There’s been trouble brewing in Texas for a while now.  The State Board of Education, in designing a new science curriculum for Texas public schools, has become bogged down in a debate over how to teach students about the origins of life and the universe.

One on side: a prominent religious group called the Discovery Institute, which encourages teaching that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer, and wants the theory of evolution to be scrutinized and not presented as infallible truth.

On the other, the scientific community, who fears that standards introducing a religious explanation for the origins of life have no place in a science class, want Intelligent Design to remain outside the curriculum.

The result? After years of wrangling, a compromise that makes the Intelligent Design crowd pretty happy: the curriculum requires teachers to examine “all sides” of origins theories.

At first glance it doesn’t sound like something scientists would have a huge problem with. The whole idea behind the scientific method is to test, question, probe, and prove - over and over again. So what’s the problem? The scientific community fears this is just the first step in introducing religion into science class, among other problems. The decision is also likely to have a ripple effect beyond Texas; because we’ve got so many students, textbook companies tend to cater to our standards, producing books for students in many states based on Texas’ curriculum.

I’m a bit flabbergasted that this debate even took place, and that the Board voted 13-2 in favor of allowing discussions of creationism to enter the classroom. I’m a big proponent of freedom of religion, belief and expression -  but I fail to see how one could even study the theory of creationism in a science class, where the focus is on examining evidence and testing theories. How does one test the theory of Intelligent Design?

Here’s a helpful chart explaining the steps of the scientific method.

The Scientific Method. Note Step Four.

But here’s the kicker for me (emphasis mine):

The Discovery Institute, which encourages teaching that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer, called the vote “a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution.”

By requiring students to evaluate the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection and mutations, the institute said in a statement, “Texas today moved to the head of the class.”

“Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,” said John West, a senior fellow at the institute.

Um…yeah. Interesting choice of words, fella.

Here is a forwarded email I received today from an acquaintance:

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan …
One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, GOD if you are real then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.
Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, ‘Here I am GOD, I’m still waiting.’
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence.
The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, ‘What in the world is the matter with you? ‘Why did you do that?’
The Marine calmly replied, ‘GOD was too busy today protecting America ’s soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me.’
The classroom erupted in cheers!

If I understand this right, God doesn’t like being challenged, but He doesn’t mind if a believer, acting as His proxy, uses violence to teach someone a lesson about sacrifice and the First Amendment? Something doesn’t add up here, to me.

Please discuss.

As International Women’s Day approaches, we remember the milestones in our quest for equality. We think of things like the 19th Amendment, the ability to work outside the home, reproductive freedoms, and Title IX.

But we should also take some time to thank the washing machine, according to the Vatican.

The washing machine has had a greater liberating role for women than the pill, the official Vatican daily said in an International Women’s Day commentary.

“The washing machine and the emancipation of women: put in the powder, close the lid and relax,” said the headline on the article in Osservatore Romano.

“In the 20th cenutry, what contributed most to the emancipation of western women?” questioned the article.

“The debate is still open. Some say it was the pill, others the liberalisation of abortion, or being able to work outside the home. Others go even further: the washing machine,” it added.

The long eulogy to the washing machine - for which the first rudimentary models appeared in the 18th century - highlighted “the sublime mystique to being able to ‘change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once’,” quoting the words of late American feminist Betty Friedan.

While the machines were at first unreliable, technology has developed so quickly that now there is “the image of the super woman, smiling, made up and radiant among the appliances of her house”, wrote Osservatore.

That’s a good point.  Who cares about the right to vote when I can do the laundry AND have my lipstick on by the time my husband gets home?

Thanks, Maytag!

After my husband got this book for his new Kindle2, I couldn’t resist:

Last week I pondered the relevance and influence of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, and puzzled over how (or whether) to discuss them. Would talking about them grant another small (ok, super tiny) degree of legitimacy? If so, did I maybe *want* this to happen?

Turns out that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had a funny solution: to announce that Rush Limbuagh is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” He also said that since Limbaugh clearly seeks the failure of President Obama, the administration will try to reach out to other folks within the GOP who are more reasonable and who have our country’s best interests at heart.

Crafty one, that Rahmbo. This is a brilliant move for a couple of reasons:

• Rhetorically, it’s a pretty funny straw man argument. Set up the straw man (Rush as the leader) and then knock him down easily, making the party’s leadership look bad. I’m sure he got some chuckles out of that one.
• Second, it’s actually pretty clever in that it might horrify many, many conservatives who don’t want to be presumed to be dittoheads, and repel centrist independents from the party.

I didn’t take Rahm’s comments too seriously, though. They were good for a laugh, but pretty darn transparent and possibly just something he said for his own amusement. (Though the American labor movement seems to have picked up the ball and run with it.)

But Michael Steele, the actual leader of the Republican Party, appears to be frightened of just what Rahm’s referring to. On Saturday, he’d dismissed Rush as an entertainer and remarked that Limbaugh could be “incendiary” and “ugly”.  If I were in Steele’s position, I’d try to do the same thing: distance the party from Limbaugh.

I wouldn’t, however, backpedal a few days later and say this:

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

…

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

(Limbaugh responded to Steele’s comments here. Doth the Rushbo protest too much?)

What a counterproductive move. Nothing could have better married the concepts of Limbaugh and Leadership like, well, saying the two words in the same sentence - that, and sounding apologetic and frightened about offending Rush.

Seems that the GOP is taking cues from the Democratic party of recent years: try to please everyone and offend no one; give the impression that no one’s at the helm; and by apologizing about your message, have none. I don’t think that’s a winning strategy. One thing people have liked about the GOP since the Reagan years is its unapologetic, firm stance on issues (even if the reality of the policy doesn’t reflect the ideals). Republicans need to figure out what they’re about, and quick, and then recapture the rhetoric if they hope to gain some seats in 2010.

As for me, I’m happy to sit back and enjoy Rush as the de facto leader of the party. He’s in his element right now, and this is where he shines: the opposition party is in power, and he can rail against it all day long. He’s good at being against things; it would just be interesting to see if he could ever be for anything. What would Rush’s policies even look like? (No wonder he’s denying his role as a leader; he doesn’t have vision, just the ability to tear down, and he knows it.)

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Update: and now I’m giggling at Wonkette’s post on the same topic. Her ending sentence? “Anyway, the point is that the rancid megalomaniac Rush Limbaugh now has Michael Steele’s testicles, in a jar.”