College conservative group upset that ASU Biology professor compared Creationism to magic.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

A biology professor at Arizona State University is under attack for an image he showed in class that compared creationism to magic. 

The conservative group Campus Reform, which targets educators it perceives to have a liberal bias, reported last week that professor Christofer Bang showed the image during a PowerPoint presentation in his Biology 100 class. 

The PowerPoint slide, titled “Evolution vs. Creationism,” showed the March of Progress illustration of human evolution next to an image of Jesus Christ shooting lightning out of his fingers to create a human. The image shows Jesus saying, “MAGIC!” 

A student told Campus Reform that the picture was offensive: “Quite a few students in the lecture hall were bothered by the picture, and it didn’t contribute to the lecture besides adding spite.” 

Conservatives at Arizona State University also expressed their displeasure with the professor on Facebook. 

“Liberal scum certainly exists on this campus! While I personally support the drawing on the left, I think it’s wrong and unethical for professors to shame those who believe differently,” one person wrote on the Facebook page for College Republicans at ASU.

Another conservative student complained on Facebook that the Founding Fathers also believed in Creationism, which is a point that is hard to argue against since Charles Darwin did not publish Origin of Species until 1859.  (Yes folks, that's your college tuition money at work.)

You know I recognize that it must be hard for some of these students to come face to face with  undiluted facts for the very first time, and it hurts their little irrational feelings when somebody points out that they have been lied to their entire lives. But really what's the solution?

I mean do you take each of these Christian school educated children into a room with soft light and soothing flute music, have them lie down on a comfy sofa with a cool drink, and THEN tell them that everything they think they know is bullshit and that their parents and teachers were fucking morons?

I mean come on if you suggest that Evolution, which painstakingly lays out exactly how organism evolved into what we see around us today, and choose to replace it with the idea that God made it all happen like this....

....then yes, you believe in magic.

Unless of course one of these little geniuses wants to explain exactly HOW God simply thought things into existence. Because I am fairly certain that the professor would LOVE to hear that hypothesis.

8 in 10 Americans believe in climate change.

Courtesy of USA Today: 

Eight out of 10 Americans now believe the climate is changing, according to a new survey conducted for Munich Re America, the world's largest reinsurance firm. 

"Our survey findings indicate that national sentiment over whether or not climatic changes are occurring has finally reached a tipping point," said Tony Kuczinski, president of Munich Re America.

Of course believing that the climate is changing is only part of the battle,  WHY do they think it is changing? 

The main survey question — "In your opinion, do you believe that climate change is occurring?" — did not specify whether the changes were due to man-made or natural causes, according to Peter Hoeppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research. 

Hoeppe said that about 60% of people say the climate is changing due to man-made causes.

Well that's encouraging.

Now what do these respondents think we should to about it?  

The survey found that 71% of respondents believed greater use of alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind power, would be the most effective in the battle against climate change.

Well there you go then.

Now if only we can get some of this 71% elected to Congress we might actually be able to do something to fight this problem before we all need to start growing gills in order to survive.

Nothing to see here. Just the President of the United States being scanned for 3D printing.

Courtesy of CNN:  

The first-ever 3D-printed bust of a U.S. President -- a life-size replica of Obama -- is now on display at the Smithsonian Castle after a project that was inspired by the life masks of President Abraham Lincoln. 

But unlike Lincoln, Obama didn't have to get plastered up. Instead, he took a seat as 50 LED lights, eight high-resolution sports cameras and six wide-angle cameras sparked off for about a second. 

"This isn't an artistic likeness of the President, this is actually millions upon millions of measurements that create a 3D likeness of the President," 3D digitization program officer at the Smithsonian Adam Metallo says in a White House video released Tuesday.

 So cool!

Now why do I have the inescapable feeling that this will freak out the Right Wing for some reason?

It will undoubtedly make creating decoys for him that can show up at events while he is plotting to overthrow the world that much easier I suppose.

Oops did I type that out loud?

So true.

Arizona school board member complains that Biology textbook violates her "religious rights." Decides to cut out offending pages. A little thing we call "censorship."

