I mean, yeah, I know it’s only an awards show and yeah, sure, Doctor Who got some awards so I heard but somehow a show that gives awards to a few shows I like but simultaneously gives awards to shows I detest (soaps, reality shows and all that kind of TV shyte) doesn’t quite seem to cut it with me. I suppose that in order to see an award for a show I like as valuable I have to believe that the awards themselves have value and if the awards are being given out to shows I despise then I don’t see them as valuable.

I mean, let’s be straight here, when I say “despise” I don’t mean simply “don’t like” … I don’t like “Life On Mars”,  I don’t like “Taggart”, I don’t like “Inspector Morse” or “Boys From The Black Stuff” or “Spooks” or “Bleak House” or many, many other shows but I don’t sneer at them either, I can see that they’re exceptionally well made dramas that I don’t happen to like. But I do (most emphatically) despise each and every single soap and reality show to some degree or other, I despise quiz shows as a rule (and I’m not talking “QI”, “Have I Got News For You” or “Mock The Week” here) and I despise fly on the wall documentaries and shit like that. I think they’re cheap arsed crap that are being fed to a gullible, all too accepting public and that being an entertainer is both a privilege and a responsibility, that they have the responsibility to produce good stuff, to make it intelligent, to make it clever to make it in some way special.

And when the hell did programs like “The Apprentice”, “Come Dine With Me” and “Loose Women” become “Factual” programmes?

So no Sir, frankly the awards that Doctor Who got from the National Television Awards should be displayed in the place it most deserves, the rubbish bin!

Kyuuketsuki: Angry Atheism & “Science, Just Science” Campaign (co-founder)

There’s no way to express my feeling about this so I am going to post the speech I wrote for his funeral.

“Paul Arthur Rocks – An Epitaph
James Rocks
Tuesday 20^th October 2007

Like our Dad Paul had strong views and frequently engaged in “loud discussions” with others over them. Many a Christmas was spent in the local hostelry with Dad, Paul, Sean & Grandad discussing politics and me and Mike making inane quips from the sidelines. Paul always expressed his views strongly, always genuinely believing he was right and would try to persuade others of his views with enthusiasm, throwing at them point after point in an effort to drive his views to the fore, selling his views almost as if he were selling the latest technological innovation.

There were times he would deliberately pick arguments and stances that would challenge so much that he could drive you up the wall, round the corner and down the street. But no one, no one could ever stay mad at Paul for long and, as many have kindly said since his death, he was charming, dynamic, witty, compulsive, wore a genuine smile that is hard to describe and had an infectious laugh best heard just before the punch-line of his latest joke or story. He could (and did) disarm others almost immediately and any issue that person had with him would be forgotten in minutes … I was no exception to that. I often sought his approval and that is something (a talent if you like) I envied about him, something I am at a loss to explain.

One of my fondest memories of him was when we, his brothers, met him in a London hostelry. Paul was last to arrive (as always) and did so with his hair tied back, wearing a long dark mafia-style coat, walked straight up to us stuck out his hand (upon which he wore a ring) and, with a hint of laughter, said, “You may kiss the hand of The Don” … we collapsed in hysterics. My last memory, the one I think I will cherish the most, is after a drink we had a few weeks ago; Paul was last to arrive (as always), the “loud discussion” had started and, for whatever reason, there was more than a hint of acrimony as we parted but for no reason I can remember I called Paul late at night when I was near my home … I sat for about 15 minutes on a wall outside my house chatting to him, him telling me how much he valued me as a brother and how much he loved me.

It would be easy to be sad, it’s hard to imagine never seeing the dynamo that was Paul again but I know he’d want us to remember him as the person he was, to delight in the life he had and not drown ourselves in sorrow at his loss. He would want us to get up and get on with our lives with no more than a hint of wistful regret that he is no longer part of it.

Paul, you were/are my brother and I will miss you, you loved your family so very much and I only have one thing to say to you, “Right back at ya Bruv, right back at ya!”"

