)... Help me, God"."

The funniest stunt I've seen was at a wedding. The ceremony involved the groom kneeling at the altar in such a way that the bottoms of his shoes were clearly visible. So the Best Man painted "help" on the sole of the left shoe and "me" and the right one. As you might expect, it stirred some controversy. But the priest and the mother of the bride both thought it was really funny. Once you have those two on board, everything goes smoothly. So everyone calmed down and had a good laugh.

scientific weaknesses [in] "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Wait, there is controversy over whether cloning is real? These people setting themselfs up for being slapped with experimental results ;-)

"The topics specifically identified as controversial are 'biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"

Neither biological evolution nor global warming are scientifically "controversial". Both are well within the realm of established scientific fact.

Such controversies as may arise in these fields -- e.g. over the exact course of evolution from early hominids to anatomically modern humans, or over the precise effects of anthropogenic global warming on the frequency, intensity and duration of hurricanes -- arise within a context of well-understood, empirically-established scientific facts about which there is no legitimate "controversy". And science students can only appreciate the significance of such controversies if they understand that biological evolution and global warming are established fact.

The "chemical origins of life" might be considered, arguably, scientifically "controversial". While it is accepted that the complex, spontaneously self-organizing configurations of matter that we call "life" originated from earlier, simpler, "non-living" chemical processes and patterns, we do not yet really, definitively, understand exactly how, when or where this occurred.

I'm not sure that "controversy" is the appropriate way to describe our lack of knowledge and understanding of the origins of life, though certainly legitimate "controversy" is likely to arise between competing hypotheses and theories, and it is certainly appropriate to equip science students with the knowledge and understanding needed to appreciate those controversies.

"Cloning" doesn't really belong on this list at all, because it is not a subject where our scientific understanding of nature is allegedly "controversial". Rather it is a developing technology whose applications are controversial. But the controversies are ethical rather than scientific.

i think they booby-trapped the door with a big bucket of crisco propped on top, so that when obama walks thru on the way to be inaugurated, the oil will spill down and anoint him -- just like john ashcroft.

And then does he go nuts and smite all of the Republicans using his telekinetic powers? 'Cause that would be awesome.

In the interest of bipartisanship could we require every minister, priest, rabbi, etc to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?

I'll take the trade-off.

I wonder where Jim De Mint got the idea that "We consult no common oracle but the Constitution" is an offensive statement. From Dick Cheney?

I also wonder how he was able to get through his swearing in ceremony, taking an oath to protect the same. Did he keep his fingers crossed behind his back, to make the oath invalid?

Here's some more of the same.

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011009/new_375747501.shtml

Is it legal to smear contiminants on a public building? Sounds like vandalism to me. They should've been arrested.

Of course the first anti-evolution bill WOULD have to come from Oklahoma. No one knows God better than an Oklahoman. With this and the crap Sen. Inhofe spewed at the TVA inquiry, I'm totally embarrassed by the state. I'm going to have to move.