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

The textbook, the one with the wide-eyed lemur peering off the cover, has been handed out for years to students in honors biology classes at the high schools here, offering lessons on bread-and-butter subjects like mitosis and meiosis, photosynthesis and anatomy. 

But now, the school board in this suburb of Phoenix has voted to excise or redact two pages deep inside the book — 544 and 545 — because they discuss sexually transmitted diseases and contraception, including mifepristone, a drug that can be used to prevent or halt a pregnancy. 

A law passed two years ago in Arizona requires schools to teach “preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption” over abortion, and the school board decided that those pages were in violation of this law — even though the Arizona Education Department, which examined the book for compliance, found that they were not. 

The controversy has turned into a referendum on the 2012 law, with supporters saying the textbook content cannot be removed fast enough and opponents crying foul for any number of reasons: technical, ethical, pedagogical. But the Gilbert school board is moving forward, trying to figure out how to remove the material in question — by way of black markers or scissors, if need be — despite resistance from parents, residents, the American Civil Liberties Union and even the district’s superintendent. 

“It comes down to, it’s the law, and we need to be in compliance with the law,” said Julie Smith, a member of the Gilbert Public Schools governing board and also a parent who raised concerns about the book. “If people don’t like the law, they need to take it up with their state legislator. I don’t write the law. It’s my job to uphold it.”

The offending pages.

By the way that Julie Smith woman is apparently the driving force behind this censorship.

And here are her reasons why:

Ms. Smith, the school board member and parent, said she had been driving her family home from church back in January when her son told her about what was in the textbook. “I almost drove off the road,” she said. 

“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”

"We do not contracept?"  Well considering this woman's heavy handed parenting style that's probably too bad.

As for violating her religions rights? Well nobody's religious rights should have any impact whatsoever on what is taught in a public school classroom.

And in my opinion if science classes are taught in a factual manner than they should violate somebody's religious beliefs almost daily.

By the way you know that removing these pages, or using a sharpie to black them out, is going to do NOTHING to stop students from accessing them. It's called the internet folks, and if the kids want to read them (And after this you they all will.), then by gosh they will do exactly that.

Perhaps the most important episode of The Newsroom that too many people did not see.

This was on the Newsroom last Sunday. Now the appropriate response to this segment is to sit stunned in front of your television and hope that this was all done for dramatic effect.

However as Mother Jones reported it is mostly all fact, and only a smattering of drama:

All of these things are predicted by the IPCC—I mean, not the permanent darkness thing, I don't think that's meant to be scientific. But yes, as we reported in May this year, Europe faces freshwater shortages; Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms; North America will see increased heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop yields will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide.

I know, scary right? Well good you should be scared.

The question is why is it taking us so long to recognize the monster lurking under our beds?

And a big part of that answer is that there has been a well funded concerted effort to make sure that we NEVER see that monster until it is much too late. Well according to evidence before us it is now much too late.

If the Newsroom took some dramatic liberties and  we do indeed still have time then we MUST do everything we can to keep those predictions from coming true right now.

And a big part of doing something is to keep oil company purchased Republican politicians out of positions of power. And after this last election that have more power than they have had in six years.

A fact that is bad for everybody who lives on this planet. Which let me remind you, is all of us.

Another fact to keep in mind is that the planet itself will survive our mistakes, It has in fact survived worse.

However we have already lost half of our wildlife in just the last 40 years. And there is no doubt that if we continue on in this way, that we are next.

We stand in the shadow of genius.

Inventor Christian Poincheval. 

Courtesy of UPI:  

French inventor says pills he developed to make bodily gases smell like chocolate were inspired by a particularly flatulent meal with friends. 

Christian Poincheval, 65, of Gesvres, said his Lutin Malin -- or Crafty Imp -- line of pills can make a customer's bodily gases smell like chocolate, roses or violets. 

Poincheval developed the chocolate scent specially for Christmas. 

The website selling the products bills the pills as "The Father Christmas fart pill that gives your farts the scent of chocolate." 

Okay this guy's a genius!

The idea that my farts might actually ATTRACT women to me is a real game changer.