Paul, you we’re a major pain in the arse, but you were OUR pain in the arse … I miss you, I remember you with the deepest affection and I will always love the person you were.

In Memory & With Love.

Your brother, James
Kyuuketsuki, Angry Atheism

Sure like every other seller I resent the fees eBay charges but more than that I get pissed when they screw up or do things badly. So the first problem I had was that when I created my charity account I couldn’t access it … I contacted MissionFish (the company that handled the charity arrangements) and they said it was eBay’s responsibility. So I contacted eBay and they said (you guessed it) it was MissionFish’s responsibility but that wasn’t what really bugged me (though it became relevant). My second problem was that the donation took no account of profit so I was being charged on my total money gained BEFORE eBay took the fees and that meant that in some situations (typically for smaller items) I could end up paying more out that I actually got back.

Being me, wanting to buy computer stuff with my hard earned cash, the first thing I wanted to do once I was sure the buyer was happy was spend it … but MissionFish have a setup rather like Direct Debit and took the money at a time of their choosing sometime in the next 30 days or so, without access to my charity account, I had to keep track of charity donations (which ones had and which ones had not been paid) and this was largely beyond my organisational abilities. It came to a head when I forgot I had a charity payment to be taken and was smacked by eBay bills and I didn’t have sufficient funds in PayPal to cover it so not only did  I no longer have any funds to play with the next thing PayPal dowse is take it from your credit card … so, in my attempt to try and be slightly philanthropic I ended up in debt … result!

So I have given up using eBay/MissionFish as my charity donation mechanism and now directly advertise on eBay sales that I will give a percentage of my profits (once I know them) to RDF … this means I can easily manage when I pay my donations and even means I can donate more to RDF because I know what I am spending is exactly what I am spending and goes exactly when I want it to.

Sorry eBay/MissionFish … nice try but it just didn’t work for me.

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

In my opinion this is one of the simplest, most moving and most inspiring videos I have seen for a very, very long time!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Put a Little Science in Your Life

BRIAN GREENE
June 1, 2008

A COUPLE of years ago I received a letter from an American soldier in Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we’ve all become painfully aware, serving on the front lines is physically exhausting and emotionally debilitating. But the reason for his writing was to tell me that in that hostile and lonely environment, a book I’d written had become a kind of lifeline. As the book is about science — one that traces physicists’ search for nature’s deepest laws — the soldier’s letter might strike you as, well, odd.

But it’s not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role science can play in giving life context and meaning. At the same time, the soldier’s letter emphasized something I’ve increasingly come to believe: our educational system fails to teach science in a way that allows students to integrate it into their lives.

Allow me a moment to explain.

When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods, personal computers and the Internet, it’s easy to see how science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into the fabric of our day-to-day activities. When we benefit from CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents, we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and identify looming challenges like climate change, global pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we don’t hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems and find solutions.

And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on the horizon — stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine interface, quantum computers, space technology — we realize how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can engage with scientific issues; there’s simply no other way that as a society we will be prepared to make informed decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.

These are the standard — and enormously important — reasons many would give in explaining why science matters.

But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.

[Read The Rest Of The Article Here]

Despite some people’s ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of such things science matters, science not only explains things, it affects social progress, it enables communication and so much more … without science I believe we would still be in dark ages under the dominion of tyrannical religious organisations, more slave than anything else.

