Anti-evolution zombies linking climate change denialists to prove their "point"

[zulchzulu]

It was bound to happen.

Right Wing Superstitionalistas have been saying that the Bible was correct by saying the Universe was created in seven days by some Guy with a long white beard, his long-haired, bearded son with supernatural powers who hangs out with a whore and a lot of fishermen and a bird that resembles a dove with a feather in its beak about 5,000 years ago.

That's right, no pun intended. Science be damned, literally. The heck with proof.

Evolution never happened, according to these zombies.

And now, with the high school dropouts like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh (and the legion of racist, homophobic swine who "believe") who can't figure out that weather patterns in their town is different than climate, there is a new "movement" to show that since climate change doesn't exist after some snow storms recently, then there must have been no evolution either! Get it! Science is bad! Evil!



“Our kids are being presented theories as though they are facts.”
State Representative (R) Tim Moore of Kentucky

Let's see how this asshat is wasting time as well as others with a severe case of The Stupids nationally:

State Representative Tim Moore, a Republican who introduced the bill in the Kentucky Legislature, said he was motivated not by religion but by what he saw as a distortion of scientific knowledge.

“Our kids are being presented theories as though they are facts,” he said. “And with global warming especially, there has become a politically correct viewpoint among educational elites that is very different from sound science.”

(snip)

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects.

Last year, the Texas Board of Education adopted language requiring that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming.

Oklahoma introduced a bill with similar goals in 2009, although it was not enacted.

The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

(snip)

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

So what's the danger? Creationist zombies like denying science because perhaps their IQs are below 80 and thinking just hurts their little heads.

Actually, schools books are at stake with getting the Climate Deniers who just so happen to be Creationist zombies deciding what needs to included (or not) in school curriculum initiatives that will affect the next ten years:

...Joshua Rosenau, a project director for the National Center for Science Education, began noticing that attacks on climate change science were being packaged with criticism of evolution in curriculum initiatives.

He fears that even a few state-level victories could have an effect on what gets taught across the nation.

James D. Marston, director of the Texas regional office of the Environmental Defense Fund, said he worried that, given Texas’ size and centralized approval process, its decision on textbooks could have an outsize influence on how publishers prepare science content for the national market.

“If a textbook does not give enough deference to critics of climate change — or does not say that there is real scientific debate, when in fact there is little to none — they will have a basis for turning it down,” Mr. Marston said of the Texas board. “And that is scary for what our children will learn everywhere.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Gee, what would Sarah Palin think? In her "Going Rogue", she (or her writer) screed:

“I didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”

"Going Rogue", pages 217 to 219

And what would the half-governor Queen of Quit think about climate change and global warming?

We knew the bottom line . . . was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development. And it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/palin-snake-oil/