Now instead of starting an argument ("Oh my God, is that you?") it might end one. ("And another thing...wait is that chocolate I smell?")

I think I might buy a box of these, eat a bowl of bean dip, and start spreading the romance.

Hey would you like to feel smart today? Well watching this homeschooling mother demonstrating stunning ignorance while visiting the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago should do the trick.

Now the above is just a sample from the original 30 minute video which I will embed below, but it gives you some idea of that vast which emanates from this Megan Fox woman. 

As you may have guessed she is a Fundamentalist Christian, who home schools her children to protect them from anything which might threaten their faith in what Mommy and Daddy believe.

Here is how Raw Story reported on this: 

In the description of the 30 minute video she uploaded to YouTube to document the visit, Fox wrote, “In November 2014, Megan Fox toured the Field Museum’s ‘Evolving Earth’ exhibit to audit it for bias. She found many examples of inconsistencies and the Field Museum’s insistence that people support opinion as fact without proof. The Field Museum pushes certain theories as if they are absolute proven law when that is not how the scientific method works.” 

In the video’s opening moments, Fox is reading a display regarding the evolution of eukaryotes — which she has to ask her camera operator how to pronounce — simple, microscopic animals that first evolved as single-cell life forms, but which became multicellular, beginning the diversification that would lead to complex life forms. 

“‘At first, many eukaryotes were single-celled, and many still are today,’” Fox reads from the display before scoffing. “What? If many still are today, then that would support the theory that they have never changed, that they have always been as they are today, not that they started someplace else and then are here, but they were always this and still are today.” 

Regarding what paleontologists have said about the first animals to make the transition from life in the water to life on land, Fox says this is impossible. God made the creatures of the water to live in the water and the creatures of the land to live in the land, which is why fish have fins and people have feet. 

“It’s not like their fins fell off and they grew feet,” she says. “That’s what they want you to believe, that their fins fell off and then they grew some feet and started walking on the land. This is the dumbest theory I’ve ever heard in my whole life. It’s not good, it’s really not good. It’s bad. It’s very bad. Do you know how complex feet are?”

Holy crap! This woman almost makes Sarah Palin seem like a Rhodes Scholar. 

What is even more troubling is that this lunatic has a YouTube channel where she reviews, and recommends, books for children.

Now as promised embedded below is the entire 30 plus minute video.

My advice is to watch in small segments however as the stupidity is actually overwhelming.

"Religion is really made by the brain. It is a secretion of the brain."

Lionel Tiger is a Canadian-born, American-based anthropologist. He is the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University and co-Research Director of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

I swear as much as I love politics, this is the kind of thing that really gets my intellectual juices flowing. I guess in my case brain secretions are caused by pursuing an understanding of the origins, purpose, and benefits to humans of religion.

Ken Ham tells us that Creationists DO believe in climate change. However no need to worry as it is just the earth "settling down" after Noah's flood. Oooookay.

Okay so on Saturday Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and the worst thing to happen to children's brains since lead based paint, wrote a post explaining how everybody is wrong to assume that Creationists do not like science.

In fact they LOVE science. Just not the science that scientists understand.

Confused? Me too.

But here let Ham explain it to you:

You see, there are two different kinds of science. Observational science works in the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable. Historical science deals with the past (origins) and is not directly testable, repeatable, or observable. With historical science, the worldview you approach the evidence with is going to determine how you interpret the evidence. Secular scientists start from the perspective that man is the ultimate authority and determines truth, but we start from the view that the Bible is God’s Word and provides the true history of the universe. So we both reach different conclusions when we look at the evidence.

Okay so now do you get it?

The "science" that scientists study is the kind that relies on ridiculous things like facts, reliable testing procedures, and peer review. That kind is much more accessible for really smart people, and makes the brains of less intelligent people hurt like crazy.

However the much easier to understand "historical science" (Which is a term that apparently Ken Ham pulled out of his ass.) simply means that you rely on your faith in the Bible to explain how things work.  See? No brain pain.

