Nobel Prize: Look to the Stars

If you have your eyes on the Nobel Prize, you may want to think again if you were born in the midsummer months. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) compared the birthdates of 171 Nobel laureates with 375 scientists who had not won the prize and shows that people born under the star sign Leo are the least likely to win the prestigious prize for Medicine or Physiology, while Geminis have the best odds. This is just common sense for any astrologer

Selective retrieval from the multitudinous traits attributed to particular astrological signs showed that "Gemini produces persons of greater intellect and more powerful invention and genius than any other sign of the zodiac" and that Gemini are "thirsty for knowledge and eager to study."

But don't worry Leos, you still have the "natural creativeness and magnetism" that attracts others to you.

Scientists, please visit your local Chapters

I want to give a shout out to the folks at biologist helping bookstores, who browse the science sections of local bookstores and move creationist books to the religion section, and astrology to the science fiction section. I applaud you!

If only for entertainment purposes, check out Behe's last book, "the edge of evolution", or better yet, just read dawkin's review. oh snap:

"I had expected to be as irritated by Michael Behe's second book as by his first. I had not expected to feel sorry for him. The first — "Darwin's Black Box" (1996), which purported to make the scientific case for "intelligent design" — was enlivened by a spark of conviction, however misguided. The second is the book of a man who has given up. Trapped along a false path of his own rather unintelligent design, Behe has left himself no escape. Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science. And real science, in the shape of his own department of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has publicly disowned him, via a remarkable disclaimer on its Web site: "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.""