As my colleague Larian LeQuella would say, here's another example of the typical "douchebaggery" that you encounter in the United States (re-posted here from Dr. Plait's blog at Bad Astronomy):

Via Orac comes this tale of religious kneejerking that shows just how big a problem it is in America.





I urge you to read the whole thing, but the basic story is a band made t-shirts with the theme "Brass Evolutions" using the famous cartoon sequence of a monkey changing into a man. It's a cute idea, and no big deal, right?

Right?

Not so right. Some parents complained about the shirts because they depicted — gasp!– evolution (never mind that it's a cartoony version that's really not even terribly accurate). Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt decided to make the students turn in their shirts so as to not offend any parents' sensibilities.

The sheer dumbosity of this already has my head reeling. You might think at first that this isn't a huge deal: it's just another example of narrow-minded thinking we've seen so much of from creationists.

But in fact it's a lot worse than that. From the original article:

Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.

I'm afraid that is simply not true. Like, really really not true.

First, by taking away the shirts, he was not being religion neutral. He was kowtowing to a specific religion. That action immediately contradicted his words.

Second, think about what that sentence means. If being religion-neutral means not offending any religion, then nothing at all could ever be taught at school. Certainly not science, which clashes in almost every conceivable way with Fundamentalist creationist doctrine. You can't teach anything past 6000 years ago under Pollitt's reasoning. No astronomy, no biology, no history (Sumerians were around long before 4000 BC). Some interpretations of Islamic law state that music is forbidden. Does traife food touch kosher food in the cafeteria (or is it served on the same plates)? Does anyone wanna go through Leviticus and see what rules from there the school breaks?

If we are to believe Pollitt, then they'll have to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship idols. That'll go over well, I'm sure.

This whole idea of "religion neutrality" is a crock [of shit], and clearly is being used to the advantage of one narrowly-defined religious viewpoint. There's a difference between being neutral — which Pollitt clearly was not being — and not promoting one religion over another.

Being religion-neutral in the sense Pollitt means is conceptually impossible. You cannot appease every religion, because many common modern religions contradict each other. However, we can be religion-neutral by actually refraining from making any decisions based on religion. That's what that First Amendment is all about.

So what we have here is yet another shot in the battle over religious freedom (both of and from) in this country. I suspect the band leader could pursue a First Amendment case here.

But if he chooses to pursue it, he may have an uphill climb... it depends on how many people there hold the same view as band parent Sherry Melby, one of the people offended by the very concept of evolution, [who said]:

I was disappointed with the image on the shirt. I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.

Yes, because teaching the very fundamentals of biology in a school?

Heaven forbid.

[Update: Steve Novella has a funny and pointed take on all this.]

Labels: anti-science, evolution, skepticism

This is a comment by Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astromomy blog, which I've re-posted here:

[Note: Many times, when I write about antivax stuff, I get comments that try to sidetrack the issue at hand. For the record, I am a parent myself, my heart goes out to parents of autistic kids, and I went through those very same fears and worries that every parent does. I also understand that a lot of parents listen to antivaxxers and believe in their falsehoods, but my writing is generally not aimed at the parents. It's aimed at the loudest proponents of the antivax movement, the ones instigating those falsehoods, not the ones simply repeating them. In the end this is about the fact that vaccines don't cause autism, and the big mouthpieces of the antivax movement are almost entirely fact-free in their claims. So let's stick with that, Mmmmkay?]

I talk about the antivaccination movement quite a bit here, because I happen to have a strong desire to keep babies alive. If we stop vaccinating kids, we’ll see a lot of them succumbing to preventable diseases. Preventable, that is, through vaccination.

Orac has an interesting take on all this: he points out that at its core, the antivax movement just simply hates vaccinations.





Now, that might seem like a tautology. But it's not, not really. It's actually relevant because the antivax movement must change its story (what we skeptics call "moving the goalposts") every time they are conclusively proven wrong. That happens a lot. When it's pointed out that mercury doesn't cause autism (removing it from vaccines did not lower the autism diagnosis incidence rate), they say vaccines contain squalene, or fetal tissue, or ghosts, or the Loch Ness monster.
Of course, when it's shown that autism rates have nothing to do with vaccination, they ignore it, or spin it, or lie about it.

In a sense, the loudest proponents stick to their movement the way a racist sticks with their prejudices. You can tear down their specific claims about a particular group of people point by point, but in the end the racist simply hates people in that group. It's not rational, or logical, or reasonable. It just is.

[Furthermore], what Orac is saying is that no matter what, at its core, the antivax movement really hates vaccination. No matter what proof you show them, and no matter how much they squeal that they are "pro-choice", really it's their loathing of vaccinations that drives them.

It's an interesting idea, and he may very well be right. We've seen exactly this kind of behavior from many in the antivax crowd, moving from debunked claim to debunked claim, trying to pin anything and everything they can on vaccines, long after the logic trail has petered out. In the end, all they have are empty claims and their own misguided methods.

No matter what, they are antivax.

Labels: anti-science, skepticism, vaccines

Okay, these may not be particularly new items, but I've just been on such a serious train of thought, that today I'd like to entertain you all with some parodies that you may find amusing.

Evolution:
Intelligent falling is the latest rage! In a classic parody of the misuse of the word theory, The Onion cuts right to the jugular. Sort of along the vein of my entry to the FL Citizens for Science Stick Figure Cartoon contest. I know a lot of folks don't think that mockery is a good vehicle, but after a while you come to realize that some people are beyond reason, and instead of just killing them to remove them from the gene pool, mockery is the most gentle way of handling them.

Vaccines:
This video by Jenny McCarthy's close personal friends of Mumps, Measles, and Ruebella was also quite funny! I decided to spare my sanity, so I haven't read the comments there. Hopefully at least some of the deluded people will find their way here, and mayhap learn a thing or two.

And while not really a subject for this page in general, I got an uproarious laugh out of this Homeopathic ER skit. Is it just me, or do you have to be entirely daft not to see the sham for what it is?

Science:
If you want a dose of science news, I highly recommend this site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/

Labels: anti-science, evolution, vaccines