Ham then goes on to explain that using his "scientific method" puts the whole global warming thing into perspective, and renders it not nearly so frightening:

I want to emphasize that we do not deny climate change. Even Bill Nye continues to spread the false charge against us that we supposedly deny climate change! What we do deny are the worldview-based assumptions behind the interpretations of what causes climate change. Climate change is observational science (we can observe it by recording measurements), but it needs to be interpreted as to why it’s happening—and your starting point determines your interpretation. Starting from the Bible, we know that there was a global Flood a few thousand years ago that completely changed Earth’s surface and climate, and that the earth is still settling down from this catastrophe. So we should expect there to be some variations in climate change, but this is not alarming and is not the direct result of modern human activity. 

See that kids? 

Sure the earth IS experiencing climate change. However there is no need to worry your ignorant little heads over it because it's really just due to the earth getting its act together after a huge global flood for which there is absolutely NO evidence.

But what am I thinking? What I mean is that there is no "observable science" which proves the existence of Noah's flood. But if you get your information straight from the "historic science" of the Bible, well then everything makes perfect sense.

So don't worry about switching to renewable energy sources, or having to buy an electric car, because God would never allow humans to break the planet he gave us.

And if the oceans do rise, no problem. Because surely God will simply wave his magic wand and give us all gills to help us survive underwater.

Wow, religion really IS the opiate of the masses.

Republicans pass bill that would bar scientists from providing testimony to the EPA on their own research. But don't worry, it's still okay for corporations to have THEIR "experts" provide input.

Courtesy of Salon:  

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice. 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Obviously the President is going to veto this, but it certainly paints a frightening picture of what might happen if the Republicans manage to get a veto proof majority, or somehow get a Republican into the White House.

They aren't even being covert about these kids of things anymore, or trying to hide the fact that they are anti-science and in the pockets of big business.

New study finds that the political solution to climate change has everything to do with whether Republicans believe in it or not.

Courtesy of Duke Today:

There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime. 

A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists. 

“Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one’s belief in the problem. However, we find it does,” said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. “The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem.” 

The researchers conducted three experiments (with samples ranging from 120 to 188 participants) on three different issues -- climate change, air pollution that harms lungs, and crime. 

“The goal was to test, in a scientifically controlled manner, the question: Does the desirability of a solution affect beliefs in the existence of the associated problem? In other words, does what we call 'solution aversion' exist?" Campbell said. 

"We found the answer is yes. And we found it occurs in response to some of the most common solutions for popularly discussed problems." 

Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. 

When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read. 

But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. 

For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.

So to be clear we cannot do anything about protecting future generations from the ravages of man made climate change on this planet, because the Republicans don't like big government.

What a great thing to have etched onto the headstones of all of the people who will die of famine, disease, or drought in the years to come.

We could have saved you but we did not like the politics of those offering solutions.

And again, who is it that votes for these people? And what in the hell is wrong with them?

Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krauss says that the end of religion may be only a generation away.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

People should not assume that religion will always be a part of human society just because it has existed for so long, according to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Religion could disappear in the span of a single generation. 

“People say, ‘Well, religion has been around since the dawn of man. You’ll never change that.’ But I point out that… this issue of gay marriage, it is going to go away, because if you have a child, a 13-year-old, they can’t understand what the issue is. It’s gone. One generation is all it takes,” he said at an event called the Victorian Skeptics Cafe 2014. 

“So, I can tell you a generation ago people said there is no way people would allow gay marriage, and slavery — essentially — [gone in] a generation, we got rid of it,” Krauss continued. “Change is always one generation away… so if we can plant the seeds of doubt in our children, religion will go away in a generation, or at least largely go away. And that’s what I think we have an obligation to do.” 

Krauss was addressing whether religion should be taught to children in school. Though, as an atheist, he opposes religious education, he said he does support teaching comparative religion classes instead of completely “shying away” from the topic. 

“What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes, and show the silly reasons why they did what they did,” he remarked. 

He said educators should force children to confront their own misconceptions. 

“But you don’t shy away from religion any more than you shy away from the claim that Earth is the center of the universe. We laugh at that now, and we get kids to realize why that might be wrong… and so we should take other falsifiable facts, which are at the center of our society, which is religious doctrine, and make just as much fun of that.”