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

The Rules

1. The FEMALE always makes the rules.

2. The RULES are subject to change at any time without prior notification.

3. No MALE can possibly know all the RULES.

4. If the FEMALE suspects the MALE knows all the RULES, she must immediately change some or all of them.

5. The FEMALE is never wrong.

6. If the FEMALE is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the MALE did or said wrong.

7. The MALE must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstandings.

8. The FEMALE may change her mind at any time.

9. The MALE must never change his mind without the express written consent of the FEMALE.

10. The FEMALE has every right to be angry or upset at any time.

These are, in my opinion, so true … there are extended versions out there but I think these 10 rules really sum it up!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

HARLAN ELLISON ON THE WRITERS STRIKE SETTLEMENT

YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO RE-POST THIS ANYWHERE:

Creds: got here in 1962, written for just about everybody, won the Writers Guild Award four times for solo work, sat on the WGAw Board twice, worked on negotiating committees, and was out on the picket lines with my NICK COUNTER SLEEPS WITH THE FISHE$$$ sign. You may have heard my name. I am a Union guy, I am a Guild guy, I am loyal. I fuckin’ LOVE the Guild.

And I voted NO on accepting this deal.

My reasons are good, and they are plentiful; Patric Verrone will be saddened by what I am about to say; long-time friends will shake their heads; but this I say without equivocation…

THEY BEAT US LIKE A YELLOW DOG. IT IS A SHIT DEAL. We finally got a timorous generation that has never had to strike, to get their asses out there, and we had to put up with the usual cowardly spineless babbling horse’s asses who kept mumbling “lessgo bac’ta work” over and over, as if it would make them one iota a better writer. But after months on the line, and them finally bouncing that pus-sucking dipthong Nick Counter, we rushed headlong into a shabby, scabrous, underfed shovelfulla shit clutched to the affections of toss-in-the-towel summer soldiers trembling before the Awe of the Alliance.

My Guild did what it did in 1988. It trembled and sold us out. It gave away the EXACT co-terminus expiration date with SAG for some bullshit short-line substitute; it got us no more control of our words; it sneak-abandoned the animator and reality beanfield hands before anyone even forced it on them; it made nice so no one would think we were meanies; it let the Alliance play us like the village idiot. The WGAw folded like a Texaco Road Map from back in the day.

And I am ashamed of this Guild, as I was when Shavelson was the prexy, and we wasted our efforts and lost out on technology that we had to strike for THIS time. 17 days of streaming tv!!!????? Geezus, you bleating wimps, why not just turn over your old granny for gang-rape?

You deserve all the opprobrium you get. While this nutty festschrift of demented pleasure at being allowed to go back to work in the rice paddy is filling your cowardly hearts with joy and relief that the grips and the staff at the Ivy and street sweepers won’t be saying nasty shit behind your back, remember this:

You are their bitches. They outslugged you, outthought you, outmaneuvered you; and in the end you ripped off your pants, painted yer asses blue, and said yes sir, may I have another.

Please excuse my temerity. I’m just a sad old man who has fallen among Quislings, Turncoats, Hacks and Cowards.

I must go now to whoops. My gorge has become buoyant.

Respectfully, Yr. Pal, Harlan Ellison

I suspect my good friend Ben will have more to say about this!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Richard Dawkins introduces a remarkable 34-page celebration of the book that changed the world, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, FREE with tomorrow’s edition of the Guardian

The Guardian, Friday February 8 2008

Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. And like all the best ideas it is beguilingly simple. In fact, it is so staggeringly elementary, so blindingly obvious that although others before him tinkered nearby, nobody thought to look for it in the right place.

Darwin had plenty of other good ideas – for example his ingenious and largely correct theory of how coral reefs form – but it is his big idea of natural selection, published in On the Origin of Species, that gave biology its guiding principle, a governing law that helps the rest make sense. Understanding its cold, beautiful logic is a must.

Natural selection’s explanatory power is not just about life on this planet: it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet. If life exists elsewhere in the universe – and my tentative bet is that it does – some version of evolution by natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence. Darwin’s theory works equally well no matter how strange and alien and weird that extraterrestrial life may be – and my tentative bet is that it will be weird beyond imagining.

Explanation ratio

But what makes natural selection so special? A powerful idea assumes little to explain much. It does lots of explanatory “heavy lifting”, while expending little in the way of assumptions or postulations. It gives you plenty of bangs for your explanatory buck. Its Explanation Ratio – what it explains, divided by what it needs to assume in order to do the explaining – is large.

