If you already read the Carnival of Education, then you already know this … I’m hosting the October 3rd edition of this carnival, and although I’ve already got lots of submissions, please send me what you’ve got, if you’ve got it!

From the New York Times Science Section:

A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.

It turns out that the film was a pro-intelligent design documentary, and a number of individuals who would otherwise not have participated in this farce were tricked into doing so.

…Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.
The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

Mr. Stein appears in the film’s trailer, backed by the rock anthem “Bad to the Bone,” declaring that he wants to unmask “people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God.”

The rest of the story is here.

[Thanks Aaron!]

I just watched the debates. They were OK. My plan was to watch the debates and start to decide who I liked for the Democratic nomination. But this is all I’ve got so far:

• Clinton has been getting a lot of bad press lately, but clearly this is only because she is front runner. She did OK in the debates.
• Obama and Clinton gave exactly the wrong answers about energy, in particular nuclear energy.
• Too bad Dennis Kucinich isn’t sane.
• Mike Gravel is a grumpy old man with an attitude. Clearly, he should be president. Too bad he doesn’t have a chance.
• Obama has a great message with no substance.
• Edwards seems to have some substance but the packaging is weak.
• Each of them, on a bad day, is a minimum of 10 times better than Bush.
• I was pretty impressed with both Dodd and Biden.

Which brings me to why Tim Russert is a moron. First, he did the usual moron-political reporter thing where you ask some form of the proverbial question “When did you stop beating your wife.” He asked this regarding torture, as well as some other topics. At one point, it would have been perfectly acceptable for Hillary Clinton to have stepped off the stage to whack him across the face, or maybe a karate chop to the neck. If you saw the debate, you know the moment to which I’m referring.

But that is not why he is a moron, only a contributing factor.

Russert’s last question was “I know you’all have talked a lot about values and shit during your campaign” (or words to that effect) “so let’s see if any of you can think of a biblical verse that you can claim has something to do with anything…” (or words to that effect).

How obnoxious. But that is not why Tim Russert is a moron. It goes beyond this stoopid question.

Later, after the debate, Russert was being interviewed by Chris Matthews, and they were yucking it up about how so many of the candidates couldn’t come up with an actual bible verse, etc. etc.

Then Matthews said “Hey, what about that answer by Biden … something about ‘beware the Pharisees’ … what the heck was that about ..”

Now let me clarify. Biden’s answer to “what is your favorite biblical verse” was “Jesus’ warning about the Pharisees … ”

The Pharisees were the fundamentalists among the Jews at that time. They were the intolerant, established, moral majority, right wing. Biden’s answer was brilliant, in my view. Exactly what I would have said, as an atheist running for president, with Tim Russert being a moron and asking this question. If I was running for president, which I am not.

Anyway, after the debate, Matthews brings up Biden’s comment and says “What the fuck?” (or words to that effect) and Russert, suddenly looking a little more pale than usual … realizing, clearly, that he has no idea what anyone is talking about and is very likely to step in it … ventures …. “yea, I guess it’s like the money changers in the temple or something…”

Which it is not. Those were not the Pharisees.

So, who won the debate? Who shall I support? Good questions.

____________

O’Reilly surprised “there was no difference” between Harlem restaurant and other New York restaurants

Summary: Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia’s, Bill O’Reilly reported that he “couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” O’Reilly added: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ “

During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O’Reilly reported that he “had a great time, and all the people up there are…

See all the gory details and more here…

As we used to say back in my home town, Albany, NY:

Vote Early, Vote Often

From The Scientist . Com

Love them or loathe them, there’s no denying that life sciences blogs are having an influence on the way researchers communicate about issues that matter to them. With the number of blogs steadily growing, though, newcomers to the life science blogosphere could be forgiven for finding it difficult to discover the must-read blogs in their particular area. Apart from one analysis of the most popular science blogs last year, and an anthology of some of the best blog posts in 2006, there’s really no guide to help inform you about what blogs you should be reading if you are interested in exploring the blogosphere.

“Monopoly Cards We’d Like to See”