It's a deliberate attempt to try to muddy peoples' understanding of science in order to assert a religious and political view. The fact of the matter is that there are many fine degrees with which to study religion, God and creationism. And in a way, all of these degrees can rely on science in terms of how such studies are carried out. It would be hard to carry out any academic studies in any discipline and not follow a rigid method of investigation and conversation. But what this bill and Intelligent design have in common is that they are less an assertion that Creationism is a valid theory, as defined by science, to be pursued by scientific method, but a way to undercut evolution. Intelligent Design was based on a (deliberate) misunderstanding of terms like 'laws' and 'theories'. The thinking was that since evolution was simply a 'theory' it meant that scientists weren't really sure and therefore it opened the door to other explanations of how life came about, one of those explanations being Creationism. Further, Intelligent Designers (is that the correct term?), tried to employ a very basic, flawed scientific method in order to 'prove' that one could carry out experiments that would support Creationism just as much as other experiments and evidence could support evolution. All of was meant to play out in the popular realm, not the scientific community. Again, this was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public about how science functions in order to assert a specific viewpoint rather then trying insert Creationism into a serious, scientific dialog. To me, this is dangerous. I think that many of these fundamentalist religious believers have political aims. They want to insert themselves into every aspect our lives and believe that that science, as they understand it, is a threat to their goals. They know that if they can have 'scientists' teaching their brand of religion - and let's be clear that this is a far more radical view of religion then most - to our kids, then those kids will grow into adults and be more open to their political/religious/moral/social beliefs.

All the cool nerds have them now. Not only will they protect your precious cables but they'll use your connection to upload pictures of themselves doing cute things, raising your geek cred.

I believe that a lot of the so called 'private clubs' in Utah allow you to purchase temporary or short term memberships. So, when I was out there last I had to pay a couple dollars to become a 'member' which wasn't any more then most bars elsewhere charge for a cover. It's not as bad as people make it out to be but I do wonder if it hurts revenue in that there are tourists that are too intimidated by Utah's laws to go to a bar in the first place.

I also live in PA and I love our private club system. I have memberships to clubs all over Philly! But don't get me started on our draconion State Stores or our inability to purchase wine and beer in the super market.

I think the Bush administration will ultimately be defined by their uncompromising positions and dogged refusal to tolerate any kind of dissent from within or without the White House. They felt their role as leaders were to issue orders and have others accept them because they believed so unfailingly that their beliefs were always made for the 'greater good'. We know that they did not tolerate anyone that disagreed them on any issue. We know that when presented with information that was contrary to their positions they attempted to discredit the sources or simply ignored what was being said to them. It got to the point that Bush's supporters decided that anyone that was in disagreement with them was somehow unpatriotic and not worthy of being a citizen. How can democracy function if no one is willing to listen to each other, exchange information and compromise? I believe that our system of government works best when there is discussion and debate. My hope for the Obama administration is that they bring about a climate where people want to be well informed and want to discuss issues with others whether it's a meeting of neighbors or well thought out, civil debates on the internet. Clearly, the technology that we have at hand allows us to be smarter and allows us to communicate better with each other. I voted for and support Obama. My pledge is, however, not just to be better informed but to voice my opposition on matters that I disagree with his administration on. Further, I feel it's my duty to listen to, understand and acknowledge the opposition in this country. If Obama can foster this spirit in others, then he will be a great leader.