If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin’s, let’s hear it. Darwin’s big idea explains all of life and its consequences, and that means everything that possesses more than minimal complexity. That’s the numerator of the explanation ratio, and it is huge.

Yet the denominator in the explanatory equation is spectacularly small and simple: natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin’s own).

You can pare Darwin’s big idea down to a single sentence (again, this is a modern way of putting it, not quite Darwin’s): “Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design.” I have put “which occasionally miscopy” in brackets because mistakes are inevitable in any copying process. We don’t need to add mutation to our assumptions. Mutational “bucks” are provided free. “Given sufficient time” is not a problem either – except for human minds struggling to take on board the terrifying magnitude of geological time.

[Read More Here]

A free book on evolution written by Dawkins? I think I will be getting my copy of The Guardian tomorrow.

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

From “The Independent”:

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country’s rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after “liberation” and under the democratic rule of the West’s ally Hamid Karzai.

The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

Mr Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without – say his friends and family – being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.

The Independent is launching a campaign today to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. The UN, human rights groups, journalists’ organisations and Western diplomats have urged Mr Karzai’s government to intervene and free him. But the Afghan Senate passed a motion yesterday confirming the death sentence.

You can read more here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html

You can sign the petition here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/article775954.ece

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Source: Open Letter To The Commissioner of Education for Texas

To Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education for Texas,

As biology faculty at Texas universities1, we are deeply concerned by the forced resignation of Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Ms. Comer’s ouster was linked to an email that she forwarded announcing a lecture by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor and distinguished critic of the intelligent design movement. A few days after sending the email, Ms. Comer was told she would be terminated. The memorandum she received from her superiors claimed that evolution and intelligent design are a “subject on which the agency must remain neutral”.

It is inappropriate to expect the TEA’s director of science curriculum to “remain neutral” on this subject, any more than astronomy teachers should “remain neutral” about whether the Earth goes around the sun. In the world of science, evolution is equally well supported and accepted as heliocentrism. Far from remaining neutral, it is the clear duty of the science staff at TEA and all other Texas educators to speak out unequivocally: evolution is a central pillar in any modern science education, while “intelligent design” is a religious idea that deserves no place in the science classroom at all.

A massive body of scientific evidence supports evolution. All working scientists agree that publication in top peer-reviewed journals is the scoreboard of modern science. A quick database search of scientific publications since 1975 shows 29,639 peer reviewed scientific papers on evolution in twelve leading journals alone2. To put this in perspective, if you read 5 papers a day, every day, it would take you 16 years to read this body of original research. These tens of thousands of research papers on evolution provide overwhelming support for the common ancestry of living organisms and for the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection. In contrast, a search of the same database for “Intelligent Design” finds a mere 24 articles, every one of which is critical of intelligent design3. Given that evolution currently has a score of 29,639– while “intelligent design” has a score of exactly zero– it is absurd to expect the TEA’s director of science curriculum to “remain neutral” on this subject. In recognition of the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, evolution is taught without qualification– and intelligent design is omitted– at every secular and most sectarian universities in this country, including Baylor (Baptist), Notre Dame (Catholic), Texas Christian (Disciples of Christ) and Brigham Young (Mormon).

Evolution education is more than an academic question. Biotechnology is a key player in our economy, and biotech firms move to places with well trained biologists.

Evolutionary biology has made fundamental contributions to drug synthesis, medical genetics, and our understanding of the origins and dynamics of diseases. Principles of evolution are at the basis of human genomics and personalized medicine and are applied daily by people working in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and pharmaceuticals. In contrast, anti-evolutionary ideas like intelligent design have yet to produce any medical or technological advances.

