today's new york times: part deux

you didn't think i would leave out my favorite aspect of the tuesday ny times did you?
there was an interview with carel vain schaik about orangutans!
i could hear him talking about wading through sumatran swamps in his fantastic dutch accent throughout the article. mind you i saw this man oggle a powder blue zoot suit in milwuakee, wi.

there was also a very nice article on the atrocity that happened last week in kansas. it includes the changes made to kansas's definition of science:

The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

you would think that systematic method of investigation would be a clue to the fundies that there ain't no way creationism can be seen in any scientific context. but then again science is no longer limited to natural explanations. so i guess anything goes now.
i was also amused by this statement:

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com, it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically "neutral."

and promoting your idea that atheism and secular humanism are bad and evil is ideaologically neutral? way to defy logic, buddies.

i'd love to sit and discuss this further, but i have an artiodactyl eye to disect today.