1. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228738 by astroprof on August 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm

This article should be required reading for people who claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Funny how people who make this claim have never taken a class on thermo. or biology for that matter.

2. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197002 by astroprof on June 20, 2008 at 11:25 pm

They have commandeered our own language! the DI pushing for "academic freedom" and "scientific inquiry"? you've got to be kidding me. In the spirit of academic freedom, let's have science teachers teach THE FACT that the Discovery Institute is a think-tank of religious lawyers (christian of course) who are trying to undermine the Constitution by violating Separation of Church and State. I used to avoid creationist bashing in my classes, but I will exercise my academic freedom from now on!

3. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #85060 by astroprof on November 4, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Dr. Jacobson is my hero. What a splendid opportunity to show how science is done – with a single blow he's taken the legs out from under this creationist argument. I hope other scientists follow his lead – check where their early work is being cited and retracting papers if necessary. The religious nutjobs never do seem to get off their asses and into the lab and do some experiments themselves. Much easier to let scientists do the hard work collecting data... and then the wingnuts provide their own ignorant interpretations. Young scientists are not well-advised to spend their time reproducing old experiments and refuting papers that were published in 1955. (RDFoundation, will you help them?!?!?!)

4. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85050 by astroprof on November 4, 2007 at 5:26 pm

This tragic story bring to my mind Fred Hoyle, the famous British astrophysicist whose early work included figuring out how the chemical elements form via stellar nucleosynthesis in stars. His early work was brilliant, but in his later years he espoused a number of wacky ideas. For instance, he believed that the spectral features of interstellar dust were due to bacteria and viruses floating around in space, and that comets deliver these microbes to Earth. He rejected life's origin as having occurred via chemical reactions that gradually increased chemical complexity on the early Earth: he is famous for saying that it was as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747. Creationist nutjobs quote Hoyle to this day as though he were as much an authority on biology as Dawkins. So long as we have addled old philosophers, and worse, physical scientists (e.g. Behe) spouting off about biology and being cited as legitimate by the creationists, what are we to do?