Even if the scientific evidence were not so one-sided, there remains the fact that intelligent design is a religious concept. In the 2004 court case Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge John E. Jones III (an appointee of President Bush) concluded that “not one defence expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID [intelligent design] could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition” and that the school board was trying to present “students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.” Teaching intelligent design in public school science classes clearly violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, as emphasized in the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. The Texas Education Agency has a constitutional duty to keep intelligent design out of public school science classes, and leave religious instruction of children to their parents.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Judge Jones concluded that the school board exhibited “breathtaking inanity” when it tried to adopt “an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.” The TEA appears to be flirting with an equally unsupportable policy. There can be no neutrality on an issue that is scientifically and legally clear-cut:

Evolution should be taught at the K-12 level in the same fashion that we teach it in universities, an accepted and rigorous science, not juxtaposed with a religious idea however politically popular. The agency should work to bolster evolution education in Texas rather than undermining it.

Sincerely,

• Dr. Daniel Bolnick, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. David Hillis, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Sahotra Sarkar, Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Dick Richardson, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Hans Hofmann, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Kirk Winemiller, Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M
• Dr. Eric Pianka, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Ken Whitney, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Michael Singer, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Claus Wilke, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Darryl de Ruiter, Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Bill Murphy, Associate Professor of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M
• Dr. Volker Rudolf, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Anja Schulze, Assistant Professor of Marine Biology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Sharon Gursky, Associate Professor of Physical Anthropology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Thom DeWitt, Associate Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M
• Dr. Jennifer Rudgers, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. David Queller, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Gil Rosenthal, Assistant Professor of Biology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Fran Gelwick, Associate Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M
• Dr. Christopher Marshall, Assistant Professor of Marine Biology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Jose Panero, Associate Professor of Botany, UT Austin
• Dr. Bradford Wilcox, Professor of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M
• Dr. Martin Terry, Assistant Professor of Biology, Sul Ross State U.
• Dr. Caitlin Gabor, Associate Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Yousif Shamoo, Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Susan Schwinning, Assistant Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Mathew Leibold, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Amy Dunham, Research Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Dean Hendrickson, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Elizabeth Erhart, Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Kerrie Lewis, Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Claud Bramblett, Professor Emeritus of Physical Anthropology, UT Austin
• Dr. Jim Woolley, Professor of Entomology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Michelle Hamilton, Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Michael Huston, Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Christine Hawkes, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Richard Gomer, Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Andrew Aspbury, Senior Lecturer, Texas State U.
• Dr. Molly Cummings, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Daniel Wagner, Assistant Professor, Rice U.
• Dr. Ronald Parry, Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Ira Greenbaum, Professor of Biology, Texas A&M
• Dr. Robert Edwards, Professor of Biology, UT Pan American
• Dr. David Crews, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Tom Juenger, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Beryl Simpson, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Mike Ryan, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Randy Linder, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Ryan King, Assistant Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. Michael Stern, Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice U.
• Dr. Liza Shapiro, Professor of Physical Anthropology, UT Austin
• Dr. Tony Frankino, Assistant Professor of Biology & Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Ricardo Azevedo, Assistant Professor of Biology & Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Richard Strauss, Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University
• Dr. Steve Pennings, Associate Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Diane Wiernasz, Associate Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Blaine Cole, Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Tom Waller, Regents Professor of Biology, U. North Texas
• Dr. James Grover, Professor of Biology, UT Arlington
• Dr. Owen Lind, Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. Lee Hughes. Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, U. North Texas
• Dr. Brad Keele, Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Baylor U.
• Dr. Rebecca Dickstein, Professor of Biological Sciences, U. North Texas
• Dr. Pamela Padilla, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, U. North Texas