I am not quite as confident that religion can be eradicated in one, or even two, enlightened generations, but I do agree that planting those seeds of doubt and offering classes that compare religions without lending credence to one over another, will surely have a positive effect on the ability of our children break free from the shackles of ignorance and superstition.

Not only that, but I firmly believe that doing so is necessary for the survival of our species.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that unrestricted use of fossil fuels must be phased out by 2100 to save planet.

Courtesy of the BBC: 

The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world's electricity can - and must - be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050. 

If not, the world faces "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage. 

The UN said inaction would cost "much more" than taking the necessary action. 

"Science has spoken," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.

I can see the conservative response now: "Oh, well that gives us a free pass for at least three more decades."

I feel that the only way that we as Americans will have any hope of meeting this timetable is to never elect another Republican again. Of course that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

New study claims it has discovered how to determine who is liberal and who is conservative. Surprisingly it is not through an IQ test.

Courtesy of New Scientist: 

The way your brain reacts to a single disgusting image can be used to predict whether you lean to the left or the right politically. 

A number of studies have probed the emotions of people along the political spectrum, and found that disgust in particular is tightly linked to political orientation. People who are highly sensitive to disgusting images – of bodily waste, gore or animal remains – are more likely to sit on the political right and show concern for what they see as bodily and spiritual purity, so tend to oppose abortion and gay marriage, for example. 

A team led by Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Virginia Tech in Roanoke, recruited 83 volunteers and performed fMRI brain scans on them as they looked at a series of 80 images that were either pleasant, disgusting, threatening or neutral. Participants then rated the images for their emotional impact and completed a series of questionnaires that assessed whether they were liberal, moderate or conservative. 

The brain-imaging results were then fed to a learning algorithm which compared the whole-brain responses of liberals and conservatives when looking at disgusting images versus neutral ones. 

For both political groups, the algorithm was able to pick out distinct patterns of brain activity triggered by the disgusting images. And even though liberals and conservatives consciously reported similar emotional reactions to the images, the specific brain regions involved and their patterns of activation differed consistently between the two groups – so much so that they represented a neural signature of political leaning, the team concludes.

Well now, that explains a lot. 

Possibly including how the conservatives can see this picture...

...and think future President, while most Liberals see it and think where are the Vice cops when you need them?

Personally I am fine with  gross images, but of course I have had a lot of exposure to them over the years.

Oh God, I may have spoken too soon.

Michigan State University is allowing Creationists to come to their campus and slay some brain cells.

Courtesy of CBS Detroit:  

A planned event on creationism at Michigan State University is raising concerns among faculty and graduate students. 

The Saturday conference includes workshops such as “The Big Bang is Fake” and “Hitler’s Worldview,” on how evolution influenced the views of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, MLive.com reported. 

The Origin Summit is sponsored by the organization Creation Summit, which aims to promote creationism in places it feels have banned teaching it. 

The conference will focus on scientific evidence that points to creationism instead of religious doctrine, according to Creation Summit executive director Mike Smith. 

“We want to show the scientific evidence that shows intelligent design,” he said. “We’re not coming to the campus to promote Bible verses or sermons.”

First off there is no scientific evidence that "points to Creationism." That in fact would be an impossibility. (I am working on a post that will explain why that is.)

Secondly unless this "conference" is presented in a similar fashion to how one might allow KKK members to give a speech to students simply so that their arguments can be picked apart and demonstrated to be fatuous, then there is no reason to allow this bullshit anywhere near university students.

And thirdly the idea that Hitler's holocaust was the fault of Charles Darwin is false.

The "Social Darwinism" that Hitler may or may not have embraced, was the result of a misunderstanding of Charles Darwin's work, and was not something that he created or promoted. Which might explain why Hitler never once mentioned Darwin in any of his writings.

If one is looking for the origin of Hitler's distrust and even hatred for the Jews, that is as simple as can be.

If one is looking for reasons to hate their fellow man, that is rarely found in scientific research. But religion is fairly saturated with them.

