If you haven’t followed the evolution debate in England of late, this week the The Royal Society Director of Education, Prof. Michael Reiss, said creationism should be discussed in science classes. Of course, he recommended teachers attack it as unscientific. Even that suggestion “provoked fury” — to put it mildly — in dogmatic Darwinian circles in Britain. Or, as one British paper put it, this will kick off “a row amongst the country’s top boffins.” That’s to be expected since this marks a virtual 180 degree change in policy from the Royal Society’s previous opinion that creationism should never be mentioned in science classes. Today Reiss clarified his remarks: “The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science.” Read More ›

You may have seen the latest video making the rounds this week from Matt Damon, attacking Sarah Palin because he doesn’t know anything about her (his words, not mine). It’s like he read a bad Maureen Dowd column and regurgitated the unfunny parts — that is, the whole thing. The best comment, and the most relevant to our readers, Damon makes at the end: I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That’s an important — I want to know that, I really do, because she’s going to have the nuclear codes. You know, I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago… we can’t, we can’t have that. Whatever Read More ›

If it’s September, it’s time for creationism in schools. That’s how some would like it, anyway. I’m beginning to the think that the some who want it this way are the Darwinists. Ever so often we’re subjected to the witty headline proclaiming the evolution of creationism. Scientific American doesn’t disappoint, trotting out this well worn cliche to top off their tired scare tactic of make-believing that every school in the land is on the verge of a year’s worth of teaching Biblical creationism. (Not to mention misrepresenting Sarah Palin.) Of course, no such thing is happening.The truth is that …