• Dr. Robert Baldridge, Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. Mark McGinley, Associate Professor of Biological Scienes, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Joseph White, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. Darrel Vodopich, Assistant Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. David Cannatella, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Andy Ellington, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Terry Maxwell, Professor of Biology, Angelo State University
• Dr. Basset Maguire, Professor Emeritus of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Jill Nugent, Instructor, Biological Sciences, U. North Texas.
• Dr. Nathan Collie, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Deborah Carr, Research Associate, Department of Physiology, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Jim Carr, Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Gad Perry, Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Management, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Frederick Gehlbach, Research Professor of Biology, Baylor U.
• Dr. Bryan Brooks, Associate Professor of Biomedical Studies, Baylor U.
• Dr. Ernest Lundelius, Professor Emeritus of Vertebrate Paleontology, UT Austin
• Dr. Denné Reed, Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology, UT Austin
• Dr. Larry Gilbert, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Garland Upchurch, Associate Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Rasika Harshey, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Makkuni Jayaram, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Richard Aldrich, Professor of Neurobiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Jackie Dudley, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Harold Zakon, Professor of Neurobiology, UT Austin
• Dr. John Sisson, Associate Professor of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Chris Nice, Associate Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Andrew Gore, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, UT Austin
• Dr. Alan Lloyd, Associate Professor of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Edward Marcotte, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UT Austin
• Dr. Arturo De Lozanne, Associate Professor of Molecular Cell & Developmental
• Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Tanya Paull, Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Jeff Gross, Assistant Professor of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Tigga Kingston, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Robert Krug, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Kenneth Kohnson, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UT Austin
• Dr. Jon Robertus, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UT Austin
• Dr. JoAnn Hunter Johnson, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Cellular and
• Molecular Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Paul. Szaniszlo, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Arlen Johnson, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Nigel Atkinson, Associate Professor of Neurobiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Vichy Iyer, Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Dave Stein, Associate Professor of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Clarence Chan, Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Lauren Meyers, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Marvine Whiteley, Assistant Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Julie Westerlund, Associate Professor of Biology, Texas State U.
• Dr. Cornelia Winguth, Faculty Research Associate in Earth and Environmental Science, UT Arlington
• Dr. John Wickham, Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, UT Arlington
• Dr. Arne Winguth, Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, UT Arlington
• Dr. Mikhail Matz, Assistant Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Arjang Hassibi, Assistant Professor, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology UT Austin
• Dr. Rebecca Zufall, Assistant Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, U. Houston
• Dr. Mark Kirkpatrick, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Malcom Brown, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, UT Austin
• Dr. Michael Dini, Associate Professor of Biology, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. Klaus Kalthoff, Professor of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Dennis Sawyer, Faculty Adjunct in Biology, Midland College
• Dr. Diane Post, Professor of Biology, University of Texas – Permian Basin
• Dr. Steve Levene, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Larry Reitzer, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Santosh D’Mello, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Gail Breen, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Robert Marsh, Senior Lecturer in Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Vincent Crillo, Senior Lecturer in Molecular and Cell Biology, UT Dallas
• Dr. Doug Henry, Professor of Physical Anthropology, U. North Texas
• Dr. Homer Montgomery, Associate Professor in Science and Math Education, UT Dallas
• Dr. Sean Rice, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech U.
• Dr. David Ribble, Professor of Biology, Trinity University
• Dr. Frank Bronson, Professor of Integrative Biology, UT Austin
• Dr. Dean Appling, Professor of Biochemistry, UT Austin

135 Signatures as of Dec 14, 2007

1. The opinions expressed in this letter are not necessarily those of our Universities, but rather our own professional opinions as Ph.D. biologists.
2. Counting all articles in the following journals devoted exclusively to evolutionary topics: Evolution, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Systematic Biology, Evolutionary Ecology Research, Evolutionary Ecology, American Naturalist, and counting articles in Nature, Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that have ‘Evolution’ in the title or abstract. By restricting the search to these few journals and the short time-span (since 1975), we are likely to vastly underestimate the number of research papers on evolution, which is probably several times higher than what we found here.
3. A search for “Intelligent Design” in the same journals listed above finds one article, which is critical of intelligent design. Opening the search to all indexed scientific journals (to be generous to ID), one finds 410 articles in all, most of which are irrelevant to biology, focusing on engineering or computer science. Restricting the search to “Biology and Intelligent Design” yields 24 papers, all critical of intelligent design.

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)