Pope Francis says Big Bang and Evolution are real, and that God is "not a magician."

Courtesy of Religion News: 

Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it. 

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.” 

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. 

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.” 

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” 

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.

Now see there is still some magical think there, but it does not interfere with the understanding of science, or our ability to see the world as it is rather than as faith demands that it be seen.

So that's something at least.

Now if only Catholicism could move into the 21st Century in regards to abortion, women's rights, and birth control there might actually be a chance for it to survive into the 22nd Century.

The facts are in. Viewers of Fox News are the most misinformed of any other viewer of cable news. And it turns out they like it that way.

Author Chris Mooney has written a book entitled "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Don't Believe in Science."

In it the author explains the findings of seven different studies and what they tell us about how viewers of Fox News think or, more often than not, choose not to think.

Here Alternet offers a description of the book's findings:

In June of 2011, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.” 

Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day, however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it “false.”In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking? 

There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers. But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.

the article then goes on to itemize and evaluate the studies that Mooney used in his book.

I will spare you all of that, though if you are interested I invite you to click the Alternet link or purchase the book, and will instead offer you the article's summation: 

In summary, then, the “science” of Fox News clearly shows that its viewers are more misinformed than the viewers of other stations, and are indeed this way for ideological reasons. But these are not necessarily the reasons that liberals may assume. Instead, the Fox “effect” probably occurs both because the station churns out falsehoods that conservatives readily accept—falsehoods that may even seem convincing to some liberals on occasion—but also because conservatives are overwhelmingly inclined to choose to watch Fox to begin with. 

At the same time, it’s important to note that they’re also disinclined to watch anything else. Fox keeps constantly in their minds the idea that the rest of the media are “biased” against them, and conservatives duly respond by saying other media aren’t worth watching—it’s just a pack of lies. According to Public Policy Polling’s annual TV News Trust Poll (the 2011 run), 72 percent of conservatives say they trust Fox News, but they also say they strongly distrust NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. Liberals and moderates, in contrast, trust all of these outlets more than they distrust them (though they distrust Fox). This, too, suggests conservative selective exposure. 

And there is an even more telling study of “Fox-only” behavior among conservatives, from Stanford’s Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn of Yonsei University, in Seoul, South Korea. They conducted a classic left-right selective exposure study, giving members of different ideological groups the chance to choose stories from a news stream that provided them with a headline and a news source logo—Fox, CNN, NPR, and the BBC—but nothing else. The experiment was manipulated so that the same headline and story was randomly attributed to different news sources. The result was that Democrats and liberals were definitely less inclined to choose Fox than other sources, but spread their interest across the other outlets when it came to news. But Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly chose Fox for hard news and even for soft news, and ignored other sources. “The probability that a Republican would select a CNN or NPR report was around 10%,” wrote the authors. 

In other words Fox News is both deceiver and enabler simultaneously. First, its existence creates the opportunity for conservatives to exercise their biases, by selecting into the Fox information stream, and also by imbibing Fox-style arguments and claims that can then fuel biased reasoning about politics, science, and whatever else comes up. 

But at the same time, it’s also likely that conservatives, tending to be more closed-minded and more authoritarian, have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape from the belief challenges constantly presented by the “liberal media.” Their psychological need for something affirmative is probably stronger than what’s encountered on the opposite side of the aisle—as is their revulsion towards allegedly liberal (but really centrist) media outlets. 

And thus we find, at the root of our political dysfunction, a classic nurture-nature mélange. The penchant for selective exposure is rooted in our psychology and our brains. Closed-mindedness and authoritarianism—running stronger in some of us than in others—likely are as well. 

But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not only over politics, but over reality itself.

I think understanding what is laid out in this article, and book, is vitally important as we move forward in this country.

Simply put Fox News has been incredibly, and possibly irrevocably, damaging to our politics, our ability to seek compromise, and the future of this nation.

If ever there were a clearer case of blatant treason I have certainly never seen it.

It is damaging the psyche of our citizens in ways that may have long term, and potentially devastating, effects on generations to come.

You know I wish actual conversations with overly religious people went this smoothly.

(Source.)